Leaving connectivity off because it will only support old technology is not a great way to promote customer loyalty.
I'd agree with this. But I'd also propose that "Leaving connectivity off because it will only support
NEW technology is not a great way to promote customer loyalty."
Great point. Both are certainly true. That's why there must be a balance, with support for both old and new tech. Inevitably, new tech probably deserves a significant share of the available resources, but going too far in either direction can be detrimental.
Why does network media suddenly need to be integrated into the processor? Why wouldn't it be just as well served by someone producing a good quality, robust standalone source device?
It seems to me like this statement contradicts the stuff above. Why not replace "network media" with "HDMI" --
"Why does HDMI suddenly need to be integrated into the processor? Why wouldn't it be just as well served by someone producing a good quality, robust standalone upsampler/video-converter/video-switcher?"
Why
does HDMI have to be integrated?
Just kidding. In the case of HDMI, we need it in the processor because it's carrying audio - specifically lossless multichannel audio for which there is no other industry-supported digital connection available. Frankly, even before HDMI took root, surround receivers and processors had already evolved to provide both audio and video switching, so HDMI's presence basically reinforced that trend.
I think we can all agree that a network media server is a (nascent) source of audio & video. The internet is also a source, although less defined, with zillions of standards, and even more proprietary stuff.
One of the nice things about DLNA is that it is a standard -- in much the same way that HDMI is a standard. The quality of the DLNA standard isn't up to where HDMI is today. But it's probably about where HDMI was at version 1.0 (but with more interoperability issues, due to crappy software vendors and little formalized testing).
I don't see much difference between saying "We should support HDMI (1.4) because it's a new standard" and saying "We should support DLNA (version whatever) because it's a new standard".
DLNA is a pretty widely used standard, but it is a
source standard. Blu-ray is a standard. DVD is a standard. I don't want them integrated into my surround processor. As you note, DLNA support can be a rocky road. My point in suggesting that network media capabilities may be better served in a separate chassis is that it fits well with the processor's strengths in managing sources. Certainly not everyone agrees with me, as a number of manufacturers have embraced DLNA and other network features as a great way to separate their products (receivers, Blu-ray players, and TV's) from the rest of the market.
I think there are perfectly reasonable arguments for why NOT to support DLNA. However, I don't think that saying it's not future proof is a good reason. With that same argument, you should say that it shouldn't support HDMI, since (as you said) there have been 5 versions in the last 7 years. BTW, there have been fewer version of DLNA in the same time period.
I'm less worried about DLNA support in a processor being "not future proof" than I am in it being "not robust enough to justify itself." As you say, HDMI is a perpetual gamble because they make it a moving target. Technology is always moving, so even if HDMI doesn't roll out a new version next year we still have the potential for some other emerging tech to come roaring in. We each have to decide when it is the right time for us to make a purchase as we travel along that ever-changing technology landscape, and designers have to figure out the best point at which to lock in their feature lists and move forward. If the Model 998 could include a
really fabulous network media tool, that'd be great. I'd change my tune - for that specific implementation. If the options were merely average DLNA support (at some cost premium) or no network media support at all (without the cost premium), I'd lean toward the latter.
So, good reasons NOT to support it:
- Too much work to get reasonable schedule/quality/price-point
- Not enough user demand.
- The oracles tell you that DLNA won't be around in a few years
But that said, I think there is user demand (I want it!), and my oracles tell me it'll be around for a while.
However, I can still totally understand a decision that it will be too complex & costly.
I agree with you that DLNA's going to be around for a while, as are some various flavors of streaming content (Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, Amazon, etc.). Demand will certainly be there for these. If anything, it will presumably grow. My main reason for being leery of network media support in a processor is your first reason: it seems likely to be cost and time prohibitive to develop a truly robust solution, leading to something that feels too much like an afterthought or "me too!" sort of feature.
Previous Topic
Index
