Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Moxi Digital's Future Convergence Box Announced 139

Posted by timothy from the until-the-fat-lady-plays-as-an-mp3 dept.
Many readers have submitted news of a new do-everything media box being hyped at CES. Fofer writes: "Steve Perlman, the founder of WebTV, is attempting to infiltrate the living room again, but this time it looks like he's on to something. Officially unveiled at CES 2002, the Moxi Media Center is a souped-up digital media server with an 80-gigabyte hard drive. It can deliver, to as many as four televisions, video recorded from a TV signal off of its integrated cable/satellite receiver, video or audio downloaded to the hard drive or from a built-in DVD/CD player. ... Articles with more info are here(1) and here(2)." When a product is still vapor, it's pretty easy to make it buzzword-compliant, too, and this one is supposed to work with Macs and IBM-style PCs, be based on Linux, work with Firewire drives, etc. Read the linked PR stuff to find out more.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Moxi Digital's Future Convergence Box Announced More

Moxi Digital's Future Convergence Box Announced

Comments Filter:
  • Any company with a patent in the Digital Recorder area (Tivo, Replay, MS?) will likely sue them to try to stop the competition.

    A DVD recorder to archive recorded TV shows to something better than VHS would also be nice. The Firewire port would allow this once the price goes down.
    • Yes, but Microsoft has NEVER really created anything in this space. Their WebTV product was developed by Moxi's creator (who, I believe, also left the blueprints for the later-released UltimateTV product under the WebTV umbrella).

      Wouldn't you think that he would keep his rights to the product for future development?
    • and they will have good luck trying.. Motorola and the 3 big cable companies are behind this. Nothing like an ant trying to sue a giant.

      From the plans I have seen, TiVo and the like will become useless as your digital cable box will replace it, and you wont have to subscribe to a special service to get the listings.

      What is coming is really cool, and the Ultimate TV,TiVo and others will die because of it.
    • Gotta love that free market. All roads to the marketplace lead right up the courthouse steps.

      Seems businesses don't *want* to compete any more. "Ehhhhh Your Honorrrrrrrr!!! We're entitled to that market.. it's ours!! wahhhhh!!!

      It's worse than Little League.

      sigh...
    • Any company with a patent in the Digital Recorder area (Tivo, Replay, MS?) will likely sue them to try to stop the competition.

      TiVo's Chief Evangelist didn't seem to consider them competition in this AVS Forum thread [tivocommunity.com]. "We have more in common than in competition," he says. So I wouldn't be surprised if some kind of licensing for TiVo's technology is already in the works.

    • It is inevitable that the Big Media companies will sue them. They might as well sue themselves to get it over with.

  • ReplayTV? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Rosonowski ( 250492 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .ikswonosor.> on Monday January 07, 2002 @01:41PM (#2799354)
    My question is, though, is, if this comes into being, will it run into the same copyright issues and whatnot that the ReplayTV 4000, with the ability to send video over ethernet is coming under fire for?
    • They've got a note on their web page saying that you cannot use the multi-room video capabilities if you have Wireless Ethernet. I suppose that would be "re-broadcasting" the TV signal. I don't think there's any way for it to tell whether you've got Ethernet or Wireless Ethernet though. So it's probably just the honor system.

  • The Ultimate Digital Media Server! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 3141 ( 468289 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @01:41PM (#2799356) Homepage
    I already have a "digital media server" that supports instant messaging, email, DVDs and CDs. It's my computer.
    • That's true. But you also have a web-surfing device as well. But does it hook up to your TV? Not likely, unless you have something from ATI. To be honest, I see your point. Yes, your computer can do all this, my computer can do all this. But this is a consumer device, designed not only for those people that don't know that much about computers. (IE, would never bother to learn because all they need to play soliatare is to click on the screen [which they reference as 'the modem' or 'the hard drive' in most cases]


      Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that it's for people who want conveince over bredth of feautures.

      • If people are dumb, and only know how to do like 3 things with their computer ( solitare, web and email ) why would they buy this do everything device. Most people are either smart enough to realize that they are too dumb to use all of this device, or don't even know of such a device.

        For the geeks, we just use our computers as our home entertainment system. Why I don't know, but it's fun.
      • "Not likely, unless you have something from ATI"

        Tv out is increasingly common its the video in thats still not bloomed. With digital cable and satellite signals requiring proprietary equipement its not surprising. It would be nice if it could require something like chap to prove that you are a customer instead of a cable box with the serial number on some firmware.

    • Why don't any of these Media Servers collect and organize my digital photographs for me? I'm forced to archive my photographs onto CDs and label the envelops.

      Isn't digital photagraphy a form of media? Aren't millions of digital cameras being sold? Why don't people demand a photo-management box? That would be easy compared to a DVD decoder. All that mine requires is PostGresQLa, PHP, and Apache. Probably USB so that the camera can upload to that rather than my PC.

      • iPhoto from Apple (released today).

        Just finished watching the Keynote. A little disappointing on the whole (the new iMac is sorta cool) but one bright spot was iPhoto. Very, very slick looking; very, very free. Of course, if you don't already have an OS X machine handy to run it on then free becomes very, very expensive very, very fast.
      • According to Apple's just-completed keynote, what you're looking for would be iPhoto...

        While we all kvetch about Microsoft Passport and the way they're weaving everything to give Microsoft a cut of transactions, Apple is doing much the same thing between iTools and Apple's 1-click license. They're selling goods, storage, and now with iPhoto they're selling services (photo finishing and albums) online as well.

