New Apple Video iPod (2.0)



So this is my second attempt at this post, in case you saw my first entry which I decided to take down. I posted how I thought the idea of the Video iPod was a cool one, just for the fact that it has video, but also how bad of an idea it was for Apple to try and sell music videos for $1.99. Then when trying out the previews on the iTunes Music Store, I couldn't seem to access any of the content (assuming Apple's bandwidth was being challenged). Well, I jumped the gun because I see now that I needed to get the new version of iTunes (6.0). I then realized that you could buy past episodes of some ABC shows like Lost & Desperate Housewives (both decent shows). I then rescinded my earlier criticism, thinking that if they did get some cool (rare) videos of some of my favorites that I might buy them, or if I missed an episode of Desperate Housewives that I would easily drop $2 to catch it.

I then read the New York Times Circuits email newsletter by David Pogue which talked about the challenges of video to the iPod, He takes a great look at it.




NYTimes.com: Circuits Newsletter
Thursday, October 13, 2005

Apple's Sideways Entry Into Portable Video

So ThinkSecret.com was wrong, and the rumors were right: Apple introduced a video iPod yesterday.

That rumor site, which is usually so accurate, wasn't alone. Plenty of experts predicted that that what Apple intended to unveil at yesterday's event--an invitation-only presentation in California --would NOT be a video iPod.

To me, the two biggest video iPod surprises were the ways Apple worked around the arguments against one.

For example, for two years, Steve Jobs has maintained that nobody would want to watch movies on a two-inch screen. In an interview in January 2004, he told me that Apple was investigating video. But he noted that people just don't consume music and movies the same way. You might listen to a certain song dozens or hundreds of times in your lifetime. But how many times do you watch a movie? Most people probably wouldn't buy nearly as many movies as they do songs or CD's.

What Apple wound up doing, therefore, was very clever. It sidestepped the movie issue altogether; the new iPod comes ready to play short movies, music videos and certain ABC television shows--but not feature films. None of these items lose much when they're not on a big, wide screen. (It's not clear at this point whether or not you can load the iPod up with your own video, like a movie you've downloaded or ripped from a DVD.)

Nobody's suggesting that you might watch these little video morsels hundreds of times. The price of those ABC and Disney TV shows ("Lost," "Desperate Housewives," and so on) costs $2 per show.

This $2-per-episode pricing, by the way, blows my mind. How on earth did Apple persuade ABC/Disney to sell its shows for $2 an episode? Remember, we live in an era of rampant greed and paranoia in the TV industry. The only other legal TV-show downloading service I've encountered is the Akimbo box, which costs $10 a month AND $3 to $5 per episode AND your downloads expire in 30 days! My guess? Disney, which owns ABC, made this concession as part of a larger negotiation with Mr. Jobs in an effort to persuade him to renew Pixar's distribution deal with Disney.

In any case, $2 per TV show is a brilliant price. It's low enough to be an impulse buy -- when, for example, you missed an episode; it isn't high enough to drive you to using Bit Torrent or another illegal download source; but it's high enough to bring in some extra income to the TV companies. (Remember, the alternative would be $0. Why not make a little cash from episodes that have already been broadcast?) Here's hoping the other networks will get on board at the same price.

Anyway, there's a second reason people thought that a video iPod was unlikely: you can't watch video while you're doing something else. Sales of video-only iPods, in other words, wouldn't hold a candle to sales of music iPods.

This issue, too, became moot yesterday, because Apple simply added video to the existing iPod. It's not a new model called the iPod Video; it's just that the regular iPod (with a new, even thinner shape) is now capable of playing video. Instead of thinking of it as a more limited iPod, they'll think of it as an iPod with greater "just in case" possibilities.

I haven't tried out the new iPod, so I'm not giving it a thumbs-up or thumbs-down just yet. I must admit, though, that when I learned the details, I couldn't help shaking my head in amazement at the way Apple approached the conceptual problems of video in your pocket.

Posted: Thu - October 13, 2005 at 07:54 PM           |

©