@lindsay.at

In the course of hanging out on the ZFS discussion list, I've developed a healthy paranoia for the safety of my data. Hard disk drives fail all too easily nowadays, and I know it's a matter of time before another major data-loss event, especially since my family's large media collections are being held on single external hard drives prized more for their attractive cases than for their reliability.

I found out a had a few hundred pounds left on my consulting account code at the university, and it's ideal for buying computer kit. I ran it past my Executive Producer (read: 'wife'), and she's also ready for redundant network-attached storage, having also looked into it for her job. I spent several days trying to figure out if I could build a solution myself based on OpenSolaris and ZFS, but ended up thwarted by form factor: I could find no cases that were compact as well as capacious enough for (at least) four hard drives.

So, I looked around, and it sounded like the Infrant ReadyNAS NV Plus is the unit to beat. As a UK supplier has a special on disks bundled with the unit, I put in an order right away.

But I wonder, what do I really want? I want flexibility and ease of administration. I want verifiable redundancy. I want ZFS. I also want something that will work seamlessly with my home network. I want something that understands Apple's protocols well. I want to be able to stop running iTunes at some point during the day, but still keep synching with my AppleTV. I want an integrated backup solution that works well with Apple's upcoming Time Machine feature in Leopard. I want something only Apple could provide.

The net is strewn with "Apple needs to provide this form factor or they won't get my custom" articles. I know that Apple's strength is in providing a simple, comprehensible product range that potentially serves a vast proportion of the populace. Still I wonder if an "iServe" could be coming. Consider:

• The AppleTV, iPhone, and the Airport Extreme (presumably running Darwin) are showing the way that Apple can expand their offerings while cashing in on the intellectual capital they've built up over the years of fine-tuning the full stack of Mac OS X. Add a little more sophistication with regards to storage to the Airport Extreme, and you have the basis of the device I'm envisaging.
• Apple has been building expertise and goodwill in the storage arena for years with the XServe RAID. It gets a fair amount of respect for that product from certain quarters. It won't be the first time Apple has tested a technology at the professional high end as a dress rehearsal for something in the consumer space.
• Apple has been very open about its efforts to port ZFS to Mac OS X/Darwin, and many have noted how ideal Time Machine would be as a GUI for ZFS's snapshot feature.
• The backup qualities of Time Machine only go as far as the reliability of the backup media, and external hard drives have had a sinking reputation for years. Building a reliable RAID NAS on ZFS would be a solution to a problem that people don't realise they have. You can now have faith in your backups, and serve all your home's or small workgroup's computers at once.
• Time Machine, as far as I understand it, seems to be rather storage-hungry (with snapshots, saving a copy of every version of every file that has existed on your computer from the day you install Leopard), and with the vast majority of Macs shipping with a single hard drive, that's a bit incongruous. Why should Apple sell you a software solution without providing the hardware or service to go along with it? This could be a sign for Apple to sell you something more.
• With iTunes moving into an increasing role as a media hub application, it makes bigger and bigger demands of the machine it runs on. With an AppleTV in the house, the ideal (as I use it) really seems to be 24-7 operation of the host computer, with iTunes always running. My Mac mini G4 has always been a 24-hour computer, but other people would like to send their iMacs to sleep once in a while. Seeing as iTunes serves multiple roles (media jukebox, media organizer, store front end, and a synchronizing/streaming server) at once, there's room for splitting off one of these functionalities into a lightweight server process that integrates with the iPod ecosystem more cleanly than the third-party daapd offered with RAID NAS products.
• There are NAS and RAIDed NAS products on the market already, and although they're gaining popularity, there are no dominant players. That's an opportunity for Apple to capture mind share with a new product. It's interesting that Netgear just bought Infrant, but Netgear still doesn't seem to be able to capture the public's imagination as Apple does.

