Column

Hidden Dimensions - What Apple Won't Tell Us About Apple TV

"You watch television to turn your brain off and you work on your computer when you want to turn your brain on."

-- Steve Jobs

The Apple TV has received a lot of press lately, primarily based on the overall concept, enthusiasm for Apple, and fueled by the HDTV transition. However, a few things need to be looked at in much more detail. In fact, in recent weeks of study, I've changed my mind about Apple's domination prospects, primarily due to my day job of paying close attention to the industry as a whole.

This is not to say that the Apple TV won't be financially successful. I believe it will be. However, I don't think it's going to change the rules or seriously challenge the rest of the TV industry. Let me put it this way. Last week I looked at the positives. This time, I'm going to examine the negatives.

The first generation Apple TV is troublesome in many respects. It has certain limitations, and while I argued last week that sometimes placing limits on a product's design brings focus and excellence, it's also true that missing a key design point can cripple a product's value as a more strategic weapon.

The Single Source Issue

Video arrives on the Apple TV one-way, from iTunes, via 802.11/b/g/n and is piped out to the HDTV. The possibility of accessing the regular carrier feeds, such as cable and satellite TV are cut off. Fine. We know that it's Apple agenda to do an end-run around the traditional carriers. That, however, makes the Apple TV merely an accessory, like a DVD player. Just another box to connect to your HDTV. The result is that the door remains open to the cable companies to develop a new breed of set top boxes with much more powerful software and a protocol called OpenCable Applications Platform (OCAP).

Using OCAP, well funded and resourceful cable companies who want to keep their legacy customers away from the Internet (unless its their own IPTV feed) will be able to offer "Apple TV" like functions that will, they hope, make the living room TV experience much more enjoyable. Articles I've read predict that your cable company will start switching out your old, stupid set top box, for an OCAP enabled box in 2007.

In time, I think this will become a problem for Apple.

The Resolution Issue

A very smart writer, Robert X. Cringely, wrote recently that the Apple TV is simply version 1.0. In this version, your movie format is limited to 640 x 480 which is a 3:2 aspect, not 16:9. Right away, the customer figures out that he's still better off buying an anamorphic disc at Wal-Mart and having the physical CD on the self. After all, as I said last time, how hard is it to drop a DVD into an attached player?

In Mr. Cringely's hypothetical version 2.0, however, Apple makes some changes, introduces a BitTorrent-like P2P file sharing service that better distributes an HDTV load, and voila, you'll have genuine HDTV movies in your iTunes library. That is, if Hollywood will strike a deal with Apple to deliver this content, undermine the stand alone Blu-ray and HD DVD players, piss off almost all their channel partners, and undermine the sales of HD movies on plastic.

Hollywood probably considers it preferable to have a Blu-ray/HD DVD player directly plugged into an HDTV and control the digital signal via the DRM and HDMI cable. While Apple's system appears, at first glance, to be just as robust, it isn't. Even if we presume the movie would have DRM in iTunes satisfactory to Hollywood, that the radio transmission is encrypted to the Apple TV, and then regulated by the HDMI cable, there is another issue. We have an intervening party, Apple, that bypasses the ability of a stand-alone player via the Internet to disable the encryption keys for a given HD movie, if necessary, under the studio's control. And that's the key word: it's a fight for control.

The bottom line is that, in my opinion, Hollywood has too many axes to grind and too many controls in place, to allow Apple to sell a complete portfolio of HD movies. I hope I'm proved wrong. But here we are in early 2007, many, many Blu-ray players have been sold in PS3s and as stand-alone devices and many, many HD DVD players have been sold*. Clearly, Hollywood is holding Apple at bay until customers get accustomed to buying HDTV movies on plastic.

Consider: Apple isn't even allowed, due to the protection on ordinary DVDs, to pull the movie off your Superdrive and pipe it to the Apple TV. Perhaps Apple is being punished because it hasn't come out with HDMI enabled displays, and so the studios are waiting for that to happen before they ever allow a full HD movie into your Mac's iTunes library. Otherwise, you could just send a digital copy out via the DVI cable and be in pirate heaven.

What is Apple waiting for? The entire PC industry is rapidly converting over to HDMI displays and HDMI connectors on the PC. Apple is way behind. Maybe Mr. Jobs is waiting for Hollywood to drop the whole DRM thing.

I hope not.

Mother Apple Knows Best?

We know from Steve Jobs' quote above, that he has no great love for what Newton Minow coined The Vast Wasteland of TV. And, as I described above, there is no current mechanism to get TV, from a cable box or a Joost client, into your Apple TV. This appears to be a very serious matter. It so severely restricts the capability of the Apple TV that the cable providers merely need to ask themselves, "what do we need to do to duplicate, with OCAP, the functionality of the Apple TV?" Apple may have made a mistake here.