        I wouldn't be surprised now to see them start cutting deals with the music publishers to offer some form of semi-secure (maybe not really secure, but a non-trivial hack) music streaming through iTunes as well.
      • What you need is apache running gallery [sourceforge.net]. All you do is upload your photos, it resizes them, puts them into albums and allows captioning. And its open source. I run it on my esmith box.

        • What you need is apache running gallery. All you do is upload your photos

          From film? A good scanner is very expensive, and digital cameras don't convert all the legacy negatives that consumers have shot over the last 30 years, let alone the undeveloped film they continue to shoot, especially from disposable cameras.

      • You could always get one of the new iMacs [slashdot.org]. Apparently Steve Jobs is even anxious to organize them into a photo album for you.

        But to answer your question: people probably don't demand it because photo management (digital or analog) isn't difficult and doesn't take up a lot of space -- relative to discs and tapes, anyway.
      • Are you in Apple marketing?

        Say hello to iPhoto. [apple.com]
    • Anyone else feel like this thing was designed by a Focus group? They call in a bunch of modestly tech literate 18-35 yr olds (the target demographic for pricey home theatre equipment) and write down all the things they hear it should do.

      "And you should win stuff by watching!" - Millhouse (the Simpsons), Poochy the dog episode
    • Is your computer in front of a couch? Is there a TV signal feed? Can more than one person even sit in front of your computer at the same time?

      Computers make great multimedia devices, but it takes extra effort to make those multimedia services available from the comfort of the living room. I have spent some time and effort on this, and it is expensive and time consuming. It is about time for a device like this.
  • The link from the article directs to a 'next' page, then back to the original. I was trying to find pricing info on this still vaporware item. Anybody know how many ducketts this will set ya back?
    • One of the other articles [sympatico.ca] referenced says:
      The company says it will offer the technology to cable operators at $425 US for a single-TV household, adding $250 to equip a second TV.
      And today's to an article [siliconvalley.com] in today's San Jose Mercury News:
      The MC will cost about $350 to $450 to manufacture, according to Perlman, while the MCx will run about $50 -- the same or less than advanced digital cable boxes just now coming on the market. Consumers would likely pay much less, or could even get the hardware for free from cable- and satellite-TV providers in exchange for higher monthly fees.
      I'm not sure if that includes the complete wireless link. It would make sense to me for the standard Moxi to come with a slot that can accept a $75 standard 803.11b Wireless PC Card for those that would need this, but not add the cost into the base unit.

      So it will cost more than an Xbox but not play Xbox games. [xbox.com]

      It is closer to a barebones computer with large hard drive in price - because that what it's components are from. Hopefully they have removed some of the standard PC problems though. E.g., boot faster, tolerant of power-offs and less power hungry.

      Be sure to read the last paragraph from the SJ Mercury News article:

      The loudest voice is Microsoft, Perlman's former employer -- he worked at the company for two years after the WebTV acquisition, leaving in frustration with Microsoft's slow pace and insistence on cramming a version of its Windows computer software into TV-based devices. Moxi uses the Linux operating system and Macromedia Flash animation software.

      ``We couldn't do the things we are doing with Windows XP,'' Perlman said, referring to the most recent version of Microsoft's flagship operating system. ``The best broadband (home) networks out there will be the ones that don't use Microsoft technology.''

  • I read about that! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Daath ( 225404 ) <lp@NoSPAm.coder.dk> on Monday January 07, 2002 @01:42PM (#2799368) Homepage Journal
    I read about that! It looked very interesting!
    Supposedly you're supposed to be able to hook up all rooms in your house with one machine, for almost no money at all!
    Oh, yeah and it's a gateway/router/firewall too! Pretty neat thought!
    I read it on The Register [theregister.co.uk] last night :)
    • No money at all compared to the thousands you will spend on the actual machine itself. It's completely true considering the price of cables these days.
      • I'm sorry I don't buy into the 20,000 worth of equipment and 10,000 worth of cables. Its a scam as my friend in the professional audio installation gig would say, "People just want to think they are audiophiles because they spend 1000's on cables to listen to pop music to impress people."

        Radio shack has been good enough for me and If I have had to I'll go monster for big frigging speakers but 3' cables that can go for 1500 dollars, no way. People should just hand their money over to scientology beacuse they will make perfect canidates for brainwashing.

    • " I read about that! It looked very interesting!
      Supposedly you're supposed to be able to hook up all rooms in your house with one machine, for almost no money at all! Oh, yeah and it's a gateway/router/firewall too! Pretty neat thought! I read it on The Register [theregister.co.uk] last night :)"

      Every time I look at something like this on slashot I really think of why it's necessary. I like the versatility of having individual divices to meet individual needs.
    • Yea, but thing about it. Single Point of Failure. Anyone and anything that wants to attack you at home would be in tears as to the ease of access this product provides them with.

      It looks and sounds great, but security is still my main concern and this toy sounds way too good to be true.
  • And make julienned fries and walk my dog and find my car keys and defrost my freezer and shampoo my unmentionables.

    Like the poster said, it's pretty vapor. I'll believe it when I see it. And probably buy one then, too.

  • Flash Interface, and price? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Marx_Mrvelous ( 532372 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @01:43PM (#2799372) Homepage
    Hmm, looks like it has a flash interface. Maybe it's just my system, but Flash doesn't run very well for me under Linux. I have a 900MHz CPU, but flash animations, especially games, are very, very slow. How will they overcome that?