RoughlyDrafted had a nice analysis of Apple's current NAS storage capabilities when it compared the new Airport Extreme with Windows Home Server. I think the Airport-as-NAS is just the thin end of the wedge for Apple, so here's what I propose:

• A 4- or 5-disk RAIDZ-capable array of disks
• AFP and SMB file sharing
• Printer sharing
• The server portions of iTunes
• Low power consumption
• Small form factor
• Simple administration through something resembling the Airport Assistant
• Possibly a gigabit ethernet interface (but certainly at least 100Mbit), for workgroups or direct connections
• Possibly USB and Firewire for direct connections

...and that's it. It could be a wireless (802.11 draft N) device, and could have router and wireless access point capabilities, but those would dilute the message on what this device is for: to serve and protect your files, reliably, quietly, and cheaply.

Everyone wonders when, with Apple. This is mere speculation: it may never happen. When could it happen, then? I would expect this sort of product to come in the wake of next year's Macworld Expo in January 2008, at the very earliest. I see the iServe as dependent on Leopard shipping, to help build the demand for the feature through Time Machine. It wants a major announcement to give it the time in the spotlight for the general populace to understand what it's for. That suggests Macworld Expo. As I've envisaged it, it's quite a boring, back-room product (which, we have to note, resembles the new Airport Extreme in 2007, which didn't even get a Macworld keynote mention), so an October release for the Christmas buying season would be inappropriate. I know that I could use this sort of product tomorrow, and would happily cancel my Infrant order to do so. That, I must acknowledge, is more wishful thinking than anything else in this article.

Any thoughts?

[I know I'm not the first to propose an iServe (though these couple links were found just after I finished the article). This is ultimately a revisiting of an idea that's been around for a while, with an idea on how Apple could make its mark on an emerging market category, and a survey of current developments with the Apple of 2007.]

Ars Technica's article, iPhone to be subsidized or not? We're getting dizzy trying to answer, is a bit more muddled than their usual coverage:

Will the iPhone be subsidized by AT&T or not? Yes? No? Maybe? Reply hazy, try again? The theories are all over the map, but recent reports say that the answer is "probably not."

I really had the impression that this was nearing resolution (or consensus) already. In learning about Verizon passing on the iPhone, we learned what Apple was after: a share of ongoing revenue from the mobile carrier's subscribers. It seems like a reasonable substitution for subsidies: what would normally be discounted from the up-front price is instead paid out to the hardware supplier. Why shouldn't we believe that's what Apple got from AT&T/Cingular? It makes sense for Apple, as:

• It protects the price point of the iPhone and the iPod, the relationship of which is very critical.
• Such price point protection allows Apple control across markets – iPhones are not going to be radically different in price between the US, UK, Germany, and South Korea due to different network providers offering different levels of subsidies.
• It gives Apple an ongoing revenue model to allow for new feature updates, in keeping with Sarbanes-Oxley (a point we learned about with Apple's 2007Q2 conference call).
• There's clearly no need for Apple to lower their price point to the consumer in order to garner higher volume: if this is like most other Apple product launches, supplies are likely to be constrained in the first couple months as production ramps up.
• Prices will drop, not at the rate of new phones (often halved within six months, at least within the UK), but at the rate of iPods (more like $50/year for the top-of-the-line iPod).

No, there's no way we can know for certain until the iPhone is launched, but I believe this is in keeping with the Apple we know: hacking an entrenched system to work to its own advantage. It can't get around the network carriers being the gatekeepers to its hardware, but it can tweak the existing model so that rather than cheapening its product, it gets even more profit.

When Apple's iTunes Music Store introduced video at 320×240 resolution back in October 2005, it raised a number of questions: how would it scale up? How could they manage movies at that paltry resolution? The iPod's video hardware is so limited, how could it even scale up to 640×480? All of the anxiety about complex solutions were laid to rest after Apple introduced the movies and a firmware upgrade that got a lot more performance out of existing hardware. I argue that similar things will happen in the transition to High-Def video for the Apple TV.

