Apple’s Media Center PC End Around
Paul Thurrott is wondering where the outrage is. He argues that the new iMac with Front Row is a lame imitation of the Windows Media Center PC and opines that people should be lambasting Apple for blatantly ripping off a Windows innovation that has been around for years. If it were anything else, if Apple had released a subscription service arrangement for iTunes, if Apple had rolled out a Tablet Mac or an antivirus service he would have a point. He’d likely be correct, there is not much outrage when Apple borrows innovations from the Windows world. But in this case he is just plain wrong.
The source of confusion is easy to see, to the casual observer it might indeed seem like the new iMac is Apple’s answer to the Media Center PC. In fact some have called Apple’s new iMac with Front Row the “Media Center PC done right.” That description isn’t very accurate, if the iMac is supposed to be a Media Center PC it is the worst Media Center PC package ever produced. Not to list all of the deficiencies but picking two at random: no TV tuner, no PVR capabilities. Of course that doesn’t mean it isn’t a pretty fantastic computer but comparing the new iMac to a media Center PC is like comparing a sleeve of crackers to a loaf of white bread. Sure you can make a tasty treat by smearing peanut butter on either one but it’s hard to make French toast out of crackers and Cheez Whiz on bread is just wrong.
The big deal about the new iMac isn’t the remote, or the Front Row software the real news is what the iMac lacks and why. If you think for a moment the real news is the latest spoke in the digital hub: TV via the iTunes store. Now the absence of PVR software and a TV tuner starts to make a little sense. If you’re going to try to get people to voluntarily pay for broadcast television on their computer does it make much sense to include a TV tuner so they can simply record the show as it is broadcast? Not really. It would be a lot like making sure everyone attending a concert had a DAT recorder and then trying to sell said patrons a live version of the show as they were exiting the building. Not the deftest business plan ever devised.
What Apple has done with the iTunes update and the iMac revision must have left competitors the world over in a confused wondering just what the hell went wrong. Here’s what happened: While everyone else was busy adapting their products to the way people already use TIVOs and VCRs Apple was asking an entirely different question. To the cynical the question is: how can we make a pile of cash off of this? To the naive the question is: how can we refine the experience to be something cool? The real question is: How can we, yet again, differentiate ourselves from everybody else while making some dough? Apples answer to that question is very interesting.
There are obvious objections to Apple’s strategy. Naysayers who will argue that 320 x 240 is inherently awful. And those folks accustomed to hi-def content have an excellent point, compared to Lost on a 42” plasma broadcast in HD the iTunes version is going to be less than attractive. But most people don’t have high definition televisions and most people aren’t video quality obsessed. To look at a similar example note that the iTunes music store sells songs in what is regarded by audiophiles (and unless the band is playing in their living room there is no pleasing the Audiophile) as a very poor, lossy format encoded at lackluster128 kbps. One question: How many songs has iTunes sold? So we can reject quality as a major issue, sure HD junkies like me will go apoplectic but the rest of the world will be satisfied.
Now we turn our attention to the issue of cost. One of the things people like about iTunes song offerings is the price: .99 cents each and an album for, generally, $9.99. With the television shows running two bucks a pop a season of Lost is not appreciably cheaper than buying the DVD. But those that argue that forget the one of the major reasons iTunes has sold a over 500 million songs; you don’t have to buy the whole album. The same is now true for video: Say you only want to see the episode of Lost where something freaky and inexplicable happens…wait…that’s no good, you would still have to buy the entire season. Imagine instead you only want to see the episode where Claire returns. Guess what? It’s a buck ninety-nine.
