|
|
Posted by FatKat on 10/03/83 11:31
NRen2k5 wrote:
> FatKat wrote:
> > FunkyDevil wrote:
> >>I don't believe people hunger for $2 downloads of TV shows they watch
> >>for free on TV.
> >
> > It's not that they're paying to watch - they're paying for the right to
> > keep it so they can watch it whenver they want. It sounds to me no
> > different than people paying for albums containing songs they could
> > listen for free on the radio, or buying movies on VHS that were
> > available on cable.
>
> It's very different. An album will play on any turntable; a VHS on any VCR.
> An I-Tunes video will only play on an I-Pod (and 5 computers that MUST
> have I-Tunes software installed).
Yes, I made that similar point on a different thread as a reason I
would not get an iPod. But those who've opted to get one have done so
for the purpose of having those files for that specific use - watching
on an iPod. How many other viewers would one need? iTunes video would
probably look horrible on a normal screen; and how many people have
more than 5 computers?
>
> And in two or three years when their I-Pod's are dying and their I-Tunes
> videos are useless, these people will wish they had bought actual DVD's.
I doubt they'd feel all that much regret since the DVD's, purchased
new, would have been more expensive, and anyway, they'd still be able
to watch their iTunes video on 5 other PC's. And just how badly would
one feel not to be able to watch, 2 years or so later, a saved episode
of a TV show?
>
> Not only that, but DVD's have 4× the quality of I-Tunes video, and most
> TV shows would be cheaper to get on DVD than I-Tunes!
Are you able to buy single episodes of TV shows? Video quality is
definately superior on DVD's and while my portable DVD is still
running, it's not like such devices don't ave longetivity problems of
their own.
>
> > When movies were released on videotape years ago,
> > their initial retail prices were outrageous. iTune video seems pretty
> > cheap in comparison
>
> You're comparing apples to oranges. When VHS originally came out, it was
> used mostly for movies. I-Tunes video is used for music videos and TV
> shows. These are comparatively much cheaper productions. Coincidentally
> they're also shorter, which means the files Apple has to keep are
> smaller and the delivery is less expensive.
But iTunes videos are still a fraction of the cost of a new DVD, so the
example applies.
>
> > and unlike music CD's, you're not paying for a
> > chunk of material you don't want.
>
> Apples and oranges again. We're not talking about music CD's or movie
> DVD's, we're talking about TV shows.
....which are routinely released on DVD these days.
>
> And I hope the "chunk of material you don't want" you mentioned is
> figurative of recording time, not the actual disc itself, because you
> can bet your bottom dollar that I want a REAL copy of something I'm
> paying REAL money for (which I did REAL work to earn).
Real copy?
As for your hard earned money, you're still spending far less than DVD
prices.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|