To make matters worse, Google blundered, in my opinion, when they bought YouTube. [Google, according to Mr. Cringely, would be Apple's partner in the P2P file sharing scheme.] The undisciplined posting of copyrighted content on YouTube has pissed off just about every network executive and everyone who has valuable IP. Google keeps trying to remove offending, copyrighted material, by the tens of thousands of files, and Netizens instantly reload. As a result, an important deal with Viacom was lost. Viacom turned to Joost, whom Viamcom thought would better be able to protect their content and provide a better business model.

In a February 21st Wall Street Journal editorial, Paul Vigna wrote a great editorial: "Content Will Always Be King." In his explanation of how the traditional business models are still viable, he wrote: "...Ad dollars will continue to flow to the programs that draw the most viewers. The video of two guys dropping Mentos into [diet] Coke bottles and setting off a symphony of exploding soda is brilliant, and shows how creative user-generated video can be. But shows like "Lost" and "The Office" -- which can't be produced out of someone's garage -- bring in millions of viewers, week after week, year after year. Advertisers pay handsomely for access to those audiences, and that won't change." [Emphasis mine.]

So there you have it. The industry has figured it out. The TV business model works. Advertisers are quickly figuring out where to spend their ad dollars. The carriers are working with Motorola to develop new software with OCAP enabled boxes. DirecTV is spending millions to put up new satellites and provide 150 channels of HDTV. Apple is being blockaded until, at least, the True HD format takes off and millions of players are sold by Samsung, Panasonic, and others. To predict that Apple is going to do anything more, in the short term, but sell you a few movies to slap on your iPhone to amuse your friends, may be a stretch in the face of the TV industry's current initiatives.

Mr. Vigna continued, "Shows like "The Simpsons" and events like the Super Bowl may attract fewer viewers as the marketplace expands, but don't expect the cost of an ad to go down. The ability to cobble together millions of viewers consistently will only become more valuable, not less, and the networks know how to do that. YouTube does not."

Reading the Tea Leaves

Apple is taking their adventure into home HDTV very slowly. There are lots of things to figure out. Unfortunately, we aren't privy to the maneuvering behind the scenes, so we can only hope that Apple is working out these issues:

  • Apple isn't shipping a Blu-ray drive in the Mac Pro.
  • Apple isn't shipping displays with HDMI. And current models remain grotesquely over priced.
  • Apple, so far, won't tell us if the HDMI output of the Apple TV complies with the HDMI 1.2 or 1.3 standard. Why is that worth hiding?
  • Apple's movies for sale in iTunes are not HD movies. But millions of customers are watching HD movies right now via cable and satellite.
  • Apple hasn't been allowed, so far, via licensing, to let DVD movies on a SuperDrive narrowcast to the Apple TV. Alternatively, evil Apple wants you to, gasp, repurchase content from them. Either option is distasteful.
  • Apple has not struck any agreements with content providers to deliver wide ranging TV via something like Joost. Instead, iTunes appears to be simply exploited by the TV studios to hype interest in their programs. Is Apple success here a delusion?
  • The Apple TV is capable of 720p** output. But that does not guarantee we'll ever see major iTunes content, TV, movies and sports, in that resolution.

Mr. Jobs may think that television turns one's brain off. But focusing solely on a pay-to-own item model instead of the traditional advertiser supported business model of broadcast television cuts Apple off from an important growth avenue. Is that what Mr. Jobs wants?

I would be very pleased to be wrong about Apple's current prospects, and I'd love to see them energetically become a player in the delivery of broad spectrum, ad supported traditional TV. While iTunes has a rich selection of TV shows, it just isn't economically feasible for most people to pay $1.99 for every show they want to watch. As a result, I think, we're all going to have cable or satellite set top boxes/DVRs for a long time to come, and Apple TV could end up simply being a nice medium-definition gadget and a successful but niche market product.

I hope Apple wants more than that. How they achieve it will be fascinating to watch.


* The hardware sales of players in each camp, aside from Xbox and PS3, are still closely held.

** Even more interesting, we haven't been able to find out if the Apple TV does the scaling or just passes the signal on to the HDTV and lets it do the scaling.


John Martellaro is a senior scientist and author. A former U.S. Air Force officer,he has worked for NASA, White Sands Missile Range, Lockheed Martin Astronautics, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Apple Computer. During his five years at Apple, he worked as a Senior Marketing Manager for science and technology, Federal Account Executive, and High Performance Computing Manager. His interests include alpine skiing, SciFi, astronomy, and Perl. John lives in Denver, Colorado.

