According to two separate sources speaking to AppAdvice, in the coming weeks, Apple will launch iTunes Replay, which will work by providing a little arrow next to TV show and movie content available in the iTunes store that qualifies for the service. Content marked with the arrow will be able to be downloaded multiple times to different devices and likely streamed to some as well. The blog reports that some content will be limited to only five subsequent downloads, likely dependent upon rights negotiations with content providers, but that users will also be able to use iTunes Replay with previously purchased content, so long as it was bought after Jan. 1, 2009.

If Apple has been working on such a service, it makes much more sense that we’d see it actually released to the public now, in 2011, rather than in 2009. First, digital video sales is a completely different landscape. Netflix has prompted aggressive growth of streaming distribution, and Blockbuster has since declared bankruptcy, putting a huge dent in physical rentals. TV Everywhere initiatives by cable companies have also helped make device-independent digital distribution more commonplace. Also, mobile video is a much more influential force, so providing greater access to iOS devices is in the best interest of content sellers.

Apple’s recent actions also indicate that the time for iTunes Replay to go public may have finally arrived. With the introduction of iCloud, users (in the U.S.) can now automatically download purchases made on one device, an iPhone for instance, onto another, like their Mac or iPad. And thanks to the latest Apple TV update, iTunes customers can already stream some TV content to that platform directly after purchase. Broadening the availability of multiple downloads and streaming of TV and movie content on iOS, Mac and TV is a logical next step.

I have no doubt that Apple would love to offer something like this to iTunes customers. The only question remains, Are film and TV content providers ready to take that step? If rights negotiations began back in 2009, when this service first hit the radar, then that is definitely possible, especially given all that’s happened in the meantime.

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

• Cloud in the Forecast For Apple
• Report: Monetizing Digital Content
• Infrastructure Q2: Big data and PaaS gain more momentum

Slowly but surely, Apple is trying to convince more media companies to play in its sandbox, and the latest move is an iBooks-style digital newsstand for the iPhone and iPad. As part of the raft of new features and services it announced at its annual Worldwide Developers Conference on Monday, Apple launched Newsstand — a single interface for all of a user’s subscriptions to newspapers and magazines. Whether the new offering will convince more publishers to sign up and hand over 30 percent of their subscription revenues to the company remains to be seen.

Apple has been working on a single digital newsstand for newspapers and magazines since last year, but it ran into some significant roadblocks with several publishers. One issue was the control over subscriber information: Some media companies didn’t want to have to ask their readers to give up personal details, but they wanted direct access to that info the same way they have it with print subscriptions —since it is a crucial part of their sales pitch to advertisers. Apple stood firm, however, and eventually a number of mainstream publishers started to cave in to the company’s demands.

As my colleague Darrell Etherington has noted in his coverage, Condé Nast has recently signed up to offer digital magazine subscriptions for a number of its properties, including Wired, Glamour and Vanity Fair, and Hearst (publisher of Esquire) has also signed up to offer subscriptions (Time Inc. is one of the few remaining holdouts). And contrary to what some publishers feared, a surprisingly large proportion of users seems to be fine with providing personal info through an app.

With the launch of the new Newsstand, all of a user’s newspaper and magazine subscriptions will be available in a single interface, the same way that books are available through the iBooks interface. The design of Newsstand even looks the same, with the wood-style virtual shelving similar to a bookstore or magazine store.

Newsstand completes the transition of magazine and newspapers away from just being apps in the traditional iTunes app store and toward actual subscriptions in the home. When publications were first offered on the iPhone and iPad, users had to pay for each individual issue of a magazine and then download it separately. Now, with Apple’s support for in-app purchasing, subscriptions for Wired or the Daily or the New York Times will automatically be updated every month without requiring users to do anything.

The biggest issue for publishers, however, is that dealing through the Apple ecosystem still means they have to give Apple 30 percent of their subscription revenue. Some publishers were getting around this by sending users to a website outside their app in order to sign them up for a subscription, but Apple closed that door last year by requiring any publisher who charges for content to do so from within the app as well as outside it.

Condé Nast and Hearst seem to feel that giving Apple that kind of control over their access to a subscriber base — not to mention 30 percent of their revenues — is a fair trade. But is that a sign of how compelling Apple’s offering is or how desperate publishers are?

Post and thumbnail photos courtesy of Flickr user Zarko Drincic

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

• The Case for Increased M&A in 2011: Actions and Outlooks
• The Structure 50: The Top 50 Cloud Innovators
• Connected Consumer Q1: The Over-the-Top vs. Pay TV Battle Heats Up

One path Toast is taking is to focus on its core strengths and make use of its encoding and decoding expertise by becoming a media conversion utility. The second direction appears to be more of a business partnership move, through the creation of a software bundle with other vendors whose programs complement Toast.

Toast as a Media Converter

Out of the box, Toast is a decent media conversion tool. I compared it to two other media conversion tools that I use regularly, the well-established Handbrake, and the lesser-known Pavtube, to see just how good it is. As you can see from the chart above, it lags behind Handbrake and Pavtube in terms of its ability to take content directly from disc-based sources and create different files using those sources. It also lacks a lot of fine-tuning options and the ability to queue conversions. Still, with a little more work, it could become a very competitive conversion tool thanks to its extensive output format support.

Toast as a Complementary Utility

By placing more of an emphasis on conversion than burning, Toast has entered into the media conversion market with a decent offering. On its own, Toast isn’t exactly a powerhouse of creativity. Sure you can create a DVD menu system, but for the most part, the creativity happens outside of Toast itself. To that end, Toast Titanium Pro has partnered with some other software developers to create a bundle of utilities that complement the creativity process of established media creation powerhouses.

Roxio has been very careful to choose what software to bundle in with Toast Pro.  They didn’t directly challenge iMovie, Premier or Final Cut by resurrecting some of Avid’s now retired consumer-based products for Mac.  Instead, Roxio made the smart move with Toast to focus on complementary tools that fill the creativity void it has in this space.  Boinx Software’s FotoMagico is a great choice to author clips that will be added to a movie.  BIAS SoundSoap helps remove unwanted background noise from videos.  SmartSound SonicFire adds the ability to create great soundtracks if you are not a musician.  Combine that with Toast’s existing burn and conversion capabilities, and you have a powerful set of media creation utilities.

Looking the core value of Toast in a disc-challenged world, if Roxio sees fit to expand Toast’s conversion features to handle a little more control on some of the low-level settings like de-interlacing and noise reduction, as well as add in the ability to process a batch of media files in series or in parallel, it has the opportunity of being the best media conversion utility on the market. Unfortunately, Toast’s current strengths lie in its Pro version and its strategic business partnerships. I would definitely recommend purchasing the Pro version of Toast over upgrading to the latest version of iLife or investing in Adobe Premier, but if you want conversion tools, look elsewhere for now.

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

• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks
• Connected Consumer Q1: The Over-the-Top vs. Pay TV Battle Heats Up
• Smart Grid Apps: Six Trends That Will Shape Grid Evolution

Account Authorization Limits

You may have noticed that iTunes is limited to authorizing only five computers with each iTunes account. This means that you can only authorize five separate Mac or PC computers or user accounts to playback protected iTunes content or use Home Sharing using a single iTunes Account.  For example, if you have created five different user accounts on the same computer, and have authorized iTunes for each user account on that one computer with the same iTunes Account, then you have reached your maximum number of authorizations.  This is also true if you have used that one iTunes Account on the same user account on five different computers. Basically, each iTunes Account can authorize up to a maximum of five instances of iTunes. You can deauthorize computers or accounts at any time following the instructions found at Apple’s support website. Luckily, though, once you have iTunes configured with a single  iTunes Account, there does not appear to be a limit to the number of iPods, iPhones, and iPads one can sync to a single iTunes library.

Losing Some Apps, Gaining Others After Syncing

If you’re only using one iTunes account across multiple devices, you may notice some strange behavior when you sync your iOS devices: apps seem to disappear and appear at random with each sync.  It is likely that each iOS device serves a different purpose, or is even being used by a different person.  This leads to each user adding and removing apps that suit their needs and the purpose of the device.  What is happening is that apps that were purchased on one device are being lost, while apps purchased on a different devices are being added.  This situation is easily remedied by transferring purchases before each sync, and disabling the automatic synchronizing of new apps on each iOS device.  The “Automatically Sync New Apps” option in the apps tab of your iOS device info screen in iTunes applies to any app in your  iTunes library that has been added to your iTunes library since your last sync. If you are managing several iOS devices from one account, it is a good idea to disable this feature.