    I know I'll get modded for redundant but hey, I wonder how much it will cost. I'm guessing this will be a > $1,000 device. Butm an, if it really can do all it says, maybe it would be worth it.

    *crosses fingers* DVD playback with progressive output would be nice, too.

  • LeapFrog (Score:3, Informative)

    by FortKnox ( 169099 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @01:44PM (#2799382) Homepage Journal
    To connect multiple TV's to one cable signal, satellite signal, PVR, etc..., just use Leap Frog [terk.com] (there's a wireless one, too, check the website).
    • Which does absolutely nothing like what Moxi offers.

      With leapfrog you're just slaving the other TV's to your main TV. If Bob is watching the primary TV and he wants to watch infomercials then you get to watch infomercials too! With Moxie Bob could watch infomercials, live or recorded, while you watch all the stuff you recorded on Skinemax last night in the privacy of your own bedroom.

      This isn't likely to get into legal issues like Replay/SonicBlue since there's no sharing between individuals. And being able to do this kind of thing really is pretty cool -- I have 2 TiVo's, initially because my fiancee and I wanted to watch different shows at the same time, but being able to watch whatever show we want in whichever room we want would be really nice. And last I looked, TivoNet is still a PITA to use.
  • From the product page:

    "Due to licensing restrictions, remote DVD playback is not available in homes using wireless networking."

    What kind of licensing restrictions is this referring to? How would they even know that there is wireless networking?
    • The license restriction probably applies to broadcasting DVDs. A Moxi connected to a neighborhood-area network becomes, essentially, a low-power TV station. "Hey everybody! My John Woo festival begins this evening at 6:00 on %IP_ADDRESS%." Imagine Jack Valenti's reaction to that! Assuming he doesn't spontaneously combust first.

      How a Moxi would detect a wireless connection is beyond me. My somewhat realistic expectation: Two different versions, one wired, the other 802.11. The wireless version would be crippled in [soft|firm]ware. Meanwhile, they turn a blind eye to wired Moxen connected to a wireless AP.

  • No interactive DVD? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DodgyGeezer ( 83311 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @01:52PM (#2799432)
    Also at CES is a demo of interactive DVD set top boxes [eetimes.com]. All this convergence and integration, and this Moxi box doesn't even offer this feature. For now I think I shall keep my money for other things until the market matures... I'll let those people with more money than sense be guinnea pigs for this kind of technology.
    • Yeah, I hate it when my new toy doesn't even support "yet-to-be-defined enhanced DVDs ". Just because the spec doesn't exist yet is no excuse.

      And no, I don't want to upgrade it later, I want it now!

      • "I hate it when my new toy doesn't even support "yet-to-be-defined enhanced DVDs ""

        I don't know why the article says "yet to be defined" when it's already here [interactual.com]! DVD-Videos are already shipping with "settop" folders in the ROM content for use with InterActual API devices. So far, the only device is the Win32 InterActual Player (replacement of PCFriendly). The demo described in the article that I linked to is obviously the first public implementation of a device that supports the existing ROM content of many DVDs. I will much prefer using my interactive DVDs on a set-top box instead of my PC!

  • Nokia Mediaterminal (Score:3, Informative)

    by nrc ( 112633 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @01:53PM (#2799439) Homepage

    Nokia announced their Mediaterminal [nokia.com] last year and it just now available ... in Sweden.
    • Any idea when the MediaTerminal will be available in the US? I recall that Nokia's MediaTerminal also won the "Best of Category" in Video in 2001. The feature list for Moxi sounds pretty similar to that of the MediaTerminal. The MediaTerminal is based on linux on a Celeron according to the technical specs here [nokia.com].

  • snooze (Score:3, Informative)

    by sulli ( 195030 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @01:54PM (#2799445) Journal
    NYTimes talked today about how this would address the "problem" of MP3 conversion by somehow limiting MP3s to the box itself. Which of course makes it useless.

    Meanwhile my Mac+iPod works fine. And DVD players are, what, $150? I don't see why this is of any value.

    • Garbage (Score:5, Informative)

      by sulli ( 195030 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @02:25PM (#2799610) Journal
      This will be for RENT, not for sale, from cable tv suppliers, and it will have copy protection.

      From the NY Times [nytimes.com]:

      Mr. Perlman takes an engineer's pride in describing the company's solution to the problem of converting the contents of compact discs into MP3 files that can be stored digitally. Moxi has designed a specialized device, which would be rented to consumers on an hourly basis, that uses powerful microprocessors to convert 100 CD's an hour and store them as digital files. He said Moxi had taken significant pains to protect the digital rights of music and video content producers. The system uses cryptography extensively to place barriers against illegal sharing of copyrighted material, the kind of trading that got the Napster music-swapping service into legal trouble.

      Forget it.

