Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Handhelds Businesses Media Movies Apple Hardware

Apple Sells 1 Million Videos in Under 20 Days 478

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This discussion has been archived.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 @04:23PM (#13917637) Journal
    Well considering you don't have to acually watch the video. Why buy the song and video seperately?
  • More? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SavoWood ( 650474 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:23PM (#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.
  • Great! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SerpentMage ( 13390 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:23PM (#13917642)
    Now I wish that they would start selling the videos in stores OTHER THAN the US....
  • Because... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:24PM (#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.
  • by rouge86 ( 608370 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:25PM (#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 P3NIS_CLEAVER ( 860022 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:26PM (#13917672) Journal
    once the gadget whores have filled their video ipods up, they will move onto something else
  • by OctoberSky ( 888619 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:27PM (#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?
  • Well, duh... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pope ( 17780 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:27PM (#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.

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

    by American AC in Paris ( 230456 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:27PM (#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...

  • by op12 ( 830015 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:28PM (#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 jmelloy ( 460671 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:29PM (#13917705) Homepage
    Because most tv shows are 90% dialog.

    Because you can use it on a train or airplane.

    Because when you connect it to a TV it's fine.

    Because you can pull something out of your pocket and show it to your friends.
  • sure why not (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FadedTimes ( 581715 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:30PM (#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.
  • Heres Why (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Gotung ( 571984 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:31PM (#13917732)
    "Why am I willing to pay more for music than I would for video?"

    Because video is typically only viewed a few times. Music has much more longevity. You get much more in the long run out of a $1 song then you do a $1 video.
  • by nick_davison ( 217681 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:34PM (#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 CrazyTalk ( 662055 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:35PM (#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.
  • by silverkniveshotmail. ( 713965 ) * on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:36PM (#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
  • Re:Great! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:39PM (#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.

  • by ankarbass ( 882629 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:46PM (#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.
  • by peragrin ( 659227 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:47PM (#13917856)
    Apparently you didn't read the earlier article about the SBC exec. You should go read it. He is pissed about VOIP and other such things because it hurts his sense of money.

    Or something to that effect.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:47PM (#13917864)
    Selling a million of almost ANYTHING in twenty days is pretty damn good.
  • by Dexter77 ( 442723 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:49PM (#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.
  • Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) * on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:51PM (#13917896)
    I'm depressed about this.. I wanted this to flop so that Apple and the studios would be forced to give us more content, higher res, and less DRM... And I'm an Apple shareholder!

    Because, up until now, the studios had given us so much full-quality digital non-DRM encumbered content?


    When they were already providing essentially *no* content, how would the first major commercial offering of such a service flopping "force" them to provide *more* content?

    Further, you think that they'll provide content with "less" DRM? (Are you implying you'll accept DRM, if there's "less" of it? Or do you really mean no DRM? Because if that's what you mean, you'll NEVER get it.)

    As to higher res, there's a problem here other than the content providers or Apple. And it's just a little one called "bandwidth". Before you go off telling me that you want to download your 1080i movies, even H.264 compressed, please explain how, even on the highest bandwidth home broadband connections generally available in the US, a 6 hour download jibes with Apple's strategy.

    Never underestimate of the power of stupid anonymous coward posts on Slashdot.
  • Music $ Video $ (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jhouserizer ( 616566 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:51PM (#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 Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:53PM (#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.
  • by deaddrunk ( 443038 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:53PM (#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 rewt66 ( 738525 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:55PM (#13917939)
    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 Mike1024 ( 184871 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:56PM (#13917956)
    What's really interesting about this article is this quote:

    "Selling 1 million videos in less than 20 days strongly suggests there is a market for legal video downloads," Steve Jobs, chief executive officer, said in a statement. "Our next challenge is to broaden our content offerings, so that customers can enjoy watching more videos on their computers and new iPods."

    Interpret that how you will, but I take it to mean apple wants to offer a larger number of TV shows for download to your Mac or PC.

  • by brundlefly ( 189430 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @04:59PM (#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.

  • Re:Because... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Elwood P Dowd ( 16933 ) <> on Monday October 31, 2005 @05:06PM (#13918039) Journal
    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 your audio playlists, of course they have replay value. I agree that I don't want to rewatch the last episode of "LOST" but I don't have a TV and I didn't want to watch that in the first place. I'm not sure I belong in the conversation. 'Till they have the Daily Show or the News Hour available for download, I'm not really interested.

