Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media (Apple) Media Businesses Apple

Video iPod May Arrive in September 441

Posted by timothy from the then-they-go-to-the-computer-bridal-chamber dept.
Fuzzball963 writes "MSNBC is reporting that Apple is in talks with major record labels to license and sell video content on the iTunes music store. The videos would sell for $1.99 and be playable on a video iPod, which Apple has reported may come out sometime in September." Update: 07/18 18:54 GMT by T : Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "Just to add to the previous Apple post, here's a free link to today's Wall Street Journal article upon which the MSNBC article was based."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Video iPod May Arrive in September More

Video iPod May Arrive in September

Comments Filter:

  • Before everyone starts bitching about the screen (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tibor the Hun ( 143056 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @12:29PM (#13095464)
    Before everyone starts bitching about the screen, I'd like to mention that the strength of such a video iPod would be in its ability to output signal to a TV.
    That way you can carry half a dozen, dozen movies with you on trips, to your friends houses, wherever, and view them on TV.

    Think of it as your portable movie library.
    (considering that that's what iPods already are for music purposes.)

    • And if it works anything like the Archos then it's DRMd and outputting stuff like DVDs recorded to the device won't work unless you have an intermediate step between the record and putting it on the device.

    • Re:Before everyone starts bitching about the scree (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Golias ( 176380 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @12:39PM (#13095614)
      Before everyone starts bitching about the screen, I'd like to mention that the strength of such a video iPod would be in its ability to output signal to a TV.
      That way you can carry half a dozen, dozen movies with you on trips, to your friends houses, wherever, and view them on TV.

      I can already do that, though, provided a computer with DVI-output (eg: any new Mac), and a TV with HDMI-input (eg: pretty much any new TV worth owning) is available for use at the house I'm going to.

      Just rip the DVD's to the iPod with Mac the Ripper, as I would with any other hard drive, and open them using the DVD Player on the Mac at the house I go to.

      Think of it as your portable movie library.
      (considering that that's what iPods already are for music purposes.)

      No, iPods are for listening to music on the go. Are you actually suggesting that their main function is to allow you to take your music to a friends house and play on their stereo?

      • Re:Before everyone starts bitching about the scree (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Tibor the Hun ( 143056 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @12:47PM (#13095705)
        you have a point.
        adding video to iPod (which does one thing and does it well, except now it can do two things -- photos) makes it perhaps too complicated.

        however, what i am suggesting is that Apple would now have a tool to dominate the online video market the way they do music.

        think about it. we're all waiting for movies for download. who's gonna do it and how? Apple is the only company that can even try. All they need are the contracts, bandwidth, and video iPods.

      • That's what my friends and I do. So for us it is the main function.
      • I can already do that, though, provided...
        Your provisos are completely ludicrous. A new macintosh and a $1000+ television? I would hope that Apple has a larger target market in mind when they start selling music videos for $2.
        Think of it as your portable movie library.
        (considering that that's what iPods already are for music purposes.)
        No, iPods are for listening to music on the go. Are you actually suggesting that their main function is to allow you to take your music to a friends house and play on their stereo?
        I think he's suggesting that the virtues of a 60GB iPod over a 4GB iPod mini has nothing to do with listening to music on the go.

      • No grandparent poster is right. No one wants to use a computer to serve video from an iPod to a TV. Too many components. These small cables [apple.com] are much easier.

        On the other side I doubt this is what apple wants people to use the iPod for. P2PNet [p2pnet.net] has a good post listing why this isn't what you think. Apple knows a video iPod would get hacked to play nearly anything (though any mpeg4 video like xvid/divx is probably too cpu intensive to work) to play on it. This functionality will be for crap qual

      • Re:Before everyone starts bitching about the scree (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Perl-Pusher ( 555592 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @01:26PM (#13096117)
        No, iPods are for listening to music on the go.

        They can be so much more than music on the go. I perform using mine. I can DJ 2,000 songs, in addition I record songs using garageband on my G5 iMac, a FOSTEX 8 track digital recorder and a mixing board. I then play them back over the PA while I sing and play the guitar. It works like a charm! I will probably use a laptop sometime in the future. But for now the ipod works great! Before I do a show I edit the play lists for each set. The great thing is when I DJ, I don't have to carry all my CD's and I'm no longer burning cd back ups all the time. CD's tend to get scratched too easy.

      • Re:Before everyone starts bitching about the scree (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Rew190 ( 138940 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @01:42PM (#13096317)
        I can already do that, though, provided a computer with DVI-output (eg: any new Mac), and a TV with HDMI-input (eg: pretty much any new TV worth owning) is available for use at the house I'm going to.

        Your method requires not only a Mac, but a relatively new Mac, a high definition TV, and a short enough distance between the two to hook up a rather expensive cable.

        Any bets on how many target users actually have a setup like that? It's not practical...

        ... but how about the ability to plug an RCA or S-Video jack directly from your very portable iPod into a TV and calling it a day?

        Are you actually suggesting that their main function is to allow you to take your music to a friends house and play on their stereo?

        Although I'm not the parent poster, I can attest that many users purchase iPods to plug into their stereos at work. It happens here constantly, and I highly doubt we're the only ones. The point of an iPod is to have ridiculous amounts of music with you in your pocket that you can access anywhere. How would this not translate well with movies? What is the fundamental difference between hooking it up to earphones or to speakers?

    • Re:Before everyone starts bitching about the scree (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ziggamon2.0 ( 796017 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @12:41PM (#13095632) Homepage
      Actually, If you try out a modern phone, it has a resolution of about 240x320, which is approximately one quarter of the resolution of a normal tv. I have watched quite a lot of content on it, and it works surprisingly well.
      Most people I meet laugh at the idea of watching video from something as small as a mobile phone, but it is already quite enjoyable, and after being shown a video they are always eager to accept being wrong. (As an anecdote I've had some of my friends sit around my phone looking at the video of Satisfaction, and noone complained about the screen size being small)

      I can only imagine that if Apple puts some effort into their video iPod, they'll be able to have the same resolution as a regular TV.
      The idea that we need to watch video on large screens (tv/cinema) is what I think is mostly convention, a small screen (at a closer distance to your eyes) occupies the same percentage of your retina as a big one at a distance.
      To me, such criticism is just like people said "who would ever want to walk and listen to music at the same time?".
      Small screens are usable already. And of course, should you prefer the relaxation of looking at something in the distance, you can always hook the iPod to the TV, just as the parent poster suggested.

    • Re:Before everyone starts bitching about the scree (Score:5, Funny)

      by TrappedByMyself ( 861094 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @12:47PM (#13095702)
      Before everyone starts bitching...

      Stop right there. I know it's cliche, but you must be new here.
    • I don't see it. Sounds like an inelegant solution; it's not like Apple to require you to hook up to a third-party device (TV) -- especially with a cable -- to use the basic functionality of their product.

      What I could see would be the video equivalent of the AirPort Express. Hook it up to your TV, and watch video content from your Mac.
    • It would be nice if Apple could incorporate DV firmware into the Video iPod, so you could record DV video onto the unit (replacing a tape deck, for instance), and have it playback DV codec video to a TV without the need for a converter. Of course, it would kill several third party products (at least at the consumer level), and would require that Apple use better engineering to deal with the heat created by continually spinning the iPod's HD.

    • nail on the head man (Score:4, Informative)

      by sweetaction ( 649666 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @01:11PM (#13095932) Homepage
      I have been messing around with HandBreak http://handbrake.m0k.org/ [m0k.org] and have been able to use that snazzy new H.264 codec and compressed NapoleonDynomite to 652mb with no noticable quality loss at all. My 60 gig iPod should hold at least 60 movies and still a bit of music.

      Small screen? Sure its small. But as said elsewhere in this thread, plug it into your tv. Bam. portable movies.

      Sync it with your new Apple DVR system and... oh wait. not yet.

      go apple

  • firmware update or new device? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by anotherone ( 132088 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @12:29PM (#13095468)
    Allegedly the current chip that's now being used for all ipods is capable of playing MPEG4 video. Will we see video support being released as a firmware upgrade or as a whole new ipod? I want to say new ipod but I really don't know if I'd be suprised if apple released it as a firmware upgrade.

  • hacked version (Score:3, Interesting)

    by plutonium83 ( 818340 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @12:30PM (#13095470)
    I'd be more interested in a hacked version of this new ipod that can play ANY video I want.
  • For a few reasons, I have a hard time believing that video on an iPod (or any other device) will be nearly as popular as music. The main thing is that people have lots of time to _listen_ while they work/drive/exercise/stroll/relax/sleep, but very little time when they can dedicate their most important sense to recreation. DVD's sell well, it's true, but while in my own case I might listen to a CD 20 or 30 times (and sometimes way more), I only watch a movie a few times (and maybe up to 10 times). This is primarily because of the bandwidth of time and attention, not for lack of interest.

    • From the FA (Score:5, Informative)

      by vlad_petric ( 94134 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @12:34PM (#13095534) Homepage
      It's all about music videos, not movies. That makes a huge difference, IMNSHO.
      • I don't think it does make a difference to my argument: it's still two senses instead of one, and the sense that we use for a large proportion of our information gathering. It is hard for people to multi-task when their eyes are involved... and I would wager that music videos, being full of technical events, make that even harder.
        • Good point, but what differentiates a video clip from a true movie is that actually watching the video part is totally optional. People will likely buy video clips because they're cooler, but will only end up watching them 5% of the time.
          • You may be right about this... I guess we'll see :-) Personally, I'm not going for it. Maybe when my kids are a bit older they might be interested. Who knows.

      • Re:From the FA (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Otter ( 3800 )
        Is there really a significant base of people willing to pay $2 for videos, on top of the expensive new player needed to view them, though? Given that the network that's synonomous with music videos has pretty much abandoned them in favor of "reality" shows (and yet the bastards have canceled their one gem, Wildboyz!), I don't quite see it.
    • Yeah, and some people watch movies every weekend. Go figure.

    • Video _right_there_ (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dazedNconfuzed ( 154242 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @12:56PM (#13095801)
      Problem with video tech so far is that you have to settle in to watch it: fire up the home theater, point & click several times on your laptop, open & hold the awkward portable DVD player ... watching videos requires setup time and awkward movement-unfriendly positions. The technology forces you to not move, coupled with set-up/down time.

      Contrast that with a video iPod:
      iPod audio is right there - in pocket, instant on/off.
      iPod video will likewise be right there - in-hand and running practically instantly ... perfect for intermediate "dead time", especially when commuting.
      Spending 10 minutes on a bus? Waiting for an airplane? 5 minutes early for a meeting? Unexpectedly waiting an hour for someone? No time to watch that movie, but have 15 minutes a day to kill?
      One second flat from bored to watching something interesting. Enough storage to actually store several interesting things.
      Yeah, the screen will be small - but it's right there, unlike your laptop which has to be hauled out of your backpack, or your >15" TV which is in your living room and definitely not on the bus or in the elevator with you.
    • There's also the issue of battery life -- I doubt watching videos on-the-go will be practical.

      I also doubt that people will buy movies when they can rip their own (since I think it's safe to say that we won't be seeing feature films anywhere near the $1.99 price point. Probably music videos... which can be streamed for free from many legit sites already).

    • Reason #1131 to move to Japan!

      Instead of a 1-hour drive to work, you can have a 1-hour train ride to work, and will be able to watch entire television shows or significant portions of movies during transit. It gives you an excuse to own a video-capable player.

      However, considering that shoulder bags are an acceptable accoutrement for men over there, perhaps you'd be happier with the new Archos PMP with the 7" screen...

      Jasin Natael

  • Sweet! (Score:5, Funny)

    by eln ( 21727 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @12:30PM (#13095474)
    Now they need to make a video camera iPod, so I can film all the video iPod owners running into light poles while trying to watch this thing on their morning jog.
  • I wonder if iTunes will have a built-in video player so I won't need a video iPod. At $3 a movie that's not a bad deal as long as it's at least 600kbps MPEG-4.

  • Who knew? (Score:2, Funny)

    by artifex2004 ( 766107 )
    The future of video isn't HD, it's little portable devices with overpriced, DRM-encumbered media and small, low-res screens, like the PSP, cell phones, and the iPod.
  • I don't think this will be successful. People like to listen to music while they do other things. Video is immersive. You sit down and you watch it and you don't do anything else. Furthermore, there's no way to play a video on an iPod without the hard drive running constantly, and that will burn out the hard drive in no time and use up the battery in half that.

    • Missing the point... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by shmlco ( 594907 )
      Of course, you're totally immersed in other activities sitting on a plane, train, or bus. Or if you're a passenger in a car on a trip. Or peddling away at the gym. Or sitting in a waiting room. Or hotel room. Or sitting around somewhere on a night shift. Or...

      You get the idea. There's a ton of dead time in which such a thing could be useful, in addition to the fact that you can STILL use it to play music the rest of the time.

      As to battery life, that's an unknown assumption. But really, all it needs to

  • Yeah, but... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Does this mean Apple will now become the world's largest porn vendor???

  • Link to facts? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by spicyjeff ( 6305 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @12:31PM (#13095490) Homepage
    which Apple has reported may come out sometime in September


    They have? Apple being such an open company and all with their future products.

  • This Explains It! (Score:5, Funny)

    by TPIRman ( 142895 ) * on Monday July 18, 2005 @12:31PM (#13095492)
    ETA of video iPod: September.

    ETA of conspiracy theory explaining why the video iPod is the real reason that Apple switched to Intel: Any second now.
  • So, if a music video is $1.99 and the song is $0.99...then I don't get it. Does it really cost that much to make a song or does it really cost very little to make a video?

    Somehow, I don't see that it's only twice the cost to make a video unless the price of the song is hyper-inflated (which, of course, could never be the case :).

    Just like how the DVD is ~$17 on release day at Wal-Mart but the soundtrack is $16.
    • I'm guessing that the music video that you download will have a fairly high resolution that would give it a larger size. Because practically no one is really making a business out of selling music videos it's not like there's some price that needs to be met.

      My best guess is that it's $.99 for the song and an extra $1 for using all of that bandwidth up.

    • Re:Cost of video vs. cost of audio (Score:4, Interesting)

      by s7uar7 ( 746699 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @12:48PM (#13095712) Homepage
      The record companies usually don't make anything from the videos, they are made to promote the single. Anything they make from selling the video on iTunes will go straight to the bottom line.

    • So, if a music video is $1.99 and the song is $0.99...then I don't get it. Does it really cost that much to make a song or does it really cost very little to make a video?

      I understand what you're saying. It doesn't make sense that a video that costs $1 million to make would cost only twice as much as a song that cost $10,000 to produce. Shouldn't a product's value be a measure of the amount of labor put into producing it?

      That idea is called the labor theory of value, and it's one of the underpinnings o

  • Gates must be a bit chagrined. (Score:5, Funny)

    by jusdisgi ( 617863 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @12:32PM (#13095502)
    Hehe. And this just hours after "Bill Gates Swears Vow Against 'Son of iPod'"

    Too little too late? I thought you said it was a good size!

    -Brodie and Gates.

  • sweet (Score:2, Funny)

    by millahtime ( 710421 )
    Now I can easily take my p0rn collection everywhere.
  • Nobody would ever accuse me of being an Apple basher. Quite the oppisite... I'm often called a Mac "zealot."

    That said, this seems kind of stupid to me.

    Music videos are not even popular enough to support a cable network channel ("MTV" is almost entirely crap "reality" shows these days), so what makes anybody think that they can support a "buy-to-watch-on-a-two-inch-screen" market?

    Now, if you were talking about being able to watch pre-recorded episodes of Battlestar Galactica and Doctor Who while waiting
    • I would pay to be able to watch ad-free episodes of BSG. In fact, I would guess that a lot of people would pay if they could pay to watch a day prior to broadcast. It probably wouldn't hurt the ratings of the broadcast much either.
    • There's two points to consider about your argument:

      1. MTV lost it's M because it knew how to pander to what they deemed to be the 'popular' crowd. iTunes music videos could get a little more steam for being able to let users download the videos they want and create a playlist. It's just like the merits of iTunes vs. radio. The user can tailor it to what they want instead of hoping they'll play your favorite song.

      2. There was a previously mentioned idea of the capability of video-out jacks which could turn
    • Music videos are not even popular enough to support a cable network channel ("MTV" is almost entirely crap "reality" shows these days), so what makes anybody think that they can support a "buy-to-watch-on-a-two-inch-screen" market?

      I think Music Videos are just the first step. Not really worth it for their own sake but valuable as a proof-of-concept and learning experience for an eventual movie download business. Music video is easy for Apple to get into, they have the relationships and a music video is
    • Music videos are not even popular enough to support a cable network channel ("MTV" is almost entirely crap "reality" shows these days)

      Right, but other channels have spawned to fill the void: MTV2, The Box, etc.

  • Why stop with music videos? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @12:33PM (#13095527)
    Apple really needs to get into the market the same way they got into the online music market: invent it and make it work so seemlessly that later competitors won't be able to keep up.

    Apple could easily pitch the success of their iTunes music store the the major motion picture companies and probably work out a reasonable DRM that's flexible enough for consumers to handle.

    Personally, I don't care if some other company is first out the door and gets it right like Apple did with the iPod and iTunes, but I just hope that other company isn't Microsoft given a lot of the recent /. articles about Longhorn having DRM for monitors and EF by Intel.

  • ... storage space. Movies are big and I don't think that jukeboxing movies and my 30 gigs of music on a 60gb iPod Video is going to be very practical -- I have a lot of DVDs I'd like to rip onto a video iPod. Can we expect a bump in the capacity then?
    • For a small(ish) screen and earbuds, you don't need surround sound audio tracks and high resolution HD video feeds. A compressed video stream at a reduced screen size and bitrate can hold a movie in under a gigabyte of space. You're not going to have breathtaking quality anyway, so it's not as if you're going to severely miss something.

      So, now your 60Gb iPod holds 30 Gb of music and 30-60 movies or a bunch more TV programs.

      (I'm not debating whether or not it's an idea that's really worth much. I like m

    • Movies are big and I don't think that jukeboxing movies and my 30 gigs of music on a 60gb iPod Video is going to be very practical -- I have a lot of DVDs I'd like to rip onto a video iPod. Can we expect a bump in the capacity then?

      Keep in mind that the output resolution will be lower than on a regular DVD. This will reduce the file size dramatically.
      • Agreed. To put some numbers to that: it's easy to transcode a 2-hour DVD into a 600Mb file that will fit on a CD. The quality is good enough that it looks fine on a computer monitor or even normal TV. If you're willing to sacrifice quality a little bit, your files will be 100Mb/hour (quality good enough for watching on the iPod... maybe good enough for showing on TV too). Moder iPods have storage up to 60 Gb. This is enough for:
        27 hours of DVD-quality video, or
        200 hours of decent-quality video, or
        600 hours
  • If I needed to watch videos at $1.99 a pop "On-the-go" THAT badly, I think I'd just DVR VH1 for a while, create a DVD of however many videos will fit, and just use my non pay-per-view portable dvd player to view them wherever I wanted. I could then also watch regular movies, old tv show dvds, and whatever else.

    Sometimes I think that people buy these songs/videos just to be part of the in-crowd. Do people really need to be entertained THAT much when they're not at their residence?

    At almost 2 bucks each, th
    • because iTunes music is pay-per-listen... ::roll::

      and maybe YOU yourself do really need to be entertained THAT much as to need a portable dvd player...

  • Protable video devices (Score:3, Insightful)

    by norminator ( 784674 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @12:35PM (#13095556)
    There's been a few comments on /. lately about how portable video devices won't take off because noone wants to watch video on a small screen. But I've been thinking about this, and the regular iPod line has been inspiring high-end custom electronics manufacturers to integrate the iPod into nice home audio systems. The more I think about it, the purpose of the Video iPod wouldn't necessarily be to watch video wherever you go, although that would be an extra bonus, but to bring video wherever you want to, and easily watch it on whatever decent-size display you want. I'm sure it wouldn't have DVI or component out, so it wouldn't be a source for super-awesome hi-def video, but it would be great for home movies, music videos, funny videos downloaded from the Internet, and a lot of other things.

  • The joys of recanting (Score:3, Informative)

    by Iriel ( 810009 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @12:35PM (#13095557) Homepage
    I seem to recall Steve Jobs mentioning that video was never meant to be portable. If memory serves, that was only one or two years ago.

    Fast forward and any technology statement can and will be proven wrong by technology advances, customer demand, or the latter despite the lack of the former followed by several years of beta testing that people will call 1G.

    Regardless, I'm still looking forward to what Apple can bring to the less than booming world of portable video players. And does anyone know when Microsoft is supposed to release a contender to this possible product?
  • So much for Bill Gates' recent proclamations about the Son of iPod [slashdot.org]. Apple is one step ahead again.

  • This is just perfect! (Score:3, Funny)

    by DaFork ( 608023 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @12:36PM (#13095572)
    Now my Aunt can carry around hours of her crappy home videos anywhere she wants for instant torture.
  • I can't see Apple making a video ipod while Jobs is there.

    It's been pointed out time and again that while listening to music can be a passive activity, watching video is active. You just can't watch video in all the places you can throw on the headphones.

    Plus, watching video on a tiny screen is a terrible experience.

    I just don't see it.

    I can see a video iTunes. That makes sense. Watching video on you computer screen or piped from your computer to your TV isn't bad at all.
  • Does anyone see the hilarity of an Apple article reported by MSNBC and an Microsoft related ad in the middle of it on 3 out of 5 refreshes?
    • Nope... I don't find it funny at all. Perhaps you think that a news outlet co-owned by NBC and Microsoft should just ignore good news about their competitors?