      • From the "NDS Group plc Partners with Moxi Digital on Next-Generation Home Entertainment Platform" press release [moxi.com]:

        "NDS Group plc, a leading provider of conditional access systems and interactive applications for digital TV, and Moxi Digital, Inc. (formerly Rearden Steel Technologies, Inc.), a developer of advanced platforms and products for enhanced home entertainment, today announced a strategic relationship. The companies plan to deliver cable and satellite providers with an open, secure and revenue-generating platform for the home.
        As part of the agreement, NDS will provide its Open VideoGuardTM conditional access security solution for integration into Moxi's advanced home entertainment platform, the Moxi Media Center (the Moxi MC, for short.) This new platform is designed as a flexible, alternative solution to the expensive, limited capability digital set-top boxes available to broadband network operators today. NDS' conditional access, which secures over 25 million digital Pay-TV set-top boxes worldwide, enables safe, secure consumer TV services and transactions and enables MSOs and satellite providers to build revenue-generating T-commerce applications.
        The Moxi Media Center functions as a multimedia gateway for the home, enabling new revenue streams through the delivery of advanced services such as multi-TV personal video recording (PVR), cached video-on-demand (VOD), and whole-home digital music distribution. Moxi and NDS will work together to build full support for such next-generation services onto the NDS conditional access system. ....etc..."

        NDS [nds.com] do the subscription security for satellite broadcasters to stop people watching what they haven't paid for. So yes, it will be pay-to-view, pay-to-listen, pay-to-record, pay-to-anything. Quick, buy that NDS stock [nasdaq.com]!

    • Burn a CDRW with the songs in CDA format and rip them on the box? This ant-piracy device will pry be cracked in a matter of hours after release anyways. If its on a hard drive you can get it back onto a computer somehow.
  • AM I the only one that wants modularity in his components? I mean if my dvd player fails, will the whole system crap out? Same goes for those gamecube/dvd player combos....i would prefer two seperate components...am I missing something??
  • Interesting, VERY interesting. But I wonder, who provides this? Do I buy it and put it in my house and use it to interface with my cable provider? That seems difficult...will my cable/internet provider support this?

    Seems like a better solution would be for my cable provider to buy this, give/rent it to me per month, and let me go wild. The idea of being able to stream content to 4 TV's is great!! Would I be able to watch one channel and record another? Watch two channels on two TV's, and only have to deal with the one settop (Moxi)? In theory, I ought to since cable decode and PVR are all in one unit.

    Frankly, this is damn exciting! I've been very interested in PVR's for awhile now, they are quite cool, but I always look at them and go "If it only had....". This might be it!!

    Finally......how much? :)
    • Heh...read one of the other links....answered most of my questions...multiple streams to multiple TV's/PC's, $425, purchased by cable provider. Me wanty so bad!!! :)
    • I would see DirecTV picking this up before any cable companies. Since DirecTV is already supporting Tivo AND Ultimate TV, I see it as a logical choice to support Moxi. Cable providers are always more than reluctant to allow any open-ended technology into their closed systems. Perhaps this is why DirecTV is so much better (flames welcome).

  • Rearden Steel technologies (Score:3, Insightful)

    by flacco ( 324089 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @01:57PM (#2799466)

    His Palo Alto, Calif.-based company is also announcing a name change, to Moxi Digital Inc. from Rearden Steel Technologies.

    Looks like an Ayn Rand fan.

    • Re:Rearden Steel technologies (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @02:47PM (#2799808)
      > > His Palo Alto, Calif.-based company is also announcing a name change, to Moxi Digital Inc. from Rearden Steel Technologies.
      >
      > Looks like an Ayn Rand fan.

      As many have said "due to licensing restrictions, remote DVD playback is not available in homes using wireless networking".

      Looks to me like then he's been beaten by the parasites at MPAA. While there are no doubt other reasons for the renaming, I'd say "consistency" is one of 'em.

      When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion - when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you- when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice- you may know that your society is doomed."

      - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

      Rearden would have built it, and told MPAA to go fsck themselves.

      In light of this, I applaud Perlman's decision to rename his company, as I'd have to grit my teeth every time I saw Rearden's name attached to a company with a cool idea, but who paid tribute to the parasites in the MPAA.

  • It's not that hard... (Score:3, Informative)

    by 2Bits ( 167227 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @01:59PM (#2799487)
    When a product is still vapor, ...

    Well, according the "specs", this thing is not that hard to build. It's basically a computer with the right interface for TV and sound system.

    It's still vapor right now for sure, but there's nothing in this device (according the description) that requires anything not developed yet. If you have the $ and patience, you too can build one yourself.
    • It's still vapor right now for sure

      I know a guy that works there. He's been VERY secretive about what they where doing.

      But what I do know is that they have been working on this for a long time. They've had several revisions of hardware.

      I understand some think this is vapor because it seems to just have popped up. But it's not nearly as vapor as you may think.
  • "Due to licensing restrictions, remote DVD playback is not available in homes using wireless networking." I think two areas cover this. First the VCR type lawsuits and secondly the tape and later digital muxic lawsuits. Why can't I make my own personnal copy? Why can't I watch it from any device I so wish? They're basically saying you use their device or no device on this one, and who are they to say that you can't use one tv over another, or watch on you laptop? I think more than anything they're saying that you cannot use anything EXCEPT this device. They don't have to support it, but let's see if I can't grab a screwdriver and put it in.
  • These media-driven boxes look wonderful, but seem to stop one step short of being a general-purpose computing platform.

    It seems like this is the direction that the Powers That Be would like everything to go: a set-top box that will replace your stereo, TV, VCR, DVD player, game console, etc. Then add the ability to stream and/or download content (media and web) from a broadband connection. This is very likely the eventual destination of both the X-Box and the PS2. This would encompass about 90% of what the average homeowner does with their PC. It would be easier to use than a PC, though, and definitely take a bite out of the latter's market share.

