Netflix, AT&T’s U-Verse, Hulu Plus, Comcast’s Xfinity TV and HBO Go are all good examples of the type of apps Apple is promoting as part of the “Watch” subsection of TV Time. Other apps that provide some, but not all content, like The Daily Show, Conan O’Brien Presents and Syfy are also included in a “Shows & More” grouping, and finally social sharing apps and interactive TV guides like GetGlue and i.TV make up a “Share” category.

Promoting TV apps is a winning strategy for Apple. Satellite and cable providers are embracing iOS as another content delivery vector, and many major U.S. companies like Comcast, AT&T and Cablevision began offering iPad access to their library of content for paying subscribers during the past year. The inclusion of apps that provide supplementary info and experiences to go along with TV content also encourages the use of Apple devices as second-screen interfaces for traditional TV viewing.

I use my iPad for watching video more than I did last year, and Apple probably wants to boost that trend. The more TV viewers it can attract to its platform, even if they bypass the iTunes Store and its TV show purchases, the more power it accords Apple in terms of attracting and keeping lucrative content partnerships. Hopefully one day we’ll see my real dream come to pass: every channel broken out as a specialty app for complete, a la carte control over TV viewing.

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

• Managing infinite choice: the new era of TV user interfaces
• Connected Consumer Q3: Netflix fumbles; Kindle Fire shines
• Connected Consumer Q2: Digital music meets the cloud; e-book growth explodes

Two-screen gaming has a history that predates Apple’s iPad, and Nintendo proved that it works for portable gaming with the DS, which launched in 2004 and has been successful ever since, but the iPad is the one that made it make sense for TV gaming. Ever since Big Bucket Software used the iPad and the iPhone to create a working beta of The Incident running on one and controlled by the other, the potential for Apple to become a force in living room gaming seemed limited only by developer creativity. More recently, Real Racing HD 2 expanded on that concept with a true two-screen gaming experience for the iPad.

Nintendo Wii U extracts the two-screen experience from the model used by Real Racing HD 2 and discards most of the rest. The Wii U controller can’t act independent of the Wii U console, but it can handle gaming visuals entirely on its own screen, and it appears to support stylus input for functions beyond gaming, like drawing.

Making two-screen gaming the entire focus of Nintendo’s next-gen console is a very smart move at this point, since it’s happening before the concept takes off in a big way with iOS devices. It should work out well for Nintendo, but it could be even better for Apple device owners in the long run, if the Wii U concept inspires iOS developers to take two-screen gaming further.

Of course, gaming isn’t the only thing iPad users do in front of their TV. Television viewers have been distracting themselves with laptops and mobile phones for years, and the iPad was lends itself to be the ideal second screen device. Nielsen said in May that 70 percent of all tablet owners use their devices while watching TV. And last year, a study found that 86 percent of all mobile users access the Internet while watching TV.

Nintendo also added some media sharing features that were clearly inspired by efforts to use the iPad as a second-screen device. Wii U users will be able to flick photos and videos that they find online towards the TV to watch them on the big screen, something Yahoo demonstrated at this year’s CES, and a key feature of Apple’s AirPlay technology. And the handheld controller will feature a front-facing camera to give users a chance to video chat while watching TV — a feature that will sound familiar to any iPad user as well.

Nintendo obviously concentrated on gaming during the introduction of the Wii U, but we shouldn’t be too surprised if the new controller was being utilized for other kinds of second-screen activity like Twitter and Facebook that has so far been the domain of the iPad as well.

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

• Connected Consumer Q1: The Over-the-Top vs. Pay TV Battle Heats Up
• Mobile Q1: All Eyes on Tablets, T-Mobile and AT&T
• A Media Tablet Forecast, 2011 – 2015

The prospective iCloud service has managed to steal a lot of the spotlight away from iOS 5 and Mac OS X Lion, the other two products being shown off by Apple at WWDC. That may be because we know less about iCloud than we do the other two, or because all things cloud seem to be capturing the tech media’s attention lately. Whatever the reason, the past few days have seen a bevy of reports describing what a shipping iCloud could potentially look like.

Everything That’s Fit to Stream

In addition to music streaming — a feature widely reported on as music licensing negotiations are said to have reached a successful conclusion – Cnet also reports Apple is also in talks with film studios to allow for cloud movie storage and streaming, too. Presumably, this service would be similar to the one being discussed for music, but there’s a barrier according to Cnet’s sources: the so-called HBO blackout, which allows HBO exclusive broadcast rights of films from three of the top six movie studios when it’s actively airing their content.

Apple could still negotiate deals with the other three in time for launch, but even if the reports are accurate, don’t count on seeing movies and TV show streaming and storage announced this time around.

A Data Center That Means Business

Apple’s North Carolina Data Center is a serious beast. According to Envisioneering Group  Analyst Richard Doherty in an interview with USA Today , it “may be the most powerful data center ever, outside of government,” and “will be able to handle millions of streams per minute without any network hiccups.”

Apple clearly wants to make sure that when it unveils the future of consumer cloud technology, it’s more than able to meet demand and scale rapidly.

MobileMe Upgraded

Apple will most likely use the iCloud brand to take over the duties of its current cloud syncing and storage offering, MobileMe. That means it should provide email, notes, calendar and bookmarks syncing, along with the Find My iPhone and Find My iPad services. There have also been reports that a Find My Mac service could make its way into OS X Lion, but the service might fall under the iCloud suite of offerings, too. It would allow Mac owners to register their device, so that they can later be tracked easily via a web-based interface, and be locked or wiped remotely to prevent unauthorized use.

Free or Fee?

The MobileMe service iCloud will reportedly replace costs users $99 per year, but AppleInsider reports that some of iCloud’s services will be offered free to users who upgrade to OS X Lion, the next generation of Apple’s desktop operating system. But other features, such as music streaming, will cost extra based on the fees associated with Apple’s licensing agreements with content providers, reports say. One early report pegged Apple’s streaming music fees at around $20 per year, but little else has been forthcoming on the subject since.

People who want to use iCloud services without upgrading to Lion will reportedly have to pay the $99 annual fee currently associated with MobileMe.

We won’t have to wait long before we see what Apple has in store for iCloud, but in my opinion, it’s the unknown variables that make it the product to watch for during Monday’s keynote. Can Apple do for consumer streaming what it has done for PCs and mobile devices? Let us know what you think in the comments.

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

• Cloud in the Forecast For Apple
• The Case for Increased M&A in 2011: Actions and Outlooks

Misek’s prediction is based on checks with developer and content providers over the past couple of weeks, and also the impending launch of the massive new North Carolina Apple data center, which is set to become operational this spring, according to Apple COO Tim Cook. Misek also believes Apple could be involved with additional planned data center builds in other parts of the U.S., though ownership of these facilities can’t yet be definitely linked to Apple. Apple does appear to be doubling the originally intended size of the North Carolina center, according to earlier reports.

One last indicator that Apple has big plans for cloud TV, according to Misek, is that some major content providers are eager to have their material removed from potentially competing services:

We find it notable that the content companies, citing a lack of domain license, asked Cablevision  sto remove channels from its iPad app. We believe these same companies are negotiating some sort of deal with Apple.

The picture Misek paints of a potential cloud-based TV service from Apple is certainly an appealing one. It would offer Apple TV-like features, but also the ability to easily move content between Apple devices, including the iPad, iPhone, and iPod touch. And if content companies really are balking at the efforts of others to bring their shows to Apple products, it could mean that the Mac-maker has possibly negotiated a far-reaching content license across its platforms with some.

Misek also thinks a new piece of hardware will accompany the introduction of the new cloud-based video service, but he makes no firm predictions about what such a device might look like. Regardless of whether Apple introduces new hardware, or just updates the existing Apple TV (which should be up to the task, especially given Apple’s introduction of live streaming video offerings on the set-top device), a new streaming TV service could be the game-changer the video market’s been waiting for.

All Apple has to do with such a service is provide exactly what cable and satellite don’t: a highly customizable, on-demand and live streaming hybrid with a total focus on consumer choice. In short, Apple just needs to give TV the App Store treatment. Of course, that’s much easier said than done, as licensing deals would make such an offering a nightmare from a negotiations standpoint.

Difficulty in negotiating content rights might be why Misek predicts we won’t see the introduction of such a service from Apple until 2012 or 2013, with an initial domestic launch followed later by an international rollout. Apple is lucky that Google TV didn’t end up living up to customer expectations, but if it does intend to go this route, it will face increasing competition from Netflix, and from cable TV providers which appear to be getting over their fear of TV not restricted to the physical television itself. The window during which a cloud-based, cross-device TV service offering will be disruptive is closing fast.

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

• Will Apple’s Spectrum Bet Pay Off?
• Fixing Fragmentation: Google’s Key to the Enterprise Tablet Space
• The Future of Workplaces

Seasonal DVDs on Amazon

Most television seasons start in either August or September and run through April or May, resulting in a season of around 20 episodes. The average price of the top ten seasons on DVD from Amazon is currently around $30. This would put the price of an average episode somewhere in the $1.50 range. That’s the most likely price point the entertainment industry is clinging to when justifying alternate cost models for renting digital media through online delivery solutions like iTunes or Amazon’s video-on-demand.

One downside of buying seasons is that episodes aren’t available for sale until a season is over. However, in the end, the consumer owns the episodes they buy.

