A Response to Gary Krakow's Criticism of Apple's Inclusions of Video on the iPod and iTunes Music Store

Over on MSNBC, columnist Gary Krakow gives his low opinion of the video-on-demand model that the the new iPod and iTunes Music Store upgrades represent. It's one of those columns where you read it and think, "This guy doesn't have a clue. How does he get a job writing for MSNBC?" And then you wonder if NBC might have let the MS take over...

Let's start with this:

I’m afraid, however, that after the initial coolness factor wears off, the video iPod will wind up in the same dresser drawer as the Zvue, the Zen and other portable video devices that have come and gone over the years.

I believe the obvious thing that Mr. Krakow seems to have overlooked is that, yes, this is still and iPod and, yes, it still handles music better than any other digital media player - at the very least according to market share. So I think the new video-capable iPod is only going to end up in your dresser drawer to the same extent as your older non-video-capable iPod would, perhaps a bit less on average when those video aficianados are taken into account.

But the new video iPod so far doesn't seem different enough from many similar past devices that underestimated the public’s willingness to embrace a portable unit that requires a home computer.

He's right in that the public has been thus far unwilling to ditch the old boob tube and move on to a computer-centric entertainment system. But the industry is certainly converging that way - just look at Apple's new iMac, the Microsoft media center, the increasing capabilities of video game systems, and so on. While this doesn't necessarily refute Mr. Krakow's point - that the market isn't willing to make the jump to a computer-centric entertainment set-up - the trends are against him.

My main contentions with Mr. Krakow, however, lie in this statement of his:

TV is basically free already. Yes, people pay monthly fees for cable and satellite services, but for the most part, millions still watch network TV shows every night. Some record them on VCRs. Others record shows on DVRs (digital video recorder) like TiVo, etc. Still others are content to wait for a rerun to catch a show they’ve missed.

First, TV is certainly not free. Paying for cable or satellite are obvious enough, and cited by Mr. Krakow himself. The other obvious cost is a TV. TVs are gradually becoming more and more of an extraneous cost as computers take on more of the roles of a TV. I already watch all my DVDs on a computer and I'd be happy to ditch network TV for downloads, despite the cost. If a computer is necessary and does all the things a TV could do, why would I need a TV at all? I'm jumping ahead of the market, but it's my prediction that TVs are going to become redundant as computer take over their jobs. That's not to say huge screens aren't here to stay, but rather that your media will be from the computer and not from something hooked up to the TV.

But I'll submit that that's not a very strong argument. The more important cost is time. Scheduled TV anchors you to a time that you have to sit in front of the TV. You may prefer to spend that time block doing something else if you could watch your show at another time, but no, you're in front of the TV. Not to mention that you're forced to sit through commercials, or at least forced to wait for the next part of the show while commericials play, or skip through them if recorded.

And that hardly even touches upon the benefit of choice and freedom. If there were a wide selection of downloadable videos available, I could be sitting here at 5AM and say, "Gee, I want to watch the third episode of the second season of The Simpsons," I then download it and suddenly find myself watching it. Three weeks later when the urge hits again, I'd have it there at my disposal. I could watch all the obscure shows I'd ever wanted to see, and wouldn't be tied to some random selection that I might get by tuning in to watch a rerun. And to have it in an easy-to-use program like iTunes - rather than buried in the TiVo disk or on some external media - would just enhance the convenience.

Some may be content to wait for a rerun to catch a show they've missed, sure. But those people undoubtedly have more patience than the average consumer; how long would I have to wait for my Simpsons episode? Too long, I'm sure, and probably much shorter than for most shows, such as those no longer on the air. TiVo or other recording means are similar in that you have to be lucky enough to catch the show on the air. If it's not on the air, you can't get it.

I'm not saying that there isn't some video people will pay for — the music fans who flock to iTunes may very well be willing to pay for special programming such as music videos, movie shorts and even movies, plus items they can’t watch anywhere else for any price. But the TV shows they could watch for free the day before? We'll see.

TV shows they could watch for free the day before if they wanted to sit in front of the TV at that hour. Again, this is about freedom to consume when you want to. And for any given day, few shows will be available from the day before. I missed the first season of Desperate Housewives, but now I have them available to me for download whenever I feel like it.

I have to say I agree with Mr. Krakow about the low res of the video iPod; watching on such a small screen could be cool on a train, but not ever preferable to the larger screens available on from the computer. And I also like his idea of skipping the computer to get the media, but I still think he greatly underestimates what I perceive to be the prime value of downloadable video: freedom.