    This would please many companies to no end. Microsoft would sell the box, the latest version of Windows NT/2K/XP would drive it, and transactions consummated over it could be Passport/.NET-driven. The game companies have already moved toward console games, with their high markup value and ease of programming for a completely fixed computing environment.

    The content providers (and RIAA and MPAA) would love to see a sealed-box platform, with digital rights management much harder to defeat. This would be the (ostensibly) secure conduit though which they can deliver movies, audio, etc, in pay-for-play format.

    I wonder what will become of the general-purpose computer?
  • And it won't even talk to my 'fridge to see if I need milk? What kind of convergence is this?

  • Tremendous potential - good and bad (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ldir ( 411548 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @02:07PM (#2799518)
    This could have tremendous potential as the next killer product in consumer electronics. Besides replacing (or perhaps consolidating) your CD/DVD players and your VCR/PVR, it's only a couple of features away from being a standardized gaming platform and even a personal computer. Sure, most of us will still want dedicated PCs. But, if Moxi does a good job on the UI, Joe Six-pack could find that Moxi II is all that he needs to surf, e-mail, and write term papers.

    I think it can sell well just as a super-DVR. We have two Tivos already, thinking about a third for another TV in another room. If this box can serve up content to four sets from a central location, it would eliminate our desire for multiple DVRs. It's not that we want to record that many programs; we just watch them in different places.

    Further, since the Moxi incorporates the content management that studios lust after, it is likely to be very well received. It's easy to imagine studios providing all sorts of exclusive offerings for the Moxi to undercut interest in vanilla Tivo and Replay systems. Couple that with a new round of lawsuits from studios, and competing technologies may die on the vine. Again, Joe Six-pack won't care, may not even notice, as long as the studios don't get too greedy.

    (IMO, the studios' unbridled greed is the only reason they don't already own the digital entainment market. If they would settle for 90% of the potential profit instead of shooting for 120%, most consumers would happily line up behind whatever they - the studios - supported. But I digress.)

    The interesting angle will be how many companies launch competing-but-incompatible systems. Again, I could see greedy studios trying to establish their own tech instead of signing up with Moxi. If this new product family gets bogged down in yet another format war, it may become just another footnote on the road to Microsoft's domination of digital entertainment. Or, MS may preempt the whole thing by buying it (again).

    This will be interesting to watch no matter how it plays out.

    • Further, since the Moxi incorporates the content management that studios lust after, it is likely to be very well received. It's easy to imagine studios providing all sorts of exclusive offerings for the Moxi to undercut interest in vanilla Tivo and Replay systems.


      I think you hit the nail on the head. I hate to be a pessimist but in the end, I think the platform that will win out won't be the most technologically sophisticated or the easiest to use. Rather, it's going to be whichever platform best panders to the media conglomerates and incorporates all the digital rights management policies that they want implemented. Then they'll get access to exclusive content and be able to work closely with the cable and satellite providers to make sure their systems are compatible while everyone else's mysteriously can't record shows properly.

      Sounds like Mr. Perlman (founder of Moxie) is no fool. By creating an integrated solution that can completely control the entire process of recording/accessing/transmitting media he's given the media companies exactly what they want. In return, I expect they'll be very good to him too. If you dont believe me, just notice how every article about this new product spends almost as much time touting its copyright protection abilities as it does describing its features.

  • just a few days ago i was discussing digital-vcrs with a friend and i was stating that i wouldn't buy a device that lacks a dvd/mp3 player.

    Seems like they finally got it. Sad thing that i live in germany, though. I wonder when we will see this thing over here, if ever.

    But basically that's the idea, a central device, only drawback is the 80gig hd. I bet it's full real soon. Wouldn't it be great to have the option to add more disks or store stuff on the family server? But then again, why don't i just stick with my pc? It all comes down to that point in the end.

    Neat machine anyways...

    cu,
    Lispy
  • Due to licensing restrictions, remote DVD playback is not available in homes using wireless networking.

    Hmmm... how exactly do they know you're using a wireless network? Is there a configuration option somewhere?

  • New York Times Article (Score:2, Informative)

    by severian ( 95505 )
    The New York Times has an article [nytimes.com] on this server as well. The article is partly about this new server and also about the upcoming new products from Apple, Inc. and how there's a battle shaping up between the TV/consumer electronics companies vs. the computer companies to be the uber-media command center for your home. Interesting read.

    As for my 2 cents, I'd prefer the computer as the ultimate command center. Why? Like other people have mentioned, pretty much all the pieces are already there. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, the software and hardware in the computer world are standardized commodities that can be mixed and matched to your preference (e.g. you can have a linux/windows/mac box with your choice of graphics cards, DVD drives, and PVR software) allowing for competition and best-of-breed components. This is in comparison to the "black box" philosophy of cable boxes and their ilk. Furthermore, as for resolution of display, TV sucks compared to even the lowest resolution monitors these days...

    On the other hand, I guess I can understand that not everyone is able to mix and match components and put together their own customized system and would like nothing more than to plug in an appliance that does everything they want it to do.

    I guess it boils down to the same debate between people who build their own computers specifying everything down to the CPU fan vs. those who buy a complete system pre-loaded and configured with every software program they need to run.

  • In related news ... (Score:4, Funny)

    by J.D. Hogg ( 545364 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @02:10PM (#2799537) Homepage
    "It can deliver, to as many as four televisions, video recorded from a TV signal off of its integrated cable/satellite receiver, video or audio downloaded to the hard drive or from a built-in DVD/CD player."