Broadcast and Syndicated Television

Cable and satellite television starts at about $50 per month for at least 200 channels, which provides access to most new and syndicated television shows. This would exclude exclusive access to episodes from channels like HBO and Showtime, which would add to the $50 monthly access charge. It would also exclude any television series not currently being broadcast. What it does include is early access to the latest episodes as soon as they become available.

All distribution costs are included in the monthly fee, and revenues are further subsidized via advertisements. What’s hard to calculate is exactly how many episodes customers would reasonably be entitled to. There are likely multiple consumers per household and multiple TVs for simultaneous viewing.

Monthly DVD Rental Service

Rental services like Netflix and Blockbuster can grant access to about the same list of shows for about $25 per month, depending on how many DVDs you subscription level allows you to have out at a time. The number of shows one has access to at any given time is more limited than using cable or satellite. Shipping charges are included. You can also stream to your game console with Netflix for $8.99 per month, although that does incur some of the hidden costs of distribution, which I discuss next.

Hidden Costs of Distribution

In all of the above scenarios, the cost of distribution is absorbed into the price structure. Any online distribution system would likely be paid for by the consumer in the form of broadband Internet access. Broadband high-speed internet access alone is similar in cost to each of the aforementioned pricing options, not to mention storage. Hard drives, DVDs or the extremely expensive burnable Blu-ray discs. Not only do consumers have to pay for the means of distribution, but also some means of storage, though HD space is getting cheaper by the day and the price of external drives amortized over a year works out to virtually nothing.

Viewing Behavior Patterns

Now that we know the various tolerances for paying, and the hidden costs of online distribution, what about viewing preferences? For prime timers that have replaced thier VCRs with DVRs, following a television series is more like subscribing to a video podcast than purchasing a season of episodes on DVD. How much consumers are willing to pay for a season’s worth of episodes depends greatly on how many episodes each consumer can consume in a given month.

From $30 to own a full season outright, to somewhere between $25 – $50 per month to watch and discard as many episodes you can bear to watch. How does $.99 to rent a single episode measure up? At just one episode per day you are already at the similar costs of the alternatives, and that does not include the hidden costs of distribution and storage. So is it then worth it to rent a-la-carte from Apple in convenient individual packages, or is it still much better to just pay for the water hook-up represented by cable and Netflix and drink from the tap whenever you like?

Related GigaOM Pro Research: Three Reasons Over-The-Top TV Apps Will Beat Big-Cable

What’s In a Name?

For starters, they both feature similar names. Simply take your company name and slap TV on the end. Very original, Google, but a point goes to Apple for having the idea first.

Beyond just what’s on the box, though, what do both of these companies stand for? What do users really associate with these brands? For Google, it tends to be searching and information. For Apple, it tends to be entertainment. You can back up this argument just by looking at what these companies do. Google has set the standard for search engines and Apple has created an entire ecosystem of products around iTunes, including content and third-party support.

How Does the Hardware Match Up?

Details on the new Google TV are sketchy, though we know it’s really more of a platform than just a piece of hardware. External set-top boxes will be produced by Logitech and partners like Sony will build the technology into their televisions. Additional television vendors will be added over time as they build in the technology as well. But how does the hardware compare? Here’s what we know.

Google TV

• 1.2GHz “Sodaville” Atom Processor
• 4GB of Memory
• 802.11n Wi-Fi & Ethernet
• Dual HDMI ports
• Dual USB ports
• S/PDIF out
• Video Chipset: Unknown
• Storage: Unknown
• OS: Android

For comparison, let’s look at what the current Apple TV offers.

Apple TV

• 1GHz “Crofton” Pentium M Processor
• 256MB of Memory
• 802.11n Wi-Fi & Ethernet
• HDMI port
• Component Video, Stereo Audio, Optical Audio Out
• USB port (for service only)
• Video Chipset: NVIDIA G72M with 64MB DDR2 memory
• Storage: 40GB or 160GB
• OS: Mac OS X 10.4.x

Purely looking at the specs, it looks like the Google TV blows the Apple TV out of the water, which is understandable considering the Apple TV hasn’t seen a hardware update (aside from a larger hard drive) since its launch in 2007. But rumor has it that a new Apple TV is around the corner and it could provide some stiff competition, boasting an A4 processor similar to the iPad and capable of delivering 1080p content.

The Experience

So what’s the big deal about Google TV? In Google’s eyes, it’s all about giving users the ability to find the content they want across a wide variety of mediums including broadcast TV, YouTube and pretty much anywhere on the Internet. The device also includes a built-in web browser (with support for Flash) allowing users to access content from virtually anywhere.

