Nick Collingridge's Profile

Martunibo - You have, of course, made the necessary point (which incidentally I myself made in post 4, way back up this topic). This is a strategic placeholder - it's a start in the whole game of downloadable content. There's nothing stopping it from being scaled up from here to whatever level of definition, type of content, or method of delivery (eg time limited or limited in number of viewings) you can think of. The key is that the general public from now will start to think about downloadable video content and will think of it in connection with Apple. And the studios and other content owners have good reason to be talking to Apple about what they are doing, particularly given the success they have already achieved with music. Beeblebrox - I really am amazed that you can leap to the conclusion that my opinions are formed by Steve Jobs from my postings here. Just because I think that Apple are doing something clever in this area (like they did with the whole iPod/iTunes etc thing), doesn't mean that I buy into everything that Jobs says or that Apple does. But I do think that you are guilty of inappropriate cynicicm in your rhetoric on this subject. The point is that in this particular area I DO think that Apple are doing something different from MS, and doing it better from the perspective of market and user acceptability. Your words in your last post do rather suggest that you are prejudiced against Steve Jobs to the point of not being able to accept that there might be some validity in Apple's strategy in this area. That's just not an objective position from which to form a valid point of view.

I think there's a lot of worthwhile speculation in the above article, but I just don't think it goes far enough. Don't forget that the iPod may only be one vehicle for viewing the videos (besides the screen of the iMac itself, that is). How about the much-rumored Airport Express variant with video out - or, come to that, the also rumored iHome product, a proper set-top box? Personally I think the new iPod in conjunction with the new iTunes and video is pretty much a strategic play to get a product out there and claim the space for Apple, to stop anyone else getting in there with a killer product and gaining an advantage. Just because the current videos are only 320x240 in no way means that all future offerings will be similarly low-resolution. As broadband connections get ever faster there will be no obstacle to much higher resolutions in the future, and in time our choice of viewing for an evening may become totally determined by what we want to see (and pay for) rather than what is being screened. Apple's vision could be that you use your computer to select and line up the viewing, which you then watch on whatever device you choose. iTunes may offer the option for one-time viewing as well as for downloads for repeated viewing, which could mean different prices for these different modes of use. Given that Apple has gone out and said that the future is HD, it's hardly likely that they would stop at 320x240, is it? There's much more that I could add - just think more laterally, people!