Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Handhelds Businesses Media Movies Apple Hardware

Apple Sells 1 Million Videos in Under 20 Days 478

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the more-reasons-not-to-leave-the-house dept.
olddotter writes "Apple has sold over 1 million videos through iTunes since the release of the Video iPod service. Personally I am surprised by this success, it raises many questions. Will this encourage more people to put their video content on the iTunes store? Is there a vast market for cheaper stuff at reduced prices? Why am I willing to pay more for music than I would for video?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Sells 1 Million Videos in Under 20 Days

Comments Filter:
  • videos have sound! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TimeSpeak (873865) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:23PM (#13917637) Journal
    Well considering you don't have to acually watch the video. Why buy the song and video seperately?
    • by osssmkatz (734824) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:26PM (#13917664) Journal
      To clarify, music videos include a seperate AAC file with just the song, as well as the video. Perhaps Apple's "Watch your music" campaign motivated some people? --Sam
      • Frankly, most of the talented musicians are well...ugly. As one wit put it, rock and roll was created so that ugly guys could get laid. Given the postulation that talented musicians are ugly, why would I pay extra to get the video to go with the sound?

        2 cents,

        Queen B
    • by nick_davison (217681) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:34PM (#13917752)
      $0.99 - Just the music.
      $1.99 - Music and video.

      For $30, given the choice between 30 great rock/metal tracks and 15 great ones with, yay, grungy guys running up and down a stage, I'd rather get twice the amount of music for my money and miss out on the bad videos. On the other hand, were Britney Spears more my thing, I'd likely want the videos, ideally without sound as, let's face it, her success was never about the music.

      Plus there's the amount of drive space taken up. Granted videos aren't available for 80% of album tracks but I've already filled clear of 30mb with my own CD collection. Apple doesn't make an iPod big enough to rip an equivalent collection if videos were available too.

      So, video's nice and all - espcially for some of the great music videos - but I'd rather save the drive space instead of having every last bland video.
    • by silverkniveshotmail. (713965) * <everettpf3@@@gmail...com> on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:36PM (#13917764) Journal
      I think the one thing we can depend on when it comes to purchasing licenses is that the prices will never make sense.
      like why is a full song on itunes that I can have on my computer, ipod, and CD player as long as i'd like (though only for a limited amount of burns) $0.99 while a 30-second clip on my cell phone (through spring) is $2.50 and deletes itself after 90-days
      • by ankarbass (882629) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:46PM (#13917848)
        "while a 30-second clip on my cell phone (through spring) is $2.50 and deletes itself after 90-days"

        Because that's what the market will bear! I just can't imagine what satisfaction one gets from buying a ring tone.
        • Europe (Score:5, Informative)

          by Hrothgar The Great (36761) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:57PM (#13917960) Journal
          I was on vacation in Europe this summer, and the people we were staying with had MTV on the television, and I am serious - maybe 80-90% of the ads were from a couple of different companies hawking mind bogglingly irritating ringtones. It was completely unbelievable. And it was always the SAME ONES over and over. Yikes.

          Considering how much I DIDN'T want to buy any of them, the only conclusion I could come to was that I must be getting old.

          Oh, and by the way, if you're in the US, like me, this is going to be how our TV is pretty soon too, since we're trying to play catch-up with just about every other country in the world in cell phone technology right now. Just you wait.
        • ringtones (Score:5, Funny)

          by crimethinker (721591) on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:09PM (#13918070)
          I just can't imagine what satisfaction one gets from buying a ring tone.

          Same here. I thought you were supposed to be embarassed that your phone went off in a public place and disturbed everyone else. Hello? Vibrate feature? But no, every 12-yr-old hip-hopster gangsta-rapper wannabe just HAS to have his phone blast out the latest crap from M. C. Pee Pants whenever one of his "bitches" calls him.

          Here's a tip: if I hear your phone sing (I use the term loosely) "pick up da phone, got some money comin' in" one more time, I'm going to introduce your phone to Mr. Sledgehammer. And then maybe your head, too. I figure I should get a medal for preventing all the crimes you were going to commit in the coming years.

          -paul

  • More? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SavoWood (650474) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:23PM (#13917639) Homepage
    If they offered more than what they have, I imagine they would have made this point much faster. I would have bought stuff, but they didn't have any shows I actually wanted to see.
    • Re:More? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by piecewise (169377) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:43PM (#13917826) Journal
      I must tell you, I think iTunes is a great example of how it could change TV. I NEVER watched Lost (yes, I have cable -- digital cable with all the bells and whistles since it came with my apartment). But sure enough, I went on iTunes and for $1.99 I bought the premier... I was quickly sucked in, and my black 30gb iPod now has season one and all of what's available for season two. I'm hooked!

      And frankly, I'm spending about the same as I would have for DVDs in the store. Season one of iTunes is $34.99 -- I saw it in Target for the same. And yes, per download I'm paying more for season two, but I'm also getting it instantly. Spread out over time, it's roughly the same.

      I would have never gotten so into Lost without the iPod, so ABC is definitely right to say they're excited that this is a new way to reach a broader audience.

      I'm just amazed how great that iPod video looks on a television. Granted, TVs are crap resolution, but even on my 32" Sony it looks great.

      So if the iPod created a halo effect for the Mac, this iPod video will surely change the way we watch TV. It's already changed how I do.
      • Re:More? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by robertjw (728654)
        OK, I have a question. Do you see greater value in purchasing a version that you can watch on your iPod than you do in purchasing the DVD? After reading your post, I personally thought you got screwed. If you could have the DVD for the same price, why buy the iPod version. Now, I realize we all have different priorities, and if you find value in it, that's great. Guess my question is how much of your example is due to the fact that you COULD download from iTunes and it's the new fun thing to do? Do yo
        • Re:More? (Score:3, Interesting)

          Do you see greater value in purchasing a version that you can watch on your iPod than you do in purchasing the DVD? After reading your post, I personally thought you got screwed. If you could have the DVD for the same price, why buy the iPod version. Now, I realize we all have different priorities, and if you find value in it, that's great. Guess my question is how much of your example is due to the fact that you COULD download from iTunes and it's the new fun thing to do?

          If he does, and enough people do li
        • Re:More? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Onan (25162) on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:30PM (#13918265)
          It's all about convenience and immediacy of gratification.

          Most obviously, you can buy each episode through the itvs the day after it first airs--as opposed to the year after on dvd.

          But equally importantly, buying things on dvd requires me to either physically travel to a store just to do so, or to order it and wait days or weeks for it to be delivered. Neither of those allows me to realize that I have a bit of free time, and have some new television in front of me in fifteen effort-free minutes.

          And lastly, if I buy dvds, I then have to putz around with physical discs: I want to watch to show someone the Buffy episode that I know is titled "Hush". So I have to dig out the box of dvds, open up the ginormous packaging, pull out the booklet in the back, and look through it to figure out which disc that's on, then put that in, and remember to take it out and put it away later. That's a whole lot more of a pain in the ass than just typing "open video/television/buffy/*hush*".

          • But equally importantly, buying things on dvd requires me to either physically travel to a store just to do so, or to order it and wait days or weeks for it to be delivered....I then have to putz around with physical discs....So I have to dig out the box of dvds, open up the ginormous packaging, pull out the booklet in the back, and look through it to figure out which disc that's on, then put that in, and remember to take it out and put it away later....



            All very true. However, the same reasons are why
            • The problem w/ downloading DVDs or rips is that you're at the mercy of those who ripped or reencoded the content. Most people just keep the show and leave everything else out. Which would mean you need to spend time to look for the right version. Much more convenient in this case to buy the DVDs yourself if you (like me) enjoy the extras besides the main feature.
        • Re:More? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by shmlco (594907)
          I think it's going to snowball. Other networks will offer content (Galactica). Apple will do the Cringely video mini, video AirPort, and allow you to "rip" to your pod. Independents will produce movies and documentaries. The next Parks Wallace & Gromit short will appear on iTMS. Movies will begin to appear.

          In fact, Tivo has already announced software you can use to move Tivo2Go content to your pod.

          All of this is just the smallest toe dipped into the water...

      • Looks good on TV? (Score:3, Informative)

        by SPYvSPY (166790)
        It probably is passable on an SDTV, but it looks absolutely awful on my 42" HD plasma. I know, I know--duh! But, seriously, iPod video is very close to unwatchable on a nice TV.
  • Great! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SerpentMage (13390) <ChristianHGross@ ... o.ca minus punct> on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:23PM (#13917642)
    Now I wish that they would start selling the videos in stores OTHER THAN the US....
    • Re:Great! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:39PM (#13917786)

      Now I wish that they would start selling the videos in stores OTHER THAN the US....

      I actually think this is a good illustration of the fact that the copyright system is very broken. The theory of copyright is an author, band, producer, or artist creates a work and is granted exclusive rights to republish it. They generate money from selling copies, which encourages them to produce more works to make more money. One would then assume, if someone like Apple wanted to resell a song or TV show they would go to said band or producer, buy a license to redistribute it, and start offering it. This does not happen.

