Localizing: an advertiser’s dream is a consumer’s nightmare

Personalization has forever been the dream of both advertisers and consumers. Those who sell products would love to target those most interested in order to sell more, and consumers love things designed especially for them. Personalization has always made people feel like someone actually cared to cater to them specifically even if it was a computer doing it. That level of personalization has reached new heights with the advent of the internet, where companies simply tailor everything to your tastes, needs, usage, etc. Amazon analyzes what you buy, what you wish for, what you’ve looked at and recommends things accordingly. The whole website seems designed “just for you” every time you visit.

I must admit, I personally love it. It’s quite useful to avoid all those extras and have what you want at your fingertips. When I access my bank account from my bank’s ATM, it’s personalized as well. I have specifically what I want on the menu, which adjusts in accordance to what I’ve accessed the most on it. The cash presets are those I’ve taken out most frequently, saving me time and hassle (not that typing in a number on a keypad is much of a hassle). It’s not something I necessarily needed, but it’s nice to have it either way.

In this personalized nirvana though there are a number of issues (apart from the possible privacy issues with companies or other people knowing too many things about your habits) that I’ve begun to notice, but the main one is one that has been rearing its ugly head all over the web: Localization.

What is it?

Lo•cal•ize [loh-kuh-lahyz]

–verb (used with object)
1. to make local; fix in, or assign or restrict to, a particular place, locality, etc.
–verb (used without object)
2. to gather, collect, or concentrate in one locality.

Localization takes something and tailors it to a particular place or location. This is excellent for advertisers as they are able to target their message to a specific city, state, or country so that it may be more effective and reach a relevant audience. It makes no sense, for example, to advertise air conditioners in Barrow, Alaska, though a flame-thrower and UV lamps might be a perfect fit. If you don’t really travel much or spend much time away from a single home, this works perfectly well and can be quite useful, but for those who travel often, have two homes in different places, it can be a bit annoying. Also, localization is often used to limit access to a certain technology, product or service. It’s also used in price fixing across different countries in order to charge more for a product in a place where they can afford it and lower the price elsewhere, blocking access to the cheaper price (thought to be illegal in some countries). This can be most easily seen in the regional encoding of movies which I’ve mentioned in other articles and comments here, where you can’t play a movie bought in another region. More on that further below.

Let’s begin with Language

Language is another localization which can be quite useful for people from a specific country. We’re used to english localization, and it makes sense considering it’s the most common language spoken throughout the world, after Chinese, of course. Having said that, it wouldn’t necessarily make sense in China (even if so many of them are).

The beauty of the modern internet is that many websites can read your IP and automatically determine where you are, selecting your personal language for you. This can be quite practical as you don’t have to go and look for the little flag or language button to find a language you understand or prefer. But what happens when that’s not the language you speak?

Most websites allow you to change the language, but some of the most important websites do not, or make it quite difficult to do so. As I’ve traveled and lived in numerous places, this has been one of the most annoying things to deal with. It’s a constant battle with the system to try and keep it in my language of choice. Something as popular as MySpace or even Google would be a constant battle, wasting loads of time trying to keep it in a language I can understand, sometimes having to guess where one can even change the language or country. Soldiers particularly struggle with this constantly as they serve in different places throughout the world.

This is where localization turns ugly and becomes a nightmare to users. The internet was supposed to promote this sense of a global village where users from everywhere could communicate with each other, where borders would disappear and products could be more accessible to people from places you could never reach before, and what not. Something called the “World wide web” might sort of have something to do with that thinking, yet if anything this web is entangling communication and destroying it as programmers insert more limits through localization and disabling access to products, services, and content.

If you sell it, they will come. If you don’t, they’ll pirate it.