Hidden Dimensions Archives.

27 comments from the community.

You can post your own below.

+ show options

Your current settings, click to change: Sort Oldest First, Show Guest Posts, Hide Community Stats

A guest said: (hide)

I just want an airport express on steroids and that is what Apple TV delivers. Play music, view photos, and watch something I missed when my DVR screws up again. Apple TV 1.0 fits that role perfect.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Just wait, movie rentals via iTunes are coming and Apple TV will lead the way. NetFlix and Blockbuster won't know what hit them.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

All these stations now are throwing up commerials in the right hand corner of the display while the show is airing. This is HIGHLY anoying. It's bad enough that you have to sit through all those commerials during a show or movie, but to put those advertisement up while the show is playing really pisses me off. Its distracting and often times I'll just shut the show off rather than be assaulted why I'm trying to relax at the end of a long day.

Is it just me or is anyone else out there fed up with this stupidity?

Quote this post ↓

Terrin said:

member since 29 Jan 2006 with 350 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Why would Apple need licensing to allow DVDs via the DVD player on Macs to play via Apple TV? Clearly, it is Fair Use to broadcast such videos to yourself on a home network so that you can watch those DVDs as you wish.

It is interesting, however, that Apple TV does not allow you to do that. I suspect part of the reason would be that Apple wants iTunes to control Apple TV since the product is for both Window and Mac users. Currently, iTunes does not allow one to play DVDs. Accordingly, Apple will have to revamp iTunes to be able to incorporate more media.

I would be very surprized if Leopard does not come with a version 8 of iTunes that addresses some of these issues.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Quote
Guest wrote:
Is it just me or is anyone else out there fed up with this stupidity?

Definitely! It is so irritating to have animated crap all over the screen.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Seems like you could do almost the same thing with a PS3 without using iTunes. I won't buy movies I have to store on my hard drive. I also don't like that you don't get all the "extras" that typically come with a DVD. Currently, I have an HD TV, but no way to get an HD signal to it. I can't find anything I think is even the least bit acceptable and I don't think Apple TV is it either.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

No one would buy movies or tv shows if they could just rent them digitally at any time and then view them without commercials for $.99 a hit. Sell your Blockbuster stock.

Quote this post ↓

gopher said:

member since 28 Mar 2002 with 267 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Apple's Displays aren't as overpriced as you think. They are basically 1080p displays. When you look at the current market for 1080p displays they appear much more reasonably prices than trying to compare them to 1080i displays. How do I know they are 1080p? I have a 30" TV whose picture quality on text via DVI is terrible when I try to use 1080i resolution. Try the same resolution on Apple's 30" LCD, and it is sharper than anything 1080i can muster. Then add to the fact you get what amounts to a $100 USB/Firewire hub on each display, the price seems a lot more reasonable. And if you have an old iSight, the center top doubles as an iSight mount. Which comes to another thing, Apple's LCDs do need a built-in iSight. But they should make it better than the built-in iSight of the MacBook/Pro/iMac. It should have an option to be permanently disabled for offices that don't accept cameras.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

I'm a 40-year old in the northeast with a decent amount of disposeable income with a number of friends in the same demographic. I don't know of *any* of my friends who currently watch any HD content, with the single exception of a buddy who owns 2 HD movies he watches via his PS3. The rest of us (mostly) have HD-capable TVs, but we lack one or more of: HD Tuners, HD Cable, HD DVD players, or something else ad nauseum. We were talking about this on a recent ski trip: truth is that with the single exception of ESPN HD, none of us felt the available content was compelling enough to justify the expense and lack of control we'd be giving up (eg: broadcast flag).

There may be HD content out there, but I strongly suspect its being underconsumed, and it doesn't matter how good the picture is. You could make it a 3D immersive experience with smell-o-rama and touch, but if the content continues to suck, noone will tune in. Content is king, but there's another, more important way to interpret that saying: people will naturally flock to where the content doesn't suck no matter the medium. While the studios (both TV and Movie) and cable companies waste time with technology and politics, other content is slowly developing. Witness Lonelygirl15, Red Vs. Blue and Netflix's long tail documentaries. Are any of these at the levell of a studio production? No. But I suggest that anyone who watched the Oscars last night cringed at least once at the spectacle: it was soulless, contrived, and generally banal, in spite of being a multimillion dollar production. The same can be said of many of the current must-watch TV: Lost has alienated a huge portion of its audience, Desperate Housewives has devolved into an evening soap opera, and even The Sopranos have trimmed their schedule so much that many hardcore fans have realized they can happily live without it. Yes studio content has an audience, but the studios have abused their audiences so much and so often that they've created opportunity for others. Putting that content in HD doesn't resolve the issues or suddenly make the content compelling.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

I'm sure everyone else is trying to hold back Apple, the media companies, the cable companies, etc. However, there's a lot of media out there to enjoy today and a lot of activities competing for people's free time. The media owners that make it harder for folks to get their content will suffer in the long run. Someone will cave, make more sales because of it, and then the others will have to follow. This is already happening at the iTunes store with movies.

