As a developer, it has been with confusion and bewilderment how the media has been swallowing the SPIN from both Apple and to a lesser degree Google.  The battle for the “cross platform development toolset” required by all varieties of mobile devices will hopefully surface from the “SPIN” infested waters.

In this era of web and mobile (And the plethora of devices that represents) a developer aiming for these platforms needs to cover as many platforms as possible, obtaining a reliable and consistent experience  across them all..  And doing it fast and with the least amount of effort.  Effort = Cost.

This is why Flash has become so dominent.  It fullfils many ingredients of this formula. It has archived what producers and consumers want. It has done this largely because it IS proprietory.  Flash has brough us a long way from the static text and picture web of 10 years ago.

Mobile, on the other hand, is an express train with a destination of more eyeballs then we could have imagined.  It has limitations we once battled with but left behind as Computer power and internet speed grew.  But here we are again.  The future of the cross platform Web/Mobile.  Static pages that we slide around with our finger.

Considering the developer needs, the use of cross platform development tools are “the standard” for any large development house doing content production in a large scale.  Economics simply dictates that these techniques must be used to be competative.  The internet is about cheaper faster.  For the time being anyway.

Apple and Steve Jobs on the other hand SPINS it the complete opposite way.  Steve argues that it must be written in custom code specific to the iDevice technology to be acceptable. Dictating to the developer what he can and cannot do. As a developer I would like to stand up and categorically say that this is essentially ”Bullshit” (Using Steves colourful language.)  There is a degree of truth to this but it is for extreme cases such as games. (And in general Games especially use custom $$$ cross compilers usually written in house to archive cross platform implementation.) To any and all developers it is clear that this “postion” Steve takes is one of marketing.  To manipulate the truth as to obtain a percevable advantage.  It has nothing to do with pure intentions.

In general most applications, or specifically applications created with a wide scope of Web and Mobile, can easily be created on cross platform technologies and have a very good user experiance on all.  Its very possible. (But correctly not wanted by those producing these new mobile devices.)

Where to now?  My advice is to start looking at HTML in general and how it can work in with these devices.  And if you have time, play with HTML5, it will become relavent in a few years. For now its a developing standard that keeps moving, something any commercial developer should stay well away from.  Flash, unless something changes, is a political football that neither Apple (Especially Apple as it has produced mountains of lies about Flash and its capabilities) and Google (”Support” it to be “Not Evil” but bog it down in red tape. Java implementation only (Slow as hell), no generic C based versions allowed (Fast as Objective C and much faster then HTML5 currently)).  HTML is your only REAL heterogenious (Cross Platform) solution.  I know, its frustrating.

As a developer myself, I have no time to invest in the Apple Only eco-system. Its far worse then Flash.  Flash actually CAN work on all the platforms and most likely will at some stage as common sense eventually comes to all the AppleFanboy media and bloggers who do not question Steves “Gospel”.  As recent events have shown, Steve manipulates the facts as AntennaGate has shown even to the most die hard AppleFanBoy.  Maybe now they will go back and question many of the other “Letters” Steve has written.

We as developers need to tell Apple/Google what we need to archive our clients wishes, not the other way around.  It is only through a broad understanding of these technologies with their advantages and disadvantages can we make this argument.

I am personally not at all surprised.  I have always held the line that Blu-Ray due to it being the best hi-density random access storage ( apart from Hard drives, which has many issues) is the only real path forward for our data storage needs.  This alone will pull it across the line enough to make it the defacto standard for what will replace DVD.  But likely one of the last for a long time.

See this link for graphs on DVD/Blu-Ray sales.. “High-Def digest“.  Blu-Ray is slowly growing, however, slower then anyone expected.  Even me.  But growth is growth.  Until Blu-Ray takes it’s place as the archival pinical of our future, to think Blu-Ray and to want Blu-Ray  is not likely to materialize.

Once we are all using Blu-Ray disks, we are likely to think Blu-Ray when we come to purchase films or replace DVD players.  The Archival revolution will establish this eventually.

However, lets look at some of the reasons why this is inevitable.