As access becomes more ubiquitous, it has become more limited. Companies like Google have localized absolutely everything in order to provide the most targeted advertising (or supposedly “personalized” experience), but have also used that to block users to some of their services. Video services have traditionally been a great example (both free and for purchase) like those at NBC, SciFi, and scores of companies throughout the web (anyone from Europe and other parts of the world can attest to not having any movies or TV shows available for purchase or rent online in iTunes or Xbox Live - see my older article iPod - Where’s the Beef?) where you can’t access the content from anywhere except from the U.S. They read your IP and that’s it. You can’t even pay for the content to get it, not even using your U.S. Address, credit card or account.

The only exception to this is iTunes which still allows Americans to access the U.S. store from outside the U.S. and purchase from it as long as you have a valid U.S. address and credit card. You can imagine which service those who find themselves abroad will turn to for their content. Thank you Apple.

It’s not just Americans abroad but english speakers throughout the world that wish to enjoy their content in its original language. If you wish to experience it and wish to pay for it, sorry, but you can’t. I myself have found the Google wall or the SciFi Channel wall or Xbox Live wall when visiting other countries. For some reason content providers still don’t seem to get it. The users are certainly going to get it, and if it’s not sold to them, they’ll simply acquire it by other means (read Piracy). Many people don’t want it in the language of the country they find themselves in, and this even includes many locals of those countries. This market is not only under-served but being excluded altogether and being forced to pay a premium for the content in a language that isn’t necessarily their own (in case of travelers, students or ex-pats). Also, with so much of that same content localized, why isn’t it made available? If you’re showing the episode for free anyway on SciFi.com, why can’t everyone watch it?

I know I’m stressing the media content side, but I’ve also experienced it on the software or services side. It’s understandable that a little store in Birmingham, Alabama can’t serve or has difficulty in selling products to a guy in India, but digital content and services have no limitations except those put upon them by their masters.

The final nightmare

This is the ugly side of localization, which we have experienced for so many years on DVD, and which thanks to Blu-ray’s win over HD-DVD will continue to exist in that physical format. Unfortunately, the practice has moved over to the so called “world wide web” which is less and less world wide every day, as companies continue to bring down the world to just your door and control what you can do and watch or purchase and in what language. What should be a blessing has become a curse. What should be a dream, has become a nightmare.

What do you think? Have you experienced this while traveling, or while living or studying in a different country than your own?


Keywords: localization, customization, personalization, localize, customize, personalize, consumer, DVD, internet, web, websites, language, country, travel

Toshiba declares itself defeated

Toshiba today accepted defeat in the battle for a high-definition DVD replacement. It will logically soon follow that Paramount, Universal and Dreamworks will switch to Blu-ray.

Thank you HD-DVD for your security blanket in your combo discs, and for the economical price of your players and discs. My DVDs look great upscaled in your drive and while you live, the HD-DVD side will look even better. Thank you for being region-free.

Unfortunately, that price fixing practice called regional encoding will now continue thanks to Sony and the blu-ray format. There are less regions, but there are regions all the same. Here's to hoping there'll be a region crack soon, or that governments will follow the lead of other countries and make it illegal to sell region locked players. In the meantime, there's the wonderful DVD format, continuing to be king, with its ease of use, compatibility and everything else. Thank you DVD for being so easy to backup to my computer, and for upscaling so beautifully in my cheap HD-DVD player.

Goodbye HD-DVD. At least you'll live 'till you die.

Hello Blu-ray. I will sing your praises when you finalize your format and stop producing obsolete players. I will also sing your praises once somebody cracks your regional encoding. Then we will be best friends.

HD DVD is Dead, Long Live HD DVD

There's been an epic battle going on, one that not many people even cared about, but epic all the same. To read technology columnists and news outlets, everyone was incredibly interested in this, despite the fact that most people have no idea what an HDTV is, much less that there's a high definition DVD format out there to play on it. They know there's a cool flat panel TV on the market sure, I mean, Bobby Joe has one in his trailer, and it plays DVDs really cool on it, but HD DVD sounds like the same as DVD and Blu-Ray is what they call Billy Ray when he's depressed.

