Why I’m disappointed with Zune and latest iPods

Yes Robert, looks like Apple will have improvements to announce for years to come.

I am shooting everything in HD, and formatting it that way. I format the videos for iTunes to 320 x180, effectively letterboxing it.

Hi Robert,

if you want to see widescreen video on a portable device, there's only one choice: the Sony Playstation Portable.

Besides its gaming core, it's the best portable device so far on which I have watched a movie. That screen is fantastic!
You really should get one and make your own mind. You will not put it out of your hands. Promised.

Wow, Robert, I never thought of it that way. Good point! For once, I don't think you're nuts.

(Kidding!)

Christian: Patrick, my son, has one and I agree that it's stunning. All it needs is an 80GB drive and it'd be awesome!

Apple can get HD content online - you see the Quicktime movie trailers all over the place - but, for now, you'll never get the movie downloaded.

Set the model, work the licenses/rights, push the technology along.
Improvements will come.

Agreed 100%. As I keep saying in case of audio the difference cannot be made out, but in case of HD..yes its there to see.

My 2 Cents:

- wait for the iTV to come out. Q1 of 2007, thats nearly half a year ... perhaps they'll get higher resolution or widescreen or both then. For now the movies are for iPods and perhaps some iMac users ... so: 4:3 and low res.

- I guess it sucks to download a full length movie in HDTV ... apple has to wait for even broader broadband to come ...

mttsmnw: well, you can get lots of widescreen stuff on Bittorrent. ;-)

Not to mention that Steve Jobs OWN PRESENTATION YESTERDAY is up in widescreen format! So, Apple certainly understands how to get widescreen out to you.

Yes, you are nuts. This is your new Tablet. Yes, people are buying more widescreen TVs (not necessarily HD), but they are doing so because they are cheap, more portable, and trendy. Most people don't care.

Most of the people bitching about HD are the same people who still claim Apple is stupid and failing for having 128K music (despite having sold more than a billion).

The adoption of HDTVs is still limited. Even as it does increase the average consumer doesn't care about the differences. And they do not want to undergo the task of downloading HGD content (people are complaining about the download time of this content).

Apple will set the market (by doing it well after early starters), make it a success, and improve the service when the technology and consumers are both there. Right now, neither the consumer or the technology is there.

Oh, back to the Tablet.

2 years from now you will be still pointing to small anecdotal claims about how important and successful HDTV is, and the rest of the market will be unimpressed or take it for granted... meanwhile they'll still wonder what you were raving about with Tablets.

Oh, and more related to the Tablet: you will act like an aficionado, pro, and snob while still not knowing much. For example, I don't know if you want HD or widescreen content. The two are not interchangeable. Apple does offer widescreen content. But 90+% of the video content is not widescreen (TV programming). Yes, Apple streams in widescreen... So? They offer STREAMS of content in VARIOUS resolutions based on your INTERNET CONNECTION. That does not mean that all devices and content they sell should be widescreen. It means they understand this better than you. A quality that frequently bubbles to the service whenever you fall in love with something.

Robert:

I am not sure that the small screen or other quality-related issues matter to customers at the start of a disruptive innovation. Most disruptive innovations suffer tremendous deficiencies early on which causes competitors to underestimate the disruptive product's strengths.

*Blackberry had no phone or SMS capabilities when it launched
*iPod was Mac only when it launched
*iPod had few record company agreements when it launched
*Mac had little software when it launched
*ING direct has no bank branches
*Swatch watches were made of cheap plastic

But in each case, the disruptor had some unique quality that was so highly valued it overcame the product limitations.

As the broadcast industry and device companies ponder their video strategy, they may consider what some of iPod/iTune's attributes are, in the eyes of consumers and in the business model:

* Simple: Single-function device; Not a PC/phone/swiss-army knife etc
* Easy to use
* Users pay for content
* Apple had nothing to lose and the most to gain by cannabilizing the music business.

More details:
http://www.ondisruption.com/my_weblog/2006/09/d...

I agree - Apple can post the content in HD. But the model is not quite there.

TiVo announced their Series 3. 300 hours of SD. 32 hours of HD. Big difference.

HDTV is here today. The devices are going into homes (a side effect of the real estate boom over the last few years has been the upgrade of appliances including widescreen, HD ready TVs). Broadcast HDTV is available from the networks. The cable companies all have HD channels and the triple play packages are all HD. The content producers - particularly sports which are a huge business - are pushing HD content.

And, yes, as noted, the BitTorrent Channels seem to be the HD stuff as well.

The model of getting that distributed point to point, sized on handhelds, and for the right dollars still needs time.

Remember, yesterday was day 1.

Goebbels: you don't watch the same TV I do. Anything available in HD (which is more and more) is ALWAYS widescreen and almost every major program like Lost, 24, American Idol, etc is available in HD.

What's ironic is that Steve Jobs own presentation yesterday is available in widescreen (albeit not HD) but you can't watch that widescreen video on your iPod in the aspect ratio it was filmed at.

Michael: I agree.

It just gives Steve Jobs something to announce next year. Heheh.

The Archos 404, by the way, plays full DVD quality video. Not widescreen, but that's still better than the iPod. http://www.archos.com/products/video/archos_404...

Well, at least there's the Creative Zen W: http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/portable-media/o...

"Anything available in HD (which is more and more) is ALWAYS widescreen and almost every major program like Lost, 24, American Idol, etc is available in HD."

What? I never said that HD is not widescreen. I said throwing around the two terms as if they are the same is not. What do you want: widescreen or HD? Which of the two qualities (high resolution or aspect ratio) are you whining about.

"Every" major show is a bit suspect. You only name three of the highest budgeted shows ever. As I said, I'm willing to allow about 10% of the content is available in HD.

"What’s ironic is that Steve Jobs own presentation yesterday is available in widescreen (albeit not HD) but you can’t watch that widescreen video on your iPod in the aspect ratio it was filmed at."

Wrong! As I said, you don't know what you are talking about. I can watch widescreen video on my iPod in the aspect ratio it was filmed at. The screen is not in that aspect ratio. Just as any standard tv can also view widescreen/letterbox movies.

Again, you are wrong to proclaim this a major problem. And, two, you have little idea what you are talking about.

HDTV on portable devices? Overkill, with zero demand, and really if you want HD, should waltz over to the PSP, but then over there, the storage options are quite narrow. But really, iPod and Zune are not the all, haven't you even poked around with the Archos devices? Or the Samsung YM-P1 or all the like? Expand your vision here. The iPod is not really a good portable video player (it's audio first, video half as an afterthought), and the Zune is just a me-too Microsoft trainwrecked joke.

But in industry terms, HD is meant for Home Theatre and HD content is saved for BluRay and HD-DVD next gen. formats. Torrents are all about compressional formats, and that's not ever going to mainstream, not legally or economically.

Rocketbloom over LOST? Nuts? That's near clinically insane. ;) LOST Season 3, so so far away, sigh. But 4400 upped for a 4th, and Battlestar and Veronica Mars beating down on Oct. and a new Season of Rome and Kyle XY hitting, with Prison Break on fire, heading towards Utah. And much much more. :)

Christopher: I'm NOT asking for HDTV on my iPod. I'm asking for Widescreen.

Goebbels: >Which of the two qualities (high resolution or aspect ratio) are you whining about.

In this post? Aspect ratio.

In other posts where I've complained about the resolution of Apple's screens on laptops (they can't display HD pixel-for-pixel like some of Dell's screens can, for instance)? HD.

>>Wrong! As I said, you don’t know what you are talking about. I can watch widescreen video on my iPod in the aspect ratio it was filmed at.

Obviously we have a failure to communicate here. My bad.

I want to watch a widescreen movie (like Steve Jobs' keynote) WITHOUT letterboxing! See the Archos or the Sony Play Station portable for an example (thanks Chris again).

Which of the two qualities (high resolution or aspect ratio) are you whining about.

Yeah, I was trying to make sense of that too...someone hand me the Scoble to English dictionary. ;)

The PSP would be the best mobile device around if it had an 80GB hard drive instead of a memory stick. Even a 2GB memory stick can't hold many movies.

The PSP has a beautiful 16:9 screen and it's also a great mobile web appliance. Unfortunately it's very picky about video formats (although the latest firmware improves that) and it won't play videos purchased in iTunes Music Store. Sony's new MYLO (is that what they call it?) looks like it's going to be interesting. It can play movies & do most of what a PSP does except play games plus it has a keyboard, which will make it even better for web browsing.

Just wait until the all-touchscreen iPod comes out... an iPod where the entire face of the device is a viewable touchscreen. There have been rumors about this for months. I think that would make a pretty nice widescreen display.

Yes, your bad. Remove all references to HD from this post. Then remove all references to it being impossible to watch video with aspect ratios greater than 4:3 on the iPod. Then, since you've eliminated everything you said, start a new post that says: I'm one of those weird people who thinks the aspect ratio of the video must match the aspect ratio of the screen; does anyone else feel the same?

Then, you'd be accurate. Your point would still be stupid, but at least you'd have a modicum of accuracy and, hence, maybe some credibility would follow.

Of course, then the post would just be about those "black strips", and you'd find some that agree and plenty that disagree.

It's rather silly. My mom actually believes the same silly thing as you do. She will actually only rent panned-and-scanned movies because she thinks she can't and/or shouldn't watch widescreen on a standard TV, even if the TV screen is 42+ inches.

Goebbels: No. I won't. My HDTV camera shoots in widescreen. Look at my viewfinder. Now, why isn't the display the same shape on an iPod as it is on a Sony camcorder.

These concepts are all interlaced. I understand you're trying to be pedantic and perfect in your messaging. But, the point is there. And, if it's not, most of my readers read my comments and can see your correction.

Robert, what's the cheapest HDTV you can get?

something like $600/700 for a dirt cheap one. probably not highest resolution at that price.

So for a decent HDTV, it's a grand or more.

Yeah, HD is just going to FLOOD the non-geek homeland at that price point. Um..no, no it isn't.

But you just keep thinking that your geek bubble is indicative of most of the country.

As you can see, the utter failure of the iPod is a tribute to your business acumen.