1. Philip has unearthed the fact that all the new Video makers, producing more data then ever before, are starting to become uneasy about spinning disk storage for long term archival.  Do you really want to maintain a RAID system permanently for the relevance of the content?  This realization is only a drop in the ocean. (See following points)

2. Cloud storage is by no means a real solution.  Yes, it probably goes a long way to solving this, but do you really expect to take 1TB of video, pictures, you may need later, say  20-40 years form now.  Dump it on a cloud, and upkeep it?  How about 10 Blu-Ray disks. put it in a box, through it under our bed, forget about it for the next 20 years..  Who do you think will sleep easier?

3.  I mentioned a drop in the ocean, now lets look at Noah’s flood coming in the next 10 years..

When I was young I was watching the news about a house on fire..  An old lady ran back into the burning house to save.. get this..  out of all the things.. A picture Album of her memories and family.  That was the most important thing in the house to her.  As a kid, I expected her to get her TV, Bike or favorite Mixed tape…  But now at 40 I can understand and relate to this behavior.

These days with digital Cameras the norm, everybody is storing their prized memories on DVD’s, portable Hard Drives or thumb drives.  How long until these devices start failing?  When will this generation, storing these priceless memories on inappropriate devices, realise they need to take steps to protect it?  Well, its probably starting to take traction now..  And when it does, Blu-Ray will thrive, and any industry connected to it will likely come along for the ride.

Many, evangelists do say Cloud Storage will fix this.  I’m sorry but this simply does not ring true to me.  Yes, it will probably answer this problem, however, it will never answer the problem of trust and paranoia. My most important pictures. Why would I even bother trusting some unknown corporate entity that 1.could loose my data or 2. go out of business.  Just dump it on a storage device that will last for a LONG time, and put it under my mattress.  Nothing makes you sleep sounder.

The only real issue here is that a newer, even better data storage technology will show up.  This was more likely to destroy Blu-Ray as a successful product then anything else.  Fortunately for Blu-Ray, nothing that mature seems to close.  Blu-Ray has the floor for quite some time.

As mentioned, in the previous post, the obvious disregard for Flash technology, even in some obvious areas, shows more then stated reasons behind Apple propaganda engine to have it banished from every browser.

Philip Hodgetts, a good friend of which I argue these points daily, is very good with numbers. (It is part of his job)  He recently Emailed me with a very telling analysis of how Apple is changing the way the web producer builds his websites.  Anyway, I’ll let him do the talking here..

Yes very.  Philip is great with statistics to make a point.

The point Philip makes here follows on exactly from my previous post in that.  Having the technology to make a end to end digital media system that (Apple believes, I don’t, but the producers may) can be the answer to the buy once and play everywhere needs of the consumer.

This is an extremely hot topic within the majors corporations as many start to move the importance of proprietary DRM’s in which complete control (And the plunders that would have followed) is simply not going to fly.  See my post “The industry is growing up. DRM is Dead. Long Live DRM.” which points our how Sony, Best buy, CISOC, Comcast, HP are looking at a industry based DRM system.  Another example of this is Microsoft’s Silverlight going H.264. Microsoft will no longer force Silverlight technology developers to use Microsoft VC-1. Ie, Microsoft has given up on VC-1 becoming the “One Codec To rule them All”. That’s H.264, lets get on with it. (Microsoft is changing some what)

Still, Apple is doing an amazing job, and out of those corporations who have tried for DRM dominance, Apple is probably going to get the closest to this goal.  Unfortunately, I consider this goal unobtainable.

The alternative, and what I consider to be the real objective by Apple, is not to actually reach the un-reachable, but to keep the producers distracted long enough to overcome the resistance as seen currently with Apple and the music industry.  For example, Apple became to dominent to fast.  To hinder this, the music industry have given the right to sell DRM free content to most other online stores except Apple.  The Video industry is very aware of this as well.  If Apple can distract them for long enough. Game over.

Strangely enough, the industry is actually NOW starting to follow exactly what I had foretold.

In brief it goes like this.

