Apple rivals DVD with new iTunes Extras for movies and albums - Page 3

Originally Posted by brucep

wheres the beatles ???

Originally Posted by Cory Bauer

With digital media, you can't even give something away. You can't pawn it, you can't ebay it, you can't rummage it. You can't even borrow a book/CD/movie to or from a friend. Want to sell an old game console and bundle all of the games you bought to sweeten the deal? When digital media takes over, you won't be able to. Want to hand it down to a younger sibling or nephew? You won't even be able to do that. All of these limitations, coupled with the lower quality and equal pricing means digital media is only a win for the studios and the companies pedaling their content, like Apple.

Originally Posted by Ireland

Movies only in some countries. DVD importing should be added anyway. People shouldn't have to break the law to watch content they already own.

Originally Posted by Gazoobee

Your kind of deluding yourself here a bit. Hulu is not free in the exact same way as the alternative you are presenting in your argument.

To watch Hulu you have to pay (in my case), about $50 a month for the Internet connection and you have to sit though the ads.

Originally Posted by Gazoobee

It's almost the exact same situation as broadcast TV or cable TV. You say that you can switch away from the ads when they come on and "not watch them," but the same argument was made in 1960 for broadcast Television. It still remains *possible* in both cases to leave the room and not watch the ads, but the reality is that you watch the ads. If you personally don't then fine, you are a demanding OCD type after my own heart, but most people will watch the ads.

In fact, the only real, significant difference between a Hulu situation and broadcast TV is the "breadth" as it were, of the distribution. Broadcast TV (now all but gone), "leaked" and was available to people who didn't pay for it by virtue of having rabbit ears on top of their set. There is a progression from broadcast TV, through cable and satellite, and then specialty channels subscription cable and private satellites, and finally to Hulu, where the media company is trying to close down access. To narrow that pipe and to make the user on the end of it pay more.

To get Hulu for instance, you have to first move to the United States. That may be a side issue to you, but it's relevant in terms of that narrow distribution pipe model. Most of the world can't get Hulu, and if and when they do get such services, they will be different, but similar narrow distribution pipes to other markets if the media companies get their way. The end user also loses out in that with broadcast TV and with cable and satellite, the user can save a copy of what they are watching. With Internet distribution you can't save it, and if you could, you won't be able to remove the ads either.

Things like Hulu are a win-win for the media companies, not the end user. Freedom is restricted, distribution is restricted and ownership is restricted. It's touted as "free" when in fact it is not and also comes with all these restrictions.

I know you probably think I'm making a big deal of it, but it's important. The proverbial wool is being pulled over your eyes and it's important to speak up about what they are doing. You don't really think that NBC or any of the big media companies is going to be doing stuff like this because they love the end user and just want to make them happy with free TV do you?

These companies operate out of self interest and self interest alone and their "customer" is not you, it's the advertiser. Apple at least is a consumer company that has the end user's interests at heart.

Originally Posted by teckstud

More like when are they gonna rival DVDs in resolution?

Originally Posted by gigi

In a survey last winter related to the Apple TV I suggest Apple to make an iDVD to make digital menu available for the Apple TV.

Having our own film done by our camera and create menu like a DVD but exportable to the Apple TV or iTunes, the same way that iTunes extra work.

I think this is the way iDVD will evolved and this will be unique in the market.

Originally Posted by LE Studios

Yeah good luck with that!

Originally Posted by spliff monkey

Uh, DVD is SD 640x480 same as itunes SD movies/ TV. What are you talking about? If you're comparing bitrate, you're splitting hairs.

Originally Posted by spliff monkey

One of the biggest stumbling blocks HD has faced is that SD is really good enough for 99% of the home viewing audience. They simply don't care enough about the quality gains to buy a new player, replace all of their SD movies

Originally Posted by spliff monkey

I''m not saying Optical Disks are dead, so please don't comment me on that issue, but optical disks have crossed the point where they will now "soon" be phased out. Even if you want to purchase movies from a brick and mortar store you'll be buying the movie on a flash disk (as a data file) of some sort in the not so distant future. Sony is making moves in that direction a well since there are devices other than disk players that we want our media on. BluRay will never be an option on the iphone or ipod or PSP or any portable device for that matter.

Originally Posted by Cory Bauer

LOL! Bitrate is the most important factor in determining digital video quality; resolution means next to nothing without it. Apple's SD content looks like mush compared to DVD.

Originally Posted by spliff monkey

I understand some of what you area saying, but the point is consumers don't. Hell i don't care much either most of what I purchase is still SD because I don't care what South Park or Mad Men looks like in HD and it's not wort my trouble. I guess it all depends on how important TV and entertainment are to you.

Originally Posted by Cory Bauer

I realize quality means nothing to a lot of people; after all, Apple does have some movie sales (although not a figure worthy of their mention). But I would imagine that, for those people who have dropped a grand or two on a well-sized flatscreen television, they'd feel better about their purchase if the content they were filling it with didn't look like garbage. Blu-Ray sales are up 93% from a year ago, and accounts for — on average — about 12% of each week's disc sales revenue. Considering Apple hasn't touched the Apple TV in what's going on two years (and won't break out movie sales figures), I'm guessing their movie sales and rental business isn't doing so hot. My point being, the numbers show that more people care about quality than you believe. Consumers aren't passing up blu-ray players in favor of low-quality streaming boxes like the Apple TV; in fact the sales figures show people still prefer quality if the instant gratification of streaming means lower quality for the same price.

Originally Posted by gigi

Conclusion.....

I did'nt see any difference in the quality of the image on both way.
It takes 1 minute to the Blu-Ray to start begining when I put the disc in the disc reader.
It takes also 1 minute for the Apple TV to start to listen the film

Originally Posted by Cory Bauer

LOL! Bitrate is the most important factor in determining digital video quality

Originally Posted by spliff monkey

Why laugh? we have itunes plus now?

BTW it is not illegal to RIP movies. the law state that it is Illegal to make the software to RIP a movie and to distribute the movies once they are transcoded, but it is not illegal to own the software or RIP the movies for your personal use. This is a common misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by alandail

No it's not. Bitrate on it's own actually doesn't tell you much at all.

for audio, AAC is a far better encoder than MP3
for video, H.264 is a far better encoder than MPEG-2

Like BluRay, iTunes uses H.264 while DVDs use MPEG-2. Apple doesn't have to have the same bitrate for SD content that DVDs have to get comparable quality.

The question is how close does the bitrate have to be to offer comparable quality to DVD - they clearly don't have to be the same.

Originally Posted by jfanning

Conclusion......

You need new glasses, or a new tv

Originally Posted by nanto

Originally Posted by gigi
In a survey last winter related to the Apple TV I suggest Apple to make an iDVD to make digital menu available for the Apple TV.

Having our own film done by our camera and create menu like a DVD but exportable to the Apple TV or iTunes, the same way that iTunes extra work.

I think this is the way iDVD will evolved and this will be unique in the market.


""""That would be the last straw me not having a means to store my files. great idea to sell a few more mobile.me but terrible for most users.

I cant think of anything worse

Originally Posted by alandail

No it's not. Bitrate on it's own actually doesn't tell you much at all.

for audio, AAC is a far better encoder than MP3
for video, H.264 is a far better encoder than MPEG-2

Like BluRay, iTunes uses H.264 while DVDs use MPEG-2. Apple doesn't have to have the same bitrate for SD content that DVDs have to get comparable quality.

The question is how close does the bitrate have to be to offer comparable quality to DVD - they clearly don't have to be the same.

Originally Posted by gigi

Remember that, HD content on iTunes on the computer is not the same than the one on Apple TV, on Apple TV it's much better

Originally Posted by alandail

No it's not. Bitrate on it's own actually doesn't tell you much at all.

for audio, AAC is a far better encoder than MP3
for video, H.264 is a far better encoder than MPEG-2

Like BluRay, iTunes uses H.264 while DVDs use MPEG-2. Apple doesn't have to have the same bitrate for SD content that DVDs have to get comparable quality.

