Nick Carr recently posted an article entitled Google, Apple and the future of personal computing in which he speculates about what possible offspring might be produced by Apple and Google’s partnership.

I have no doubts that Apple is working very closely with Google, but their partnership will never produce the product that Nick is describing… Ad-supported applications are not something Apple does. And everything else Nick described sounds awfully like an Apple TV.

Speaking of which, I’m expecting Apple to announce some significant updates to their Apple TV (in the form of downloadable/streamable video content, directly from the unit).

Now that Apple’s released their iTunes Wifi Music Store for the iPhone/Touch, it’s only a matter of time before they reveal a similar store interface for the AppleTV (we’ll call it the iTunes WiFi Video Store). There is also evidence of movie rentals in the works as well.

This is going to require a great deal of bandwidth, and I’m pretty sure Google will be providing the backbone for all of this. My guess is that Google will take a cut of the video purchases, all while continuing to absorb to the consumption data as well. It also wouldn’t surprise me if Google began inserting commercials into the YouTube feeds for a little extra gravy.

Food for thought - Google hasn’t been porting YouTube videos over to the h.264 codec simply to help Apple show off the iPhone.

In my opinion, Apple is looking to disrupt the existing cable television market with an internet-based video distribution system, and the Apple TV will be the primary consumer interface. TV and movie content will be purchasable on the Apple TV directly from the iTunes store, and YouTube will replace the mindless “channel surfing” that is lost when you’re faced with an on-demand viewing experience.

Even the name Apple gave the device is very telling when you think about it. Eventually, it won’t be referred to as AN Apple TV - it’ll simply become “Apple TV”.

“All of your favorite TV shows, movies, YouTube clips and music videos - all available on Apple TV.”

(Article via Mark Ury via Facebook)

So NBC tells Apple to stick it. Apple says good luck with that. And now NBC is going it alone. Didn’t anyone pay attention when the music labels attempted to do this with their highly-restrictive, DRM-plagued, over-priced music stores of yore?

FSJ chimes in and, as usual, he nails it.

So, fair enough. Bring on the big media cluster fuck. Roll out all the different systems that don’t work together. Bring on all the different kinds of software, none of which will work as well as iTunes. Bring on a zillion different user interfaces, a zillion accounts you need to set up, a zillion new usernames and passwords and a list of which services can work on which devices in which format. Right. When you’re good and tired of that, we’ll be here waiting for you.

Just like the iTunes Music Store, the only way online video distribution is going to succeed is if all the studios agree to common prices, consistent DRM (or none! Imagine that?), and centralized availability. I should be able to get every TV show / Movie from one source, and I shouldn’t have to worry if it’ll play on the various devices I own. I want to watch it on my computer, and my TV, and iPhone, and my iPod. And I’m not going to pay for the same content multiple times to have that privilege. Of course this assumes you’ve bought into the Apple platform, but come on… is there anything available that’s actually better?

Now, all that said - this is an interesting play by NBC, simply because it appears to be a last-ditch effort to hold on to their old business model. At the moment, customers are currently accustom to paying nothing for their television content. Yes, I recognize that you’re paying the cable company, but you’re not paying for the video content itself. Those costs are subsidized by commercials you’re forced to watch.

Give away the content for free online; force viewers to watch commercials; maintain traditional revenue channels; screw Apple and retain control.

I’m sure that sounded good in the boardroom, but it won’t work. Just like the old music stores, DRM, price inconsistencies, and technical complications are all going to get in the way and kill the experience. It’ll be too complicated for the masses, and it’ll eventually die.

I give them 8 months before they’ve got all their content back on iTunes, and 12-24 months before they abandon this new venture altogether.

Now, if only Apple would allow me to download video content directly from the Apple TV. Methinks that, just like the iPod Touch/iPhone there’ll be a iTunes WiFi Music Store available in an update soon.

Or so I hope.

