Slashdot Mirror


Apple Sells 1 Million Videos in Under 20 Days

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?"

16 of 478 comments (clear)

  1. Great! by SerpentMage · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --

    "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
    "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    1. Re:Great! by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  2. Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

  3. Doesn't Seem Like Alot by OctoberSky · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  4. Well, duh... by Pope · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --
    It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  5. You're surprised? by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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...

    --

    Obliteracy: Words with explosions

  6. Re:Oh the insanity! by op12 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Please educate me, iTunes video buyers by jmelloy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:videos have sound! by nick_davison · · Score: 4, Insightful

    $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.

  9. Re:videos have sound! by silverkniveshotmail. · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  10. Re:videos have sound! by ankarbass · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

    --
    Wanted: Clever sig, top $ paid, all offers considered.
  11. Hmm... by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    Please.

    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.

  12. Re:Oh the insanity! by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:Comparing song sales vs. video sales by brundlefly · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

  14. Re:pay more for music by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
  15. People, pay attention! Story not about iPod by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley