Kill Your (Cable) TV? Maybe Not Just Yet...

Few things engage the design and technology industries like an Apple event, and this year’s music event has already set the blogosphere ablaze with commentary.  The most anticipated announcement this year was the complete overhaul of AppleTV.  Many of us hoped this announcement would herald the death of cable tv and its outdated box technology. Sadly, it did not.  Instead we were left with some enigmatic black box that looks more like a hub than a media center.

Where has it all gone so wrong? Why is it so difficult for us to get rid of costly and clunky cable service for on demand programming?  Its simple really…

Not All Content is Created Equal

Jobs could not have said it better when he uttered “Nobody wants amateur hour”.  While some have viewed this as a jab at YouTube and Google, it does make an important point. The success of the AppleTV is entirely dependent on the willingness of the content creators to ‘play ball’ with Apple.

In terms of actual ‘television’ though, the AppleTV falls short. Having content from only FOX and ABC (of course Disney would be on board) is a huge setback, and not an unexpected one.  Why would these television networks violate their cable agreements, forgo billions in advertising revenue, and sell their well-produced content for cutthroat rates? Pricing a TV show rental at the same (or even lower) price than a song is both great and baffling.  Great for customers, but terrible for content providers. Can anyone think that the costs the go into producing one song can be anything close to the costs of producing a TV show?  Maybe the other networks will have a change of heart should the AppleTV prove to be a success… but how will it be a real success without the content? 

Sure, adding Netflix support was essential, and added features like the Tomatometer are nice touches, but the lack of network support may ultimately doom the Apple TV.  Indeed the limit of the device to only 720p streaming video is enough to keep any real film buff from wading into Apple’s offering. Watching Avatar at 720p just won’t do for an audience accustomed to the clarity of BluRay. As a replacement for the DVD player, the AppleTV does find a comfortable niche, but its more than just this niche AppleTV is trying to fill.

The Price is Wrong, Bitch!

By pricing rentals at $.99 per show, Apple has one again shown its understanding of its audience. The $1 price point is exactly what people are willing to pay for shows… one would think. While this pricing policy works well for someone who watches a handful of weekly shows, it doesn’t work nearly as well for people who watch large amounts of television, particularly news programming. For those people, AppleTV will wind up costing much more than even the most expensive Cable TV services. Do the math… 15 episodes of the Daily Show per month and 15 episodes of Colbert is $30/month right there… for only 2 shows. Seems a bit steep, doesn’t it? Add in a few more daily news shows and the cost would skyrocket… all on shows that in many cases can be found for free on the network’s website, though often chopped into segments.

It forces us to wonder if a subscription model wouldn’t be more suitable for such content. Perhaps if users could rent a network, or family of networks for a monthly fee, more networks would come on board. Instead of renting individual shows, customers could stream all of Viacom or Discovery’s channels for $15 per month.  It would seem a smart option to be sure, but it highlights a larger inconsistency within Apple’s business model.

More Like App-less TV

The iPad in particular has become a powerful media browsing device, and many media outlets have begun building apps to provide their content to iOS devices.  Jobs touted this at the unveiling, by streaming the movie Up from his iPad to the AppleTV unit.  Yet by not allowing apps directly on the AppleTV, users will be forced to stream content from another iOS device in order to enjoy the content provided by this app…if that’s even possible.

The most noticeable issue is with live sports… some of the most lucrative shows on television.  DirecTV has seen the power of the iPad, and is now offering an app (a $350 app, mind you) version of it’s Sunday Direct Ticket.  Its a brilliant move, and one perfect for expats or football fans who don’t want to pay for cable, but AppleTV users won’t be able to experience this without another iOS device. Seems pretty silly, huh? How would this work for other sports leagues? Would we rent individual games for $1 per game? That would make baseball extremely expensive. Do we guy a season pass for one team? For all teams? Apart from all that, it would be impossible to watch live sports without commercials, so would we be forced to not only pay to rent this content, but also watch the commercials.  Seems unfair, doesn’t it?

Top that off with the fact that most local sporting events are televised on a network owned by the cable company, Apple’s chief rivals in the television war.  These are just some of the numerous hurdles blocking the AppleTV’s path to replace the cable box.

A Better Remote Control

So TVs aren’t touch screens, and it’s clear to see why Apple decided not to include apps on the AppleTV… so on would think. A few months ago, I wrote about the need for a touch-screen remote control, which is why I was so shocked to see the AppleTV’s cheesy remote.  Wouldn’t the iPhone, or iPod touch make more sense? Or even a touch screen on the AppleTV itself would make sense.  Granted, there is the Remote app provided by Apple, which does a good job of controlling an iTunes library or AppleTV, but this is just the beginning.

Not only should the iPhone serve as a remote control, but also as a video game controller. Steve Jobs proclaimed the iPhone to be the world’s most popular portable gaming device, but the current version of AppleTV fails to bridge the gap between portable and traditional gaming environments. It would seem a logical step, but one that Apple has seemingly failed to seize. Streaming games from one’s iPhone to one’s AppleTV would be an AMAZING breakthrough for the gaming community… as it allows for completely custom-designed control pads, while also making use of the device’s internal gyroscope.  The Guys from EPIC were at the announcement… wouldn’t it have been awesome were they able to play each other on a large TV screen, not just on their iPods.

Less Control Means More Opportunity

By building the device around apps, Apple would have allowed networks to price their content however they see fit, in a format they see fit. Their failure and success would then not be linked to Apple’s pricing policies, but the costs and pricing models decided upon by each network.  This is one case where Apple’s desire to control the entire experience may wind up hurting them. The reliance on iTunes for this level of control, a piece of software originally designed to play mp3’s, highlights another problem with Apple’s transformation into media distribution… one I will discuss in another entry.

In the end, we’ll always dream of a concept of cable without the cable company (and box), but expecting it anytime soon is asking too much.  Let’s face it… Cable companies have been providing us with internet television for 30 years now, and while their record of innovation is a complete joke, their entrenched position within the marketplace is no laughing matter. It’s good to see companies like Google and Apple making inroads into the cable monopolies, but one thing is clear… they’ve got a long way to go.

Addendum

Google’s take on the set top box has come out… and it has apps! And full Internet support. Looks pretty interesting. 

They seem to have a larger pool of content than the AppleTV, which is not surprising given there is no $1 rental stipulation.  Unlike Apple, which told us that we don’t want Internet and personal computing on our TVs, Google gives us the choice. The shot of CNBC alongside your stocks is just the beginning. Imagine being able to access a player’s statistics while watching a game… or viewing an actor or director’s catalog. Both open up world’s of possibilities… even moreso if you can use a handheld device such as an iPad or Mobile phone to access and display the information in numerous ways.  This way one user could access and view the stats on an iPad, thus not interrupting the viewing experience for others.

Until users can get their sports and premieres streamed live, it’s still a pipe dream.  But the bar has been raised…