Solutions definition:
Having established these basic use cases I turned my attention to solutions definition. In this my main concerns were:
1. Find a way to port the present product with maximum ease and maximum effect from
production and product development standpoints.
2. Find the best way to integrate DVD-V requirements.
3. Satisfy all use case scenarios.
4. Consider the long-term serial production requirements of the product.
This included a review of production environments/development platforms as well as media building or architectural methods.
From a product development standpoint, I knew enough to know that the DVD-V aspect would be completely separate from the ROM product regardless of architecture. Additionally, it seemed highly likely that Free Media would have a need for literally distinct product targeted to specific platforms. On the other hand, a product that unifies content for presentation on multiple players has obvious advantages. Having no intellectual problem with changing code pointers to data, I just charged along. The core issues had resolved to the ROM product pulling content from DVD and compatibility.
As far as production environments, the question was formally open for both ROM and DVD-V purposes. More practically, the use of Director for the present product gave it all the strength of the incumbent. It was clear to me from the outset, given the compelling reasons to stick with Director that any serious contender would have to offer compelling reasons to change.
Alternatives to Director ROM production:
A few solutions have built atop existing players such as Interactual's Player 2.0 , their deal with WindDVD or work done at large on Windows Media Player. InterActual's software works fine but is limited to PC. Although Windows Media Player 9.x for PC handles DVD content, V7.1 for Mac OS and 9.x for OSX don't. Quicktime and Realplayer don't yet support DVD. Steve Mendel (see Appendix C) has a player built with DirectShow controls (ActiveX, DirectX) which achieves broadcast quality play through Powerpoint (or any MS presentationware including IE) but it's an MS Office-based solution and the limitations of DirectShow controls on the Mac side are well known. None are accompanied by a development environment like Director which itself is supported by numerous third party plugins such as those which provide database connections (although tying to a database on the MS/PC side is possible). This made pretty short work of off-the-shelf competitors.
A good example of web-enabled DVD in mass distribution can be found described at http://player.interactual.com. I would consider this a competitor product.
MPG4 is supported by many software players. It's file container is based on but not compatible with Apple QuickTime. It features (among a great many other things) limited transport protocols for network content delivery and object-based video coding which raised the possibility of manipulation via objects embedded in the data stream AND undreamt of web capability. I'm aware of no proof of concept and cross-platform issues here are daunting indeed. We'd talking heavy duty development here, big ticket. The fact that set-tops don't generally support it makes it a moot point. This one bums me out. It's so close to being something really great. You might be able to embed the player application right into the content itself!
There is the possibility of inventing your own platform using O/O languages such as C++. Such a solution would be written in different versions (and require unique product support) for different OSs. This would be the heaviest solution in terms of R&D, development and testing. A successful product would make you Macromedia's competitor. The challenge of beating Macromedia at it's own game are daunting to say the least. No expert consulted (see Appendix C) has encouraged this approach. Some have done it, none continue.