Slashdot Mirror
Video iPod Apple's First Bad Move?
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. "
QuickTime Pro will export MP4 QVGA video with the new "Export for iPod" function. On a Mac, it comes up with an iTunes icon and a double click puts it in iTunes and read for the iPod (my new iPod hasn't come in yet, but I imagine there will be no problems). I've already converted a few shows I exported from my eyeTV.
I wanted a 60 GB iPod anyway, and would have bought one without video - the video is just an extra, like the games in the original iPod, or contacts in the 2G/3G/4G, or photos in the 4G+.
Mark Cuban seems to think that's the important part of the video iPod. As do others.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
The video iPod is getting all of the attention, but that's not the whole story.
Apple is moving into the living room. That means video, and Apple is getting started with a three-pronged strategy:
* Front Row
* iTunes Video Store
* iPod with video
It would not make sense for Apple to make the move into video and leave the video iPod out of it.
Free, legal music for iTunes users.
When the 1st ipod came out in 2001 there was no itunes music store, no cottage industry of ipod accessories, no support for PCs and no cult of ipod. The only way to get music on your ipod was to rip cds yourself or download mp3s and get access to a Mac.
Now it's 2005 and the ipod is firmly entrenched in the American psyche and it is easy to get audio onto an ipod but difficult to get video on it unless you rip dvds or download optimized movie files yourself. The situation is hardly any different.
The difference is that in Apple's home country, ripping CDs is legal (RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia) while ripping DVDs is illegal under the DMCA (MGM v. 321 Studios).
The latest QuickTime release has an Export setting for the iPod video. If you can get a video on to your computer that QuickTime can understand (which may require the use of things like Flip4Mac), you can definitely watch it on your iPod video.
Of course, there are other tools for re-encoding to H.264 and MPEG4, as well.
This is correct, you can watch it on your tv with the video out cable that is included with the ipod video.
I write code.
e.g. the archos jukebox, first released on August 29, 2002. Steve Jobs originally claimed that they wouldn't make PVP's, because there wasn't enough demand for them. (http://portables.about.com/cs/portablevideo/a/app lepvp.htm)
I should point out that Archos has been selling devices that do just that, for quite some time now. I'm sure there are other companies that do this, as well.
Yup, I can name another one. Neuros has had multimedia player with PVR abilities for a while as well now. Better yet they have exceptionally good OSS support, including open source firmware on many of their devices, and an open development process.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Why can't someone, who owns a DVD of a movie, use Quicktime or something, and rip and encode a version for their iPod? Seems like a FAIR USE to me.
It was, until October 1998 when the 105th Congress of the United States enacted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that made it a crime 1. to break the CSS encryption on DVD Video titles except in the way prescribed by the copyright owner, or 2. to sell devices capable of doing so. Don't blame me; it was the world I was born into, and I was too young in November 1996 to have voted for the 105th Congress.
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, but nonetheless, iRiver has been way ahead of Apple when it comes to all around media jukeboxes. They also have a bulkier version that holds 40 GB and 60 GB that can natively (that is, using the firmware that comes with it rather than the European or Japanese/Korean versions) play movies as well, and at the cost of or less than that of the Photo iPod. Personally, I never really found it to be useful to be able to watch TV shows, movies, and/or porn on a small screen (even using the ginormous PSP and its 2-3 hour battery) no matter how portable.
With the advent of all this newer and better HD technology (at least the ones that aren't crippled with DRM), I really fail to see the reason to want to downgrade to a lowres, limited battery, low power sound version of something that could be played on a 60" HD display with 6.1 surround sound ~600 watt speakers, all fibrely connected. Couple that with networking, MythTV to record broadcasted crap, and massive amounts of disk space, and I think you'd laugh your ass off at the thought of using something so primitive as a Video iPod or multimedia jukebox like the iRiver.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
You're not paying attention. The nano replaced the mini. The Photo got merged to the main iPod line. There is no separate iPod video -- instead, there's a new main iPod that happens to do video.
Apple's current lineup is three models:
iPod shuffle
iPod nano
iPod
The law specifically states that fair use is a defense
to copyright infringement. Fair use as interpreted by federal appeals courts in Universal v. Reimerdes and MGM v. 321 Studios is not a defense to circumvention, which is separate from copyright infringement, nor is it a defense to selling circumvention devices, which is also separate from copyright infringement.
What do you get with all the other devices that you don't get from the Video iPod?
Apple's First Bad Move was letting Microsoft win on the desktop.
iTunes videos don't replace a Netflix subscription, because there's hardly any content (and zero full-length movies) as of yet.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Well "first bad move" implies that Apple has not ever made any bad moves. But there are numerous bad movies Apple has made, Apple almost completely collapsed in the mid-90s. Thier licensing of 3rd party manufactures, thier game console, the refusal to switch to a protected mode operating system despite having a processor with a powerful MMU. Apple's previous attempts at making a "server".
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
If my Treo 650 were made by Apple, it would a) crash less and b) not have idiotic memory management.
I think the Treo is the best smartphone out there, but there are some serious issues I have with the thing. I would welcome Apple's competition in this market, particularly since Palm has now surrendered to Microsoft.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Surprised this has not been talked about more.
$300 for a viPod
$200 for a 9" screen it docks with in the car
$ 6 to put a few new kiddies shows on it just as you are heading out the door
Hours of bliss while driving to the parents for the holidays: Priceless
Most of the time you are going to use it just like a non video ipod, but having the feature added on does not suck.
I have seen the complaints and it always seems that you only hear about those that do complain.
I have no complaints other than battery life when watching movies. I only get about 4.5 hours of movie time. I do, however, get about 15 hours of MP3 playback.
I haven't had any problems with reliability and use it all the time.
I have recorded numerous DVDs, TV shows from Tivo, and used downloaded movies (re-encoded with Dr. Divx) on it and haven't seen any "artifacts". Sync issues DO occur if you don't reencode the video though.
I just get around it by recording straight to the device or re-encoding w/Dr. Divx (although I don't do much re-encoding these days as I don't download videos anymore).
Who would pay $0.99 to download a song from iTunes if the iPod could also hook up to your radio and record that same song for free?
But wait, people do pay $0.99 to download a song from iTunes. It seems the convenience of downloading the song outweighs the inconvenience of recording it yourself.
Even more myopic, the author neglects that in the "same episode free" scenario, Apple only makes money on the initial sale of the iPod. In the "pay $1.99" scenario, Apple keeps making money after the initial sale of the iPod. Why would Apple encourage the former at the expense of the latter?
The reality is that Apple isn't the first company to produce a handheld video device. Treo can play videos. PSP can play videos. iRiver can play videos. Getting the content onto those devices isn't a walk in the park. Apple is betting that people will pay for the convenience of iTunes for video. Given their past success with iTunes and MP3s (which are relatively easy to rip) I say their chances are good.
the video iPod supports MPEG4 and H.264. Both at 30 fps. H.264 is at 320x240 resolution, and the MPEG4 is up to 480x480 resolution (although obviously not on the ipod's screen). Don't know how it handles various resolutions of MPEG4, but I do know that the low resolution kills it for me. (And by kills it, I mean reduces it from "Really Want" to "Mildy Interesting" ((since it's still a sexy, thin, new ipod)) ).
This is where I get my recommended daily allowance of "Foot in Mouth."
but as long as Flyover Country keeps voting Republican
Republican vs. Democrat has little or nothing to do with it. Case in point: President Clinton could have vetoed the Bono Act and the DMCA, forcing the bills' supporters in both houses of Congress to reveal their identities, but instead he chose to let the voice votes stand.