Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



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

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. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Video iPod Apple's First Bad Move?

Comments Filter:
  • by JayDiggity ( 70168 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @12:41PM (#13803837) Homepage
    My take on all of this is that people still want an iPod. If they want bigger than a 4 GB player to store their music, then they will go with a full-size iPod. Before, you got 20 GB or 60 GB and no video. Now, for the same price, you get 30 or 60 GB AND video. You pay the same price and you get more features. I agree with people who say "Who will use video on the iPod?" But when you realize that the iPod is a music player FIRST and a video player is an added bonus, it makes more sense. If you want a high capacity music player, then you want an iPod - everyone wants an iPod; they're cool. But then the video playing is just an added bonus. If you want a high capacity video player, then you'd get something else.
  • Re:Missed the Point (Score:5, Interesting)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @12:43PM (#13803862)
    Trying to wedge PVR functionality into the portable device is overkill. It's a player. Let the computer do the work... that's why it's there.

    Sorry but I love the fact that my portable video player also acts as a PVR. I don't have to re-encode video to play on it and look correct, I don't have to have a Tivo and use "Record to VCR" or Tivo2Go if I don't want to, and I don't have to pay an additional $100+ on a decent PVR card to record content that I'm just putting on a portable device.

    It's apparent to me that plenty of people are speculating on how moving content to portable devices will work and how well it will work. I'm not speculating as I do it every day with my Archos AV400.

    Having a built in PVR is a GOOD THING.
  • by dracken ( 453199 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @12:44PM (#13803871) Homepage
    ....sums it up quite nicely

    "And there are chewy, unresolved legal questions raised by gadgets like the PocketDISH or Slingbox" ipod is too much of a cash cow for apple to risk lawsuits. Do you think that the MPAA will sit around doing nothing if Apple introduced an ipod capable of recording movies ? Downloading video content from itunes is above the board, legal and safe (from apple's standpoint). And this is not the last ipod that apple is ever going to introduce. How about Mac mini --> Front row [apple.com] --> Sync recorded shows to video ipod ? They have the mini, they have front row, they have video ipod, the next step is too easy. Trust me, this take it slow approach is not because of lack of vision.
  • by antifoidulus ( 807088 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @12:45PM (#13803874) Homepage Journal
    is not releasing higher def content. I realize that putting higher def content on the video iPod which cannot display it is dumb, but Apple already solved the "differenet resolutions for different devices" problem with the iPod photo. Obviously it would be pointless to put your 5 megapixel pictures on the iPod photo which cannot display it, it would waste space and more importantly, it would waste power because you have to spin the hard drive more just to load data that you will end up not really even using anyway. But at the same time you want to keep all those 5 megapixel pictures on your computer where you can use that kind of resolution. How did Apple solve the problem? Simple, when you first set up your iPod photo for pictures, iTunes automatically converts your photo library into a size that is usable on your iPod. Not the quickest of processes, but if you let it run in the background it shouldn't matter. I don't understand why they couldn't do this with the video content either. I bought a music video just to see what it would look like, and while it wasn't HORRIBLE I can find better looking content through other sources...
  • 1 word (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sedyn ( 880034 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @12:53PM (#13803942)
    porncasting
  • Re:Say what? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by rosewood ( 99925 ) <<ur.tahc> <ta> <doowesor>> on Sunday October 16, 2005 @12:59PM (#13803973) Homepage Journal
    Even then, Id rather pay $2 to not have to sit through comercials.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16, 2005 @01:11PM (#13804043)
    I just noticed this morning that the export dialog in quicktime has a export to iPod option (320x240) build right in. Encodes it perfectly for you. This means anything you can open in quicktime can be saved to your ipod (movies, films, tv shows, whatever you can get your hands on).

    Also, you can drag and drop movies that are the right format right onto your ipod via itunes.

    Another point he missed is this big announcement isn't really about the video ipod, it's about FrontRow. Streaming you entire houses music, videos, and photos (via Bonjour, previously Rendezvous) and playing them on your TV is pretty sweet. It's just a matter of time before there are huge movie selections available (probably pay-per-view and streaming only).

    Chris
  • Re:Missed the Point (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Seumas ( 6865 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @01:16PM (#13804078)
    The "video" aspect of the new ipods definitely is pretty lame and reasonably underplayed. If you could easily put your own video of any type on it (and, if necessary, copy over whatever codecs you need to play them), then that'd be pretty cool. Even if they come out with a service that makes it possible for me to get some sort of an unlimited $15/mo subscription to download and play any content that I can find on television and cable and DVD releases, it won't mean much if I'm locked into subscribing to content and doing it the "Apple Way". That would be like locking the mp3 player into the iTunes Music Store only.

    The really neat thing about the new iPod is that it's so small, but still 60gb. Now that is sweet. And people would be more interested in it if Apple hadn't already saturated the market in the last 18 months with minis, nanos, ipods, ipod videos, iPod U2 editions, shuffles and all these other stupid things. If you just bought a nano in the last few months, you're probably not going to rush out to buy the newest line just because they're thinner.

    The iPod is a really good, durable product. People with first and second generation iPods are still happy with them. You have to really up the ante to make people who are very happy with what they have want to "upgrade".

    That said, as soon as Apple comes out with a 300gb ipod (or maybe even a 120gb) that's the physical size of the one they released this week - I'm all over it.
  • Re:Missed the Point (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Pecisk ( 688001 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @01:19PM (#13804098)
    And yet, you proved what needed to be proven - people wants successful ones to fall, to make mistakes, to proove that Apple is not so 100% right on everything. My pick is that is somehow connected with our wish to protect ourselves from hype, which could can give wrong expetations on something.

    My pick is? Just ingore that. There are usually will be people who will whine, cry, etc. And they will be men of action.
  • by NutscrapeSucks ( 446616 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @01:20PM (#13804106)
    Yes, I initially assumed the same thing -- Apple would sell SD-quality video suited for TV viewing -- and iTunes would automatically reencode it for use with the iPod.

    However, on second thought, perhaps this wouldn't be technically reasonable. It would take too long (especially on G4 Macs), or may not produce the quality and optimization desired. So, Apple may need to offer downloads with two quality levels.

    Also, I'm sure the low quality of the videos played a large roll in getting Disney to back the project.
  • Re:Missed the Point (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Bogtha ( 906264 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @01:25PM (#13804136)

    You forgot the classic!

  • mod parent up (Score:4, Interesting)

    by chocolatetrumpet ( 73058 ) <slashdot.jonathanfilbert@com> on Sunday October 16, 2005 @01:28PM (#13804156) Homepage Journal
    Apple is LOSING MY MONEY because of content resolution.

    I would have been happy to support LOST by buying episodes through the iTMS - even though they're more expensive than the DVD and have no special features - but if and only if the they come in the same widescreen format and resolution that I can get from.. :cough: other sources.

    I'm standing here waving my money in the air and - no one's selling what I want to buy.

    The same situation goes for the music store - the new album by The Bad Plus is available, however it's only available in compressed AAC. I want the best quality - I actually want it in DVD-Audio. My other option is a copy protected "CD" that I refuse to purchase. Blah.
  • Re:Say what? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ScottSCY ( 798415 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @01:29PM (#13804163)
    " People who spend $400 plus accessories and bitch about spending $2 on a missed episode can shampoo my crotch. $.99 for a song, 4-5 minutes. $1.99 for a TV show for 40 minutes."

    Just shows how overpriced the songs are.
  • Re:Missed the Point (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Doctor_Jest ( 688315 ) * on Sunday October 16, 2005 @01:40PM (#13804239)
    It's very true... people want to pick apart (some people, I mean) the guy/gal/company/team/country on top. It's some sort of mechanism to either defend that they haven't backed the wrong horse (i.e. bought a Creative player heheh.) or that they somehow identify with the "underdog."

    It's alright if someone is skeptical of something, because that's healthy. It's just when people get vitriolic that it "becomes sour-grapes x 10." I think a healthy skepticism is a good way to protect onesself from the hype, but just going into the minutiae of details of how it is such a "bad idea" makes a person seem bitter.

    I certainly am not all that interested in the video capabilities of the iPod, but that doesn't mean I won't buy another one. I'm thinking of getting a new one in a few months anyway... my 2nd Gen iPod doesn't have a dock connector, and it seems all the new gadgets for the iPods are becoming dock-centric. I guess when I get another one will depend on what gadget is a must-have (heheh), or when it comes time to replace the battery on my iPod again. I think it'll stand a 3rd battery... That unit's been like a tank for many years, despite not feeling like one.

    If a new iPod keeps the competitors on their toes, that's great. If it makes the CEO of Creative whine and cry about their own marketshare... it's good for a laugh too.

  • Re:Missed the Point (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NutscrapeSucks ( 446616 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @02:07PM (#13804398)
    It's very true... people want to pick apart (some people, I mean) the guy/gal/company/team/country on top. It's some sort of mechanism to either defend that they haven't backed the wrong horse or that they somehow identify with the "underdog."

    A poignant observation in an Apple thread. Especially seeing how the popularity of the iPod seems to function as Ultimate Vindication for those who may have 'backed the wrong horse' in the PC platform wars.
  • by IntellectualCritic ( 858955 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @02:12PM (#13804425)
    The iRiver H300 series has been able to do this for how long? I'd have to say between 1.5 and 2 years. Yes, the support is pretty minimal as they have to be re-encoded in a smaller resolution and in some sort of MPEG standard format,

    You know, between that quick and easy procedure of getting videos onto the iRiver, the award-winning simplicity of the iRiver Music Store, the new iRiver Video Store, and the fact that the H300 doesn't officially support video files [iriveramerica.com], it's a real wonder why iRiver doesn't dominate the portable video market. Must be entirely due to those catchy iPod commercials.

  • by obarthelemy ( 160321 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @02:17PM (#13804450)
    While I like in theory the ability to download music, TV episodes, and other media off of the internet for a negligible price, I take exception to getting it in a low-quality format.

    Currently, I'm ripping my CDs to FLAC for use on my stereo, and to MP3 or WMA for my MP3 player. I've tried several formats, and any lossy format just sounds bad on my stereo. So I won't be buying any AAC files from ITMS: it costs about the same as a regular CD, but offers a lower sound quality, and is heavily DRMed on top of it, and you're forced to use iTunes.

    Same goes for the videos/TV shows/films: I can buy DVDs, and rip them to any format (for my Palm Tungsten, motorola e398...), and still enjoy the best video and sound quality by watching the original DVD. $2 is not expensive for a TV show, but it IS expensive for a TV show you can only watch on a minuscule screen, at a very low resolution. If I'm shelling out $2 for a show, I want it up on my big screen. There's enough good, old stuff around that I have yet to see, so I can wait for the DVDs to come out, and not rush to get a next-day fix.

    I do like the iPod's hardware, though :-)
  • Re:Who would? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Xugumad ( 39311 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @02:20PM (#13804468)
    Or, and I suspect this is a large group, those of us who would quite like to ditch cable (well, satellite in my case) television. What Apple are offering isn't perfect - I'm not likely to want to watch these over and over again, let alone deal with actually storing all the shows I want, so being able to pay for a cheaper DRM'd version, with a license to watch the show twice (not once - watch once stuff is just an invitation for a powercut halfway through, or similar).

    In the meantime, I get about half my TV shows by DVD rental, which works as a good comprimise.
  • Re:Missed the Point (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jc42 ( 318812 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @02:21PM (#13804475) Homepage Journal
    Heh. Some day they'll do wireless, and they'll take over the world. Wait; that's google, isn't it?

    Anyway, here's my sample of one: A year or so back, my wife and I decided to terminate our cable service. We'd only watched TV for news and movies, really. Here in the US, TV news has long since become a joke, and when news.google.com came out, we realized very quickly that it gave us more news from more viewpoints in 10 minutes than TV did in an evening of news shows. And we subscribed to Netflix, eliminating the movies angle. We realized that the only thing we'd turned the TV on for months was the Jon Stewart's Daily Show, and even that had become available in video clips on the political blogs a day after a show was aired. We asked ourself "Why are we paying for this?"

    So we switched to DSL (speakeasy), including VoIP. Half the price for a real IP link with no port blocking. They're very nice if the local power structure permits them to sell in your neighborhood.

    Meanwhile, we'd been following the iPod stories, bue hadn't seen anything that persuaded us to buy one of the cute little gadgets. Now, with the announcement of videos, my wife (the real old-movie freak) is mentioning "iPod" once or twice a day. My bet is that she'll wait until she sees a couple in action, and then she'll have to buy one. She'll then drop her Netflix subscription. She'll just download the movies to her Mac PB, where she'll watch most of them. Some will go to the iPod. Depending on the price they settle on, this will probably be comparable to the Netflix subscription price, but a lot more convenient.

    Now if they'd just incorporate a "smartphone" (phone + calendar), with full-time internet access, it'd be an instant sell. We could carry just the one electronic barnacle.

    And if they'd run OSX internally, I could even program it ...

    (Yeah, I know; linux or freebsd would be better. But what're the chances of either of those? ;-)

    (And while I'm dreaming, how about a browser that works with google maps, and GPS capability? Wouldn't it be fun to work on software that combines these in a wireless gadget?)
  • Cable a la carte (Score:2, Interesting)

    by openfrog ( 897716 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @02:34PM (#13804551)
    ...true cable a la carte, which consumers have been demanding for years and unable to get

    You just nailed it, at least for me! I also watch fewer than 10 hours a month. Moreover, I would love to watch shows not available in North America (Canada, in my case), like outstanding documentaries from the BBC, which I only get to watch when I go there (no, BBC Canada does not include them). Or from there, why not the best public broadcating from around the world? -- I don't sig, therefore I don't exist
  • by idlake ( 850372 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @02:52PM (#13804655)
    The new iPod is indeed not very good for video, but that doesn't matter: none of the other video devices are very good either. By adding video to their MP3 player now, in a simple way, Apple will get exposure and feedback that they will use to improve the device. Give them a couple of iterations to get it right.
  • by IntlHarvester ( 11985 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @03:07PM (#13804738) Journal
    the reason Apple almost died in the late 90's was because they had too many damn computer lines, and they were confusing and overlapping

    While that's true (and Apple had loads of other problems with distribution and manufaturing and QC), the root cause of all those confusing models was the fact that cloning made Macs an open platform.

    Companies like Power Computing made cheap boxes with fast CPUs and that completely removed Apple's ability to artificially segment their model lineup with artificial distinctions like CPU speeds, video cards, and slots, and that drove their margins down. "Mobile vs stationary, professional vs home user" is a profit maximization technique that a closed platform allows, which is why Apple operates this way and Dell doesn't.

    Back to the iPod, you have seem much more experimentation with things like Video and Radio from the open market of unpopular WM-based devices. But Apple's control over the market with a closed platform allows them introduce features in a staged manner "Video is not needed!" (one year later) "iPod with Video!!" (one year later) "Wide Screen iPod Video!!" (etc). Which is great for them because their control over the market allows them to maximize upgrade revenues by being conservative with new features.
  • Re:Say what? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Midnight Thunder ( 17205 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @03:10PM (#13804760) Homepage Journal
    But I'd rather pay nothing and have adverts, I find it very hard to spend money on something like TV which is merely mindless time-filler

    Haha, shows you have never been to North America ;) Here 15 minutes of a 1 hour show is adverts. The see how they masterfully manage to turn a 1.5 hour film into one that lasts 3 hours. Oh and any climax of the film always leads to an ad-break. Do this for a while and watch how people can go mad because of it. At this point I would rather pay £150 per year for no adverts or some sort of other low fee for the content I wish to see.

    I stopped getting cable because the amount of adverts was just as bad as what I got over air.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16, 2005 @03:28PM (#13804843)
    All you need is a decent recording software/hardware solution, such as Eye-TV, to record your favorite TV shows or whatever. I don't know if Eye-TV can reduce a recording down to iPod size but I know Quicktime Pro can.

    Presto! Video on the Pod!

    Not to mention software to reduce DVD movies, you already own, to fit onto your video iPod. You can do this right now with newer Palms.
  • Re: Too true (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16, 2005 @03:45PM (#13804945)
    No, it's true. Every day I watch people pay more than $1.99 for a coffee that will last maybe 15 minutes and never be seen again (except at the urinal). And some people think $1.99 is too much for a 40-minute TV show? There isn't much you can buy for $1.99 anymore.

    Remember, the $1.99 includes express delivery. You can get better-looking, better-sounding episodes with extras for much less money when the DVDs come out. But that's the thing...you have to wait until they come out! If you want it now, $1.99 doesn't seem so bad.
  • Too early? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by JVert ( 578547 ) <[corganbilly] [at] [hotmail.com]> on Sunday October 16, 2005 @03:51PM (#13804983) Journal
    Wasn't the ipod before the itunes store? I swore it took a while for ipod to become the portable music standard. Rio was king for a while, ivideo is the first move, these are still baby steps and I think apple knows what they are doing, they keep it fresh and extend the fad.
  • Re:Missed the Point (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NutscrapeSucks ( 446616 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @03:59PM (#13805034)
    Just because Treos/Blackberrys aren't packaged and marketed towards Apple's coffeeshop demographic doesn't mean there's any problem with the marketing. Nobody would accuse Apple of having poor marketing even with their complete inability to sell business systems of any sort.
  • Re:Missed the Point (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Moofie ( 22272 ) <lee AT ringofsaturn DOT com> on Sunday October 16, 2005 @05:06PM (#13805372) Homepage
    I've never owned such an Apple product, and I've had Macs for 15 years. My Performa 6115 had uptimes measured in months. Yeah, yeah, you've got a BSD box that's been up and running since the Jurassic period...whatever. Classic MacOS was plenty stable enough.

    I never had an issue with manually allocating RAM to programs. I actually thought that was a feature, not a bug...

    And, if your only option here is to talk about MacOS 9 and previous, I think your argument isn't very strong...
  • I think everybody should go watch the Oct 12 video on the Apple website. For one thing, it has the Eminem add that was pulled. But more importantly everyone should sit down and pay close attention to what the iMac does now and how Steve compared the remote that comes with it to the MS Media Center remotes. Now is anybody really going to use a 17 inch iMac as a TV replacement? Probably not. Maybe in the kitchen, but I doubt it.

    So is Steve just smoking crack here? Of course not. Now consider the Apple 30" cinema display hooked up to that remote. Things become a bit more compelling, don't they? Am I saying that Apple is going to make a Tivo? They might, but I'm guessing they won't. Here's why. The broadcasters hate Tivo. To them, Tivo means they just gave away the show AND the viewer skipped the ads. Same goes for BitTorrent, which has content producers frightened even more. Apple is offering them an alternative. Try to capture some of the Tivo/BT market by selling the show a day later with no ads. That way the broadcaster gets paid, and paid fast. The home viewer can watch the show on their Apple set top box or on the iPod. My guess is that the iTunes video store will start to grow to include older shows and eventually movies.

    One thing nobody has mentioned is HD. Obviously the current iPods can't do it, but it won't be long. Apple is playing this smart, leveraging the popularity of the iPod and iTunes to establish the relationships with content producers that will get them on board.

    Finally, another thing that nobody has mentioned is video in the car. If you have kids you know that a DVD player is not the best solution in the world. Not only do you have to mess with disks, but many children's disks are only about 20 minutes long and looping that over and over again on a long drive will make you want to murder Thomas, Percy, Gordan, and even Edward. What if instead you could put all your kids' shows on an iPod and hook that up to the screen in the car instead? Parents across the nation will go nuts for this and will download content just to keep themselves sane by avoiding repetition. I know that if I get one of these I'm going to rip all the Sesame Street and Thomas DVDs we have to it immediately and then park the thing in the car. And yes you can do it, just not with Apple software, for now at least.
  • Re:Missed the Point (Score:3, Interesting)

    by thatguywhoiam ( 524290 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @05:50PM (#13805576)
    Just because Treos/Blackberrys aren't packaged and marketed towards Apple's coffeeshop demographic doesn't mean there's any problem with the marketing. Nobody would accuse Apple of having poor marketing even with their complete inability to sell business systems of any sort.

    Actually, that doesn't fly. You don't need marketing for business products that is anywhere near the same scale or scope of consumer marketing, esp. targeting the coveted 18-29 demographic. Sure, there's ads for Xerox copiers and shit like that in trade mags but it is a far cry from $1-200 million campaigns that splatter dozens of cities with dancer silhouettes. So unless Palm wants the Treo to stay in the realm of the aforementioned geeky sysadmin/business types, it needs better marketing.

  • Re:Missed the Point (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Fear the Clam ( 230933 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @06:56PM (#13805866)
    It's also time for Palm to stop fucking Apple users. I've had Apple computers since 1985 and Palm devices since 1996, and without fail, as an Apple user, I had to pay extra for docks or connectors, got the short end of the stick on included software, and generally was treated like some sort of ghetto stepchild. Their desktop software for OS X started out lousy and never got better, the syncing is abysmal, and the hardware is overpriced for what you get.

    Then I got an iPod mini and realized that I really didn't need to input things into a PDA right that second, and that in exchange of the syncing ease of an iPod, I could just wait to type in my little notes once I got home or the office.

    So no, it's not just that it has a little fruit logo on it, it's because my needs were simple, and after eight years Palm still couldn't get them right, and I bailed.
  • Apple Versus (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hpavc ( 129350 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @07:50PM (#13806099)
    By these people's same accounts the iPod is overpriced, overrated, the music format is sad, and itunes store model is flawed. The sounds of people complaining that people dont need all that space and the the battery life is terrible and locking people into the apple hardware ... yawn.

    I will agree that some of the ipod product line is a little too much. A few models have been released perhaps that are confusing in the marketplace -- that photo one was a mistake /me thinks.

    The photo aspect is daring, already the the photoblog / podcast stuff seems intersting from what my existing subscriptions have yeilded.

  • by cpeterso ( 19082 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @09:13PM (#13806420) Homepage
    In the 1990s, much R&D went into video-on-demand and set-top boxes. Everyone had a TV, so everyone assumed the TV would be the communication device of the future. But the market for video-on-demand never really materialized. Why not repurpose all the research for video-on-demand for my mobile phone? Sure, some operators offer some limited, gimicky video (like Verizon's VCast), but imagine a mobile phone service that combined Tivo+Netflix? Since mobile phone bandwidth is limited, maybe we can't have video-on-DEMAND today, but we could have a Netflix-like video wishlist that delivered your shows overnight into a Tivo-like "inbox" on your phone. This also lets operators make use of their network infrastructure "off-hours". Qualcomm's MediaFLO is sorta like this.
  • In case you're interested, and you seem to be, my children watch TV exclusively in the car. They're not TV addicted, I'm just a happier driver.
  • by amcdiarmid ( 856796 ) <amcdiarm.gmail@com> on Monday October 17, 2005 @11:17AM (#13809318) Journal
    Perhaps: more likely everyone "tech savvy" will download video files for the iPod using the same "various methods" that they use currently for music. The mass market will buy. (AKA: The kids will dl with bitx, and the parents will purchase.)

It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.

Working...