Now it is necessary to make a brief tangential journey. Twenty years ago everyone changed his or her own oil. If you even thought out loud about having one of the oil change places do it and you were a guy your elders would harangue you with ominous warning that “those places” would blow the oil out with air pressure. Or worse yet: switch Quaker State for Valvoline without telling you.* So changing the oil was something you had to do yourself because in that fashion you would be sure it was done absolutely perfectly. Somewhere along the line people started valuing convenience over the mythical perfect oil change. This love for convenience explains why the video selections on iTunes won’t be instantly obliterated by the video section of your local Target or downloads via bittorrent. People want easy and a lot of people (not most people, but perhaps enough) will gladly pay Apple a few bucks to take care of the hassle factor.
The most common objections aside, the reasons why it can’t possibly work rejected, we can finally address the real question: Will consumers accept the new video strategy? Well it hasn’t worked very well for Media Center PCs and while Apple’s system seems simpler on the surface you’re actually required to buy a new iPod to get the whole thing really shaking. People, as Apple computer should well know from their experience including DVD playing drives instead of CD burners years ago, don’t generally like to watch TV or movies on their computer. Apple’s strategy is an interesting end around of the Media Center but it is entirely unclear if it is an offering consumers will be interested enough to actually employ.
*I was exempted from this treatment. After rolling the family car down the hill with the oil plug out to drain the oil the easy way I was forced to take the car to an oil change place.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
Though if everyone ends up buying TV over the internet and watching on their computers, well maybe it is a media center.
It’s argueable that even though FR lacks TV input that it DOES have TV. But instead of you being able to record the programs you’d otherwise get for free on the WMC, you get to BUY them from Apple and watch them on a 2.5” screen.
It’s TV done wrong.
Chris, while you are editing, you might want to fix the 320x320 part as well.
“rip offs” are business as usual. MS has been ripping Apple off for years, turn about is fair play.
- gws
MS has been ripping Apple off for years, turn about is fair play.
“Turn about” would imply that Apple is only ripping off MS because MS ripped off Apple, or that MS ripped off Apple first.
Apple AND MS have both been ripping off each other and other companies for years. It’s not “turn about” so much as it is what Apple’s been doing since the beginning.
But hey, at least you admit that FR is a rip off of WMC. I guess that’s something.
Okay, well if the remote is all your interested in (like this guy via MDN)
“Which brings me to what I think was Apple’s more interesting announcement: The new iMac comes with a remote control — and the ability to let you control what you’re listening or watching to from across the room. I think that’s the next step for home computers,” Krakow writes.
I’ll concur, it is plainly derivitive. Still, total picture I just don’t see the issue.
MDN is notable for having their collective heads shoved particularly far up their collective arses.
I’m just saying.
Ah, I just found it on MDN, some other pub ran the story. I know a lot of people don’t like MDN for their rabid pro apple stance but those guys aggregate the best news, not too much, not too little.
Of course the more I think about it the more I realize that the people really being ripped off, and no one is saying this, is Commodore. My friend had a 64 hooked to his TV, the TV had a remote and a VCR. Plus he had a few pictures in frames on top of his TV. Commodore 64 ripping SWINE! (agian I kid, I kid)
There’s some truth to that martunibo, what better phrase to both admit the rip off while downplaying the work of others?
I’m with Beeb that I don’t mind when companies use the ideas of others legally, it happens all the time and makes for better stuff down the road but I jsut not really seeing it this time around.
Hey, I never said a rip-off is inherently wrong. What is wrong is the use of double standards when discussing Apple’s products vs. others.
But instead of you being able to record the programs you’d otherwise get for free on the WMC, you get to BUY them from Apple and watch them on a 2.5” screen.
Well Chris said it himself: The real question is: How can we, yet again, differentiate ourselves from everybody else while making some dough?
Then again, you don’t have to pay cable companies (that is in the nirvana I mentioned in #25), now let a math uber-geek calculate a pricing scheme that would make the new system equal in cost to the existing one. In the meantime, consumers shall put up with the extra cash. (That would be you consumers, since I 1.live in Argentina, far far away from the ITMS (for now…) 2.am finishing high school and thus living with & off my parents)
The iPod didn’t become the most popular portable music player by having more “features” than it’s competition. A large part of the iPod’s success is based on product design, user interface and integration with iTunes.
