Posted by NRen2k5 on 11/11/05 02:09

FatKat wrote:
> NRen2k5 wrote:
>
>>FatKat wrote:
>>
>>>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?
>>
>>That's a bad decision completely lacking in foresight. What if the I-Pod
>>busts and Apple stops making I-Pod Videos next year?
>
>
> I'm not sure I understand your question. If iPod video folds soon, it
> sounds like a separate problem - there won't be any new iPod video
> files, so the number of potential alternate viewers is irrelevant.
> Those who own ViPods (as I just decided to start calling 'em) can
> probably use their software to convert avi or other files into the
> needed format - which means that alternate available viewers are even
> less of an issue.

I-Tunes video is DRM-locked. Meaning That you can play it in I-Tunes and
on an I-Pod, and that's it. You have to have a license to play the file.
Meaning that the only things that can play ITV are things that Apple
wants to play it. There will never be any tool to convert ITV to another
format because it just isn't in Apple's best interest to have people
unlocking their media.

>>>>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?
>>
>>You're making the assumption that people want to watch individual
>>episodes and never collect entire seasons.
>
>
> I'm making an assumption that some people just want to watch single
> episodes - that not everybody wants the DVD boxed set. Apple doesn't
> need to kill off the entire audience of DVD buyers, just find the
> sub-market of people who want some individual episodes now and then.
> For those who don't want the entire 5 seasons, $2 an episode sounds
> reasonable. How difficult (and legal) is ripping DVD's anyway?

Point.

Ripping DVD's is very easy, and outside of the USA it's also perfectly
legal. Making backup copies of recordings you buy is covered under "Fair
Use".
Even though the Digital Millennium Copyrights Act makes it illegal to
circumvent copy-protection schemes (such as CSS on DVD's), remember that
the DMCA is american and only applies to Americans.

> For entire seasons, DVD is
>
>>cheaper and much more practical, because not only can it be ripped to
>>MPEG4 to watch on the I-Pod, but it can be ripped to play on just about
>>anything else, or just taken as-is and played on any portable DVD player
>>like the one you have.
>
>
> This sounds more like a hit on ViPod than iTunes - I've decided against
> ViPod for those reasons - but had I decided to get the video ipod,
> paying $2 for an episode now and then (when all I want is one episode)
> is reasonable.

No, it's a hit square on I-Tunes, again for having files which are
copy-protected and restricted to their products.

As far as I know, you can make your own MPEG4 videos and put them on the
I-Pod. But you can't put I-Tunes Video on anything other than an I-Pod.

>>>>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.
>>
>>But at least a Fox DVD will play on a Panasonic DVD player, or a Sony
>>DVD player, or a Samsung DVD player, etc. etc. etc. An I-Tunes video can
>>only be played on PC and I-Pod Video.
>
>
> But DVD's have the higher quality that makes you want to play them on
> other players. iPod video sounds necessarily inderior - portability is
> its principle advantage at the cost of all else. In short you wouldn't
> want to play it on other players.

Being 320x240, I-Tunes Video won't look TOO bad on a 3" or 4" screen
like most better PVP's have. It won't even look too bad on a 6" screen
like portable DVD players have.
But *Apple* doesn't want you to play I-Tunes Video on other players, so
you MUST buy their player.

What's happening here, is that Apple has known for a long time now that
people will buy their crap just because they're Apple. All they have to
do is come up with a mostly worthless *novelty* format (enter I-Tunes
Video) and people will flock to the stores to buy the magical Apple
gadget they need to carry it with them.
So of course Apple wants you to play their video on their platform and
their platform only. It's necessary to their strategy.

>>>>>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.
>>
>>No, they're not. At $2/episode on I-Tunes, and with DVD's being sold per
>>16-episode season at around $35, the cost of I-Tunes video is only
>>"fractionally less" than the cost of the DVD equivalent.
>
>
> $2 is a fraction of around $35 if you don't want the entire season.

Point.

(I guess plenty of people can't just figure out how to program their VCR.)

>>Obviously the advantage is, as you pointed out, that you can get a
>>single episode without having to get the rest of the season.
>>This benefit is overshadowed by the disadvantages of inferior quality,
>>being restricted to Apple products, and as I'll explain further below,
>>not having a physical copy of the media.
>
>
> But reduced quality applies to the player itself - everything will look
> worse on a ViPod, it;s what you expected when you shelled out for it.

Exactly, so why shell out the money for it? Reduced quality is a
FEATURE? You'll have trouble convincing anybody of that.

>>>>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?
>>
>>Yes. A real copy. A physical medium of some sort, such as a disc,
>>cartridge or cassette. Something that, once I've copied it to whatever
>>other format(s) I'm currently using (under Fair Use doctrine), I can
>>lock it away in a safe place.
>
>
> This is new - you can't archive ViPod files? I missed that part.

What use is an archive of ViPod files without the licenses? You'll get
them onto another computer only to be told it isn't authorized to play
any of them.

>>I'm not paying for some wispy data that can be lost in a computer crash
>>or an I-Pod crash and that is "protected" to prevent me from doing
>>things I want to (and am legally allowed to) do with it.
>
>
> Why can't you save your files to CD? Also, I'm still unclear as to
> what you think you're being prevented from doing that is 1) legal and
> 2) desired.

Because if I save them to CD I'm not guaranteed that they'll work when I
put them on another computer. Because of the copy protection.
I know that videos I've made myself will play because there's no
"protection" nonsense. Protecting my own files from myself? What a laugh.

Copying recordings for personal use is legal. And it's desirable because
you never know when your hard drive will crash, or when you'll lose a
copy which you carry around with you.

- NRen2k5

[Back to original message]