[Contact the CyberMedia Group | Return to the CyberMedia Home Page | CyberMedia: 2001]

There has been much hype lately surrounding the question of TV vs. PC. Which platform will win as we move into the future of interactive information?

We think this is a pretty silly question. Users of interactive information will rely on a broad range of different devices. Both the PC and TV will certainly be important platforms, but there will likely be many other devices that will meet specific user needs.

A key challenge to the industry is to design information systems and products that are flexible across hardware platforms. The user should be able to "dial in" the hardware settings (display size, color depth, audio quality, and so forth) depending on the device being used.

The current rage in the interactive information industry is a question that seems to come up at every conference and trade show these days, one that's being fueled by some of the key players in the industry (namely Intel): Who will win, the PC or the TV?

We believe this is a pointlessóin fact sillyóquestion. A bit like asking if the microwave oven will win out over the refrigerator.

The question is not "Which platform will win?" but "Which is appropriate for a given use, a particular person, or a certain location?" "What do I need for a given task; when, where, and how will I use this device most productively?"

The answer is that there will be a vast number of "platforms" that will be available for accessing, modifying, and manipulating the world of digital information.

Think of it this way: if you're looking at stock quotes, you'll probably want to do so at your desk, using your computer in a den or office. But if you and your family want to enjoy an interactive travelogue or quiz show, you'll probably view it on a TV in the family room or living room. Both the PC and the TV will likely be the primary tools, but there will be other tools and scenarios as well.

If you're a salesman who wants to check inventory and at the same time have goods delivered to a customer siteóand also receive directions to your next client meetingóyou'd probably use a wireless, handhold device, kept in a pocket or briefcase. Or perhaps you'd use a device embedded into your car radio.

Consider also the idea that tourist information, presented as a multimedia walking tour, might be most effectively presented on a public kiosk located right at the tourist site. You'd use the kiosk to learn about Red Square, the Lincoln Memorial, or the Grand Canyon while actually at these locations.

Or think about how a travel guide might be built into an airplane seatback, providing an interactive multimedia tour of the area you're about to arrive in. Say you're flying into Sydney, for example, and are able to view a 20-minute tour of Sydney harbor, the Gold Coast, and the Australian outback just prior to landing.

The point is that there will be a whole variety of different devices or "boxes," used for various purposes according to the user's preferences and needs. Content will go wherever it wants to go, wherever it is most needed.

Thus, the key issue for information developers is to make information "scalable," able to adapt depending on the user's device, and portable. Information has to be architected in such a way that it support lots of different platforms (various display resolutions, audio quality, and so on).

The user should have the ability, from a single server and single set of video data, to "dial in" the resolution and color depth required by a specific device. For example, that same data that goes out as full-motion 640x480 MPEG for one device should also be available at 10-frames-per-second 400x300 resolution for a flat-panel on a handheld device. The point here is that a single device should not be responsible for setting the standard for information developers to use when creating what will be used on many devices. The network and architecture should be flexible enough to support all platforms, regardless of display size, color depth, audio quality, or whatever specification you choose.

The back-end to front-end architectures being designed today by the Microsofts and Oracles of the world will be more successful if they can hedge their platform bets. This does not mean lowest common denominator. Rather it means flexibility, modularity, and auto-scalability for multiple end-user devices.

Similarly, content developers using floppy disk, cartridge, and CD-ROM should begin to design products with online and/or interactive TV versions in mind. Each technology platform can and should be viewed as an alternate distribution channel for slightly different versions of the same content.

---

[ Return to top of article | BACK ]