I think the author is making too big a deal of this video not being promoted by Apple.
Sure, to us reading from the author's blog, we know it's an independent video. To most people who would load up iTunes and see a big banner for a Steve Jobs video on the front of the store, it would seem as though Apple were behind it.
I don't think there's anything wrong with not actively promoting that sort of confusion.
If they'd really thought it was "too controversial" (Not sure why the author quoted that phrase, and then didn't say if it was an actual quote?), they wouldn't have put it in the store at all. It's not like banning something from their store is something they're afraid to do...
I think they also know that banning an interview with Steve Jobs from their store would create untold publicity for it, so if they are not including it in their 'new releases' section, then they are probably burying it. And it doesn't take much of a byline to indicate that something is an independent production, so I don't think there is much difficulty in avoiding that sort of confusion, while still having it more visible.
I don't think it getting credibility in that way was ever any sort of a risk. A small independent documentary for a niche audience was never going to get the same sort of billing as John Carter.
But that's probably what's happened - it's a small niche interest film that they've just dumped in there. Looking at the new releases I don't think that's all new releases, just potentially popular ones.
Not everything gets equal billing in iTunes and not promoting something isn't the same as burying it. I suspect that this has had precisely the same level of attention applied to it as any other small, indie film - that is none at all.
He's just trolling. Assuming his film doesn't make $100M at the box office or win a bunch of awards he knows there's no chance in hell Apple is going to promote it for him.
Unrelated to the post, but why is the only option to rent? I love iTunes, but I hate their rental policy (only watch for 24 hours). Would be nice if I could just pay the 10-15 bucks and own it.
The consensus definition of market capitalization is the value of all outstanding shares of publicly traded companies, expressly. At least that is the context in which I was referring.
Many attribute Apple's success to Steve Jobs, therefore reminding everyone once again he's no more by promoting an interview (or banning it) probably wouldn't be wise. No controversy here IMHO.
Cringely, I thank you for Triumph of the Nerds, but in general you're full of shit. I don't blame Apple for not wanting to "promote" and pump up a movie of their recently deceased founder, so that you can make money off it.
Everytime I see the name Cringly I'm reminded of a chap who was building a plane and thru a major emo at the cameraman.
I know he has been going on about this lost interview for years but $3.99, naaaa. I call that cashing in like ew conning a TV studio to pay for you to build a plane for yourself.
35 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 69.6 ms ] threadSure, to us reading from the author's blog, we know it's an independent video. To most people who would load up iTunes and see a big banner for a Steve Jobs video on the front of the store, it would seem as though Apple were behind it.
I don't think there's anything wrong with not actively promoting that sort of confusion.
If they'd really thought it was "too controversial" (Not sure why the author quoted that phrase, and then didn't say if it was an actual quote?), they wouldn't have put it in the store at all. It's not like banning something from their store is something they're afraid to do...
But that's probably what's happened - it's a small niche interest film that they've just dumped in there. Looking at the new releases I don't think that's all new releases, just potentially popular ones.
Not everything gets equal billing in iTunes and not promoting something isn't the same as burying it. I suspect that this has had precisely the same level of attention applied to it as any other small, indie film - that is none at all.
Looks like it's been mirrored to avoid automatic detection.
It's a shame, it was a really different interview.
FWIW, this was a really good film.
...and I stopped reading the article.
I think the author is being facetious/sarcastic, but I can't tell.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporations_by_market_...
They have at least 260 billion barrels of oil, most of which are easily recoverable for less than $3 per barrel: http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/09/worlds-biggest-oil-companie... - That's a lot of money...
Neither, They're stating a fact.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/marketshare/2012/02/16/the-most-...
In 1080p, you'll get analog artifacts in HD, I'm not sure it's worth it...
The YouTube link above is fine (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4193665). All you see on screen is Jobs' face anyway.
Edit: There's a spanish-dubbed version in 1080p, you can mute it and watch it with the sound track of the other one if you like. But it really doesn't add much. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atyF5c9sdBk&feature=rela...
Nice PR play, though.
I know he has been going on about this lost interview for years but $3.99, naaaa. I call that cashing in like ew conning a TV studio to pay for you to build a plane for yourself.
Maybe he can move on now it's been `found`.