    But music videos *do* have replay value.
  • by AlysseumWarrior ( 770815 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @05:06PM (#13918047)
    ESPN - Sports - Sports highlights podcast - ESPN Classic - Greatest Sports moments ever. ESPN - "Pregame on your iPod!" - download sports highlighs from both teams, exclusive interviews, only 5$ a week - get it now, ONLY on your iPod!! Anyone else see a whole world of ideas?
  • Re:Good deal? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @05:16PM (#13918139) Homepage Journal
    Except that Lost DVDs aren't available until after the season ends. An episode is available on iTunes the day after it's broadcast. There's a certain kind of TV show that generates a lot of buzz, and people want to watch them at about the same time as their friends. Waiting six months or longer (some TV shows don't make it to DVD for years) is not an acceptable option.
  • Re:More? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ninjakoala ( 890584 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @05:28PM (#13918247)
    I can't respond on behalf of the GP, but for me it's about instant gratification. If I can buy a single episode and get it straight away, that's what I'll do - if it's a currently running series and I'm too busy to wait for a dvd box set.

    I just had to wait a month from finding out about the BBC sitcom Extras to being able to watch it - and that wait was extremely annoying, because I'd already watched the clips on the microsite and it looked really good. In the end I obviously had to wait for the dvd.

    Now, had it been available on iTunes I would have bought it straight away after seeing those clips, because I wanted to see it and I wanted it *now*. I could also see myself buying stuff on fridays or saturdays, when the next parcel delivery is soooo far away (monday).
  • Re:Great! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Hafren ( 884907 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @05:29PM (#13918255) Homepage
    Same in the UK itunes store.
  • by That's Unpossible! ( 722232 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @05:29PM (#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.
  • Re:More? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Onan ( 25162 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @05:30PM (#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*".

  • by SeanDuggan ( 732224 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @05:30PM (#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.

  • Re:Well, duh... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by sagenumen ( 62467 ) <mtrillo@gmail. c o m> on Monday October 31, 2005 @05:32PM (#13918282)
    That's not the point. We're talking about *value*, not cost. If Josh Schmoe figures that he'll be using the car a lot and the comfortable, more expensive luxury sedan would be nice to have, then he buys it. No one said that the cost relates to the amount of use; they said that the VALUE relates to the amount of use.
  • Re:Well, duh... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 31, 2005 @05:36PM (#13918307)
    I see the misunderstanding here. Things aren't priced based on how much they cost to make, they're priced based on how much people are willing to spend on them. If I'm going to listen to a good CD 100 times more than I would watch a movie the CD is worth more to me regardless of how much they cost to make.
  • by Phil Urich ( 841393 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @05:59PM (#13918525) Journal
    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 I simply downloaded all of Buffy . . . and proper dvd-rips result in far better quality than the ones that iTMS offers, and then I have all the extras and commentary tracks . . . but you're right, DVDs are inconvenient. Which is why I still have DVD rips of the shows I actually own on DVD (whether I downloaded them before, or made them myself afterwards).

    I'll add some things to the list of inconveniences of DVDs: load times and random pauses/silences when I'd rather things just be playing already (once you go through the motions of popping in the DVD, you have to wait while the menu loads, then go to the episode in question, then click "play" or etc depending exactly on the DVD), and stuff like having to start an episode/movie over again most of the time if you want to switch to the commentary track.

    But there you have it: some sort of completely on-computer (should I just say PC? Apple'll be Intel soon anyways, will we get to simplify things then?) version works better for accessing than the rather clumsy setup of DVDs, but with the iTMS versions you don't get all the extras and you don't get the quality. Personally, since it's usually all the extras on the DVDs that push me over the edge into buying them (I've usually seen the TV show or movie before already), I would never bother buying the costs-as-much-or-more-but-is-stripped-down iTMS versions, but at the same time I would probably buy many more DVDs if it was less of a pain to rip them to my computer for easy access (it's a price one has to pay to be able to do something like, say, queue up a slew of episodes at once, but still, it's annoying that companies are so gung-ho on restricting what legitimate customers can do with their purchases... yeah, I understand the fear of piracy, but it doesn't hamper pirates much at all, there's always someone out there willing to take the time and effort to copy them (and no protections have worked forever yet, nor ever really will) and then they just spread everywhere from there to anyone feeling like downloading them, the customer is inconvenienced far out of proportion with any actual piracy-prevention).

    Don't get me wrong, there are certainly some big advantages (as you note, good parent, you can get the shows the day after it airs, and can download them quickly without ever leaving home), but in the name of convenience it does leave some things behind, some of the things that are big selling points for DVDs (extras, quality, etc).

    I won't bother going into any "actually having packaging" arguments, since that's all personal preference (and I don't always buy into it anyways), but it IS nice having copies that aren't on your computer already, I should point out . . . even with 600GBs, I certainly don't have unlimited space here on my computer, and it's nice to be able to just store away high-quality copies somewhere else if you're not going to be watching it for awhile or something.

