Forced interaction
So how do MHP and W3C middlewares compare? In terms of processing power, a set-top-box will require approximately 100MHz of processing power to run Javascript or HTML and approximately 250MHz for MHP. But whether the leap in processing power required is justified by the performance of MHP is open to...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Cable & Satellite Europe no. 261; p. 1 |
|---|---|
| Format: | Trade Publication Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
London
Informa Telecoms & Media Group
01.09.2006
|
| Subjects: | |
| ISSN: | 0265-6973 |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | So how do MHP and W3C middlewares compare? In terms of processing power, a set-top-box will require approximately 100MHz of processing power to run Javascript or HTML and approximately 250MHz for MHP. But whether the leap in processing power required is justified by the performance of MHP is open to question. Woodward says: "MHP is tremendously complicated and expensive to adopt. It requires a Java Virtual Machine, which is memory and CPU-cycle intensive, and a complex piece of software [the MHP stack] on top. The challenge of MHP is that its technological approach means it is using a substantial proportion of its inherent performance just running the system before it does anything the user can benefit from." He adds: "With MHP typically when you request a service you have to wait for an application to download...[while] with [an embedded browser technology] the service is downloaded when you turn the machine on and stays there for much of the time the system is alive - the application is not downloaded on the fly." Operators, middleware vendors and software manufacturers are all working hard to create a standard for the provision of interactive TV - whether it is in the IP, cable, satellite or digital-terrestrial world. The central and most influential standard however continues to be MHP. The success of this (in its current state) however is still uncertain. MacAvock from the DVB is rather downbeat and attributes this to the health of interactive technology generally: "MHP adoption is closely linked to the adoption of interactive TV itself. The health of one relies on the health of the other. It would be fair to say that the health of interactive TV [and MHP therefore] is far from assured." However, with web standards and IPTV becoming more widely adopted (arguably making viewers 'users' rather than viewers of content) MHP and interactive technology might yet become as widespread as was predicted. Emmanuel Vigot, business development manager from software developer Philips, believes standardisation within the IPTV world is unlikely to be adopted yet for several reasons. Because IPTV operators are small and emerging he believes they will want to lock in end users with proprietary solutions. It is important in this emerging field to be the first to market. Therefore operators will not wait around while a standard is being created. With regard to Java-based MHP, Vigot believes the solution will be too expensive and server intensive for operators used to manipulating presentation engines and using Javascript. Peter MacAvock, executive director of the DVB, says: "Interactivity only really works within the pay-TV environment." This bodes well for IPTV in general, but it is also clear that MHP does not work so well within this environment. "There is currently no horizontal market [which co-exists with open standards solutions] for pay-TV set-top-boxes with the exception of DVB-CI in Germany," says Vigot. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0265-6973 |