Microsoft Watch points out that the future of the home entertainment hub is still in doubt inside Microsoft. As a decidated Tivo user, HD DirecTV subscriber, XBOX player, and multiple computer owner, I think I have a pretty good idea of what will make me drool and buy a convergence device in a heartbeat.

First, it has to do the DVR thing flawlessly. It needs to support HD, ideally it needs to work with either satellite or cable, but if it only does one it has got to do it perfectly. After that, there are some must have features:

1. It must allow me to stream recorded video to any suitably equipped TV in my house and the hardware for each additonal TV needs to be less than $100. Ohhh, and if its doesn't support multiple HD tuners (three would be the minimum), its a non-starter.
2. It should have integrated DVD recording capability and it would preferably allow that recording to happen in the background without me having to sacrifice real time TV or recording of TV.
3. Its connected to the Internet to get latest browsable type of information (news, weather, stocks, etc.) If it has an extensibility feature like the Tivo SDK, that would be awesome! Perhaps .NET?
4. It needs to have a detachable monitor and/or keyboard so that I can surf the web, play poker, whatever from my couch or when visiting the bathroom (the modern equivelent of taking a magazine to the bathroom). There should be a remote control interface from this mobile desktop along with a really good programmable multi-function remote.
5. It will support multiple monitors all serving different destops off this single device
6. If I am going to put all of my photos, videos, etc. on this thing, it sure as sh*t better come with an integrated, foolproof backup solution that even my Mom can run without thinking twice. And it better be as perfect restoring that info as well.
7. Other home server features like print sharing, VOIP hub, etc.

When I look at the DVR space, I see a natural leverage point for the PC. But the PC cannot loose its current value and if you want me to pay more for a PC it needs to do more than just be a DVR. That is why I think the idea of "Mira" type devices (anybody still remember one of the neatest ideas to be kllled by high prices and poor implementation) is a key feature. I don't really need multiple boxes with multiple CPUs, I need one box with multiple desktops that provides central storage.

About the only point of convergence that I really don't care about is having this "mondo" box also replace my XBOX. A gaming console, for me any way, is just that. A device to play games on.

All the technology to make this device is already out there. The toughest part is getting seemless integration with cable and/or satellite networks, with satellite seeming to be the bigger battle. Getting it to a reasonable price point is also a bit tough. I had high hopes for Media Center, but it doesn't seem to be moving fast enough to take me away from my Tivo, especially as a satellite HD watcher. I will be interested to see what comes from the UCentric-DirecTV deal since this seems like a large part of the solution I am looking for. It won't replace my PCs, but it does seem to meet most of my DVR requirements.

That's right, I will be presenting at the Iowa .NET User Group this Wednesday night (Feb 2nd, 2005). The topic will be an ASP.NET 2.0 Overview and I will have my killer giveaways in tow. If you are in the Des Moines area, swing on by.

Wow, Kent Tegels lists his new categories on his blog. I am humbled by his extensive list. It also goes to show that Kent is a Guru of the Ninth Order since he will without a doubt provide value in each category. With that as a measure, it is probably a good thing I keep my category count as low as possible.

Seems that the open source folks don't like the proposed terms of the licensing agreement Microsoft has put forth as part of the settlement with the EU. I have no problem with the general concepts behind open source. If folks want to give their work away for free, that is fine. I don't agree with it from a philosophical standpoint, but to each there own.

What I really don't understand, however, is how these folks feel they are some how entitled to enforce their concepts of business practices on others. Per the article, the open source folks feel that they should not have to adhere to a per license royalty structure because they give their stuff away. Per license royalties don't match with their business model. This would be similar to me going to Subway and saying, "Hey, I prefer all you can eat buffets, and as a result, I am going to pay you for one sandwich but you just keep making as many as I feel like eating." If Microsoft says anyone can license our stuff as long as they pay for each copy they distribute, then I think the open source folks better start finding a way to pay up or else they shouldn't license the software. Put up or shut up.

Of course, I am sure that if Microsoft came out with some modified version of the agreement that gave the option of charging some huge lump sum of money instead of per distributed copy, the open source folks would howl about how they were being discriminated against due to the higher cost even though it fit better with their model. Apparently, the open source folks are all about freedom of choice, as long as the choice is offered on their terms. Hmmmmm.....

CNET reports that the EU was none to happy with Microsoft's proposed name for the stripped down version of Windows - "Windows XP Reduced Media Edition". Personally, I think we could have come up with something better but I like the attitude the name represents.

Some better names might include:

- Windows Media Free

- Windows Light

- Windows Not So Much

- Windows Almost As Good As That Windows Over There

-Windows EU Version

- Windows Short Bus Edition

I am sure all five SlickThought readers could come up with even more names.

An excellent post by Brad Abrams detailing the C# coding guidelines used at Microsoft. Easily adaptable to other .NET languages.

John Dvorak muses on the possibility of Google producing their own browser, and possibly their own hardware/software platform. Looking at the browser idea first, I think it only makes sense. Google is clearly one of the big stops for most people on the Internet, so it makes sense to extend the power and profit potential of that platform via a custom interface. By using Mozilla, Google ensures a good non-Google web experience and then can up-level the Google experience. I see this as particularly appealing to the AOL crowdb which only sticks with AOL because of the way AOL provides a familar starting point. Now Google can do the same thing and differentiate itself from other portal efforts like My MSN. Netscape tried something similar though to a lesser degree, but didn't succeed. I think Google holds a better chance since the earlier Netscape efforts were hampered by the mere fact that the Internet was new and still a novelty to many people rather than a way of life.

Now the Google Box idea is a cloudier proposition. What exactly will this box do? If it is just a glorfied browser/email client, it probably will not fare much better than other Internet appliances - at least in countries well on their way to a digital lifestyle. To really be viable in these markets, the box needs to do more than just connect to the Internet. Digital photos, movie watching, home finance, etc. are all things my mom does, and as the benchmark for someone that uses a computer a lot but doesn't have a clue about how they work or how to fix them, the Google Box would be a non-starter unless it can match what she does with Windows today.

In emerging markets, the simple Google Box idea may have a lot of traction. And it may in established markets if it offers similar functionality. Low cost Linux boxes have not taken over the market to date, however, so I don't see the Google brand doing a lot to change that. Maybe so, but its not a gimmie by any stretch.