Controlling Purchases With One Account

With this configuration, each iOS device is capable of making independent purchases.  In fact, there are three layers of where the iTunes Account is configured.  The first is the iTunes installation you use to sync your device.  The second is the iTunes Account configured on the device itself.  This is configured in the on-device Settings app under Store (for iTunes Store).  In fact, there are several techniques you could use in the way you configure parental controls on each device that can prevent or enable each device from making purchases.  These purchasing techniques apply to the iTunes Music, Book and App Store.  Changing which iTunes Account is used on the device to be something other than the iTunes Account you sync with may cause problems when the sync operation transfers purchases from the device to the iTunes installation on your Mac or PC as well as the Digital Rights Management (DRM) on the device itself.  So plan on using the same iTunes Account on both your computer and your device to avoid those problems.

Syncing Media Files From One iTunes Library

There are two paths you can take with your iOS device. Either manually manage your iTunes Library when syncing, or set up user-specific Playlists and sync only those playlists.  This feature has been in place for iPods since before the iPhone was ever announced.  You may even want to consider creating a separate playlist folder for each iOS device you sync to.

Accessing Media with iTunes Home Sharing

Another layer of iTunes media management has to do with remote playback of your iTunes library, which is accessible on multiple devices via Home Sharing.  With the iOS 4.3 update, now all of your iOS devices can access your iTunes Library remotely on the same Wi-Fi network.  What is interesting here is that the iTunes Account you set up for Home Sharing does not have to be the same iTunes Account you sync your device to.  This is configured in the Settings App under iPod in the Home Sharing section.  Unfortunately, your iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad cannot add multiple Home Sharing accounts like you can do with the Apple TV.  This does get a little confusing if you also use the Remote App from Apple that’s capable of configuring multiple iTunes Accounts to access and control other iOS devices like the Apple TV. To access libraries on any device using Home Sharing, you’ll need to leave iTunes open and running somewhere on your local Wi-Fi network.

Conclusion

Managing up to five computers with one iTunes Account and a seemingly unlimited number of iOS devices including the Apple TV is definitely possible.  Apple has done a great job by exposing some settings like automatic syncing in iTunes as well as on-device restrictions to help take control of both apps and media on each device individually while still using the same account.  Apple is still in the process of refining what you can and can’t do with your iTunes account, so stay tuned for more updates as the company rolls out new software updates.

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

• How to Manage Access to Digital Content
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks
• How Media Companies Can Compete Online

According to Bloomberg, the investigations are, for now, preliminary and exploratory, with the aim of determining whether a formal inquiry is merited at this time.  News of the investigations comes via two people familiar with the matter, who declined to be named because at this stage, the investigation is confidential.

The full details of Apple’s subscription plan were unveiled on Feb. 15. According to the deal, content providers who offer access to content within an app that can be purchased from an external website or other location, must offer the ability to purchase the same content from within the app, too, at the same price. That includes both one-time purchases and recurring subscriptions. Revenue from the sale of content and subscriptions from within the app will be split 70/30 between Apple and the content provider. Any apps that offer an in-app link to an external store from which the content may also be purchased will be rejected by Apple.

The Wall Street Journal provides some interesting perspective on the likelihood that these preliminary investigations by the DOJ and FTC will result in a full-blown inquiry. On the one hand, it suggests that there are definitely reasons to be suspicious of Apple’s actions:

“My inclination is to be suspect” about Apple’s new service, said Shubha Ghosh, an antitrust professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School. Two key questions in Mr. Ghosh’s mind: Whether Apple owns enough of a dominant position in the market to keep competitors out, and whether it is exerting “anticompetitive pressures on price.”

At the same time, there’s a question of which market will be investigated. Apple might be susceptible to investigation with regard to the tablet market, where it still holds an overwhelming share, but if the company can convince regulators that in-app subscriptions are part of the greater overall digital and print media markets, then as it stands, it would be impossible for anyone to say they have a dominant overall share, except possibly when it comes to digital music (a DOJ investigation is ongoing regarding Apple’s iTunes music store business practices). However, MacRumors points out that according to experts, “government officials may be unable to tag Apple’s commission rates as anticompetitive given a lack of benchmark standards in the market and an unwillingness to interfere in complex pricing decisions.”

Apple, no doubt, considered this before introducing the new feature, and will do its best to convince lawmakers that as it stands, there’s no cause for investigation since it doesn’t control a majority of the market at issue. My guess? We won’t see any definitive action or change in the way Apple does business resulting from this investigation for a long time to come. For now, the numbers are on the company’s side when it comes to books, magazines, newspapers and even movies, depending on how broadly you define each category.