Second,the cable guys and telcos will in the end be deliverers of bits. Somebody else is going to design the hardware and software that handles, stores and displays the bits. In the future, we'll all have a portable computer with us at all times, and media will just come to that. It will beam content to whatever display you want. How long till this is a reality - it may be less than 10 years. 20 at the most. The cable and telco guys will never be able to design that portable computer.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Living in Europe, Apple TV is just another box right now, and if the content has to go through iTunes, there are not much reasons to shell out the money for it. No TV-shows and no movies so far. Maybe we will get it this spring, but who knows?

I can agree with Jobs in his view of TV. I don't even own one right now and as soon as I get my satelllite box, I'll use EyeTV to get TV on my computer - because although I mostly read quality literature which can be said to turn my brain on, I do feel the need for brainless entertainment from time to time. And that said; we do have quite good public TV in most European countries, I'd say. We can therefore leave our brains on, watching it.

So, what I would have liked to see from Apple was a seamless solution as to how I could get TV on my computer. Then and only then would I buy a box like Apple TV - well, a box like it should have been in my humble point of view. Maybe that will come, too, I don't know.

They seem to be a trifle stubborn from time to time, Apple. To be persistent is good, but when you cross the line and becomes only stubborn, you will stumble.

Quote this post ↓

Bosco said:

member since 03 Jun 2002 with 964 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

After almost two months with the latest and greatest HD DVR from Motorola (through Cox), I think Apple's big opportunity is to make their set top box less complicated and feel more responsive. The dig down interface with a simple remote may prove acres and tons more intuitive [note subtle joke for Biff] than having 100 buttons. The lag between when I hit a button and when something happens is annoying as hell too. Worse than just wasting time, it's completely unpredictable. My Apple TV should be here this week, so I'll know if they succeeded soon!

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

I seem to remember that all TV broadcasts are going to HD; ATSC in, NTSC out. As digital recording becomes the norm, analog recordings will look increasingly less appealing, regardless of content. "The Honeymooners" is a fantastic show but the old, Kinescope technology sucked. So, some of this may be a moot point. HD acceptance and usage is coming sooner rather than later.

I bought the G4 Mac Mini specifically to hook to an HDTV - PC/VGA input means hook up a computer. Maybe I was outside the paradigm at the time. Since then a remote control and Front Row have been added to the Mac Mini. An entire computer hooked to your TV that you can play DVDs or iTunes content on (without streaming), surf the web, play games, etc. for just twice what a "streaming box only" costs. There'd better be something else planned for the Apple TV.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

The whole TV/computer thing is a tough nut to crack. MSFT has been pushing "media center PC's" with little success for years. I think Apple TV is just a "1.0" product that will add lots of capabilities over time.

Having said that, if I watched TV more than, like, a few hours a year (I don't), and if I had a TV with the right inputs (I have an old clunker), I'd be interested. I'd be able to VERY CONVENIENTLY beam my iMovies to the family room.

Quote this post ↓

Tiger said:

member since 17 Jun 2003 with 904 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Imagine the losses when the population wakes up and realizes there really isn't any decent digital content to consume, therefore devices such as this are totally useless to them.

We pardon this delusion to return you back to reality. AppleTV will make a large amount of money and you need one for your living room.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

terrin:it doesn't, so far

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

"So there you have it. The industry has figured it out. The TV business model works."

Who are you kidding? Viewership had declined for years. Cast the blame where you will but for me, I simply don't have the patience to sit through all the commercials. My brief exposures to cable prompt the additional insult that even with 50-80 channels to choose from there is seldom anything worth watching when I am ready to sit down in front of the box. Except for public radio in the morning, nearly all of the media in my house comes from podcasts (iTunes) or from Netflix. While I may not buy video content from iTunes at least it would be available commercial free at a time I might like to watch it.

Quote this post ↓

Terrin said:

member since 29 Jan 2006 with 350 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

What Leopard doesn't come with a new version of iTunes? Of course it doesn't so far. Last I checked Leopard isn't shipping yet.

iTunes, however, historically has been tied to iLife. Accordingly, I would be surprised if Apple didn't update it with iLife.