The question is how close does the bitrate have to be to offer comparable quality to DVD - they clearly don't have to be the same.

Originally Posted by gigi

Did you compare the same way I do.

In dark zone or white zone something I see artefacts on the HD film from Apple TV but I see the same thing on the Blu-Ray version as well but not at the same place.

Originally Posted by gigi

Remember that, HD content on iTunes on the computer is not the same than the one on Apple TV, on Apple TV it's much better

Originally Posted by Cory Bauer

I guess I should have been less vague; bitrate is the most important factor in quality assuming codecs are the same.


Whu? There is no artifacting on the Batman Begins Blu-Ray (I believe that was the movie you said you used for comparison earlier). I'm sure there's plenty of it on the 5mbps max data-rate iTunes copy though.


Again, whu? The copy on your Apple TV is identical to the copy on your computer.

Originally Posted by Cory Bauer

My understanding of it is that you can only "share" amongst computers in your home who use the same iTunes account. So if your spouse and kids have their own, you still can't share amongst eachother.

Originally Posted by puggsly

Digital has HUGE benefits over physical media.

Originally Posted by puggsly

Ok, lets say that Bob, Sue, Mat, and Dan all live in the same house and all have iTunes accounts based on their names and all have their own computers and ithings. Sue being the mom purchases the bulk of content and has authorized Bob, Mat and Dan's computers. She purchase one copy of Iron Man. That one copy can be played on all 4 of the computers and all of their ithings.

You see a single computer can be authorized to play anyone's content.

Now lets say that Sue had a friend Betty who was having a party and wanted to watch Iron Man on here big screen TV (attached to an AppleTV). Sue can send the file, burn the file whatever and when at Betty's house can authorize her system to play it. Presto, Betty can play the movie on her computer and any iDevices she connects to her computer as long as Sue leaves her computer authorized.

I hope this helps. The beauty if iTunes Movies is when I purchase 1 copy, I can watch it, my dad can watch it, my brother can watch it and my friend can watch it all without trying to swap around a single disk that Will eventually get lost or destroyed.

Originally Posted by puggsly

Ok, lets say that Bob, Sue, Mat, and Dan all live in the same house and all have iTunes accounts based on their names and all have their own computers and ithings. Sue being the mom purchases the bulk of content and has authorized Bob, Mat and Dan's computers. She purchase one copy of Iron Man. That one copy can be played on all 4 of the computers and all of their ithings.

You see a single computer can be authorized to play anyone's content.

Now lets say that Sue had a friend Betty who was having a party and wanted to watch Iron Man on here big screen TV (attached to an AppleTV). Sue can send the file, burn the file whatever and when at Betty's house can authorize her system to play it. Presto, Betty can play the movie on her computer and any iDevices she connects to her computer as long as Sue leaves her computer authorized.

I hope this helps. The beauty if iTunes Movies is when I purchase 1 copy, I can watch it, my dad can watch it, my brother can watch it and my friend can watch it all without trying to swap around a single disk that Will eventually get lost or destroyed.

Digital has HUGE benefits over physical media.

Originally Posted by antkm1

OK, it's great an convenient that you can share everything and download everything on up to 5 computers, but what if you're not married with kids? What if you break up with someone? How in the heck are you going to split up your iTunes collection between you two? If you're not an IT person then you probably will not. and you'll loose a ton of stuff.

Originally Posted by spliff monkey

BTW it is not illegal to RIP movies. the law state that it is Illegal to make the software to RIP a movie

and to distribute the movies once they are transcoded,

but it is not illegal to own the software

or RIP the movies for your personal use

In the case where media are protected using some effective copy protection scheme, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act makes it illegal to circumvent that copy protection scheme. This law makes it illegal to rip most commercial DVDs as they are typically protected by CSS encryption.