Television 2.0
Yesterday was quite a day in Apple land. A video iPod, iTunes 6, FrontRow, a remote control, new iMac with built-in iSight, and the big kahuna of them all -- downloadable television shows for $1.99 each.
The medium of television, for all intents and purposes, hasn't changed in decades. It's the passive, one-way, frankly dumb ol' box it's always been. TV has made advancements in fidelity, sound and selection, but more interactive breakthroughs have always come in the form of add-on hardware -- VCRs, DVRs, On-Demand cable boxes -- with each doing essentially the same thing: time-shifting broadcast content for future consumption when viewing is more convenient for the consumer.
But for all the convenience of the aforementioned technology, each requires one crucial output -- the television. This is the reason why the TV Shows offering in iTunes 6, albeit very limited out of the gate, is such a huge deal. iTunes time-shifts content like living room hardware, but doesn't require subscription fees, setup, installation, scheduling, tapes, or even furniture to sit on. It also doesn't require a television.
To illustrate my point, say you have a friend who owns a TV but has never seen Lost. The show always airs the night they have to work. Your friend isn't home enough to warrant subscribing to Digital Cable, and they have no idea how to program their VCR (which has sat there and blinked '12:00' since the day they brought it home from Circuit City). As a result they've never seen the show, and are annoyed each you bring it up in conversation.
Your friend does own a laptop though for surfing the web and checking email. So you login to the iTMS and "Gift" the first two episodes to them. They receive an email, and freely download the content. The shows are saved to their hard drive and are available for them to watch, pause, rewind and forward (without commercials) whenever and wherever they feel like it.
This is a seismic shift in the consumption of broadcast entertainment. It combines everything that made add-on recorders groundbreaking but with unheralded freedom of movement and choice. You aren't paying for cable channels you never watch, tied to broadcast schedules, or forced into using a television. It's on-demand and off-the-map. Content that's consumed and shared. It shifts both time and location. It's a whole new option for consumers, and revenue stream for Hollywood.
Granted, I'm a die-hard Apple user, but I fail to see how other networks won't jump on this. The resolution of the videos are high enough to enjoy full screen, yet low enough not to eat into DVD sales or be pirated. Tech savvy people will still download torrents, and archivists will still buy DVDs, but the majority of people will simply turn to iTunes to catch episodes they missed, check out new shows, and consume entertainment in a more efficient, convenient manner.
Comments
I get the sense though that this Apple getting it's big toe wet. They haven't taken the full triple lindy dive quite yet.
To do so still requires a device to move from your computer to the living room. As stunning as the iMacs are, people are only going to watch a couple shows at a time on that machine. Thr cruz is in the living room.
However, the idea of ala carte TV is very appealing and would be awesome... just get it to the TV. Subscribe to TV shows from the computer would be boss.
Posted by: Jim Renaud at October 14, 2005 9:02 AM
I'm really digging the TV content idea. I think this is the hook that makes this all worth it and it couldn't have come at a better time. LOST and Desperate Housewives are the first TV shows to go to DVD after their first season. People are buying truckloads of their favorite shows on DVD or via Netflix.
The obstacle Apple faces with the "media PC" is the same they faced with the music thing. Listening to music on your PC wasn't very appealing until computer speakers got better and the ways you could hook them up to your Stereo got more convenient. The iPod went a long way in getting you PC music to your stereo. I think it eventually could for TV.
I'm not too pleased with the low resolution of the shows, though. They are half the resolution of regular TV. Good for iPod, bad for watching on your TV.
Posted by: M.e. at October 14, 2005 9:29 AM
Todd - I think you hit the nail on the head with this posting! I don't have a TV ... there's almost never anything I want to watch, and I figured it's kind of stupid to pay fees, subscriptions etc if I don't use it, so I dropped it a couple of years ago. But just once in a while it would be great to see that episode of _whatever_ that all my friends keep talking about! The video iPod is for me!!!
Posted by: Mikkel Bech at October 14, 2005 9:43 AM
Many, many people have commented that the new FrontRow UI seems ideally suited to a Mac Mini - combined with a recording dongle, it would be a great Home Theatre PC (HTPC). Rumors persist of there being some sort of Apple set-top-box in the works - serve as a broadband wifi gateway, DVR, DVD player, jukebox, and/or wireless connection to bring your iTunes music/shows from your Mac/PC to the TV/stereo. Maybe even have CD ripping and the iTMS built-in, without the need for a separate Mac or PC.
Posted by: AJ Kandy
at October 14, 2005 10:28 AM
Todd,
For all the things we talked about the other day, this is what really solves them all. Not only does it provide access, but it provides access across devices. Being able to take content anywhere and access it anytime is the new era of entertainment.
Kenny
Posted by: Kenny Bunch at October 14, 2005 10:31 AM
Todd...I think you totally hit it on the schnoz my man. You know it's amazing to me how opposite the two pc worlds are these days. Apple seems to be doing everything right, in terms of hardware and software as well as what they are doing with the iPod. I can't wait to see what will happen next.
Posted by: Scott Simon at October 14, 2005 10:46 AM
I agree with AJ Kandy. The MacMini is my next choice for home theater. Hook that up to a new HDTV, i already have wireless networking, a bluetooth mouse/keyboard and I have my entertainment center. The part I'm lacking is the instant on feature. How long will it take to go from a shut down or asleep system to viewing a DVD?
I've got a lingering issue with all-in-one devices. If the macmini needs to be repaired, I lose TV, DVD, music etc.
Posted by: ..ak at October 14, 2005 11:06 AM
The networks need to realize that they aren't television show providers, but content providers. They have, in the past, been limited to TV distribution.
And I'm so happy that's changing.
Posted by: Stephen Collins at October 14, 2005 12:54 PM
Can hardly wait to see the "can o' worms" that the video iPod throws into the old school busness models. If you think the music and movie industries are whinning now, what do you think the TV industry's gonna do? Oh, and that great little "ala carte" thing is going to drive the cable companies out of their minds and we haven't even begun to talk about the "without commercials" stuff yet... Damn, the consumer might actually get to rule? Nahhhhhh.....
Posted by: Wayne Godfrey at October 14, 2005 1:07 PM
I'm so excited by this move. So much is going to change. Apple continues to surprise me. I can't wait 'til I can work on my Mac in the office, all the while someone in the living room is watching TV that my Mac in the office is supplying.
Posted by: Baasch at October 14, 2005 1:38 PM
I think that the ABC 6 TV shows are definitely just the tip of the iceberg. Here is my experience having downloaded the first Lost episode:
DSL is the new dialup, we'll soon be cursing the slowness of it...
Video quality was pretty good, on my 20" ACD, I doubled the size of it and it still looked good. And for as close as I was, it's probably equal to the size of my regular TV from my regular chair.
Sound quality was really good, with headphones, better than my crappy home theater system
I would love it if Apple struck a deal with Fox and HBO - get episodes of Family Guy and Six Feet Under on there.
@Scott Simon - you aren't my cousin Scott, are you? ;)
Posted by: Dave Simon at October 14, 2005 1:49 PM
I worked at RealNetworks on their movies team for several years, and I am absolutely floored with the quality of the offering Apple was able to come up with.
Any developer can tell you what will sell: 25 cents per episode, massively high quality, every download available at the same time the show airs, and no DRM.
But then the studios come back and try for $5 per episode, low quality (to protect against piracy), a 2-year lag after the DVDs are available (to protect DVD sales), and a DRM that only allows 3 views before disappearing.
That Apple was able to get $2 downloads the next day with pretty reasonable DRM highlights just how powerful Apple is in the media space. Real never got close to this kind of deal, and I doubt they ever will.
No, you can't burn to DVD (Real's strange must-have requirement), and the quality isn't so hot. But as trade-offs go, this is pretty amazing.
