It appears Apple is working on some device with a screen size that is larger than today’s iPhone, yet smaller than an iPad.  Many of us have also been waiting in anticipation for what could very well be the next big thing in television.  But what if these stories are all related?

I have personally found the screen size of today’s iPhone to be too small for browsing television guides, Netflix movie listings and my own personal iTunes media library.  I may what to

read reviews, check out cast lists, and even review a trailer or two on my device before suggesting it to the rest of the family.  The size of the screen is much better on the iPad — that is until you try and take control of your home theatre system with it. It is simply too heavy and awkward to continuously use as a television remote.

But what if this new “in-between device” was more than just a content-browsing device or media playback controller? What if it is the manifestation of the “television” Apple has reportedly been working on?  There is actually some sound reasoning that the latest rumors regarding Apple’s purchasing displays in a new range of sizes would be best suited for a new way to interact with the next generation of television:

• Internet television without the wires. Getting away from set-top boxes, Apple is looking to re-define the way that we interact with the television set. Screen-based touch gestures is a given, audible Siri voice commands is doable and camera-interpreted motions may also be on their way.  But having the data entry point closer to one person lounging in a darkened viewing room makes more sense than placing such a control embedded inside a television all the way across the room for everyone to gesture or shout at.
• Closed platform helps control the market. Something else that is unique to Apple’s current Apple TV platform is that is it not open to developers. This can initially be a good thing for content providers, as it does not allow just anyone to create a new channel or media outlet.  At first, existing content providers would be given an opportunity to create and deliver content in a similar fashion as “apps” on the Apple TV are done today.  And why not open the platform to developers?  There just may be a new pre-packaged development API in the works.  Eventually this could evolve into a similar content packaging framework akin to Apple’s iAd Producer, Newsstand feature, iBook Author or even the same method used for creating an iTunes LP or podcast today.
• Exclusive list of supporting television vendors — at first. AirPlay for video is just too good to keep exclusively to yet another set-top box.  And like all new product announcements with Apple, there is typically a short list of early adopters that come on board. Similar to the way that AirPrint and AirPlay (audio) has been catching on with printer and speaker manufactures, AirPlay (video) could be adopted by more and more television manufactures. This would mean that this new Apple TV with a screen would not need to be tethered to an open HDMI port — it would stream content directly to the television using AirPlay, just like iOS devices do today through the Apple TV.
• Create new products rather than fragment existing ones. Since the Apple TV platform would continue to be closed to developers, this would actually help prevent fragmentation of the existing iOS platform and allow Apple to develop a completely different form factor for just the AppleTV.  Existing iOS developers would not be required to port existing apps in the App Store over to a different screen format and possibly a different user experience.  It would make more sense to create a common content delivery API based on the uniqueness of this new platform.

Buying up large quantities of a particular size of screen does not necessarily mean that Apple is coming out with a new form factor for an existing product line. It could very well mean that we are about to see a new product altogether. And it is just as likely that this new form factor will be the new Apple TV as it is likely that Apple will come out with a mini iPad or a jumbo iPhone.  Perhaps this new in-between form factor is what Steve Jobs was referring to when he claimed that Apple had “cracked the code” when designing a new way to experience television.  Who needs a table full of IR remotes when everything you need is right there in your lap?

Image courtesy of Flickr user mac_ivan

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Controversy, courtrooms and the cloud in Q1
• Connected Consumer Q2: Digital music meets the cloud; e-book growth explodes
• Mobile Q2: Smartphone growth surges; iPad’s rule continues

Kid-friendly and kid-loved

The iPad and the iPhone have a knack with kids, as any parent and iOS user will tell you. The brightly lit, touch-screen technology that appeals at an emotional level to adults is no less effective on children, who are more liable to indiscriminately touch things to see how they react to begin with. Kids are also voicing their demand for iOS devices as soon as they’re able to; recent surveys found that iPhones, iPod touches and iPads topped the wish lists of children ranging from the very young to the nearly adult. In fact, 52 percent of children between the ages of zero and eight already have access to a mobile device of some kind, many of which are probably running iOS.

Cross-branding opportunities

Accessories and apps seem to be either fueling or cashing in on this trend, too, at a growing pace. Consider the partnership announced Tuesday between Disney and iHome, maker of audio accessories for iOS devices. Characters from Disney’s stable of brands will be adorning iHome iPhone docks, headphones, and speaker systems starting this holiday season, at major outlets like Toys ‘R’ Us and Bed Bath & Beyond. Think about it: A Kermit the frog docking alarm clock assumes a lot of kids either are already or will be sleeping next to iPhones next year.