While the current Apple TV doesn’t support interfacing at all with broadcast TV, nor full Internet access, it still offers similarities with Google TV, like YouTube or accessing photos from the cloud from sources like Flickr or MobileMe. In fact, it even beats Google’s approach by tapping on the power of the iTunes Store, providing users with tons of content that they can buy or rent and download.

That’s really where we see a big difference in the strategies of both companies. On one hand, Google is attempting to aggregate all of the content from a wide range of places into one simple list of search results. How effective will this be? If I search for “Battlestar Galactica” will I find random YouTube clips, bootleg TV shows and other vaguely related ephemera mixed in? As I mentioned earlier, Google TV is a platform running Android, which means that an SDK will be available to allow developers to create specialized apps. In theory, Netflix could easily develop its own Google TV app just as it did for the iPad. Unfortunately, the openness of this platform can also be a disadvantage. Look at HTC’s Android-based products, for instance, which feature different interfaces for similar tasks.

On the other hand, Apple’s strategy has been to provide content that people want, but holding that content to a high standard of quality mixed with a simple to use interface. To see what I mean by this, look no further than the App Store which, for better or worse, has maintained a growing selection of quality apps. Or consider the iTunes Store. It’s easy to browse and find a show that I want, view any of the seasons that are available to purchase and sometimes even have my choice of SD or HD content.

While the current Apple TV may not have some of the features of Google’s offering, it does play very well with Apple’s iTunes ecosystem and that’s something that Google cannot, and hasn’t yet shown a desire to, compete with.

The Future

Even at this week’s D8 conference, Steve Jobs still referred to the Apple TV as a “hobby” and, while we are eagerly anticipating rumors of a cloud-based Apple TV to come to fruition, we’re still left where we began — a box that is just a hobby. In fact, at the conference he expressed his views on set-top boxes altogether.

The problem with innovation in the TV industry is the go-to-market strategy. The TV industry has a subsidized model that gives everyone a set top box for free. So no one wants to buy a box. Ask TiVo, ask Roku, ask us…ask Google in a few months. The television industry fundamentally has a subsidized business model that gives everyone a set-top box, and that pretty much undermines innovation in the sector. The only way this is going to change is if you start from scratch, tear up the box, redesign and get it to the consumer in a way that they want to buy it.

We’ve speculated before about what a future Apple TV could look like and rumors are circulating that the next version could be based on the iPhone OS. This inevitability opens the door to an App Store and, at least in my opinion, works to address the issue of getting content to the consumer in a way that they want to buy it. Apple has tried several approaches to this (iTunes Extras, for instance) but nothing has really seen the runaway success like the App Store.

For comparison, a good number of people feel the print industry is dying, but looking at the success of the Wired iPad app, all of a sudden developers have a powerful canvas to push existing content and new ideas of content to consumers. Would a similar model be successful in the living room environment? What do you think? Do you think Google TV will really be a game-changer or a lackluster platform? Is Apple’s direction or Google’s the best? Share what you think.

For those interested in cloud computing or data centers, check out our Structure conference in June.

Related GigaOM Pro Research: Google TV: Overview and Strategic Analysis

Both companies have different approaches, with CBS aiming to stream content via the iPad’s built-in browser, and ABC looking to provide its streaming content via a dedicated iPad application. The information comes via people briefed on the plans of the two companies speaking to the Wall Street Journal.

CBS plans to have full episodes of Survivor online and ready to stream by Saturday on its CBS.com website. That’d be great news eight years ago, but who still watches that reality fluff? In addition to full episodes of that one show, word is it will also have special previews of other shows like the terrific crime drama “The Mentalist” and popular comedy “How I Met Your Mother.” Despite the significant lack of content for Saturday, Neil Ashe, president of CBS Interactive, did make a statement promising that the iPad will have the same access as computer-based browsers over time.

ABC’s app, on the other hand, will likely have a much larger library available at launch, including shows like “Lost” and “Desperate Housewives.” The app would stream shows along with advertisements, in the same way ABC.com currently does. It’s a way to avoid iTunes altogether, where sales are slack and Apple is trying to force a 99-cent price point per episode to stimulate the market.

As for the other major networks, NBC already offers streaming content to the iPhone and iPod touch through its mobile website, including full episodes of shows like “30 Rock” and “The Office.” Fox does not, but presumably Rupert Murdoch has some kind of paid solution in the works, since he is trying to wall off all News Corp. content behind pay walls.

Interest in getting content on the iPad is strong, but it represents a monumental effort not just from content providers, but from the advertisers that make that content possible, as well. For years, the de facto format for online video has been Flash, and many advertisers work exclusively in that medium. To then convert existing or prepare new advertisements for the iPad platform, which doesn’t support Flash, will take time and money. The iPad’s success in the coming weeks will reveal whether or not the investment is worth it.