Posted by: Jon Bell at October 14, 2005 3:09 PM
"The resolution of the videos are high enough to enjoy full screen..."
320x240 is too low of a resolution to look good when viewed full-screen on my 12" PowerBook. I found that the videos looked blurry when viewing them at double size, which is barely half the size of my screen.
Apple needs to make the videos available at a higher resolution before I'm going to buy any more of them. 320x240 might a good size for viewing the videos on the iPod (apparently that's the exact size of the new iPod screen), but it's way to small for comfortable viewing on my PowerBook.
Posted by: Mike at October 14, 2005 3:24 PM
Apple is definitely on to something. I used to have a TV I never turned on (I have to spend a lot of time on the computer to stare at yet another screen), and I got too lazy to go and program the VCR, let alone check the TV Guide after all these years. But that doesn't mean I don't want to watch TV - If I could pick and choose my favorite shows delivered to my computer automatically, boy I would buy that. And if a means is devised to share data from your computer to the big screen, what could be better. I'd even consider a reasonably-priced subscription model if that means no commercials (pipe dream, I know...)
Still, I think the DRM thing has to go. I'm not too fond of copyright schemes that assume I'm a potential pirate. Until then, I guess I won't miss my TV much.
And BTW Todd, you might want to do something about those comment spammers...
Posted by: beto at October 14, 2005 6:40 PM
All we need now is an AirPort ]Audio+Video divice. That would be something. We would not even need a Mac Mini next to the TV. Even if my iMac went down (witch woul not happen) I could use my iBook to stream films.
Posted by: woz at October 15, 2005 9:29 AM
I have band practice every wednesday night, and don't care for enough shows to pay for tivo, so this is a godsend for me.
I agree, the quality could be better. I couldn't full screen it on my 17 inch powerbook. Even at the "correct size" it just seemed kind of dark. I would say that broadcast quality could still preserve the DVD sales. Or maybe DVD quality with commercials? Pick your poison.
I think that SNL should sell skits for $0.50, NFL should sell games for $3, and music videos are too much while TV shows are a steal.
Is there a downside to the networks here? I'm not sure.
As beginnings go though, this is an excellent one.
Posted by: Jason at October 15, 2005 7:42 PM
The video quality is good enough to view full screen? I think not.
Posted by: Ryan Clark at October 16, 2005 12:26 PM
My mac's modem is already connected to my home theater's plasma screen with the same cable. Every house is already wired and ready to go, FrontRow can evolve to remotely control the mac from that screen. Apple, give me some High Def 5.1 content!
The future is looking really really good.
Posted by: garyW at October 16, 2005 6:35 PM
I'd really love to see my buddies over at Techwood (aka Time Warner/Turner) jump onto licensing content this way. Anyone listening?
Posted by: jcburns at October 18, 2005 9:22 AM
i think the prices really need to be worked on. The music videos?? Way too high. You can usually get them off the artists website for free anyways. It's not like they are losing any kind of music video sales. Bands rarely sell their videos anyways. It's just extra income. Why make restrictions on the size?
The TV shows I think are too much as well. $2 an episode is esentially what you pay per episode when you buy the show's season on DVD. And with a DVD you are getting great quality. Not a tiny low res video. Why should we be paying such a high price for such low quality????? Same goes for the music videos.
Posted by: James at October 21, 2005 7:04 PM
Don't we just think that video is one more 'feature' to add to the iPod to keep the device hot in sales? If I don't even care about video, but want a full-size pod, I'm getting video... but the potential with buzz and new media offerings has created enough hype. For me, the bigger screen and thinner case is more appealing than the video feature, per se.
Posted by: Xiaobing Shuai at November 30, 2005 10:33 PM
The video quality is good enough to view full screen? I think not.
Posted by: Chris at December 7, 2005 6:18 AM
The future is looking really really good.
Posted by: Luiza at December 9, 2005 5:46 AM