I think its simple; Apple doesn't need to go widescreen yet, because they haven't saturated their market with 4:3 screens yet. The minute a viable widescreen candidate (and no, the PSP isn't viable) shows up, Apple can switch, and they will get their huge market fan base to buy new iPods with this feature. Obviously they believe they can go another couple quarters with 4:3 screens, and given their market dominance, do you really think you can second guess them?

Remember Robert, you are a "edge case" :p

(I am baffled by Microsoft's Zune though-you'd think they would realize they can't just match the iPod, they have to go several steps beyond it...and wifi and "bigger screen" isn't going to cause the buzz they need. Notice too how Jobs lowball priced the 30G iPod 2 days before the Zune launch-he must be paying SOME attention :P )

Now, Allard is trying to transfer some of the lessons learned creating Xbox to the music field.

The only real lesson: Spend Microsoft's money like a richie vapidly-vain drunk on a Platinum Card Strip Club tour...

Get a blank check from Microsoft. Insert billions, buy way into the hip club, woo and strong-arm content developers with pictures of Ben Franklin, jazz up a small army of blue-eyed 'Village of the Damned' Evangelists and MVPs, hold Mobius-like junkets all the live long day, suck-face with bloggers that will spill gallons of text for free product, make smack talk the order of the day, 'iPod as Pong', spin doctor and pitch yourself as David, when you are really just a brain-dead Goliath, with no success in the CE space, that doesn't deal in serious debt. Tout the Wifi and Collaborationish features...hand them out like candy to A-List celebrities...more junkets, parties, viral marketing spurts (with creepy cartoon figures), more parties, start and fund some existing Web site fan-bases, hand out MVPs to others, and yet more parties. Lather, rinse, repeat. Did I mention, party?

It's always the same prescription, no matter who the front-man is, Bozo the Clown could follow that recipe.

John: when I travel I visit normal people's homes. Even in "poor" Montana where I saw quite a few wide-screen TVs.

But, let's go over it again, shall we? My $4,000 TV comes out to about $120 a month. You think people actually buy these things? Nah, Best Buy signs you up for credit on the spot.

That comes to $120 a month.

So, let's say you have a family of four. And you go to a movie theater. In Montana movies cost $7. In New York, they are $10 to $12. So, that's $28 in tickets (actually $26 cause kids are $6). Add four hot dogs. $4x4=$16. Four Cokes. $4x4=$16. And two bags of popcorn: $3.50x2=$7. That's $65.

So, go to movies twice a month and you can have an HDTV too!

And as prices come down it pulls in a lot more people (not just geeks, either, Best Buy is seeing strong sales at its oldest stores that aren't in Silicon Valley).

Here's a quote from an article about Best Buy in Bloomberg at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103...

``Advanced TVs continue to grow triple digits and that's the third quarter in a row,'' said Mlynek. ``I think that'll be reassuring to investors.''

Totoro: but how did Apple get to this position (you too John)? By always waiting for the market to show up before trying something? Really? Was the market really ready for a GUI computer in 1984? A Laser Printer in 1985? A Newton in 2004?

So, you're saying that it's a smart business move to wait until someone else does it first (Archos) and proves there's a market before acting?

Excellent! Now we can start the stories about "Apple is the new Microsoft." And they won't be complimentary, let me tell you.

Steve Jobs didn't get to where he was by waiting for the market to be ready. He got to where he is by catering to edge cases like, yes, me.

PS - And oh, have a supply chain management logisitical nightmares unheard of in history, and have overheating problems galore, stick to the 3-5% line as if your life depended on it. If any problems or recalls, it's the chords fault, really, honest.

About Microsoft's Zune...

Apple needs only to add incremental improvements to iPod to continue to dominate the market for now.

Being five years late, Microsoft must disrupt the market to be successful.

Of all the attributes of Zune, the wireless song-sharing function is the only possible game-changer. If you watch what people do, they seem to like to share digital things: pictures, emails and songs.

How easily the Zune (and copyright restrictions) allow for sharing will determine whether it is a standout product or an iPod clone.

More:
http://www.ondisruption.com/my_weblog/2006/09/m...

I really loved the screen of the Sony PSP. Nicely bright with lots of color. It's a pity that to get full native resolution with avi files you need a hack and a 3rd party application.

It's also a pity those stupid memory stick pro duo cards are so proprietary and expensive. But, I still prefer to use a PSP for watching movies than any portable DVD player out there.

A more interesting unit is the Cowan A2. It only has a 30 GB 1.8" hard drive, but, it has a similar screen to the PSP. If only it could transfer images from my digital camera a lot faster and had a larger hard drive, it would be the perfect AVI playing and digital image display/storage device for me.

I bought "The Life Aquatic" from iTunes and played it on my TV. It is widescreen and it looks terrific! Here is how I did it: http://podslug.com/blog/?p=59

Has anyone else here actually bought a movie and tried it out?

Erik

I think long-term, HDTV is one thing that will survive the Scoble Kiss of Death (SKD), but price points will have to be in order, and it will take years to commodity out. Anyways, end prog. Recusing myself from the pending 'black strip' wars. :)

Michael,

>>How easily the Zune (and copyright restrictions) allow for sharing will determine whether it is a standout product or an iPod clone.

