04.18.2007 — Media Center has an identity crisis, and if Microsoft isn't careful the concept could fade into oblivion. When Microsoft launched Media Center Edition (MCE) in 2003, we knew exactly what a "Media Center" was: a PC with a TV tuner and other mandated features that would affirm the machine's fitness as a home entertainment hub.

Today, now that Media Center software is included in virtually all new consumer PCs sold (Vista Home Premium and Ultimate), it appears anyone that sells Vista computers can claim (speciously) to make "Media Center PCs," even when those PCs are meant to be used as regular old desktops.

And if all PCs are "Media Center PCs," then the Microsoft-branded platform loses its relevance. We need a new designation for Media Center PCs that are truly meant to be entertainment machines.

This issue became patently clear when the folks at HP begged me to change a headline on a recent blog that originally read, "HP Exits Media Center Business." Spokespeople insisted that the company only dropped its Digital Entertainment Centers (DEC), the Media Centers that look like A/V components and are meant to serve as entertainment machines. But HP was still selling lots of other Media Centers, they asserted.

Theoretically, yes, HP is selling "Media Centers" because it is selling a whole lot of Vista PCs.

The Meaning of Media Center

But when is a Media Center not a Media Center? The answer: When it is built primarily to serve as a productivity machine; when it looks like a regular PC; is laden with the same junkware that cripples regular PCs; shares retail shelf space with regular PCs; chugs and hums like regular PCs; and comes preset for regular PC use--with hibernation modes, background beeps, automatic updates and other entertainment-sapping "features" enabled by default. (It can take hours to ready a "Media Center PC" for use as an entertainment hub. See Optimizing Media Center: Stripping it Down, Setting it Up.)

A real Media Center PC is one that is stripped of junkware, preconfigured for entertainment applications, flush with TV tuners, quieter than the TV itself, bundled with a decent remote control, and backed by a tech support staff that understands audio, video and other media-centric disciplines. And, of course, it doesn't stand like an awkward tower alongside a stack of CE components.

I won't push it, but it would be nice also if the Media Centers came with CableCard compatibility, easy integration with high-def DVD players, and a universal remote or software accommodations for two-way control and communications.

Of the big brands, only Sony (XL3) and Alienware (Hangar 18) are mostly there. Scores of niche providers including national firms and local PC builders do an even better job, but they're having the darndest time getting authorization to build CableCard-enabled machines. (No, I'm not blaming Microsoft.)

Here's an idea: Intel is trying to bring value to its Viiv-branded Media Center platform, and AMD is attempting the same with Live.

How about bestowing these imprimaturs on "Media Centers" that meet some basic requirements centered on form factors and software configuration? How about putting a Viiv or Live logo only on products that are meant to be enjoyed via the celebrated 10-foot interface?

Microsoft has put a lot of time and money into the development and subsequent improvements of Windows Vista Media Center. I am concerned that development will slow if Sony and Alienware falter in their Media Center initiatives, and if other major brands like HP go their own proprietary ways.

I'm concerned also that we haven't seen any movement in Pika, one of the most important developments in the Media Center ecosystem.

Pika is the platform that is supposed to enable third-party developers to build Media Center Extender functionality into their own products, like TVs, DVD players, power management devices, whatever. But we've seen nothing except for Microsoft's own Xbox 360, which is costly, loud and awkward-shaped. Where are the Extenders?!

People won't buy any extenders if they're not using Media Centers as media centers, and people won't use Media Centers if they're not built for the cause.

And, in my opinion, only Media Centers built for the cause deserve the Media Center moniker.