@lindsay.at

After seeing the appropriate portion of the Macworld Expo keynote presentation by Steve Jobs, I have some thoughts about the revamped AppleTV.

First off, I'm pretty happy about it. I'm very pleased that the "version 2" is just a software upgrade. It was pretty clear that the original hardware was over-specced for what it did at the beginning, so I bought early with a lot of confidence that the hardware would last. (Subsequent teardown reports that suggested tiny margins on the hardware increased that confidence.)

It's interesting to note that the UK prices haven't changed. At £199 and £269, Apple is treating the UK AppleTV as a niche product. If you know you want it, you've probably already gotten it. As soon as movies are available internationally, then I would expect the price to go down a bit. You gotta have the blades ready to go, if you want to sell cheaper razors...

Looking at the demos available online, it's unclear where the "source" menu has gone. We have a 40GB unit, and when Rosemary or I are feeling in an aimless mood, we'll mount our 500GB iTunes library and browse that for inspiration. I worry somewhat that streaming from arbitrary sources might be compromised in the new software.

The store integration is very impressive, and very inviting. It's what's needed to make rentals work: highly visual, presenting a multitude of choices, and accommodating to impulse buys (or rentals). It looks like a model that all others should follow.

However, the AppleTV now appears to be little more than a portal for the iTunes Store. The menu system puts an extraordinary amount of attention on the Store, and pushes one's own content to the bottom. It seems odd that streaming content over the internet is given such priority after the first version: Apple's view always seemed to be, "Don't trust the internet's quality of service, but you can stream over the LAN." LAN-based content, as far as I can tell, seems to be hidden.

I always viewed Podcasts as a back door for (free) content onto the AppleTV. They are the "other easy way" to get content pushed (automatically) into the living room. Before, entering arbitrary URLs into iTunes (perhaps via a clickable itpc: link) was about equivalent to subscription via Apple's iTunes Podcast directory. Now, via the AppleTV, the iTunes store solidifies its position as an orifice to podcasts. It looks inviting, instantly gratifying, and well done, but it makes Apple more of a gatekeeper to free content.

The fact that high definition finally makes its appearance is exciting to me. It's not how I originally imagined it would be, but everything I've read suggests that SVC scalable video encoding isn't ready for prime time yet. It may make an appearance, once hi-def moves to a purchase model/off the AppleTV exclusively.

There has been some speculation on why hi-def is AppleTV only. Some think it might be due to piracy concerns by the studios, but I think there are technology reasons as well. For 5.1 surround sound, there is no reliable, universal way for Mac or PC users to enjoy content encoded that way. High-Definition video cannot be played out on any of the iPhone/iPod family, either, so simply placing that content into iTunes creates a confusing situation ("this content is not compatible with your iPod") for those much-beloved users. In other words, hi-def is AppleTV-only because the technology isn't ready to accommodate the other devices in the ecosystem. I've outlined the ways it could happen, eventually, but for now, a closed, black box solution is sufficient for content that will not have a lifespan beyond thirty days.

I'm really eager to see the updated software myself, but I do worry that Apple may have made itself too much of a gatekeeper to content in the rush to give people the movie rentals they wanted.

We've had an AppleTV in our house for about nine months now, and it really has changed the way my entire family views television. I am convinced that Apple has the wherewithal to make it a compelling story for a mass market. Much though I want to believe, Apple's big steps in this direction at Macworld this week don't necessarily have to include high definition. What's most important is that people see that the AppleTV is the best-of-breed device for viewing digital content in the living room.

I've bought into the Apple picture whole-heartedly, so I get why things are the way they are (the MPEG-4 video codecs are good, the complexity is well-understood, and they are much more legitimately standards than other video formats found in the wild). Still, people want to be confident they can view content without bothering about the format. The potential consumers are right.

The iPod was helped immeasurably by MP3s that people had on their computer already and by CDs that people own. People expect, by drawing a parallel, that the AppleTV's play is for downloaded DiVX-video and DVDs that they own. Ultimately, the winner in this race will be the player who can make that back-door content work seamlessly for people.

