mendax.org

People have been going ga-ga over Apple TV ever since it was announced. I wasn’t sure what the big deal was then, and I’m still not sure now. With shipments supposedly going out to everyone who pre-ordered the gadget, reviews are already trickling into the blogosphere, but I still don’t get it.

Apple TV is a media appliance for one’s entertainment center. It allows users to download videos from the iTunes music store and stream them from the computer running iTunes to the Apple TV, which is hooked up to the user’s television. Basically, Apple TV does what numerous other media appliances already do, but with Apple’s polish and interoperability directly with iTunes. Aside from that, the 40GB Apple TV sports a $300 price tag, which is supposed to make up for the convenience of not having any wires between one’s computer and their television. A convenience for sure, but not one worth $300.

If Apple TV doubled as a DVR, as people speculated before the device’s release, I’d be impressed. The system could then be a potential TiVo killer, especially considering how closely tied the Apple TV is to one’s computer. Getting easy access to recorded shows on one’s portable computers and devices would be great, and having another DVR not tied to a particular cable/satellite provider would be killer.

Alas, everything the Apple TV is not, is what I want in such a compact device. As it stands, one is legally limited to watching television programs purchased from the iTunes store. Checking out the iTunes store, one finds a good number of shows and stations, but the offerings of each station is fair at best. For example, half the things I’d be interesting watching on the History Channel aren’t offered, as the iTunes store only offers three History Channel Series. This is odd given that one can buy, for snail-mail delivery, practically anything ever shown on the History Channel.

Apple TV users are similarly cut off from most movie networks, such as HBO and Cinemax. While movies can be purchased separately (albeit from a library much smaller than that of, say, Netflix), it’s the shows on stations like HBO that many find intriguing. On Apple TV, no Entourage, Rome, or Sopranos. Those are the only reasons to even watch HBO anymore.

Let’s say, for a moment, that the limited programming the iTunes store offers is acceptable, however. At two dollars per show (regardless of length), my typical cable bill of about $60 nets me 30 shows every month. If there were two shows I religiously watched every day (like the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, for example), I’d already exceed this. Nevermind all the crap I half-watch in the background while pecking away on my laptop, or while I’m making dinner.

So the Apple TV clearly isn’t a replacement for cable/satellite for the average user. Is it, then, a replacement for the discriminating viewer? Tallying up my “must watch” shows, or at least the ones I try to catch, I can see watching one show every night mid-week, leaving me with an extra two shows per week. That’s fairly consistent with my regular TV schedule, if I cut out all the noise from shows on in the background when I’m not mostly attentive to what’s on the tube. With this level of TV watching, Apple TV allows me to cut out commercials and obtain a viewing experience pretty consistent with what I have now, but for the monthly price, Apple TV still falls behind when one takes into account the other offerings of typical cable/satellite service.

Apple TV would have to increase its programming offerings and drop the price on its shows to make up for what normal TV service offers. Once it becomes competitive enough with these traditional services, I can see Apple TV being worth it. Until my TV-watching decreases, however (which is always possible), I’ll still give a confused look whenever I hear the hype surrounding what is, at the moment, just another novelty item. Stand on your own, Apple TV, and then you’ll have my heart.

Popularity: 2% [?]