DRM is the wrong name and a major reason it has such a bad name.  It should be called something like UIF (User inconvenience factor)  I had a better name for it, but it was such a long time ago and the old blogs I posted to are long gone and the archives deleted. I did look.

The copy protection portion does not need to be bullet proof. For example, DVD is very easy to copy, but in general, you need to be very keen to work it all out.  As such it is inconvenient for most end users to do so. As such it is more convenient simply to purchase another copy.  Spending millions on a uncrackable system, forcing total control of the devices to the manufacturer to keep updating them as they do inevitably get cracked….  These ideas will never work.

An agreed standard that every maker/brand of media player should accept and only implement devices that support this copy protection system.

In my view, it could simply be a AES128 bit encryption with a user selectable key Ie a 4 digit pin or a phone number. Very standard and very easy to implement.  Any supporting device could then accept up to 10 programmable pins and play any protected content for those pins.  Ie so a media player could play all the content from a family with up to 10 members.  No issues.  Just play the file as easy as MP3.  Yes this does mean it will be relatively easy to share content, but in the long run inconvenient to share content from many sources.  Keeping track of pins etc.  The inconvenience factor grows until, simply purchasing it is a better solution.

At the end of the day, its all about convenience.  DRM is not what we need.  We need a system that can give the end user the freedom they want, but at the same time introduce an “inconvenience factor” that encourages the end user to do what is right and purchase the content they use.

When I last wrote about this, I came to the conclusion that this is most likely the best way forward, however, the mind set of the big brands such as Sony, it was total control of bust.  Well, as its looking more and more like BUST. Hell hath frozen over..  Read the new stategy from SONY here.

Apple is also going for this utopia, but in the more controlled manor.  See my post

In which I describe Apple’s attempt to become the  ubiquitous media platform with a self imposed DRM system.  Apple is hoping to reach such a critical mass that they become the de facto standard which everyone would then have to license. (No hope, but you cannot blame them for trying.)

Microsoft has also attempted this for years, but largely has abandoned the idea.  Currently they seem to be focusing on the cable companies.  Personally I think the are a bit lost and are not sure witch way to jump.  They are putting Silverlight out there in a big way to see what happens.

FOLLOW UP: There has been yet another development on this topic.

A group of major media industry companies called the Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem that includes Best Buy, Cisco Systems, Comcast and HP will share details of its interoperability and media usage rights plan at the Consumer Electronics Show.

This post is prodominatly about my frustration with the blogosphere in that much has been written about how open-web technologies and Javascript frame works will be the future of Web Applications.

This is flat out incorrect.  Tho I would admit it will be a substantial part of out near future.  Still, lets get real.

This morning as I was walking to the pool for a swim, an Idea in which I had a chance to over come the Mac Fanboy one eyed opinion came to me.

(Note before I continue, lets have a quick description of a Web Application.  A Web application, as seen on the Demo sites of Sproutecore and Cappuccino as real applications. They cannot be read by Search engines, similarly to other non-javascript RIA implementations (Silverlight, Flex))

Why Javascript is not the second coming as it was touched by god (Steve jobs).

As a Mac Fanboy, you must understand that before the OSX days, OS9 and all the preceding versions, however nice to use, was probably one of the worst operating systems, in terms if underlying foundations, that you had to pay money to get.  The older Mac OS was hammered into submission to get many of the highly respected applications to behave well.  However, OS9 was not a contender to move forward with where operating system where going.  Steve Jobs, with NextStep OS came to save the day.

Now, as a developer and a observer of the industry over many years.  IMHO, Open-web with Javascript frame works is the OS9 or the Web.  Yes it will take us a long way and give us amazing apps.  But the implementation simply does not carry to the future of what the Web will become.  Maybe I am jumping the gun a little.  Still, talk to any open-source developer and he will speak with pain at how slow the open-web is at evolving.

A more realistic implementation of where web applications are going is, unfortunately, Microsoft Silverlight.  Like usual, Microsoft is late to the game but they have the advantage of foresight and current trends to help them evolve Silverlight as the most refined technology available for what most see at the future or Internet Applications. (Don’t forget, Silverlight is Microsoft’s key to offering WORD and the Office suite on the web).  Adobe Flex and its RIA implementation for the flash player is also very close, and it does have a big advantage in that most of its technology is now open source. (Yes some key aspects are kept by Adobe, but realistically, they are being very generous.)