Related iPad Content from GigaOM Pro (sub req’d)

Steve Jobs calls the iPad Apple’s “most advanced technology in a magical and revolutionary device” and I’m certainly not one to disagree. The iPad boasts significant advances over the iPhone in terms of hardware and software which makes me wonder, how much of that advanced technology could make it’s way into a future Apple TV?

Hardware

While the current Apple TV boasts an Intel Pentium M 1.0GHz processor, Apple’s advances in its own chip design could pave the way for a custom processor fine tuned for the device. Apple’s reason for custom chips in the mobile arena is to provide them with what they need while giving them more control over other aspects, such as battery life. While this isn’t a concern with the Apple TV, certainly a more powerful chip while still being power efficient is desirable. A custom chip would give Apple more flexibility over performance as well. Consider the video formats the iPad can play. Many were shocked to see support for full 720p at 30 frames per second and support for .avi files up to 35Mbps. In terms of processing power, that’s more advanced than the Apple TV, and its a mobile device!

The iPad also brings support for an external keyboard through Bluetooth. That’s right. You can use your plain off the shelf Apple Wireless Keyboard with your iPad. Why not bring this same bluetooth functionality to the Apple TV? This could allow support for a wireless keyboard or any host of other Bluetooth-enabled devices. (What other devices might one use? Read on, my friend.)

Software

While the current Apple TV software runs on a modified version of the Mac operating system, there’s really no benefit provided from this approach versus an iPhone-like OS. Consider the similarities already between the two: only one “application” can run at a time and the official method of pushing content to both devices is either through the Internet or iTunes.

Another arena that Apple could pursue is to finally offer an App Store for the device. Now that the waters have been tested with the iPhone and iPod touch, an Apple TV App Store makes sense. Considering that the device has been hacked numerous times and there are many unsupported applications that can be run on the device, an official App Store would give the device more expandability and return a portion of the profit back to Apple. Since the App Store model allows the developer to reap profits from the app too, perhaps this will finally pave the way to bring Hulu into the living room via the Apple TV. If Hulu and Netflix both offered apps for the Apple TV, imagine how many of these devices Apple could move off the shelves? Game developers could build their own applications and provide interaction using an iPhone or iPad as a controller (gaining accelerometer functionality) or through their own Bluetooth-enabled peripherals.

The Apple TV is a product that has seen few updates and is referred to by Apple as a “hobby.” But what are hobbies really? It’s something done for pleasure and for leisure. Something that you work on slowly over time, but stay the course. Apple has reaffirmed their commitment to investing in the device but much like the iPhone and the iPad, it isn’t going to be a runaway success if its not the right product at the right time. The iPad will be wildly popular because of the success of the iPhone, which owes its own success to the accomplishments of the iPod. Apple has carefully built an entire ecosystem around iTunes and its devices. With the Apple TV, the best is yet to come.

Related Research from GigaOM Pro:

• Web Tablet Survey: Apple’s iPad Hits the Right Notes
• How AT&T Will Deal with iPad Data Traffic
• 5 Tips for Developers Targeting the iPad
• With the iPad, Apple Take Google to the Mat

Shows already being offered at 99 cents are cited as examples of testing for this new scheme, but the shows in question aren’t exactly the most popular, so it seems almost as likely that the discounting is designed to stimulate sales in these specific cases. MTV’s “Wonder Showzen” and Warner’s “Children’s Hospital” are among those on offer at the reduced rate.

Still, we’ve heard rumblings of this before, and the article in the WSJ fits almost exactly the description of what an intentional leak from Apple looks like. Also, I have no doubt that while networks might not be that crazy about this idea, there’s no reason Apple wouldn’t want to see the price of standard definition TV shows cut in half (they currently cost $1.99 per episode).

There are plenty of reasons why they would want that to happen, though, and the biggest of all is iPad marketability. To people who, for example, think a ReadWriteWeb post is actually the Facebook login page, the iPad is a mysterious device indeed, with few sellable qualities. Why would such people pay for the ultimate web browsing experience, for example, when they’re terrified of the web? What they will pay for, and what they do understand, is TV.

Bestselling shows offered at a dollar isn’t only an attempt to woo iTunes TV-viewers to the new platform, although it will probably help do that. The advantage of such competitive pricing for a single, popular type of media is that it will make the iPad a destination device for said media, in the same way that the iPod has become the digital music player. Apps might sell the iPod touch and iPhone now, but make no mistake, what sold their predecessors and allowed them to even exist in the first place was music.

TV could do for the iPad what music did for the iPod, and Apple knows it. Sure, the iPad has apps, but I’d be willing to bet that apps still remain mostly untouched territory for a massive number of people who use the media playback capabilities of their iPods and iPhones. Books aren’t priced competitively enough, nor do they appeal to a wide enough market to create the kind of consumer rush Apple is looking for with its new device. No, it has to be TV, and for that to become a reality, consumers have to see prices that compete with or improve upon cable subscription models.

