MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Anyone out there willing to watch a 2hr movie on the move?

So far i think only Bill Gates & his children will, while they are, in the gym, travelling in the car, cycling etc etc... Are you?

MDN: "We hate TV ads as much as anybody..."

Hmmmm....MDN, that thought does not seem to carry over to the overwhelming clutter of ads on your website.

Isn´t it funny how one´s perspective changes when one is either on the receiving end of ads or the receiving end of the REVENUE from those ads.

Nobody wants to watch a 2hr movie on the move, indeed. But it's not the point. Apple emphasize short programs like TV shows, Musical video clips etc. The iPod allows only 2 or three hours of battery charge for continuous video playing, and definition is not great. But it's sufficient for short videos and, most importantly, the infrastructure will be ready and tested for the next step, Movies !

"The iPod is going to alter "TV" in ways as yet unimagined."
Yeah, and computers are going to reduce the use of paper in the office.

a few weeks ago i PVR'ed an episode of "House" as my GF and i were going to be away that evening. before watching it i spent fifteen minutes editing out twenty minutes of commercials, leaving 40 minutes of actual show. that means a full third of every hour is pure bombardment of ads for Ford Explorer, Postaroo, Menard's, several allergy and anti-depression medications, and about a zillion other things i'll never buy.

would i have dropped two bucks to download the show ad-free? you betcha.

MDN: "had," as in: "as if these ANALysts 'had' any clue as to what they're talking about"

As an added extra (at no extra cost) video is a way cool addition but viewing a movie is another thing all together.

So video on an ipod may be a real killer but on a screen that small? I just hope that somewhere down the line Steve Jobs has an ipod planned with a screen maybe twice the size.

OK, so now I've said it and I figure some extremist will now flame me. It's just the size of the screen…

dunno.....I don't have the premium channels, so I miss out on things like "Deadwood" and "Huff" and "Six Feet Under." I've heard they're good, but I dunno because I never see them. I think I might be willing to pay $2.00 to get a crack at them. And there are certainly some episodes of South Park or Aqua Teen Hunger Force I'd buy at that price.

But then, will Apple get the rights to that content? I don't think I'd pay anything for regular episodic network television q.v. a show like "Lost".....pfffft gimme a break. If the selection is good, it might work. If it's just the same old crap that's always on.....I think not.

Erratum:

Part of my post went missing:

It should have read:

Am I the only one saying this or is looking at a two hour movie on a two and a half inch screen a recipe for myopia some years down the line?

As an added extra (at no extra cost) video is a way cool addition but viewing a movie is another thing all together.

So video on an ipod may be a real killer but on a screen that small? I just hope that somewhere down the line Steve Jobs has an ipod planned with a screen maybe twice the size.

OK, so now I've said it and I figure some extremist will now flame me. It's just the size of the screen…

A couple of thoughts.

This is not a video iPod. It's an iPod that happens to play video. Check out Apple's marketing of it (I'm looking at a banner running right here on MDN). "Watch your music." Face it, for now, it's still about the music.

In a way this is a brilliant move by Apple. Now that they have a device that plays video, they can start to form the alliances. Next year, maybe as soon as MWSF or probably later in the year, they'll bring out the real iPod video with the iTunes movie store.

Who wants to watch a 2 hour movie on the go? I'd love to, when I'm traveling. It would sure beat lugging the laptop everywhere. And if the rest of the time this same compact device plays my music, all the better.

Count me in.

Not to even mention that if you download the free open source app HandBrake, you can rip your own DVDs to iPod video compatible format (.mp4).

Spending £1.89 ($3.34) on a video which isn't of sufficient quality to view on a large screen isn't compelling. This is only a half step by Apple.

Tony,

You are an idiot. Did you not read the piece? Perhaps you'd like for MDN to turn off the ads and charge $3.99 or whatever per month? This site is free for a reason and that reason is that it's ad-supported. It's not a difficult concept to grasp, unless you're stupid.

To the others re: screen size, did you miss this part of SJ's Take?

"People like Siklos who criticize the iPod+iTunes Store at this early juncture for video quality, content library, etc. and who are fixated on recording content when it's broadcast, then scrubbing past the ads during playback really haven't thought very far ahead. We could do that in the 1980's with VCRs; it's nothing new. iPod already plays content on screens other than and larger than its own. You don't even need an iPod to buy and watch TV shows from Apples iTunes Store, you just need iTunes and a computer, which also can play content on screens other than and larger than its own. As bandwidth increases and content providers become more comfortable with Apple's delivery, the quality of the video available for purchase from Apple's iTunes Store will increase. What you see from Apple right now is a just a test."

tony, I get no ads on this website. What are you using as a browser, IE?

bikersrule:

You want that the screen should be larger than the iPod?

