iPhone Optus rumor; Apple TV allows movie sales; Mac web share

[AppleInsider]

Apple may use Australia as a testbed and sell the iPhone as a non-exclusive in the country, says one report. Meanwhile, Apple has enabled direct movie purchases from the Apple TV, Mac and iPhone web share has dropped in April as the iPhone becomes Flickr's top cameraphone. Also, Apple is moving some of its support efforts from California to Texas, and new iMacs have been tested against earlier models.

iPhone rumored for Australia as Optus non-exclusive

In an unusual report, CNET Australia on Thursday claimed knowledge that the iPhone will arrive in Australia under very different terms than for past carriers.

Similar to recent rumors circulated regarding Europe and Latin America, the technology site points to an alleged industry insider who says the phone will be available first through a local carrier, Optus -- but that the provider won't have sole rights to the device, as AT&T and initial European carriers enjoy today.

An announcement will reportedly surface in mid-May but may not mention the specific device; Optus is expecting to launch with future iPhone models rather than the existing generation, according to the anonymous source. Rogers Wireless in Canada has already followed a similar pattern, announcing a Canadian iPhone deal but leaving virtually all details until later.

Unlike Canada, however, the Australian launch has been rumored to include an unlocked model that could be used with any carrier available to the island nation.

Apple flicks switch on Apple TV movie sales

At the same time as Apple has announced day-and-date movie sales through iTunes, the company has also quietly pushed out an update to the Apple TV version of the store that allows direct movie purchases.

Beforehand, users of the set-top box had their direct access limited to rentals, with viewing of purchased titles limited to those synchronized from a host Mac or PC.

The change doesn't require a firmware upgrade and has also altered the front-end of the store to list top sellers as well as the existing rental options.





iPhone, Mac share dip in April

While Safari marketshare tripled in April, the same can't be said for the iPhone and the Mac in the same month, results from Net Applications show.

The web firm observes that Mac share among its client sites fell significantly between March and April, dropping from 7.48 percent to 7.01 percent in the four-week span. That share has largely been taken by Microsoft, which climbed from 91.57 percent to 91.99 percent at the same time.

iPhone share also declined in the period from 0.15 percent to 0.14 percent, though it remains the single largest mobile client tracked at Net Applications and the only one to register a visible influence.

The monitoring company doesn't offer an explanation for the drop.

iPhone dominates Flickr's camera phone share

Among Flickr's many camera phone contributors, the iPhone is the clear frontrunner, as pointed out by Computerworld.

The Apple phone in recent months has surged past the previously leading Nokia N95 to take the top position at the photo storage site -- a feat which comes despite the N95's superior equipment, which includes a five-megapixel sensor (versus the iPhone's two), autofocusing, and a flash.

Other phones in the top five run well short of these two competitors, with Nokia's N73 as well as Sony Ericsson's K800i and W810i rounding out the devices most likely to have taken photos appearing on Flickr pages.



Apple moves Elk Grove support jobs to Texas

Apple on Thursday expanded its presence in Texas by revealing that it will transfer 174 jobs from its Elk Grove, California call center to its Austin location.

Those affected by the transfer are being asked to either move to follow their positions or else to seek alternative jobs at the West coast office.

The company hasn't offered an explanation and has asked employees to remain silent on the matter, though it takes care to state that Elk Grove operations have grown dramatically since 2005, jumping by 50 percent to 1,100 staffers.

In July of last year, Apple was discovered to be expanding operations at its Austin facilities to reduce overcrowding problems at its Cupertino, California buildings.

New iMacs show slight performance gains

Synthetic benchmarks show the 3.06GHz iMac advancing only slightly over its predecessor, according to tests run by Primate Labs.

The Canadian developer of the GeekBench testing suite notes that its test sees the Intel Penryn-based system outpacing its 2.8GHz ancestor by slightly more than 7 percent. The findings lead the company to suggest that those concerned with value for money are better off avoiding the top-end system unless video and storage are top priorities.



"If you’re looking for the best value in terms of raw processing power, the best iMac to get is the base model," Primate says. "Even after upgrading the RAM in the base model it’s still more cost-effective than the mid-range 20-inch iMac."[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ] (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=4021)

[stokessd]

The 20" is cheap, but it also has a crap LCD panel. The 24" is the way to fly.

Sheldon

[elroth]

"Apple on Thursday expanded its presence in Texas by revealing that it will transfer 174 jobs from its Elk Grove, California call center to its Austin location."

Great - more call center workers that speak a language ordinary Americans can't understand.

[Matthew Yohe]

"Apple on Thursday expanded its presence in Texas by revealing that it will transfer 174 jobs from its Elk Grove, California call center to its Austin location."

Great - more call center workers that speak a language ordinary Americans can't understand.


I'm sorry, have you actually spoken to an Austin rep?

[bobertoq]

I don't get how the base model is the fastest? Is it the resolution? :???:

[elroth]

"The Canadian developer of the GeekBench testing suite notes that its test sees the Intel Penryn-based system outpacing its 2.8GHz ancestor by slightly more than 7 percent."

It's not comparing the 3.06 GHz Mac to its ancestor, but to the newly released 2.8 GHz model. So for a just over a 9% increase in processor speed, it's showing a 7% performance increase, at least in these tests.

[rbonner]

"Apple on Thursday expanded its presence in Texas by revealing that it will transfer 174 jobs from its Elk Grove, California call center to its Austin location."

Great - more call center workers that speak a language ordinary Americans can't understand.

Glad to not be in the ordinary bunch, the Austin support reps are always great to work with!

[solipsism]

I don't get how the base model is the fastest? Is it the resolution? :???:
Fastest processing for your dollar. That doesn't consider the additional screen size, the panel type, or the HDD capacity. Though, if we take just the cost of the chip itself we still come out with the 2.4GHz chip being the best bang for your buck.


I'm sorry, have you actually spoken to an Austin rep?
I believe it was a joke.

[djames42]

At the same time as Apple has announced day-and-date movie sales through iTunes, the company has also quietly pushed out an update to the Apple TV version of the store that allows direct movie purchases.

Assuming this still doesn't support HD movie purchases... :no:

[federmoose]

I'm sorry, have you actually spoken to an Austin rep?

Austin is fine. when call people are placed in dallas, that's when you get issues.

[Obi-Wan Kubrick]

I dont know why any one would waste their money an a $15.00 digital download when you could buy the DVD for the same price which could be converted to digital.

[solipsism]

Assuming this still doesn't support HD movie purchases... :no:

And it shouldn't. The only device that could possibly play a HD movie right now is the iPod Touch or iPhone, and even then I'm sure the HW could handle the Mbps. There would also take up a huge amount of the capacity, except for the iPod Classic.

The only option would be to allow iTunes owners to scale down their HD movie purchases to fit on their iDevice. That means making it compatible with the iPod Nano so about 640x480 or 720x480 at 1.5Mbps would be the maximum allowed. The problem with this is would take a very long time to re-encode and is not the type of option that would satisfy the average Apple customer who doesn't know a think about resolution and bit rates.

