Same thing we do every night Pinky, Plot to TAKE OVER THE WORLD!

Every couple of years someone comes up with a daring plan to have one system take over and become the ubiquitous backbone of a market or function.   MIDI laid claim to something like this for several years in music and interface automation. Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) has continued to fight for complete dominance of the device configuration arena, despite several Bill Gates Blue Screen failuresat live events.  IEEE recently announced the formation of working committees to formulate content over CAT 5 standard.

HDMI has announced – (admittedly, this was announced in January but it is still relevant and moving forward) plans to present HDMI not just for content delivery of video and audio but to act as the data backbone as well.  It is an interesting attempt to grow the usefulness of HDMI and insure its necessity in any wired home; and, of course, fulfill their plans to take over the world!

 The pursuit of one system that does-it-all over a single cable or methodology can be almost spiritual in function, acting as if in recursion, much like the mythical  Ouroboros, forming a constant state of eternal return.  In such cases the apparent limitation and exclusivity are, in actuality, inspiration to development and open new pathways of innovation.

There is also a danger in allowing a single technology to be the medium for all content. Kevin Kelly recently wrote a fascinating and captivating commentary on the Ted Kaczynski\ Unabomber treatise.  In life as well as technology there always exists the danger of over reaching the purpose and function of a topology or medium, winding up like Bellerophon , wandering alone.

At its barest form the concern stems from the debate of centralized vs. distributed control and memory.  Is it best to store values in the processor – (centralized) or to store them in individual units being controlled?   The arguments on both sides carry a great deal of validity and detriment in application.
 
In the Case of HDMI, One has to question if it has the data rate room for 1080p Deep Color (which requires a data rate of  6.7Gbps) and full Ethernet data?  The better question is just what would have to be given up to accommodate the addition of Ethernet backbone topology?  Would CEC have to go away? This would not be such a bad thing as nearly no one actually uses it those who do appear to have only conceived of this as a single source to display concept.  I am unclear, and the press releases does not attempt to answer, just what would have to give, (if anything), In order for this to be accomplished.

 Given HDMi’s severe limitations on cable distance one would have to presume that some manner of CAT 5 solution or converter will be necessary, especially if it is intended for retrofits.  The proposition leaves many who are building HDMI distribution products without an eye towards this latent but present capability suddenly tagged as legacy. For those who designed with an understanding of just what HDMI is, and will be, capable of  the world just may be their oyster.

Update: 2-25-09

Ah, the things twitter can show you.  This morning I opened up my twitter account ,my http://twitter.com/TuckerTues and not the http://twitter.com/CresrtronHQ , and find an endgadget article on the DiiVa connector which claims   

"Forward channel video speeds of 13.6 Gbps provide plenty of room for 1080p and higher resolutions with Deep Color, plus the two-way connection at up to 2.25Gbps that can simultaneously handle multichannel audio, control or other data"

http://tinyurl.com/akh6ep

BrundleFly?

One has to wonder if the quest for wireless HD distribution is more closely related to the Philosophers Stone then Grand Unified Theory at this point.   A friend of mine compared this to eating a cake by saying 'you never know if its going to taste good until you eat it, and then its too late.  A lesson in confections from the kitchen of Mrs. Schrodinger indeed.

Wireless HD distribution is something I would install in the blink of an eye, were I confident it would\could work reliably in both speed and location. My home is not new, not nearly new, not was new to my father  in his youth; in fact my home is just barely considered new by the strict definition of antique. While spacious and accommodating my 1901 colonial home still has walls of 1x3's and lathe under plaster. I spent a good portion of my formative childhood tearing down just such walls in the numerous homes we lived in to rebuild and update. I know just how difficult it is to retrofit these homes with modern wiring without planning a complete renovation. It is not a task I look forward to with any pleasure. 

 I also have years of experience working with wireless systems of all sorts and know full well the fragility of the connective infrastructure.  RF transmission of media can be summed up simply  - Wireless transfer of data is the most convenient method yet developed, it is also the most inconsistent and unreliable form ever put into operation. (I think this statement has a very Mark Twain lilt to it and given his relationshipp with Tesla quite possibly attributable to him in an alternate Universe).

The EE Times has published, as part of a year end 'Hot Technologies to Watch for in 2009, an eye opening article on the the relative stasis HD home distribution over RF has exhibited. In the article 'Not getting the big pictures(s) yet', the EE Times editors describe 802.11n as 'troubled', UWB as a 'failure' and the 60GHz as '...too immature...'.  

So, why pursue an RF HD distribution model?  HDMI has some notorious short falls when it comes to whole house distribution which include but are not limited to cable length and physical connectors. It is a market that has huge potential to make redundant  an entire category of cable and distribution.  Trouble is what we have currently and for the near term results in an end video more BrundleFly then Seth Brundle. 

I suppose I should take a deep breath, thank my mother for having the forethought to prepare me for this moment and  with wrecking bar in hand begin the process of renovating to run wire.

When the bomb goes off there'll be a thousand mutations! Andromeda will spread everywhere! They'll never be rid of it!

Jesse James -( the custom motorcycle maker, not the 1800's outlaw)- has a tattoo on the palm of his hand which reads 'Pay up Sucker' around a $100 bill. Why? because even in his small specialized client base there are people who want his services for free. When viewed from the perspective of individual businesses against an industry the effect appears insignificant, take a macro view and free can be a killer.  Philippe Bradley  (who writes in sheer genius form) made me aware of the 'freevirus' concept in a post on Fred Wilsons blog  in a post entitled "Triangulating For Insight"

Using Darwinian evolution as a metaphor for Venture Capitalists’ role in developing startup companies, Mr Bradley introduces the concept Freevirus coming about when startups who have a building subscriber base get attacked and usually destroyed by 'competing' services who offer free what the startup charged for. Once the virus is let loose it usually takes down all around it and in fairly short order begins to run out of hosts.  If a freevirus upstart manages to destroy or weaken the original hosts it must find something to sustain it - usually ads. The end result is less choice as the startups who had financial backing and an economic model for sustainability and innovation are killed off and the FV upstarts are thinned due to lack of sustainability.  (I cannot do the original post justice you must go read it).

And yet, it is the freevirus's action which brings in the mass market acceptance, draws in those beyond first adapters. As a service transitions from niche tool of the uber chic to general ubiquity the freevirus version suffers through the invigoration and stresses of meeting the demands and criticisms of users.  New tools are developed and added as suggestions and demands are stated. So, freevirus can often act in a symbiotic manner - for a short time. As my wife is fond of stating, "Oh Honey, nothing really comes for free...". 

Can freevirus be harnessed into a benign catalyst? Prior and current examples are inconclusive,

Microsoft floated the idea for a way to prop up the struggling Zune platform, with the expected backlash.

No Ads on my Zune please:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13526_3-9948849-27.html

.
One model is to provide services or content which the freevirus cannot match or have available.

Frustrating the Pirates:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/technology/17online.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

.

What does it mean when even the uber techies -(many of them VC's who struggle with this question)- balk at paying for the much heralded Twitter?

Will the Tweets pay for their Tweets? Nope.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9950085-16.html

Even large infrastructures cannot find the funding to keep subsidized toplogies up and running.

Say goodbye to Muni-Fi

http://www.infoworld.com/news/feeds/08/05/16/Say-goodbye-to-Muni-Fi.html

Why are we so averse to advertising which can subsidize content, keeping the cost low or free?   The legitimate Question of whether advertisers could have any direct control of content is a serious one. (No more clear channels please!).

 Why do so many insist that all content should be their right not a privilege to obtain?   

Why are you a freevirus carrier ?