Windows 8 (& 8.1) vs DLNA 1.5

I disagree - if you look at the specification carefully, most of these make sense, e.g., DMP-05, where it stands to reason that a device designated as a player (a control point + renderer) should pass state variables such as volume out to other network subscribers [because it consumes this information itself, so there exists no excuse not to proffer it to other network devices]. Many of these things are common-sense changes that benefit the end user.

I think you're not understanding the spirit of a document like this, which is effectively a mea culpa of things which haven't been right with Windows DLNA implementations for a long time, and that are being resolved in hopes of re-claiming some of the lost market share for Media Center-type devices.

Lastly - keep in mind that DLNA is effectively a smaller footprint of the overall UPnP AV specification, intended to speed the adoption of UPnP AV features within a certifiable size. Having designed a few UPnP / DLNA / OpenHome control points over the last few years (and devices to consume / be consumed by them), I see this as a very good step for MS.

Standards are a good thing when they make better products and experiences, and a bad thing when they are poorly defined or rigidly adhered to for lack of a better purpose.

David,

I didn't say that DLNA 1.5 was the better specification, just that Windows 8 UPnP library routines don't comply.  Incidentally on that point, Req. DMP-10 will cause problems for any system using multiple DMRs from a single DMS.

The document isn't a mea culpa from the DLNA, it's a list of additional requirements above and beyond DLNA 1.5 that must be met by a device before Windows 8 / 8.1 (only) will play with it.  Ergo devices designed for the basic DLNA 1.5 spec probably won't work (rather than probably will work) with Windows 8.

This may be good for MS (licence / certification fees) but not for everyone else who doesn't want to, or can't afford to, pay their licence fees.  The correct approach would have been to work within the DLNA to improve the accepted standard, rather than create their own 'standard' and try to impose that on everyone else.  This is basically computer fascism with MS abusing their market position.

Microsoft doesn't have a market position anymore to abuse, nor are any fees required (to Microsoft, or anyone else) to implement UPnP or DLNA functionality. (For that manner, "there is no annual fee for basic membership in the UPnP Forum.")

The DLNA spec itself, IMHO, is a good start, but not fully sufficient on its own to address all of the features required for a complete market-facing consumer electronics product, full stop. One must consider the various MS-flavored "extensions" to UPnP that have largely become superfluous when looking at the changes proposed in the document you mention above.

As long as any required extensions beyond the DLNA standard conform to the UPnP AV specification, where does the problem lie?

Microsoft still has a dominant position for the desktop and laptop OS market (reports of it's death have been greatly exaggerated).

DLNA do not charge fees (good).  Microsoft charge fees to certify compliance with Windows 8.x (without this certification the device may not work, even if it is compliant with all the rest of the additional UPnP requirements and the additional proprietary non-DLNA requirements MS has for renderers).

Agreed.

But adding proprietary requirements that are not included in the DLNA optional specifications and which can only be implemented by paying fees to one specific manufacturer, makes things worse not better.

The document I mention is the Microsoft extensions NOT a DLNA proposal document.  To have Req. META-01 as mandatory is contrary to the letter and principle of both the DLNA and UPnP specifications and turns the Microsoft specification into a proprietary licenced specification.

This proprietrary specifications requires an additional proprietary interface not documented in either the DLNA or the UPnP specifications to be implemented

This is proprietrary as

1  The Microsoft interface contract specifies a proprietary format for the device metadata

2   It requires that the product be certified by Microsoft and that the product's metadata be held by them (a paid for service).

Thus:

Windows 8.x cannot be considered DLNA 1.5 compliant.

Windows 8.x cannot be considered UPnP compliant in respect of AV or Audio renderers.

There is where the problem lies.

Incidentally interface the implementation for Windows 7 left all those REQs as optional - this implementation was DLNA 1.5 compliant and many more devices worked OK with it!

OK guys - lets cut to the bottom line & in words of one syllable that yer average audio nerd can understand - I am about to replace my laptop & the new one will have Windows 8-point-something. 

What will happen to my audio ??    

Can I download to Windows & then drag/drop into NAS

Can I edit file titles in Windows explorer

Can I use dBpoweramp including tag edit via Windows

Mike,

All those are File operations and don't involve UPnP

They will all work fine.

Posted as a separate answer to keep it clear.

Using a DLNA control application on Windows 8.x (e.g. Windows Media Player) will only work with Windows compliant audio devices.

A minority of DLNA 1.5 devices will be controlled OK with Windows 8.1, but this is a pretty random selection.  (I know it doesn't include the ND5 XS - that can be controlled from Windows 7 but not from Windows 8 or Windows 8.1.)

That's not correct, it's up to the application to support what it supports (DLNA functions as a minimum, additional services as specified). Windows Media Player upon Windows 8.1 (or later) is one thing, but fear, uncertainty and doubt about anything else is unwarranted....

I believe your concern is valid IFF one cares about Windows UPnP / DLNA functionality as provided out of the box in the guise of Windows Media interfaces, or devices which have been developed to utilize the proprietary Microsoft extensions (fewer and fewer). But I know very few people who fall into this user scenario at all, and yes, fewer people who give a toss about Windows Media at all.