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
• Facebook Built an App for Feature Phones. Should You?

By expanding the availability of in-app purchasing to more application types, Apple could usher in new revenue models for apps offering online gaming, tiered customer support, in-app currency, premium content and software-as-a-service (SaaS).

An easy example of how this might work would be a pay-to-play MMO along the lines of World of Warcraft, which would charge users a monthly subscription fee. A developer could make their game strictly limited to subscribers after a trial period (like The Daily is now), or provide ongoing access to additional premium content for those who hold a recurring subscription, and basic, free access to all other users.

Apps could also offer tiered customer support on a subscription basis. For example, Shane Ketterman, editor of TCGeeks, suggested to me that app developers might offer a $4.99/month subscription package that would guarantee lifetime upgrades and 24-hour customer support. Such packages are commonplace with desktop software, after all. Obviously, this would only appeal to a limited subset of iOS users, but it could be popular among enterprise customers.

Devs could even choose to wall-off special sections of their apps behind subscription-based pay wall or provide varying levels of access to SaaS customers, as Ken Seto pointed out on Twitter. The just-launched ZenDesk web-based customer support iPad app, for instance, could offer differing levels of access and feature sets depending on a user’s subscription level, just like it does on the web.

Apple’s press release detailing the in-app subscription model was key to use “publishers” throughout when referring to the parties who would be implementing the feature, and even specified that it would be “available to all publishers of content-based apps on the App Store, including magazines, newspapers, video, music, etc.” While it’s unclear whether that means uses like those mentioned above will fly (the “etc.” leaves a lot of wiggle room), it’s obvious Apple intends this model to be used by music and video-based apps, too. Subscription-based music services like Spotify (and now Last.fm) will then possibly have to comply, which could be bad news for their revenue share, but good news for user convenience and adoption. Netflix and Hulu, too, might have to begin offering an in-app subscription option, although it isn’t clear whether Apple’s use of the term “publisher” in this context includes large-scale distributors like the companies I’ve just mentioned.

Small producers like Majek Studios, on the other hand, which produces an ongoing web series specifically for the iOS platform, seem like exactly the type of content providers Apple is referring to. The availability of in-app subscriptions could be a huge boon to independent producers like Majek, since it provides a dependable, recurring revenue stream for ongoing film and video projects.

In-app subscriptions open up a realm of new possibilities for iOS revenue models, but Apple is clearly keen to keep tight control over which of those possibilities it allows to see the light of day. Here’s hoping they open it up to a variety of different implementations, because I think it could user in a new level of platform maturity for Apple’s smartphone operating system.

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

• How the Little Guys Can Compete in Local Mobile Advertising
• Shopping Matters When it Comes to Location-Based Apps
• How to Market Your iPhone App: A Developer’s Guide

The platform itself only launched earlier this month, so it’s nice to see Microsoft moving so quickly to support Mac users. Microsoft Office for Mac 2011 also hits OS X tomorrow, and it’s a major improvement from previous incarnations from what I’ve seen so far. Maybe Redmond is tired of fighting against the tide, and just wants to ride the Apple wave. Though not everyone associated with Microsoft is embracing Cupertino.

Windows Phone 7 Connector for Mac is a free download from the Windows Download Center, despite requiring Mac OS 10.5 (Leopard) or higher.

Right now, most of the content you own is stored locally on our Macs or iOS devices. This content includes apps, books, videos, music and documents. The cutting edge techies have embraced Gmail, Google Docs and cloud services like DropBox and Box.net. The only thing keeping you from storing movies in the cloud and viewing those on your iPad is Internet speed. What if I told you the copy of Finding Nemo you bought from iTunes can be streamed instantly to any Apple device no matter where you were in the world — a café, driving down the interstate or in the London tube? It’s almost here.

Our future is wireless at speeds that meet what we have in our homes. This may be a decade away and if carriers make wireless data truly unlimited this will be a reality, but it scares me for a few very obvious reasons that simply can’t be fixed by technology.

Corporate Control of Our Data

Control by a single entity is my main fear. Cloud storage isn’t democratized and it isn’t open. Currently, when you buy something, it’s stored, owned and managed by the company you purchased it from. Apple has maintained DRM in its iTunes Store since 2003. I’ve authorized files that I bought the day Apple’s store opened and they still play on any one of my Apple devices. If I lose that song, Apple can allow me to re-download it after some back and forth with its support team. My apps, movies, music and music videos are locked to its devices. The same goes with Amazon’s Kindle platform. Buying a book from Amazon’s Kindle Store means that file is locked to its software and hardware. If it ever abandons Kindle, your books are useless. There’s no reason for either of these companies to do this, but people who bought music from stores that are now defunct are in a bit of a pickle with the content.

