Its fun to watch all the discussion, hyperbole and hopes associated with Apple TV. Once again Apple has come out with a well designed, functional product. Unfortunately for Apple, it may be too little too late.
Lets face some facts. The era of the desktop PC being the home for exciting change and enhancement are long gone. I wrote this for the first time 2 years ago, and nothing has changed since then.
Then in January of this year, I asked why people are so concerned about getting internet video from PCs to HDTVs , rather than taking traditional video from existing sources and distributing it to PCs. Basically saying that its a lot easier to get from TV to PC via any number of existing DVR and other devices than the other way around.
Yet Apple and others still seem to think that simplifying internet video through a PC to a device to an HDTV is the way to go. Is this the future of home entertainment.
Please. Its shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic. Its a waste of time.
There is an old saying that when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Right now the hammer is internet video and everyone wants to find a way to make it the future. Its old news people. Its a mature product in a mature environment.
Now don't get me wrong. Youtube, despite its copyright problems that could shut it down (i had to slip that in there :), has been a marketing miracle. They have done the completely unexpected and aggregated 10s of millions of monthly users. The same could be same of Myspace. They deserve a ton of credit for what they have accomplished. But the operative word is marketing. Embedded music and video was a catalyst for both. How long has the opportunity to embed videos in an html page been around, 8 years ? No original technology, but a new application of old features is what great ideas and great marketing thrive on.
That is what has made Web 2.0 so interesting. Web 2.0 isnt about technology. Its about ideas implemented around simple applications that have been around for years. The maturity of the technology makes the implementation of ideas simple. That is the key to success in Web 2.0. The technology always works. It may sound crazy to some, but thats the reality. The internet as a connectivity utility and the browser are mature application platforms.
So where will the change come ? What will the be the host for new applications ? Its right in front of our faces, literally. Its the HDTV that you will be buying in the future.
Remember when you would buy a new PC every couple years to keep up and you would buy a new TV every decade ? Well thats about to reverse itself. You no longer feel the need to get the latest and greatest desktop PC, but you are about to get in the habit of upgrading your TV every couple years as new and original features and applications are developed for it.
Dont agree ? Think about the last analog set you bought and what it looked like, could do and cost and compare it to the new HDTV you either just bought or are considering buying. Which has experienced the greatest technological change. The leap from your last analog TV to your next TV or your last PC to your current or next PC ?. The price performance of HDTVs are going to continue at the pace we saw for PCs in the late 90s and early 2000s. In 3 years the mainstream TV will be 70" and cost less than $1500. In 5 years, it could be 100" for $2500 dollars . Yes, you will make room for it. You will redesign the family room or your bedroom to make room.
The price performance curve will drive competition for incremental features as well.
We are getting to the point where features that would have been added to PCs in the past will be added to your HDTV. Advances in wireless technology will be more important to your new TV than your desktop PC once your TV has an IP address and internet connectivity, which is right around the corner.
New and unique applications will be developed for your TV ahead of your PC once every HDTV has a browser built in starting in 18 - 24 months.
If you want to see where exciting software is being developed, its not web 2.0. Its being developed for OCAP, Directv and Dish Networks interactive platforms among many. You probably didnt even realize that many of these development platforms are already being built into HDTVs and applications are starting to be released for them.
Its time for everyone to realize that the internet is old news. Its a mature utility, which is the greatest compliment you can give it. The desktop PC is old news. File it next to DVD players: useful and boring with obsolescence right around the corner. Web 2.0 is pleasingly boring.
If the question is "Whats Next ", the answer begins with "Watch TV"
The Maturity of Web 2.0 and The HDTV is the PC
Recent Posts
- The Internet Hammer and the everything Nail (7/04/2008)
- Ruh Roh - Porn could sink Youtube in Viacom case.... (7/03/2008)
- NBC vs Fanboys vs Sports Talk Radio vs The Olympics (6/29/2008)
Reader Comments
(Page 2)22. Thats like getting a new TV the day they started putting a DVD player inside a TV set. Its helpful and cool, but not necessary. A television HD or otherwise is simply a display. There is no compelling reason to replace this unless the display part of it is no longer acceptable. [1080p will remain acceptable to consumers for longer than you think. Look at all the effort required to get people to make the switch to them.]
Thus, so long as the actual display is up to date, one can always upgrade the additional components to remain up to date.