Until all iDevices that are capable of putting out video that can play back HD H.264 video without freezing or eating through the battery in too short a time we are not going to see HD movies for sale from iTunes Store.

[jmadlena]

And it shouldn't. The only device that could possibly play a HD movie right now is the iPod Touch or iPhone, and even then I'm sure the HW could handle the Mbps. There would also take up a huge amount of the capacity, except for the iPod Classic.

The only option would be to allow iTunes owners to scale down their HD movie purchases to fit on their iDevice. That means making it compatible with the iPod Nano so about 640x480 or 720x480 at 1.5Mbps would be the maximum allowed. The problem with this is would take a very long time to re-encode and is not the type of option that would satisfy the average Apple customer who doesn't know a think about resolution and bit rates.

Until all iDevices that are capable of putting out video that can play back HD H.264 video without freezing or eating through the battery in too short a time we are not going to see HD movies for sale from iTunes Store.

What about the TV? That plays HD movies, and that is what this article is addressing: that we can now buy movies. If Apple allows us to rent HD movies, why not buy?

[solipsism]

What about the TV? That plays HD movies, and that is what this article is addressing: that we can now buy movies. If Apple allows us to rent HD movies, why not buy?
IMO, it's for reasons I specified above. Any rented video stays on the AppleTV, but purchased video and audio is synced back to your Mac or PC's iTunes account.

[aplnub]

Apple may use Australia as a testbed and sell the iPhone as a non-exclusive in the country, says one report. ][ View this article at AppleInsider.com ][/url][/c]

If Apple is that dumb, I am for hire. Who couldn't call unexclusiveness as a winner??

[Cicero]

Bummer....

Even though you can buy the movies on DVD release day, it looks like we still have to wait 30 days for new release rentals?

[ouragan]

The web firm observes that Mac share among its client sites fell significantly between March and April, dropping from 7.48 percent to 7.01 percent in the four-week span. That share has largely been taken by Microsoft, which climbed from 91.57 percent to 91.99 percent at the same time.

iPhone share also declined in the period from 0.15 percent to 0.14 percent, though it remains the single largest mobile client tracked at Net Applications and the only one to register a visible influence.

The monitoring company doesn't offer an explanation for the drop.



Macs are too expensive! iPhones are too expensive! Steve Jobs $1 billion bonus is too expensive. Apple Vice-Presidents $1 billion bonus is too expensive!

Do you get it??? Apple is too expensive!!! And most consumers are not so demented as to buy from Apple just to get Steve Jobs all excited!!!

:???::???::???:

[ouragan]

The web firm observes that Mac share among its client sites fell significantly between March and April, dropping from 7.48 percent to 7.01 percent in the four-week span. That share has largely been taken by Microsoft, which climbed from 91.57 percent to 91.99 percent at the same time.


iMacs are $100 more expensive in Canada than the same computers sold in the USA. And Amazon doesn't sell computers in Canada and wouldn't be authorized by Apple to undercut the prices set by the AppleStore.

Are you really in the dark as to why Macs don't sell???

:no::no::no:

[bobertoq]

I kind of agree with you guys there... Maybe if Apple released something like the Open Computer and Open Computer Pro, starting at $400 and $1000 and it didn't cost an extra 100 dollars when 5 feet north of the US border, Mac sales would rocket. That is of course if they were good computers, that weren't deafeningly loud.

Macs are expensive. Why does it cost $400 dollars to go to 1 GB of RAM to 4 GB of RAM? I can buy 4 GB of RAM for less then $100

[anantksundaram]

I kind of agree with you guys there... Maybe if Apple released something like the Open Computer and Open Computer Pro, starting at $400 and $1000 and it didn't cost an extra 100 dollars when 5 feet north of the US border, Mac sales would rocket. That is of course if they were good computers, that weren't deafeningly loud.

Macs are expensive. Why does it cost $400 dollars to go to 1 GB of RAM to 4 GB of RAM? I can buy 4 GB of RAM for less then $100

I doubt very much that a $100 price-cut is all it would take for sales of Macs to 'skyrocket.' If so, Apple would have done it. Indeed, I especially doubt it will be you, since Apple makes 'deafeningly loud' computers that are not 'good.' $100 will change your mind? Give me a break.

Go troll somewhere else?

[federmoose]

Macs are too expensive! iPhones are too expensive! Steve Jobs $1 billion bonus is too expensive. Apple Vice-Presidents $1 billion bonus is too expensive!

Do you get it??? Apple is too expensive!!! And most consumers are not so demented as to buy from Apple just to get Steve Jobs all excited!!!

:???::???::???:

please tell me you're joking....
the bonuses are typical of any business. and as for the too expensive, you're paying a premium for a premium product. Half the PC users I talk to (and much more than half of the ones who buy the cheap machines you so want) complain that their PC's are cr@p. The hardware on those cheap machines are, well, cheap. Mac's aren't made of cheap. Furthermore, if your Apple computer dies, take it into a store and within 2 days its back (or send it in via phone support and its back within a week, including shipping time). Try to get that kind of service with a PC manufacturer (can I hear 3 weeks?).

Apple machines are sturdy, built to last, and one heck of a product. Yah, they are a kick to the wallet. Yah, they might charge a tad more than they ought. But this is good for business. My advice: buy apple stock, wait for it to go up, then sell apple stock, and buy a computer.

[federmoose]

Macs are expensive. Why does it cost $400 dollars to go to 1 GB of RAM to 4 GB of RAM? I can buy 4 GB of RAM for less then $100

Then buy the 4gb elsewhere. Apple RAM upgrades are for suckers anyways. Buy TechWorks, its what Apple uses for OEM anyways. Please don't complain for the sake of complaining.

[kenaustus]

Australia isn't an island - it's a continent. Around the size of the US actually. Calling the Land Down Under an island is, to the Aussies, like saying that the Mac is a Windows based computer. I know - I'm married to one. :D

[TBaggins]

I doubt very much that a $100 price-cut is all it would take for sales of Macs to 'skyrocket.' If so, Apple would have done it. Indeed, I especially doubt it will be you, since Apple makes 'deafeningly loud' computers that are not 'good.' $100 will change your mind? Give me a break.

Go troll somewhere else?

Is it trolling to have an opinion? :???:

Honestly, if he was saying, "Nyah, nyah, Macs sucks, PCs rule" or some other vomit, I'd be the first to have the admin delete the post, or I'd be dropping the flame bombs. But he isn't doing that.


.

[TBaggins]

I kind of agree with you guys there... Maybe if Apple released something like the Open Computer and Open Computer Pro, starting at $400 and $1000 and it didn't cost an extra 100 dollars when 5 feet north of the US border, Mac sales would rocket. That is of course if they were good computers, that weren't deafeningly loud.


$400 isn't going to happen. Apple has no interest in going into the eMachines, micro-margins segment of the market. A $1000 Apple mini-tower sure would be nice, however :) .

