I think you have to also see the iPod as Apple’s strongest marketing tool for the rest of its range. If they want to move into selling movies (and perhaps produce a media centre Mac to sit under the telly) they’ll need every trick in the book to make it succeed, and getting people used to viewing cheaper videos (and ones they’ve created themselves) on their iPods is one such trick.

http://www.rocketboom.com/vlog/archives/2005/07/rb_05_jul_15.html

http://www.mobuzztv.com/shows/198.html

1. the kids spend a lot of money on ring-tones for their mobile phones (is it more than on the actual singles yet?)
2. the kids still love videos — definitely part of the package for them, the centre I work at is constantly playing mtv etc, and they download videos when they can from the offical websites that offer them
3. most of these kids want or already have an ipod
4. a lot of these kids have more disposable income than I do

Now I totally agree that there’s a lot more money to be made than solely through these music videos but I also think that this market could well be viable, with us older people helping it along by buying up concert videos. Then again I live on the other side of the atlantic pond and maybe things are different over here.

That said, the video iPod certainly doesn’t look like a part of Apple’s “Year of HD” initiative. Then again, a lot can change in a few product cycles.

I totally agree with you about the music videos by the way. I could be wrong but they really don’t seem nearly as popular as they were in the 80s and early 90s.

Perhaps Apple aren’t adding video to iPods because it’s in demand (now), but because it’s not incredibly difficult to do. Saturate the market with video-capable players now, then when the entertainment industry is ready for electronic distribution, Apple is better-positioned to take a large slice of the action.

But doesn’t that open up the arena to those production studios to go and sell their content to (say…) Apple directly?

Of course, it would mean that Apple would have to deal with a lot more parties, though they of course would be less powerfull.

I agree with you on all that stuff.

Vaska: Distributing TV shows may be a bit easier than movies in some cases, given the shorter length and lower quality requirements, but the rights issues are still there. Think about the show “WKRP in Cincinnati” which had to have all of its music removed when redistributed because the authors of the music didn’t agree to let their stuff be reused without being paid additional fees. The thing about TV is that when a station like NBC broadcasts a show like “Friends”, they don’t automatically have the right to do whatever they want with it afterwards. The producers of the show (an independent company) retain those rights so whenever NBC decides they want to do something else with the show besides just air it on TV, they need to go back to the production company for rights. Studios are starting to get hip to this stuff and negotiating “IP distribution rights” in advance, so the situation should get better in the future, but it’s not retroactive, so most of your favorite shows will still have issues.

But what about television shows – sitcoms, cartoons, Charlie Rose? I hear stories (as I don’t have one myself) of people watching the Simpsons via their cellphones on the train to work. Is this not true?

Perhaps going astray, but the BBC is soon to start releasing their shows online. I’ve heard that they are going to rely upon P2P for distribution so they don’t have to absorb all the bandwidth costs themselves.

As I’m a native Seattle-ite living in Europe, I can’t tell you what I would do to have easy access to some shows. Yes, I would even be willing to pay to download. Will tv in the states find a model to follow BBC’s lead as well? Could Apple have a role (as opposed to exclusively distributing movies)? Is this discussion merely about music videos and movies?