I suspect Apple got into the AppleTV to help the MPEG-4-encoded content (read: iPod) ecosystem along. It's been a success already, in converting YouTube to H.264. However, it draws too much attention to its own store as being the odd man out. Even though the iTunes store's content is based on an international standard with a much more open pedigree than Windows Media, it appears to the outsider to be a closed ecosystem: the only convenient way to get video onto the AppleTV appears to be through the iTunes Store.

Although I use the iTunes store a lot, I get video from a lot of other sources, from downloading .flv's and .avi's, to DVDs that I own, to content from my digital camera or mobile phone. VisualHub worked well for many months, but I eagerly embraced the Turbo.264 when it was released (and now that it reliably works on all content I throw at it, the workflow is easier). I do recognise that I've drunk the Kool-Aid: I mention "workflow" when talking about the AppleTV. That's a sign that getting video onto the AppleTV isn't good enough yet. The perception that the iTunes Store is the only convenient way of obtaining video isn't that far from reality.

Apple is sure to introduce a new way or ways to get iTunes Store content onto your AppleTV within fewer than 24 hours of me writing this. I'm a staunch AppleTV defender, but thinking about it, the critics are right: there have to be more and easier ways of getting your content onto the AppleTV.

While the "easiest" way would be to get Perian's Windows-centric codec support onto the AppleTV (and allow iTunes to understand and sync that content as well), I don't think we're going to see that so soon. It's an aphorism that broader choice of content will win over devices that restrict that choice. However, I think that because (1) no one else provides the same compelling device interface, (2) going with bastardised standards (like Xvid) is too distasteful to Apple, (3) it steps outside of the iPhone/iPod ecosystem, which is more important than the AppleTV on its own, and (4) it has to toe the line on piracy with Hollywood, Apple will not make a play for expanded codecs until there is serious competition.

Apple is almost sure to make it easier to buy content directly onto the AppleTV. Is it time to tap the other source of freely available content and enable PVR capabilities on the AppleTV? That has the possibility of working, because there's the possibility of getting reliable metadata into the mix.

Back in 2002, I gave some lectures to students on multimedia metadata, and waved my first generation iPod. "I don't know if you've heard of this device yet," I said, "but it runs on metadata. All of the menus, scanning through by artist, album, or genre, depend on metadata to find your music." The same can be said of the AppleTV, as well. Electronic Programme Guides provide the link between broadcast content and getting content metadata covered. If you want to evaluate the strength of possible methods for adding video to the AppleTV, look to the metadata.

So, what does that mean to me in a couple hours? Rental content, content direct to the AppleTV, and the option of an interface to digital television? Likely. High Definition content amongst the content available on the store? WANT. But it's not as likely as I once thought, sadly.

Hey, has anyone else noticed that there has finally been a boost to the iTunes Plus library on Apple's iTunes store? I noticed while browsing the iTunes Wi-Fi music store, but confirmed it using the normal store.

There are some notable things about it:

• The independents have arrived: it's not a cluster of further EMI songs, but rather they appear to be from small labels.
• The per-track price of the iTunes Plus (DRM-free, 256kbps AAC) tracks are $.99, not the increased $1.29 price. See, for example, the new Iron & Wine album's listing. The album costs $9.99, but the individual tracks are still only $0.99.
• As of this writing, the FAQ has not yet been updated: it still says that "iTunes Plus songs are available at $1.29 per song."

Which came first, the agreement with the indies on the new price, or Amazon's MP3 store? From where I sit, this looks like a reaction to Amazon, which seems like a first for Apple with the iTunes store.

Oh, in case anyone is curious, but hasn't been following my Twitter feed, I got an iPod Touch last week. It's magnificent, and a delight to use. It's even more of a joy to demo it to my colleagues and friends around here. They're very impressed with the price (£199), as well.

This is the last time I'll indulge in this sort of iTunes-HD speculation until at least January 2008. I will freely admit that it's colored by wishful thinking, but here are some thoughts about Tuesday's upcoming press conference at the Regent Street that allow me to hope that Apple could possibly advance the state of the art in Hi-Def video delivery.

I'm not denying an iPhone announcement. That would be a fool's bet. I just think there could be something else cooking as well.