I agree there and with your other points.

Christopher,

Yeah, my hopes aren't very high for Microsoft getting much market share here. To tell the truth, I'm probably going to buy an iPod. Why? Because Apple has the best choice of podcasts of any of these things and because my son has spent about $400 on iTunes music and I wanna remain compatible with that investment.

Robert: Ironically, I blogged on this yesterday - and came to the same conclusion you did. What I'm wondering is why they didn't do a full-screen thing, and put in a virtual navigation wheel, with a touchscreen. It would make perfect sense, with the wheel disappearing when not needed, and appearing as a semi-transparent overlay when it is. And why not add Bluetooth for headphones and wireless syncing?

Looks like this time around, Apple's content with being one of the crowd, instead of leading from out in front.

Next year it's showtime 16:9.

And Apple, Ebay and many more could have earned millions.

Anyway, the HDTV in Europe is not ready yet, although Germany had the world championships and flat screens were promoted like crazy, a lot people did not realize that there might be also a HDTV receiver nessary to receiver it's content. A lot are still plugging in there old VHS Recorders to the new screen.

It take another year or so to get HDTV to the masses. And again another year until those also by an Ipod.

You (and most of the guys here arround including me ;-)) are ahead schedule... hehehehe

Although I do not even have a TV because the content is so bad, I do prefer my selected shows from the Internet and a 19" TFT (widescreen). ;)

Robert, that just shows HOW much an edge case you are-you are even ahead of Apple's schedule :p

Seriously though, don't you already see that in Apple's other offerings? The entire switch to Intel used the same ID for every platform. The new Nano is actually a play on the old (very successful) Mini. Only the Shuffle is a completely new design. Apple may indeed be changing their approach.

Jobs in one of the post announcement press interviews said that iTV will support true HDTV resolutions but that they are currently contrained by bandwidth. Both broadband, ie to have a 90 minutes show download in 30 minutes (assuming as Steve did 5 MB/s) and and wireless. Apple only said that iTV will have 802.11 wireless. He explicitly did not mention if it will be a,b,g or n. By the end of 1Q 07, n may be far enough along for Apple to support it. n will provide up to 200 MB/s local wireless bandwidth. That bandwidth, by the way, is still too small to stream true HDTV, but it is a lot closer. As the bandwidth increases the iTV will provide video as high rez as provided to the connected TV.

I would like to buy a video ipod with a bigger 16.9 ratio screen. Even to show people the HD video i shoot while paragliding. Portablility and ease of use are important but the screen size also makes a big difference. After living with a big widescreen HD TV watching regular TV on a 4-3 19 inch screen is disappointing. As the living room screen size improves the portable screen size should improve also... how baout the new games on the IPOD ? any comments .. according to Seattle Weekly MSFT will make a Zune announcement tomorrow..

Apple's gotta leave some candy for Christmas.

Majority of the videos out now are in 4:3 format, not 16:9. Most music videos and tv shows are displayed in 4:3. My brother has a very nice Widecreen HDTV like 42". I think it's a shitty experience searching for channels with HD then having the TV display standard def. Looks like shit. The iPod will go 16:9 when the majority of it's users go 16:9.

Chris: just because you don't have your channels in HD, doesn't mean they aren't being done.

When I lived in Seattle I had a large number of good channels on HD (ABC, CBS, NBC, even PBS was all in HD). But, I just moved down to Half Moon Bay and Comcast hasn't yet brought in HD, so I have to get satellite.

I agree that it sucks when a show is in 4:3, by the way. I find it very hard to watch.

"No. I won’t. My HDTV camera shoots in widescreen. Look at my viewfinder. Now, why isn’t the display the same shape on an iPod as it is on a Sony camcorder."

Why are you continuing to tell me to do silly things (that I've already done)? I know what you are saying, disagree with, and am trying to correct you. Yes, you are saying: viewing windows and screens should match the aspect ratio, and (more significantly), despite a variety of aspect ratios for our current media offerings, that aspect ratio should be 16:9. (Of course, since you think every viewing area should now be 16:9, you are not saying and/or contradicting that the point that the viewing area should match the content with respect to aspect ratio.

"These concepts are all interlaced."

Yes, and I disagree with you on most or believe you are wrong on most of the issues. Viewing area aspect ratio does not have to match content ratio. (I'd much more simply prefer higher pixel densities to match a broad range of resolutions no matter the aspect ratio.

Secondly, I believe 4:3 is still dominant over 16:9.

I believe HD is not mainstream enough yet and it's not worth pursuing in either a mainstream or a developing market. (And the markets we are talking about are best viewed as both, strategically.)

I believe other factors like portability, cost, internet connection speeds, storage capacities, and simple acceptance weigh heavily against the directions that you suggest.

Another concept interlaced in our dialogue is that you are misinformed, trying to pass yourself as the vanguard or possibly knowledgeable about the market, and I am demonstrating the concept that you should be mocked as a fraud who is wrong.

"But, the point is there."

Yes, I know. I was aware of it before you could clearly express it in your convoluted, misspoken, misinformed manner. I said I disagree with it, and I'm still saying it. I'm also saying you are wrong.

