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?"
"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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.