1) It's been quiet on the new television season front. While there are a few US shows whose seasons have already started, the big series seem to be starting from Sunday (23 September). Last year, many pre-paid, discounted season passes were trumpeted and pushed on the iTunes store. The distinct impression I get is that the store is waiting for something.

2) As I've pointed out before, if Apple wants to include high-definition televisual content on its store, it is best done at the start of the US TV season. Changing mid-season will confuse and frustrate users. The next opportunity will be September 2008.

3) The BBC has a lot of high-definition content that's just begging to be more widely distributed than it currently is. "Planet Earth" is consistently cited as a best-selling title in both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray formats. Selling titles like "Hotel Babylon," "Robin Hood," and "Torchwood," for example, might actually benefit from the one-at-a-time taster format of the iTunes store (rather than the outlay required for a whole season on disc).

4) Partnering with content producers like the BBC may well be a way for Apple to soldier forward with its ambitious plans: Hollywood and the major American TV broadcast networks have been digging their heels in response to Apple's increasing power as a digital content distributor.

I've had a lot more thoughts on Apple's recent moves since last posting. None is quite enough to post individually, but they seem to make for a decent set of thoughts.

---

There has been a wide range of prices thrown around as possibilities for a new pricing structure for television shows on iTunes. Prices from $0.99 to $4.99 have been quoted. I have only seen the prices reported at their face value and only compared to $1.99 for the existing standard definition purchases. Has no one else considered that $0.99 might be for a rental, and higher prices might be for High Definition?

Incidentally, people should not forget that HD television purchases have had an established price for nearly ten months: Xbox Live has offered 720p download purchases for $3.00 since last November.

---

Mike Lee's rant on the entitlement people felt on hearing about Apple's iPhone price drop was amazing, and expanded on my initial reaction perfectly. That said, Apple's premeditated response was perfect. I also see it as being a

1. one-time benefit to early adopters of any of Apple's products ("This is life in the technology lane." In other words, "I hope you've learned your lesson."), and
2. the product of a wide-ranged sociological experiment. (Would users take this sort of price drop? No? Okay, we've learned a lesson.)

Perhaps it was enabled by – or even the reason behind – Apple selecting a subscription financial model for the iPhone.

---

I am a bit stymied by the specificity of the naming of the "iTunes Wi-Fi music store." At first, I got it: Apple's not going to deal with delivery over the mobile telecom networks, and they're not dealing with video. Fine. It's verbose, but clear.

On second blush, however, I wasn't so sure. Why couldn't this be used for purchases over the AppleTV? The same underlying model (and controller) surely would serve the AppleTV's interface equally well. In fact, the seven major store headings ("New Releases," "What's Hot," "Genres," "Featured," "Top Tens," "Search," and "Downloads") line up fairly well with the YouTube interface headings ("Featured," "Most Viewed," "Most Recent," "Top Rated," "History," "Search," and "Log In").

I would have thought the ITunes Wi-Fi music store was a sure sign that similar functionality was coming to the living room. Perhaps it is, but under a different name: "iTunes AppleTV store." That gets around the music-or-video question as well.

---

Last week, I had thought the iPhone's closed API was because of the the mobile carriers. Apple didn't want to come up with a guaranteed API until it had all of its carrier agreements down, and there was no chance of the carriers pushing to have their own applications on the Springboard. Independent reverse-engineering and programming has been allowed because there's little chance of it appealing to institutions. Thanks to Ben Metcalfe, I now think that the iPhone interface may never be "open" in an official way:

Dave Winer has a good observation:

“Scoble wants an SDK so developers can create cool iPhone apps. Of course I do too. But I doubt it’s going to happen anytime soon. Look at all the deals they can do if they don’t. Starbucks wouldn’t need them if there was an SDK. And Tulley’s could do their own, as could Peet’s, and Whole Foods, etc etc. Apple wants all that business, I’m sure. And they want to be able to sell Starbucks an exclusive. They couldn’t if there was an SDK.”

When he announced the iPhone, Steve Jobs said there would be no SDK because you could do everything you needed to in a web-browser/web-development environment. Clearly that’s not the case - the Starbucks’ widget is not something that the rest of us can implement.