An example of a failed system is Microsoft’s PlaysForSure DRM. A number of music stores and MP3 players adopted this, but most of those stores and hardware companies have shifted directions or gone out of business. The hundreds you spent on music may be playable right now but no one can guarantee you’ll be able to in 10 years.

Let’s simply alter my argument a bit and change the delivery of this content from DRMed files stored on your hard drive to music stored on the cloud operated by Napster or Real’s Rhapsody Store. If those services go away, the music you “own” is no longer playable…ever. Going all in on a service that is cloud based is risky business. The same goes for content stored on Google Docs, Flickr, MobileMe and YouTube. If you’re not keeping hard copies of your content uploaded to these services, you’re a fool. Hard drives are cheap. Store your content and don’t rely on these web services that have been around for less than a few years to store your content forever. Personally, I use Backupify.com to keep secondary backups of all my data from Gmail, Google Docs, Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and WordPress. I download copies from Backupify once a month to my hard drive.

Remember when Amazon ironically pulled copies of 1984 from Kindle devices without warning? Cloud based companies can do this. They might give you a warning but no one can come into your house and take a book. Unless what you’re storing is illegal or your hard drives are compromised, the data in your home and on your computer is safe for years as long as you’re careful. Keeping a backup of your computers on an external drive at home and a duplicate at your office is good enough and I suggest anyone do that no matter how insignificant the data is. If you store photos, music and documents on your computer, back it up off-site — no exceptions.

Apple is playing it safe with its new Apple TV. Allowing us to stream rented movies and TV shows is a good way to get us comfortable with streaming content. You can still buy the same content on your iOS and Mac devices and stream those to the Apple TV but, if you’re on a TV browsing iTunes, the only option is to rent the content.

It won’t be like this forever. Soon, streaming will be offered as a more convenient and less expensive option for us. Apple and other companies will present products where you can hit play on anything you’ve ever purchased and it starts instantly as long as you have an Internet connection from your phone, tablet and computer. Invite a friend to borrow your copy of Braveheart and they can watch it as well. This convenience will not be without problems.

In Apple We Trust

Apple is on top right now. Its mobile devices are envied by every CE company, but this won’t be the reality forever. I own 300 iOS apps, 1,200 movies, 200 music videos and over 18,000 songs where over 5,000 of those songs were purchased in iTunes. I’ve invested thousands of dollars in Apple. Thanks to limited kindness of the music industry, my music is now DRM free in iTunes Plus format so it can be played on any other MP3 player, but the other content is stuck. When Apple’s devices aren’t the best and someone else takes over, I’ll be stuck to the Apple ecosystem. The same can be said for Mac software when you make the switch to Windows 7 (for whatever reason) but it’s a reality we all need to deal with.

When you want to switch to a cooler and better mobile platform, will you be okay with giving up the thousands spent on DRMed content that can’t be played on the new device? If Apple remains the dominant leader for the next 20 years, can we trust it to be kind to its loyal fans who trust when we buy a movie stored exclusively on Apple’s cloud to always be playable and never be pulled, removed or changed? Will my copy of Braveheart always work no matter where I am or will I be greeted with an error when I’m in China with, “this movie is not licensed to be played in your region.” Where the hard copy stored on my iPad would play just fine no matter where I was? We’ll see. Apple is not a movie studio so its hands are tied when it comes to content and how that content plays just as much as any other company when it comes to music and movies.

The White Album Argument

Maybe I’m not seeing the big picture. There’s another side to this where if you ask anyone over the age of 50 how many times they’ve bought The Beatles’ White Album and they won’t be able to keep count. There was record, 8-track, tape, cassette and maybe even mini-disk. They probably also bought it in CD form the first, second and third time it was remastered. You may have bought this album eight times since it was first available in record stores.

Perhaps that’s how it’s going to be when it comes to our digital music. Perhaps, you’ll buy the same content over and over again well into your old age because there would have been a few music services between 2000 and 2050. On my 70th birthday, I may lament to my grandkids that I spent thousands on music in iTunes and they’ll laugh because music is like $20 a song now and I shouldn’t be complaining that it cost 99 cents back then.