But... isn't Psystar (makers of the Open Computer and OC Pro) perhaps going out of business? Seems to be a lot of worries along those lines:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/psystar-says-rumors-of-its-demise-are-greatly-exaggerated-still/


Macs are expensive. Why does it cost $400 dollars to go to 1 GB of RAM to 4 GB of RAM? I can buy 4 GB of RAM for less then $100

Mac RAM upgrade pricing has always been bad through Apple, I've never used them, always went to Ramseeker.com or Crucial's site and saved a bunch of money.

.

[NasserAE]

If Apple is that dumb, I am for hire. Who couldn't call unexclusiveness as a winner??

I agree with you. Officially, Apple and AT&T never disclosed the exclusivity duration. In 2007, reports said it was 5 years and lately some said 2 years. I don't think Apple would ever glue itself to something for more than a year.

This is what I think. Apple and AT&T agreed on a year contract where the iPhone is exclusive to AT&T. After the 1st year, the iPhone will be allowed to work on another network (unlocked) but AT&T stores are the only carrier to sell the iPhone with discount. For the 25 million 3G iPhone Apple want to sell I really doubt that AT&T networks can handle half of that traffic. When I bought my iPhone in August 07 my Edge connection was much faster. Now it is getting slower and slower, which I think it is mainly because the cell tower in My area covers the whole university and I have seen more people use iPhones than last year.

[PG4G]

Australia isn't an island - it's a continent. Around the size of the US actually. Calling the Land Down Under an island is, to the Aussies, like saying that the Mac is a Windows based computer. I know - I'm married to one. :D

Yeah, I am an Aussie, and we aren't an island. We are US sized, and we just have more room! :D

Actually, i know 4 or 5 Americans, too, as a matter of fact.

And it is a massive insult, too :P

I've had about enough of the wait for the iPhone in Australia. I just want it. I don't care about the carrier, as long as they stick to a reasonable plan. 'Cause I live in a city with great reception (actually, its been rated independently the most "livable" city in the world - its a lie, there is no iPhone so it is nowhere near livable :P)

[solipsism]

Yeah, I am an Aussie, and we aren't an island. We are US sized, and we just have more room!

So... you're not surrounded by water on all sides? By definition you are an island.

But don't take my word for it:• Australian Government: Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade (http://www.dfat.gov.au/aib/island_continent.html)

[melgross]

And it shouldn't. The only device that could possibly play a HD movie right now is the iPod Touch or iPhone, and even then I'm sure the HW could handle the Mbps. There would also take up a huge amount of the capacity, except for the iPod Classic.

The only option would be to allow iTunes owners to scale down their HD movie purchases to fit on their iDevice. That means making it compatible with the iPod Nano so about 640x480 or 720x480 at 1.5Mbps would be the maximum allowed. The problem with this is would take a very long time to re-encode and is not the type of option that would satisfy the average Apple customer who doesn't know a think about resolution and bit rates.

Until all iDevices that are capable of putting out video that can play back HD H.264 video without freezing or eating through the battery in too short a time we are not going to see HD movies for sale from iTunes Store.

So you're saying that other than the ATv and the iPhone/itouch, Apple has no machines that can play back their HD video?

That includes the Mini, the iMacs, the MBP's, the Mac Pro, and with external monitors, the MacBooks and Air.

How disappointing!

[melgross]

Australia isn't an island - it's a continent. Around the size of the US actually. Calling the Land Down Under an island is, to the Aussies, like saying that the Mac is a Windows based computer. I know - I'm married to one. :D

You're married to a Windows based computer?

How odd!

I know things are strange down there, but really.:wow:

At least marry a Mac. I know a few cute ones.

[monstrosity]

I dont think we should read too much into the dropping web share, it's either just a blip, or inaccurate results.
Many people are holding back the last month or so to purchase iPhone2(me included).

I suppose the same could be said for apples other computer offerings, it's all due for a refresh.

[monstrosity]

i wonder what websites they test for web share? I bet that has something to do with it. If they dont test facebook, that could skew results one way or the other.
I expect it has more to do with social trends than anything else.

Many people I know do not seem to 'surf' the net as they used to, and live in facebook land instead, or use computers as TV's streaming youtube/iPlayer.
And as mac's are generally better equipped for web2 social sites, maybe this is the reason.

I'm just guessing here. But i find it very hard to believe msft is gaining ground on the mac.

[ikir]

The 20" is cheap, but it also has a crap LCD panel. The 24" is the way to fly.

Sheldon


mid 20 and top 24 have better video card if you are into 3d graphic or 3d gaming.

[stokessd]

mid 20 and top 24 have better video card if you are into 3d graphic or 3d gaming.

It's not the video card, it's the LCD panel itself. The quality of the 20" LCD panel was reduced. There's a ton of references to this, but here's one that bubbled up in google:

http://www.tuaw.com/2007/09/12/20-imac-lcd-color-problems/


Sheldon

[digitalclips]

And it shouldn't. The only device that could possibly play a HD movie right now is the iPod Touch or iPhone, and even then I'm sure the HW could handle the Mbps. There would also take up a huge amount of the capacity, except for the iPod Classic.

The only option would be to allow iTunes owners to scale down their HD movie purchases to fit on their iDevice. That means making it compatible with the iPod Nano so about 640x480 or 720x480 at 1.5Mbps would be the maximum allowed. The problem with this is would take a very long time to re-encode and is not the type of option that would satisfy the average Apple customer who doesn't know a think about resolution and bit rates.

Until all iDevices that are capable of putting out video that can play back HD H.264 video without freezing or eating through the battery in too short a time we are not going to see HD movies for sale from iTunes Store.

The ATV can play them fine as can a Mac. So the answer to the problem, you correctly highlight, would be to somehow add a mechanism that detects the non HD playing devices in iTunes and stops export to them with a warning message they cannot be exported at that resolution to that device.

[digitalclips]

So... you're not surrounded by water on all sides? By definition you are an island.

But don't take my word for it:• Australian Government: Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade (http://www.dfat.gov.au/aib/island_continent.html)

Good answer. :)

Definition of an island: 'a land area with water all around it'.

So then, as you can sail all the way around given enough time, the Americas are also an island and so is Euro-Asia and ... wait a minute the Earth is covered in them!

[GregAlexander]

You're married to a Windows based computer?
How odd!
:-)

People aren't satisfied with simple electronic toys anymore.

Seriously though - Australia is an Island.
World's biggest island. World's smallest continent.
I remember learning all about it in infants school (elementary school?)

[eldernorm]

I'm sorry, have you actually spoken to an Austin rep?

Actually, I used Apple support several times and when I asked where they were located, they told me that they were in Austin. It seems that the time of day that you call can make a big difference in where they route you.

Just a thought.

[solipsism]

So you're saying that other than the ATv and the iPhone/itouch, Apple has no machines that can play back their HD video?

That includes the Mini, the iMacs, the MBP's, the Mac Pro, and with external monitors, the MacBooks and Air.

How disappointing!

Oh no, most Macs in the install base and all new Macs can easily play HD media. The problem lies with consumers thinking they can easily and quickly move these files to their iDevices like other audio and video so they pay for the more expensive HD media and then realize when it's too late that they can't move these over. Then they blame Apple. If I were at Apple i'd rather not give the option at all.

Of course, the whole idea of purchasing HD media from iTS could be with the studios wanting more control.

I think sometimes we forget that the average computer user is not that savvy, and I want to quash that idea because no man is an island, like Australia. 8-)

[Magic_Al]

Allowing direct purchase makes the Apple TV more useful as a stand-alone device, but purchases could run into storage limitations. Xbox Live allows unlimited re-downloading of purchased content to mitigate that but that has not been iTunes' policy.

[Magic_Al]

I dont know why any one would waste their money an a $15.00 digital download when you could buy the DVD for the same price which could be converted to digital.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits circumventing copy protection, which allows content owners to make fair-use/personal-use copying illegal simply by putting a lock on it, even if it's a lock like CSS that everybody has the key to. Using HandBrake you'd never know a DVD is copy protected, but it is and you're breaking the lock and breaking the law. It's a very stupid law but for some reason we can't get rid of it.

[anantksundaram]

Is it trolling to have an opinion? :???:

Honestly, if he was saying, "Nyah, nyah, Macs sucks, PCs rule" or some other vomit, I'd be the first to have the admin delete the post, or I'd be dropping the flame bombs. But he isn't doing that.


.

So, what do you think he was saying?

[TBaggins]

So, what do you think he was saying?


He wants cheaper Macs. I think he said fairly obnoxiously, but that's pretty common on AI. :lol:

If he says something like "Macs are worthless" or crosses over into well-worn troll territory, I'll happily hop on over to your side of the fence and call him out as a troll, if I'm around.


.

[esXXI]

What a stupid recommendation. It would be valid if the difference between the top and base models were only CPU clockspeed, but it isn't. Larger and much better LCD panel, larger hard-drive, more (base) RAM and much better graphics are all very good reasons to get a 24" instead of a 20".

[kenaustus]

'Cause I live in a city with great reception (actually, its been rated independently the most "livable" city in the world :P)

That's gotta be Perth. I lived in Duncraig for 8 years in the 70's & 80's and loved it.

You'll get your iPhone before too long. We just take our time sending stuff to Australia because of what you did to us in the America's Cup. :D

[steviet02]

Oh no, most Macs in the install base and all new Macs can easily play HD media. The problem lies with consumers thinking they can easily and quickly move these files to their iDevices like other audio and video so they pay for the more expensive HD media and then realize when it's too late that they can't move these over. Then they blame Apple. If I were at Apple i'd rather not give the option at all.

Of course, the whole idea of purchasing HD media from iTS could be with the studios wanting more control.

I think sometimes we forget that the average computer user is not that savvy, and I want to quash that idea because no man is an island, like Australia. 8-)

It can be converted to play on an iphone/ipod, as a matter of fact quicktime will export that for a user if I understandc the issue right. So it's not that you're stuck with something that can't be played on the iPod, it just needs to be automatically converted.

[solipsism]

It can be converted to play on an iphone/ipod, as a matter of fact quicktime will export that for a user if I understandc the issue right. So it's not that you're stuck with something that can't be played on the iPod, it just needs to be automatically converted.

There is no option to rent I'd buy HD media from iTS so there is no matter of fact about it. There is an option built into iTunes to convert to iPod but this also converts to codecs that iDevices can play as iTunes can play video from any codecs so long as you have the correct codecs in QT and it's encapsulated in a .MOV.

Any purchased video from iTS can be played in any video-capable iDevice. Even the new DVD-quality movies that exceed the spec ratings in both bit rate and resolution. So no conversion is needed, just syncing. However, at this point all the devices Apple sells can't play HD video with 720p @ 5Mb/s. This conversion would not be fast; now think about those cheap PCs running iTunes. How fast I'd average computer being used (not being sold)? What you purchased an HD movie you love from iTS for a higher price than the SD version and found you couldn't easily put it on your iPod for a trip you were about to embark on? You couldn't add it without converting it first. This isn't a quick process like with audio. Perhaps when the iPod gets faster and HW accelerted H.264 en/decoding are able to make quick work of it.

[GregAlexander]

However, at this point all the devices Apple sells can't play HD video with 720p @ 5Mb/s. This conversion would not be fast; now think about those cheap PCs running iTunes. .

The AVC (mpeg4-10, h264) standards group is working on a way of extracting a low res version from a high res movie.

Much like Apple's pro codec, if something is being played at high res it builds the picture by using a combination of the low res information with the higher resolution information. On a lesser device it can just extract the low res information and use that.

I imagine the resulting file is slightly bigger than a regular HD-only file, but it's smaller than the size of the low & high-res combined.

[GregAlexander]

Allowing direct purchase makes the Apple TV more useful as a stand-alone device, but purchases could run into storage limitations. Xbox Live allows unlimited re-downloading of purchased content to mitigate that but that has not been iTunes' policy.

Yeah, it's time for the virtual library. All the films and songs you've purchased, accessible from any of your 5 authorised machines. (Of course, if you want to watch a movie on your computer that is already downloaded to your AppleTV, I hope it would copy it across your local network rather than re-download.)

It's a step on the way to my dream - sit at any Mac in the world and put in my .Mac ID, and have all my email, desktop, files, applications, music, etc at my fingertips. No need to backup ever again (but you can if you want) since a dead machine or hard disk is simply replaced and reloads its data. Similar settings to IMAP email of course - "dont keep copies of any files", "only files I've accessed", "all file lists (but omit files)", or "all files". Perfect. Oh.. add something like "up to 5GB locally cached"

[solipsism]

The AVC (mpeg4-10, h264) standards group is working on a way of extracting a low res version from a high res movie.

Much like Apple's pro codec, if something is being played at high res it builds the picture by using a combination of the low res information with the higher resolution information. On a lesser device it can just extract the low res information and use that.

I imagine the resulting file is slightly bigger than a regular HD-only file, but it's smaller than the size of the low & high-res combined.

Unless Apple will also allow the option of DLing an iPod optimized copy with your HD purchase then that sounds like a great compromise.

[steviet02]

There is no option to rent I'd buy HD media from iTS so there is no matter of fact about it. There is an option built into iTunes to convert to iPod but this also converts to codecs that iDevices can play as iTunes can play video from any codecs so long as you have the correct codecs in QT and it's encapsulated in a .MOV.


The mater of fact about it is that quicktime can convert HD content into the correct format for ipods, iphones, apple tv etc.. That is a fact. The fact that they don't rent HD material is the heart of the discussion, your point was that it can't be played on an iDevice, my point was it clearly could be exported to do so.