It’s bad enough that users will be forced to have Starbucks marketing on their iPhone/iPod Touch screen. It’s a kick in the face to have built that with hidden functionality that goes against the previous ideals that were made about openness of the platform.

Apple may well be trying to be the new "orifice" here, via its Applications and unique partnerships, to displace the mobile carriers' own entrenched positions.

Well, I'm glad I still own some Apple stock.

---

I also noticed the iPod TV-out picture suddenly got more complicated. The new iPod nano and the iPod classic will not output video to the television without a (new) cable or accessory including an Apple authentication chip.

Could this be the start of Apple's (public) implementation of a "secure signal path" for the purposes of complying with Digital Rights Management requirements of High-Definition video content providers?

Also recently: iPod classic vs. Flash, Where's the HD?, iPhone vs. iPod touch, and Technical feasibility on HD delivery.

I'm trying to figure out what Apple wants to accomplish with the iPod classic with a hard drive (the "lazy" iPod) versus the flash-based iPods (the "active" iPod). I'll make no bones about it: I have been waiting for a hybrid device with the capacity of an iPod classic and the wide screen of an iPod touch for over two years. I am frustrated that I have to choose between capacity and screen size. That said, I am (mostly) reconciled with the situation as it is today. I understand that the twin concerns of battery life and form factor make such a hybrid undesirable by Apple.

But why the move to flash? Doesn't it do Apple a disservice, where it gets people derailed from the track of massive capacity iPods? For people with large media collections, having a "lazy" iPod means that device management is largely deferred to the time you want to play your media. But once you decide you want the features from a flash-based device, you only need to intensively organize your playlists, smart playlists, and iTunes habits once, and (theoretically) you never have to deal with a high-capacity iPod again.

Maybe it's purely financial. The data density per (hard drive) spindle seems to be leveling out with the class of 1.8-inch drives. Maybe Apple saw this (pretty clearly, due to their massive investments in this area) and sees much more long-term growth and returns on moving people to flash memory. The iPods have progressed from 1GB to 16GB of flash much more quickly than from 10GB to 160GB of hard drive capacity.

The possibility that intrigues me most was first brought up by my officemate: what if Apple doesn't want lazy iPods (and lazy iPod users) out there? What if Apple wants to encourage people to dock their iPod more often? It could be very beneficial to re-engineer user behavior from synching only before major travel to synching regularly. Introducing podcasts may well have been an early form of this. Television season passes may also be seen as another way of accomplishing this.

Why would Apple push this behavior? Because each time a user syncs, the user interacts with iTunes, and each time that happens, there's a chance that the user interacts with the iTunes music store. It may well be that Apple's desire to get "active" iPod users has increased due to new services and/or security models. (e.g., DRM appropriate to movie rentals, perhaps?)

I live in hope.

Apple's announcement yesterday was about music. I had hoped that it would fill in the picture for high-definition video delivery to the home. I still think the pre-holiday season is the ideal time to deliver this, for Apple.

So, because it's my nature, I'm continuing to speculate on Apple's hi-def delivery possibilities until it does happen. I think if it happens this year, it'll have to happen soon, like, by 18 or 19 September by the latest. Why? The major US networks' television season starts in earnest on Sunday 23 September, and that will be a well-established, rich stream for ready high-definition content. The movie releases will probably be a trickle, but seeing downloadable television in hi-def will get consumers used to seeing it on their big-screen, flat TVs, and demanding it in greater quantities.

Since I'm engaged in reckless speculation, I may as well add that I believe that that sort of deadline is what led to Apple's particular urgency in the negotiations with NBC, and the public spat that followed. I think the $4.99 price point that has been the focus of the dispute, and has since baffled commentators, was the price that NBC was pulling for with HD downloads. Why, if NBC is doubling the wholesale price, would the end-consumer's price go up by 150%? Only if Apple's costs were increased. I'm guessing they would triple from where they are.