Disney and iHome aren’t the only ones cashing in on the youthful appeal of Apple’s mobile gadgets. Perennial Apple accessory maker Griffin is partnering up with Crayola to create the iMarker, essentially a branded stylus kids can use in conjunction with a coloring book app. Both Disney and Crayola are playing it smart, taking parent-trusted brands and combining them with the expertise of industry-leading third-party gadget manufacturers who already know the ins and outs of making devices for Apple products.

A new vector for content-makers

It isn’t just accessories getting the kid-friendly treatment. Content producers have kids in mind with their iPhone and iPad offerings, too. PBS announced Tuesday (.DOC link) that its PBS KIDS video app for the iPad is now available on the iPhone and iPod touch, too. The iPad app, which launched in May, has delivered on average two million video streams per day to its more than 450,000 users, growing steadily since its introduction. Reaching out to iPhone and iPod touch users broadens the potential audience, so that kids can check out full episodes of programs like Sesame Street and Super Why on smaller-screened devices if they don’t happen to have a tablet handy.

This is just the beginning of a coming flood. Whereas once the kid appeal of iPhones and iPads was an unexpected bonus to a parent’s purchase, now parents are seeking out Apple devices with full knowledge that they also make good distractions and educational tools for their young ones. And since people are often even more willing to spend money on their children than on themselves, the market for kid-focused apps and accessories has likely only begun to heat up.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution
• Controversy, courtrooms and the cloud in Q1
• Survey: the next wave of enterprise mobility

Amazon’s tablet was the device of choice for 22 percent of the 3,043 customers polled by ChangeWave for its latest survey. The next closest device was Samsung’s Galaxy Tab, with just 4 percent of those surveyed expressing a desire to pick up that product. The Kindle Fire’s emergence as a strong second to Apple’s iPad is mostly bad news for other Android-based competitors, and less of an issue for Apple, which currently enjoys around 67-percent market share, but that doesn’t mean it should quietly allow the Fire to dig itself in as the budget-conscious shopper’s tablet of choice.

How Apple can put out the Fire

The easy answer, of course, is to make a cheap iPad, but that’s not something Apple will do easily or without a very specific, measured approach. Apple’s brand cachet and success depend on consumer perception of its products as high quality; just pulling things out until a smaller iPad resembles a Fire in terms of specs but runs iOS isn’t likely an option. That said, Apple also isn’t afraid to take a good idea from the competition and make it better in order to move hardware. That’s what I think it’ll do in this case.

Take away the huge price gap

Amazon’s Fire is really appealing because it provides cheap access to content acquired and stored in Amazon’s extensive ecosystem of music and movies, and its growing AppStore. The hardware is really secondary to those considerations, and likely accounts for why Amazon is willing to sell it so cheaply.

If Apple wants to regain its absolute dominance of the tablet market, it needs to take price off the table, but also to avoid setting itself up for the kind of criticism Amazon and other low-cost tablet makers face because of corner-cutting. It’s a tricky balance to strike, but Apple has a lot of advantages that could make it possible, chief among them being Tim Cook and his masterful control of the component supply chain. And Apple doesn’t need to close the gap entirely. It needs to bring an iPad close enough that the Kindle Fire’s faults seem like unwarranted sacrifices for what you save.

Apple can go cheap with few sacrifices

Amazon is taking a big risk on a relatively unproven market (7-inch tablets), and in doing so, it probably can’t achieve the parts-ordering volumes Apple could manage. That should allow Apple to eke out more profit per device even at a much-reduced price point. Apple is also making great strides in achieving big price breaks by leveraging older hardware; the free (on contract) 3GS is a great example. A smaller iPad would automatically save on display costs, and Apple can also save money using the older A4 processor (or an A5 if it debuts alongside a next-gen A6 for the existing iPad).

It will likely be difficult for Apple to get Kindle-Fire-cheap with a product it can stand behind, but the entry-level iPod touch recently hit the same $199 mark, and a similarly specced, slightly larger device at $249 (same price as the Nook Tablet) or $299 isn’t too much of a stretch to imagine. It would likely mean the death of the iPod touch in terms of cannibalized sales, but Apple is famously willing to release forward-looking products even if they might hurt past top producers.

