Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Oct 18, 2005.
Link: Et tu, video iPod?
Posted on MacBytes.com
Approved by Mudbug
Sigh, another MSNBC article.. They just don't get it. It's an ipod with video, not a 'video ipod'.
Is it just me or did that story seem like an advertisement for another product?
What a wast of time, having read this crud!
Why is the media so dense and not getting it
It's an iPod that also can play video.
They must be because they all use Windows..."get it?!"
That is also why it is classed as an "opinion"
people will think it is cool, so if they have never seen lost, or they don't like watching tv, they will try it. (like me). in the case of lost, they get hooked and buy every episode(like me). i am a sucker for marketing..
Let's flame the dude. Maybe he'll write a blog about Mac lemmings.
Ha, not according to John Dvorak. He thinks the media consists of all Mac users.
This guy is just unbelievable with some of the things he comes up with.
BTW this piece was labeled a review
Too true, I read that article earlier then I posted it
Maybe if Apple hadn't made such a big deal about it or had made such a big deal and did it right? I mean when Apple rolled out iTMS it had a crap load of content. when Apple rolled out video they have a bunch of crappy shows, at a res lower then broadcast quality, with a device that can't even pull off 2 hours of video on a charge. If Apple is going to do it they should have not pulled the whole half way approach and simply waited on movies until they could do it right. IMHO as it stand it smacks of what a lot of the other distributors are doing: getting a jigsaw puzzle amount of content that has gaps all over the place. In the case of Apple's video content there (ignoring music videos,,,weeee.) is a single piece in place for a 530 piece puzzle.
Well I was thinking opinoin but put review
A few things
I know that there are many problems with this review, but I'm just going to focus on my gripes with comparing the iPod to the Archos video player and having the iPod come on the losing end.
First, the reviewer wishes that we could hook the iPod up to the TV to record shows, like the Archos allows. I think he has it all wrong--we didn't have digitize our songs on the computer; we could have recorded them off the radio or our CD players. However, it is just easier to digitize the content and not have to tie the machine up each time we want to record something. Do I really want to make sure that my iPod is connected to the TV (which needs to be tuned to the right station, etc, etc) and recording at 9:00? What if I'm out of the house (the reason I'm missing the show) and I want to listen to music or watch another show on my iPod? What if I don't want to have to spend an hour recording a show when I could spend a few minutes transferring it and others from my computer? Archos did a good job of getting around the copyright issue by making the Archos a recorder, but Apple is offering a better alternative with shows for sale. Also, you can hook up an eyeTV to your computer and record shows for export to the iPod.
Secondly, I have a problem with the reviewer trying to compare a $500 30GB Archos to the $300 30GB iPod and not even mentioning the cost as a negative. He also skimmed over its large size and ugliness.
The iPod isn't trying to be a PMP like the Archos; it is a music player with video--and it fits in your pocket, something that will make it more likely that you will take the iPod with you rather than those other PMPs that ended up in the drawer. And for $200 less, I could get the iPod and put the rest of the money toward an eyeTV, making my computer into the recorder and ensuring that I can digitize and keep my recordings (at full size) and export them to my iPod if I want. I can also watch something else on my TV at the same time I'm recording another show on the eyeTV.
I'm not saying that the iPod is the end all be all solution to mobile video, but for my portable entertainment needs, it definitely beats out an Archos player.
For the most part he's right. As a PVP the iPod would be a piece of crap.
Are people willing to pay 1.99 to download a show? I don't think so.
Unlike music, video is centralized around a device that isn't a computer. Very rarely do I watch video from my powerbook. Even then it's only because I'm on the road.
Until they develop a piece of hardware similar to airport express that allows you to have the front row experience in front of a tv, there won't be much of a market for video.
although a kneejerk flame response to an MSN article is easy, I'm not sure video will take off. It is a great hype machine, and hype will sell the whole iPod line (and computers via halo effect), and with the pricing most users will shrug their shoulders and be glad in the back of their mind to have one more feature even if they never use it. Add to that the hype of the 'latest and greatest' bleeding edge effect of being first-on-the-block, and the units should sell, and as a strategy of preemption, Mr. Jobs has effectively made it that much harder for up-and-coming vendors to introduce new video products.
MSNBC criticizing an Apple/ABC deal. I can count two conflicts of interest already...
Plagiarizing all of Steve's comments on how people listen to music while doing something else but can't do something else while watching video should land the guy in court.
Making it sound like the whole iPod line is in crisis if people don't start downloading TV just looks like the age old technique of building up the hype so there's farther to fall.
It's gotta be tough to be a tech columnist though-- you're always either a shill or you're arrogant. I guess it would help if they hired tech journalists with an understanding of the technology *and* the market rather than just give the job to the reporter the boss saw using RegEdit...
I'm curious though-- did everyone get the same Archos ad inserted in the middle there or does the ad change with each refresh?
I think it's clear that Apple doesn't expect video to be a big seller. The whole way this is being rolled out has made that clear. iPod Photo, but not iPod Video.
I think the rest of your comments pretty much gave the reasoning for adding video. If I were to pick one reason it was so competitors can't claim to do something whizbang that the iPod doesn't. No built in radio? Whatever. I can buy an extra piece if I want it. No built in video? That sounds like a bigger deal-- like you might be missing something for your money.
What happened to the good ol' days when news sources would mention any potential conflicts of interest? I thought of the MS conflict, but didn't think of NBC actually. They obviously shouldn't be precluded from saying anything against Apple products, or this new deal with ABC, they should just have a note at the end (even if it were positive article).
"Im afraid, however, that after the initial coolness factor wears off, the video iPod will wind up in the same dresser drawer as the Zvue, the Zen and other portable video devices that have come and gone over the years."
I'd bet a LOT of money that this (and other articles like it) were written BEFORE Apple actually unveiled the new 5g iPod (a MUSIC player better than the old one--with some video stuff thrown in free).
These are people who WANT Apple to fail, come up with reasons to badmouth a video iPod, and then publish it without stopping to look at what Apple ACTUALLY did. Which is not the thing these people expected. This article is essentially about a product Apple never sold. It's fiction.
People don't buy a great music player and throw it in a drawer. The iPod has shown that clearly. Video doesn't harm this music player one bit.
And Apple's not pretending any different.
Steve Jobs still says portable video isn't a worthwhile market yet. But by adding a taste of it to the MUSIC iPod, the experiment can be made.
That's MUCH smarter in my book than releasing the dedicated video device you want. It would be cool, and you're not the only one who would want one--I would too at the right price. But there wouldn't be many of us. It would flop and the press would have a field day with that.