A new TV that contains an IP address, a harddrive, an a wifi chip is not much different than a PC inside of a TV. This is just like a DVD player inside of a TV. When the DVD player fails, who wants to fix the entire set? People realize that having components not only makes it easier to upgrade but it also limits your vulnerbility to failure.
People upgrade their iMacs every few years because once the insides are obsolete, the display can no longer be used. There are no video inputs. THIS IS NOT THE CASE WITH AN HDTV, THUS PEOPLE WILL NOT BE SO QUICK TO ABANDON A TV THAT HAS A QUALITY HIGH RESOLUTION DISPLAY AND A NUMBER OF DIGITAL INPUTS.
Then again, I'm at work and haven't really thought this through for very long.
-Zach
Posted at 6:37PM on Apr 11th 2007 by Zach
23. Brad ... stuff does not have to come down in real time ... you will subscribe to a bunch of video podcasts and it will all just trickle down into a big hard drive ... you will watch what has been downloaded already and you will soon be overloaded with so much great content that you wont have time to watch it all ... the whole concept of broadcasting, time slots, and "live" TV will disappear ... more on this AppleTV revolution here: http://podslug.com/blog/?p=90
24. TV is mostly entertainment, web browsing is mostly educational/interactive. There is something about using the internet that has spoiled me - I have less patience for TV now. Maybe it's the lack of control, the lack of diverse content, the passive nature of the experience, or maybe it's all the advertisements. High def TV isn't worth paying for - like putting a lot of money into a car you don't drive much anymore. Personally, I'm going to use the cost of a flat panel TV to buy a bigger screen for my computer and use it to watch TV shows downloaded from the iTunes store.
Posted at 7:38PM on Apr 11th 2007 by Dale S.
25. Erik, yes I know how it works. I have an Apple TV and love it. What I was trying to say is that right now, broadcast works as most people expect and IP doesn't. At T1 speed, I have to download for 2 hours to watch just one, and that's not HD. My grandmother would never download a movie to watch later. Even cable's on demand system has a bit too much latency for her tastes. When IP can delivery near zero latency for popular programming, the concept of channels will be in serious danger. A reintermediation will take place. I think however, that Mark is betting on the channels for now, and it's probably a safe bet 5 years out. I sure wish he'd hedge on the Internet though. I'd plunk down $2/episode for many of the things he has on HDNet that I can't get because my cable company doesn't have a deal with his network. Make sense?
Posted at 8:36PM on Apr 11th 2007 by Brad Hutchings
26. Why is there so much concentration on the TV versus the PC? Here I was seeing there being less distinction between the two. Many of the opinions above speak directly to this without drawing the same conclusion. Look at the new gaming systems. A Nintendo is no longer a gaming console; its simply a specialized PC. So when we talk about the Apple TV... isn't it just another flavor of the TV becoming more flexible, customer focused and eventually interactive?
By the way you do work in the TV industry but your blog entries do not have to sound like infomercials for your own profit... but I always look for both sides to an argument and its refreshing to see someone believe so heavily in what they do.
Cheers.
Posted at 9:42PM on Apr 11th 2007 by Chad Weinman
27. The washington post now has a HD Podcast ... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/podcastfront.htm
... the key is to use RSS ... you subscribe once and then content just shows up ... we need to let go of this idea of leaning forward and clicking on a link to download or stream something ... believe me, once you subscribe to a bunch of podcasts you will have tons of content to watch ... you wont care that each one took hours to download because you wont be able to catch up to the great content that has downloaded yesterday! Just like blogs and audio podcasts ... you will have more than you can possibly consume in any one sitting ... or two.
28. Mark- this is a bold position, not one that I embrace all the way. While TVs clearly will have more computing capacity, the one thing they will not have is exactly what has made the Ipod the success it is...the file management, interface, grouping, etc that is Itunes. I also agree with other posts that the TV, while a dominant display, will predominantly be just that, a display. I would venture to bet the USB port will be as important as any other entrance into the TV, as wireless is ultimately reliant on the true last few feet. Ever watch teenagers share photos and music within the same physical environment? They all have flash drives. Now that still would require some level of interface into either a TV or a box, not sure which one wins out; yet not sure it really matters, as the money flows with getting content into the library. I am not saying flash drives are the end all be all, but I do believe that type of transportable technology (Ipods also) validate the intelligence of a PC, combined with the technical maturity of the consumers point to the PC as the center piece of Web 1.0-web.infinity. My thoughts- Harvey
Posted at 10:32PM on Apr 11th 2007 by Harvey Benedict
29. Following are a number of factors to support Mark's vision:
1. Sofa. It's always more confortable to watch something when we sit on a sofa. You can hold a laptop but it's much less confortable.