In answer to the above questions, a lot of theories were thrown around in the buildup to the much-rumoured and much-anticipated introduction of movies to the iTunes Store. Theories included having to deliver video at two different sizes and/or bitrates at once, or supporting preferences favouring mobile or high quality. All of them added unnecessary complexity to the simplicity of the iTunes store experience, and felt like a "kludge."

Apple's solution was simple: all videos would be delivered at a high-quality 640×480 maximum resolution, encoded with the H.264 video codec. The firmware on the fifth generation iPod was updated, and impressively so (from 900 macroblocks in MPEG-4 to 1200 with H.264 encoding), so no dual delivery formats were needed. Simplicity is maintained.

With the introduction of the Apple TV, and the accompanying hand-wringing about the relatively poor quality of 640×360 pixel movies shown on HDTVs, attention is turning to how Apple plans to deliver High Definition content to the Apple TV. I don't think the current iPods can be made to understand a high definition stream. While some may imagine a multiple format delivery scenario as predicted before the introduction of movies, I think Apple has another potential trick up its sleeve.

The technology is an extension to H.264, Scalable Video Coding (SVC), and it was scheduled to reach the Final Draft Amendment stage last week. Normally¹, that stage means that the standard is all but finalised; nothing but editorial changes are allowed. An aggressive company often can feel confident in releasing a product based on it if, say, they controlled the whole ecosystem around the product....

The idea around SVC is that you have a normal H.264 base layer, and you can add enhancement layers on top of it, whether they be spatial, temporal, or SNR enhancements. That means that you can improve the resolution, frame rate, and/or picture quality by adding additional streams to the base layer. Consider that the 640×360 standard 16:9 videos have half the pixels in each dimension from 720p videos with 1280×720. This is perhaps the most basic application of spatial scalability, but it's also very relevant. I find it very easy to imagine an additional "track" in QuickTime that fills in three additional pixels out of every four. If a computer (say, my G4 PowerBook) is incapable of handling the full high-def combined stream, it can conveniently fall back to the base layer.

So, in the context of the iTunes ecosystem, these multiple streams and the increased file size need not be delivered to the iPod: with iTunes as the designated hub, the enhancement stream could quite feasibly be stripped when syncing with the iPod. One download, both standard and high definition are there for the appropriate device.

The only thing I'm not sure of is how the audio scenario is going to play out. Encoding and delivering the AC3 (Dolby Digital) stream (as an alternative soundtrack) that most home theatres expect seems very inefficient. AC3 and AAC are kissing cousins, so one could hypothesize a bitstream-to-bitstream transcoding from 5.1 AAC to 5.1 Dolby digital to pump through the optical out, but it also seems unnecessarily computationally expensive.

So the how of High Def seems to have a fair shape. It's the "when" that isn't yet clear. In the punditry vacuum where product development is instant and QA is not a factor, it's feasible to push out updates right away. Strategically, it seems like "as soon as possible" is the answer, as well: a lot of people feel that the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray format wars aren't close to a resolution, and there's a window of opportunity for HD video downloads to become the preferred delivery medium.

On the other hand, Apple will want to do it right the first time. It's a radical enough change to necessitate a new version (perhaps version 8.0) of QuickTime, and a new version of iTunes as well. Would it accompany an announcement of movie downloads in Europe? Would it accompany the "true" widescreen Video iPod? Would it wait for the end-of-year Christmas cycle, when the Apple TV suddenly becomes the must-have accessory that is even more important than the iPod?

I don't know, but I'm keen to find out. I hope for "soon," but I suspect it'll closer to the end of the year.

[disclaimer: This blog entry is merely informed speculation. Although I have some old ties to MPEG, none of this is gleaned from privileged information. The only research I did of this was on public sites. If you follow this blog and past predictions I have made about Apple's products, you will already know not to lend me too much credence.]

[1] My experience with MPEG standards can attest to the fact that this isn't always true: I'll only say that things got complicated in the final stage of standardisation of the MPEG-7 Systems standard, and I personally pissed off a lot of people during one late Friday night's plenary.