    Dec 24, 2002 : Officially unveiled at the CES show earlier this week, the much awaited Moxi Media Center, created by former WebTV founder Steve Pearlman, will definitely not hit the shelves in time for Christmas.

    "This is a huge disappointment for media lovers" declared Pearlman. "If people can't even play their own Super-8 tapes anymore, what does this mean for the future of the entertainment industry, I ask you ?". Originally scheduled to be a powerful media center capable of delivering as many as four televisions, video recorded from a TV signal off of its integrated cable/satellite receiver and video or audio downloaded to the hard drive or from a built-in DVD/CD player, pressures from the MPAA (movie picture association of America) and the RIAA (recording industry association of America) have gradually forced Moxi to reduce the scope of the Moxi Media Center to a simple Super-8 video player and vinyl disk (LP) player.

    However, the MPAA still isn't satisfied with the Moxi Media Center's current feature list, and has launched an unprecedented lawsuit against Moxi. "The [MPAA] has to protect the interests of the studios, and therefore the interest of the American public" said MPAA president Jack Valenti yesterday "If we let anybody play their bootleg Super-8 videos, the world won't turn round anymore !".

    Steve Pearlman is scheduled to organize an emergency meeting of Moxi's board of director : "We could conceivably turn the Moxi Media Center into a very nice looking multi-function shelf made of first-grade oak wood, that would serve video tapes and CDs on demand. The only remaining obstacle right now is to obtain the RIAA's approval for using the standard "12cm CD size"[tm], which should take no more than 6 month and should add no more than $2 on each Moxi Media Center's pricetag" said Pearlman. "As you can see, the public can count on Moxi to deliver new innovative media solutions that conform with the law".

  • does anyone else notice that if this box is doing all this stuff at once, PVR, transmitting tv signals to 4 different tv's, acting as a gateway/router, etc., its gonna need to be a powerhorse. i have a hard time believing that it can do all of those things simultaneously without some serious performance cut backs.
  • Am I the only one not releasing a convergence box? I'm so behind the times.
  • It may be just this cold getting me down, and I actually already have a home-builds DVR (ati All-in-wonderpro 128 and 40gb hd, software to burn VCD from the captures - results playable on my DVD player), but I'm not going to invest anything in entertainment hardware the next few years.

    The thing is, well, I actually record a lot of stuff using this machinery, but the truth is that I rarely watch it - not even when I'm home with a cold. Why, you ask - well, most of it is actually crap. There's so little on tv that I havent already seen at the cinema or brought on DVD a long time ago.

    Damn it, this evenings top selection of movies in Denmark for people with the big cable selection is : Twister (Helen Hunt) and Company Business (Gene Hackman). There are other options, but the core of is that these movies has been shown on tv like a bazillion time before and will be shown at least as many times again. Why should I record one of these movies? Will I ever wake up one morning and say to my self: "Wow! I really wish that I could watch Twister with Helen Hunt right now!"?

    I dont think so! That will happen maybe sometime in the future where I've lost all sense of value and taste and Twister has gone public domain a long time ago, so I'll just download it directly to my home entertainment system in about 123ms.

    There's just not enought quality stuff on TV to justify an expensive digital recording system (compared to the price of a VCR).

    Maybe the replay-function would be interesting if I where interested in sports, but I'm not.

    Maybe when the total package (Digital Video Recorder, hyper-multichannel, digital widescreen wallmounted TV) becomes payable I'll look into it.
  • "I want one of those! Yes! Those!"

    "IT SLICES IT DICES IT MOOSHES IT SQUOOSHES!!!
    I'LL TAKE SIX DOZEN, THANK YOU!!!"

    "No more late night TV, Opus?"

    "YES, I THINK THAT'D BE BEST!"

  • Moxi vs. iMac (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jeffrey Baker ( 6191 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @02:23PM (#2799600)
    I just got back from the Macworld Expo keynote address by Steve Jobs and there could not be more contrast. Apple is putting all of there efforts into software and hardware to let customers make and share digital media. Moxi and Microsoft and the rest are trying to build devices that maximize the consumption of digital media.

    Hmm.

  • What's point? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by atdt ( 88 )

    So my family want to watch the same TV program in front of 4 different TV sets in 4 different locations in the house? Unless it can deliever 4 different programs at same time, I am not interested.

    Questions:

    • Who gets the remote control? Are there 4 remotes in the 4 rooms?
    • Why not people all sit together in a big coach?

    • Re:What's point? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Fofer ( 53153 )
      From Moxi.com's description page:

      "For the first time, all the great features available on your main TV can be enjoyed on any TV in the home. With Moxi, your family can...

      * enjoy digital cable in the living room
      * watch last week's favorite sitcom in the den
      * pause the ballgame in the bedroom
      * listen to music in the study
      ...all at the same time!

      The Moxi Media Center supports up to four TVs, each with their own dedicated audio or video stream. "

      From the NewsExpress link:

      "A user in one room could watch a television program - live or recorded - while someone in another room could watch the same program but also be able to pause it or otherwise control the video recorder. At the same time, yet another person in the house could use the media centre to listen to music files. "

      These streams are independent from from each other. (Thus further alienating the family members. At least with TiVo, we gather 'round and watch our shows together.) In any event, this is a cool box, and I'm certainly drooling for one.
  • There are so many groups attempting to build this holy grail of technology. For those not falling off the bleeding edge of techno hype, convergence devices for the most part promise to distribute voice, video, and data to the home consumer through one service. This service will also provide for some type of QOS, such that, your phone conversation doesn't die when little johnny pulls the entire season of jackie chan adventures. Convergence devices are also going to be responsible for having your toaster talk to your PDA, so that from your car, you can order up a nice warm pop tart that will be waiting for you after the evening commute.

