iLounge

21

Video doesn’t come without a cost: namely, Apple is going to charge $$$ extra for video features.

The “cost” of adding video to the color iPods would be a firmware update to install some video codecs.

Some manufacturers, such as iRiver, added video to their color “mp3” players last year and this year after they were released using simple firmware updates. Apple could do so easily. Why it hasn’t is not to do with any lack of hardware ability in the existing iPod, but a lack of a good revenue model and any existing video DRM solution within Apple. This will change very soon.

Posted by Demosthenes on September 4, 2005 at 8:44 PM (PDT)

22

“The single most popular response was $399, with 36% of respondants choosing this price… while 37% said they would pay $299 or less.”

Umm last time i checked 37 is higer than 36.  So $299 or less is the most popular vote.  I’m sorta surprised they let that slip.

Posted by Casey on September 4, 2005 at 11:13 PM (PDT)

23

““The single most popular response was $399, with 36% of respondants choosing this price… while 37% said they would pay $299 or less.â€?

Umm last time i checked 37 is higer than 36.  So $299 or less is the most popular vote.  I’m sorta surprised they let that slip.”

They didn’t, the 37% is a combined figure from the 24% who’d pay $299 and the 13% who’d pay $199.

I wouldn’t pay anything for a videoPod, not with my 3G still going strong and another 10Gb left to use.

That and I’m unconvinced of the need for this device. If it has the various hookups to play back on the many and varied TVs out there then it’d be a bit more than a novelty item.

If they fix the shortcomings in music playback too, then it could be a winner.

Posted by Chris on September 5, 2005 at 1:23 AM (PDT)

24

Demosthenes: “The “costâ€? of adding video to the color iPods would be a firmware update to install some video codecs.”

First, Apple only rarely issues firmware updates that add new features to units already in the field.  They did so recently with an update to provide shuffle and enhance on-the-go for 3G units, but my cynical nature says that was a carrot to get us to install some sort of DRM update.

Second, the ease at which Apple can provide the feature within the iPod has nothing to do with the price they will ask for it.  The price they charge is what they think they can get, not what it cost them to produce.

I have no axe to grind against video in the iPod.  I think it’s cool.  But I want an easy way to watch stuff I really want to see.  Not movie trailers, not music videos, and not even ripping my own DVDs, which I can already watch just fine at home on a big screen with surround sound.

Until there’s a way to get programming I want to watch, it’s simply not worth it to me and I won’t pay extra for it.  What is so objectionable about that?  Do I have to open my wallet for every product Apple announces, just because it’s from Apple?

Posted by Michael Portuesi on September 5, 2005 at 4:37 PM (PDT)

25

Just something to note:
How do we get data/songs onto our iPods - through iTunes.  This is the portal we all use to load/organize music etc.  Look to iTunes changes to see what will show up in future iPod iterations.  If it’s video it will be highly unlikely Apple will ship a premium player with a screen the same size as the current iPod click wheel.  I would think (because of their current association with Motorola) that a clamshell iPod would be on the cards…
Just my thoughts…

Posted by Tim Dooley on September 5, 2005 at 9:47 PM (PDT)

26

How about an option for $0?  I think the video ipod just doesn’t make sense.  You can’t watch video while you’re driving, at work, etc.  Music is what an iPod is for.

Posted by m. sherman on September 6, 2005 at 7:30 AM (PDT)

27

“You can’t watch video while you’re driving, at work, etc.”

True, and completely obvious…

“Music is what an iPod is for.”

For now, this is mostly true (they’re also for photos no matter how little used that feature is in general). However, there is nothing in your first point that necessitates the second point to follow. I mean, is there a “If you stare at your iPod for more than 60 seconds while it is operating the device will explode and embed shrapnel in your eyes” feature I was unaware of?

Put a better screen on it, add a new codec to the firmware, poof, it does video.

Posted by Code Monkey in Midstate New York on September 6, 2005 at 11:53 AM (PDT)

28

You know, at first I thought a video iPod would be stupid too.  Why would I want to watch movies on such a small screen? 

But then I thought about how I use my Mini iPod.  I rarely listen to it directly, through headphones.  I use it in the car through the stereo, I plug it into my iMmini, I plug it into my stereo, I bring it to my friends’ places and plug it into their stereos, etc etc. 

It’s basically a method of carrying a music collection around with you in a tiny, portable package, instead of hauling CDs. 

Apply that to a video iPod: Going away on vacation?  Rip 10 or 15 movies to it.  You can apply this to plenty of situations, like going to a party, to your friend’s place, your car’s A/V system, etc. etc. 

I don’t want a video iPod to watch.  But as a tool to carry my movie collection around instead of a big cd case full of DVDs, it could be nice.  This is how I always thought of the Photo iPod, as a carrying case for digital media, not as a media viewer.  Viewed in that light, a video iPod would make sense as a logical next step.

Posted by ChrisTSX on September 7, 2005 at 8:34 AM (PDT)