Sunday 24 November 2024
Font Size
   
Wednesday, 01 September 2010 23:32

5 Reasons Why Apple TV Is (Still) Boring

Rate this item
(0 votes)

CEO Steve Jobs At Apple's annual music event in San Francisco. Photo by Jon Snyder/Wired

We know — the new Apple TV is really small, and it finally focuses on renting rather than

purchasing television shows, integrates iOS devices as remote controls, has an optical audio output for surround sound, and costs just a hundred bones.

That’s all good, but Apple TV has yet to knock our socks off despite being the ripest area for expansion by a company that has already firmly established itself on the computer, phone, portable media player and tablet.

Let’s just get right down to it. Here are five reasons Apple TV is still boring — even after today’s improvements:

1. Paltry selection of television shows

The biggest promise of devices such as Apple TV, from the consumer’s point of view is that they might, at long last, allow them to “cut the cord,” replacing their cable/satellite connections with an internet-connected set-top box, the same way many have replaced their landlines with cellphones.

But with only two networks — ABC and Fox — included in Apple’s new television rental program, the only way a television viewer with normal viewing habits would be able to cut the cord using the new Apple TV would be to wait a day and download unsupported new shows from bit torrent (more on that below), while relying on Netflix for older shows.

“To get the [88 percent] of the [U.S] market [that doesn't know what Apple TV is] to pay attention, Apple has to offer more of what people want in the living room: more TV shows,” said Forrester analyst James McQuivey after Wednesday’s announcement. “Yet only ABC and Fox have agreed to let Apple rent their TV shows; meanwhile the Apple TV becomes merely one of dozens of devices some even cheaper than $99 that can stream Netflix videos to the living room.”

He’s right. This relative lack of television content appears to weaken the “TV” part of the “Apple TV” proposition more than any other factor. And the fact that one of only two launch partners Apple could secure is ABC — owned by Disney, of which Jobs is the largest shareholder — is not exactly a hopeful sign that the networks will be climbing aboard any time soon.

2. No iOS

Apple’s iOS (iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad) relies on a touchscreen, and a television, by its nature of being 10 or more feet away, does not. But Apple allows developers to simulate iOS devices on a computer that lacks such a touch screen, so it’s possible to represent touch with a pointer. Similar technology — perhaps utilizing a Wii-style control wand, a gyroscopic mouse, or even another iOS device — could solve that problem.

As Brian X. Chen wrote back in July — after both Engadget and The New York Times reported that Apple would include iOS in the next Apple TV overhaul — an iOS-based Apple TV would have led to the connected living room, an expanded iOS user base, TV apps, motion-based gaming, and a stronger alternative to cable/satellite.

Instead, Apple TV is more “Airport Express for television” than “iPhone for television.” Apple created (or helped create) custom Apple TV apps for Flickr, MobileMe, Netflix, and YouTube in advance of this announcement. Why reinvent the wheel like that when Apple already has a thriving iOS app store?

Hopefully, for Apple’s sake and that of its customers, the next Apple TV will run iOS. If so, competing television networks would have less reason to balk, because they could create their own apps (see Hulu), which would go a long way towards solving our #1 objection, above.

As things stand now, the door is wide open for Google Android to take over the set-top boxes with a device that truly runs apps, essentially scaling the Boxee model out to hordes of Android users — and maybe even former iOS users.

[Story continues]

Pages: 1 2 View All

Authors: Eliot Van Buskirk

to know more click here

French (Fr)English (United Kingdom)

Parmi nos clients

mobileporn