Video iPod Apple's First Bad Move? 598
An anonymous reader writes "Apple has had a lot of success with the iPod brand the past few years. The NYT has an article up wondering if, just maybe, this week's release of the video iPod was too soon." From the article: "Everyone from Microsoft to Comcast - in other words, the usual suspects - is working on or looking at similar pocket-size recorders. At least two companies, Pace Micro Technology of Britain and Samsung of South Korea, have said they plan to introduce models early next year. There is also TivoToGo, a service that can forward recorded shows to various mobile devices, even Sony PSP handheld gaming units ... [anyway,] the video iPod only has it half right: if it took material from the television as readily as it did from the Internet, it could be a blockbuster. But then who would pay $1.99 to download an episode of 'Lost' from iTunes if the iPod could also hook up to your television and record that same episode free? Unlike its musical forebear, the video iPod may not be ready for prime time. "
Re:Missed the Point (Score:5, Informative)
I wanted a 60 GB iPod anyway, and would have bought one without video - the video is just an extra, like the games in the original iPod, or contacts in the 2G/3G/4G, or photos in the 4G+.
It's the content. (Score:3, Informative)
Missing the point (Score:5, Informative)
Apple is moving into the living room. That means video, and Apple is getting started with a three-pronged strategy:
* Front Row [apple.com]
* iTunes Video Store [apple.com]
* iPod with video [apple.com]
It would not make sense for Apple to make the move into video and leave the video iPod out of it.
Legality of ripping CDs vs. ripping DVDs (Score:5, Informative)
When the 1st ipod came out in 2001 there was no itunes music store, no cottage industry of ipod accessories, no support for PCs and no cult of ipod. The only way to get music on your ipod was to rip cds yourself or download mp3s and get access to a Mac.
Now it's 2005 and the ipod is firmly entrenched in the American psyche and it is easy to get audio onto an ipod but difficult to get video on it unless you rip dvds or download optimized movie files yourself. The situation is hardly any different.
The difference is that in Apple's home country, ripping CDs is legal (RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia) while ripping DVDs is illegal under the DMCA (MGM v. 321 Studios).
It's not difficult (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, there are other tools for re-encoding to H.264 and MPEG4, as well.
Re:I might pay (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Looks like a good move to me. (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Archos already does this (Score:3, Informative)
Yup, I can name another one. Neuros has had multimedia player [neurosaudio.com] with PVR abilities for a while as well now. Better yet they have exceptionally good OSS support, including open source firmware on many of their devices, and an open development process.
Jedidiah.
The DMCA (Score:5, Informative)
Why can't someone, who owns a DVD of a movie, use Quicktime or something, and rip and encode a version for their iPod? Seems like a FAIR USE to me.
It was, until October 1998 when the 105th Congress of the United States enacted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that made it a crime 1. to break the CSS encryption on DVD Video titles except in the way prescribed by the copyright owner, or 2. to sell devices capable of doing so. Don't blame me; it was the world I was born into, and I was too young in November 1996 to have voted for the 105th Congress.
Law doesn't have to make sense (Score:3, Informative)
iRiver beat them to it. (Score:4, Informative)
With the advent of all this newer and better HD technology (at least the ones that aren't crippled with DRM), I really fail to see the reason to want to downgrade to a lowres, limited battery, low power sound version of something that could be played on a 60" HD display with 6.1 surround sound ~600 watt speakers, all fibrely connected. Couple that with networking, MythTV to record broadcasted crap, and massive amounts of disk space, and I think you'd laugh your ass off at the thought of using something so primitive as a Video iPod or multimedia jukebox like the iRiver.
Re:For those who want it now (Score:2, Informative)
Apple's current lineup is three models:
iPod shuffle
iPod nano
iPod
A defense to what? (Score:5, Informative)
The law specifically states that fair use is a defense
to copyright infringement. Fair use as interpreted by federal appeals courts in Universal v. Reimerdes and MGM v. 321 Studios is not a defense to circumvention, which is separate from copyright infringement, nor is it a defense to selling circumvention devices, which is also separate from copyright infringement.
Commercials (Score:3, Informative)
Apple's First Bad Move (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Missed the Point (Score:3, Informative)
First? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Missed the Point (Score:3, Informative)
I think the Treo is the best smartphone out there, but there are some serious issues I have with the thing. I would welcome Apple's competition in this market, particularly since Palm has now surrendered to Microsoft.
For the kids! (Score:3, Informative)
$300 for a viPod
$200 for a 9" screen it docks with in the car
$ 6 to put a few new kiddies shows on it just as you are heading out the door
Hours of bliss while driving to the parents for the holidays: Priceless
Most of the time you are going to use it just like a non video ipod, but having the feature added on does not suck.
Re:Missed the Point (Score:3, Informative)
I have no complaints other than battery life when watching movies. I only get about 4.5 hours of movie time. I do, however, get about 15 hours of MP3 playback.
I haven't had any problems with reliability and use it all the time.
I have recorded numerous DVDs, TV shows from Tivo, and used downloaded movies (re-encoded with Dr. Divx) on it and haven't seen any "artifacts". Sync issues DO occur if you don't reencode the video though.
I just get around it by recording straight to the device or re-encoding w/Dr. Divx (although I don't do much re-encoding these days as I don't download videos anymore).
Silly Argument (Score:3, Informative)
Who would pay $0.99 to download a song from iTunes if the iPod could also hook up to your radio and record that same song for free?
But wait, people do pay $0.99 to download a song from iTunes. It seems the convenience of downloading the song outweighs the inconvenience of recording it yourself.
Even more myopic, the author neglects that in the "same episode free" scenario, Apple only makes money on the initial sale of the iPod. In the "pay $1.99" scenario, Apple keeps making money after the initial sale of the iPod. Why would Apple encourage the former at the expense of the latter?
The reality is that Apple isn't the first company to produce a handheld video device. Treo can play videos. PSP can play videos. iRiver can play videos. Getting the content onto those devices isn't a walk in the park. Apple is betting that people will pay for the convenience of iTunes for video. Given their past success with iTunes and MP3s (which are relatively easy to rip) I say their chances are good.
Re:Missed the Point (Score:3, Informative)
Copyright is not a partisan issue (Score:3, Informative)
but as long as Flyover Country keeps voting Republican
Republican vs. Democrat has little or nothing to do with it. Case in point: President Clinton could have vetoed the Bono Act and the DMCA, forcing the bills' supporters in both houses of Congress to reveal their identities, but instead he chose to let the voice votes stand.
Re:iRiver beat them to it. (Score:2, Informative)