fryke said:
Well, none of them has a USP it seems to me - apart from a small video-capable screen.
USP?
fryke said:
It seems to me that in order to succeed (i.e. to kill the iPod), such a device would need at least two of the three (better all three) following points:
1.) Screen large and bright enough, as well as good battery life and low overall weight to actually view whole movies on (3 hours plus).
I think that's actually 3 separate points
, but I generally agree. I'd modify these to be:
a. Able to see video clearly (this is a function of the screen quality,
resolution, frame rate, etc)
b.
User swappable battery. The technology simply isn't ready to have video
and great battery life at the same time. I'll settle for being able to carry
around a couple of spare charged batteries.
c. Easily pocketable. I think the iPod mini is the perfect example of this
(the regular iPod is just on the acceptable upper limit)
fryke said:
2.) User Interface, by which I mean it has to cover audio and video from the bought disk (CD, DVD etc.) to the portable pleasure (including computer). I.e.: I want to buy a disk (CD/DVD), put it into my computer (it gets scanned to the Library of a jukebox like software) and synch it to my portable device, where I can view it. If I start to listen to an audiobook or movie, both synched devices know where I left off.
I agree, but this isn't even a function of the player/software, it's a function of the extent to which DVD manufacturers, etc. make it tedious to do via
consumer hostile copy protection measures.
fryke said:
3.) Accompanying online store...
This is actually the source of my frustration - because of it's iPod/iTMS successes (and it emphasis on video with the Mac), only Apple is in a real position to move portable video forward. If Apple backed online video, the way they're currently backing podcasting, it'd provide a huge stimulus to both the content creators and consumer portable video market.
fryke said:
I don't want the iPod to deliver sub-par video, for example. Imagine you'd buy "Fantastic Four" on the iTunes Video Store in a couple of weeks. You'd pay, say, 20 USD. You'd get a 800 MB H.264 file. Viewable on a video iPod's small screen (320p width? or 640p? actual 720p?) as well as an attached display in HDTV res. Download takes quite a while, right? Now, a year later the iTunes Video Store lets you download the same movie in a higher quality as a 500 MB file. Good? Sure. But all the people who're p***ed off? I guess Apple has a target. They want to be able to deliver a certain quality at a certain size for a certain device for a certain amount of time. That time isn't ready yet - and the list of devices you've mentioned will be a JOKE compared to what Apple wants.
I think this logic is flawed for three reasons:
1. All devices have an "early adopter" stage. No company get's it perfect
on the first try - remember the first iPod? (no clickwheel, no iTMS, no
support for Audible books on Windows, no support for USB, no dock
connector, etc). As long as they're committed to the product line,
they'll be able to get it "perfect" over a few years. The other companies
that I mentioned earlier in the thread have at least shown that it's
possible to release a decent portable video player with today's
technology.
2. I don't think the market for portable video has anything to do with
watching movies. All the naysayers come out to say "
I wouldn't want to
watch a movie on a screen that small". Well, duh. I can't even imagine
wanting to download a file of several hundred MB to watch on a 2 - 4"
screen. (I've already listed the numerous uses I'd actually have for a
video iPod somewhere on [post=332437]another thread[/post]).
3. I think the
device needs to come out first, then the online video store.
Of course Apple can guarantee the quality of video played - others have
already done so (with the only compromise being a user swappable
battery). The files may be big (so big that for a couple of years
people will choose to just transfer video from DVDs, etc), but so what?
Kap