    An embedded systems start-up (now dead... once "the money burn" caught up to us) I was part of partnered with a networking company that claimed to have solved "the last mile" problem. They even had AT&T lined up as an initial customer. They didn't however, want to engineer anything in the home, thus sub contracted that out to us. We had a line of PowerPC single board PC104 form factor computers we were going to build this device from. This is when I first learned about convergence devices and the mad mad mad chase in the industry to be the first group getting inside the consumers home.

    Never had any of these products taken off... and there have been many. However, with that said (this is now relating to an earlier /. post on MS's new device), XBox is in the best position to be a home convergence device. I'm sure that's what MS had in mind all along when they designed the system initially. They just needed a foothold into the living room. I wouldn't be surprised if in the next version of XBox it will act as a home router... that's also a cable box... that has some type of .NET services to recieve data and voice. Goodbye baby bells and local cable... hello MS providing everything through a convergence device.

    Am I being realistic... prolly not. But basically that's why every company from Motorola to a bunch of small start-ups are trying to get into the home, so they can be a one stop shop for all your communication needs.
  • OFFTOPIC, but I can't help it...

    Who needs some puny set top box when the new iMacs are floating around out there...

  • Please let them support HDTV. Time Warner in my area has several HDTV channels and I also use a TiVo. This gets complicated since TiVo doesn't understand HDTV so I have to switch back and forth and don't get full use out of it anymore.

  • More bass-ackward thinking from geekland. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by -=[ SYRiNX ]=- ( 79568 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @02:46PM (#2799795) Homepage
    When geeks think something is cool, they foolishly assume everyone else will agree. Building a personal media library is a geek-born idea. Average people just want low-cost media on demand.

    Science fiction always depicts instant media on demand for little or no cost; personal media libraries only exist for unique or personal content. There's no need for personal copies of centrally available media.

    Smart entrepeneurs realize this fact and are working toward two things: ways to stream media over the wire, and heavy-duty centralized servers. Personal digital video recorders or in-home servers are a temporary and weak solution that really only appeals to an expert minority of consumers.

    These devices will quickly become irrelevant once a reasonable media on demand solution is implemented. Building a new business around a dead-end concept is hardly a plan for success.

    • Re:More bass-ackward thinking from geekland. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by SteveM ( 11242 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @05:03PM (#2800801)

      There's no need for personal copies of centrally available media.

      Unless your ISP goes out of business. Anybody @Home?

      Or you're in an airplane at 30,000 feet. No use radio devices permitted, but feel free to use our $5 per minute GTE Airphone!

      I'm sure there are other examples. These two are ones I've recently experienced.

      Sure instant on, wireless broandband, with redundant servers, at an affordable price (hardware and service)would sure be nice.

      You're right, someday there maybe little reason to own personal copies of such thing. But that isn't today. Until then I'll be wanting a personal copy thank you.

      Steve M

    • Smart entrepeneurs are doing this because they can charge you for every time you want to view something for media on demand.

      And I sincerly doubt it'll be low cost. The cost of implementing these systems is tremendous. So far every single "video on demand" test has had the videos priced at the same or more than what it costs to go to a video store and rent them. The only plus is that you don't have to return them. But most systems don't have accomodations for pausing, rewinding, etc - although you can sometimes watch a movie as many times as you'd like in a given time frame.

      I also deeply question whether or not this is a "dead end concept". If you think it is, then you MUST be expecting all the networks to go belly up and for all TV shows to go to a pay for play scheme - no more networks, only data brokers. After all, who's going to pay for the next episode of Buffy, Junkyard Wars, or whatever? Not the advertisers, not when you can fast forward past or delete out the commercials. Frankly, expecting modern broadcast and cable delivery schemes to go out the window in the next 20 years is a pipe dream. Hell, we can't even transition to HDTV, much less some fantastic new delivery and payment scheme.

      Frankly, I love my TiVo's. They're the best thing that's happened to TV for me, well, ever. And everyone I show them to decides they need to get one sooner or later, because being freed from watching things when the networks want you to watch it is very, very refreshing.

      I think Moxie is an interesting move on the PTV front, and perhaps an ugly echo of things to come. Because the cable companies and content providers are way off the rocker - there's still no HDTV cable interface standard because now the cable companies are demanding the right to delete data off of ANY recording device hooked up to their stream, and the hardware makers are telling them to shove it. This is the first box I've seen that is confirmed to give cable companies that "right".

      • And I sincerly doubt it'll be low cost. The cost of implementing these systems is tremendous.

        Exactly. That's why it costs so much to make a phone call! Consider long distance, I have Sprint and I have to pay five cents a minute! I don't know how anybody can afford to make a call!

        While there are many things that the content, delivery, hardware, companies et. al. can do to screw this up I don't think cost will be one of them.

        There is an immense amount of money to be made by providing content on demand. But it is a non starter if users can't afford it.

        Maybe the players will let their greed and paranoia keep it from happening. They are certainly acting that way today. And yes they certainly haven't done a good job with the services they have been offered (MP3 pay services, video on demand, DIVX).

        But other pay services, (cable TV, internet service) have shown that people will pay for perceived value.

        Here's hoping they get it right.

        Steve M

    • Re:More bass-ackward thinking from geekland. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by GunFodder ( 208805 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @06:48PM (#2801383)
      Good point. The same could apply to computing. Who wants to have to maintain a complex computer themselves when someone else could do it for them? A heavy duty centralized "mainframe" could do all the heavy lifting and a relatively simple "terminal" could provide services that the consumer wants.

      The consumer could relax knowing that the provider will make sure that the service is always available and that all applications are secure and bug free. And the provider would be responsible for software installations and upgrades, as long as there was enough demand for them.
  • As someone who's been shopping HDTV's, satellite receivers, and Tivo type things, this sounds very interesting, but there is no mention of HDTV signals. It seems foolish to me to build something like this without handling HD signals. There are currently combo DirecTV/HD boxes, and DirecTV/Tivo's, but no DirecTV/HD/Tivo. This thing could have tried to fill that gap, among others, but it looks like they didn't. Guess it's mostly vapor and PR at this point anyway, so there's no point in getting depressed. :-(
    • And the market for HD is wha? 5000 units?

      I'd like something like that with HD capabilities too, but I suspect that they're trying to make a mass market item -- pitched to people with "normal" TV.

      Then again, that tactic might backfire: the kind of people who want a media server probably are likely to have HDTV receivers already (or at least a large fraction of them are).

  • I got a kick out of the following quote from the NY Times:

    January 7, 2002 The Battle of the Boxes: PC vs. TV By JOHN MARKOFF

    SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. 6 -- The rivalry between the PC and TV over which is destined to become the hearth of the home will take on new urgency on Monday when three prominent technology executives sketch out competing visions of their digital product lines.

    blah blah blah... here comes the good part:

    Mr. Perlman said that after Microsoft acquired WebTV for $425 million in April 1997 he had stayed and tried to refine the product until it became clear that Microsoft's principal interest was in ensuring that its Windows CE operating system was in the box rather than improving the consumer experience.
  • According to press release [realnetworks.com], they have partnered with Real Networks [realnetworks.com] as well. I assume all this means is that they will install a real player by default on the Moxi device as well. No great surprise since the only other popluar choice, Microsoft Windows Media players aren't ported to anything except a Microsoft OSes.
  • "due to licensing restrictions, remote DVD playback is not available in homes using wireless networking"

    So, you don't use their wireless hardware and put in a separate Access Point. Will these idiots never learn?
  • I just wish that I had a name like Mr. Perlman. Even Larry Wall would be envious!

    .
  • Am I missing something here? Companies are having trouble staying afloat manufacturing these devices (replay anyone?), and along comes moxi saying they will make money by liscencing this tech to other companies to manufacture? I quote:

    The company says it will offer the technology to cable operators at $425 US for a single-TV household, adding $250 to equip a second TV.


    So how is adding a 425 dollar liscence going to make these boxes sell? sounds like it'll just jack up the price to me.
  • They can name them ...
    'MoxiPad's!
  • Moxio uses Linux and they claim it was key to their ability to record and play multiple video and audio streams simultaneously. Pearlman said that they had improved boot speed and reliability. TiVo posted their changes to Linux kernel and toolset. Will Moxio do the same and give back to the community ?
  • Having recently been brought from the darkness of digital Comcast cable to the true light of the superior quality and better techonolgy of SAT receivers, I am looking forward to this unit hitting the market. I orginally thought my timing was wrong, last week switched from Dish to Direct TV with TiVO but it may work out just fine, another year from now this Moxie may be ready for prime time, and Dish will give it frree for a one year contract getting everything I had with digital cable for less ( with Dolby digital and a better quality picture). It's amazing; I used to walk around the electronic stores asking myself why people would spend money on high definition TV when using DVDs with progressive scan is the only realistic way to enjoy them - then I got the Dish saw what was available and even SaMS Club had the 6000 on display- with HDTV. I am not ready finacially for HDTV yet, but do want the the Dolby Digital stations and personal video recorder.

    Right now the TiVO is considered the best, but that may change with the introduction of the Moxie. Of course we can't rule out Sony and the PS2 - it has everything there and Sony has the license, the linux and the TiVO software, it would not be too great a feat for Sony to add everything to the PS2 via a hard drive and new input device for Dolby Digital signals.

    Forget cable TV, they are more worried about providing cable modems then keeping up with home entertainment. This is working well for them now,with their monoply power of the cable, but as wireless setups such as that being introduced by Earthlink in Atlanta come on the scene, the need for cable modems will drop, and those wanting newer, better home entertainment will leave the cable monoplies for higher quality.

    favorite quote from New York Times article:

    " Mr. Perlman said that after Microsoft acquired WebTV for $425 million in April 1997 he had stayed and tried to refine the product until it became clear that Microsoft's principal interest was in ensuring that its Windows CE operating system was in the box rather than improving the consumer experience."

    That sums it up very well, few people these days are trying to improve the consumer experience, most are just working to protect their monopolies.That goes for the cable compainies as well as Microsoft.

    Of course those individuals that never experienced any of this will have no idea what I am talking about, much like the old ibmpc user that is not aware of the new techonology in computers , many here have never gone beyond basic tv and have no idea what they are missing.You can spot them right away, so far behind they talk with complete follish babble, they think they know more becasue they are up on PC technology - but it is a different ball game in home entertainment...

Slashdot Top Deals

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein

Close