If you go back several Apple Events, you'll note that each time Steve J. brings up the very idea of subscription based music downloads (ala Napster, et. al.), he mentions that this just doesn't work because people want to own their music. He's right (I know, I know--this is the second time in less than a week I've had to say that). Now we have a video iPod. But if I hear Steve-o say that subscription-based video content won't work because people want to own their video, I'll have to heartily disagree. Here's why: Most of the time we don't want to own video content, we simply want to time shift it (SEE Blockbuster, NetFlix, Tivo). Every once-in-a-while I take something from my PVR and burn it to DVD, but typically I just want to watch a show on my schedule and not the network's. This is why Apple must change it's video model immediately.
Forget about music videos. Anyone who wants a music video will pay $1.99 to have it. It should be $0.99 (or less), but that's not the model. It's not my cup of tea, but I could understand someone wanting to own a music video.
The same could be said of movies. However, note that movies aren't for sale (yet) on iTunes, and the quality of the video you can get might look good on an iPod, but I've heard that if you full-screen it on an actual computer, you're going to be disappointed.
Steve needs to re-think his model when it comes to video--lower your price, perhaps even make it subscription-based, and even impose viewing limitations (just like Comcast's On-Demand). This is what time-shifting consumers of visual media are looking for.
Sell us our music permanently, Mr. J; let us subscribe to video content. We can have the best of both worlds.
- Hutch
