Movie and TV studios seem determined to prevent Apple TV from doing too well in the marketplace.

The new will fail, just like the old one did. It isn't Apple's fault. It looks like the TV and movie studios just don't want anyone disrupting their existing businesses, and this is one battle that even Apple may not win.

Apple's new box is smaller and cheaper than before, but that doesn't solve its central problem. The issue with Apple TV is that it's always been too expensive to watch stuff on the gadget, and there's not enough stuff to watch.

Let's take Apple's $5, HD, "first-run" movies. First of all, they're not first-run. That refers to movies that are still in theatersnow that would be a game changer. Rather, these are the same movies you can rent from Blockbuster and then shortly thereafter Netflix and Redbox, and often for less.

Then there are the 99-cent TV shows. That sounds cheap, but each show can add up to $24 per seasonand you can't watch any of those episodes a second time without paying again. While that can be much cheaper than cable if you only follow a limited set of TV shows, I just don't think it's cheaper by enough to make a real difference.

Apple dodged a paradigm shift by neglecting to introduce apps for the Apple TV. Appsespecially gamescould have been "stuff to watch" on the Apple TV that would have been totally independent of TV-industry revenue models. No one has done "apps on the TV" really well yet, and Apple could have shown the way. The Apple TV could also have become Apple's TV gaming system. Nope.

And don't get me started on the initial list of TV shows. Without CBS, NBC, and many cable channels, it's like you're out in the woods with a janky antenna.

By eliminating on-board storage, Apple is also trying to signal that it doesn't want you watching your own long-form content, whether it's ripped from your own DVDs or downloaded through less savory means. Sure, you can stream that stuff, but that means you have to leave your PC on all the time. Streaming from a PC to a TV has always been a kludge appealing to a niche.

At home, I'm using a workaround myself. I used to have an Apple TV; now I have a TiVo connected to an antenna, and a WDTV Live HD box that plays Netflix and ripped DVDs. Occasionally, I buy TV episodes from Amazon on my TiVo, but that's not the mainstay of my video diet. If it was, I'd be living a pretty expensive lifestyle.

Star industry analyst Michael Gartenberg said on Twitter that Apple TV has a better chance of survival than because Google TV is aiming at "input one"i.e. replacing or becoming your cable boxand Apple TV is going for "input two," replacing your DVD player. That may be true, but having more of a chance at success than Google TV doesn't mean it has a really good chance. It could mean that neither product, for now, will do well.

In terms of TV content, it's looking like Apple's hands are tied. It's obvious that movie studios and TV producers alike are holding the line on price and selection. Their businesses are a very complex mix of revenue streamsbroadcast, advertisements, DVD sales, DVD rental, theaters, Netflixand they're very uncomfortable about upsetting those apple carts. While I'm disappointed, I can understand why they don't want Apple coming in and accelerating the same sort of changes that happened to the record labels.

Is this going to play out the same way as what we saw happen to the music industry? After all, Apple started with a pretty slim catalog in iTunes. Years later, we have massive amounts of reasonably-priced, legal music on the Web and a range of terrific free, streaming music services. Time will tell, but I just don't see this Apple TV as different enough from the previous model to matter much.

On the other hand, I really want an iPod nano watch.