Front Row brings the iPod user interface to your Mac. Based on the success of the iPod, It’s a rather obvious step for Apple to take.
No TV tuner or DVR, just a simple way to view content that’s already on your Mac. Music and video from iTunes, photos from iPhoto and a DVD player, all using a iPod like UI. Nothing more. Nothing less. And the remote works with an iPod as well. Again, an obvious move by Apple to extend the the iPod UI into your living room.
Are there similarities with Microsoft’s Media Center? Yes. But is it a rip-off? Considering the Front Row remote only has 6 buttons vs. Media Center’s 40, calling it a rip-off is a real stretch.
Considering the Front Row remote only has 6 buttons vs. Media Center’s 40, calling it a rip-off is a real stretch.
You regurgitate Steve Job’s talking points and you think this proves something? This is a pretty pathetic response unless you are actually a PAID Apple spokesman. And I’m betting you’re not.
The FR remote has fewer buttons because it DOES LESS. TV and PVR alone would add at least 10 number buttons that the FR remote doesn’t need. And that would hardly prove it’s not a WMC rip off. You can rip off look and feel without copying every single feature. Again, I don’t need to know exactly what Vista includes in Gadgets to know that it’s a ripoff of Konfabulator. It doesn’t matter.
Beeblebrox - why not try standing back from this and levaing your clear anti-Apple prejudice behind for a second and trying to think a bit more?
The reason that the Apple approach can get away with a much more user-friendly remote is that the software does all the work, rather than the user having to fathom out yet another incredibly complex remote with many keys they will probably never use. It’s a bit of a conceptual leap to make, certainly, but once you get this you’ll understand a lot more.
Remember that Apple buzz-phrase - “Think Different”? That’s what this is all about. Yes, there are some similarities with what MS have done so far, but this really is a different paradigm, with a different approach to the UI into the bargain.
Most people acknowledge that Apple generally deliver more straightforward, elegant and user-friendly interfaces than MS - why not keep this in mind when looking at these new products and see if that may be the answer to your fear of the new?
Beeblebrox - why not try standing back from this and levaing your clear anti-Apple prejudice behind for a second and trying to think a bit more?
Nick, I don’t define “thinking” as letting Steve Jobs form all of my opinions for me the way you and Scott do. I am able to look at Apple products without the infamous Apple reality distortion field and evaluate it based on actual merit, not an Apple press release.
And no, that’s not the same thing as an anti-Apple bias. I like Apple products (I’m writing this message on a Mac right now). That only qualifies as anti-Apple to you because it’s a bit less than the slavish drooling worship you’re used to.
Remember that Apple buzz-phrase - “Think Different”?
There’s a funny scene in the movie Life Of Brian in which Brian tells a crowd of his blind followers that they should all think for themselves because they are individuals, and they shout back at him in unison, “YES, WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS.”
I’m reminded of that every time some Apple drone says to “think different,” when thinking “different” to them basically means to think whatever Jobs tells them to think.
why not keep this in mind when looking at these new products and see if that may be the answer to your fear of the new?
Well, my whole point here is that FR is a rip off of Windows Media Center. So even if I were afraid of the “new,” I’d have no reason to fear FR because there’s nothing new about it. Everything in it has been done before.
No TV tuner or DVR, just a simple way to view content that’s already on your Mac. Music and video from iTunes, photos from iPhoto and a DVD player, all using a iPod like UI. Nothing more. Nothing less. And the remote works with an iPod as well. Again, an obvious move by Apple to extend the the iPod UI into your living room.
I really wonder how many people will be running Front Row on new iMac G5s in their living rooms. Isn’t it ultimately more desirable to somehow get content off of the computer and on to the A/V components in the living room?