[solipsism]

The mater of fact about it is that quicktime can convert HD content into the correct format for ipods, iphones, apple tv etc.. That is a fact. The fact that they don't rent HD material is the heart of the discussion, your point was that it can't be played on an iDevice, my point was it clearly could be exported to do so.

I stated that Tunes HAS this capability but that it's NOT convenient for the average user to convert every HD video that is purchased just to play on their iPod as it's not common knowledge the limitations of iDevices. Do you think it's acceptable to selling HD content to users and then have the wait 2 hours while their video is down-converted to fit on their iPod? Not exactly the "it just works" mantra Apple tries to convey.

[steviet02]

Jesus F@#king Christ! What part of my comment that stated iTunes HAS this capability but that it's NOT convenient for the average user did you not understand? Do you think it's acceptable to selling HD content to users and then have the wait 2 hours while their video is down-converted to fit on their iPod? Not exactly the "it just works" mantra Apple tries to convey.

The part where you said

There is no option to rent I'd buy HD media from iTS so there is no matter of fact about it.

Implied that you didn't fully understand what I meant by my post.

[solipsism]

Implied that you didn't fully understand what I meant by my post.

You said it was a matter of fact. I stated that since their is no option to rent or buy HD media from iTS on your computer that there is no matter of fact since it isn't possible.

In a previous post I stated,"[Most] Macs can easily play HD media. The problem lies with consumers thinking they can easily and quickly move these files to their iDevices like other audio and video so they pay for the more expensive HD media and then realize when it's too late that they can't move these over."

The following sentence that you quoted above started:,"There is an option built into iTunes to convert to iPod..." I should have added "There is an option built into iTunes to convert [any video to fit the] iPod..."

I was typing on my iPhone and so there are some extra errors in the sentence you quoted. For instance 'I'd' should be 'or', but that change the meaning

Anyway, I'm grumpy this afternoon so I should probably get off these boards for awhile. Sorry to be a be arse, I've had a trying day.

[melgross]

Oh no, most Macs in the install base and all new Macs can easily play HD media. The problem lies with consumers thinking they can easily and quickly move these files to their iDevices like other audio and video so they pay for the more expensive HD media and then realize when it's too late that they can't move these over. Then they blame Apple. If I were at Apple i'd rather not give the option at all.

Of course, the whole idea of purchasing HD media from iTS could be with the studios wanting more control.

I think sometimes we forget that the average computer user is not that savvy, and I want to quash that idea because no man is an island, like Australia. 8-)

I was just kidding you, of course. But the point was valid. Apple only allows rental of HD movies through ATv. Why? Most of us can easily view HD through our Macs. So why can't we rent them through our Macs?

Since Apple can tell if our computer can view them through our connection, there shouldn't be a problem there.

As for the idevices, Hd movies could easily be prevented from installing on them.

I don't see the problem.

It must be more than that.

[GregAlexander]

I was just kidding you, of course. But the point was valid. Apple only allows rental of HD movies through ATv. Why? Most of us can easily view HD through our Macs. So why can't we rent them through our Macs?

Since Apple can tell if our computer can view them through our connection, there shouldn't be a problem there.

As for the idevices, Hd movies could easily be prevented from installing on them.

I don't see the problem.

It must be more than that.

I think it's due to HDCP. I assume the HDMI output of the AppleTV has High Def Copy Protection. So you can't record the Digital Video signal directly. Since Macs have a DVI port (same as HDMI, but without copy protection or sound), the studios might be worried that we would copy via that port.

Perhaps Apple is able to disable the DVI port of laptops & iMacs for High Def movies. Of course, I see little point in a high def movie if I have to watch it on my computer screen.

Look for HDMI on future macs.

[steviet02]

You said it was a matter of fact. I stated that since their is no option to rent or buy HD media from iTS on your computer that there is no matter of fact since it isn't possible.

In a previous post I stated,"[Most] Macs can easily play HD media. The problem lies with consumers thinking they can easily and quickly move these files to their iDevices like other audio and video so they pay for the more expensive HD media and then realize when it's too late that they can't move these over."

The following sentence that you quoted above started:,"There is an option built into iTunes to convert to iPod..." I should have added "There is an option built into iTunes to convert [any video to fit the] iPod..."

I was typing on my iPhone and so there are some extra errors in the sentence you quoted. For instance 'I'd' should be 'or', but that change the meaning

Anyway, I'm grumpy this afternoon so I should probably get off these boards for awhile. Sorry to be a be arse, I've had a trying day.


I'm not thin skinned, no problem... Hopefully they will come up with a way that will solve it, whether it be with the studios or a way to offer it converted etc...

[steviet02]

Of course, I see little point in a high def movie if I have to watch it on my computer screen.

Look for HDMI on future macs.

I used to say the same thing until I viewed HDTV and Standard TV on my 24" iMac. The difference in my experience was drastic. Close up or far away, much better viewing experience.

[GregAlexander]

I used to say the same thing until I viewed HDTV and Standard TV on my 24" iMac. The difference in my experience was drastic. Close up or far away, much better viewing experience.

Yeah... I almost made that proviso in my comment... :-)

Still, Mac Mini's as media centres wouldn't work, and my MBP is too small for it to be worth it.

[Dunks]

Australia isn't an island - it's a continent. Around the size of the US actually. Calling the Land Down Under an island is, to the Aussies, like saying that the Mac is a Windows based computer. I know - I'm married to one. :D

Actually it is an island and a continent. And we like being an island.

Christine Anu: Island Home (iTunes link) (http://ax.phobos.apple.com.edgesuite.net/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?i=82861217&id=82861231&s=143441)

A non-exclusivity deal could do wonders for plan rates.

[melgross]

I think it's due to HDCP. I assume the HDMI output of the AppleTV has High Def Copy Protection. So you can't record the Digital Video signal directly. Since Macs have a DVI port (same as HDMI, but without copy protection or sound), the studios might be worried that we would copy via that port.

Perhaps Apple is able to disable the DVI port of laptops & iMacs for High Def movies. Of course, I see little point in a high def movie if I have to watch it on my computer screen.

Look for HDMI on future macs.

That's only valid for 1080p uncompressed files. It's not a problem for the files being offered on iTunes.

[GregAlexander]

That's only valid for 1080p uncompressed files. It's not a problem for the files being offered on iTunes.

Nobody does 1080p uncompressed files.
For example, BluRay is either 720p compressed or 1080i compressed.

What are you meaning?

[solipsism]

I think it's due to HDCP.
That is one reason I think we won't see Blu-ray as an option until the ACDs and Macs are updated with DisplayPort.

[melgross]

Nobody does 1080p uncompressed files.
For example, BluRay is either 720p compressed or 1080i compressed.

What are you meaning?

First of all, all BD is 1080p.

Secondly, when I mean compressed, I mean compressed from the original format.

[GregAlexander]

First of all, all BD is 1080p.