The only truly interested parties are those involved in the battle itself, comparing it to the great battle of Beta vs. VHS which though at first may seem like an accurate depiction, upon close inspection, one finds it couldn’t be further from it. Neither format will conquer thanks to the porn industry as everyone already gets their porn on the internet, and unlike during the original battle, everyone already owns a high quality, digitally restored and remastered version of Beastmaster on DVD (sorry TNT, but it was you who said, “Christmas isn’t Christmas without the Beastmaster!"). Back then, the only way you could watch a movie was in a theater or if the networks or HBO played it on TV. Today, not only does Betty Sue have a DVD player in her trailer, but she owns the full Ernest collector’s edition DVDs. Her husband, second cousin Johnny Lee, even owns, not one but three collector’s edition, digitally restored, Star Wars movies. He just loves that “Chew-bacco" character.

The movie studios, who have already had you buying the same movie on VHS, on DVD, on DVD collector’s edition, on DVD director’s cut, on DVD special super duper collector’s director original cut Blade Runner, and if it wasn’t enough (Ridley Scott should stop ripping us off - yes, I fell for it…I love Blade Runner), on DVD Director’s Final Cut (until the next Final Final definite version cut), want you to buy yet another new format. Most of us have fallen for it at least once, but at least the DVD format made sense. You didn’t have to rewind and fast forward. You could just skip and pause as desired without waiting, and the quality was and still is superb.

Now, the latest craze is High Definition which comes in two main flavors: 1. 720 lines of resolution, progressively displayed (720p), and 2. 1080 lines of resolution interlaced (1080i)…but wait, there’s another version of 1080 but progressively displayed (1080p)…hmm. Some TVs support 1080p, some players don’t and what not, but theoretically, if your signal is a high definition source, and if your TV is bigger than 42 inches, and if you’re standing close enough to it, then you’ll see that Ricky Martin has gone to a dermatologist to fix the craters on his face and that the porn actress suffers from shaving rash. The image is really that good and detailed! So they want you to buy the same movie once more but in one of their new and shiny, high definition enabled, and DVD priced, disc based formats. This means you buy new hardware (more on this below), and replace, ahem, throw away those old, “standard" quality DVD discs. In their new context, “standard" means substandard or in layman’s terms, “shit". Of course, we all know this isn’t true, but through clever marketing, HD DVD’s “The Look and Sound of Perfect" and blu-ray’s “Without blu-ray your HDTV is just a TV" the studios will make us feel our current, high quality, digitally restored and super re-mastered DVD is crap and needs to be upgraded.

The two contenders: HD DVD and blu-ray

As you already know at this point, there are two formats competing for the heavyweight title of the world. They both use the same blue laser technology, but with different implementations. HD DVD was meant to be an upgrade to DVD and is in fact approved by the DVD Forum as the true successor to DVD. It can be produced in the same DVD factory, and therefore is cheaper to manufacture, and those economies can be seen in the extremely accessible pricing. This evolution has its downside in that the amount of storage capacity of HD DVD is 30% less than that of blu-ray, though this has no real bearing on the quality of movies in the format as the space is ample enough and then some. It has nonetheless been used by blu-ray in their marketing to pound on HD DVD.

Article continues below the following preview
for my photography book, Natural Raw. Buy it Today!

---

Natural Raw by Franco Esteve

---

Article continues here...

Blu-ray was meant to be a state of the art storage technology and 21st century successor to DVD. It’s implementation of the blue laser technology allows it to store more data per layer. On paper, it would seem to be the better format, but it’s filled with drawbacks as a mass market medium and crowned inheritor of DVD. First of all, it’s expensive. If it wasn’t for the fact that Sony included a blu-ray player in every PS3 videogame system, something that has caused it to be much more expensive than competing “next generation" gaming consoles from Microsoft and Nintendo and gravely affected their sales and position in this round of the war for game console dominance, blu-ray players would not be affordable for the consumer (if you think 500 dollars/euros is “affordable"). Sony sells their PS3 at a loss, hoping to make up the money in software sales, allowing them to lower prices and therefore push their high definition format into every home that has a PS3. Second, it’s expensive to manufacture and produce. Third, it’s expensive and complicated to program for. So basically, the main drawback is that it’s expensive, but of course, once adopted by the masses, this should change, right? Well, there’s another problem.