2. More and more people use computer in their day job. Why do they want to use computers after hour all the time?
3. Distance: PC is to close to me.
4. Family time: we need some social time within the family besides the dinner time.
5. Smart remote control.
30. Mark,
I agree with everything you said about AppleTV. It's an outdated idea and an ass-backwards one at that. Download movies and TV shows to your computer to show on your TV???? As opposed to say, just downloading movies and TV shows to your DVR? I don't get it. As if Youtube videos aren't grainy enough on a 320x240 box, I want to blow up a 10fps clip to 60 inches on my HDTV so my whole family can go blind watching some idiot put Mentos in his Coke.
I partially disagree with you about the TV sets v. Computer argument. You may not have noticed but most of the laptops out there are total garbage with batteries that are drained before the warranty runs out, keys that pop out if you push too hard, and screens that give out within six months (Dell, I'm talking to YOU!). On the other hand, you are right about TV set replacement. The whole Image-Quality-Upgrade-Scam on television sets is part of a Great Hype Machine designed to make people replace their perfectly working and reliable Console TV sets with fragile and unreliable Flat Screens that will need repairs or replacement in a matter of months, not years. Personally, I can't wait for the Blu-Ray DVD scam to go bust. $1000 for a DVD player to watch Groundhog Day in Ultra Hi-Res and see every single crater on Bill Murray's pock-marked face? No thanks!
Special "Dirka Dirka" Ed
Posted at 1:06AM on Apr 12th 2007 by Special Ed
31. Ha! You are so right. Though I agree with Josh Bernoff in his comment that it may not be precisely the TV that gets upgraded, but the set-top. Also, from a technology standpoint, it's pretty darn easy to add Internet capability to a TV or set-top. Once you do that, you can move on to new applications on a more robust and secure network via the platforms you mentioned. (I love that you mentioned OCAP.)
More on this topic from a Motorola perspective at: http://connectedhome2go.com/2007/03/07/on-apple-tv/
32. Mark - Great - I do hope you are right I could use s 1500 50'' TV
- and I haev always thought of a TV interaction system similar to the Wii. I would liek to see a --
WEbTv/PC/300 gig HD/ - wireless keyboard and - a pointer remote (wii)
- all for $50 a month / 120 Channels ...
Posted at 12:35PM on Apr 12th 2007 by pallet jack
33. bad link at the end of the page "Next Page"
Go Mavs
Posted at 1:05PM on Apr 12th 2007 by Alessandro
34. Mark you are beginning to sound a lot like the Magnificent Karnak.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7RWaIURRIQ
Posted at 3:44PM on Apr 12th 2007 by grillcheese
35. Wow, your reader comments are quite impressive. Congrats on having so many readers who care.
I am confused as to why this is even a question. The cost of the hardware to connect to the internet is getting tiny. HDTVs are basically just big screens. Why won't they all just incorporate the ability to hook up to the web? Why try and build a new infrastructure, network and content when the internet is already full built and capable?
Posted at 6:40PM on Apr 12th 2007 by Zach Coelius
36. I don't think you understand the Apple TV. This is a 1.0 rellease. The Apple TV is the first step in being more interactive with your TV and your content. As it matures it will give you more control over what you create and what you discover on the internet. It will become the ultimate viewer controlled TV experience. Your complaints about Apple TV are very similar to what people said about the iPod when it was released and then what people said about watching video on a small iPod screen; those people were wrong too. You don't get it. And, for me, I will put my money on Steve Jobs, not you. Steve has a plan to transform the way we manage content and is taking the early steps to make this happen. Creating HD Net (a channell very few people can watch) and releasing movies on DVD as they are released in theaters is not much progress. Rather than bash others efforts, put your money where you mouth is... Apple Computer is doing that.
Posted at 11:08PM on Apr 12th 2007 by Jay
37. Unfortunate that you are equating the American market with the rest of the world Mark. There may be thousands of channels and a growing demand for HD in the US, but in a lot of the rest of the world HD is barely making a scratch. I live in Europe and haven't bought a new TV for 10 years. My 32" Sony Trinitron does the job wonderfully. On the other hand, I've spent lots of money on both devices that attach to the TV and on computers and devices that help me consume media in new ways (mobile telephones, MP3 players etc).
