HD For Indies

After thinking about it over the weekend, I think a more likely rollout schedule might be something like this (and this is all pure conjecture, I have zero inside info).

Mike's WAG on release timetable and features

summer/fall 2005: more downloadable videos from iTunes Store as Apple tests out compression, bandwidth, caching, etc.

sometime fall/winter (or Jannuary MacWorld?) Apple launches the iVideo Store (or whatever it's to be called)

no later than January MacWorld (be great to have it for Christmas) - Steve Jobs officially rolls out a standard definition version of this Airport streaming video doohickey. It has standard definition outputs only, including component video outputs. It uses a version of the FairPlay DRM. You might be able to burn a maximum of three discs of it ever using the DRM provided. Or perhaps you'd be able to play back the movies on probably three authorized devices (I'd like to see that be 5, but oh well) - such as laptop, desktop, and office. Or perhaps iPod Video, where the primary application isn't on little bitty screen but out of the device into a TV.

(after writing that, I think a January announcement to coincide with release of first Intel Macs is most likely)

-if, as I think likely, Apple might require an Intel based Mac with the Intel Trusted Platform stuff in it for iron clad DRM (digital rights management) for downloaded movie playback, that makes this whole scheme contingent on those shipping next year. And what are the systems that Apple is likely to convert first to Intel? Minis & iBooks - low cost, consumer oriented Macs.

-movies would be around 2 megabits/sec in the H.264 format, audio compressed as well with AAC or similar, and the download system requires broadband (this from stuff Robert Cringely was theorizing about). No problem to pull movies over faster than realtime on a lot of broadband installs. By the way, at 2 megabits, real world performance of first gen Airport (802.11b) would be sufficient - 4 to 5 megabits is the real world performance of those systems.

-Mac only to start, Windows version a few months later

6-12 months later, "due to popular demand" an HD version would be launched. Amid the fanfare, the HD output would only be high definition since Hollywood won't relent on the "analog hole" issue. Movies would be in 720p format at 24fps, and the hardware would handle stepping that up to the 720p60 broadcast standard via frame replication. Data rates in the 6-8 megabits/sec range would work fine. Perhaps Windows version announced at this time as well? While I'd love to see an HD version launched from the get-go, and see Apple cut off HD DVD and Blu Ray from the start, I don't think that likely. Sony would have to buy into this plan to make it all work, and Sony wants to sell Blu Ray players, and badly. Apple's plans would cut into that market, so I don't think HD would happen from the start. But I want it to....oooooooh so badly I want it to. Plus, teething issues, lack of HD sets in the market, bandwidth, scaling up the effort, etc. etc. etc..

Also, quietly amid the fanfare, the DRM would be tightened, as has been done with iTunes over the last few years. Getting the first version out with loose enough DRM to encourage folks in is the way they started, once it hits critical mass and goes mainstream, tighten it up, keeping the overall risk pool within the same size limits during all this time (lot of risk for small user base at first, smaller risk for larger user base later). Along those lines, perhaps the first versions will work without Intel Trusted Computing Platform stuff, but later versions will require it? Dunno, that'd piss off the consumers without it. I'm not sure how this gets worked out.

-people will grouse that the compression quality/datarate isn't as good as DVDs. They'll be right, but most folks will roll with it and not care - witness the iTunes Store's AAC 128 kilobit data rate, clearly inferior to CDs, but that doesn't slow folks down.

-if iPod Video rumors are true (and I'm thinking they're not, unless it's a regular iPod with the ability to play out video into a standard video device, aka TV), you'd be able to load movies onto this and cruise around with it.

Reasons I don't think the iPod Video rumors are true -

1.) those little hard drives in there? Last I heard they didn't have a huge rating for hours of use - they're designed for brief bursts of data transfer, not long sustained transfers - video usage would drastically shorten their lifespan (but this info may be out of date by now or for newer itty bitty hard drives)

2.) battery life - one of the things that made the first iPods possible was that they used a RAM buffer bigger than a song to briefly spin up the drive, load a song (or more) into RAM, then immediately spin down the drive to save power. Video is much much bigger than audio - this kind of caching wouldn't be possible, or the spinup requirements on the drive would be so frequent, that either way you'd need a LOT more battery to watch video

3.) And again, music is "backgroundable", video is not. You can listen to music and work, work out, drive your car, whatever. Video requires your eyes' exclusive use - you can work, run, drive, etc. and watch video. You pretty much have to be still and dedicate yourself to it. Vastly reduces the usefulness of a portable device if you have to hold still to use it. A portable shower would be handy while camping, but you're not going to use it on the go.