These formats are first and foremost meant to replace DVDs for movies not personal storage and this is where the biggest differences happen. Where HD DVD set their standards early and with a solid vision for the future, blu-ray did exactly the opposite, breeding lots of problems both for producers and consumers. HD DVD players have a certain set of features from day one which blu-ray doesn’t, forcing early adopters to have to buy new players in order to utilize newer released movies and their “upgraded" features in accordance to the version of blu-ray they’re compatible with (1.0/1.1/1.2/etc.). This is terribly expensive and confusing for consumers, which is why HD DVD satisfaction amongst consumers has been much higher than with blu-ray. It also has to do with the complexities of programming the interactive features for blu-ray which uses the Java language versus HD DVDs easy to program but full featured, Microsoft created, HDi system. Simply put, HD DVDs offer a stable and consistent experience for the consumer, and blu-ray discs do not, often crashing and having scores of other idiosyncrasies. Also, because the standard continues to evolve, not all blu-ray movies offer the same quality in compression and sound, which is why earlier discs were often considered of inferior quality to HD DVD despite the formats having equal capacities in this regard.

Today though, apart from the blu-ray versioning fiasco which continues to affect blu-ray hardware (except possibly the Sony PS3), both standards offer the same high definition visuals and sound you would expect from a next generation DVD format albeit at very different price points (400 vs 125 and 30 vs 20). HD DVD should win, and yet, with the recent Warner Bros. announcement, it would seem the exact opposite is going to happen.

HD DVD is better

For the consumer HD DVD has the absolute advantage in its lower pricing, but it has some additional features which make it a better value. Because the format is a true evolution of DVD and is actually created on the same DVD disc, it has limitations as to the maximum amount of storage per layer (15GB per layer versus blu-ray’s 25GB per layer). This limitation is also it’s greatest advantage because it allows what is known as Combo discs which have an HD DVD side and a standard DVD side. You can play the HD DVD side on your HD DVD player and enjoy its amazing 1080p quality and sound while the standard DVD side can be enjoyed in the full DVD quality you’re accustomed to on any DVD player. This gives great value to the consumer by giving them the choice to view the movie in the format that’s available. This is simply not possible with blu-ray.

Another thing is the stability of the chosen interface and feature list. Consumers have been extremely satisfied with the quality and reliability of the format. Their investments are minor as the format is so economical, but they are also assured through a stable platform that is easy to understand and works perfectly from day one.

Finally, there is the fact that all HD DVDs are region free which means that no matter where in the world you purchase your disc, you’ll be able to play it on any HD DVD player. DVDs did not allow this and neither do blu-ray discs (blu-ray has simplified the region locking to a lesser number of regions but is locking nonetheless). Region locking is a movie studio tactic to make sure you pay more for your movies, be it by controlling the release of a movie in theaters and DVD or by charging more in locations that can afford it.

This last offers great value to the consumer but not to the movie studios which is why…

Blu-ray is better

Blu-ray has the clear advantage in terms of movie studio support. Not only does it have Sony’s stable of movies and those it owns from MGM and Columbia, but because of region locking and the false perception of greater piracy security, it has garnered full exclusive support from the majority of hollywood studios. Warner had been the biggest neutral holdout until January of this year, when it announced it would be blu-ray exclusive come May. It has been rumored that Warner was considering going HD DVD exclusive and the rumors include a possible half billion dollar sum to go blu-ray. True or not, the fact of the matter is that come May 2008, the only big studios exclusive to HD DVD will be Universal, Paramount, and Dreamworks (excluding Spielberg directed films). This news has caused every news outlet to report their opinion that without Warner, HD DVD is dead and blu-ray has won. It’s certainly given it an almost unfair advantage, but consumers decide wars with their wallets. This one’s not over yet.

The other main reason why blu-ray is better is the storage capacity, allowing for greater features down the line and greater use as a personal storage medium. Again, this is not really an advantage in terms of movies, but has been a main selling point as to the format. In the end, we’re talking about how one might be better for the consumer, and down the line, if adopted in PCs, more storage is better for consumers.

Why both formats suck

Both formats are not without their problems. First, to truly enjoy and see and hear the difference, you really need to invest in a lot of equipment. Perhaps you already have, but then, you have to reinvest in your movie collection as well, which is what the movie studios want. If you haven’t, you need to purchase a high definition television that can at least resolve the 720p resolution, in a size large enough to appreciate that resolution and be close enough to the screen to see the difference. For the sound you need a decent home theater system, and for the format you need the player and movie content.

Another thing is the fact that they are yet another format for you to keep track of. Is the quality over DVD really worth it? With DVD upscaling, is it worth spending the money? Should you really spend on The Beastmaster yet again? With digital distribution, are these formats relevant at all?

This last is the main question a lot of technology columnists have been asking, yet, with bandwidth limits becoming all the rage and astronomical charges for going over the limit established by your service provider, is digital distribution really practical? A lot of companies are betting on the online rental model, but it takes too long to download a movie in high definition and should your limit be exceeded, you may end up paying twice the price of the DVD to rent a film. Ownership is better. You should be able to pay and keep the movies to watch as you wish and when you wish, but again, was DVD really that bad?

DVD upscaling

There’s another development threatening the two new formats: DVD upscaling. What this means is that modern DVD players will take your “standard" definition DVD and through some beautiful hardware and software make your “standard" movie look closer to its high definition equivalent. I mean, it REALLY makes DVD look twice as amazing as it already was.

This is the real killer here as your existing collection can look twice as good with minimal investment. Here again, the price of HD DVD (at a current low of $130.00) is an advantage as the players are so cheap that you can buy them as a DVD upscaler and should the format disappear, it will have cost you pretty much the same as that modern, upscaling DVD player. DVD upscaling has, for many people, made the war irrelevant, and given DVD the life and recognition it deserved.

Has blu-ray won?

Blu-ray has won in the sense that most studios support it, but it hasn’t won in the minds of consumers. The cheapest blu-ray player, the PS3 has not sold anywhere near expectations and is currently running a distant third in the console wars. In high definition gaming, Microsoft is winning with its Xbox 360 and its amazing Xbox Live online gaming service (Nintendo has won the console wars this round overall with the innovative Wii, but its display quality is standard definition and old generation). Microsoft doesn’t include a high definition disc format out of the box so as to make the price more accessible to those who actually want to buy a game machine to play games, but they do have an HD DVD add on for the current price of $179.00 (this price will probably be much lower over the coming months).

The high definition “revolution" is expensive as it is, but blu-ray even more so. It’s not surprising considering Sony’s history. This past holiday season, it was HD DVD players flying off the shelves, not blu-ray. Of course, if there’s no content, there’s no format, which definitely gives blu-ray the advantage, but all this confusion has too many people buying neither. Also, blu-ray has to lower prices and finally standardize on a feature set to gain higher adoption levels. Already you can see scores of people dumping their early and incompatible blu-ray players on craigslist. This needs to be resolved.

HD DVD’s last stand

Toshiba has gotten extremely aggressive with their HD DVD player pricing, particularly after the Warner announcement, so it makes it worth it to pick one up for the free movies and upscaling DVD capabilities if not for the format itself. A number of big releases are still exclusive to HD DVD, including Transformers, American Gangster, The Star Trek movies and series, Shrek, The Bourne Ultimatum and scores of others, so there is still quite a bit of content you can’t get on blu-ray. Also, the region free advantage allows you to buy blu-ray “exclusives" in HD DVD format from Amazon UK and other overseas suppliers and play them in your cheap Toshiba player. This overseas format jumping has been going on from day one, utilizing the different overseas distributors and suppliers to allow release in the competing format. Region free is mandatory in some countries and should be the same across the globe. It really is an advantage for the consumer, and considering this blog is called bNowhere, it is extremely relevant here.

So go out there and celebrate blu-ray’s alleged win by getting your cheap HD DVD player. You’ll be glad you did, and be sure, you’ll come out of the store happy in your thoughts that “HD DVD is dead, long live HD DVD!"

Related links

DVD Forum: www.dvdforum.org
HD DVD: The Look and Sound of Perfect
Blu-ray: Without Blu-ray your HDTV is just a TV
Warner and Blu-ray: The real reason behind the switch
Toshiba’s Super Cheap Player: Amazon changes the price constantly but I have yet to see it over $150.

Keywords: HD DVD, HD-DVD, Blu-ray, DVD, Upscaling, high definition, hdtv, format war

IBM's Cell Processor on a Mac

There's been a lot of news lately about Apple Computer's switch from IBM's PowerPC processor to Intel's family of processors commonly seen on Windows PCs. For years, Apple's advertising touted the PowerPC as superior to anything Intel could provide, yet, just last year, Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple, announced that they would abandon the PowerPC platform for Intel's offerings, stating that Intel's processors and their roadmap for the future was much better suited to Apple's power needs.

January of this year, the first Intel-powered Apple computers were finally available, and Mr. Jobs, in his usual, colorful manner, promoted the power of Intel's new dual core as being vastly superior to the PowerPC it was replacing. There's no question that compared to the PowerPC G4 processor offered on Apple's current notebooks, Intel's offerings are monumentally faster, but are Intel's processors superior to the 64-bit G5? Hmm. Though the new iMac computer has been used as a point of comparison, it's not necessarily a fair one, starting with the fact that this new, Intel-powered machine uses a dual core processor versus the old iMac's single core (like having two processors versus one). It also has a more powerful bus, graphics card, etc. Yet, even with all these upgraded advantages, real world tests have proven it's not quite the "twice as fast" that Apple claims, and this is looking at applications optimized to run on both systems, as PowerPC applications run unacceptably slow on this new iMac, slowing the entire system to a crawl.

Microsoft released its new Xbox 360 video game system in November of last year, abandoning the Intel processor for a shiny, new multi-core PowerPC (not unlike the multi-core G5 in PowerMacs). Nintendo will release the Nintendo Revolution video game system later this year with a PowerPC processor. Sony, which will release it's own Playstation 3 this year, has also chosen to use IBM's PowerPC, though the Playstation's will be a special, souped up version, developed in a collaboration between the two companies and Toshiba, called the Cell processor. With all the next generation video game platforms migrating to the PowerPC and Microsoft going so far as to abandon Intel for the PowerPC, are Intel's offerings as good as Apple claims on the desktop high end, particularly when compared to the 64-bit, Dual Core G5? Perhaps not.

This is an important question for all those companies, scientists, and what not, that recently abandoned the Intel platforms they were using for Apple's PowerPC servers and desktops. The current, top of the line Power Macintosh system from Apple uses two dual core, 64-bit G5 processors for a total of four processing cores. Wether or not Intel's offerings are able to match that system's power, has yet to be seen as no professional, MacOS desktop system has been announced yet, but it begs the question as to whether Apple truly made the right decision on the high end.