Ecosystem plus

Apple’s content ecosystem can go toe-to-toe with Amazon’s, especially in international markets where lots of Amazon’s content isn’t available. ICloud and access to past iTunes purchases help make the differences between the two minimal, and despite Amazon’s big advantages with books, Apple still wins in terms of digital movie and music sales. If a smaller, cheaper iPad can provide access to that content, with fewer hardware/software downsides, it’ll win over customers, even with a price disadvantage.

Apple also still has a huge app advantage. That, plus value-add features like AirPlay, iMessage and other things iOS provides that the competition currently doesn’t, will be enough to win back Apple customers just looking for a quality 7-incher to fill out their gadget lineup. In terms of the early adopter crowd, that alone could pay big dividends.

Groundwork

Apple has the elements of a low-end market play in place: the pedigree of the iPod touch, its recent willingness to target mid-market by leveraging older tech, the lessons and supply chain control it has amassed in making the iPad a huge success, and the market-leading content ecosystem that continues to drive and be driven by its hardware device purchases.

Amazon’s ability to win out over other Android devices and take a big chunk of tablet interest by undercutting Apple on price might not even bother Cupertino. If it can’t work out how to make a competing device with a reasonable profit margin, it won’t bother. But if it can, that’s when we’ll see the real sparks fly in the tablet mark

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• A look back at mobile in Q1
• Tablet market to hit over 377 million units by 2016
• Q4 Wrap-up: SOPA and the future of digital content

1. Not just apps, but an app store. The current Apple TV has apps. They aren’t advertised as such, but the menu options that lead to MLB, NBA and NHL subscriptions, as well as the Vimeo and YouTube channels are basically apps. While doling out new apps in batches via software updates is appreciated, a real app store is the special sauce that will cause an Apple television to take off.

2. High quality live content. Live video could go a long way toward convincing users to switch ponies and abandon traditional cable or satellite providers for streaming video. Apple has done a good job of bringing sports to the current Apple TV, but it’ll have to deliver pay-per-view events, nationally broadcast live programming, and still more sports to sway users who demand to be kept in the loop and don’t like spoilers.

3. Break the bundle. The aspect of current cable and satellite TV packages that makes them most unpalatable is the bundle; If you’ve ever tried to order a speciality channel on its own, you know exactly what I’m talking about. Breaking up the bundle would probably be the most effective way to tempt users to buy its product, but it’s the part that Apple will probably also have the hardest time striking deals to achieve.

4. Games. A lot of the questions I’m seeing about an Apple television have to do with games. The reason? IOS did (and still does) an amazing job of generating high-quality gaming experiences at a fraction of the price of consoles. Suddenly, people who always thought picking up a controller was a waste of time and money are flinging things at other things like there’s no tomorrow. If Apple can translate its iOS gaming success to an integrated television, iOS gamers will flock to it.

5. Stand-out hardware. One question during today’s Q&A stuck out in particular: Why would Apple make a television set when it could just make a better box? The reason is another potential selling point; specifically, Apple could only justify making its own TV if it makes that TV really amazing. Apple definitely has the pedigree, since it produces industry-leading displays on its mobile devices, computers and computer monitors. Make a TV that dazzles and really looks great in a living room, and you’ve got a big buying incentive right there.

Siri integration and a unified content browsing and playback experience through iCloud and the iTunes media ecosystem are things that could make an Apple television interesting, but they won’t set an industry aflame. That’s what the five points outlined above could do, by reaching out to consumers and providing them with outstanding experiences in areas where a lot of current service offerings fall flat.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Controversy, courtrooms and the cloud in Q1
• NewNet Q4: Platform mania and social commerce shakeout
• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution

So why the controversy? Apple prohibits publishers from offering more attractive (read: cheaper) subscription deals to customers outside the walls of the iOS App Store. Whatever publishers offer outside the App Store must be matched (or bettered) inside the App Store. Oh and just one more thing; Apple will not hand over to publishers the personal details of customers making in-app purchases/subscriptions without the permission of those customers. This last point is great news for consumer privacy, but another nail in the coffin for publishers accustomed to using said data in valuable advertising deals.

If you’ve ever subscribed to a magazine or newspaper you know how it works: A subscription card often asks for far more than just your name, address and credit card number. Those mini questionnaires publishers require of their subscribers supply them with a huge variety of valuable information they can use when selling space to advertisers. In fact, advertisers now demand it; after all, they want to be sure they’re placing their ads strategically — and therefore, spending their money wisely.

It matters not one jot if a publication acquires a few thousand subscribers through the App Store; without the typically-concomitant subscriber data, advertisers will be less inclined to buy space in any iOS publication.

