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?"

Comments

videos have sound!

[TimeSpeak]

Well considering you don't have to acually watch the video. Why buy the song and video seperately?

Re:videos have sound!

[osssmkatz]

To clarify, music videos include a seperate AAC file with just the song, as well as the video. Perhaps Apple's "Watch your music" campaign motivated some people? --Sam

Re:videos have sound!

[nick_davison]

$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.

Re:videos have sound!

[silverkniveshotmail.]

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:videos have sound!

[ankarbass]

"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.

Re:videos have sound!

[branto]

30 mb isn't much of a CD collection.

Re:videos have sound!

[Anonymous Coward]

30 mb isn't much of a CD collection.

It is when you compress at 8bps!!! I swear, you can barely hear the compression artifacts, and it sounds awesome through those killer speakers I got from (now, don't tell anyone my secret) those guys in that white van. Luckily for me, their boss .....

Great!

[SerpentMage]

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

Re:Great!

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

Re:Great!

[Ravadill]

The Australian iTunes "Videos" section is a joke, it is a few music film clips and some old Pixar shorts, no TV Eps at all, and a severely cut back amount of other videos.

Re:Great!

[teh*fink]

that's because it's not finnished yet.

Re:Great!

[murr]

I live in North Pole, Alaska. I STILL can't buy videos

Have you tried threatening to put Steve Jobs on your "naughty" list, Mr. Claus?

Because...

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Hot Damn

[broody]

Imagine if they had some content besides a few television shows and videos...

Re:Hot Damn

[mysqlrocks]

Imagine if they had some content besides a few television shows and videos...

That's exactly what they're trying to prove to the movie industry. Apple is demonstrating that it's possible to do the same thing it did with Music to Movies. And the movie industry will have the added benefit of being apple to skip right past the bulk of pirating (if they get they're heads out of the sand).

Re:Hot Damn

[SlightlyOldGuy]

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. This great outlet is now (or should soon be) available to independant video producers. Watch out for the next Nick Park on iTMS.

Re:Hot Damn

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Oh the insanity!

[LilGuy]

I would DEFINATELY download TV episodes and movies for $1.99 ANYDAY over music tracks for $.99

Even when iTunes first came out I thought that was a bit pricey and that the price would eventually drop. Doesn't appear to be the case. But $1.99 for tv shows seems to be a good deal as long as they cut the commercials out, or at least most of them.

This could usher in a whole new era for TV, and I wouldn't miss cable or satellite one bit.

Re:Oh the insanity!

[op12]

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.

Re:Oh the insanity!

[Jeff DeMaagd]

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.

Re:Oh the insanity!

[Scotch Game]

I would DEFINATELY download TV episodes and movies for $1.99 ANYDAY

Judging by your spelling of the words 'definitely' and 'any day', I think you could stand to be watching less TV. Dude, read a book.

Re:Oh the insanity!

[doublem]

25 cents per episode of "Enterprise"?

That's a bit steep, isn't it?

Christopher Walken Effect

[tbone1]

And the #1 music video for practically every day was Fatboy Slim's "Weapon of Choice", featuring Chirstopher Walken. "I'm a hoofah at heart!"

Something tells me that Kevin Pollak is owed a royalty somewhere.

Re:Christopher Walken Effect

[Elwood P Dowd]

Dunno why Kevin Pollak is particularly responsible for Christopher Walken's dancing celebrity. Christopher Walken has been doing excellent Christopher Walken impersonations for most of his career.

Re:Christopher Walken Effect

[Frogbeater]

I noticed that too. Particularly because I worked on that video.
I was the dolly grip, which means every shot in that video in which the camera was moving (except the one where he gets on the escalator) is me moving the camera (dare I say, dancing with Mr. Walken?)

No royalties for me.

But the iTunes store has validated that video as one of the greatest of all time.

Here are some behind the scenes shots if anyone is interested.
That would be me, standing behind the camera.

Re:Christopher Walken Effect

[karnal]

I was the dolly grip, .... No royalties for me.

So, if we pirate the video, you're not going to automatically go hungry and not be able to support your family?

You've already been paid?

*note - this post was directed at the movie previews that ask for people not to "steal" movies. Which are played (or were? haven't seen one in a while) in theaters before the feature presentation.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Front Row integration?

[mccalli]

A question for anyone with a new iMac G5 who has also bought a video from the music store. Do these videos integrate with Front Row at all?

It's my (utterly unsubstantiated) belief that Front Row will appear in iLife 06, and that then a Mac Mini playing these videos on a TV will start to make quite a lot of sense.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Front Row integration?

[Fahrvergnuugen]

Yes they do.

Check this out.

Here's the demo page on apple's site: http://www.apple.com/imac/frontrow.html

Re:Front Row integration?

[1nhuman]

I've been running (somehow) Front Row on my pre iSight iMac G5 and Powerbook and it plays everything that Quicktime plays. Which in my case means DIVX, XVID, MPEG's etc. Even JPEG's and GIF's are displayed.

I don't think it will last

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

once the gadget whores have filled their video ipods up, they will move onto something else

Re:I don't think it will last

[meatflower]

Oh yeah...just like those MP3 player things. What a fad! Once those "gadget whores" filled em up they just tossed em aside...good thing they're not around anymore!

Could we possibly ask any more questions?

[matt me]

Will it be possible for comments to continue this decaying monologue of uncertainty and doubt? Will I be surprised? Should all comments not related to the article but the amusing questioning dialogue be posted herein?

vintage videos

[rkhalloran]

somebody posted this last week about making old 50s shows available for cheap. Sounds promising to me as a way of preserving the early days of TV. Heck, I'd pay a buck for old Zachary creature features.

Re:vintage videos

[AKAImBatman]

somebody posted this last week about making old 50s shows available for cheap.

It will happen eventually. I don't know if you've seen them yet, but many stores are now carrying the $1.00 DVDs of many old shows. Everything from episodes of Laurel and Hardy to Rocky Jones Space Ranger (you've got to see this show, even just for the comedic effect) are now appearing on the shelves.

However, I have a feeling that it will be a while before they show up on iTunes. Jobs doesn't want to make the same mistake as MovieLink and find himself in the position of *only* selling old shows. Once iTunes is established a way of distributing new content, only then will Jobs allow for virtual reruns.

Doesn't Seem Like Alot

[OctoberSky]

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...

[Pope]

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.

Re:Well, duh...

[pla]

Unless you're some obsessive weirdo, I doubt you'll watch the same movie a couple of times a week

So, not a Monty Python fan, eh?


Now go and bring me... A... HERRING!

Re:Well, duh...

[Lumpy]

And you somehow easily forget the fact that producing a singlevideo is easily 20-30 times more expensive and labor intensive than making an entire album of music.

you make the point that the RIAA is trying to make everyone think, but a feature length movie makes all the music ever made by metallica seem like chump change in comparison.

you can record and master an entire album with less than 10 people INCLUDING THE BAND. you cant make a movie with less than 30 people. (Grips, techs and film/sound is more than 2/3rds that number already and there are no actors, makeup, extras, special efx,security,etc...)

and sorry, but a DVD has at least another 50-90% in man hours of content added to it on top of the movie.

Other than pure unadulterated obscene greed, there is no reason that a CD costs more than a DVD.

Re:Well, duh...

[pubjames]

Because music has far more inherent replay value than video.

So? Since when does the cost of an item relate to how many times the purchaser uses it?

Car salesman: This car is $20,000.
Man: But I'm not planning on using it very often.
Car salesman: Ok, in that case it's $15,000.

Re:Well, duh...

[NereusRen]

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:Well, duh...

[phritz]

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?

Re:Well, duh...

[Baikala]

Well, yes, some people simply don't get multilayered humor. But don't worry, you'll always have Adam Sandler.

You're surprised?

[American AC in Paris]

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...

Re:You're surprised?

[fiddlesticks]

>it has become a $300 million-a-year business

Go higher, and try between $1 and $3.3 Billion - worldwide.

pay more for music

[frovingslosh]

Why am I willing to pay more for music than I would for video?

I guess pretty much for the same reason that you are willing to pay more for a movie sound track CD than for the DVD of the movie itself. The RIAA has kept the prices artifically high and you go along with it.

Re:pay more for music

[That's Unpossible!]

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.

Please take my money.

[QuantumPion]

Well now that a company is offering a completely legal and conveniant service, I am perfectly willing to pay for it. When there is nothing on TV, I would love nothing more then to be able to quickly download an episode for a past show that I havn't seen before without having to go through the various bit torrent sites.

Re:Please educate me, iTunes video buyers

[jmelloy]

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.