"I understand you’re trying to be pedantic and perfect in your messaging."

I thought I was trying to educate you to speak about these topics correctly so you could be comprehensible to your audience.


"And, if it’s not, most of my readers read my comments and can see your correction."

Again, you insist that you enjoy wallowing in your own ignorance and do not want to improve your knowledge. Fine. You don't have to keep telling me. I think it's pretty pathetic that you will criticize Apple for not jumping on your bad ideas at the same time you insist that you should remain ignorant and incoherent.

"but how did Apple get to this position (you too John)? By always waiting for the market to show up before trying something? Really? Was the market really ready for a GUI computer in 1984? A Laser Printer in 1985? A Newton in 2004?"

Are you suggesting that all of these are successes of just being first? Is that what you are reducing it too? There are numerous "interlaced" factors in each of those success as well, none of them concerned allowing you to be happy with your multi-thousand dollar tv and camera and nonexistent portable device.

"So, you’re saying that it’s a smart business move to wait until someone else does it first (Archos) and proves there’s a market before acting?"

No, we are saying your simplistic notion that jumping ahead with respect to one aspect (aspect ratio) and maybe another (HD) are critical and pivotal and timely right now for Apple (or any other company but for some reason (hmm... hit-whoring?) mostly Apple) to succeed and/or continue succeeding is wrong because there are more important issues.

Are you suggesting that being first is the only way to succeed, or that it guarantees success, or... what?

"Steve Jobs didn’t get to where he was by waiting for the market to be ready. He got to where he is by catering to edge cases like, yes, me."

Very little, if any, of Jobs success is due to catering to edge cases. He does things that are fun and creative and profitable... new things that become whole industries and lifestyles: personal computing, educational computing, creative computing with DTP and graphic arts, advanced digital effects and animation, sophisticated (Pixar), personal developments tools and hardware (NeXT), back to his roots, quality family entertainment/media (Pixar/Disney)... I don't think he ever said: there's an edge case geek that will spend thousands, I want to sell him stuff.

"Because Apple has the best choice of podcasts of any of these things and because my son has spent about $400 on iTunes music and I wanna remain compatible with that investment."

See: more insanity. Alleged blog/podcast guru buys iPod because he can't get content onto another device without the iTunes Store podcast aggregator despite the ability of most any device to consume the majority audio and video podcasts? Weirdness. Scoble you need neither an iPod or iTunes to access these podcasts. And why would you need to be compatible with your son's songs? Even when you make a good decision, it's for misinformed, ill-conceived, bad reasons.

>Secondly, I believe 4:3 is still dominant over 16:9.

When I first bought my first CD player there were only 40 CDs out on the market. Back then I was telling everyone that they should get rid of their record collections and buy CDs too. They eventually did. Just like if we come back in 10 years everything will be widescreen. No biggie. So I have to wait another year to get a widescreen iPod. In the meantime I'll whine about it. And you'll poke me for whining.

> I think it’s pretty pathetic that you will criticize Apple for not jumping on your bad ideas at the same time you insist that you should remain ignorant and incoherent.

I love how you put words in my mouth. But, whatever. I just am not so freaking pedantic as you are.

>Are you suggesting that all of these are successes of just being first?

No. But they were evidence that Steve Jobs would buck conventional wisdom and try something new, even though there didn't seem to be a market there.

You seem to be wanting Apple to become Microsoft. Boring. Wait until the market is ready for 16:9. I'd rather be more aggressive. Get out ahead of the wave one more time and try something new.

>Very little, if any, of Jobs success is due to catering to edge cases.

That's bullshit. Apple's whole business model is based on catering to edge cases. Remember 1977 when Apple started? How many people needed a personal computer back then. Only some weirdo edge cases in Silicon Valley.

You would have been making fun of them back then, that's how edge case they were.

>And why would you need to be compatible with your son’s songs?

Maybe I want to listen to his music? In the old days I could have let him borrow my CD's. But today his music is locked up in his iTunes (cause he buys a lot of music off of iTunes) thanks to Apple's DRM.

"Back then I was telling everyone that they should get rid of their record collections and buy CDs too. They eventually did. Just like if we come back in 10 years everything will be widescreen."

Yes, the transition took ten years, and yes, this one will take just as long, if not longer. So why is your point that wr should be disappointed today because it's not ten years from now?

"I love how you put words in my mouth. But, whatever. I just am not so freaking pedantic as you are."

You won't acknowledge the numerous corrections: you are wallowing in your own ignorance.

And I'm not being pedantic, I'm being accurate. I "understand" your argument however badly you express it, and you can continue to express it poorly if you like. I'll choose accuracy and intelligence over vague, misinformed arguments.

"No. But they were evidence that Steve Jobs would buck conventional wisdom and try something new, even though there didn’t seem to be a market there."

Part of my point is this is YOUR perspective. You think it was unconventional wisdom, you think there wasn't a market. Jobs and others didn't. You think there is a need NOW for this. I don't. Vaguely extrapolating your perspective on Jobs' past does nothing to convince me of your perspective.