Apple hosted a special event today, and beyond the new iPods and iPhone announcements, Steve Jobs offered up a few stats about their iTunes store that really echo my comments in yesterday’s post

• 600 million copies of iTunes distributed.
• Over 3 billion songs bought on iTunes.
• iTunes is the number one online music store in all 21 countries Apple operates in.
• Started with just 200k songs, but now has over 6m songs in every single one of those stores. Millions ahead of anyone else.
• iTunes is now the number 3 music retailer in the US — behind Wal-Mart and Best Buy, ahead of Amazon and Target.
• For 2006, 32% of all the music released in the US were digital-only releases. A THIRD of the music released was digital only.

Funny, we don’t hear much from Napster and their music subscription services these days… I wonder why.

Rick Rubin, founder of Def Jam records and “career-transforming, chart-topping, Grammy Award-winning producer” was profiled in the latest issue of the New York Times Magazine. Rubin, much respect for everything you’ve done over the years, but dude, you’re way off with this one.

“You would subscribe to music,” Rubin explained, as he settled on the velvet couch in his library. “You’d pay, say, $19.95 a month, and the music will come anywhere you’d like. In this new world, there will be a virtual library that will be accessible from your car, from your cellphone, from your computer, from your television. Anywhere. The iPod will be obsolete, but there would be a Walkman-like device you could plug into speakers at home. You’ll say, ‘Today I want to listen to … Simon and Garfunkel,’ and there they are. The service can have demos, bootlegs, concerts, whatever context the artist wants to put out. And once that model is put into place, the industry will grow 10 times the size it is now.”

No, seriously. A subscription model? Again? Haven’t we covered this ground already? You have to be kidding me.

As Gruber points out, that technology ship has sailed and no one was on board. No one wants DRM, which means no one wants to subscribe to a service for their music. You can’t have one without the other.

Too all the record executives out there, listen up. Music subscriptions (and the DRM that comes with it) are not the magic bullet that will solve your piracy problem. It won’t work. Give it up. Move on already.

Rubin goes on to say,

Until a new model is agreed upon and rolling, we can be the best at the existing paradigm, but until the paradigm shifts, it’s going to be a declining business.

The new model is already here. It’s called iTunes. Stop fighting the inevitable and just accept it. Take a deep breath. Take it all in.

Of course Universal isn’t going down without a fight. And NBC is doing the same with their video content, but seriously guys, you’re not going to do any better. And Microsoft isn’t going to help. Neither is MTV. Or Real (opps, same as MTV, right?). Or Sony.

Apple is the only player in town that got it right and as FSJ pointed out, the record labels just woke up and realized “all the power in the value chain resides in one player.” Oops.

Here’s the thing. These guys could have done what we did. In the early days of the Internet, everyone figured the majors would build digital distribution arms. But they didn’t do it, because they didn’t understand technology, and they didn’t want to invest in building this expertise, and they were freaked out about piracy and paralyzed with fear. So we stepped in. We made the big investment. We hired programmers. We developed software that’s easy to use and works flawlessly. (If you think that’s trivial, think again. It’s huge.) We ran the system. We promoted it, we marketed it, we haggled with all the majors and struck deals. We took all the risk, which was considerable. Now we’re reaping the reward. And the majors want a bigger slice. Um, for what? We did all the work. Ain’t gonna happen, slick.

Tower Records has been replaced by iTunes. MTV has been replaced by YouTube. MySpace has been replaced by Facebook (until something replaces it of course). I had hoped Pandora would replace radio, but, of course, the RIAA went and sued them. Bravo guys. Bravo.

Ladies and gentlemen of the record industry, may I have your attention please. This is the new playing field people. Kicking the corpse isn’t going to bring it back to life. Stop denying it. Stop fighting it. Just embrace it.

Along with the Leopard preview at WWDC yesterday, Apple also unveiled a significant update to Apple.com. If you haven’t seen it yet, take a moment to look it over. Not unlike how they’ve reshaped the computer and music industries, it appears as if Apple is looking to redefine the rules of online design as well.