Mac Cell

IBM officially introduced its Cell processor products today, demonstrating some real time demos of satellite driven landscape renderings and touting the power this will give to scientists and all those on the high end of the processing spectrum. A lot of coverage was given to the applications and the capabilities that this processor would give to end users. Many had speculated in the past, particularly before Apple's Intel announcement, that the new, PowerPC/Cell driven, video game consoles could have something to offer back to Apple in terms of games or power, particularly having something like the Cell processor to compete with the Intel world. We know that's not possible anymore, but...

...during IBM's announcement, I couldn't help but notice that the Cell processor demonstration was running the MacOS! Here it was for the world to see and bask in its incredible power, and leaving the entire world of Mac users to wonder what an Apple-Cell world would have been like. Rumor has it that Apple is collaborating with Intel, leveraging their PowerPC knowledge to design a new, more powerful high-end processor that could compete with the likes of Cell. This remains to be seen as do the new professional level Macs with Intel.

Until that time, I'll continue to wonder, what a Cell driven Mac world would have been like.

iPod Video: Where's the beef?

When the iPod with Video came out last year, I was one of the first to run out and buy one. I'd been wondering when they would finally include the capability, and was more than excited with the initial result. Also, there was a bonus, iTunes video content. Pixar was the first to include content in the form of their famous, Oscar-winning shorts, and of course, Apple began selling music videos as well. I couldn't wait for the moment in which TV shows and movies would begin to show up, and I didn't have to wait long as Disney and ABC quickly added content to the store. Their content was weak, but included the top 2 shows, and a couple of others. Not long after, NBC hopped on the bandwagon and it seemed like this would be the start of a boom of digital content similar to what happened with music. Not quite.

Six months later, except for a couple of exceptions, the iTunes video store is looking like a network dumping station, and a very light one at that. NBC has added such wonderful shows as: Knight Rider (which we all know will be a hit in Germany, though it's not available at the German store - more on this below), the A-Team ( "I pitty the fool" who spends money on this garbage), The Munsters, Adam-12, Dragnet (Just the facts that NBC can suck), Law and Order, etc. In essence, there's a couple of newer shows, and a bunch of old has been shows. Where's Friends? Seinfeld? Frasier? Cheers? On the positive side, they have the most shows of all. ABC may have been the first out of the gate, but it was only recently they added a couple of more shows. Their original lineup, though including Lost and Desperate Housewives, only added the already cancelled but excellent, Night Stalker (a huge disappointment if you enjoyed it because they didn't include the unaired episodes). Also, where's the WB and its famous cartoon shorts and series? And well, let's not even mention the brilliant idiots at CBS, who are not only absent from iTunes, but have recently claimed to want to distribute their content themselves (at similar prices but with viewing limits). There's one major thing that no one can complain about, at least with the iTunes content ( and particularly for Battlestar Galactica crackheads like myself - the only SciFi show included so far), and it's that the latest shows are posted the day after they air for you to purchase at $1.99 a piece (more on prices below).

You'd think that the networks would be salivating at this new source of revenue, and how it could add to their bottom line, particularly for older shows no longer in sydication. Also, it could bring to the attention of viewers less popular shows and what not. I for one am a perfect example, as I did not have a good first impression of the new Battlestar Galactica series. Everyone I know swore by it, but after watching an episode, I remained unconvinced, unconverted, and unsold on the idea of watching it again. Yet, when they put the complete mini-series and both seasons on iTunes, for a measly $2 USD I was able to give it another go. It turned out that the mini-series was so addictive, that I bought both seasons, and can't wait for the next episode to be posted every week. Also, this can push DVD sales, as iTunes video content is in an iPod compatible format and therefore subject to iPod sizing, which though looking acceptable on a television, is nowhere near the pristine, perfect quality brought by the DVD version. This means, people will pay twice for the same content, though the more saavy amongst you will read on in order to save some money.