      The reality of the situation is the producers of work almost inevitably have to give up that copyright to numerous parties in numerous countries since various organizations and cartels have monopolized all the popular distribution and advertising venues in a given territory. In order to distribute a work in multiple countries Apple (or any other retailer) has to contact hundreds of organizations, negotiate hundreds of licenses and evaluate hundreds of separate business cases. This leads to most works only being distributed in one given country and a very segregated market. It also leads to most artists making very little compared to the middle men with the cartel. How could the system have gotten this fucked up? This is exactly what the drafters of the original copyright laws in the U.S. were trying to avoid, since the printing house cartels were so detrimental in Europe. I guess greed and money eventually will corrupt any legal system.

  • Because... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:24PM (#13917644)
    "Why am I willing to pay more for music than I would for video?"

    Shelf life - even the greatest video will probably only be played a few times at most, while you might listen to a song hundreds of times over the years.
    • Re:Because... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Elwood P Dowd (16933)
      I totally disagree with all y'all video-replay-haters.

      If I had a music video for every one of the tracks I've got on my iPod right now, I'd be deliriously happy. On my computer now, I've got only about 30 music videos, but boy is it rad to be able to alt-tab over to iTunes when "On" by Aphex Twin starts playing and watch it. If that were in my pocket on the subway, all the better.

      I wouldn't *have* to take it out of my pocket and watch it. It's still one of my favorite songs.

      With music videos integrated into
  • Hot Damn (Score:5, Interesting)

    by broody (171983) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:24PM (#13917646)
    Imagine if they had some content besides a few television shows and videos...
    • Re:Hot Damn (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mysqlrocks (783488) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:29PM (#13917713) Homepage Journal
      Imagine if they had some content besides a few television shows and videos...

      That's exactly what they're trying to prove to the movie industry. Apple is demonstrating that it's possible to do the same thing it did with Music to Movies. And the movie industry will have the added benefit of being apple to skip right past the bulk of pirating (if they get they're heads out of the sand).
    • Re:Hot Damn (Score:5, Informative)

      by SlightlyOldGuy (805345) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:52PM (#13917908)
      My wife is a musician who self-produces her albums. She's now making more money through a handful of songs on Itunes than by selling her CDs. This great outlet is now (or should soon be) available to independant video producers. Watch out for the next Nick Park on iTMS.
      • Re:Hot Damn (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jcr (53032)
        My wife is a musician who self-produces her albums. She's now making more money through a handful of songs on Itunes than by selling her CDs.

        Now, that is what the record companies fear. What if the big names started doing that?

        -jcr
        • Re:Hot Damn (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          The record industry will continue to exist based on one simple principle. It's not wealth. It's fame. The labels are fame machines. So long as musicians have egos, there will always be labels.
      • My friend and I were denied just today when we applied for distribution through iTMS. No, we're not a major indie like Matador, but we're also not a bunch of yahoos making records in the garage. I'm not complaining, but self-publishing through iTMS is still not easy enough. Having said that, people in my situation can probably use CDBaby to get onto iTMS, which is exactly what Apple's rejection note said.
  • Oh the insanity! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LilGuy (150110) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:25PM (#13917654)
    I would DEFINATELY download TV episodes and movies for $1.99 ANYDAY over music tracks for $.99

    Even when iTunes first came out I thought that was a bit pricey and that the price would eventually drop. Doesn't appear to be the case. But $1.99 for tv shows seems to be a good deal as long as they cut the commercials out, or at least most of them.

    This could usher in a whole new era for TV, and I wouldn't miss cable or satellite one bit.
    • by op12 (830015) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:28PM (#13917693) Homepage
      This could usher in a whole new era for TV, and I wouldn't miss cable or satellite one bit.

      Which is exactly why it's only a matter of time before there's a huge backlash from these content distributors, much like the music industry is already against iTunes. Now, cable and satellite companies will be joining the fight. It's in their best interest to beat down this new method of content distribution for TV.
      • by Jeff DeMaagd (2015) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:53PM (#13917915) Homepage Journal
        Which is exactly why it's only a matter of time before there's a huge backlash from these content distributors

        Well, they are adept in hurting their own intersts.

        Funny thing is, they've fought against PVRs, and now most of them even offer one as part of the subscription.

        The broadcast, cable and satellite networks very often finance the programming they use, I bet they could stand to make more from subscriptions + video sales than they do with just subscriptions. They resisted putting their shows on DVD, but then caved in and many of them are making a lot of money doing so, be the shows new or old. I don't see why it is sensible for them to reject a deal to get listed in iTunes. They'll make more money (net!) per episode than with DVD sales, and only have a little bit of preparation and encoding work. I hope that this untapped potential gets exploited, though I'd prefer not to use iTunes as the conduit. I've heard it said that making a show like Enterprise could cost about $0.25 (US) per episode per viewer.
      • Re:Oh the insanity! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by east coast (590680)
        Which is exactly why it's only a matter of time before there's a huge backlash from these content distributors, much like the music industry is already against iTunes.

        I wonder how much of a cut a producer would get for a download of CSI or Lost and how much they get per viewer on cable/satelite? Let's face facts, if the producers of these shows get 50 cents to the download versus 10 cents per viewer for the TV time slot it makes business sense not to care as much. Sure, they'd lose advertising dollars but
    • by Scotch Game (442068) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:55PM (#13917946)
      I would DEFINATELY download TV episodes and movies for $1.99 ANYDAY

      Judging by your spelling of the words 'definitely' and 'any day', I think you could stand to be watching less TV. Dude, read a book.

  • by tbone1 (309237) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:25PM (#13917655) Homepage
    And the #1 music video for practically every day was Fatboy Slim's "Weapon of Choice", featuring Chirstopher Walken. "I'm a hoofah at heart!"

    Something tells me that Kevin Pollak is owed a royalty somewhere.

  • by rouge86 (608370) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:25PM (#13917659)
    I think that Apple may be using this to show that the MPAA can make some real money on selling videos from iTunes. Now, I just want all the videos that I would usually buy on DVD to be sold from iTunes.
  • by mccalli (323026) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:26PM (#13917667) Homepage
    A question for anyone with a new iMac G5 who has also bought a video from the music store. Do these videos integrate with Front Row [apple.com] at all?

    It's my (utterly unsubstantiated) belief that Front Row will appear in iLife 06, and that then a Mac Mini playing these videos on a TV will start to make quite a lot of sense.

    Cheers,
    Ian

  • by P3NIS_CLEAVER (860022) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:26PM (#13917672) Journal
    once the gadget whores have filled their video ipods up, they will move onto something else
  • by matt me (850665) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:26PM (#13917674)
    Will it be possible for comments to continue this decaying monologue of uncertainty and doubt? Will I be surprised? Should all comments not related to the article but the amusing questioning dialogue be posted herein?
    • I love this one- "Is there a vast market for cheaper stuff at reduced prices?"

      Gee, I dunno- is there a vast market for cheaper stuff at increased prices? People buy more stuff when it costs less?! Somebody alert the news media! Somebody call the department of redundancy department!
  • vintage videos (Score:5, Informative)

    by rkhalloran (136467) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:27PM (#13917680) Homepage
    somebody posted this [mp3newswire.net] last week about making old 50s shows available for cheap. Sounds promising to me as a way of preserving the early days of TV. Heck, I'd pay a buck for old Zachary creature features.
    • Re:vintage videos (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tgibbs (83782)
      somebody posted this [mp3newswire.net] last week about making old 50s shows available for cheap. Sounds promising to me as a way of preserving the early days of TV. Heck, I'd pay a buck for old Zachary creature features.

      I think that this is an ideal use of the medium. When you watch Lost or Desperate Housewives on iTunes or iPod, you are giving up the beautiful HD of the broadcast (or the torrent, if you prefer). But these old TV shows will lose little on the tiny screen. For some, it might even bring back
    • Re:vintage videos (Score:4, Interesting)

      by AKAImBatman (238306) * <.akaimbatman. .at. .gmail.com.> on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:51PM (#13917901) Homepage Journal
      somebody posted this last week about making old 50s shows available for cheap.

      It will happen eventually. I don't know if you've seen them yet, but many stores are now carrying the $1.00 DVDs of many old shows. Everything from episodes of Laurel and Hardy to Rocky Jones Space Ranger (you've got to see this show, even just for the comedic effect) are now appearing on the shelves.

      However, I have a feeling that it will be a while before they show up on iTunes. Jobs doesn't want to make the same mistake as MovieLink [movielink.com] and find himself in the position of *only* selling old shows. Once iTunes is established a way of distributing new content, only then will Jobs allow for virtual reruns.
  • by OctoberSky (888619) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:27PM (#13917682)
    Is this alot of videos? I mean, is this more or less than the number of video iPods sold. If its alot less than thats no great feat, if its double, well thats not a great feat either. Even if Apple was pocketing the whole $1.99 thats only 1.99 million dollars. That's not news by Apples standards.

    Also, anyone know the number of songs sold that week?
    • To put that in perspective, iTMS and iPod accessories generated $265M in revenues (not profit) last year. To put it another way, this generated around 1% of iTMS's annual revenue over 20 days - at this rate, it will account for around 15% of total iTMS revenue over a year. Now, factor in the fact that they have almost no content, and even less content outside the USA, and you will see how big this is - it could easily be responsible for 50% or more of iTMS' revenue in a year or so if they add more content
  • Well, duh... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pope (17780) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:27PM (#13917683)
    Why am I willing to pay more for music than I would for video?

    Because music has far more inherent replay value than video.

    Everytime some slashdork bitches about how a CD costs $20 for 60 minutes while a DVD costs $20 for 120 minutes or more and what a ripoff a CD is, I want to slap them silly; the two things have nothing in common other than size and shape. Unless you're some obsessive weirdo, I doubt you'll watch the same movie a couple of times a week right after buying it like most people do with an album.

    • by pla (258480) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:52PM (#13917912) Journal
      Unless you're some obsessive weirdo, I doubt you'll watch the same movie a couple of times a week

      So, not a Monty Python fan, eh?


      Now go and bring me... A... HERRING!
    • Re:Well, duh... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Lumpy (12016) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:53PM (#13917919) Homepage
      And you somehow easily forget the fact that producing a singlevideo is easily 20-30 times more expensive and labor intensive than making an entire album of music.

      you make the point that the RIAA is trying to make everyone think, but a feature length movie makes all the music ever made by metallica seem like chump change in comparison.

      you can record and master an entire album with less than 10 people INCLUDING THE BAND. you cant make a movie with less than 30 people. (Grips, techs and film/sound is more than 2/3rds that number already and there are no actors, makeup, extras, special efx,security,etc...)

      and sorry, but a DVD has at least another 50-90% in man hours of content added to it on top of the movie.

      Other than pure unadulterated obscene greed, there is no reason that a CD costs more than a DVD.
      • Re:Well, duh... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by slavemowgli (585321)
        Of course you can make a movie with less than 30 people. Seen Klayworld [knoxskorner.com], for example? More than 90 minutes, done by one person. Or how about Kaze, Ghost Warrior [kazeghostwarrior.com]? OK, that's only 22 minutes, but it was also done by one single person, and the fact that it's entirely done in CG and has a quality that rivals Pixar's movies is highly impressive, I think.

        You probably need more than one person if you want to make a life-action movie, but even then, I'm pretty sure that 30 aren't strictly needed - you'd also be abl
      • Re:Well, duh... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by phritz (623753) on Monday October 31, 2005 @05:09PM (#13918614)
        Other than pure unadulterated obscene greed, there is no reason that a CD costs more than a DVD.

        Well, that's not really true - the two primary determinants of the cost here, are what the market will bear and the scarcity of what they're selling. The market will indeed bear exorbitantly high prices, because they're selling extremely unique products. The cost it takes them to produce it doesn't have anything to do with it.

        It's greedy, sure, but isn't that the entire point of capitalism?

    • How much would you pay to go to a movie? How much would you pay for a concert?

      For some reason, music is worth more than movies. I'm not saying that I understand why, I'm just saying that it's deeper than just replay value.
    • by pubjames (468013) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:56PM (#13917949)
      Because music has far more inherent replay value than video.

      So? Since when does the cost of an item relate to how many times the purchaser uses it?

      Car salesman: This car is $20,000.
      Man: But I'm not planning on using it very often.
      Car salesman: Ok, in that case it's $15,000.

      • Re:Well, duh... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by NereusRen (811533)
        Since when does the price consumers are willing to pay for an item relate to its cost?

        Car Salesman: This car is $20,000.
        Man: But I'm not planning on using it very often. It's only worth $15,000 to me.
        Car Salesman: But it cost a lot to make.
        Man: ...

        Also bear in mind that DVDs and CDs are essentially mini-monopolies: If you want to own a copy of Firefly, the only legal way to buy it is from one particular source, which can control the pricing. If you've taken Microeconomics, you know that monopolist pricing i
  • You're surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by American AC in Paris (230456) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:27PM (#13917686) Homepage
    How can you be surprised by the success of the video iPod when there are enough people out there willing to pay money to change how their telephone sounds when it rings that it has become a $300 million-a-year business?

    In the world of wasting yer money on stupid, ephemeral stuff for digital gizmos, video on iPod doesn't even make it to the semifinals; at least you get to watch a 40-minute, commercial-free TV show for your cash.

    Be surprised that we're so happy to part with our money for valueless things, perhaps--but don't be surprised that the iPod video is successful at this game...

    • Re:You're surprised? (Score:5, Informative)

      by fiddlesticks (457600) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:40PM (#13917797) Homepage
      >it has become a $300 million-a-year business

      Go higher, and try between $1 and $3.3 Billion - worldwide.
    • Re:You're surprised? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by hackstraw (262471) *
      How can you be surprised by the success of the video iPod when there are enough people out there willing to pay money to change how their telephone sounds when it rings that it has become a $300 million-a-year business?

      In the world of wasting yer money on stupid, ephemeral stuff for digital gizmos...


      In 2000, Americans spent $60 billion on carbonated soft drinks. linky [saveharry.com]. That is flavored sugar water with the addition of carbon dioxide that costs something like pennies a gallon to make. They have no nutritio
  • pay more for music (Score:5, Informative)

    by frovingslosh (582462) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:27PM (#13917691)
    Why am I willing to pay more for music than I would for video?

    I guess pretty much for the same reason that you are willing to pay more for a movie sound track CD than for the DVD of the movie itself. The RIAA has kept the prices artifically high and you go along with it.

    • by That's Unpossible! (722232) on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:29PM (#13918258)
      The RIAA has kept the prices artifically high and you go along with it.

      What does "artificially high" mean?

      If we are "going along with it," that means this is a price the market will bear, and thus the prices are not too high. Incidentally, music CD's used to cost more. When they were new things, they were regularly in the $20's. Then it was high teens. Now it is low to high teens, and sometimes below that.

      Also consider inflation, and you will see the actual price of a CD has indeed come down quite a bit over the years.

      You probably also think gas prices in towns affected by hurricanes should be kept as low as they were before hurricanes, thereby creating gas shortages, rather than letting supply and demand to its thang, increasing the cost of a good that is in short supply to naturally curb hoarding.

      The market is what it is. If you think CDs are "too expensive," don't buy them. If enough people agree, they'll come down in price or be replaced by similar technology that is less expensive.
  • by QuantumPion (805098) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:28PM (#13917702)
    Well now that a company is offering a completely legal and conveniant service, I am perfectly willing to pay for it. When there is nothing on TV, I would love nothing more then to be able to quickly download an episode for a past show that I havn't seen before without having to go through the various bit torrent sites.
  • Because (Score:3, Funny)

    by Digital Vomit (891734) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:29PM (#13917711) Homepage Journal
    Why am I willing to pay more for music than I would for video?"

    Because you're an idiot. Next question?

  • sure why not (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FadedTimes (581715) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:30PM (#13917715)
    Will this encourage more people to put their video content on the iTunes store?
    Of course it will. There is a market for video content; people will see this is another avenue of making money, getting more exposure, etc.
    Why am I willing to pay more for music than I would for video?
    People will listen to a popular song many times a day. People don't do the same with TV/movies. The entertainment value of most TV shows and movies is gone after 1 viewing. The entertainment value of music seems to carry on much longer.
  • by rsborg (111459) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:30PM (#13917721) Homepage
    1. iTMS store opening sold 1 million songs in a week, not 20 days.
    2. However, video selection is MUCH more limtied than song selection when iTMS opened.
    3. Also, video probably assumes the purchase of a newer (video) iPod, since I doubt many people are downloading these to watch on their computer/tv.

    So what does this mean? Who knows, but it seems as if the videos are really damn popular. I'd kill, however, to see which ones were more popular than others...

    I think what'd be the real killer app for mobile video would be shorts like comedy, commercials, trailers, etc.

    Apple are you listening? Use what you have already, most movies push trailers, and most commercial creators would DIE to get their bits on the iPod, and there're some totally awesome commercials that are pieces of art in their own right! Imagine a vid-cast of bits from The Daily Show, or a 5 minute part of a standup routine, too.. great for showing people at lunch/etc.

    • by brundlefly (189430) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:59PM (#13917984)
      3. Also, video probably assumes the purchase of a newer (video) iPod, since I doubt many people are downloading these to watch on their computer/tv.

      My first purchases from iTunes were this past week, when I bought some episodes of Lost. Slow day at work, no iPod, just my 21" monitor and my headphones. Thanks, Apple, problem solved.

      What does this say? It says that videos are more appealing for purchase than music for some people. And it says that full-screen Quicktime on a 21" monitor is a fine substitute for an iPod with a 2-inch screen.

    • Point 3 is wrong (Score:3, Interesting)

      by SuperKendall (25149) *
      I bought the first episodes of Lost to determine if I really wanted the DVD set (never having seen Lost apart from an episode somewhere in the middle that didn't really grab me). I do have an iPod but it's the first 5gb model with no video support at all (not that I care, having no desire to watch video on an iPod).

      There's a lot of people around willing to buy video without an iPod. I doubt video purchases for iPods are even the majority of cases.
    • Also, video probably assumes the purchase of a newer (video) iPod, since I doubt many people are downloading these to watch on their computer/tv.

      Where'd you get that idea? The video is perfectly viewable on a computer monitor; I bought an episode of "Lost" and got perfectly good video on my 17" CRT. It wasn't anywhere near DVD quality, more like a good-quality VCR recording from analog TV -- but the detail was fine and I could enjoy it from the couch halfway across the room.

      I buy music from iTMS all the tim
  • by JudgeFurious (455868) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:33PM (#13917748)
    Once the content gets in there I'll be buying video from iTunes. That is assuming of course that the prices stay close to what I'm seeing right now. This fits in good with my desire to buy seasons worth of some shows on DVD but only a handful of episodes where other shows are concerned.

      I look at South Park, Dead Like Me, and my Battlestar Galactica fix and I say "Buy the season on DVD". My wife wants Buffy the Vampire Slayer seasons 1-6 and DVD is the way to go.

      I look at Star Trek Deep Space 9 and I say "Got to get me some DVD's.....HOLY SHIT CAN YOU BELIEVE WHAT PARAMOUNT WANTS FOR THAT? MIGHTY PROUD OF THE STAR TREK AREN'T WE GUYS?"

      Then I think about it and there probably weren't 10 episodes of DS9 I really want anyway. Maybe 10 if I push it. 20 bucks for those 10 episodes and screw the rest of it because it wasn't all that good anyway? I'm in.

      Of course IF Paramount ever lets them sell episodes of Star Trek (and flavor) on iTunes they'll probably demand that they sell for $9.99 each or some insane amount of money that will screw the whole deal up anyway.
    • by doormat (63648) on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:47PM (#13918386) Homepage Journal
      I look at Star Trek Deep Space 9 and I say "Got to get me some DVD's.....HOLY SHIT CAN YOU BELIEVE WHAT PARAMOUNT WANTS FOR THAT? MIGHTY PROUD OF THE STAR TREK AREN'T WE GUYS?"

      I thought about this the other day.

      7 Seasons of TNG at $100/season = $700
      7 Seasons of DS9 at $100/season = $700
      7 Seasons of VOY at $100/season = $700
      4 Seasons of ENT at $100/season = $400

      $2500 and that doesnt even include TOS or your local sales tax!! Paramount bite my shiny metal ass if they want me to pay $2500+tax for star trek (for about 500 episodes). If the price went below $1,000, I'd be much more inclined to consider it. And think of who your audience is? A bunch of geeks and nerds, you dont think they know how to get a copy of DVD decryptor, a netflix subscription and a 500GB HD? Hell, I saw Sex in the City for $165 for the entire 5 season series (20 discs) in the Best Buy ad this weekend.

      $2500 vs $800 in hard drives (2x500 - one for backup) + $200 for a netflix sub to get all the DVDs + free time
  • by CrazyTalk (662055) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:35PM (#13917760)
    This is such a new technology/distribution medium, and iPods have such a big market share, that I'm sure they could find a million people to spend 2 bucks just to try the thing out and see what it is like. I dont even have a video iPod, but was thinking of buying an episode of "Lost" to watch on my Mac since 1. I've never seen it on regular TV and 2. was curious about download speed, picture quality etc.
  • Sales (Score:3, Informative)

    by JonN (895435) * on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:47PM (#13917866) Homepage
    Really, there is no downside with the way Apple has handled the beginning of a transition into video. It seems unlikely that anyone planning to purchase an iPod would say, "wait a minute, I get a bigger, much better screen, larger storage, and thinner iPod for the same money as the old iPod--no way, I don't want that." Even if you exclude video capability, the new iPod has other features alone which might have ticked up the numbers. So, its hardly a surprise that Apple is happy with the results. I hope Apple is able to announce, before Thanksgiving, some big deal with at least one studio, for more content (e.g. Warner Bros., Paramount, etc.) which will include real movies. That will be the kicker for outstanding sales of the video iPod for Christmas.
  • by thesandbender (911391) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:48PM (#13917874)
    I'd say a full half of the gadgets I buy are shiny, new and fun... for the first month. Then they're relegated to "eBay" pile. I'll be more interested in seeing how their sales fare in six months when having the latest teenage singer shaking her bottom in your hand is no longer enough to make you the "cool guy/gal" in school. I tried video on my iPAQ and trust me, there are better, more entertaining ways to go blind. Speaking which, time to go shave my palms.
  • by Dexter77 (442723) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:49PM (#13917880)
    It's very common these days that good series are cancelled in middle of a season. iTunes TV-series sales will make a change to that. When new series launches in the USA, it only has about 300 million potential viewers, but when the same show launces on iTunes, it has about two billion potential viewers.

    Many people don't yet even realize what this might do to the industry. There will become more and more scifi series, because TV-companies don't have to rely on US Scifi fans only. And that's just the beginning. Soon you'll able to order tv-series like you order magazines now. Fans might even start to have their own tailored episodes or even whole series.

    I'll sincerely welcome iTunes. It will change the industry - mark my words. Difference to other Video-on-demand services is that iTunes is 'the standard'. It's safe to buy there and you don't have to worry about having to deal with some strange proprietary DRM software.
  • Music $ Video $ (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jhouserizer (616566) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:51PM (#13917904) Homepage

    Why am I willing to pay more for music than I would for video?

    Because most of us can only stand to watch the best of videos three times at the most, but can listen to the best of songs hundreds of times.
  • by deaddrunk (443038) on Monday October 31, 2005 @03:53PM (#13917920)
    At the moment I pay £5.99 for the privilege of watching 3 dvds a month, or £2.50 per dvd hire from the local shop. I'd be delighted to pay £1.99 for stuff that I want to see whenever I want, my only option at the moment is to break the law for bittorrents which never seem to work anyway. I don't even agree with piracy, but sometimes I just wanted to watch stuff without waiting for the TV stations here to deign to show them again. If I can pay £1.99 a time for stuff that I want to watch ad-free at my convenience I'll be biting Steve Job's hand off. I doubt I'm alone in this.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:26PM (#13918220)
    for not capitilizating their assets. Open (the latest version of) Winamp [winamp.com]. Open Open Media Library, click on "Winamp Video". You see 10000+ VCR quality music videos (1750 artists, top names). The same thing that APPLE is sucessfully selling at $2 a pop, AOL/TW has been giving away on Winamp for 5 years, except that Apple has a fraction of the # of videos.

    If AOL/TW bothered to figure out how to make money, they would (at least) team with Apple to SELL this content (currently, they're only making a token effort to make money by showing an ad before playing videos..which is annoying and ineffective). If they were very wise, they'd turn around an Itunes like client and partner with Microsoft, Sony and other Apple competitors and CRUSH them.

    I can't stand stupidity.
    [rant done]
  • by SeanDuggan (732224) on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:30PM (#13918266) Homepage Journal
    Personally, I will listen to a piece of music more times than I would re-watch a video clip. For one, music can be done as a background activity; videos require you to focus on them. Secondly, a video tends to be the same everytime you see it whereas music will evoke new images each time you hear it (even more with psychedelic drugs...).

    So overall, I would say that it is for what music lacks that makes me see it as more valuable.

  • tech demo (Score:3, Interesting)

    by honold (152273) on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:39PM (#13918326)
    i think it's pretty obvious that most people who bought a video ipod are going to buy 1 video just to check it out. i know a guy that has bought every generation of ipod as soon as they were released (normal, mini, nano, video). he's never bought a song on itunes, but he did buy some pixar video just to see how the process worked.

    if you threw out one video purchase for every one video ipod customer, i think the numbers might be a lot different. weren't a million nanos sold in a few weeks?
  • by SuperKendall (25149) * on Monday October 31, 2005 @05:22PM (#13918729)
    So many questions about why people would want to play video on a tiny screen. Why would they? I have no idea because I bought the video to play on either my computer monitor or TV! People who think the rapid sales in video are bolstered entirely by the new iPod are out to lunch and not putting on the long-term thinking caps.

    Vidoe capabile iPods are a non-story and a gimmick. The foot in the door to FINALLY buy TV on a per-episode basis is the topic at hand, and a far more interesting discussion.
  • by dantheman82 (765429) on Monday October 31, 2005 @08:39PM (#13920159) Homepage
    I've read that a number of people wanted to know the top sellers on iTunes. Well, here are the top 15:
    1. Music Video - Michael Jackson - Thriller
    2. TV Show - ...And Found - Lost
    3. Movie - For the Birds - Pixar
    4. Music Video - Fatboy Slim - Weapon of Choice
    5. TV Show - Man of Science, Man of Faith (Premiere) - Lost
    6. TV Show - They Asked Me Why I Believe in You - Desparate Housewives
    7. Music Video - Kanye West - Gold Digger
    8. Movie - Boundin' - Pixar
    9. Movie - Geri's Game - Pixar
    10. TV Show - Orientation - Lost
    11. TV Show - Everybody Hates Hugo - Lost
    12. TV Show - Adrift - Lost
    13. Music Video - Clint Eastwood - Gorillaz
    14. TV Show - Malum - Night Stalker
    15. Music Video - La Tortura - Shakira & Alejandro Sanz
    For those really interested, you can see the Top 100 Videos (requires iTunes) [apple.com].

"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." -- Howard Aiken

Working...