What I do think is likely is the gadget I've described:

-small device, not much bigger than a power brick, with analog and digital audio and video outputs

-uses 802.11g (Airport Extreme) to stream audio/video from a computer (Mac first, Windows later). Note that a Mac mini now would be fully adequate for the task

-uses Bluetooth to communicate with the Apple Media Remote (or whatever their rumored remote will be called)

-system REQUIRES 802.11g, but Bluetooth for the remote is optional. USB based Bluetooth add-ons would suddenly get popular if Apple didn't offer one

-a very generous RAM cache to handle streaming buffers for video - 10 seconds worth or more of compressed stuff

-will be able to play back not just bought & paid for movies, but also play back your own movies (if preconverted to H.264), as well as all your iTunes library.

-and watch and navigate your pictures & photo albums and slideshows as well. Set'em up on the computer, then play'em back on the gadget

-in all of this, it'll be recommended that you not be running other apps while movies are playing, and that you'll have to dedicate the wireless stuff to playback and not have concurrent internet connection (unless you have that on a different connection, such as Ethernet)

-probably won't be able to stream DV or HDV content. Both DV and HDV are 25 megabits, the theoretical max for 802.11g is 54 megabits, but real world performance is far, far less than that - 33 megabits max in a lab type setting with zero obstructions or radio interference, but in the real world around 22 megabits is typical. Since this could lead to frustrating customer experiences if the performance is on the edge, they might skip this, or have it as a buried option, or have a testing part to determine if your throughput is high enough, or something.

-video conversion on the fly for your own footage isn't likely - requires too much horsepower. Maybe for DV, unlikely for HDV. Then again, iSight can do H.264 in realtime, but it doesn't look that great. So maybe conversion on the fly, just wouldn't look as good as the high quality H.264 conversions (since those take so much more processing, not realtime).

-here's a thought - most DVDs are encoded in the 6-8 megabit range - I don't see why DVDs couldn't be played back "remotely" in this fashion from your computer, given a large enough RAM cache.

-the more formats it can decode (H.264, MPEG-2, DV), the more expensive the device would cost.

-some kind of encryption would need to be involved that could be decoded on the fly - Hollywood doesn't want DRM'd but unencrypted copies floating out there, too easy to copy stuff off that way.

-suddenly, you have a full fledged media system in your living room, with the best of both worlds - Apple long ago nailed it with the iPod when they figured out that you want to control and prepare your content with a good UI (computer, high res screen, keyboard & mouse), but play it back with a simple UI (iPod click wheel or now remote control).

Closing Thoughts

For all the Media PCs that have crappy user interfaces and complex loading procedures, this is where Apple shines. I recently read that Apple's motif goes something like this: take an idea that somebody else started with but has developed poorly (engineer built user interface), build your own, claim the technology as your own, and make it simple, clean, and easy to use (think iPods, iMovie, iDVD, etc.). This is really an area where Apple shines.

Combine this with Apple's positive experience dealing with the record labels, and they hopefully will be able to swing a similar deal with the movie studios, who are getting used to the fact that existing download services are overly complicated and limited (can't play back on living room TV), and they might be willing to play ball with Apple.

I really like this idea. Of all the companies out there, Apple seems to be in a good position to take advantage of all this. Of course, if Apple can't get the movie studios to buy into this, then this whole thing becomes a niche A/V geek product, not a massive consumer hit. Legal, paid for downloadable movie playback is critical to the success of this thing.

The guy who wrote Delicious Library (a GREAT app, BTW, go buy it to manage your DVD/game/book library) has been hired by Apple to work on user interface stuff - perhaps he'll be working on this product & affiliated software? I hope so.

There are all kinds of interesting twists and takes to this idea - if Hollywood is requiring a secured platform for movie downloads, then Apple could launch this product with the launch of the Intel based Macs.

For those who don't yet have an Intel based Mac, there'd be three options - either the movies would ONLY play on their one computer to the Apple home theater box, or movies would only play back on the one authorized computer, or if Hollywood insisted, movies wouldn't play back at all until they bought a supported system. For these folks, the Apple Home Theater box would work for their DVDs, home movies, iTunes, & photos, just not legally downloaded movies (driving them to bootleg downloads, but that's Hollywood's shortsightedness).

If Apple wants this to be REALLY mainstream, they'll need to make it compatible with Windows based systems. But if they did that, they could still hang a carrot out to Windows customers - sure you can play back music and downloaded movies with this thing, but if you want better support and integration for your photos, movies, and other stuff, you'll need a Mac. And if you want to organize/edit/etc., the iLife suite starts looking awfully nice, as would a Mac mini.

And after writing all this, to include all the features discussed, $400 and up launch price point for HD version doesn't seem unreasonable.

OK, that's enough for now - time to eat breakfast and go for a run and brainstorm on all this stuff some more.

-mike