Offering cheaper TV is a step in the right direction, but there is an alternative if talks break down and Apple can’t offer steep discounts on its current TV prices, which by all accounts are fairly high. Apple should merely open the platform a little by either developing easy conversion options itself for .avi files and other formats, built right into iTunes, or by encouraging third-party companies to do so. In short, make it easier for users to get their own files onto the device, and you broaden the hardware’s appeal immensely.

Apple currently makes it somewhat difficult to get your own differently formatted media onto its devices because by doing so, it encourages content providers to offer their media for licensed use with the device. It gives Cupertino the ability to negotiate with those providers, since Apple is actually protecting their interests by discouraging piracy.

But if networks don’t begin to take Apple seriously as a contender to cable companies and other TV service providers by offering competitive prices, I say the Mac-maker is well within its right to go its own way and open the platform up. Consumers will reward them with big hardware spends to make up for lost media revenue.

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

It sounds promising, but it also brings back memories of apps for the Palm pilot that were supposed to do the very same thing. The Palm devices had built-in IR communication, so all you needed was the software, which sounded great, but ended up being clumsy and not really that usable on a regular basis. I still have a Palm in a bedside drawer that I occasionally drag out to use for that purpose, in fact. It never stays out long.

Hopefully the iPhone’s accessory, which is called the L5 Remote and will cost around $49.95 when it hits retail stores this February, won’t suffer from the same failings. Once you have the dock-connecting IR blaster, you can get the application for free from the App Store. It promises to control televisions, DVDs, DVRs, cable boxes, audio equipment and more. I’ve got my fingers crossed for some unofficial support for the Logitech Harmony PS3 adapter. The blaster is said to have a functional range of up to 30 feet.

One place where the iPhone’s universal remote app should easily trump the dated Palm version is in user interface. No messing about with a stylus or hit-and-miss finger touch response with Apple’s smartphone. And you’ll be able to create your own custom button configuration by dragging and dropping the appropriate commands from various devices in whatever arrangement you choose. That should make it easier than my physical remote, too, since I won’t have to rely on the pre-arranged layout of the buttons, which is sometimes far from intuitive depending on what device you’re controlling.

The press release for the L5 describes a “short, guided training sequence” before you can begin using it with your home theater setup, which could be coded PR speak for a long and arduous process of holding your remote up to the IR blaster add-on for each command you want your iPhone to learn. I’m really hoping that the app comes with a built-in code database for common brands and makes of equipment, or that they at least open it up to user-generated databases.

As of right now, L5′s web site is just a placeholder, which isn’t a promising sign, but keep your eyes peeled for the official release of the attachment and software next month. Hopefully by then there will at least be a place on the web to go looking for more info.

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

• Mobile Q4: All Eyes Were on Android, 4G and the Rising Tablet Tide
• Report: A Mobile Video Market Overview
• In Q3, the Tablet and 4G Were the Big Stories

Apple’s subscription strategy makes the most sense when viewed alongside the introduction of a larger screen iPod device. Some will buy the “iPod Tablet” because it’s new and exciting, but at an average of $25 or more per season per show, iTunes as it currently exists won’t be replacing your cable company anytime soon. However, with a network-wide subscription service, the balance changes.

More devices means the same content in more places for the same monthly fee. Your Apple TV becomes the digital hub Steve always imagined it to be and, hopefully, gets upgraded by Apple to handle it’s new role as a set-top box. Your iPod Tablet becomes your TV anywhere device; not as good as your home TV, but much better than your iPhone.

Back in June, I wrote how cable companies and Apple were on a collision course, and the WSJ’s article only reinforces the points I made then. It’s not just cable companies of course; DirecTV, AT&T Uverse and other traditional media distribution companies will feel just as threatened. Cable companies, though, are the most established in the field and have the most to lose. Combined free HD over-the-air local broadcasts and a iTunes network subscription for premium content, and Apple really starts looking like a spoiler to Comcast and the like.

Cable companies bundle content to increase revenue. Subscribers can’t pick and choose channels a la carte. If you want ESPN, you often have to pay for Disney and ABC Family. To be fair, the networks, not the media distribution companies, are sometimes the ones forcing these packages down our throats. Want SyFy? Then NBC/Universal can make the cable company carry other owned stations such as MSNBC and Bravo. The cost of the additional channels is passed along to the consumer.

Pricing a few shows from the same network on iTunes today, I find it’s often cheaper to just buy the next tier with your provider rather than subscribe “per show” via iTunes. Apple’s new plan changes these traditional rules. According the the WSJ article, networks actually make more money by removing the cable company middleman. It’s the cable providers and local affiliates that are left hurting.