"You seem to be wanting Apple to become Microsoft. Boring. Wait until the market is ready for 16:9. I’d rather be more aggressive. Get out ahead of the wave one more time and try something new."

Not in the least. Agrressive isn't necessarily interesting, often it's obvious. Often it's what Microsoft does: throw everything in the XBox, make Tablets everyone wants one, make Origamis, everyone wants one, make phones, everyone wants one, make an iPod ripoff and throw everything at it, everyone wants one. That's boring, unimaginative, and uninteresting. It's "Bigger is better" writ large. It's stupid. I want Apple to be smart, considered, focused on the consumer, the competition, its core... I want a lot of things. None of which has to do with them delivering a large aspect ratio in a portable device NOW.

I also have full confidence that Apple is ahead of the wave right now, but the marketplace isn't ready.

"That’s bullshit. Apple’s whole business model is based on catering to edge cases. Remember 1977 when Apple started? How many people needed a personal computer back then. Only some weirdo edge cases in Silicon Valley. "

So? Again, your perspective. Woz and Jobs thought: enough people want this to make us happy. It makes us happy.

Nothing in their motivation said to them: whatever edge cases want to do, we want to do.

"You would have been making fun of them back then, that’s how edge case they were."

No, Scoble. You really don't get me. I wwould respect a guy to no end that could convince a company he could build a game in a weekend and get his friend to do it for him while he slacked off, build a multi-million dollar company that revolutionized how employees behave in the workplace/space from a garage with a few circuits strapped to plywood.

It's people like you who think they are edge cases because they whine at the fringes about things they have no clue about... their knowledge is limited to what they are able to buy, and they buy the silly toys so they can feel ahead of people. Those are the people I make fun of.

"Maybe I want to listen to his music? In the old days I could have let him borrow my CD’s. But today his music is locked up in his iTunes (cause he buys a lot of music off of iTunes) thanks to Apple’s DRM."

And you can share over the network, burn disks, or simply circumvent the DRM... but that wasn't my major point: whether or not you want to sample your son's music with him (once or twice or when you are with him), can't he use the iPod or lone it to you? Moreover, I was questioning how much of an investment this truly was: do you really want to listen to his music repeatedly as if it was your own? If so, how much of it? And how does a hundred bucks or so rate to someone who has a several thousand dollar camera, a several thousand dollar TV, a new house in Half Moon Bay, and wants a luxury nonexistent HD-enable widescreen personal media device as a major investment pinning him down? I mean, come on, seriously... is it the DRM or your silly notions that "lock" you into the iPod.

I also note you completely avoided my point about the podcasts: are you acknowledging you need iTunes to help you get podcasts on your iPod? Sad.

The Archos AV500 and AV700 are both widescreen.

>I also note you completely avoided my point about the podcasts: are you acknowledging you need iTunes to help you get podcasts on your iPod?

No, again, you are being pedantic with my words. I said iTunes handled Podcasts a lot better than any other service I've used. We'll see tomorrow if Zune makes that better.

>I wwould respect a guy to no end that could convince a company he could build a game in a weekend and get his friend to do it for him while he slacked off, build a multi-million dollar company that revolutionized how employees behave in the workplace/space from a garage with a few circuits strapped to plywood.

Steve Jobs did all that in 1977? Really? Damn, now you're rewritting Silicon Valley history.

My point was that they were edge cases. You just proved that you would have treated them as such until they got rich. Fine. I understand. You really don't care about new ideas, you just care about kissing the feet of people who made a big business. Got it.

"No, again, you are being pedantic with my words. I said iTunes handled Podcasts a lot better than any other service I’ve used. We’ll see tomorrow if Zune makes that better."

I was being sarcastic, not pedantic. Being pedantic would be saying: "No, you didn't say it handled Podcasts best, you said it had the best choice of podcasts suggesting that you were referring to the quanity and quality of content and the inability to get it otherwise.

"Steve Jobs did all that in 1977? Really? Damn, now you’re rewritting Silicon Valley history."

Now, you are being pedantic: I can't bring a brief and hperbolistic overview of some of Jobs' successes and exploits because you specifically referred to 1977? Get a life. You can whip out the lame "pedantic" card all you want, but try not to be a hypocrite about it.

"My point was that they were edge cases."

No, your point was that serving edge cases was a way to succeed. I have no qualms with the notion that edge cases can be successful, I do have a problem with the notion that not appealling to edge cases is a problem for a business.

"You just proved that you would have treated them as such until they got rich."

Again, you don't get me. I'm quite certain I would have liked them much better before they were rich. Woz is a tool in his own world and Jobs is unapproachable. I treat people in many different ways, but money is not a factor: I treat both rich and poor people well and like shit.

"You really don’t care about new ideas, you just care about kissing the feet of people who made a big business. Got it."

"Your" idea is NOT new. That's part of my point. It's not significant is another part of my point. Another part is that there are many more significant and interesting factors than aspect ratio.

Get it? Doubt it.

