Apple’s Media Center PC End Around

by Chris Seibold Oct 17, 2005

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.

Comments

  • Chris, you can argue that Apple has a new spin on the media center idea, but it is an undeniable rip-off, though that is not necesarily a bad thing, coming from either side. Now, it could be said that it is not a rip-off precisely because of this new spin, but that would require a complete reevaluation of what we understand as a rip-off and many critics against M$ would be left ungrounded.

    martunibo had this to say on Oct 18, 2005 Posts: 37
  • Now, on an OFFTOPIC note, maybe a suggestion for a future article, have you lot been reading up on Apple’s ‘Made for iPod’ taxing campaign? If so, how about an analisis/comparission between this and the Music Studios & Cy that want Apple to charge more for songs or hand over a slice of the iPod pie?

    Just a quote: “Ultimately Apple is tired of watching these people profit off their success.”
    From this article [CNet News - news.com.com]. Sounds a lot like the arguments of the RIAA.

    Just thought it would be interesting.

    martunibo had this to say on Oct 18, 2005 Posts: 37
  • Now, it could be said that it is not a rip-off precisely because of this new spin, but that would require a complete reevaluation of what we understand as a rip-off and many critics against M$ would be left ungrounded.

    I completely agree, Martunibo.  But you have to understand these terms as Apple-fanatics define them.

    It’s really quite simple:

    Innovation=every single product that Apple makes.

    Rip-off=every single product that competes with an Apple product.

    With that knowledge in hand, Apple-fan sites actually make sense and aren’t steaming piles of FUD and hypocrisy.  Using the conventional definitions of those words or trying to apply them evenly to both Apple and the competition will only lead you to frustration and headaches.

    Beeblebrox had this to say on Oct 18, 2005 Posts: 2220
  • I understand where you are coming from martunibo but I still don’t see the rip off part of the deal. If Apple had include PVR or TV waching capabilities then sure it would be a total rip. But they didn’t for the reasons outlined above.

    So since the purpose of the device is different it is hard to see it as a rip off, it’s basically mac with a six button mouse that runs a limited number of programs. Which isn’t the most exciting thing in the world. until you couple it with a new iPod and the iTunes video deal. Well, personally, it still isn’t that interesting. But it may be interesting to a lot of other folks (color me skeptical but I just got an iPod a few months ago so I’m not exactly the best judge of the new hotness).

    So since it doesn’t replicate any of the core functionality of the Media PC (it won’t replace your TV) it is hard for me to see it aas a rip off except in the most superficial sense. Calling it a rip is like accusing a saw of ripping off the claw part of a hammer. Sure you can remove nails with the saw buy cutting around them but you can actually pull nails with a hammer.

    That said I suspect that Apple could do a really great Media Center PC if they wanted to. I also suspect that it would take about 5-10% of the Media PC marketshare. Which is probably why they aren’t doing one.

    Chris Seibold had this to say on Oct 18, 2005 Posts: 354
  • So since the purpose of the device is different it is hard to see it as a rip off, it’s basically mac with a six button mouse that runs a limited number of programs.

    I’m not so sure the purpose is all that different.  It is designed to consolidate your media viewing/watching into one remote-controlled interface.  It’s clearly designed to be viewed from afar (the remote control is a dead give away), which means a living room application.

    The fact that it does way less is indisputable, but that doens’t make it any less of a rip off.  But even Steve Jobs compared it to the Windows Media Center in his keynote.  Why would he do that if it were a completely different purpose?

    Beeblebrox had this to say on Oct 18, 2005 Posts: 2220
  • Well gosh Beeb if you look at it that way then the Media PC is a rip of the digital hub stategy mentioned long before the media PC showed up. But thinking that would be a bit of a stretch.

    Going by what SJ says is a difficult proposition, he says everything with a purpose and not alwys the most obvious one. Why mention the media PC? Probably just because they have been so poorly recieved and now people can run around yelling “Done right” “Done right”

    If you look at the functions of a Media PC to me the big ones are watching TV and the PVR functions. Everything else is just doing stuff computers have done for a while. Without those two features, it’s a computer with a heavily buttoned wireless mouse.

    Note I didn’t use the word innovative one time in the article, cause I, for one, don’t see the innovation in this iMac revision. well maybe the isight or photobooth. I guess I meant exciting innovation.

    Chris Seibold had this to say on Oct 18, 2005 Posts: 354
  • Well gosh Beeb if you look at it that way then the Media PC is a rip of the digital hub stategy mentioned long before the media PC showed up.

    You’re the one who mentioned “purpose.”  What makes FR a rip off is the purpose AND the look and feel.  The only real difference is the lack of two major features: TV and PVR.  But that’s like saying that Gadgets isn’t a rip off of Konfabulator because it doesn’t have a calculator.

    If you look at the functions of a Media PC to me the big ones are watching TV and the PVR functions. Everything else is just doing stuff computers have done for a while. Without those two features, it’s a computer with a heavily buttoned wireless mouse.

