If you’re an American, you can rent TV shows on the new Apple TV. Companies like Warner have bitched about low revenues, but they’ll change their tune when Fox and ABC start making money hand-over-fist. It’s also been shown that Apple TV runs iOS (Wired), the same operating system that powers the iPad, iPhone and iPod touch. However, since it has little on-board storage, it’s unlikely you’ll be stuffing if full of iOS apps and games any time soon, according to just about everyone.

The thing is, Apple TV isn’t about stuffing it full of anything. The idea is to stream content or rent. To that end, I wonder whether Apple will provide games for the system, but using some kind of rental model. Shove Game Center into the mix and you wouldn’t lose your scores, so you could download Soopah Arcade Funk for a buck, play it until your brain melts, then return to it via another rental a few months later and continue where you left off.

So The Guadian’s waded in with its size-tens, running an op-ed by Charles Arthur about Jobs being all grumpy with a trainee journo. She complains that Apple PR hasn’t responded to her questions (welcome to my world, baby journo!), and there’s a brief to-and-fro before Jobs says “Please leave us alone”.

I write for a bunch of Mac magazines, and am regularly frustrated with Apple PR. Those I deal with are friendly, courteous people, and they help when it benefits Apple very directly (they’re quick to supply review software, for example), but that’s basically it. The thing is, everyone in this industry knows the score with Apple, apart, apparently, from this trainee.

She says:

Unfortunately, for a journalist in the professional world, lacking the answers they need on deadline day won’t just cost them a grade; it could cost them their job.

That’s pretty unlikely when it comes to Apple, unless you’re working for an editor that’s gone mental and actually expects you to get a comment from the company. Even if that’s the case, whining to the CEO won’t help matters, and, frankly, if you’re going to be a journo, you’ll need to figure out some other course of action when things don’t go your way. In her case, an article on “implementation of an iPad program” at her school, was Apple PR really the only source she could use? Did she really expect the PR arm of a huge multinational to be at her beck and call?

Arhoolie sums it up nicely in the Guardian article’s comments:

[…] the whine of “don’t you realise you are threatening my grade” is quite common. Perhaps if the students made sure the work they have chosen to pursue is practical first much of this grief could be avoided.

Commercial firms, charities, and Govt Departements [sic] are not in existence to be a training resource for student journalists.

Of late, I get asked quite a lot whether someone should buy an iPad or a Kindle. I’ve been struggling to come up with a really good analogy with other tech for these devices, and have usually gone down the ‘if you read a lot of books, get a Kindle, otherwise get an iPad’ route. This doesn’t always work well, because people then start rattling on about web access and games, and if I tell them to ‘go and get both devices then’, they yell “do you think I’m made of money?” before throwing spoons at me and storming off in a huff.

Over the weekend, it struck me that there’s a better, faster analogy out there: the Kindle is a television. Bear with me on this one.

The point here is that people still watch televisions, due to the user-experience. They have PCs, on which they can easily enough watch TV, but doing so is pretty hateful. Even if you’ve a shiny new 27″ iMac in your living room, it’s going to offer a worse TV experience than a far cheaper flatscreen TV, because the TV is designed for watching TV, and that’s something people do a lot of.

The Kindle is the same. People enjoy reading books on it, due to the user-experience. On a tablet PC, you can easily enough read a book, but doing so is pretty hateful. Even if you’ve a shiny new iPad in your living room, it’s going to offer a worse long-format reading experience than a far cheaper Kindle, because the Kindle is designed for reading books, and that’s something… well, that’s something some people do a lot of.

Of course, television manufacturers are rapidly trying to screw up my analogy by welding ‘apps’ to their flatscreens—the bastards; but I figure I’ve a few months left yet before I have to think of something else, other than walking about the place wearing a ‘Look, just buy whatever the fuck you want’ T-shirt.

Austin Seraphin, on ‘Rejoining the Apple Family’:

I joyfully look forward to the day when blind people finally catch on and realize that for $700, HALF the cost of JAWS for Windows, the most popular software used or rather pushed on the blind, they can get a fully functional computer that delivers a superior experience and comes with a superior screen reader with superior speech. May the Mac relegate Windows to the recycle bin, where it properly belongs.

Macworld reports that Warner has declined Apple’s invitation to offer 99-cent rentals for Apple TV. It reasons that the low price would harm the sales of full seasons of hit shows, and said it didn’t want to “open up a rental business in television at a low price”. Instead, Warner wants to continue charging viewers three bucks per TV episode.

Warner doesn’t get it. TV—even good TV—is relatively throwaway, but people are willing to pay if the price is right. $2.99 for a TV show is terrible value. $0.99 is directly in impulse purchase territory. For that price, people would try out way more stuff, and would be likely to grab each new episode as it came in, or just buy a season pass if they’d ordered a couple of episodes of a show that they ended up liking. Also, when prices fall and availability is immediate, people can’t be bothered to deal with torrents. For 99 cents, someone will pay for the latest Doctor Who. For three bucks, they’ll instead fire up their favourite BitTorrent client.

But wait! The industry says that lower pricing results in studios becoming paupers, right? Not quite. Stuart Campbell has written about premium versus low-end pricing in the iOS games market. With well-known properties—which TV shows mostly are—lower pricing equates to higher revenues overall, as shown by Pac-Man leaping into the top-grossing chart when at 99 cents (59p) and then disappearing without a trace when Namco returns to its rather ambitious pricing for a conversion of a 30-year-old arcade game. With TV shows, there are a lot of Pac-Mans, but, sadly, a lot of Namcos that own them

Apple’s thinking with TV is in enabling viewers to free themselves from buying loads of crap they don’t need in return for grabbing what they do at a reasonable price; it’s about low-cost entry but long-term profits, for Apple and for studios. It’s a pity Warner doesn’t get it, but it almost certainly won’t be alone, and I suspect the future for Apple TV may well be bleak unless studios wrench themselves out of the 1990s and embrace the idea of more flexible delivery mechanisms and pricing for TV shows.