Quote
Guest wrote:
terrin:it doesn't, so far

Quote this post ↓

Terrin said:

member since 29 Jan 2006 with 350 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Nope, delayed.

Quote
Bosco wrote:
My Apple TV should be here this week, so I'll know if they succeeded soon!

Quote this post ↓

Terrin said:

member since 29 Jan 2006 with 350 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Maybe in some respects. I, however, gave up on television. Sure, there are shows I like, but just when I get hooked the powers that be change the day, time, or skip weeks to make room for something else. It is so much more entertaining to wait until the whole season is done, and rent a DVD without commercials. I also do not have to suffer through all that other nonesense.

Quote
So there you have it. The industry has figured it out. The TV business model works.

Quote this post ↓

JulesLt said:

member since 06 Jul 2005 with 136 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

>"what do we need to do to duplicate, with >OCAP, the functionality of the Apple TV?"

The sarcastic answer is 'OS X'. The more serious answer is 'management who will pay more attention to software design' and don't mistake features for functionality.

Competition would be good too - I'd change my cable box in a second if I had a choice.

Quote this post ↓

DaiMac said:

member since 29 Jun 2001 with 952 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

It sucks the AppleTV got delayed, I would be lying if I said I hadn't been checking my Apple Store order status on a near daily basis for the past week. Its not too big a delay though, I'm happy to wait if there are some bugs to be worked out.

I think what will make/break AppleTV is the ability of it and iTunes to bring in content from sources other than the iTMS in an easy and relatively rapid way. Either Apple will provide that functionality through updates of iTunes/Quicktime, or developers/hackers will eventually work out ways to do it. Specifically there needs to be a way to open either the AppleTV or iTunes to VLC streams, which would allow you to play 98% of all the video content iTunes/Quicktime can't easily read.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

"....* Apple, so far, won't tell us if the HDMI output of the Apple TV complies with the HDMI 1.2 or 1.3 standard. Why is that worth hiding?

** Even more interesting, we haven't been able to find out if the Apple TV does the scaling or just passes the signal on to the HDTV and lets it do the scaling...."

Mind elaborating on exactly why these two things peak your interest? Why might they be important to mention?

Quote this post ↓

gslusher said:

member since 13 Nov 2002 with 2001 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Quote
Guest wrote:
All these stations now are throwing up commerials in the right hand corner of the display while the show is airing. This is HIGHLY anoying. It's bad enough that you have to sit through all those commerials during a show or movie, but to put those advertisement up while the show is playing really pisses me off. Its distracting and often times I'll just shut the show off rather than be assaulted why I'm trying to relax at the end of a long day.

Is it just me or is anyone else out there fed up with this stupidity?

There are two things you might be referring to. The first are static badges with the cable channel's logo. Those are there for a VERY good reason: people record those channels and then sell DVDs with the content. It's fairly easy to buy DVDs of TV shows that have not been published commercially. Someone records the shows (often from "oldies" channels), collects them, and burns them to DVDs. The badges at least slow that down, as it becomes obvious that the recordings are pirated.

The other are promos for upcoming shows. Those are annoying, but they don't last long.

Quote this post ↓

gslusher said:

member since 13 Nov 2002 with 2001 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Quote
Guest wrote:

So, what I would have liked to see from Apple was a seamless solution as to how I could get TV on my computer. Then and only then would I buy a box like Apple TV - well, a box like it should have been in my humble point of view. Maybe that will come, too, I don't know.

Seamless, no, but, fairly easy, yes. Try out your EyeTV and realize that it can save to iTunes.

Quote this post ↓

gslusher said:

member since 13 Nov 2002 with 2001 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Quote
Guest wrote:
I seem to remember that all TV broadcasts are going to HD; ATSC in, NTSC out. As digital recording becomes the norm, analog recordings will look increasingly less appealing, regardless of content. "The Honeymooners" is a fantastic show but the old, Kinescope technology sucked. So, some of this may be a moot point. HD acceptance and usage is coming sooner rather than later.

You misremember. In the US, TV broadcasts are going to digital form, not HD. There's a big difference.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

I suspect that anyone who believes that the standard aspect ratio of broadcast television is 3:2 shouldn't be listened to ...

The Apple TV is an iPod for your television. Nothing more, nothing less.

There is no magic plan.

Quote this post ↓

Post Your Comments

  Remember Me

Not a member? Register now. You can post comments without logging in, but they'll show up as a "guest" post.


Please enter the word exactly as you see it in the image above. Registered users aren't prompted for this. Having trouble reading the image get a new one.