I am not saying, “Don’t use JavaScript Frameworks”.  They are likely to be a big part of the future and a common gateway to bridge between other RIA technologies, Ie Flex, Silverlight.  However, please take a step back and take a realistic over view of where each technology is best suited and what  their limitations are.

See Gizmoto review here.

The thing that makes the HG20 special is that it supports a more realistic bitrate for the AVCHD codec.  Most of the recent cameras from Sony and other brand have only supported up to 16mbit.  The Canon unit will support AVCHD up to 24 mbit. This is a huge difference as, the picture quality is greatly improved for shooting more demanding video.  This is more then a typical consumer quality camera.

For example, the new Sony EX1 and EX3, $10,000 (On average) cameras are the hottest prosumer cameras around right now.  And for good reason.  The build and tactile interface is fantastic for one.  Plus the quality of the 35mbit MPEG2 is stunning.  Build quality means nothing unless you can capture a great picture.  MPEG2 at 35mbit does just that.

Now, looking at AVCHD (H.264) at 24mbit.  Yes, it is not as high as 35mbit, but it is well known that the newer technology of H.264 is up to 2 times as efficent.  2×24mbit(H.264) = 48mbit(MPEG2) in quality.

I personally do not thing it is twice as good, but one could expect it to match 35mbit easily.

So we now have $1500 consumer cameras matching the quality of $10,000 prosumer cameras.  Thats big news to anyone who shoots video on a day to day basis.

The other huge advantage is that storing/archiving your content is easier as at 24mbit over, 35mbit, is a major advantage.  This may not sound like a big issue, but video files pile up fast, and it is not unusual to have 10-100 of terrabytes of video.

Standard are very important

Finally, the long term advantage. AVC is a SMPTE specifications which takes it into the future.  For example. support for up to 4k resolutions, 4:2:2, 4:4:4 and 10, 12 bit colour.  No other SMPTE standard codec supports these characteristics.  People talk about the RED all the time using the RED codec.  I find it a sign of ignorance that they do not understand the advantages of supporting standards based codecs.  H.264 at High 4:4:4 12bit 4k is positioned to become tiff/tga of video. A file format anything can read.

An example of this is that DCI (Digital Cinema Initiative) have standardised that a Digital Film Master has to be supplied in 16bit 2K or 4K TIFF files with uncompressed 48kHz 24 bit stems (audio file for each channel, usually 6 (5.1)).  This standard is based on open file formats and not proprietary RedCode or ProRES for example.

The Bad

There is one major issue with AVCHD.  Its not easy to edit.  As it is a complex codec with long GOP (Group of pictures) When a editing system requests a certain image while playing a time line or rendering a timeline, it needs to go to the nearest I-Frame or full frame before the frame it wants, then calculate down to the exact frame.  Very inefficent.  Faster computers with more memory will make this less of an issue in the future, but in real terms, it is usually best to transcode the content to a more editable format whitch also keeps all the quality.  For example, ProRES for Final Cut Pro.  This will, of cause, mean the video content will take up many, many ties the amount of disk space compared to the original.  This is common in editing work flows. For example EXCAM (Sony EX1) and RedCode (RED cameras).

AVC also have other iterations of its codec to make it easy to edit.  An example of this AVC-Intra used by Panasonic in their t hi-enf ENG range of cameras.  This is similar to the old MPEG2-I-frame codecs.  Its just a H.264 I-frame codec.  As it is I-frame only, it runs at much higher bitrates such as 50 and 100mbit.

The Road ahead

AVCHD still has a road ahead.  H.264 is said to have up to 2 times the efficiency then MPEG2.  In my experience I do not find this to be the case.  But like DV and MPEG2 based codec cameras when they where first released, the real time codec implementation was always very version 1.0 and over time improved As such, I expect AVC to also improve in real time camera capturing in the future.

