re aTV
I agree aTV looks stalled, but I'm not sure you've got the complaints lined up right :-)
iPod didn't do well because of iTS lock-in. iPod did well because all your existing music could be put on it and carried with you, freeing you from piles of jewel cases, and enabling you to create "mix tapes" in the era of the (read-only) CD. iTunes was originally a jukebox with visual effects (bought from publishers Casady & Greene, or from developer Jeff Robbin, I"m unsure, but the jukebox was formerly known as SoundJam). The music store was a late addition, and in my opinion only served to protect Apple from the risk that a non-Apple DRM scheme might slowly freeze Apple out of being able to sell players. Apple still can't offer protected WMP without paying MSFT a fee, and Apple has no incentive to pay MSFT a fee. If MSFT got to the position MSFT could require people to pay it a fee to handle, sell, or play music, then MSFT would soon be the only company making a meaningful profit at it. That's why, in my view, Apple priced its product at near break-even: Apple wanted to make sure nobody had the room to steal music from it by making a mint on anti-Apple DRM.
So the problem isn't that Apple's lock-in isn't working on aTV, it's that non-iTS content isn't easy to put on aTV. Your DVDs can't easily be played. Yes, I've ripped one as a test with HandBrake, but I didn't end up with chapter markers, and without that I can hardly imagine wanting to navigate a DVD. Good DVDs, you also want to view the special features. Apple would want to offer a play-it-on-your-aTV option for this to work. Arguably, there's a DMCA exception (for compatibility) that would even shield Apple's re-encoding of DVD content into a format aTV would more happily digest.
This problem basically encompasses your complaints 2-4 (folks already get content, mostly with a no-purchase model, and Apple doesn't support existing content acquisition on its new device). 6 and 8 look like a plea for Apple to compete with non-purchase content delivery models. I'd lump #7 in the same bin, but I'll go out on a limb and say it's irrelevant to Apple whether folks buy content from Apple's store or not, and whether they own physical media or rent streams or buy a license to play a "permanent" file. Apple (I argue) is a hardware vendor and runs a content store only to protect its hardware business from DRM lock-out.
#5 is a miss: Apple isn't talking about aTV in the conference call because it wants to keep people's attention off what it's still developing and get folks focused on what's working.
Apple's real failing is in making aTV as easy as an iPod.
But my favorite is #1 -- and that may be fairly important. I think #1 is where Apple wanted to win, by offering a HD download service that would beat both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray DVD to the living room of average Joes. I think Apple wanted to win the format war, but has scared content providers out of letting them do it. So HD will get delayed (in effect) until there's a clear winner in Blu-ray v HD-DVD. Apple could have offered movies and special features via H.264 on demand and thus been faster than Netflix or Blockbuster -- and, not suffering mailing costs, would probably have been able to offer more than either of them at the same money. Ahh, but Apple's been unable to offer major studios' movies in high-def.
#6 is interesting. Apple has occasionally demonstrated a predilection toward welding the case shut, closing down variation, and insisting on tight control of the user experience, which means anything a user might want to try with the machine Apple sold them. Apple's lack of overt enthusiasm over developers' extensions of the system is hardly a surprise. It's worth noting that Apple didn't do anything to stop them, though. Apple just had no idea what developers should be doing on Apple's system. Apple wants to release something "done" and then let folks prove the value of their additions, I suspect -- not release a "wide open platform" and hope that someone will figure out how it should be made useful. And without the ability to put already-accessed content on the aTV, I have no idea what Apple could offer developers that would make it relevant.
But maybe that's what you had in mind: Apple should do "more" to support developers turning aTV into a video jukebox for the living room in the same way iPod offered a music jukebox for folks who wanted a magic never-ending Walkman. But wasn't that what we expected Apple to do? Why would Apple want to rely on third parties to provide it's tool's basic functionality?
I honestly don't know why Apple released the aTV, why it pre-announced the aTV, or why it launched it with so many basic things not right. I don't think your list quite captures what's broken, though.
You asked :-)
Take care,
--Tex.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
