Try $229.
See, some time ago, there was a meeting of the Jedi Council about the future of multimedia entertainment. The discussion went like this:
• Make a box with broadband.
• Make it work across a lot of screens: lappies, PDAs, TVs, PiMPs.
• Download media directly from the content owner.
• Make it dirt simple to use.
• Make it affordable.
That was 1999, and then again, in 2004. No company hit all the right spots back then. Now you have one company that (finally) covers all of these areas. The only company in the industry, by most accounts (you best check yourself before you trot out tired-ass M$ and the X-Tremely Nubtarded Xbox 360.) AppleTV in it’s current form makes this happen for $229.
If you only watch some basic shows, the ATV+iTunes offering might be more affordable for some people, at $2 per show, $3 movie rental. Or it might scratch the itch of someone with a large multimedia library. When you add portability to this offering, the value is even better. And since no competitor makes it this simple or affordable, they can make a little money on this, I bet. And if the hackers have their way, you’ll be able to do a lot more with the box than meets the eye.
The down side of course is that it doesn’t appeal to power users. And that’s fine. Some people have larger collections of media, and need to do a lot more with it. They get computers 
Instead, talk to a kid who is knee-deep(totally) into iTunes, and then run the clock forward a few years. Think they might not bother with getting a traditional TV subscription? What about when their favorite shows are ad-supported and free, available on all the screens they own? Now how much would you pay?
While people are focusing on the rentals, and the total cost of ownership, they really need to be looking at this little announcement from the BBC. This is just the first major (read: non-UGC) content owner to plumb programs directly to the AppleTV over broadband.
When the big 5 networks do this, and make it free, how long will it take before the larger masses start moving away from appointment viewing that has been with us since Punch and Judy tickled our funny bones? If the trends continue, 5-10 years might not be too outrageous to envision. Then what happens to the traditional providers?
Hmmm…that’s a good question.
=|>
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Part:2 ~
The AppleTV covers a lot of ground, but it doesn’t do it all for me - where’s the DVR? We still have a long way to go with media convergence in a single box we can hook up to our TVs. Apple may get us there… but I am left waiting for a little more.
Then again, I’d prefer that my TV have this all built-in.
Part:1 ~
With respect to your GSM/CDMA comments… I don’t care about the technology, I just want to buy any device and place it on any network.
I don’t wanna pay fees to switch providers. Cell phone companies need to understand that regardless of how they change the technology, they are in a commodity market. Their purpose in life is to provide bandwidth for a class of device to send and receive data.
Once you have a network providing connectivity and bandwidth, device makers make phones that do things.
If your device wants to act like a phone, then it has to operate like any telephone and within that industries standards. If its trying to be a web browser, then it should operate like a web browser within the open standards of the web. Same for video and audio media.
Make it and and extend it however you want so long as you operate on standards. No one’s special sauce should keep a user from taking that phone to another carrier if they want to.
Read: Most Americans are in cell phone jail
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342054/
~Mike