How Did We Get Here?

Much publishing today is less concerned with quality than it is with quantity. The more copies there are of a magazine in circulation — or clicks on a web page — the more eyeballs see accompanying ads. In a world where, more than ever before, readers have more choice of content, but less time to engage with it, for many publishers, the key to generating appreciable revenue lies not in value, but in volume.

And I’m not talking small-time publishers here; in early February, Business Insider revealed AOL CEO Tim Armstrong’s guide to his network’s editors, titled “The AOL Way”, in which the editorial priorities of the company are laid-bare; on a page directing editors in how to decide what topics should be covered, “Editorial Integrity” (in other words, editorial quality) is ranked last, after “Traffic Potential,” “Revenue/Profit” and “Turnaround Time.”

Changing the Game

Online publishing’s focus on advertising, sponsorship and syndication is problematic, for viewers and for Apple as a company that wants to provide worthwhile content for users of its platforms. Great quality content, in this model, is of little use to publishers, despite the fact that it happens to be precisely the thing readers actually want.

Apple, I think, has noticed this problem, and is now taking positive steps to solve it. Apple wants to ensure that publishing on the iPad is never anything less than top quality, where the paramount priorities of publishers lie always in ensuring the quality of their content.

Hard Work for Big Returns

You see, with the rules as they stand today, the only way publishers can be successful in the App Store is by concentrating on producing the very best content. And that won’t happen because they place “Editorial Integrity” in first place on a PowerPoint slide. Publishers will have to commit themselves to produce nothing less than the very best content in the industry. It will take a lot of investment, a lot of insanely hard work and, for some publishers, a serious restructuring of their editorial staff and policies. None of that is easy or cheap, and, for publishers used to and dependent upon advertising revenue, it must seem a ludicrous proposition.

Apple has established a sales and distribution platform that emphasizes content sales and subscriptions over advertising, but if the company really wants to help publishers embrace the “content is king” philosophy, I think they need to do much more to assist in content creation and promotion. However, it begins with giving publishers with something that is still sorely-missing; top-flight iOS publishing tools made available — for free — to all publishers and authors everywhere. iOS is a publishing platform bursting with potential. Apple needs to give content creators an easy — and powerful — set of tools for leveraging it. Its iAd Producer application for the Mac might be a good place to start.

In the end, I believe most publishers genuinely respect their readers and care about the quality of their content; and I suspect they would happily unshackle themselves from their reliance on advertising revenue if only subscriptions and sales revenues could take its place. Apple has provided a tantalizing new path for publishers to tread, provided they don’t just throw their hands up and walk away citing Apple’s greed as a way to take the easy way out.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req’d):

• Platform Makers Placing Big Bets on In-App Payments
• 5 Ways Apple’s In-App Purchase Rule Could Come Back to Bite
• What App Distributors Can Learn from the Ringtone Craze

Yojimbo

In case you’re new to Yojimbo, you can check out our coverage here at TheAppleBlog. The app lets you store and tag all the flotsam and jetsam of your digital life for later use. You can drag and drop files and clippings using a handy Drop Dock applet, paste your current selection into the app with keyboard shortcuts, or type content into a pop-up Quick Entry panel. You can also send PDFs to the application directly from any print dialog.

Bare Bones also introduced the ability to scan documents or images directly using TWAIN-compliant scanners in the latest release of Yojimbo.

The new iPad app has the quality and polish one would expect from any Bare Bones release. While the absence of the ability to add new items will disappoint some, many Yojimbo devotees will be thrilled to be able to carry their database with them. I had a chance to talk with Rich Siegel of Bare Bones just before the release, and he explained that adding items on the iPad is something they would like to do at some point in the future.

The lack of iPhone support is another gap for the time being, but it makes sense from a purely practical perspective; the iPad is great for viewing content now and the iPhone will be great for adding items when that feature gets added.

Yojimbo 3.0 is a free upgrade for 2.0 users, and a $20 upgrade for those with earlier versions. An individual license will run you $39. Family and educational pricing is also available. Yojimbo for iPad is $9.99 in the App Store.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req’d):

• App Developers: Are You Ready for HTML5 and Metered Data?
• Strategies for the Future of Digital Content Storage
• Google’s New Route to Your Wallet: Music and Books

A new patent application making the rounds suggests that Apple’s plans for iOS go beyond its Apple TV revamp, too, and extend to the desktop. The patent in question describes a modular iMac, with the ability to pivot down to a more touch-friendly angle and the power to switch between OS X and iOS, depending on your needs at any given computing session.

