Heh. iTunes makes it easy for me to buy my friend's small label album. Just as easy as if I were buying the new Madonna. Without iTunes or Amazon, they'd be much harder to find.

If iTunes makes reaching an audience easier for the little guy, on what do you base your disapproval?

If iTunes makes reaching an audience easier for the little guy...

Do they? It would be important, if they did. Find your small-label friend, using terms particular to the content.

I base my disapproval on this: iPod does not give a frack about the content.

And DirectTV does?

Where did you buy your DVDs, Gus? Did you call up Universal/Fox direct and say "Hey guys, I'd like some Firefly DVDs, I'll send you a check, you send 'em to me, kay?" Or did you go through Amazon.com / deepdiscountdvd.com / Best Buy / Tower Records / Barnes and Noble / Borders / whatever?

Those people are distributers. So is Apple. Hell, Apple isn't even overcharging: $1.99 * 14 = $27.86 if you buy one ep at a time, or you can even buy the entire season at once for $25.99. That's $9 less than Amazon.com's price for the DVD set, and $24 dollars less than retail. DVDs are better for us big fans, sure, but most people don't care about commentaries and such, so the Apple thing gives them an easy entry point, cheaper than a week of Starbucks. Of the Apple price, Fox gets a decent cut of that money - more than half, if it's like the music sales - which is reinvested in other Fox products, including other genre/clever TV shows that they'd be less likely to risk without the proven revenue stream of Firefly etc.

Joss and Tim are doing fine, trust me. Nathan et al won't get money from ANY Firefly sales, DVD, Apple, or otherwise - it was never part of their contract, and they don't expect it. If you want to send them money, go for it, but I doubt they'll take it. Doesn't matter anyway - whether we like it or not, the television industry does not currently lend itself to a big independent market, and so the studios are who we need to pay off if we want to get fresh content. And the studios make money from the Apple revenue stream.

On a somewhat unrelated note, if an independent market for television (video podcasts, perhaps) ever does emerge, it will be because of venues like iTunes, that allow basically direct-to-customer sales, or at least a much closer facsimile, just like ita's indie music friend is more likely to be able to make some revenue in the modern, iTMS world. A good band (or even a fairly bad one) can promote themselves with MySpace (see: Mute Math, whom I don't like much myself but are really quite popular considering they've only had one EP released by a major label) and Livejournal, sell their songs direct on iTMS, and never have to give a cent to Warner/Sony/Whoever. That hasn't happened yet with TV, but it COULD, as video processing becomes cheaper and cheaper. And episodic, wide-content distribution channels like iTMS are the only way it will ever happen.

So, basically, step off.

I actually could make an argument against itunes. Without making the actual argument, the structure would be:

In a better system economic system x, something would be possible with the same technolgy compared to which itunes would suck mightily.

However, under our current system - the one we actually live under and will for quite some time - itunes is probably as good as it gets with that particular technology. I guess I'm a political dualist. A huge difference between what I'd like to see, and what I support given the current choices.

The one thing I would like to see is that France succeed in what it is doing in forcing Apple to provide ipod interoperability with other formats. Don't think France is actually big enough to win against Apple on this one; they will simply pull out of the French market, and the French will buy their Ipods across the border. But in the current political climate it is almost inevitable that this technology would be developed and implemented by an evil monopoly. At least it is in the hands of a technically competent evil monopoly.

iPod is people!

People!

spitting the iPod out of my mouth.

You couldn't have told me that before I started chewing?

I base my disapproval on this: iPod does not give a frack about the content.

Which is exactly the point. iPod (or rather itunes) allows access to content period. Doesn't matter what it is. Don't like what the majors are offering? It's just as easy to access some small indie offering. In other words, you get to build your own filter instead of relying on someone elses.

So, basically, step off.

Huh. Who knew we were in a bad gangster movie!

I guess I don't see any problem with iTunes and the iPod having preferred formats. There are converters out there.

iPods can use:

AAC (16 to 320 Kbps), Protected AAC (from iTunes Music Store), MP3 (16 to 320 Kbps), MP3 VBR, Audible (formats 2, 3 and 4), Apple Lossless, WAV, AIFF.

For images, it can use:

JPEG, BMP, GIF, TIFF, PSD (Mac only) and PNG formats

A video iPod can use:

H.264 video: up to 768 Kbps, 320 x 240, 30 frames per sec., Baseline Profile up to Level 1.3 with AAC-LC up to 160 Kbps, 48 Khz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4 and .mov file formats

MPEG-4 video: up to 2.5 mbps, 480 x 480, 30 frames per sec., Simple Profile with AAC-LC up to 160 Kbps, 48 Khz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4 and .mov file formats

So the problem is basically Apple wants to not have to engineer their product to read every format out there. Saves money, time and keeps the cost down.

You want maybe to force them to use Microsoft's proprietary .wmv/etc formats? IIRC, Apple's Aac format is open to anyone who wants to use it and follow the guidelines.

It just seems that it all sounds like complaining to DVD makers that they don't play .45 records or your VHS and betamax tapes. (To be fair, maybe I should say Laser discs, etc.) Yes you can put these things onto DVD, but you have to convert it to a signal the device can understand.

Hmm Daniel, you would appear to have a point. Are these maximum resolutions it accepts these formats at the same as what it plays its own file at? Or do non-native formats play at lower quality?

In response to G's post, I do hope Gus does not "step off" though, and explains himself further. I'd like to understand how we can do without distributors. Seems an obviously neccesary function. Seems to me that it is even one of the three major categories economics studies (production, consumption, and distribution). OK in the abstract a distribution function does not have to include human distributors - but I have trouble imagining that in practice with todays technology.

As an aside.

No, someone right out of the gate cannot make a Firefly. But itunes could allow other tv like productions.

People could make good sitcoms. Such a beast is possible.

The SW fan community have been making excellent shorts with decent special effects for the last few years. Their major limitation at the moment seems to be acting.

So will it happen tomorrow. No. But it will happen. Probably will start from autuers from Hwood that got disgusted that their latest concept didn't survive studio focus groups and just do it.