I thought you were wrong, but couldn't find anything on the web (until the official bluray site below). So 720p is possible on BD but I suspect it is not considered worthwhile. I also remember that 1080p was not part of the BluRay spec originally, but a 24p movie could EASILY be extracted form a 1080i source (so the point was moot).

That's where Blu-ray comes in, it offers up to 50GB of storage capacity and enables playback, recording and rewriting of HD in all of the HD resolutions including 1080p. The format also supports high-definition audio formats and lossless audio.
http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/

Anyway, are you saying that the standard HDCP can't be applied to a 720p movie? And more specifically that Apple doesn't apple HDCP via the AppleTV?

This article says all HDTV (720p or 1080p) gets downscaled to 480p if the HDCP is present on the source but not on the TV.
http://www.avrev.com/news/1105/10.hdcp.html

edit: anyone know whether a standard DVI monitor plugged into an AppleTV will play High Def rentals?

Secondly, when I mean compressed, I mean compressed from the original format.

1080p on BluRay is already compressed too - down to 30Mbps. I think you mean "more highly compressed" like down to 5Mbps on the AppleTV?

[melgross]

I thought you were wrong, but couldn't find anything on the web (until the official bluray site below). So 720p is possible on BD but I suspect it is not considered worthwhile. I also remember that 1080p was not part of the BluRay spec originally, but a 24p movie could EASILY be extracted form a 1080i source (so the point was moot).

That's where Blu-ray comes in, it offers up to 50GB of storage capacity and enables playback, recording and rewriting of HD in all of the HD resolutions including 1080p. The format also supports high-definition audio formats and lossless audio.
http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/

Anyway, are you saying that the standard HDCP can't be applied to a 720p movie? And more specifically that Apple doesn't apple HDCP via the AppleTV?

This article says all HDTV (720p or 1080p) gets downscaled to 480p if the HDCP is present on the source but not on the TV.
http://www.avrev.com/news/1105/10.hdcp.html

edit: anyone know whether a standard DVI monitor plugged into an AppleTV will play High Def rentals?



1080p on BluRay is already compressed too - down to 30Mbps. I think you mean "more highly compressed" like down to 5Mbps on the AppleTV?

BD is 1080p. That is the only hi def rez it uses. Yout Tv might scale it down if it can't do that.

Perhaps you were thinking of the defunt HD DVD which ran at 1080i on the cheaper players, and 1080p on the more expensive ones.

As for HDCP, right now, it isn't required for BD. Sony and the BD organization has given to at least 2009 before it is required, and they may allow it to lapse then.

Some companies may be using HDCP on their hi def broadcasts, but many are not right now.

The theory is that without HDCP, as you said, the output will be rezed down, likely to 480p, widescreen, if it is being used.

I can't swear Apple isn't using it, but it doesn't seem likely.

As far as compression goes, I'll repeat my statement, but explain a bit more. I'm speaking about compression over and above what is in the format.

Just like DVD Mini, and just about all the other formats, broadcast and others, there is compression built into the standard, and is done in the camera itself, or later in the rendering process.

The amount of compression is usually not viewable, as that is the design.

Compression after the fact is viewable. That's the compression I'm speaking about.

[GregAlexander]

BD is 1080p. That is the only hi def rez it uses. Yout Tv might scale it down if it can't do that.

I'm sorry, I can't believe your comment instead of the official BD website. If you can give me a link or something to support that I'd appreciate it.

As I said, BluRay may be producing everything in 1080p now - mainly because it wants to show that it is THE BEST quality you can get - but it's not part of their standard. I even quoted the paragraph.

(edit: 1080p is not a requirement as part of their standard. Other HD is quite acceptable)

Some companies may be using HDCP on their hi def broadcasts, but many are not right now.
<snip>
I can't swear Apple isn't using it, but it doesn't seem likely.
Fair enough. My comment was an attempt to work out why HD is available on AppleTV but isn't offered on iTunes generally, the copy protection issues seemed to be a good reason (whether HDCP or not), but perhaps there is something else.

I can't remember if you took a guess at that - any thoughts?

As far as compression goes, I'll repeat my statement, but explain a bit more. I'm speaking about compression over and above what is in the format.

Just like DVD Mini, and just about all the other formats, broadcast and others, there is compression built into the standard, and is done in the camera itself, or later in the rendering process.

The amount of compression is usually not viewable, as that is the design.

Compression after the fact is viewable. That's the compression I'm speaking about.
Okay you're talking about concatenation errors - ie: having 2 separate compression systems used on a source can potentially severely reduce quality.

That kind of makes sense then...
ie: HDCP is valid on the first generation compressed file.
After all, the movie studios will be creating a 1st generation file, they usually won't be compressing their compression. Thus HDCP is most likely on 1st generation compressed movies.

Now back about 10 posts you said that the AppleTV couldn't use HDCP because it was a re-compressed version. In your last post you said it was possible AppleTV was using it, but given almost no-one is using it so far this is unlikely.

Were you saying before that Apple compression is 2nd generation (and thus has concatenation errors etc) and is not permitted to have HDCP? And are you saying that HDTV broadcasters (who compress more highly than Apple HD does) will be able to use HDCP or won't?

[melgross]

I'm sorry, I can't believe your comment instead of the official BD website. If you can give me a link or something to support that I'd appreciate it.

As I said, BluRay may be producing everything in 1080p now - mainly because it wants to show that it is THE BEST quality you can get - but it's not part of their standard. I even quoted the paragraph.

(edit: 1080p is not a requirement as part of their standard. Other HD is quite acceptable)

Bd has only been offered in 1080p. The fact that they recognize other rez's is of no importance. All BD movies have been rendered to 1080p, and all players have been offered in versions that support1080p, though there was one old player that also supported 1080i, but that's long gone.

There is such a thing as a defacto standard. for BD it is 1080p.


Fair enough. My comment was an attempt to work out why HD is available on AppleTV but isn't offered on iTunes generally, the copy protection issues seemed to be a good reason (whether HDCP or not), but perhaps there is something else.

I can't remember if you took a guess at that - any thoughts?

I feel it's simply a business decision that Jobs has made. He has some idea of what he wants to do, and so far at least, it doesn't involve using computers. This is somewhat akin to his not offering BD players or recorders.


Okay you're talking about concatenation errors - ie: having 2 separate compression systems used on a source can potentially severely reduce quality.

That kind of makes sense then...
ie: HDCP is valid on the first generation compressed file.
After all, the movie studios will be creating a 1st generation file, they usually won't be compressing their compression. Thus HDCP is most likely on 1st generation compressed movies.

Yes. That's basically the truth. But broadcasters won't be getting movies that are re-compressed directly from the BD versions. They will be compressed directly for whatever medium they will be used for.


Now back about 10 posts you said that the AppleTV couldn't use HDCP because it was a re-compressed version. In your last post you said it was possible AppleTV was using it, but given almost no-one is using it so far this is unlikely.

I didn't say that, about re-compression. I did say that almost no one is using it, and it's unlikely the reason why we can't view Apple's Hd movies outside of the ATv.


Were you saying before that Apple compression is 2nd generation (and thus has concatenation errors etc) and is not permitted to have HDCP? And are you saying that HDTV broadcasters (who compress more highly than Apple HD does) will be able to use HDCP or won't?

No. It's likely that there is no HDCP applied anywhere except in the final file, whatever form of HD it might be. Broadcasters should be able to use it if they want to. that's not an issue.

The entire question is political, and economic, not technical.

[minderbinder]

And it shouldn't. The only device that could possibly play a HD movie right now is the iPod Touch or iPhone, and even then I'm sure the HW could handle the Mbps. There would also take up a huge amount of the capacity, except for the iPod Classic.

Not even a mention of aTV? It certainly can play HD, so it's odd that they rent them but don't sell them.

Sure, the same file won't play on a portable device, but apple could easily include a small ipod version along with the HD version (now if only iTunes could transparently support multiple resolutions of the same content, that would be great).

Apple is shooting themselves in the foot - they're trying to sell the aTV based on its HD abilities, then turning around and only selling low rez content for it. Do they even sell movies with 5.1 surround yet?

So you're saying that other than the ATv and the iPhone/itouch, Apple has no machines that can play back their HD video?

That includes the Mini, the iMacs, the MBP's, the Mac Pro, and with external monitors, the MacBooks and Air.

How disappointing!

Those could all play back HD from a hardware standpoint, they just aren't allowed to by iTunes. I'd love to see them sort it out and get it working, but they may be doing it on the insistence of the studios who think allowing playback on computers would increase piracy.

Macs are too expensive! iPhones are too expensive! Steve Jobs $1 billion bonus is too expensive. Apple Vice-Presidents $1 billion bonus is too expensive!

Do you get it??? Apple is too expensive!!! And most consumers are not so demented as to buy from Apple just to get Steve Jobs all excited!!!

:???::???::???:

Honestly, I can't tell if this is supposed to be serious or a joke. While apple products could be cheaper and would sell more at lower prices, they have been generally outpacing PC growth by a large margin. I think this number is just a blip on the chart and we'll see marketshare going back up again next time results are out.

Australia isn't an island - it's a continent.

Isn't it both? By the dictionary definition, it IS an island. Other references describe Australia that way too.

I don't see any reason to be offended, what's so bad about being an island?

[minderbinder]

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits circumventing copy protection, which allows content owners to make fair-use/personal-use copying illegal simply by putting a lock on it, even if it's a lock like CSS that everybody has the key to. Using HandBrake you'd never know a DVD is copy protected, but it is and you're breaking the lock and breaking the law. It's a very stupid law but for some reason we can't get rid of it.

I still don't see that as a reason to buy downloaded content instead of just buying a DVD and ripping it.

That's only valid for 1080p uncompressed files. It's not a problem for the files being offered on iTunes.

I think you mean 1080p compressed files. Uncompressed digital video is only used on the production side, no consumer video formats use uncompressed.

[solipsism]

Not even a mention of aTV? It certainly can play HD, so it's odd that they rent them but don't sell them.
I wouldn't mention the AppleTV because it can play HD media and has access to HD rentals. My reply was about how Pods are rated to only play back a certain resolution and bit rate. This is a software limitation that is set by the device with the lowest processing power, the iPod Nano. I used this fact to state my theory as to why HD is not available for iTS on Macs/PCs and that the OS X based PMPs may be physically able to play HD media fine based on the much faster HW over the other iPod line.

Sure, the same file won't play on a portable device, but apple could easily include a small ipod version along with the HD version (now if only iTunes could transparently support multiple resolutions of the same content, that would be great).
I also mentioned that as a solution to the issue of the HW issues involved with HD rentals on iDevices. Just like some DVDs are doing, I think Apple allowing HD media to be purchased and rented with Macs/PCs should come with the option for a smaller iPod-optimized version.

Their is a technical problem that comes into play with rented media. When you rent a movie on your computer via iTS and then transfer it to your iDevice it no longer plays in your iTS account. You have to reconnect your device and then copy it back over to allow you play it again in iTunes or move to another device. Apple would have to make it that only one copy could be active at a time. This isn't very difficult to do considering the other obstacles of moving rented media, but it is something that would have to be dealt with. Purchased media oviously wouldn't have this limitation.

Apple is shooting themselves in the foot - they're trying to sell the aTV based on its HD abilities, then turning around and only selling low rez content for it. Do they even sell movies with 5.1 surround yet?
Since most people prefer to rent movies, not buy them, having no HD purchases doesn't hurt the AppleTV. At least not nearly as much as not having a significant rental library to choose from. They apparently now have over 1000 titles, though there are plenty of short films filling that space.


[iPOd Tocuh and iPhone] could all play back HD from a hardware standpoint, they just aren't allowed to by iTunes. I'd love to see them sort it out and get it working, but they may be doing it on the insistence of the studios who think allowing playback on computers would increase piracy.
It's not because of iTunes, it's because of the software limitations of Mobile OS X. They can pla back higher res than the 640x480 and more than 1.5Mb/s stated in teh spec sheet. Don't forget that there is an issue with the computer running iTunes too. What percentage of Macs/PCs can play back H.264 at 4.5Mb/s without freezing? We like to think everyone has new computers that can handle anything but that simply isn't so. Would you want to refund or argue with x% of customers who want their $5 back because their HD movie won't play on their PC? Are they going to blame Apple or their antiquated machine? i think those questions are worth thinking about.

[melgross]

Not even a mention of aTV? It certainly can play HD, so it's odd
Those could all play back HD from a hardware standpoint, they just aren't allowed to by iTunes. I'd love to see them sort it out and get it working, but they may be doing it on the insistence of the studios who think allowing playback on computers would increase piracy.

That's pretty much what I'm saying.

[melgross]

I think you mean 1080p compressed files. Uncompressed digital video is only used on the production side, no consumer video formats use uncompressed.

You've misunderstood what I've said. I never said that the original BD files were uncompressed. I'm talking about compression over and beyond what is already in the standard file. I even mentioned other original files that were using compression.

You missed it. Re-read my post #66. I explained it more thoroughly.

[minderbinder]

Since most people prefer to rent movies, not buy them, having no HD purchases doesn't hurt the AppleTV. At least not nearly as much as not having a significant rental library to choose from.

Considering how many dvds and now bluray disks are sold, I don't think there's any question that lack of HD purchases hurts aTV. While people rent more than they buy, I don't know a single person who doesn't own any movies.

It's not because of iTunes, it's because of the software limitations of Mobile OS X.

I was talking about computers playing back HD titles, not mobile devices. And while slower machines can't play back HD, I believe all intel machines can do 720 with no problems. Apple would just need to list minimum specs required, just like they list the ipod specs for sales and rentals. They could even have iTunes check the machine and pop up a warning if they wanted to.

You've misunderstood what I've said. I never said that the original BD files were uncompressed. I'm talking about compression over and beyond what is already in the standard file. I even mentioned other original files that were using compression.