    I agree.  Take away TV/PVR, and both systems basically provide you with a front-end interface that allows you to control your existing software apps, like DVD players and music players, with a remote control.  But again, they’re both the SAME in that respect.

    Beeblebrox had this to say on Oct 18, 2005 Posts: 2220
  • Btw, I don’t really care that it’s a rip off per se.  Whatever makes the product better.  I’m not going to stop using tabbed browsing in Firefox or Safari just because Opera came out with it first.

    But as much as Mac zealots scream about Microsoft when Windows rips off a feature, I want to hear them acknowledge it just once when Apple does it, instead of doing reverse sommersaults trying to explain why Dashboard isn’t a rip off of Konfabulator or why FR isn’t a rip off of Windows Media Center.

    Beeblebrox had this to say on Oct 18, 2005 Posts: 2220
  • So since the purpose of the device is different it is hard to see it as a rip off, it’s basically mac with a six button mouse that runs a limited number of programs.

    I tend to agree with Beeb on this one. The purpose of FR, as he said, is to consolidate your media viewing. Now, you said yourself that what makes FR different is that instead of getting the content from a DVR you download it off the internet. So it may be erroneous to say it won’t replace your TV, after all in a SJ nirvana people would dump cable/satellite distribution in favour of downloaded shows. It won’t replace your TV now, it may never do so, but if Apple (or a competitor) succeeds in creating a full-featured TV and movies store, then it could replace your TV eventualy (I mean TV in the sense of traditional distribution, not the actual apparatus with the big screen, that you may want to keep). This theory has been mentioned before, here on applematters IIRC.

    martunibo had this to say on Oct 18, 2005 Posts: 37
  • I just don’t see it as much of a rip. To mean it would be like saying a bicycle is a rip of a motorcycle except for the internal combustion engine. It’s a computer with a remote. The joy, a fancy mouse that works with a few programs. I like the iMacs, I think they are great machines but I’m just missing both the innovation/and rip offedness of this one.

    And hey for the record: Sherlock 2 definite rip off of Watson except it was way slower. And yep, Widgets owe a lot more to konfabulator that desk accessories.

    But I will allow that those that are calling the new iMac the Media Center PC done right (again I don’t see the media center PC done at all) then perhaps they should be noting that Apple co opted the idea from elsewhere. Which, I guess, is actually apparent in the statement “Media Center PC done right” cause if it wasn’t a rip to those folks they’d simply be awed by the newness, not the “done right” part.

    Chris Seibold had this to say on Oct 18, 2005 Posts: 354
  • It’s really quite simple:

    Innovation=every single product that Apple makes.

    Rip-off=every single product that competes with an Apple product.

    Not trying to be offensive at all, but I think I discovered the other name for Apple products: ‘done right’. Definition: used to describe an obvious rip-off not disguisable as pure innovation.

    Just a fun note…

    martunibo had this to say on Oct 18, 2005 Posts: 37
  • Even if it is a ripoff, it’s not a ripoff of Microsoft…  MPEG-1 Tuner cards + remote + playback software bundles have been available since at least 1998 (which is when I first gone one - all the drivers are Win 98 friendly).

    That’s long before Microsoft brought out MCE in 2002/3.

    Apple’s main innovation here seems to be the snazzy, Motion/OpenGL inspired interface.  Ho hum.  I’ll wait until I can install it on my existing Mac(s) before passing judgement.

    mikataur had this to say on Oct 18, 2005 Posts: 19
  • 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. Though if everyone ends up buying TV over the internet and watching on their computers, well maybe it is a media center. Though you’d think there would be an easy way to get it out to you TV (I’m guessing media center PCs feature this function) Would you rather watch TV on your 20’ iMac or a 60 inch plasma? Hmmm,I’ll go with the plasma. Wait that’s likely another major difference betweedn MCPC and the iMac.

    Chris Seibold had this to say on Oct 18, 2005 Posts: 354
  • Okay, just so everyone knows there is nothing new in any of this, and so Apple folks can argue they were first…..
    Mac with a remote and a TV tuner:
    http://www.lowendmac.com/500/mactv.shtml
    that’s uh, 1993 there folks….

    So clearly the new iMac is simply a stripped down version of the Mac TV. (I’m smiley averse but that was a joke folks)

    Chris Seibold had this to say on Oct 18, 2005 Posts: 354
  • Even if it is a ripoff, it’s not a ripoff of Microsoft… MPEG-1 Tuner cards + remote + playback software bundles have been available since at least 1998 (which is when I first gone one - all the drivers are Win 98 friendly).

    That’s like saying that Microsoft didn’t rip off the Recycle Bin since icons and deleting files existed prior to Apple’s Trash.  Media Center isn’t any one component.  It’s the combination of media apps into a single controllable interface.

    Again, there’s nothing really wrong with FR being a rip off.  Just acknowledge that it is.

    Beeblebrox had this to say on Oct 18, 2005 Posts: 2220
  • Page 2 of 4 pages  <  1 2 3 4 >
You need log in, or register, in order to comment