Technology & Gadgets

Apple isn’t known for rolling out ‘clones’ of anything. What they are known for is taking existing products & technologies, and packaging them together into a new and innovative product (mp3 players, smartphones and tablet computers all existed long before Apple revolutionized those markets); don’t expect their streaming music service to be any different. A few things they can do to make a streaming music service more ‘Apple-y’:

Make it an expanded version of Genius playlists, so it has access to all your purchased iTunes tracks (local and iCloud), as well as Apple’s full library of music you don’t own, streaming from the cloud. This way Apple only has to pay streaming royalties on the songs you don’t already own, giving them a leg up in profits over the existing streaming-only services, and perhaps cutting down on the number of ads you’re served. Songs you don’t own will show up in your played history, but can’t be added to your own custom playlists unless you buy them. Buying would be as easy as clicking the ‘buy’ button on the song entry, as though you’re in the iTunes Store. This way they’re able to use the streaming service as a trojan horse for the iTunes store, introducing you to new songs based on what you already like, but limiting what you can do with those songs until you purchase them. Some customers will just use the service the same way they currently use Pandora, in which case Apple won’t make much money on streaming royalties, but at least they won’t lose those users to Pandora/etc. Those customers are also that much more likely to make any potential music purchases through iTunes.

At least, that’s what I would do if I made the decisions at Apple.

As expected, Apple released an update to their Apple TV set-top-box. Just about all the rumors & speculators were right – the price dropped to $99, the hard drive is gone in favor of streaming, and TV rentals from iTunes will be $0.99/episode. Unfortunately, the new feature set fails to include one major update that had been widely expected, and whose omission will ensure the device remains squarely in the “hobby” department – the switch to the iOS platform. Had Apple included the iOS in the new device, it may have actually had a descent chance of being their next big success. Instead, with the custom, locked-down interface, it’s just another set-top-box.

Sure, the updated Apple TV streams from iTunes or your iPhone, & it has Netflix streaming built in – but that’s exactly the problem – it’s built in; ie., not expandable. Without the iOS and the App Store that goes with it, you’re stuck with only the applications Apple thinks you need. You prefer Hulu or Amazon On-Demand over Netflix? Get something else. You want to stream Pandora directly to your stereo? Move along. And who knows what will be out next year. The point is, by keeping the OS to a proprietary & non-expandable system, they have greatly limited its appeal, and thus its sales potential.

Had Apple built the new Apple TV on the iOS instead of their baked-in interface, consumers would for the first time really make a connection between the device, and their iPods/iPhones/iPads. As it stands, the Apple TV still *looks* like a hobby. It’s something completely different form any of their other products, and that’s the way people are going to perceive it… and continue to look right past it.

Apple had a chance to change the game when it comes to the living room. No other company has the brand recognition, loyalty, and positive mind-share in the consumer electronics market that Apple has. They could have leveraged that, and made a real run for the living room. They could have taken Apps on your TV mainstream. They could have been the king of the hill as far as set-top-boxes go, and had a huge head-start once they start integrating that box into their own TVs in the (hopefully) near future. Instead, they just came out with an updated version of one of the many set-top-boxes on the market; and if you hadn’t noticed, nobody’s really interested in the current crop of set-top-boxes.

[sigh] Well, there’s always next year.

In a recent ruling by the Australian supreme court against ISPs being responsible for its users’ copyright infringement:

“To use the rather colourful imagery that internet piracy conjures up in a highly imperfect analogy, the file being shared in the swarm is the treasure, the BitTorrent client is the ship, the .torrent file is the treasure map, The Pirate Bay provides treasure maps free of charge and the tracker is the wise old man that needs to be consulted to understand the treasure map.”

I think the analogy is quite accurate, with the exception of the treasure being something congruous to gold doubloons. To be more accurate, the treasure would magically self-replicate itself – at first from the goldsmith’s treasure chest, and then from each pirate to have pirated a piece; but by doing so, because of the treasure’s self-replicating ability, no one is ever deprived of any of the treasure. Rather, the treasure can be spread to a much greater magnitude of pirates, many of whom may otherwise never have known about the treasure or its (magical) goldsmith. With a much greater pool of fans for his/her gold, the goldsmith would have a better chance of making money off their treasure – by making more treasures, offering them in ways that pirates would be willing to pay for, and even charging pirates to see the goldsmith work his/her magic in person.

It sure beats the model of a few goldsmiths, chosen by a handful of businessmen who advertising the goldsmith’s (often inferior) treasure on a massive scale, sell it for a greatly inflated rate, block anyone from using its magical self-replicating feature, and then pay the goldsmith a pittance for their creation.

In terms of legal precedent, it’s great that the judge actually took the time to completely understand the technical implications of the case before making a ruling. If more judges would take that much time and care in their cases, the world would be a much better place for the great majority of its inhabitants, if a little less cozy for its richest.

More case analysis at ArsTechnica.
Complete ruling at Austlii.edu.au.