A few observations:

• The first and most obvious change is the drastically simplified navigation. It’s clean, void of clutter, and I’m sure it caused a number of internal debates, as all but core-business links have been removed (and if there was any debate before, I think it’s quite clear that Apple is indeed a hardware company).
• They have fully embraced 1024 as the de facto resolution with the width of the site now stretching to 980px.
• Products are now predominately in a horizontal-scrolling window (horizontal scrolling has typically been frowned upon).
• Extensive use of AJAX throughout, primarily as a means of eliminating clutter through hiding/sliding panels.
• Breadcrumb navigation has been moved to the footer, which I think is a first for any major corporate site (or possibly a first for any site… I haven’t seen it done before).
• Apple is also unafraid to use different background colors throughout the site (black or white), although I’m not sure if there are any rules governing which color is used when.
• There are a number of excellent (and well produced) videos throughout which all use a styled Quicktime player (checkout the Leopard Preview for a number of examples).
• I don’t believe Flash is used at all in the site. (Video is handled by Quicktime, and animation by AJAX).
• There are plenty of exceptions, but overall there appears to be a move to increase the whitespace on pages.
• Quite simply, the new site feels more like OS X than just a standard corporate website.

Overall, I’m curious to see how the industry will respond to the new site, as a number of the decisions Apple have made here contradict so-called “best practices”.

Apple said Monday that the 100 millionth iPod has been sold, making the iPod the fastest selling music player in history.

Yeah. That’s a lot of iPods. I know I’ve contributed my fair share to that number… I think I’m on my 5th. Speaking of which, I haven’t upgraded in quite a while actually, and don’t plan on until I can either:

1. Get my hands on an iPhone. Or,
2. Get my hands on a widescreen iPod (aka, iPhone without the phone)

With all the travel I’ve been doing, I’d definitely take advantage of video-playing, widescreen iPod (yes, I realize the current iPods play video). That, and I hate my Blackberry and can’t wait until I can replace it with an iPhone, even though I know the iPhone won’t really work all that well with the company’s email sever, so I won’t really be able to replace it… But a guy can dream, right?

Either way, I’ll be sticking with my current iPod Photo until either of the above scenarios comes to fruition.

Also, speaking of iPods - it had been reported earlier this week that a solider in Iraq had been shot, and his iPod had taken the brunt of impact (quite possibly saving his life). While the thought of an iPod stopping a bullet is laughable, it turns out that the damaged iPod is what actually informed the soldier that he’d been shot! Apparently he’d been involved in the shootout, and then headed back to his bunk afterwards. Only there did he discovered that he (and his iPod) had been shot, simply because the iPod wasn’t working!

In other news, Apple is expected to announce they’ve sold 100 million + 1 iPods later this afternoon.

October 25, 2006. Yep, that was the last time I posted something. It’s amazing how long I’ve let this simmer without touching it. So much has happened since then, but I just haven’t been inspired to actually talk about it. Since then, I’ve taken up snowboarding, I got a Wii for Christmas, Apple announced the iPhone, my AppleTV should be arriving soon, it’s almost spring which means it’s almost motorcycle season! So much to talk about!

Ok, so I’m getting back on the horse again. Lets see how long I keep it up this time.

Yep, we’ve got ourselves a few new jackasses this week. John Gruber sums up the recent Gartner analysis with a equal parts humor and critique, that it actually make me laugh out loud.

Two days ago, Gartner “analysts” Mark Stahlman and Charles Smulders issued a report recommending that “Apple abandon the computer hardware business and license Mac OS X to Dell”. Hello, Gartner? 1997 called and they want their advice for Apple back.

For those not following along, Apple just announced their quarterly earnings, and it was another record quarter for them:

• the most Macs ever sold in a single fiscal quarter (1.6 million)
• the most Macs ever sold in a fiscal year (5.3 million)
• strong quarterly profits ($546 million)
• high gross margins (29.2 percent)

Sorry, why exactly would Apple want to abandon the computer hardware business and license Mac OS X to Dell?

Gruber goes on to further explain why Mark Stahlman and Charles Smulders are jackasses of the week, but he really sums it up nicely with one single sentence.

It’s hard to get a handle on the magnitude of the jackassery here.

So true, John. So true.