Obviously, Apple considers its forays into touch-enabled mobile computing a success and wants to translate that success to its traditional desk and laptop computing divisions. Anyone who’s used an iDevice and/or gotten used to multi-touch gestures using either a Mac notebook trackpad or the recently released Magic Trackpad peripheral will likely attest to the convenience and ease of use of Apple’s take on touch computing. But can the iOS model be successful on more traditional computers, and who will reap the benefits of such a change?

In some ways, of course, a unified iOS platform across all devices will be a boon to consumers. Presumably, apps purchased for one platform will be installable and usable on each of the others (with limitations and exceptions, as evidenced by the iPad and iPhone differences). So your money will go farther, and a more uniform experience means that even the most casual computer users will get the most out of their devices.

But the consumer isn’t the party that stands to gain the most from a move towards iOS. Apps are the key to Apple’s mobile operating system, and apps, as we’ve seen, present a sort of “walled garden” version of the Internet for safer, more controlled consumption of content. Apple’s policies regarding the policing of that walled garden are of debatable merit, but what isn’t in question is the advantage to content producers.

By segmenting, repackaging and reselling focused content bundles in the form of apps, Apple is making it possible for web content creators to charge users directly for their wares, instead of having to rely on the unpredictable revenue stream provided by advertising, which has by far been the dominant model to date. The widespread availability of free information on the web has been cited as responsible for the gradual decline of traditional media outlets, like print news.

iOS on more devices means more potential revenue sources for media providers and content creators, and could provide the boost that journalism is looking for. Ironically, it should help Google, too, since the relevance of its search capabilities depends upon the continued production of good and useful information sources, which apps could help fund in a big way going forward.

Of course, the upshot is that Apple gets to operate as the arbiter of taste and morality for all of the content that passes through its gates. Is it a small price to pay for the continued sustainability of media production, or a pill you’re ultimately unwilling to swallow?

Related GigaOM Pro Research: Rogue Devices: The Consumer Influence On Enterprise Mobility, Part 1

News of the policy change comes via a letter sent to the developer of “Wobble iBoobs,” which informed them that under the new guidelines the app was determined to be inappropriate and would be removed. In the letter, Apple explained that the App Store policies are subject to change, and that it is “constantly refining” its definition of what’s deemed appropriate, based at least in part on user feedback.

TechCrunch received a copy of the email notifying Wobble iBoobs developers about the policy change and resulting removal of their app. Apple does note in the following excerpt that the ban is reversible:

We have decided to remove any overtly sexual content from the App Store, which includes your application. Thank you for your understanding in this matter. If you believe you can make the necessary changes so that Wobble iBoobs (Premium Uncensored) complies with our recent changes, we encourage you to do so and resubmit for review.

While a few other similarly-themed apps have been removed from the App Store, too, apparently in keeping with the new policy changes, some others remain, raising the question of what exactly Apple categorizes as “overtly sexual.” The top 25 and 50 lists appear to have been scrubbed pretty much clean, but some apps in the Entertainment category still seem pretty sexual to me. Hard to mistake the intent of the official “Playboy” app as anything but, for instance.

Though my gut reaction is to decry Apple for censoring something as relatively innocuous as sexually suggestive material (caveat: I’m a Canadian; we’re pretty okay with nudity and sex in general), I actually can’t help but be really pleased with the move as a regular App Store customer. As far as I’m concerned, the kind of novelty sexual app that Wobble iBoobs represents wasn’t doing much more than taking up valuable real estate in the App Store’s top downloads list, blocking spots that might otherwise be occupied by something useful I’d actually consider downloading.

Apparently, the apps were somewhat popular, since they managed to appear on those top lists with fair frequency, and Wobble iBoobs was downloaded more than 970,000 times during its App Store career. But if you feel the need to get your jollies on the iPhone (and I really can’t imagine why you would, for screen size issues alone), then take to the web and leave my App Store out of it. Mobile Safari’s right there, and I guarantee you’ll be much better served going that route anyway. Does anyone else see this as a change for the better, or am I alone here?

Related GigaOM Pro Content:

• Will Mobile Porn Pay Off?

Google is the one with the most to worry about, though, according to a new report (subscription required) posted at GigaOM Pro. Google does have a significant interest in the netbook market, like Microsoft, thanks to its upcoming Google Chrome OS, but that isn’t the reason they need to be scared. The real reason is the demise of the web.