Planning for the Future

Whatever happens next, consumers are in control. We decide with our cold hard cash. We already voted that digital is the future since iTunes sales will pass the sales of physical CDs very soon, but if we go all-in on cloud content trusting in the corporations storing and delivering it, the world may shift immensely and when you take a vacation to the mountains with your family where there’s limited cell reception, the music, movies and important work documents will all be inaccessible stored in some server that’s unreachable and you’ll have to laugh because this was the future we all wanted that corporations gave us.

Maybe I’m skeptical, but the best content is physical (bookshelf) with a digital version (non-DRM) and a backup of that digital copy off-site. If your house burns down, you’ll still have the book or CD digitally but the world we’re entering into is all digital with single corporations holding the DRM keys and now they want to store the content as well. It’s unclear what’s going to happen next. Let’s hope we know what we’re doing.

Related GigaOM Pro Research: How to Manage Access to Digital Content

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

This has made me take a serious look at Hulu Plus and Netflix.

The CliffsNotes version of this article: if you’re a movie person, get Netflix, If you’re a TV person, get Hulu Plus. The reason: Hulu’s movie selection is completely abysmal, whereas Hulu Plus is good for current-run TV shows.

Now, lets look at the apps. Our sister site NewTeeVee has a write-up covering the availability of shows here, so I’m not going to subject you to a large table in this post.

Hulu Plus ($9.99 per month)

There’s been a lot of bloviating about the short ads you’re forced to watch, even on the paid version of Hulu. They are noticeable, with an announcer’s voice that frequently grated on me. While I can kinda see the point, for me, it’s not a big deal; my cable-only channels subject me to longer, more frequent commercial interruptions. The ads on Hulu Plus aren’t a deal-breaker for me, but they are a point against the service.

What’s more of a bother to me is how limited the mobile offerings are. Not all Hulu shows are available for viewing on the iPad or iPhone. Stargate SG-1 is available in its entirety on the web; not at all on mobile (according to Netflix, this will be available for streaming August 15, so we’ll see if it’ll be on Hulu Plus then). However, Hulu Plus’s offering are deeper — where the free version might only have three shows of a season, the Hulu Plus version is more likely to have the full season. I did find Hulu was more likely to have older TV shows, as full seasons of Hill Street Blues and the A-Team are available (and let me say, the A-Team does not hold up well after all these years). Hulu’s movie selection is very weak — no mainstream movies to be found.

The app performs well. You can manage your queue, although, oddly, you can’t add a full season in one press. Because Hulu’s service is entirely streaming, I found the app a little easier to navigate than the Netflix app. However, in a curious technical decision, the Hulu Plus app doesn’t support the VGA output cable. Since I don’t have a 3G iPad, Hulu was the only one I was able to test over a cellular connection, and the results were fair, but from a small sample set: On the train to work, where AT&T coverage is spotty, the video was pixellated; at home with a better signal, it worked fine. One annoying feature in the Hulu Plus app is every time I launched it, it reminded me I was watching a video and did I want to continue watching it?

Netflix ($8.99 per month)

Comparing Hulu to Netflix is a lot like comparing iBookstore to Amazon’s Kindle store; like Amazon, Netflix has the benefit of a large library. As with Hulu, there are shows only available on Netflix — I could not find Nip/Tuck, Weeds, and Thirtysomething on Hulu; the complete offerings are only on Netflix. It also bears repeating for people who skipped my intro bit that Netflix is the place for you to go if you’re into movies.

I found the Netflix app to be a little sluggish. The video playing was usually fine, but I encountered a lot of slowness browsing the libraries. It’s also hard to pull down the Genres list — postings at the bottom were cut off. In addition, it’s impossible to just search by the titles available for streaming. Unlike the Hulu app, Netflix actually uses the VGA cable.

Final Thoughts

I was hoping that, at least for TV shows, one service would be a home run. Sadly, that’s not the case. While I found more TV shows on Netflix than Hulu that I enjoyed, I could convince myself to pay for Hulu for a few months to re-watch Hill Street Blues as well as start House and Law and Order. I’d be well ahead of the DVD costs. Hulu also earns points for current shows.

Given the economics, it’s not a requirement for an either-or service, For less than $20 a month, you can have access to a great library of movies and TV shows. The ads on Hulu Plus are a bummer. You get no commercials and larger selection (including movies, on Netflix) but Hulu Plus also lets you stay current on your shows. If you’re just staying current,  and not digging through a backlist, there’s little reason to sign up for Hulu Plus.

Looking Ahead: My Wishlist

Both these apps are fantastic, but operate under the necessity of an Internet connection, which means you’re screwed if you’re on a plane or in a bad cell area without Wi-Fi. What I’d love is for these apps to have the ability to also download movies into their device library for off-line viewing. I’m not sure how the licensing or logistics would work, but I hope that’s in their plans.

Which app do you prefer, and why?

Related GigaOM Pro Research: Three Reasons Hulu Plus is No Threat to Netflix

I’m sure I know what you’re grumbling right now: “iPhoto/Aperture does that, what’s the big deal?” Well, if you want to get right to the good stuff — all the good stuff — without scrubbing through the chaff first, there may be a better way to address the situation.

The situation as I see it, looks something like this:

• Over time, I’ve used iPhoto, so I have some photos there.
• I also, and exclusively now, use Aperture.
• I’ve got random video clips from the point-and-shoot camera that are scattered around Finder and iPhoto.
• I’ve got Flip video in the Flip version of iPhoto.
• I’ve got photos and HD video from my iPhone 4 in Aperture.

I realize that maybe I’m just sorely disorganized (ok, I know I am), but I’m guessing similar conditions probably exist in many a household out there in reader-land. Sharing all of this from my Mac is one thing. At least it’s all right there, so even if I have to switch apps and dig a little bit, I can get to it. But then there’s the real kicker: How do I elegantly get all of the good stuff synced to my mobile iDevice to share on the go?

My Solution

The solution I came up with isn’t necessarily the best (please share your own in the comments for the good of the community!), but it has certainly proven to suit my needs. Basically, I siphon all of the photos and personal video from their various locations (older iPhoto libraries, various Aperture libraries, Flip Video, Finder, and so on) and drop them all into a single iPhoto library (which I’ve named ‘sync’).

If you’re unfamiliar with creating a new iPhoto library, it’s quite easy. When you launch iPhoto, hold down the Option key, and a dialogue will ask you if you want to select a different library, or create a new one. Once I created the new library and dragged all my media in, I made sure it was organized in a way that made sense for me to show it off. So I’ve got ‘Family 2009′, ‘Family 2010′, ‘Photography’, and ‘Home Movies’ albums for easy access to everything. Of course, you may want to drill down to specific events like iPhoto and Aperture do, so do whatever makes most sense for your needs.

The beauty of this particular solution is that since Aperture is my main photo application, iPhoto is left untouched. Therefore, leaving the ‘sync’ library as the default in iPhoto means it’s always available for syncing to my iPhone. And of course if I’m at home I can pull up iPhoto on the MacBook or big screen to easily share the content that I want without having to sift through tons of other media that isn’t nearly as interesting.

The downside here is that whenever you have new photos or videos, you have to manually drag and drop them into your new ‘Sync’ iPhoto library. Although with a little time and know-how, Automator could be utilized to solve this problem as well.

If you’ve run into the same problem, and developed your own workaround, we’d love to hear your solution as well.

For Mac users who want to access media with their PlayStation 3, life just got a little easier.

One of the many features of the PlayStation 3 is accessing media such as photos, video and music from other devices via Universal Plug and Play (UPnP). Using a Windows PC with a PlayStation is very easy — the PS3 recognizes the computer instantly. However, up until now, it’s been extremely difficult for Mac users to get a UPnP server set up and have the PS3 recognize it. That’s where Playback by Yazsoft comes in.

After you download Playback and run it for the first time, the application automatically integrates with your media applications such as iTunes, iPhoto and Aperture. With a simple click of the Start button, the application sets up a UPnP server which your PS3 can connect to straight away by going to Video, Music or Photos on the XMB (sometimes called the Home screen).

However, it doesn’t stop there. You can customize exactly what Playback sends to the PS3, including specifying drives and folders on your Mac to share, and even streaming EyeTV recordings. To do this, open Playback and go to the Movies, Music or Photos tabs and use the boxes to check on or off how you want to stream.

Playback can also use Growl notifications to tell you when a device connects to its server, and you can allow and deny access for individual devices under the Access tab of the application window. It also allows for even more precise access control by allowing you to set exactly what media you want to be available to each device. For example, you could only allow movies to be streamed to one PlayStation, while another is allowed all three media types.

Playback is available as a 7-day trial, which limits streaming to 30 minutes per session, or a bundle of three licenses costs $15 from the Yazsoft website. You can also obtain a license for free by reviewing the software on your website, or get a $5 discount simply by posting a message about Playback on Twitter.

One user and developer decided not to wait for Apple to implement the feature, and instead created his own iPhone app in order to solve the problem. Greg Hughes, the man in question, created a Wi-Fi syncing app that works with a companion desktop client to sync your iTunes library with your iPhone, iPod touch or even your iPad. Check out the video below to see it in action.

It may sound like something that shouldn’t even be possible using Apple’s closed playground of development APIs, and maybe Hughes is stepping slightly out of bounds, but the YouTube video showing the app in action proves that it does indeed work. Just because it works, though, doesn’t mean we’ll be seeing it available for purchase in the app store anytime soon. I think it’s pretty safe to say Apple won’t let this one ever see the light of day. It’ll probably play the old “feature duplication” card because it may or may not introduce this feature itself somewhere down the road.

It’s a shame because the implementation looks fantastic, and users wouldn’t even have to wait for a new iPhone OS iteration to get it, since it works with iPhone OS 3.X. Judging by the video, the app somehow tricks iTunes into thinking that an iPhone is mounted and then syncs any video and music with that device, so you wouldn’t get the full iPhone sync experience, but it would work perfectly for users like me who are also MobileMe subscribers, since we basically only plug in to update music anyway.

Hughes is doing one thing right: He’s promoting the heck out of the app before it even has a chance to run afoul of Apple’s review process. It worked for Opera Mini, although the organization behind that app has far more visibility and clout than does a single unknown developer acting on his own. Still, even if Apple does block the app, at least people will know it happened and possibly voice their disappointment, rather than just let it pass unnoticed.

We’ll probably see the Wi-Fi Sync app grace the halls of the jailbreak app stores even if Apple never lets it see the light of day through official channels, proving once again that no matter what improvements Apple makes to its software, there’s still always a reason to go rogue. Is Wi-Fi Sync enough justification for you?

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

In the report, the WSJ talks about how during development, the focus with the tablet was on what its role would be in homes and classrooms, rather than on how it could be used by individuals alone. Apple set out to create a device that would be perfectly suited to a shared use environment, which strikes me as a fairly novel way of designing personal electronics.

Here’s how the device is tailored to household or group use:

One person familiar with the matter said Apple has put significant resources into designing and programming the device so that it is intuitive to share. This person said Apple has experimented with the ability to leave virtual sticky notes on the device and for the gadget to automatically recognize individuals via a built-in camera. It’s unclear whether these features will be included at launch.

Even with only that little information, I begin to see the marketing wisdom in such a design. Let’s face it, the tablet will be entering a market that is already fairly computer-rich, especially among the Apple faithful. If every member of a household has their own computer, how best to sell them another device that really has the same capabilities in a different form factor?

The answer: Sell them one that everybody can use as easily as if it were an extension of their own computer, without the bulk, startup/shutdown hassle and other inconveniences associated with a proper desktop or laptop. The idea probably came naturally enough as an extension of what families were already doing with iPhones and iPod touches in the household belonging to one member. To then take that natural inclination and make it the actual focus of a new hardware platform is a stroke of marketing genius.

If this is true and the development of the tablet really did focus along these lines, then think of what it might be able to do. You could pause a movie you were watching and go out for a run, then your wife could pick it up and instantly be taken to the email she was composing before you started using it, thanks to facial recognition tech. When you got back, if it was available, you could pick it up and the camera would see your face and resume the movie at the point where you left off, seamlessly.

Apple is also looking at pitching the device to the education market, according to the WSJ report. It should be much more appealing to education users than the Kindle DX, which currently represents its main competition, since it will be able to support interactive applications and color display, which Amazon’s 9.7-inch reader cannot, though apps are reportedly in the works. Price will probably be the biggest factor. Both students and schools will be wary of something with a high per-unit price tag, unless Apple can make up the difference by offering significant discounts on the content side.

Marketing the tablet as a household or shared device has the additional benefit of breaking up the cost in the mind of the consumer. A $1,000 price tag won’t look nearly as daunting if you start thinking about it as a shared community resource like a television. As a single guy living on my own, though, that consideration wouldn’t enter into my decision. Would it help you justify the cost?

Related GigaOM Pro Research: Rumored Apple Tablet: Opportunities Too Big to Ignore

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

• Rumored Apple Tablet: Opportunities Too Big to Ignore
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks
• Forecast: Tablet App Sales To Hit $8B by 2015