Robert, you're not nuts. But you are impatient. We're in the middle of a transition from 4:3 to 16:9 for TV (probably at the tipping point or close to it). Two points: 1) The ATSC standards for HDTV were published ten years ago. It's taken that long to get as far as we have. Maybe 10% of US TVs will be HD at the end of this year. But suddenly, as soon as any of us crosses over and buys a wide screen TV we demand widescreen content. period. 2) the iPod screen is not just for videos and movies. What about photos? Most digital cameras shoot in 4:3. Film cameras vary, but rarely go widescreen. The majority of the world's graphics are not widescreen. Back in July, you posted about GalleryPlayer's service which provided art for HDTVs. Most of that art gets cropped badly because it wasn't created in the widescreen format. 4:3 screens are not evil. They're just an endangered species. By all means keep pressing for wide. And do your part to produce in HDTV 16:9. We'll get there--even Apple.

Can we have other examples of you visiting "normal people" besides Montana? What, do you go around like that guy selling Campbell's Soup and knocking on people's door saying "HI, I'm Robert Scoble and would like to visit you to see what type of TV you have".

So, please, give us examples of "normal people" you visit when you travel.

LayZ: no. Why don't you follow me around on a trip?

How about the simplest reason as to no widescreen is this way in 2008 they can have a big to do about offering the 160 gb widescreen ipod that is as thin as the nano. Technology today is like an underclocked processor it can go faster, but than how can u slowly churn out slightly faster ones at higher prices.

Couldn't agree more - I blogged very similar thoughts yesterday.

There are multiple problems that Apple faces with HD, most of which boil down to cost. The majority of films haven't been filmed as HD-digital (for the obvious reason that it didn't exist!) and transferring 35mm film prints to HD through telecine is ferociously expensive. Secondly, boosting to HD or close to HD quality would triple Apple's already vast bandwidth bill.

But more importantly, demanding HD quality is a classic case of jumping AHEAD of the technology curve. You forget, Robert, that you're not a typical family in the US, let alone worldwide. When you say "Do you have any clue how bad that looks on a good 60-inch 16:9 widescreen HDTV?" you're betraying that - what do you think the market penetration of 60in HDTV's actually is?

I had to write something because I can't believe everyone takes Steve's words in a press release as fact. The music videos on the store have been upsized to 640x480. That is what he demoed. If you look at the movies most (if not all.. I couldn't find one that wasn't) are widescreen. I even bought Hitchiker's to check it out. It's 640x272. Which yes is a lower than DVD resolution. But it is a 1:2.35 aspect ratio. That's widescreen. That's most likely the ratio the store bought DVD is in even.

As for HD content, yes it's the new thing, and yes I have an HD tv, but we're not going to see a large amount of content for it until the market is much more penetrated than it is right now.

Product design is always about trade-offs. I love the IKEA motto--the first thing we design is the price. Lots of testimony above to why going HD end-to-end for downloadable content would price a product out of the sweet spot in the market.

True, things are tipping to HD for new TVs. But not everybody is buying new TVs this year.

I recently visited some friends and their neigbors in North Hollywood. They work in the film & TV business. They have old, old TVs. And upgrading the TV is not very high on their priorities. Shocking. Statistically useless sample, but I was, nevertheless, surprised to see it.

BTW, Robert... what's the path in your house to get HD video from a computer drive to your big Sony? Are you seeing any QoS issues? audio or video glitches?

It's worth noting that widescreen and HD really aren't the same thing. In the UK, I've had a widescreen TV for over ten years now, and HD was only launched this year. I'd say that for at least five years now, all major TV purchases have been widescreen here, and it's a similar picture across the rest of Europe. And before I even got a DVD player, I was only buying VHS movies in widescreen format.

As a result, I would never buy a device at the moment that didn't offer widescreen. It's just not future-proof. For me it'd be like buying a VCR.

The Police - Ghost in the Machine
Record album - I paid $7
Tape - I paid $9
CD - I paid $15
MP3 - $1 per song

Why do we have to pay over and over for the exact same content? I'm sure they want us to do the same thing with movies. You pay for the theather, the VHS, the DVD, the MP4, and whatever else they can come up with.

I'm sure they love all the money, but sorry, I'm not playing.

As for how it will play out in the future, would you rather own iTunes with a crappy 640x480 platform with crappy little ipod screens or the Xbox Live platform with high definition devices that can play high definition movies, a broadband infrastructure, and a possible portable device coming later?"

I'd take Xbox Live.

As Adam aais in #62 there seems to be a huge amount of confusion over HDTV, widescreen etc.

Widescreen TV is in a 16:9 format, rather than the old 4:3. However, it still uses the same number of "lines" as the old system, 500 for NTSC and 600 for PAL iirc.

Films are usually filmed in super-widescreen (2.35:1); any major US tv show is filmed in 16:9. In Europe, 16:9 is now standard for broadcast (and there are very few 4:3 TVs left, either for sale or in people's homes).

HDTV refers to upping the number of "lines", either to 720 or, in the highest standard, 1080. Very little is broadcast in this format, a few satellite and cable channles I believe (either side of the pond). You'll be able to buy HD content on Blu Ray or HD-DVD soon, but afaik there's few players and fewer discs available at the moment.

