There's a long thread at http://www.readynas.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24546 where at least Netgear and Buffalo devices are reported as not working with the KDL40W4500.

The most illuminating comment seems to be at the end where there's discussion as to the same NAS devices working with a PS3 and the comment Sony apparently makes as to this disparity...

I must say that this has put me off purchasing a Sony LCD - the 40W4500 was previously at the top of my list...

X.400 failed because everyone implemented differing, incompatible subsets of the standard but they all passed the relevant subsets of the interoperability tests and that was enough to certify the product as compliant.

Kudos to the drive manuf for pulling out the stops in trying to diagnose the problem.

I am amazed that Sony did not even respond - they must realise that by ignoring the issue only fuels the tinfoil hat brigade.

Having said this, I suspect the TV will only talk to other Sony products or products that implement the specific subset of the standard that Sony have decided to implement. Once more the certification process will allow products that implement different incompatible subsets of the standard - allowing the big manufs to get away with being standards compliant and incompatible with cheaper products at the same time.

I am afraid this is how the standards process works.

The general rule seems to be don't buy Sony unless everything you own is Sony.

A bit obvious to say, but this is just not good enough.

If the DLNA organisation are running a compliance program and they are (via the manufacturers) sticking "DLNA compatible" stickers (or whatever it is they do) on stuff then THEY (the DLNA organisation) should take responsibility for this. It's mis-selling which is a basic breach of sales-of-goods rules in most of the world.

Any fule doth know that.

Especially any olde fule (like me) wot is olde enough to remember the early days of OSI networking (MAP, and TOP, and all that). Say mid 1980s, for the younger readers here.

You could happily connect two "certified conforming" app+network stacks together with a very reasonable probability that they wouldn't actually interoperate in any meaningful way.

Fortunately (?) this kind of problem applies to various kinds of mixed networks, not just OSI ones.

Those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it (or summat like that).

From bitter experience I would say that at best DNLA support is pants.

I've struggled to get Windows Media Player to consistently talk to my PS3, and likewise with Google's media server. Timeouts, missing media, a whole host of problems.

The only product that's actually worked for me is 'PS3 Media Server' which despite it's name, isn't just for the PS3, and it's a one man and his dog outfit that seems to actually know how to write software.

SMB? Pull the other one it's got a vulnerability on it.

Seriously though, SMB is proprietary and MS will not provide documentation. Sure things like SAMBA will work with it (up to a point) but there is no guarantee they will work with future versions because MS could change the protocol. The industry is quite right to avoid using a proprietory technology for which they would need to pay license fees.

I'm sure MS would love to have the oportunity to insist on a Windows client license for every home media device. I am equally sure that buyers would object to paying the license fee.

Interconnectivity standards must by definition be open and vendor agnostic. Their management must also be completely independent of any single vendor.

Speaking of which it appears that there's one manufacturer here who are playing fast and loose with DNLA compliance in order to try to up their market share. And I would expect no less of them, lovely people that they are with history of caring and sharing. Ahem.

First off I am a BIG DLNA supporter. The certification process is not perfect but they are continually making improvements; not all certified products can be tested against all other certified products. The use of DLNA certified products is not a guarantee that they will interoperate but that there is a much stronger likely hood that they will versus using any two other products that have not passed certification; just as this case proves. The Iomega is not certified and the DLNA does not allow products to use the term compliant or compatible just for such reasons. Oh and by the way UPnP is part of the DLNA product requirements, not a different one.