You missed it. Re-read my post #66. I explained it more thoroughly.

I didn't miss anything (and 66 doesn't explain why you said "uncompressed" nor did you correct that earlier statement). I was referring to your original post, where you said that HDCP drm was only on 1080p uncompressed files, which is wrong:

"That's only valid for 1080p uncompressed files."

I assume you misspoke, and you've used the correct terminology since then. But I'm not sure why you haven't corrected that statement and said that you meant "compressed" and not "uncompressed". And no, a file with less compression than another one is not "uncompressed".

If you were referring to something else when you mentioned uncompressed files, feel free to clarify.

[minderbinder]

double post

[melgross]

C
I didn't miss anything (and 66 doesn't explain why you said "uncompressed" nor did you correct that earlier statement). I was referring to your original post, where you said that HDCP drm was only on 1080p uncompressed files, which is wrong:

"That's only valid for 1080p uncompressed files."

I assume you misspoke, and you've used the correct terminology since then. But I'm not sure why you haven't corrected that statement and said that you meant "compressed" and not "uncompressed". And no, a file with less compression than another one is not "uncompressed".


If you were referring to something else when you mentioned uncompressed files, feel free to clarify.


You missed everything.

You're trying to pick a fight here, and I don't know why.

let me be clear about this.

Everybody, yes, everybody who posts here, knows that all formats come to the consumer with some degree of compression. we ALL know that BD is compressed with H.264, though early disks used MPEG 2.

It shouldn't be required for someone to regurgitate this everytime they make a point about something. For some reason, you need me to do so.

When I said compressed, of course I meant over and beyond what was already done. I've already said that so many times here now, that I'm getting tired of it.

I don't like to change history. I said what I said. I know what I said, and meant. I don't think anyone else missed the meaning, so I see no reason to change it, or to put an addendum on the end.

By now, you should understand what I mean.

But, I'm letting it go.

[minderbinder]

I'm not looking for an argument here, just a clarification.

What were you referring to when you talked about "uncompressed files"? Was it a misstatement about bluray, or were you talking about the source files used on the professional end.

[melgross]

I'm not looking for an argument here, just a clarification.

What were you referring to when you talked about "uncompressed files"? Was it a misstatement about bluray, or were you talking about the source files used on the professional end.

Haven't I explained this enough by now? You're really getting into semantics here.

I meant that the files Apple is sending down the internet are compressed heavily for the purpose of sending them down the internet.

Comparing that to the original BD files which are not compressed for the purpose of sending them down the internet. They are the original files as we get them on disk.

When I said that they were uncompressed files, I clearly meant that they were the original files with no compression added by Apple, or anyone else, for the purpose for allowing them to download faster.

I NEVER meant that they were "uncompressed" in the sense that they had no compression at all. As I already mentioned, we ALL know they have had compression done already. Why can't you take what I've said and go with it? I've explained it to you half a dozen times already?

How much clearer can I get?

[minderbinder]

Haven't I explained this enough by now? You're really getting into semantics here.

I meant that the files Apple is sending down the internet are compressed heavily for the purpose of sending them down the internet.

Comparing that to the original BD files which are not compressed for the purpose of sending them down the internet. They are the original files as we get them on disk.

When I said that they were uncompressed files, I clearly meant that they were the original files with no compression added by Apple, or anyone else, for the purpose for allowing them to download faster.

I NEVER meant that they were "uncompressed" in the sense that they had no compression at all. As I already mentioned, we ALL know they have had compression done already. Why can't you take what I've said and go with it? I've explained it to you half a dozen times already?

How much clearer can I get?

Thanks for the clarification - to be honest you haven't explained it at all, you've just tap danced around it in a way that made it more confusing. But now you have cleared it up, thanks.

So that original statement was wrong. BD files ARE compressed. They are not uncompressed, period. Sure, they are less compressed than files intended for download typically are, but it's wrong (and confusing, as we have seen here) to refer to them as uncompressed.

One person's semantics is another's using terminology properly. There are people who do think that BD is uncompressed, and it doesn't help that confusion by referring to bigger files with relatively less compression as "uncompressed".

[melgross]

Thanks for the clarification - to be honest you haven't explained it at all, you've just tap danced around it in a way that made it more confusing. But now you have cleared it up, thanks.

So that original statement was wrong. BD files ARE compressed. They are not uncompressed, period. Sure, they are less compressed than files intended for download typically are, but it's wrong (and confusing, as we have seen here) to refer to them as uncompressed.

One person's semantics is another's using terminology properly. There are people who do think that BD is uncompressed, and it doesn't help that confusion by referring to bigger files with relatively less compression as "uncompressed".

You just didn't understand the point I was making.

Happily, it seems as though perhaps now you do.

[minderbinder]

You just didn't understand the point I was making.

Happily, it seems as though perhaps now you do.

I completely understand the point you are making.

I just don't get why you insisted on making that point with factually incorrect statements. And refusing to clarify that your statement was factually incorrect.

All it would have taken would have been "sorry, by "uncompressed" I meant less compressed". Would that have been so hard?

[melgross]

I completely understand the point you are making.

I just don't get why you insisted on making that point with factually incorrect statements. And refusing to clarify that your statement was factually incorrect.

All it would have taken would have been "sorry, by "uncompressed" I meant less compressed". Would that have been so hard?

Because it wasn't what I meant. I meant 'compressed" compared to what we get on disk. Pretty simple.

[minderbinder]

Because it wasn't what I meant. I meant 'compressed" compared to what we get on disk. Pretty simple.

That's what I just said.

You meant more compressed (download)/less compressed (BD), but you said compressed (download)/uncompressed (BD).

[melgross]

That's what I just said.

You meant more compressed (download)/less compressed (BD), but you said compressed (download)/uncompressed (BD).

This isgetting silly.

I'll let everyone read the continuity of the posts and understand for themselves.

[solipsism]

Australia isn't an island - it's a continent. Around the size of the US actually. Calling the Land Down Under an island is, to the Aussies, like saying that the Mac is a Windows based computer. I know - I'm married to one. :D

According to the CIA World Fact Book and a recent Tonight Show answer quiz section Greenland is listed as the largest island. Apparently, the definition of an island has to be including "but not also a continent" or "but smaller than Australia". I don't like this classification much as it seems confusing without actually providing any benefit to the classification, unless the use of Sols on Mars and dwarf planets which are more complex but do help to make classification better. I just see no reason why an island can't be a continent.


PS: The old adage that "Australia is the largest island and smallest continent" wasn't even true as Antarctica would be the largest island if we use the classic definition.

PPS: Greenland is not considered a continent because it shares a continental shelf with N. America. But Europe shares the continental shelf with Asia, but we count that. I suppose if Greenland ever becomes the most dominant world power that definition may change to continent.

PPPS: Madagascar is technically a continent because it's on it's own tectonic plate and has exotic flora and fauna that have prove it's separated evolution.