Because

[Digital Vomit]

Why am I willing to pay more for music than I would for video?"

Because you're an idiot. Next question?

Comparing song sales vs. video sales

[rsborg]

1. iTMS store opening sold 1 million songs in a week, not 20 days.
2. However, video selection is MUCH more limtied than song selection when iTMS opened.
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.

So what does this mean? Who knows, but it seems as if the videos are really damn popular. I'd kill, however, to see which ones were more popular than others...

I think what'd be the real killer app for mobile video would be shorts like comedy, commercials, trailers, etc.

Apple are you listening? Use what you have already, most movies push trailers, and most commercial creators would DIE to get their bits on the iPod, and there're some totally awesome commercials that are pieces of art in their own right! Imagine a vid-cast of bits from The Daily Show, or a 5 minute part of a standup routine, too.. great for showing people at lunch/etc.

Re:Comparing song sales vs. video sales

[brundlefly]

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.

This is what I've been waiting for

[JudgeFurious]

Once the content gets in there I'll be buying video from iTunes. That is assuming of course that the prices stay close to what I'm seeing right now. This fits in good with my desire to buy seasons worth of some shows on DVD but only a handful of episodes where other shows are concerned.

  I look at South Park, Dead Like Me, and my Battlestar Galactica fix and I say "Buy the season on DVD". My wife wants Buffy the Vampire Slayer seasons 1-6 and DVD is the way to go.

  I look at Star Trek Deep Space 9 and I say "Got to get me some DVD's.....HOLY SHIT CAN YOU BELIEVE WHAT PARAMOUNT WANTS FOR THAT? MIGHTY PROUD OF THE STAR TREK AREN'T WE GUYS?"

  Then I think about it and there probably weren't 10 episodes of DS9 I really want anyway. Maybe 10 if I push it. 20 bucks for those 10 episodes and screw the rest of it because it wasn't all that good anyway? I'm in.

  Of course IF Paramount ever lets them sell episodes of Star Trek (and flavor) on iTunes they'll probably demand that they sell for $9.99 each or some insane amount of money that will screw the whole deal up anyway.

Re: This is what I've been waiting for

[doormat]

I look at Star Trek Deep Space 9 and I say "Got to get me some DVD's.....HOLY SHIT CAN YOU BELIEVE WHAT PARAMOUNT WANTS FOR THAT? MIGHTY PROUD OF THE STAR TREK AREN'T WE GUYS?"

I thought about this the other day.

7 Seasons of TNG at $100/season = $700
7 Seasons of DS9 at $100/season = $700
7 Seasons of VOY at $100/season = $700
4 Seasons of ENT at $100/season = $400

$2500 and that doesnt even include TOS or your local sales tax!! Paramount bite my shiny metal ass if they want me to pay $2500+tax for star trek (for about 500 episodes). If the price went below $1,000, I'd be much more inclined to consider it. And think of who your audience is? A bunch of geeks and nerds, you dont think they know how to get a copy of DVD decryptor, a netflix subscription and a 500GB HD? Hell, I saw Sex in the City for $165 for the entire 5 season series (20 discs) in the Best Buy ad this weekend.

$2500 vs $800 in hard drives (2x500 - one for backup) + $200 for a netflix sub to get all the DVDs + free time

Re:More?

[piecewise]

I must tell you, I think iTunes is a great example of how it could change TV. I NEVER watched Lost (yes, I have cable -- digital cable with all the bells and whistles since it came with my apartment). But sure enough, I went on iTunes and for $1.99 I bought the premier... I was quickly sucked in, and my black 30gb iPod now has season one and all of what's available for season two. I'm hooked!

And frankly, I'm spending about the same as I would have for DVDs in the store. Season one of iTunes is $34.99 -- I saw it in Target for the same. And yes, per download I'm paying more for season two, but I'm also getting it instantly. Spread out over time, it's roughly the same.

I would have never gotten so into Lost without the iPod, so ABC is definitely right to say they're excited that this is a new way to reach a broader audience.

I'm just amazed how great that iPod video looks on a television. Granted, TVs are crap resolution, but even on my 32" Sony it looks great.

So if the iPod created a halo effect for the Mac, this iPod video will surely change the way we watch TV. It's already changed how I do.

Shiny new toy...

[thesandbender]

I'd say a full half of the gadgets I buy are shiny, new and fun... for the first month. Then they're relegated to "eBay" pile. I'll be more interested in seeing how their sales fare in six months when having the latest teenage singer shaking her bottom in your hand is no longer enough to make you the "cool guy/gal" in school. I tried video on my iPAQ and trust me, there are better, more entertaining ways to go blind. Speaking which, time to go shave my palms.

What it actually will make happen

[Dexter77]

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...

[daveschroeder]

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.

Europe

[Hrothgar The Great]

I was on vacation in Europe this summer, and the people we were staying with had MTV on the television, and I am serious - maybe 80-90% of the ads were from a couple of different companies hawking mind bogglingly irritating ringtones. It was completely unbelievable. And it was always the SAME ONES over and over. Yikes.

Considering how much I DIDN'T want to buy any of them, the only conclusion I could come to was that I must be getting old.

Oh, and by the way, if you're in the US, like me, this is going to be how our TV is pretty soon too, since we're trying to play catch-up with just about every other country in the world in cell phone technology right now. Just you wait.

ringtones

[crimethinker]

I just can't imagine what satisfaction one gets from buying a ring tone.

Same here. I thought you were supposed to be embarassed that your phone went off in a public place and disturbed everyone else. Hello? Vibrate feature? But no, every 12-yr-old hip-hopster gangsta-rapper wannabe just HAS to have his phone blast out the latest crap from M. C. Pee Pants whenever one of his "bitches" calls him.

Here's a tip: if I hear your phone sing (I use the term loosely) "pick up da phone, got some money comin' in" one more time, I'm going to introduce your phone to Mr. Sledgehammer. And then maybe your head, too. I figure I should get a medal for preventing all the crimes you were going to commit in the coming years.

-paul

I want to KILL AOL/TW

[Anonymous Coward]

for not capitilizating their assets. Open (the latest version of) Winamp. Open Open Media Library, click on "Winamp Video". You see 10000+ VCR quality music videos (1750 artists, top names). The same thing that APPLE is sucessfully selling at $2 a pop, AOL/TW has been giving away on Winamp for 5 years, except that Apple has a fraction of the # of videos.

If AOL/TW bothered to figure out how to make money, they would (at least) team with Apple to SELL this content (currently, they're only making a token effort to make money by showing an ad before playing videos..which is annoying and ineffective). If they were very wise, they'd turn around an Itunes like client and partner with Microsoft, Sony and other Apple competitors and CRUSH them.

I can't stand stupidity.
[rant done]

Re:2.5"? eew.

[solive1]

Sure, it doesn't have the storage space than an ipod does, but it costs half as much than an ipod, and the screen is *much* larger (4.3" 16:9 widescreen).

Half as much? The 30GB video iPod is $300, and the PSP is $250. How is that half?

The 60GB video iPod is $400. PSP is still $250. Again, not half.

Add a 1GB card for the PSP for approximately $100, and the PSP is more expensive than the 30 GB iPod and has 1/30 of the storage capacity. All of that for a bigger screen? Oh but you can buy the UMDs for $20 - 40. That's cost-effective.

I have a PSP, but I have it for games (which aren't much to talk about either, but I may get the GTA soon).

Re:More?

[Onan]

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*".

People, pay attention! Story not about iPod

[SuperKendall]

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:So give us a song title...

[SlightlyOldGuy]

Well, OK then...
Her name's Cathi Walkup and she sings Jazz. Check out "Hang Up And Drive"

Top 15 iTtunes Videos sold...

[dantheman82]

I've read that a number of people wanted to know the top sellers on iTunes. Well, here are the top 15:

1. Music Video - Michael Jackson - Thriller
2. TV Show - ...And Found - Lost
3. Movie - For the Birds - Pixar
4. Music Video - Fatboy Slim - Weapon of Choice
5. TV Show - Man of Science, Man of Faith (Premiere) - Lost
6. TV Show - They Asked Me Why I Believe in You - Desparate Housewives
7. Music Video - Kanye West - Gold Digger
8. Movie - Boundin' - Pixar
9. Movie - Geri's Game - Pixar
10. TV Show - Orientation - Lost
11. TV Show - Everybody Hates Hugo - Lost
12. TV Show - Adrift - Lost
13. Music Video - Clint Eastwood - Gorillaz
14. TV Show - Malum - Night Stalker
15. Music Video - La Tortura - Shakira & Alejandro Sanz

For those really interested, you can see the Top 100 Videos (requires iTunes).