While Apple continues to deny developers access to MPEG-2 hardware decoding, Elgato is working hard to improve its digital TV software.

Elgato's EyeTV is one of the slickest Mac-based PVR packages around, but it's always been hampered by Apple's refusal to open up the full power of Mac OS to developers. Apple allows QuickTime and iTunes to take full advantage of the new NVIDIA graphics chip when playing video from the iTunes store, using hardware decoding to offer an exquisite high-def picture. Meanwhile third-party digital TV software such as EyeTV is forced to decode MPEG-2 digital television pictures in software, even though the job could be offloaded to the NVIDIA hardware for superior results. The NVIDIA graphic chip is up to the job, but Apple would rather its efforts went towards playing content you've bought from the iTunes store.

Trying running Elgato's EyeTV on a Mac mini hooked up to a 50-inch high-def television and you'll see that the image isn't as crisp as a TiVo or even a Windows-based media centre leveraging hardware decoding. Each time a more powerful Mac mini is released I try the same test and I'm always disappointed. No matter how much processing power and RAM you throw at MPEG-2 HDTV decoding I'm convinced that - on a big television - it will never look as good as hardware decoding.

Thankfully the boffins at Elgato are still working hard on EyeTV to offer the best possible picture. They're planning to offer a 64-bit MPEG-2 software decoder as part of the next EyeTV update - which could come as early as next week. Hopefully it will improve the HDTV picture even further. I still don't expect it to match hardware decoding, but every little bit helps.

The EyeTV update will also offer compatibility with the new EyeTV Netstream (pictured above) - a network-based dual TV tuner than lets you watch digital television on any computer on your home network. Elgato took me through a Netstream demonstration this week and it looks very impressive, especially if you own a notebook and what to watch TV around the house without the need for a USB tuner.

Apple is obviously obsessed with an iTunes-centric lounge room, but it's great to see developers such as Elgato still trying to squeeze more from the Mac.

The news that Valve is set to provide a Mac OS X version of its Source gaming engine and Steam gaming service has been generally well received by the Mac gaming community.

The company is preparing Mac versions of games including Counter-Strike, Portal and Team Fortress 2 for release next month.

Future Valve games - including Portal 2 - will be released simultaneously for Mac and Windows.

Updates for games will be also be simultaneously released, and online players will inhabit the same space, regardless of platform.

A particularly interesting aspect is that the new Steam Play feature means that those who buy a title for one platform can also play on the other at no extra charge (whether Valve's developer customers will choose to allow this remains to be seen), and even switch between platforms in mid-game.

Not everyone likes the way Steam works at a non-technical level, such as allowing different prices according to the buyer's geographical location, prohibiting the resale or transfer of games or accounts, and forcing the installation of updates that may be incompatible with the user's hardware or operating system.

At least Valve's decision to support the Mac as a so-called tier one platform gives Mac users a choice. They'll soon have a bigger selection of games than they do today, and if they don't like Valve's terms they are free to say "no thanks."

What surprises me - though I suppose it shouldn't - is the way so many Mac haters have used stories about Valve's announcement as an opportunity to bag the platform.

You know the sort of thing: "Macs only have one-button mice" (what decade are you living in?), "Mac users are arrogant" (as if there aren't any arrogant Windows, Linux, PS3 or Xbox 360 users!), "the Mac is a closed platform" (that's closed as in 'Apple provides a set of development tools with the OS and lets anyone use them to create programs that they can sell or give away', yes?), and "Macs are too expensive" (which is why they're selling so well?).

One criticism that probably can be justified is the comparatively low performance graphics chips fitted to most Macs.

On the other hand, people who are prepared to pay $700 or more just for the latest graphics card aren't really in a position to complain that Macs are too expensive. They might question whether Macs provide value for money (and for someone whose main interest is playing games, that is doubtful), but that's a different matter.

The real beneficiaries are existing Mac owners who want a wider choice of games. From that point of view, good on ya, Valve - especially as games such as Portal and Team Fortress 2 cost as little as $US19.99.

Today is Oscar’s Day. Personally, I couldn’t give a hoot as I don’t go for the red carpet and glamour nonsense mixed in with bitchiness, back biting and worst of all, hypocrisy.

Oh the stars and the directors get their moments of glory, get to waffle – only 45 seconds this year I hear – about love, peace, free Tibet, homosexual panda bears, the nasty habit of the Japanese peeling whales, thank Mom, Dad and God or Allah and generally get to do for real, what they rehearsed yesterday.

But spare a thought for all those people behind the scenes that nail it all together. The camera guys, electricians, carpenters, computer operators, editors, juniors-hoping-for-a-break that make the coffee – often for free - and the rest of the crews you see in credits that can be as long as the movie – especially a James Cameron or Kevin Costner.