Not only do the traditional cable companies lose subscriber money, but they also lose their fringe revenue sources. All of a sudden people aren’t renting expensive DVR. They also lose lucrative “On Demand,” opportunities as well as local advertising dollars as consumers downgrade their channel lineup or drop their subscription altogether.

Is it any surprise that Comcast wants to buy NBC/Universal? Do they see where Apple is going? Probably. The value isn’t in the pipe providing content, but the content itself. Time shifting and place shifting are empowering consumers and raising expectations. Hulu, Boxee, Slingbox, iTunes, and Netflix allow us to watch our TV shows practically anywhere. Live sports is one area Apple hasn’t quite figured out, but it’s only a matter of time. Considering Steve Job’s relationship with Disney, which owns ESPN, I expect some innovative method of providing live content to the forthcoming tablet.

Apple pushed the music industry hard to allow digital distribution — and won. First, they got a majority of labels to provide content to iTunes, and then convinced them to drop the DRM. Does Apple have the muscle to push the TV industry while fighting local franchise authorities? Even with Steve Jobs on the board of Disney, I think Apple bit off more than they can chew.

Expect the hardest pushback from companies that provide both TV and internet service. Some will even employ internet bandwidth restrictions or tactics that violate the principles of net neutrality. They’ll also claim that since Apple isn’t a Multiple System Operator as defined by the FCC, Apple is an unfair competitor. Unlike cable companies, Apple isn’t bound by “Must Carry” rules, and the cable companies will cry foul.

Who will win? In reality, the networks and the cable companies are already at war, Apple just decided to choose sides. I want Apple to win so I can ditch the cable company, but I think the deck is stacked against the Mac maker, and the backlash of any small victories will prevent other networks from signing on. Only the Ghost of Christmas Future knows the outcome.

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

• Apple’s Path to the Living Room
• Report: Monetizing Digital Content
• Forecast: Tablet App Sales To Hit $8B by 2015

As Ryan at NewTeeVee reports, Google is in the process of convincing the TV industry to allow it to stream the kind of new, copyright-protected content that now gets pulled down for a reasonable fee, say multiple sources close to the issue.

Streaming vs. Downloading

The idea would be to do what iTunes already does, which is offer commercial-free first-run TV shows to users for the price of around $1.99 per episode, on or around the first day of their airing. The difference, of course, would be that unlike Amazon and Apple’s download-and-watch services, YouTube would be sticking to its existing streaming video formula, so users couldn’t keep the files on their computers for later viewing. There’s no official word on whether or not users would be able to go back and stream shows after the initial viewing, but I doubt TV content providers would agree to such terms.

YouTube execs think that isn’t necessarily a game-ender, but they acknowledge that it is a problem:

Executives at YouTube and TV insist that the disparity is simply a perception problem and cite studies showing that most people who download TV episodes only watch them once, anyway. But that’s a tough sell.

I know I’d rather have something I can store and potentially rewatch, even if I never actually do. A lifetime subscription arrangement might make me more comfortable, but the opportunities for misuse on the consumer side are too great for the television industry to take that risk.

YouTube Mobile Support

The key factor in whether or not YouTube’s TV efforts will be successful, though, lies not with the way it delivers the content, but the places it delivers said content to. YouTube is accessible on any number of platforms and devices, including computers, Blu-Ray players, video game consoles, televisions, and cell phones.

If mobile content usage trends are any indication, the last delivery route will be the most significant going forward. If YouTube TV rentals extend to YouTube’s mobile apps on Android and iPhone devices, I foresee users more than willing to accept the trade-off of not having any downloaded content in exchange for quick and easy instant accessibility anywhere they have a data connection.

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

• Report: A Mobile Video Market Overview
• How to Market Your iPhone App: A Developer’s Guide

The two new ads, posted by BusinessWeek ahead of their U.S. television debut, depict different scenarios in which you want to access data-using features of your iPhone while also remaining on a call. This is something you can do on AT&T’s HSDPA/UMTS 3G network, but not something you can do using Verizon’s CDMA-based one.

In the first ad, three different scenarios where you might want to check something without leaving your call are depicted. They include a client call, talking to a friend and changing a reservation, and talking to your wife and ordering flowers for your anniversary.

The second ad depicts a single call with a friend, during which you can check movie times, location, and restaurant details. Both ads follow this post.

The ads are clearly aimed at Verizon customers. I was actually completely unaware that the ability to use both voice calling and data access at the same time was even a feature. I do it constantly without even thinking about it. Would I miss it if I’d never had it to begin with? Hard to say.