DVDs are 720x480. If the content on the DVD is widescreen, e.g. a film, the 720 remains the same but the 480 gets cut down to whatever is required. It still looks just fine on a large screen though, as you've all no doubt witnessed.

Job's 640x480 looks good on TVs. It will remain 640 in width but will get cut down in height for widescreen content, which all their content on iTunes 7 will be delivered in (I think someone above worked out to be 640x275). You'd be hard-pressed to tell this apart from a DVD.

Finally, I expect the iTV will be fully capable of supporting HDTV (i.e. 720+ lines), but as stated HDTV content has monster storage requirements. You won't be able to stream it wirelessly whatever the standard used (MCEs struggle unless their practically in line-of-sight with the wireless router; Apple's kit will be no different). If they're wired via Ethernet though, it won't be a problem. It'll take a night to download the movies though ;-).

Make no mistake though, HDTV will become standard, just as colour did over BW, and 16:9 and digital have replaced analouge 4:3 transmission in Europe.
Things progress!

Totally agree with you on this one Robert. I just read an article that said more than 50% of all TVs sold last year were High Def. Why the portables arent doing a wide screen format makes no sense to me either

Michael, 50% of TVs sold is no where near 50% of all TVs though. And the TVs have upped the anti because the market had essentially gone stagnant and offering HD is easy, obvious, and relatively cheap. It's similar to cellphones having video cameras and disc storage and more application features. It has less to do with demand and more to do with the fact that these features can be thrown in for little cost to boost demand where little exists. A portable device is a whole different story: tons of demand in a nascent market, other areas which will also advance with technology (memory size, connectivity, screens, size, add-ons), the needs of a new and fickle market, etc...

Starting from November 14, those lame apple fanboys will gradually become an extinct species. And their lame whitey ipod thing (an abomination) will be used as an expensive paperweight. 'nuff said.

Robert,

did I miss something? I didn't see anywhere a mention that the Zune will allow you to subscribe to podcasts (audio or video).

Consuming podcasts is all I use my iPod for.

Hm... no one talking about Zune.

I love how scoble thinks he's Apple's primary target consumer.

I disagree scoobie doo. The screens are so small it makes no difference what the aspect ratio is. If you want a wider aspect ratio put some black tape on the top and bottom of the screen.

Dan G is confused about DVD widescreen: DVD is always 720x480 (720x576 PAL), and by "widescreen" we mean 16:9 vs. 4:3... those are the only two actual resolutions. And it's really just a matter of interpretation; a flag in file indicated 16:9 vs. 4:3 to the player.

DV camcorders generally offer the same option: you can set the camera to 16:9 or 4:3... different cameras deliver the video in different ways, but what goes on tape is always 720x480 NTSC.

Obviously, one you have digital screens at lower resolutions, it's not such a great idea to have non-square pixels on-screen; the resizing can be pretty obvious. Apple's new videos go all the way to 640 pixels, which of course is an easy bilinear scaling to deliver 320 pixels across (well, sure, it it's widescreen, in this case you'd resize in both dimensions). A larger screen will need more pixels, and a better resizing algorithm.

My iPod was stolen last July, and I haven't replaced it yet. I am absolutely waiting for a player that can handle widescreen. I may wait to see an Apple offering; if not, there are numerous others out there. Nothing quite as slick as the online mockups of the "screen-only" iPod. Then again, Apple doesn't make anything that slick, either... yet.

zune... the small screen is exactly why aspect ratio does matter. Most of what I watch, either from DVD or my own videos, is widescreen. Playing a 16:9 video on a 4:3 screen, I'm blacking out 25% of the pixels I paid for. Given the already-too-small/lowres screens out there on the pocket players, this is unacceptable. Add just the extra pixels necessary to extend your 4:3 to 16:9, and you get full use on widescreen material, and just what you have today on 4:3 (most existing 16:9 PMPs have higher resolutions screens, but also in the 4"-4.25" range or better).

Why not check out some of Archos' products? Not very many people have mentioned them. Their PVPs have 4 to 4.3" screens, 16:9 screen, excellant video quality, a removable battery, one has a kickstand(604), you can record music and video with their dock, and they are releasing a wi-fi touchscreen version soon.

I would like to see the ipod catch up to some of their competitors by releasing a "true video" player, but their are much better options out right now than the ipod. The ipod is a great MP3 player but it has a long way to go before it dominates the market in anything else.

Why not check out some of Archos' products? Not very many people have mentioned them. Their PVPs have 4 to 4.3" screens, 16:9 screen, excellant video quality, a removable battery, one has a kickstand(604), you can record music and video with their dock, and they are releasing a wi-fi touchscreen version soon. www.archos.com

I would like to see the ipod catch up to some of their competitors by releasing a "true video" player, but their are much better options out right now than the ipod. The ipod is a great MP3 player but it has a long way to go before it dominates the market in anything else.

I argee with Mike, I just bought the 504 16:9 version of the Archos player. The screen is killer, scanning through pics is very fast, it basically is a PVR on the go, docking station allows you to output via componet video so you can at least have DVD quality playback when your on the road etc... I wish I would have gotten the 160 gig version. Great device but a tad expensive, but it is very versitile!! I love iPods but went this route because of the flexiblity of the device.