@lindsay.at

Would you pay $849 for a new MacBook? - Apple 2.0:

According to AppleInsider's Kasper Jade, Apple sees the cuts — which could come in the next month or two — as an 'interim solution' to the growing popularity of netbooks, those sub-compact laptops that Steve Jobs once dismissed as 'a piece of junk' but which are flying off the shelves at $299 to $349 apiece.

Another round of wishful thinking via rumour, but I just wanted to point out that what's key with watching Apple here is not the bottom price points, but the interlocking matrix of price points. Over the years, led by their iPod business, Apple has mastered the art of the upsell through models with additional features. I think the turning point was the introduction of the iPod mini, at $249. For 'just' $50 more, you could get a full-sized iPod with nearly four times the capacity.

Take a look at the Mac portable and desktop, consumer and professional lines, and see that the jump from one product to the next is about the same as the jump between models within a product line. Really, spend some time at store.apple.com, and see that the price matrix is just as precise and artful as the company's engineering. The question is not "how low can Apple go?" but rather, "what shift in the prices of existing products will suggest more models in another product down the line where an upsell to the current cheapest product is an easy jump to make?" (Easy, eh?)

So let's speculate irresponsibly. If the current white MacBook model goes down to $849 (which is already a leap because Apple doesn't cut prices lightly, as they know it's hard to turn back), as the linked article proposes, then it would support netbooks at $749 and $649. Or maybe "MacBook Minis" at $599, $699, and $799. Adding one product line doesn't get you close to the mythical $349 that people are wishing for.

Wait, should that be "MacBooks Mini"?

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.

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.

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.)

Yes, it's The Register, and yes, other rumour sites are throwing doubt on the idea, but El Reg asks, are the 'Alu-mac' iMacs due next month?:

We've got around a month to wait before Apple unveils the anticipated next-gen iMac design, it has been claimed. Expect to see the 20in and 24in machines on shop shelves between the middle of July and mid-August, moles maintain.

Earlier this month, it was claimed the new models, which are said to sport a stylish, Mac Pro-like aluminium all-in-one enclosure, might see the light of day by now. No mention of the machines was made at Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference last week, though last-minute schedule shifts were likely, the sources claimed.

Could this be the definitive shift in the product line whereby brushed metal is the new white as I predicted? The twist here would be to push aluminum down to the bottom-end products, making the high-end products less attractive with the design ubiquity, and forcing the fashion-conscious to upgrade with the next high-end fashion. We'll see.

(Via The Register - Personal: Mac Channel.)

I can't take credit for this one: this idea was completely that of my brilliant young officemate, Johnathan Ishmael.

Rather than concentrating on the "Safari on Windows is to help the browser acceptance ecosystem" or the "there to entice people to the Mac experience" arguments that most have been concentrating on. Johnathan cuts straight to the big punchline and sees it as a trial run for offering commercial sales of previously Mac-only applications like iLife.

The browser itself might not go very far in capturing people for every-day browsing (especially judging from initial reactions), but it may well be enough to shake out problems with the underlying software platform for porting Safari. Technically, it has some legs. It has been observed that Safari is very much like a Mac application, and that there are CoreFoundation, CoreGraphics and CFNetwork DLLs. Is this, plus QuickTime, plus some of iTunes's efforts enough to provide the underlying frameworks for the iLife suite?

iLife is cited by many (including Johnathan, a Windows user) as one of the most compelling ideas to buy a Mac. Why should Apple offer that commercially? Not only does it get the income from the sale, but it gets people comfortable with the application platform. iPod People are comfortable with the way iTunes organises their music. Some of them have been comfortable enough for that to let them think they'd be comfortable with a Mac. If iLife were introduced on Windows, it could capture a lot of loyalty: there's nothing quite like it for media creation and management on the PC.

With that captured loyalty, there's a lot gained. If Apple applications already take care of some of your most prized digital content, then that's a fairly big barrier lowered there. What other barriers are there? Microsoft Office? Nope. Accessing MS Word files with WordPad? TextEdit fills that role handily.

I personally think it's an intriguing idea and a possible future. As with my other speculation here on the blog, it's an idea that could be done by Apple, and perhaps something that has been discussed internally. Apple doesn't always do what's feasible, and certainly not right away. Apple does what's right for Apple in the future, and happily that's often right for me, as a consumer.

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.]