Something I noticed watching the Front Row tour is that most of its iPod-like UI looks like it could effectively scale to lower resolutions, unless the demo videos aren’t representing the actual UI. If true, it seems at least possible for Front Row to also be an on-TV-screen controller for remote content delivered from computers, with wired or wireless connections, to A/V components. Or, maybe Front Row would simply look too crummy by Apple’s standards to be something they’d want running on analog or SDTV screens.
I think in 12 months or so when 802.11n has been ratified, sending HD video around the house will be an easy task, but not until then. I believe this is when the much talked about Airport video streaming device will come out.
I could see that being Apple’s intention for this hypothetical “AirPort A/V” product, allowing them to showcase it with HD but also supporting SD.
And where might AirTunes fit into this, with its controlling UI still limited to the Mac display? A similar limitation with AirPort A/V would be to crippling for controlling streaming video.
The reason that the Apple approach can get away with a much more user-friendly remote is that the software does all the work, rather than the user having to fathom out yet another incredibly complex remote…
Actualy, the reason the FR remote has less buttons is it can’t do all the work other similar system do. Now, that isn’t necesarily a bad thing, before someone takes ofense, it is indeed different. However, it must be admitted that this new paradigm is still far from reaching its prime. It would take a much more comprehensive Media Store to make the lacking features go unnoticed.
Front Row brings the iPod user interface to your Mac. Based on the success of the iPod, It’s a rather obvious step for Apple to take.
Of course, Apple wouldn’t release a complicated DVR system for users to hook up to theyr cable system, that’s beyond their design philosophy, but as of yet, the Apple solution is incomplete, or at least not mature.
Martunibo - You have, of course, made the necessary point (which incidentally I myself made in post 4, way back up this topic). This is a strategic placeholder - it’s a start in the whole game of downloadable content. There’s nothing stopping it from being scaled up from here to whatever level of definition, type of content, or method of delivery (eg time limited or limited in number of viewings) you can think of.
The key is that the general public from now will start to think about downloadable video content and will think of it in connection with Apple. And the studios and other content owners have good reason to be talking to Apple about what they are doing, particularly given the success they have already achieved with music.
Beeblebrox - I really am amazed that you can leap to the conclusion that my opinions are formed by Steve Jobs from my postings here. Just because I think that Apple are doing something clever in this area (like they did with the whole iPod/iTunes etc thing), doesn’t mean that I buy into everything that Jobs says or that Apple does. But I do think that you are guilty of inappropriate cynicicm in your rhetoric on this subject.
The point is that in this particular area I DO think that Apple are doing something different from MS, and doing it better from the perspective of market and user acceptability.
Your words in your last post do rather suggest that you are prejudiced against Steve Jobs to the point of not being able to accept that there might be some validity in Apple’s strategy in this area. That’s just not an objective position from which to form a valid point of view.
Beeblebrox - I really am amazed that you can leap to the conclusion that my opinions are formed by Steve Jobs from my postings here.
You can’t possibly be amazed at leaping to conclusions, considering the leaps you yourself have made, among them that I have a “clear anti-Apple bias” (which I don’t) and that I fear “the new” (which as far as I can tell is something you just made up).
Your words in your last post do rather suggest that you are prejudiced against Steve Jobs to the point of not being able to accept that there might be some validity in Apple’s strategy in this area
At no point have I been critical of Steve Jobs. I’m critical of those who regurgitate Jobs’s talking points as their own opinions, repeating him almost word for word. And also the gymnastic flips zealots go through to deny that Apple ripped off FR (or whatever product du jour Apple copied from someone else).
And Apple’s strategy can be both valid AND and FR can be a rip off of WMC at the same time. The two are in no way mutually exclusive.
Apple’s strategy is much the same as any technology company. Create a standard (or commandeer the standard and act like you created it) and reap the benefits of the association. Apple more than anyone understands the power of branding.
The problem here with FR’s incompleteness is that it’s so clearly following in the footsteps of MS. I think the downloading implementation is the strongest portion of the strategy, although you don’t really need FR for that.