Paul Sweeting, in the GigaOM Pro piece, contends that the reason the iPad poses such a threat to Google is that it rewrites the rules of content delivery, eliminating the avenues through which Google makes money via search and advertising. As I’ve written about elsewhere, Apple’s aim is clearly to control not only the content that appears on its devices, but also the conduits by which that content arrives.

Apple promotes a tunnel vision version of the Internet, with content funneled, separated and kept specific to the app you happen to be using. It’s a cellular model of consuming Internet-based content, and it is attractive to the consumer in the same way a walled Japanese garden is attractive to the appreciator of nature. The garden is safe, predictable, contained and aesthetically pleasing. Raw nature can be all of these things, too, but it isn’t necessarily so all of the time.

My only question, and the one which Sweeting poses without asking directly is, is that something I want to happen as a consumer of media? Do we want to “settle” the web, so to speak, by allowing Apple to pacify it, distill it, and then sell it back to us through tightly controlled channels? It may seem alarmist, but it isn’t. It’s what Apple has to do to grow its consumer base as a mobile device maker.

In an ideal world, from Apple’s perspective, Cupertino would have exclusive control over all major media distribution. The company desires that, or as close as is possible in the real world, because by controlling the distribution of content they can also control which devices consumers have to use to consume it. That, in turn, means hardware sales.

It sounds bleak, but it might not be all bad. Apple seems committed to providing quality content in innovative ways, so maybe handing them more control is the right move. What do you think? Is convenience, ease of use and quality of finish worth the trade-off required in terms of autonomy?

Read the full report over at GigaOM Pro →

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• With The iPad, Apple Takes Google To the Mat
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks
• Report: A Mobile Video Market Overview

The format the new hardware takes will actually be only the superficial impact of tomorrow’s announcement, though. What will really amaze, and what will matter far more for the future of Apple and the personal electronics industry, will be the content deals that are announced alongside the launch of the new device. If the deals go anywhere near as predicted, Steve Jobs could be crowned the new king of all media.

Alright, so maybe I’m overstating things a bit, but not by much. The story of how Apple’s iTunes affected the music industry, and gave the company an amazing degree of control in setting policy and pricing splits for digital music distribution is well known. It is widely accepted that record companies begrudgingly acquiesce to Apple’s demands, although occasionally they demand a concession, like the iTunes price policy change that accompanied the move to DRM-free music files.

Even now, Apple is reportedly trying to use the same strong-arm tactics on providers of television video content who hawk their wares in the iTunes store. MacRumors reports that the Mac-maker is urging TV networks to lower the per-episode price of content from $1.99 to $1, as part of its selling strategy for the tablet.

If the tablet proves to be even half the multimedia wunderkind it is being hailed as, other media providers can expect the same kind of pressure brought to bear. The book, magazine and newspaper industry in particular stands the least chance of resisting Apple’s power grab, since at this point it’s already looking for a life raft to save it from a daunting future steeped in decline. Some rumors are now circulating that the tablet will ship with a built-in Barnes & Noble bookstore, but whatever the outcome, you can bet Apple will have significant support from magazine and newspaper providers looking for a lucrative alternative to print.

Where Apple has the advantage, even if it is seen as an unsavory source of salvation by those wary of what its done for the music industry, is that it isn’t the Internet. People almost invariably like things that are free, and the Internet makes free easy. The only thing people like more than free is easy, and Apple’s distribution method makes things very easy, especially if the iTunes store is married to an extremely light and thin portable device with a decent size screen and a range of connectivity options.

Selling through Apple also takes a lot of the backshop issues out of the hands of providers. They no longer have to worry about setting up advertising, controlling access, preventing piracy and security exploits, etc. And the revenue picture becomes much more clear, with a per unit price that stockholders and stakeholders alike can easily understand. Taking the long view, siding with Apple makes sense, even if the upfront price is quite steep in terms of power dynamics.

So will Steve Jobs inherit a kingdom tomorrow? Not quite yet, I think. More like he’ll take control of quite a few lucrative fiefdoms, but it’ll take a little longer to unite the entire media nation and declare himself monarch. Make no mistake, though, this is what the tablet will accomplish in the long run. It’s the inherited legacy of the iPod and iPhone, in fact, and this is simply the next building block. Fancy gadgets are lovely, but what draws customers to those shiny screens is the content that they’re displaying; control the content, and you control consumer spending.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Forecast: Tablet App Sales To Hit $8B by 2015
• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce