Every now and then, maybe not even once a year, I receive a press release that really gets a grip on me. Usually it's because I think I see something important in the announcement. But that wasn't the case with a recent e-mail entitled "Apple TV vs. VOD & DVR". I skimmed most of its 200 words and hit Delete: it made a weak point that technology journalists shouldn't overlook the value of digital video-recording gear and video-on-demand systems (such as those made by the PR firm's client, an international manufacturer of consumer electronics) amidst all the hype surrounding the Apple TV device.

I figured it was either an attempt to piggyback on the (fairly negligible) coverage of Apple's product launch or an attempt to stir up publicity by creating the illusion of a product battle, even though the Apple TV unit has nothing to do with recording video or getting pay-per-view events. What the unit actually does is wirelessly connect as many as five computers to your home entertainment system, so you can stream video and audio from your hard drive or the Internet. I didn't really see a story in the proposal.

But then I couldn't stop thinking about it, especially two statistics and two statements it contained that I consider debatable.

One of the stats, sourced from Nielsen Media Research, is that total television usage during the 2005–06 season in the U.S. rose to a record high of just over eight hours per household per day. Well, that's something to be proud of, isn't it? Of course, it's not really a matter of it happening "despite the popularity of Web video", as the press release presents it, but more likely due to other factors, including one practice I share in—placing the TV where you can see it while you're doing stuff on the computer. You can work through a lot of shows when you're only watching with one eye and a minimal portion of your brain. That's all most TV programs deserve anyway.

The other figure is that American video-on-demand supplier Comcast reached a best-ever 1.8 billion sessions in 2006. Fascinating. But what's that got to do with Apple TV? Ah, that brings us to the debatable statements. For example: "Apple TV aims to bring on-demand web content to televisions nationwide. But DVR's and Video-On-Demand services accomplish this feat (often less expensively) without involving multiple devices or other Apple TV pitfalls." Okay, there's a lot to argue about here—What pitfalls? Since when is one little Apple TV unit "multiple devices"?—but the biggest is the implication that DVRs and VOD somehow bring the Internet to your TV. They don't. They just give you more choice of stuff to watch so you don't have time for YouTube, Usenet, or BitTorrent.

Still, you expect a little bait and switch in press releases. It was the other statement (italicized in the original) that finally led me to what was wrong. "The important trend Apple TV signifies is not so much a change in where your video comes from, but rather a move away from traditional programming and toward on-demand programming." Again, more than a little open to debate. I'd say the move to on-demand programming started more than 25 years ago with the VCR (of which the DVR is merely a refinement) and that Apple TV is all about a change in where your video comes from. It represents a new source of material to fill the screen, which I suppose is what ultimately worries executives in traditional media empires.

And then I realized what was gnawing at me, the reason I'd spent so much time analyzing this. These people don't have a clue. They are on the other side of a generation gap that prevents them from really understanding how television has changed and how I, and a growing number of people, use and access it. But it's one of those things you only understand once you've made the leap, in the same way that a DVR seems like a tape-free version of a VCR until you have one of your own and incorporate its subtle differences into your life. Merely hearing someone describe its advantages doesn't really do the trick, so I'm not going to do that here.

All I know is that things have changed and that a TV screen (or a computer monitor, which is what I use) can now be filled with content from all kinds of sources, and people don't much care which particular source is doing the supplying. More and more of us find labels like video on demand, premium cable services, DVD players, and satellite transmission to be increasingly irrelevant and old-fashioned. There's no doubt that DVRs and VOD are poised to become even more popular. But they are still tied to systems of broadcasting, in the sense of a small group of people supplying content to the masses. They do meet a need, but the Internet can fulfill a niche interest in a way that broadcasting never could. What's on TV these days? Everything.