(I once took out Dancing with Wolves, took it straight back when it had finished and still got a late fee from VideoEzy).

Sure they get paid for their hard work and dedication. Well mostly. But only a fraction of the percentage of what the red carpet brigade and their minders earn. And they are the ones that have to clean everything up, lie in the mud and the rain or the heat and dust for hours on end and deal with tantrums and childish prima donna behaviour along with snakes, cold, bad food, rotten hygienic conditions and actors.

It’s a thankless task.

So why do we do it?

Simply because we want everything we do, whether it is granny’s 80th or an Avatar or Hurt Locker, the very best we can make it be. It’s called professional pride.

If you are going to have your name self tapped to the end of the credits, may as well make it worth it.

Apple’s lawyers have been getting very hot under their (turtleneck?) collars of late and I put the reason down to one thing – Android.

The big legal news out of Cupertino HQ is that Apple has decided to throw the rule book at rival phone handset maker HTC and see how much of a bruise it can create. Apple has accused the Taiwanese company of stealing its technology and using it to make phones such as the Google Nexus One.

Apparently Apple’s legal eagles have spotted 20 patents that they believe HTC has infringed, and they’re ready to hit the courtroom to prove it.

Meanwhile Google has waded into the growing brawl, backing its hardware partner HTC. It’s all starting to look like the kind of fight that could shape the booming phone market for years to come.

So why has Apple decided to take such action? Well, according to chief executive Steve Jobs, it’s because innovation is fine, but stealing other people’s technology is not.

Now, no one is going to argue against that logic, and a lot of patent lawyers are going to bill hundreds of expensive hours as they try to figure out if that's what’s happened in this case.

But it’s at a much higher level than patent law where the real battle is happening. Apple is scared stiff its iPhone is about to lose significant ground to handsets running the rival Android operating system, and its prepared to do anything it can to fight the trend.

The signs that the iPhone's heyday might soon be over are already appearing.

First there's the growing disquiet among software developers over the way in which Apple routinely bans certain iPhone apps from its online store for little or no good reason. What's the point in spending time and money developing something when Apple can ban it at a whim?

Then there's the growing chorus of approval for the flexibility and openness of the Android platform and the phones that run it. Such openness equals innovation and customer choice. Just look at the range of handsets already on the market, with dozens more in the wings.

While Apple is still ahead of Android when it comes to market share, the gap is closing. Recent research by advertising company Admob found that, in January, 47 per cent of download requests in the US came from iPhones while 37 per cent came from Android-powered devices. Expect to see those numbers change throughout this year.

So, what has Apple got to lose from its court actions? Nothing really, apart from some legal fees - and if it succeeds, it could put some serious brakes on the growth of Android.

Either way, it's a battle that's going to be very interesting to watch, and one that could influence what smartphone you have in your pocket as you head to work during the next couple of years.

Dedicated Boxee hardware sounds awesome, but will the home entertainment heavyweights blow Boxee Box out of the water?

Don't get me wrong, the Boxee Box looks like a great device and I'm thrilled to see D-Link working hard to bring it to Australia with some local content deals. I'm just wondering if there'll be much of a market for it.

If you're an multimedia buff you've probably already got an IPTV solution. It might well be Boxee running on a computer or a hacked Apple TV. Perhaps it's something else running on a media centre, Apple TV or even PlayStation 3. You're probably using a VPN to tap into foreign services such as Hulu and Netflix. If this sounds like you, an Australian-centric Boxee Box probably doesn't hold much appeal (except for the cool remote control with a QWERTY keyboard on the back).

If you're a mainstream consumer just stumbling into the world of IPTV, I think Sony's Bravia Internet Television service is more likely to catch your eye - although probably running on a Sony Blu-ray player rather than a brand new television. When Sony ramps up its IPTV offering for the PlayStation 3, it might be enough to drive you into the PS3 camp. Even the Apple TV might look attractive - its iTunes store integration is a thing of beauty, but the lack of access to free Catch Up TV services such as Network Seven's brilliant Plus7 is obviously a drawback.

I like the idea of the Boxee Box, but I think if Boxee really wants to hit the big time it should focus on getting the Boxee interface onto existing devices. Apparently that's exactly what it's doing, with plans afoot for a Boxee Blu-ray player, according to NewTeeVee. "Step two for us is Blu-ray, step three would be TVs and game consoles," says Boxee's vice president of marketing Andrew Kippen.

It sounds like Boxee is putting the pieces in place for a major lounge room push, but it faces some stiff competition.