Google, Apple, Boxee Battle for Living Room Real Estate

After hearing that Apple is (rumored to be) retiring the existing Apple TV and replacing it with a $99 iTV device based on iOS, I took a long hard look at my entertainment center and realized something: the war for the living room/home theater is going to be as much about geography as it is about price.

My first thought about iTV was something along the lines of "$99!? How can I not buy it at that price!?" but the difficulty isn't going to be in paying for it, it's going to be in placing it. Now I'm a skirmisher in this war for the living room. Most people don't have as much junk hanging off their TV as I do (3 game consoles, a Roku Player and a STB from FIOS), but in the next few months alone we're going to see the launch of Logitech's Google TV box, the Revue; D-Link's Boxee Box; and now this iTV gizmo. None of these will be very expensive and each appears to do something slightly different, so home theater fans could easily wind up wanting all three, plus their existing STBs, Blu-ray players and whatever else they have.

The challenge will come down to physical space and HDMI ports.

[ Get news and reviews on tech toys in ITworld's personal tech newsletter]

Let's look at physical space first. I wouldn't expect these devices to be very big. The Roku box is a tiny little thing that will tuck in almost anywhere and I expect the Revue to be only slightly larger. The iTV is anyone's guess, but we know how big an iPhone is, right? Expect iTV to be pretty small, too. Now D-Link's Boxee Box is another story. It isn't that it's big so much that it has that odd 'sunken cube' design that means it'll take up a lot more space than it ought to. And forget about stacking anything on top of it (and I wonder if that isn't the real reason for the odd design). The Boxee Box isn't going into a rack, that's for sure. It's going to have to sit on a shelf or on top of the top-most component in your 'stack.' I really wish D-Link would produce a second version of the Boxee Box in a plain rectangular case that I can place neatly into some nook or cranny of my home entertainment system.

Before I get to the HDMI challenge, let me diverge a bit and talk to hardcore gamers. Imagine what your TV will look like if you have a Nintendo Wii and both the Sony PS3 and Microsoft Xbox 360 and their new motion-control systems. The Wii's 'motion sensor' is probably on top of your TV, or sitting right in front of it. Microsoft's Kinect camera array looks like it'll also have to sit front and center, just in front of the TV; it looks too big to sit on top of a thin-screen. And Sony's Move needs the Playstation Eye camera, which again expects to be centered in front of the TV. And oh by the way, many of us already have a center channel speaker sitting in that coveted spot. So we can move the Wii's Sensor bar to the top of the TV; that still leaves a 3-way fight between Kinect, Eye and center speaker for that one sweet spot in front of the TV. I have no solution for that other than switching gear in and out. Maybe there'll be enough 'looseness' in the placement to put the two cameras side by side in front of the center speaker?

But the biggest battle in this war for the living room comes down to HDMI ports. How many do you have? Personally I only have two even though my TV (a 52" Sharp Aquos) is only a few years old. My receiver is ancient and has no HDMI so I have to run video to the TV and audio to the receiver via TOS cables. But even the newest receivers generally have four HDMI ports, at most. And you're probably already using 3 of them for a STB, Blu-ray/DVD player, and a game system. What will you do when you want to add iTV, Google TV and a Boxee Box? Plus any kind of portable device you might own that outputs 720P video via HDMI (like some of the newer phones do).

The solution for me has been an HDMI switchbox but those aren't really ubiquitous at this point. I got mine mail order (you can get a 5-port switch with a remote for $20-$30 or Best Buy will sell you one for $250; your call) but it'd be nice if they were widely available at places where you can buy other A/V cables and accessories. The switchbox solution works but of course it adds another component vying for space in your entertainment center. So is there a better solution? Not one that's available for you or me right now. Wouldn't it be nice if component makers added some kind of 'pass-through' HDMI port on their devices? I'm no engineer so I don't know how feasible this idea is, but I'm picturing having all the bits and pieces of my home theater connecting in one long daisy-chain of HDMI devices.

There's been some promising work done in wireless A/V delivery but so far it's kind of a one-to-one affair that won't help us too much, plus it tends to be fairly expensive. See for example Zinwell's Brite-View BV-2500 Wireless HD Video Transmitter and Receiver Kits (link is to Amazon where it sells for $286.54 for 1 pair). What I'd really like to see is a single wireless A/V receiver that connects to an HDMI port on your TV or receiver, then multiple wireless A/V transmitters that hook up to the HDMI out on your components. In other words, a many-to-one setup with the receiver intelligently switching depending on what is broadcasting. Turn on a device (which can be located anywhere in the room, or even in a nearby closet), it starts transmitting and the receiver tunes into it and starts displaying HD picture and sound. Oh, and it needs to be cheap enough that we can add a transmitter to a $100 device without tripling the cost of the install. As far as I know, nothing like this exists yet. (Please educate me if I'm wrong about that.)

So there is, I think, hope for the future but for the next couple of years we'll be stuck with stacks of switch boxes and rats' nests of cables (which some of us geeky types will put up with), or we'll have to pick and choose what we attach to our home theaters carefully. I don't think we'll make those decisions based on price so much as we'll make it based on what device gives us the most features per/HDMI port, rather than the most features/dollar.

I'm not sure how you spin your marketing campaign to circumvent these issues. Someone needs to speed up research into consumer-level HD wireless A/V, I think.

If you have a clever way to combat component sprawl, I'd love to hear about it in the comments.

Apple Patent Opens a New Frontier for Gaming--Documenting

Apple may take on a new role in video gaming if its latest patent application, published by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office earlier this week, ever makes it into a product. The patent is for a system that would document your roles in certain video games, and create a comic book chronicling the entire history of your character in a video game.

The system would basically keep track of whatever you do in the game, take pictures or screen shots of your character and other people, places, and things you encounter in the game.; It would even create dialogue to go along with the scenes (i.e. “Bob killed the dragon with his mighty sword”)—thus creating a storyline that could later be turned into an E-book and/or a printed copy like a comic book. You and your friends would be able to request the print copies through the mail.

Since modern games are becoming ever more complex with heavy customization for things like attire and decision making--“what suit of armor should I wear today?” and “do I become the bad guy or the really bad guy?”--this system would keep track of your personal decisions and reflect you more than just any usual gameplay.

Apple isn't isn't a big player in the gaming industry, but in order to move their market share forward they need to expand into other regions, competing with companies like Nintendo and Sony. This new system would allow them to do just that, opening up a whole new area of gaming. However, Apple has taken a larger stance in the mobile gaming market, and so you may see something like this on your PDA or iPad sooner than, say, a Nintendo Wii.

Mobile Apps Security: Apple iOS v. Google Android

The Apple iOS, which runs on its iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad, has a flaw in how it reads PDF documents that makes it easier to hack. This flaw is exploited by JailbreakMe, a one-click site that makes it easy for anyone without any real tech skills to hack into their own iPhone.

People who read this also read:

People Who Like This Also Like

• 
  Flash for iPhone Now Available, Thanks to Jailbreak 36390952
• 
  Apple Plugs Critical IPhone Jailbreak Holes 36461914
• 
  Apple Patches Security Hole in Pair of IOS Updates 36459998
• 
  iOS 4.0.2, 3.2.2 Updates Slay JailbreakMe Flaw 36459374
• 
  Android May Conquer the World--OK, the Smartphone World 36337236
• 
  Analysis: Apple Improving App Store With Baby Steps 36378574

The flaw lets JailbreakMe open up an Apple operating system, and enables the user to load non Apple-approved applications on to an Apple device. JailbreakMe brought the security risk to light, finally causing Apple to release security updates for iOS 4.0.2 for iPhone and iPod touch and iOS 3.2.2 for iPad this week. (By the way, doesn't this sound a lot like the same security flaw that Adobe learned about in late July?)

But the threat to the iOS is not the operating system itself but in its third-party software, such as the Safari browser, QuickTime, Java, or apps from Adobe. Nonetheless, it's Apple that bears the responsibility for monitoring security, since it's made the choice to use the software and package it for users. This is a weird conundrum since Apple believes in the "walled garden" approach to applications. Shouldn't it be patrolling the garden more?

Android has similar issues, such as an innocuous Jackeey wallpaper application that retrieved personal information from each phone that downloaded its application. Neither JailBreakMe nor Jackeey were hacking into anyone's phone; however, their code could be used for evil rather than good, which worries most security experts.

So how does Apple's security for its mobile operating system stack up against that of Google's Android, the biggest competitor?

1. Walled Garden v. the Wild Jungle

The biggest problem with Apple's security is its walled garden philosophy, which relies on the wisdom of Apple approving applications rather than by consensus or the individual user. While many Apple fans say this decreases iOS problems, others say that it actually contributes to them by closing a door on the application after it has gained entrance into the App Store. Apple's gatekeeping system on its walled garden is also virtually unknown, and it may also prove to give a false sense of security.

The Android Market, on the other hand, resembles a swap meet. The applications are available without restriction, and are monitored and reviewed by users themselves, including analyzing code--something not offered by Apple. While some worry that the free-for-all will be a security risk, at least one security research firm, Lookout, says Android's applications are less problematic than Apple's.

2. Pig-in-the-Poke v. the Test-Drive

Another way that app security for the Linux-based Android platform is better is that each application must disclose to the user what part of the device it plans to use and how. Google also publicly talks about operating a "honeypot," or a computer not hooked up to all parts of its system, which monitors Android applications for malicious programs. Such open discussion is not part of Apple's corporate climate, users frequently don't know what they are buying until damage is done--but if they're lucky, they found out about their vulnerability through JailbreakMe.

3. Freedom v. Establishment

With Google's new App Inventor, you don't have to be a software engineer to create an application for the anything-goes Android platform. Not so at Apple. It takes an experienced software developer to create anything on the iOS, and it's up to the corporate honchos at Apple to approve it. As for security in the "walled garden," there are no guarantees.

While the iPhone has some important security features, like sophisticated memory protection and a required digitally signed code requirement, security analysts say Android's protection is stronger because of its source openness and the way it isolates applications which causes less harm to users. While business owners should block or limit access to applications to company machines to protect their data, the Android platform may prove just a little safer.