I imagine that Apple was pulling for a slight wholesale premium for high-definition television downloads. Maybe they were pulling for a $2.99 price, more likely they were willing to go up to $3.99. NBC may well have said, "If you're charging double, we want to charge you twice the price." The bandwidth costs, however, would eat into Apple's margins, and they reached an impasse, made particularly painful because Heroes in hi-def would be the ideal flagship launch title. Apple's response was to pull NBC's new season launches, to eliminate confusion about standard-definition downloads, living in hope that the NBC-hi-def picture would resolve before year- (or season-) end. (If a program is upgraded to HD mid-season, what happens to the existing downloads? A solution is technically possible, but it will cost money, and create a logistical nightmare for billing of – and communications with – customers.)

I want to believe that Apple had planned HD for yesterday's event (and had ABC, CBS, FOX, and the CW lined up), but pulled it in hopes that two weeks' more negotiation would make the difference with NBC. For once, I think that Apple does not hold all the cards at the negotiating table. They scored an early win in public opinion, but NBC's move to Amazon's Unbox service was a clever counter, confusing people with regards to Apple's stated prices. Ultimately, these public moves won't count for much during negotiations.

Me, I really am hoping to see Heroes in hi-def, offered on the iTunes store. I would pay a reasonable price for the season. So long as Apple negotiates the right price for the bundled package, I don't care so much what the individual episodes cost.

In the twitter commentary that followed Apple's iPod announcement, while I was getting caught up with the news, I realised that Mail was missing from the new iPod touch. I got to thinking that was an interesting omission, and reflected that the widgets, the stock, weather, and Google maps features, in particular, were particularly telling (rather than "curious"). It points to the fundamental (and very deep) way in which the iPod touch and the iPhone differ.

The iPhone is an always-on, lightly tethered communications device. It presumes that at least a minimal network connection is always available. Weather and stock information is conceivably continuously updated. Mail can be checked regularly or pushed to the device.

The iPod is about entertainment, as it always has been. It is the mobile "lean back" to the iPhone's "sit forward." The 'curious' thing about these two devices is driven by how the world is today: in 2007, an Entertainment device and a Communications device look remarkably similar. (And, as an interesting corollary, it exemplifies how Apple generally sees the web as it is today.)

And it's in that striking similarity and feature near-parity that the iPod touch necessitated a price drop from the iPhone, to something more in line with its feature differential. Really, you're paying subscription fees to AT&T wireless for having the communications device cum phone.

It sounds like a reasonable choice for people to make during the upcoming holiday season.

I, like Blackfriars, am holding on to my hope that next week's iPod announcement will offer the beginnings of Apple's high-definition strategy. Blackfriars asks, "High-definition video putting the special in next week's Apple Special Event?":

Speaking of the Internet bringing the end of TV as we know it, everyone seems to be expecting new music and iPod offerings at the Apple Special Event in Moscone Center on September 5. But what has gone more or less unnoticed is the fact that Akamai, Apple's long-time Internet content partner, has announced that it is adding high-definition video to its Internet distribution offerings.

A coincidence? Perhaps. But add the fact that Apple TV, a product whose revenue is being recognized as a 24-month subscription model like the iPhone, sports high-definition outputs, yet has no high-definition iTunes content yet, and you've got a high-definition shoe ready to drop sometime; the only question is when.

Well, I've been wondering the same thing. Back in April, I outlined that it's certainly technically feasible: There's a new extension to H.264 that allows an additional video stream to enhance the basic stream that's there. iPods and iPhones would only need to sync with the basic 640×360 pixel stream that the iTunes store already delivers. An AppleTV, Intel-based Mac, or G5 Mac would be able to read both video streams at once, combine them, and show 720p high definition.

I could once again be blinded by the possible and the (personally) desirable over "likely." Apple could well excite people enough with the new iPods. The movie studios may well be holding out for rentals (though Blackfriars has some thoughts on that, as well) before handing Apple the keys to the HD castle as well. The combination of the Beatles, new iPods, and Hi-Def may well be too much for such an event: Hi-Def may not materialise this year.

But I'm hoping.

(Via The Macalope.)

On the eve of Apple's 12 September 2006 iPod announcement, Gizmodo posted a raw rumor about a supposed TubePort device. There are some things about the rumor that bother me (inconsistent tone, somewhat implausible product name), but at the core of it, it holds some plausible premises...