Microsoft, in recent times, has been making a big song and dance about developers. (The Steve Palmer “developers, developers, developers” dance for example)  Microsoft does have one thing right, developers are what makes platforms thrive.  They know this and have, over the years, done a very good job at giving the developers what they want, for example, the best IDE (Integrated developer environment) in the world.

Unfortunately, this is no longer good enough.  Microsoft tools have, in general, been very Microsoft centric. (They generally push you towards using (Paying) for a lot of Microsoft tools and end user licenses.) DOT.NET is also been quite a disaster in many ways with Microsoft themselves been unable to give a well defined description, and those you do use it, find it very buggy and monolithic.

While this has been happening, open source technologies have been thriving. Javascript frame works, Ruby and Rails, php, mysql, java going open source, the list goes on and on.  These technologies, most anyway, tend to be easy to learn and resonably lean.  For more applicable to the new generation of Rich Internet application (RIA) development.

It is important to point out here that all of the companies Microsoft sees as a threat are all based on such technologies.  Google, Yahoo for example.  In general, however, name any Web2.0 company and they are not using any Microsoft tools.  Its all open source and Mac driving towards there own proprietory software and patents.

Lets not forget Adobe/flash here.  Alltho the open source tools are quite capable, a tool set that is capable of making RIA (Rich Internet applications) such as Photoshop express or a Word replacement (buzzword) that is nearly as capable as Word is not possible, and is unlikely to be possible based on the committee based development and speed of open technologies.  This is quite a contentious issue especially as Apple has rejected Flash.  I would contend that this has more to do with who’s Video playing technology is dominant on the Web.  Adobe Flash is at the moment, but Apple with Quicktime X plans to change that. (Its all about video platforms not capabilities. (And the DRM capabilities there-in Philip) but thats another blog post.

As Adobe identified this trend and purchased Macromedia/Flash, Microsoft has now also identified this.  As tools like Word and Excel are to go to RIA (Rich Internet Application) type implementations, technologies like Flash are best suited.  (Small Note, Flash SWF files as in that created via the Animation tools in CS3 are not the issue here.  CS3 has a time line animation background and can tend to be CPU intensive as the programmers are generally not a real programmers as apposed to designers doing some programming)  It is flash created via the Adobe Flex FREE SDK that is where RIA on Flash lives.  Flash has grown into a RIA tool set as Macromedia/Adobe noticed end users using it in that way.  It is only recently that they have started optimizing it for this.

Microsoft is late to the game, as usual, and identifying this trend, has rushed out Silverlight.  Silverlight is very much based on the directions of Flash and its Flex development tools, with a Microsoft twist.

Finally, lets not forget, there will always be the need for fully client side tools.  Tools that cannot and never will be network based.  Example of these are all the Adobe CS3 tool set in which you are manipulating very large files and elegant and complex user interfaces. In general however, any tools that needs a lot of I/O (reading a lot of data) are not suitable (But not out of the question.)

Microsoft Office tools, however, are very suitable.  It is not unreasonable to reach a very equivalent RIA implementation.  And in general, a version that is well within the requirements of the growing Internet user.

With all that is happening “Where to now developer”.

Well, if your following the Web2.0 dream, its not Microsoft.  Its open ource based technologies with a touch of Flash (Youtube and any video sites…  Rockyou and other interactive tools.)

If your aiming at business, Microsoft is still hard to pass over.  SMS (Small business server) has made huge inroads into small business over the years, and most if not all larger companies very much rely on Microsoft.  Tho, Open source technologies are making decent inroads here as well.

Java, now part of open source, has become the black sheep of development in many ways.  It was once painted as the future of RIA, but has completely failed in this area and is barely if ever seen these days in a web browser.  However, as a enterprise back end technology it is doing very well.  It is also having some strength in desktop cross platform apps like Open-Office.

Finally lets not forget embedded devices.  An area in which Linux rules. (Ie your ADSL router.  ATM machines,  Petrol pumps.)  A very large industry very much over looked.  Embedded systems have tended towards open tools as there is usually a lot of low level development needed, so using an OS you have complete control of and has no licensing costs has tended to dominate.