There are imho no paradigm shifts associated with HD television. It doesn't allow the user completely new ways of interacting/consuming media. It doesn't place control in the hands of the user. It doesn't allow me to be master of my own content with a chance of becoming famous/rich/interesting if enough other people think my content is cool. Instead it is still a centralised broadcast model when the rest of the world is moving towards a decentralised microcasting future.
Posted at 3:06AM on Apr 13th 2007 by Steve Cook
38. "In 3 years the mainstream TV will be 70" and cost less than $1500. In 5 years, it could be 100" for $2500 dollars "
The Moore Law is valid because you are *compressing* more transistors in the same area of silicon i.e. you are using the same raw materials but doing more with it.
The same thing happening in TVs is physically impossible.
To increase TV size you need to increase the quantity of raw materials, transportation costs, electricity consumption (more pixels tot light up), etc, etc, etc. And these things CANNOT, by force of nature, follow the same cost path as you are suggesting.
The reason the price of TVs is falling now is because of an increase in supply and NOT because of a breakthrough in productivity/manufacturing.
Posted at 10:23AM on Apr 13th 2007 by Henrique Valle
39. Over the past couple years, as I've started raising my 2 young boys, I find less and less time to basically "geek out" and fiddle with PC-to-TV connectivity, much less kill hours going on scavenger hunts for decent content at a high enough quality.
As those two little dudes keep growing and get involved in activities, school & sports, I'll have even less time to seek out web-based content. It's similar to the "100 channels but nothing to watch" joke, except now it's "5,000 video websites and nothing to watch." 320x240 resolution blows, and it would be nice to see some better compression methods used to allow for at least SD broadcast res (720x480).
So I guess the point I keep kind of sliding away from is this...eventually, the mass public doesn't have time to seek out the Internet video offerings. The main draw for Internet video will be niched content; local high school sports productions, a sewing channel, things like that.
But overall, the ability of a cable/sat provider to drop hundreds of broadcast quality channels (with an always increasing slate of high def offerings) at your feet in an instant will, I believe, trump any kind of reliance on the Internet for the majority of your viewed programs.
40. I want to know why a television company can't make televisions with computers in them.
- You could pull internet (broadband) and television from the same cable cord
- You could watch downloaded content without doing a thing, and play music on your surround sound much easier
- You could use it like a DVR
- Companies could sell them every couple of years, since the HDTV and the computer part would eventually get outdated
- They could be made with plenty of memory, in the 1 terabyte range, for marginally more (when considering the entire price)
- Cable companies could introduce new and exciting features to their service, through the internet, or over the cable that only a combined pc and television could do
- Most of all, it's easy to market to the general audience, who I consistently remind you all, is not someone like yourself, who reads this blog (keep that in mind).
Posted at 8:31PM on Apr 13th 2007 by Joah
21. Wow Mark. You are usually dead on this stuff. I got an Apple TV from the Fed Ex truck the day it was out, having waited more than a month since my order was placed. The device totally rocks. You say the TV is the thing that will be upgraded often. I think a $1000ish 720p set is capable enough and this guy could be the thing that gets periodically upgraded at $300 a pop.
It comes down to bandwidth: broadcast (cable, satellite) vs. internet protocol. Right now, cable and satellite model has the advantage because they carry more effective programming bandwidth, i.e. hundreds of HD channels with current technology. Bundling, which is coming under attack by anti-monopoly liberals and prudish Christian-right types, makes the model especially viable. But when broadband is able to reliably deliver HD programming to a critical mass of consumers in real time, it's hard to see how it doesn't win. People are seriously pissed off at the aggregators now. NBC cancelled the best show on TV, The Black Donnellys, despite it being the 5th most popular show on iTunes in its short run, up there with the likes of 24 and South Park. Does anyone dare watch "Drive" and pray it doesn't suffer the same fate at the hands of Fox as did Firefly? How many times do we peons have to call our cable operators to ask for HDNet? Am I the only one who is cynical about several channels in the Discovery network "going green", surely at the expense of really great programming they have on there now?
IP provides a chance at reintermediation of programming delivery that won't choke us by geographical bounds or bonehead network decisions. The question is whether it can compete technically with the old model. It's damned close, and the Apple TV makes the difference fairly tolerable now. It most certainly does with the unreleased Black Donnellys episodes.
Posted at 6:13PM on Apr 11th 2007 by Brad Hutchings