Broadcast networks, like the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) and RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) before them, and all the others, are completely clueless, and in fact encourage piracy by making their content unavailable on services like iTunes, Google video, and what not. People want their content. If they will not sell it to them, people will find a way to acquire it. Later, they'll be crying about and looking to spend their dwindling fortunes on, piracy and the pursuit thereof. This could all have been prevented or at least partly thwarted.

The missing beef

In all this babbling about video and content available or unavailable at the iTunes Music Store, I have only spoken directly about the United States store, which also happens to be the ONLY store to offer Television shows. There are 21 localized iTunes stores and only ONE (the U.S. store) offers shows at all, whilst nine (including the U.S. store) offer music videos for sale along with the small group of Pixar shorts. This means that twelve offer NO video content whatsoever. If you happen to be one of the millions of iPod with video owners outside of the U.S., there's officially NO content for you. What will you do? Steal it, or convert content you own, of course. This is a major mishap, and has had me wondering where's the beef? for the rest of the world anyway.

The shows are available in other languages already, on DVD and in local broadcasts. You see them everywhere when you travel. So, why aren't they available for you to purchase at those stores? This brings me to a basic thought, and correct me if I'm wrong, but who fuels piracy? Bastardly users or mysterious and bearded pirate cartels wearing eyepatches and a parrot on their shoulder? Of course not, it's the content providers who provide NO legal means for you to fill your lovely new iPod with the content that you love.

What's in the cost of beef?

Another interesting point is the pricing of those few precious videos available outside the U.S. Their standard cost in Euros is 2,49 € per show in the few select countries in Europe that have such a priviledge. This is $2.99 USD at today's exchange rate, whereas the standard price at the U.S. store is $1.99 USD. Yes, a lot of those countries are taxed up the cahoot, but you'd think that content providers would look to be fair and equal, and try to at least reach some parity between the pricing throughout the world, particularly when we're talking about digital content. The content is already there and in the local language, so what's happening here? Part of the point being missed by these providers is the point of the internet itself, the fact that, because it's digital, you can sell it to anyone anywhere at your own personal local price. The distribution is worldwide and unlimited. Let people have it, and for $1.99, charged directly to their credit card, the exchange rate will be automatic and everyone will be happy.

Cutting the meat yourself

Sure, our need for instant gratification will have us jumping at a specific series or another, but others, we might already have on DVD or may wish to wait for. Since you'll also want to have these on your iPod, and for those who have NO digital content available for purchase, there are a number of programs that will do the conversion for you. The latest version of Quicktime allows you to convert your content to iPod format, but doesn't allow the conversion of protected content such as DVDs. In the U.S., it isn't illegal for you to back up a DVD you already own because of fair use laws, but it is illegal for software makers to provide the tools under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998). Thanks to the global power of the internet, these tools are available from where it's actually legal to produce it. A simple search in Google for "DVD to iPod" will yield plenty of options for your favorite computer platform.

One of those available on the MacOS platform is Handbrake (free download). With a single click, you can have your DVD on your iPod in a couple of hours. There are many options available for this process, some simpler than others, some free, some not. My personal favorite on the Mac is Handbrake, but others may be better. Find one you like for your platform, and go fill your shiny new iPod with the content wasting away on your shelf, that could be better served on the road with you. (Handbrake is also available for Linux and Windows)

The final beef

Though I don't condone piracy, it's hard to condemn those who download these shows when they're not even available legally. Many studios complain that piracy is rampant in some of these countries, yet, they don't provide legal alternatives either, or price them competitively at that (99,00 € for ONE season of Star Trek). The iPod video has been out for 6 months, so, where's the content for these markets? The iTunes Music (and now video) Store has proven that people want to pay for content, so get with the program TV execs, and give us the beef we want, else our beef will be with you.

Some additional information:

Apple Computer - makers of our favorite portable player, the iPod.
DMCA - view the Digital Millenium Copyright Act in pdf (requires the free Acrobat reader)
DMCA opinion - The DMCA has many detractors. Here's one.
DMCA Overview - information on the DMCA at Wikipedia.