Meanwhile, back at the ranch... er... NYT, Pogue will set Siklos straight, who for some reason, has forgotten the aphorism, One Step At A Time.

iPod is still #1 music player. People will buy the iPod because of the music. And if you can watch your photos on it and also carry some video on the go, well, that's just great. Think about it, people can carry with them video of their family wherever they go. iPod = a great all-in-one device.

Apple will succeed in video, despite the iPod's tiny screen, because it has the best music player. PSPs and the like have a great screen, but as music players they are less than wonderful. And once people buy the new iPod in the millions, content providers for the video part of the new iPod will step forward.

Oh, wait I get three ads, but just type, no pictures. I lied.

No one doubts that the video iPod is going to be a huge seller. No one doubts some people will find it very useful. No one doubts that it will make a huge amount of money for Apple and others. Will it revolutionize TV and movies? Not by itself.

VCRs, DVDs, and TIVO did not change the basic premise of television, and the iPod won't either. It will have it's market, but that's all. Is anyone going to pay $2 per episode when they can get the full season on a high quality DVD for a lot less? Are people going to spend $20 a week just to watch five hours of television shows?

This may be the beginning of change, but it won't have nearly the immediate impact that the iTMS had.

The point about skipping through commercials on recorded TV shows is or may be more important that media pundits realize. When my wife and I watch TV, she will not watch shows that aren't recorded because she can't stand the commercials. Instead, we turn on record and go do something else and come back later to watch the show.

By the way, five years ago we chose REPLAY over TIVO based on one technological advancement, a 30-second jump button on REPLAY. It is much faster for skipping commercials because almost all commercials are some number of 30-second increments. Two minutes of commercials equals 4 clicks.

The 30-second click amazingly reduces an entire professional football game to about 10 to 15 minutes. With the new play time rules, it is almost exactly 30 seconds between the time the whistle is blown to stop a play until the snap of the next one. Cool.

I make it a point to accept ads and buy from advertisers from sites that I enjoy and want to keep around. In MacDailyNews' case, I'm happy to see the ads and buy from their advertisers because I know that means the site can continue to operate for my enjoyment.

PocketDISH will never be available outside of US. iPod/iTunes already is and videos in iTMS will follow sometime soon. In Europe not many use Tivo. And we don't want another portable device, an iPod will play my music and videos when I need it to.

And the reason why no other network was there is simple: Apple didn't want everybody to know what they'ere planning.

Three to five years on, iPod will have changed the way we watch TV.

Hey Tony,
The ads here on MDN don't make me wait five minutes before I'm able to view the website like network TV does. Intrusive marketing will always be around, but as time goes on at greater risk to the advertiser as consumers become more fickle and agitated with time-wasting, in-your-face approaches. The history of the "pop-up" is a perfect example of this. The ads here on MDN, unlike TV, are only here on the sidelines. If I'm interested, I click on them. If not, they're not bothering me. That's how advertising SHOULD be.

As for the Video iPod, neither the Times nor SteveJack really know... it's just too early to tell if consumers are interested in or even care about downloadable video content. What SteveJack doesn't consider here is that TV is there a lot of times as a placater-- tired people come home from work, hit the power button, sit and vegetate to whatever the hell is on. To make a viewer actively request a download or whatever, I'm not sure consumers are all that excited about that.

Next up, how do shows like "Lost" and "Desperate Housewives" get enough of a viewership to make two dollar downloads feasible? Most people stumble onto shows they like. How many would download "Lost" if they had never seen or heard about it before? Not as many as now, I'll assure you. TV shows are oftentimes their own advertising tool-- because I've seen "Lost" for free on TV, I'm now more likely to go buy the DVD set or download it for my iPod.

I'm not saying either SteveJack or the Times are wrong-- it's just too early to tell who is right.

TruthDetector,
I believe you are the idiot because you missed his point. Would you like MDN to charge $3.99 per month? This site is free for a reason, namely, because people don't want to pay for this content. The same is true for TV. Many people would rather deal with ads than pay for each episode.

The point is not that the iPod can play video—others have done that already (albeit not too successfully). The point is that we now have a revolutionary new model for distribution of TV shows which can entirely bypass the TV, cable companies, satellite companies and local broadcasters! NO ONE has done that!

Sure, you might watch it on your itty biddy iPod on the way to work on a train, but you can also watch it on your laptop or desktop and don't even need to own an iPod. If Apple can figure out a way to stream the shows from your computer to your HiDef TV in at least DVD quality or perhaps allow a "burn once" capability then broadcasting will be forever changed. Studios won't need broadcasters or cable companies anymore.

Think about this for a minute, the whole model of cable companies where you have to pay $40 a month for 500 channels of junk you don't watch is being turned on its head! I can forget cable and just pay $40 a month for the five shows I actually watch and watch them whenever and however I want to watch them.

Hallelujah!

The ads here on MDN, unlike TV, are only here on the sidelines.
Is that better than five minutes of commericals? Personally, I'd rather have five minute commercials on TV rather than have the ads be displayed during the show taking up space on the left and right while making irritating sounds.

bikersrule: I just hope that somewhere down the line Steve Jobs has an ipod planned with a screen maybe twice the size.

My suggestions: Go and get a 12" ibook, than you can enjoy the 2 hours movie better.

Who knows, may be they will release an ultra compact mini iBook?

I think a lot of people are missing the point of this whole exercise. Adding video capabilities to iTMS is so that Pixar will no longer _NEED_ a Disney to distribute their future films. Home theaters are quickly becoming the norm these days for a huge number of people (at least in modern countries). As more and more people have large screen TVs, and movie ticket prices climb towards $15 and beyond, wouldn't it be enticing to enjoy the latest Pixar flick safe at home on your giant TV and not have to find parking/buy $6 popcorn/hear all the noise from other moviegoers/miss part of the show when nature calls -- all for $2? If Pixar can pull this off, "going to the movies" will become a whole new experience. And you get to _KEEP_ the movie (take that, Netflix). Profit margin will rise (no middlemen) and other studios will see that as a way to boost profit. It's almost the same deal with music CDs.

As for comments about Tivo and such, I'm a Tivo lover and I have to admit that TV shows can easily be recorded that way _IF_ you remember to set it and/or you have a season pass for it. Otherwise you have to wait for its re-run if it ever happens. Also, unless you have a PC, you can't take your Tivo-recorded shows with you. I hope this will give Tivo some incentive to quickly come out with Tivo-to-go for Mac or my Tivo will soon become just a time-shift box.

MW: material. There's a lot of material to come on iTMS.

I noticed the Pocketdish announcement last week, and went to the site to find out more.

1. I could only see the press release about the announcement (and that was hard enough to find).
2. It said exactly what was in the article I read.
3. There was no photo/picture/specs of the gadget
4. There were no other links or obvious information about this (cost, availability, etc).

Personally, I think it was a clever ploy to get SOME publicity on the back of the apple announcement. The lack of any other material is indicative of a hasty release.

Furthermore, if the NYT correspondent thinks this is a good alternative, either he's seen a lot more than anyone else, and/or he imagines that marketing and other factors aren't important

SteveJack is right, of course -- this will change the TV model.

SteveJack is wrong, of course -- Ad dollars aren't going away, and broadcast TV programs aren't going to rely on a per-episode fee to pay the bills. Advertising will (already is) simply move where it's more effective anyway: into the program content. The Desperate Housewives will drink Starbucks and wear Prada and use Trojans.

You can't kill advertising, and you don't really want to. How else are you going to know what you want? You gonna go walk around and SHOP? Might be OK for the lay-deez, but I work for my money, and I'm not wasting my Saturday looking in store windows. I'm content to see it on TV and go get it.

I haven't had my coffee yet. Forgive the rant. But I'm right.

jackspratt raises a very good point. Although many of us have the equipment and know-how to record, edit and convert our own free videos for the iPod, it is a lot more convenient to buy the content when it is available. When you consider the time saved, US $1.99 is a very reasonable price to pay.

The NY Times article seems to have hit a raw nerve with MDN. I am not going to read such a long rant; please make MDN comments shorter than the articles they refer to.

I agree that films do not suit the iPod well. First of all the battery would run out before the end, second the screen is 4:3 and third, it is not comfortable to watch a movie on the really small screen. Admittedly I have not tried this yet but if the concept worked we would all be doing it on Portable Media Centres all ready.

Anything short and sweet will work better as iPod video content. Music videos, trailers, short films, news bulletins, pesonal video messages (imagine an answering machine in iChat AV), commercials, etc. Video podcasts could also become popular; my favourite example yet is Tiki Bar TV so check it out on the Podcast Directory for a good laugh.