Finally, the new kids of the block.  The Web site developer. Skilled in HTML, Javascript and other web techno loges, these developers are now being told they have the tools to make applications.  Javascript frames works have come a long way, and what was once a well made FROM, in some cases is now considered an RIA.  This is an area where the definition of what an RIA is a bit grey.  But we definitely have a lot of telent growing from this field.  And they all love and insist on standards based, if not open source, tools witch they know and love.

One trend is very evident.  Open source development is seen as the area where the larger opportunities exist. Good old Microsoft tools are a well payed IT lifestyle but not seen as the future.  Microsoft Mesh is their response, and we are yet to see how this will pan out.  Microsoft has also made some major inroads to accepting Open ssource as a part of the industry and choosing to live with it instead of fighting it. Has Microsoft has changed it spots, or a wolf in sheep’s clothing?  As an older blogger who has seen Microsoft at the peek of its evil empire, I will need a lot of convincing before I give them a chance. It takes a lot of star troopers to make an evil empire culture. Like any cancer, its very difficult to overcome.

The bandwidth issues has been touted as the main reason.  For example, until the internet is upgraded giving higher bandwidth access to the consumers it is not really a viable concern… yet.  If the incumbent players did start advertising and promoting access to TV shows, the internet would arguably collapse under the weight of the strain of trying to support the bandwidth requirements.

This, to me, is a smoke screen as those who largely want this type of TV experience are getting it now with the current internet using shared infrastructure.  TORRENTS.

What the industry really is working on is new advertising models which can hopefully be successful in an ira where the consumer has complete control.  With a flick of the finger, anything the consumer don;t want to watch is gone.  Commercials, poor content. Everything.

So looking forward, one would consider a similar model in which the consumer is already in this dominant position, but at the same time the industry is commercialized and growing…  WEB SITES.

This leads me to the dominant player in commercializing this area. Google.

Strangely enough, media and blogosphere has had little to say about Googles roles in this.  But here are a few I did find..
Google enters the PC to TV arena
Google wants to do for TV what it did for the Web

And most importantly
Advertising on TV just got easier with Google TV Ads

It is also on Techcrunch
The Google Set-Top Box (Think Android For TV)

Looking at the general commercialization of the Internet one very important issues is apparent.

“Standardization in advertising, production, distribution and display”

Standards have always been the key to a healthy advertising medium and in some ways is a indicator to the health and likelihood of a robust industry.  An example of this is the banner ad self imposed standards, resolutions and file sizes, that came out many years back.  After which, we started to see banner ads everywhere.  Google introducing its on standard of simply text based ads that have also proven to be very successful and popular.

What I am trying to point out here is that, for example, YouTube, the king of online video has been trying all forms of advertising around video content.  Post/pre rolls.  Interstitials etc.  None have worked very well.

If Google plan to move forward and dominate video on the web, they have to base it around a set of known standards.

For example,  recently I heard some one say Google was very successful as they had the eye balls.  I could not disagree more.  Google is successful as hey can get advertising out to websites owners that own the eye balls. The key here if that Google has studied and formulated a way to do this as automated as possible with the best results as possible.

The challenge here for google and everyone else in this area, is how do we do this for video?

This then breaks down to.  UNTIL we can do this for video on the web, we want to slow down moving to this new medium as much as possible.  We have a 100’s of billions of dollar industry looking for future relevance.

From comments I have gotten from my Blog, in which I seem to have attracted a number of inside people, unfortunately, its not looking like the incumbents are close to any real solution.

The rosy picture painted by some is that in the future, “THEY” will track everything.  They will know exactly what commercials we watch, if we skip them and more. From this data, a new form of cost for advertising will be born. A new form of AD will be born.  Entertaining Ads we are less likely to switch off. Shorter ads we don;t have time to skip. Product placement.  Ads built into the content like the old radio days.

All this is possible, but is it likely in a future were only ZONE free DVD players are for sale in my local electronics store?

I personally do think some type of compromise is possible in terms of what the consumer wants and how much money the incumbents can make out of us.  But like any compromise, neither sire will be completely happy.

This trend has just been turned into a reality with Sony announcing that by Christmas, 90% or all TV on sale will be Internet ready,  and to quote the Sony release..

Sony will embrace open standards “to improve interoperability among all of our customers’ devices.”

See this report “Sony sets sights on global networked entertainment“.

They are:

• Verismo Box Plugs Web into Your TV: this is a very good example of the trend towards a open STB with no direct connection to the larger companies.  Ie Microsoft, Apple.  This is intended to be a cheap STB that can utilise as many services as they can get API’s from/for.
• Panasonic Pipes YouTube Directly to TVs: Another example of a large consumer electronics maker making an open STB for general free content on the web.
• Sony To Bring YouTube To HDTV Sets: Sony is getting into the act too.
• R.I.P. SanDisk’s TakeTV, Fanfare Shut Down: A filed quirky attempt.  Not unexpected.
• YouTube Set to Dominate the Boob Tube: A story pointing out how YouTube is partnering with all these general purpose STB and becoming very dominent in this space.
• Apple Should Open Up: More comments from about how AppleTV needs to be open to take off.
• Scoop: Boxee to Go Alpha on Monday: Yet more developments towards open STB with the very well know and popular XBMC (X-Box Media Centre) open source project launching into this space.
• I would also like to mention ADOBE’s release of AMP (Adobe Media Player), all the DRM technology and that Flash Player for embded devices as been made free.  Obviously something is cooking here.

I would like to point out that these stores have all come out in no less then a month.  Thats a lot of action in the STB area.

Still, I find this all very worrying as unlike the past, there is no one driving the development of what I like to compare to as the Analog TV Tuner of past to todays Internet-TV-Tuner of the future.

In the past, organisations such as SMPTE where formed so that the development of TV technologies was based around standards.  Content was structured and produced in a documented way as so it could then be trasnsmitted in a standard way. Any TV manufactuer could simply follow these standards and have a working TV set on the market.

Altho these standards bodies exist and an attempt by them has been made to address the issues of Internet TV, the current state of play is that it is a complete mess.  We have many suppliers using proprietory technologies, trying to leverage their products into a dominent position.

These organisations are very powerful and have, in my opinion, stifeled any movement towards simple open standards for which would allow the adoption of Internet TV to take off.

There is a lot of potential power and money at stake, so no one is willing to “play ball” so to speak.

Fortunatly the technological tuth to all this is that open based STB are inevitable.

For Example.  Lets look at DVD region coding.  This was a way to let the distributors control the release of content around the world.  The movie would be released in the US, for example, under REGION-1.  Here in Australia, Region-6, we would not be able to play that DVD.

Strangely enough, I have never had a problem with this as REGION-FREE DVD players came out very quickly.  REGION-coding today is next to useless.  Consumers eventually learnt about these issues, and today, the consumer electronics stores simply will not stock Region-restricted DVD players are they simply cannot sell them.

The AppleTV for example is already in this bucket.  A consumer who is interested in a AppleTV is as, he is knowledgeable enough to understand that purchasing an AppleTV only really means he can watch shows blessed by Steve, of pod-casts specifically designed for it. (You can hack it to do anything however)

A potential consumer of an AppleTV would understand Torrents, and that alternative content is around, and that obviously, anything he purchases, he will want to also play that content.

This may look to be a trivial matter, but from my experience it is quite the opposite.

The standard TV set of the future is going to need a TV tuner of the future, ie an Internet TV tuner.  This tuner technology needs to be cheap but at the same time as powerful as possible.  I am a big fan of the Adobe mythology as it is possible that each CHANNEL can load its own user interface designed specifically for the target consumer. It can also be easily updated.  Ie the way you use the channel can evolve with the user.  The complexity can evolve with the user.  The Social aspects of the channel can evolve with the evolution of social networks.

The STB of the future still looks like its a fair way down the road. I just hope the incumbent players who are trying to take advantage of this realise sooner then later that we need to get together and head down this road collaboratively soon.  As the longer they procrastinate, the more likely we are to damage the production industry and ultimately the TV shows we love to watch.  At the current rate of development, nether side will end up with very much.