macnews.net.tc
2005-10-19
Btw.: Are the media on 'ignore'?
I've read quite a few articles about how great the 5G iPod is, how great it is to watch Lost and Desperate Housewives on it etc. One thing that truly struck me, though, is that the media seem to want to ignore the illegal exchange of TV shows happening online. I've read that "Apple might have less of a drive with video than they've had with music, because there is no Napster or Gnutella to be fought this time...". Erh... I'm not sure where that reporter lives, but I personally download every episode of "The Daily Show", because here in Europe, we only get the weekly-sample on CNN and not the real thing. Yes, I admit, it's probably wrong to do so from some perspective, but on the other hand they're not even trying to sell me the stuff. With music, the thing was this: You as a user choose whether you want to buy the music or illegally acquire a copy on the 'net. Often with TV shows it's this: No, you can't get it legally unless you move to a country where your favourite show is actually shown. Hm.
Now back to the iPod's 320*240 two-dollar shows. I'd really much rather have the 720*3xx free version with ads. Or at least the high-res version for two dollars. I'm not saying the iPod can't be a success, but where iTMS vs. P2P had several points going for it (Steve Jobs several times talked about them in keynote addresses) like better quality, speed and karma, it actually seems to me like, currently at least, iTMS is on the weaker end here! They lack quality, they definitely lack choice - and I'm just not so sure about the karma part this time around, because I get the very distinct feeling that supporting the idea of selling crappy quality (320*240 is crappy, even if it's H.264...) for 2 dollars per 45 minutes is somehow wrong.
I wouldn't be too surprised if this subject will come up a couple of times - at least until the next generation iPod is revealed. I hope and suspect that the 6G iPod will have a wide screen and at least double the resolution. Quality: check. I guess Apple will get other networks to license content. Choice: check. Karma? Well, we'll see. Two out of three wouldn't be bad... But maybe, to get back to the title of this article, the media are on 'ignore' here, because they want Apple to succeed instead of luring people onto the illegal tracks of P2P again. - posted by Patrick Armbruster @ 02:35 [article link]
Now back to the iPod's 320*240 two-dollar shows. I'd really much rather have the 720*3xx free version with ads. Or at least the high-res version for two dollars. I'm not saying the iPod can't be a success, but where iTMS vs. P2P had several points going for it (Steve Jobs several times talked about them in keynote addresses) like better quality, speed and karma, it actually seems to me like, currently at least, iTMS is on the weaker end here! They lack quality, they definitely lack choice - and I'm just not so sure about the karma part this time around, because I get the very distinct feeling that supporting the idea of selling crappy quality (320*240 is crappy, even if it's H.264...) for 2 dollars per 45 minutes is somehow wrong.
I wouldn't be too surprised if this subject will come up a couple of times - at least until the next generation iPod is revealed. I hope and suspect that the 6G iPod will have a wide screen and at least double the resolution. Quality: check. I guess Apple will get other networks to license content. Choice: check. Karma? Well, we'll see. Two out of three wouldn't be bad... But maybe, to get back to the title of this article, the media are on 'ignore' here, because they want Apple to succeed instead of luring people onto the illegal tracks of P2P again. - posted by Patrick Armbruster @ 02:35 [article link]