    So I guess my arguments can be summed up with the following: iTMS vids miss out on some things, DVDs are inconvenient, it would be better if there was legal ways to download something more akin to scene retail rips and/or copy legitimately owned DVDs without the disks acting as if you're a criminal every step of the way. But towards getting to this (probably somewhat naive, definitely idealistic) state of media, yeah, I'll give you that iTMS videos are a good step in the right direction. They're just not for me, at least not yet.
  • Re:Well, duh... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NereusRen ( 811533 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @05:59PM (#13918527)
    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 is based more on consumer demand than cost of production.

    So now back to your question, which I will rephrase as: "Since when does the [price] of an item relate to how [useful the purchaser think it is]?" The answer is: Since monopoly forces came into effect. The only way to avoid this in the sale of media of DVDs and CDs is to repeal copyright protection, at which point the price would be somewhere slightly above the cost of media and reproduction.
  • Re:Hot Damn (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jcr ( 53032 ) < .ta. .rcj.> on Monday October 31, 2005 @06:07PM (#13918600) Journal
    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?

  • Re:Well, duh... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by phritz ( 623753 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @06:09PM (#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?

  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) * on Monday October 31, 2005 @06:13PM (#13918650)
    You make the same mistake everyone does in tying the sucess of video on ITMS to the video capabile iPod. They really have little relation as anyone can buy and enjoy a video from a store without having a video-enabled iPod.

    So ignore the history of portable video devices, and instead start thinking of what is really improtant here - not the iPod with video at all, that's just a footnote to backdooring real on-demand TV by a major player. If enough shows are offered, and you only watch a few shows here and there... why even have a cable subscription at all? That's what is going on here.

    Even Apple doesn't make a big deal about video support on the iPods, noting that they added it to see what happens. Personally I could care not a whit for video support in a portable device but I am interested in online video and have bought a few things there already.
  • Re:Hot Damn (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 31, 2005 @06:18PM (#13918699)
    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.
  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) * on Monday October 31, 2005 @06:22PM (#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.
  • Re:ringtones (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 31, 2005 @06:56PM (#13918995)
    I live in the UK and it's impossible to watch any music channel (if there's any point watching anyway) without seeing adverts for the latest offering from the Crazy Frog. It's the single most annoying ringtone in the whole entire world and IMO, Mr Thermo-nuke would be more suited than Mr Sledgehammer.

    Ding ding ding ding bah bah bah... need I say more?
  • Re:More? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by EastCoastSurfer ( 310758 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @07:35PM (#13919329)
    I never watched Lost till someone gave me season 1 on DVD as a gift. On DVD where you can watch a couple shows at a time and skip commercials it's a pretty good show. The widescreen and sound also makes a difference.

    I tried watching the show as aired on TV. It's frustrating and boring. Each moment when it seems like it could be interesting either a commercial comes on or the show ends. Additionally after talking to a few friends who do watch the show religously, I think it's going to end up like the Matrix. Great first show/season and then sucker everyone along for the $$$
  • "Personally, I've bought one TV episode from iTunes music store -- I bought the premiere of The Night Stalker both to see if the show was any good, and to see what the video quality was like. To me, the initial TV offerings aren't enough to make me want to spend a lot of money on it so far; but if Apple were to get SciFi on board, and offer episodes of Battlestar Galactica? Hmm..."

    Or the BBC and offer the new *Doctor Who* exclusively through iTunes here in the States...

  • Re:Well, duh... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Colin Cordner ( 920954 ) on Monday October 31, 2005 @09:14PM (#13920021)
    It's greedy, sure, but isn't that the entire point of capitalism?

    Just my understanding mind you, but I think that the point of capitalism is to offer the greatest and most efficient distribution & exchange of resources to individuals at the lowest possible cost. If that were to be taken as a given, we might observe that the music industry is very, very broken, and anti-capitalist.

    It does seem to be stuck on distributing its resource in a comparatively inefficient manner (shipping CDs), through limited channels (contracted retail stores), at a higher cost of production, and a higher price for the buyer...

  • by klui ( 457783 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @03:12AM (#13921671)
    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:Well, duh... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 10Ghz ( 453478 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @03:54AM (#13921775)
    Monty Python is about as funny as Penny Arcade. In other words, it isn't funny.

    An infidel! Kill the heretic!
  • Re:Europe (Score:2, Insightful)

    by drsquare ( 530038 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @01:17PM (#13924450)
    Top ten? It was at number one for several weeks!

    We may as well just cancel civilisation, it's clearly a failed experiment.

You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.