MDN Take:

"We hate TV ads as much as anybody and the TV executives just keep piling more and more ads on us as they struggle with increasingly fragmented viewership."

Older MDN Take:

"Apple really needs to start advertising on TV."

The iPod (with video) is a Trojan Horse. People drag it into their lives to enjoy the spacious hard drive storage, easy to use interface and the simple way in which songs can be loaded from CDs and purchased from iTMS. Right now the video playback capability is just another feature to help distinguish the more expensive (and larger) iPods from Flash based models. The fact that you can grab videos from iTMS is interesting but the content available is pretty limited and the resolution is a little worse than Standard Definition NTSC although it can scale to fit almost any 4x3 screen size. Personally I don't think that's a problem since the majority of the consuming public has little regard for quality, otherwise, reduced bitrate formats like AAC and MP3 would have fallen by the wayside in favor of full-bit rate audio CDs.

MW: Analysis, as in we're all over analyzing

OK...let's clarify some things.

1. Yes the screen is small but with a cable you can watch it on a larger screen. Have you SEEN it? Or are you guessing? I've seen it. You'd be quite surprised how good it looks even at that low rez.
2. Resolution isn't the whole story. That could change VERY quickly. Have you ever recorded something on a VCR using the 6 hour setting? Hey...it works. Apple could up the resolution and make those files available pretty fast. End of argument.
3. Movies are a wonderful form of entertainment but are driven by a different kind of formatting. They are usually driven by visuals, and a larger story. Episodic television is driven by characters and longer story arcs. Some story elements can take a full season to play out. The very structure of episodic television is better for a more portable device. Watch for a lot of other content providers to begin offering content on ITMS. Six Feet Under, Sopranos, Deadwood...even older shows like The Prisoner or the Twilight Zone...shows with cult followings that have outstanding individual shows are all great for this format.

4.What takes precedence for you personally? It's different for different people of course. If you think movies and hand held video games are the number one thing you want to do while riding the bus...then by all means get a PSP or a PocketDish. For those who would prefer to listen to music or an audiobook or a podcast while they walk or run or bike (or ride the bus) those devices don't work as well as an iPod. As Jobs keeps saying..."video is along for the ride" it's not the dominant function. It's not hard to see however a simple change in the software,
and resolution of files to make it hold "only" 34 hours of video in a higher resolution. Would the critics be happy if it stored 17 hours of high definition video? The device can certainly do that but maintaining control over DRM gets much harder. How many pirated movies are out there right now?
5. The next generation iPod, with video could easily turn the screen sideways to accomodate a wider format, have slightly smaller click wheel, offer far higher resolution, and other features...and sell millions. All this after the current version sells millions while people then finally praise Jobs for "getting it right" as if the first gen success somehow didn't happen. Funny.

Macs King Says

"Personally I don't think that's a problem since the majority of the consuming public has little regard for quality, otherwise, reduced bitrate formats like AAC and MP3 would have fallen by the wayside in favor of full-bit rate audio CDs."

I disagree, the difference is that AAC and MP3 formats still sound good and 9 out of 10 people couldn't tell the difference. Video at 320x240 does not look good and just about anyone can see that...

PR says: "Apple could up the resolution and make those files available pretty fast. End of argument."

Not if they plan to sell it for using on the iPod which is where the problem lies. The iPod is incapable of playing anything other than 320x240 as it becomes to processor and battery intensive for the iPod. Even with such small files, you only get 2-3 hours of video playback.

Commercial television is dead. The video iPod is just the first of death throes.

Apple is all about selling hardware.

Push a button in an iTV app and record & archive news, sports, drama, comedy or movies in a format that will work on your iPod and the world will beat an even bigger path to your door.

If they want to sell hardware and the content makers won't cooperate with saleable downloads, just create and release the iTV app. As long as the content is broadcast over the airwaves, it is legal.

Network Television is 330 lines of resolution..That's standard NTSC video.
A VHS tape is 240 lines of resolution. We are not measuring PIXELS and raster graphics in the same way here. Television monitors...standard televsion sets...don't display images in the same way as computer monitors.
Have you SEEN the video from ITMS from 10 feet away on a television?
Macs King has a point here. People LOVE high quality but they willingly accept lower quality. In the early days of photography they used giant negatives and took photos with phenomenal detail. George Eastman realized that it wasn't the quality that drove people's interest. It's the content and control. He invented a whole series of cameras that allowed people to easily take pictures. The quality was not very good. Certainly not anywhere close to what had come before. It didn't matter. In fact the quality got WORSE after that. Instamatic cameras were TERRIBLE with plastic lenses, grainy film and weak little flash cubes.
People ARE getting more conditioned to better quality with digital photography recently but have you ever seen a cell phone photo?
It's the content and control...That's what Jobs realized too..Provide the right content, give the user the control (and no ads) and it's a winning combination.