      Of course 3 out of 5 of the ads are Microsoft related. You are on a Microsoft-owned website

  • New Form Factor (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jonoid ( 863970 )
    As far as the screen goes, I would assume Apple would redesign the iPod's form factor and use a larger screen, fitting the mainboard and hard drive behind it like other portable video player manufacturers have done.

    Also, video output to TV would certainly be included. Imagine being able to cart around movies with you and plug them into anyone's TV. This would be a big seller.

    My only fear would be that Apple would only allow certain formats (ie. DRM'ed .mp4 movies) and not allow the more open formats lik

  • I'd buy them on one condition (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ShatteredDream ( 636520 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @12:44PM (#13095658) Homepage
    If I could buy them and burn them to DVD using iTunes, then hell yeah I'd pay $1.99 per video. However, if they expect me to have to watch them on a tiny iPod screen or on my laptop then forget it. I have about 6-7 DVDs of music videos that I've downloaded online. If I can't watch them on my TV using VCDs or DVDs, then this isn't a good reason for me to give up on downloading music videos.

  • This confirms that "As Seen on TV" was just BS (Score:3, Interesting)

    by blonde rser ( 253047 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @12:45PM (#13095673) Homepage
    ...at least it does to me. I don't know who else was following along with the claims of "As Seen on TV" of being a big shot at apple but here [slashdot.org] he pretty much states there will never be a video ipod from apple. I'm guessing most people already had their suspicions about the guy but for me this confirms mine.

  • uh huh? (Score:3, Informative)

    by d34thm0nk3y ( 653414 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @12:47PM (#13095703)
    Didn't he just say the opposite, oh yeah.

    Mr. Jobs addressed the issue of video on iPods when asked by Mike Wendland of the Detroit Free Press whether or not Apple was looking to add features to the iPod. "We want it to make toast," replied Mr. Jobs. "We're toying with refrigeration, too."

    While intended to get a laugh, which it did, Mr. Jobs also offered a more substantive answer as to why Apple had heretofore not added too many features to the iPod. "One of the things we say around Apple, and I paraphrase Bill Clinton from the 1992 presidential race, is 'It's about the music, stupid.'"

    Mr. Jobs says that there is a big difference between the way people listen to music and other activities like watching videos. Specifically, he said, you can listen to music in the background, while movies require that you actually watch them. "You can't watch a video and drive a car," he said. "We're focused on music."

    Sources: one [engadget.com]
    two [macobserver.com]
  • Save it. Does anyone actually *watch* the garbage put out by the MTV types anymore? If you want to check out a new band then you would just get the song, not the video. So far I see 2.5 uses for this thing:

    1. Portable movie library for hotel rooms, trips to your friends' houses, etc..
    2. Trading movies/porn.
    3. Airplane movies ... maybe.

    Depending on the price and what DRMish restrictions they force on consumers this thing may not be worth it.
  • With all the trash on TV these days I would guess that if people would pay $2-5 per episode of a TV show with NO commercials then subscription based video might take off. Apple already has the subscription service for music. Why not extend it to TV shows or movies? There are three shows I watch and three my girlfriend watches. I would pay $12-30 per week for commercial free shows legally acquired. That would allow me to get rid of DirecTV. DirecTV is MPEG-4 now for some channels so the quality would be
  • While the whole video sales thing might not end up being successful, at first glance it just seems like a "meh" addition to the Ipod. I don't think any of us would mind having video playback capability, just so long as it is secondary to the main function of the ipod (to play music).

    Where this could backfire, however, would be that by allowing videos to be played on the Ipod, Apple would be dramatically increasing the competition they would have to fight against. Up until now the Ipod has done well bec

  • Looking forward (Score:3, Funny)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @01:01PM (#13095846)
    Looking forward to new three-color iPod ads on TV showing someone wearing an iPod, dancing down the street watching the screen, and smashing into a nearby lamppost.
  • don't be fooled by the Video Content available from ITMS, I didn't spend $10K to fill up my iPod, it all my own CDs, ripped into MP3s/

    People are already taking pics and movies with their cell phones and sharing them by watching them on their tiny screens.

    If people are using the iPod Photo for their Photos, I bet the push is to allow users to put their OWN Content that THEY create onto the Video iPod.

    Import your Video to your Mac, edit it down with iMovie, export for iPod Video.

    * Look, here's my grandk

Slashdot Top Deals

Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.

Close