There’s another question the ads bring up. Does network reliability trump multitasking when it comes to cell phone usage? As convenient as it is to be able to pop in and out of the phone app to check on showtimes and other little luxuries, does it really matter if there are huge blackout zones where you can’t even take a call to begin with, let alone take one and use your network data simultaneously?

In my opinion, these ads fare very poorly when compared to their Mac counterparts. The “Get a Mac” series of ads manages to target an Apple competitor cleverly, and in an entertaining fashion. Apple’s iPhone ads have never been anywhere near as good, but so far, they haven’t had to be. I’d expect more from Cupertino in response to the first real challenge to the iPhone’s market domination, Verizon’s Droid, than this sort of middle-of-the-road effort that doesn’t address the main concern customers wary of AT&T still have.

Apple’s clearly doing this for AT&T, but both companies need to get their acts together if they want to counteract the clever work coming out of Verizon’s camp. Here’s a tip: A little Hodgman goes a Long way.

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

• Mobile Q4: All Eyes Were on Android, 4G and the Rising Tablet Tide
• Report: A Mobile Video Market Overview
• In Q3, the Tablet and 4G Were the Big Stories

According to “multiple sources” speaking to All Things Digital’s Peter Kafka, Apple is trying to gather support for a monthly subscription service that would see TV programs made available via iTunes in an on-demand basis. Luckily for most, Apple is keeping the proposed service open to all platforms, instead of trying to use it to bolster lackluster Apple TV sales figures, as one might reasonable expect.

Interestingly enough, Gene Munster actually predicted Apple might do something like this, though he predicted 2011 as the launch year. Apple’s proposed launch timeframe for the new service is early 2010, but that’ll be a tall order given the current state of buy-in from content providers. Networks are happy to provide shows for purchase on the iTunes service, but a move to a subscription model would represent a complete change in the relationship between Apple and the programmers.

Giving that much power over distribution to Cupertino could result in a relationship similar to the one that exists between Apple and record labels, in which the computer maker holds an uneven balance of power because of its ability to reach the consumer. Networks are probably also not very eager to damage the existing arrangements between themselves and cable/satellite providers, which still represents significant revenue from subscription fees, despite the recent consumer turn towards web-based content.

Apple’s proposal comes close on the heals of Hulu’s announced plans to begin charging for some of its service, and I don’t think the timing is coincidental. The time is coming when digital distribution becomes the default method for content provision, and Apple clearly means to spearhead the movement.

Success now will depend on offering a good enough revenue sharing deal to the networks to make it worth their while to sign on. It’s a question of finding the right tipping point to convince programmers that the potential gain outweighs the considerable risks. The key will be convincing multiple big name networks to join in, since this will only succeed if we as consumers think Apple is providing enough variety to justify ditching our cable subscription.

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

• Report: Monetizing Digital Content
• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce

The three ads, “Broken Promises,” “Teeter Tottering,” and “PC News” all have a slightly different take on what’s wrong with Windows, but they all manage to find fault. And they all do so without actually citing anything concrete about Windows 7, which really hasn’t been around long enough to generate the kind of widespread complaints that plagued Vista.

PC News

It’s the Windows 7 release news coverage, except the excited masses aren’t on board with Microsoft. They’re taking advantage of the call to upgrade to Macs instead. The theory being, if MS is saying “All right everybody, ditch Vista!” they might as well switch to an OS they know for a fact actually is user-friendly. Not the best of the bunch, and the logic behind it is kind of a stretch.

Teeter Tottering

Sort of like a single case study of one PC user from the first ad, this one follows an XP user getting ready to switch. To Mac, not Windows 7, despite PC’s repeated overtures to try to get her to stay. What’s great about this commercial is that Justin Long as Mac never says a word, and instead the only debating that goes on occurs between the PC user and Hodgman, so the customer ends up convincing themselves. Hence, the real benefits of Mac are self-evident.

Broken Promises

Only the basic Mac/PC duo are featured in this third new ad, unless you count the inclusion of their former selves from years gone by. This is my personal favorite of the bunch. It uses fictional remembered exchanges between Mac and PC over the years as each iteration of Windows was released, all the way back to Windows 2. A nice visual touch on the part of Apple’s advertising team is the way Apple’s outfit changes only minimally from clip to clip, while PC seems to be a slave to the fashion trends of the time. It paints PC as dated and Mac as timeless.

PC users probably haven’t even had a chance to become disillusioned with Windows 7 yet, but Apple is doing the smart thing by not letting them get the chance. These ads say it all: If Microsoft’s laid the groundwork for an upgrade mentality, best to swoop in and grab a few switchers while the getting’s good.

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

• What Google’s Honeycomb Means for Apple and Microsoft
• The Future of Work Platforms: An Overview
• A 2011 Connected Consumer Forecast