Mike says
"he iPod is incapable of playing anything other than 320x240 as it becomes to processor and battery intensive for the iPod. Even with such small files, you only get 2-3 hours of video playback."

Yes Mike but that's THIS generation of player. The chip they use comes from Sharp and faster chips are in the pipeline. All Jobs has to do is demonstrate that people are willing to buy the video. If he makes an announcment next June that says something like "We've sold half a million iPod videos in 6 months" do you honestly believe that at that time when he announces higher res, a bigger screen, longer battery life and a full library of videos for download that Apple will have failed?

No, I didn't say Apple was failing and/or would not release a next gen iPod with better playing capabilities. I was simply explaining that at this point in time, there is a reason that iTunes is selling videos at 320x240 and it has nothing to do with file size or download times, it is because the current iPod can not handle anything more. Apple could make a more capable player right now, but it would not cost $299 and it would be a lot bulkier than the current model.

Apple also needs to be cautious about how and when the upgrade the content available. If they sell half a million or more iPod videos and then suddenly upgrade to a higher resolution for the same price, there are gonna be a lot of pissed of people.

I'm not saying it can't or won't happen, but I don't think it's gonna be in six months time...

"One is that studios are not rushing to make their most popular movies and shows available for the video iPod"

Interesting comment for NYT to make less than a week since the launch of the product!!!

Macaday, I think they were referring to the fact that studios other than ABC did not have their content available for the launch. But who knows, they may or may not have been asked.

Hey, I like the 'do you want to watch a 2.5 incher for 2 hours' discussion.

No worries there..Apple will have a bulb in the iPod before long so you can project onto an iPod screen that will be built into the back of every airplane/car/train seat; or maybe a plugin cable connection to those screens.

Ho hoh ho what fun this is turning into. WHERE IS that company called Microsoft. Where did they go after that Windows flash-in-the-pan phenomenon??

Mike, don't you think the whole thing was kept firmly under wraps and well away from them? Apple had all they needed to launch with ABC/Disney and Pixar on-board and didn't need to risk opening it up before the event so to speak..

As I said, They may or may not have been asked.. I don't know.

I agree, as currently conceived, the iPod is not ready for TV/movie primetime. The video quality from iPod to TV is crummy. I'd rather do bitTorrent then spend a Jefferson on a download.

However, as time goes on, I'm pretty confident Apple will nail it down great. It' a decent first step, though.

Mike,
We DO know--Jobs said they decided to only invite Disney because they wanted to keep this quiet until the announcement. Unless you think Jobs is straight out lying, we know. Now, we'll see how other providers react. My bet is they'll have several more within 1-2 months, and all the big players within 3-6.

ron - No ads on MDN???
Are you blind? Look at the top, right, in-between and bottom of your MDN page - those things are ads, not pretty pictures to keep you entertained.

realist: "The ads here on MDN, unlike TV, are only here on the sidelines." Yeah, so you would like your tv if they put the ads on the sides of the screen like MDN???

TruthDetector: "Perhaps you'd like for MDN to turn off the ads and charge $3.99 or whatever per month?"
Hey, Truthdeflector, perhaps you would like NBC, CBS, etal to charge you $5.99 a month per channel, plus your cable bill to watch ad free TV???

You guys all work for MDN, right? If MDN charged, no one -repeat- no one would pay. You can get all this news at Google news. The thing that drives people to MDN is to anonymously add their 2 cents over and over and over.
--------------

MDN is being its usual hypocritcal self - they complain about ads on TV, but cram as many as they can on their website.
MDN complains about ads on TV and then complain that Apple doesn´t put enough ads on TV.

Tony,
That was actually my point. I forgot to add the quotation marks, so the bold part was actually someone else's quote. I'm on your side on this matter.

To Tony and Realist:
First off, shutting off the sound is one "mute" click away. Secondly, the point was when I go to MDN, I don't have to sit for five minutes and wait for annoying commercials that I've seen over and over and over and over to end. Here at MDN, I barely notice the ads on the sides. I can go from start to finish viewing content that I came here to view. It's passive. If you're distracted by them so much, you might want to see a doctor about an attention deficit disorder. TV advertising, on the other hand, is not passive. It interrupts. See the difference? I personally prefer the passive model, but if you like mandated breaks then more power to you.