I sketched out a proprietary UPnP / DLNA / OpenHome controller for an unnamed client for Windows Phone / Windows RT, and found no problems porting base code from one platform to another. You're making a bigger deal of this than is required, Huge.

...and as for Windows dominance, I'd respectfully point to all of those Android and iOS phones and tablets out there as proof that that raft has sailed.

Funny thing is-I hear more pro-Microsoft rabble from folks in the UK than I do over here (including ex-MS developers I work with) - better product marketing team over there? Or simply behind the times?

Apple rules the consumer space - at least the niche that we inhabit here.

Msft is still healthy and will make a comeback with windows 10. I doubt, however they'll make inroads into the apple market segment.

Room enough for both in the market.

It will work

Yes
Yes

Yes

I do all of this.

If you bypass the higher levels of the Windows system libraries and go direct to the core networking routines, then you can make it work assuming that no conflicts then occur.

I don't know if Windows Phone or Windows RT actually makes the checks (8 does always, 8.1 makes some of the checks).  Windows 7 doesn't check and works better.

The principle remains Microsoft should keep within existing standards or seek to modify them through the recognised body, instead of seeking to pervert them for their own ends.  Alternatively they could be honest and admit that they have produced their own unique standards that are incompatible with everyone else (much in the same way that Apple does).

Incidentally it's not just Microsoft's DLNA applications that fail on Windows 8.1, Kinksy is also affected by this.

Perhaps here there are a greater proportion of people interested in serious original content creation than you have, hence a lot of interest in laptops and desktops as well as the Android and iOS gadgets for content playback.

Really? Is that an assertion you really want to make?

Furthermore, UPnP AV / DLNA has much less to do with content creation than content consumption, which is why we're here. Content-creation platforms are one thing; daily-use and consumption platforms, another entirely (and almost certainly dominated by embedded Linux / Android at my best guess)....

In terms of power Android/IOS phones/tablets don't come close to the power of Windows boxes, so is that a valid comparison?  Try running something like Audacity on an iPad.

I remember back in the days of CP/M people used to argue about the best processor, the Zilog Z80 or the Intel 8080.  But the biggest selling processor at that time was a TI 4-bit jobby used in various devices.  I remember this because at that time I used to write code for said 4-bit processor but although it outsold the Z80 and 8080 I would not have compared it to them.

You implied one possible reason as to why the Windows OS was in extensive use over here, I suggested another possible reason.  I asserted nothing.

Perhaps there are other cultural differences, both Mark Twain and H. G. Wells certainly thought so; and I seen no reason to argue.

On the majority of days, I use a computer for content creation at some time.  It's annoying that I can't use one of them to run a control point meeting the DLNA standard, just because my DLNA compliant renderer doesn't meet Microsoft's proprietary standard.  That's all.

Use a different / better control point - or write your own!

It's not about processing power (rather, power consumption), nor is that necessarily a feature of Windows itself (the same boxes could easily run Linux), but ubiquity (in the specific case of consumer electronics) is everything.

What does that mean?   Just because I don't see people walking down the street carrying a desktop to use to talk to their mates does not mean that Windows is finished, as you maintain.  The uses for Windows boxes is very different from IOS/Linux phones/tablets and that difference stems from the fact that we are running more powerful hardware.  If you ran Linux/ios on a really powerful 8-core i7 with gallons of memory it would still only be as useful as it is now, just a bit nicer to use.  But in the future when the hardware powering the average tablet has increased by an order or two of magnitude they will have evolved extra functionality.  So processing power is everything.  I remember some years back a student on a 1st year IT unit pulled me up because I would keep saying "that doing something this way or that way will make it quicker."  "Why does everything have to be quicker, with you it is always speed.  Why?" he asked.  I was a bit taken aback, the answer seemed obvious to me and I hope it does to you.

Furthermore I think us behind-the-times people over here do realise the power of ubiquity and of course we do understand that power consumption is important.  You don't want your smart-phone to burn your bum, do you?

That's exactly the ticket - the more control you have over your own code, the less likely that you'll run into platform issues. I've had no problems with Kinsky on Windows 8.1 to date, though....

There will always be some Windows Enterprise-level deployments. There will be fewer Windows desktops, and certainly far fewer Windows Embedded devices.

There are lots of Linux-based enterprise deployments (this site is one of them), there are more Linux desktops, more OS X desktops (who'd have guessed), and many more embedded Linux devices.

Enterprises make decisions based on ROI, not fashion. If the investment in Windows enterprise-level deployments ends up being more trouble than it's worth (especially in the SMB market), changes will take place. And they have.

To the point of this thread - there are now many more UPnP AV / DLNA devices out there that possess no Microsoft DNA in them at all, which will continue to work regardless of what the future holds for Microsoft. As a consequence, it has become tremendously important for Microsoft to bring their AV interoperability standards closer to the mainstream, which is certainly happening with devices such as the Xbox One.