or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple TV Take 2 review (part 2): HD Movie Comparisons
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple TV Take 2 review (part 2): HD Movie Comparisons

post #1 of 98
Thread Starter 
The most obvious new feature of Apple TV is its ability to rent iTunes movies, including a new selection of HD flicks that turned up on the iTunes Store in the last 48 hours. Here's a look at how Apple's rental solution prices out against rival services in terms of prolonged cost, as well as a comparison of picture quality of Apple's HD downloads when viewed side-by-side against other high-def content sources such as HD Cable and Blu-ray.

Our previous segment covered the new features of the Apple TV Take Two software: HD movie rentals, HDMI improvements, new iTunes Store integration, new podcasting features, new web photo albums, new Dolby Digital surround sound audio support, and ad hoc iTunes streaming over AirTunes. Apple TV revolves around HDTV and home theater. That leads potential Apple TV buyers to the question: how well does Apple TV stack up against other sources of HD content?

The HD Download Market

The closest competitors to Apple TV's movie downloads are Vudu, Amazon's Unbox partnership with Tivo, and the Xbox 360 tied to Microsoft's Xbox Live online service. All of these offer movie downloads at a price comparable to a rental store, and all have the same 30 day rental term with a 24 hour window once you begin watching the movie. All but Unbox/TiVo offer HD content. HD content takes far longer to download, however, making a fast Internet connection critical for users who want to watch HD downloads.

All of these system use hardware with a native 720p display system except for the Vudu, which appears to have a higher 1920 x 1080 internal native resolution. However, resolution really isn't as much of a factor because downloads simply lack the bandwidth to deliver 1080p content without compressing the signal to the point where the extra resolution is overwhelmed by compression artifacts. Vudu's 720p content is already heavily compressed, and it only offers a small selection of 1080p titles, so its hardware advantage primarily just makes the unit more expensive.

Vudu currently has the largest selection of SD movies (~5000) and a growing selection of HD titles. Amazon has a significant library but no HD offerings yet. Apple opened its movie rental business with 1000 titles and has about 100 HD titles available. Microsoft only has a few hundred titles available for download, with a select number of them in HD. Next to its fledgeling Apple TV rental business, however, Apple also sells and rents SD movies from iTunes for use on PCs, iPods, and iPhone. That should help establish volume sales and drive the company's movie library quickly. Well over a hundred million people use iTunes with the iPod, while TiVo, Vudo, and the Xbox 360 combined only add up in the low tens of millions.

Vudu hit the ground running first, but has been forced to drop its hardware price from around $400 to $295 to compete with Apple TV. Since Apple intentionally runs its iTunes Store at only a slight profit in order to provide content for its hardware, Vudu's expensive hardware cut suggests big problems for the startup, as it will be forced to compete in media sales against a low profit or loss leader business going forward.

Amazon appears to have no problem competing in the cheap content market; it is currently undercutting Apple in music prices by a slight fraction and matches Apple's movie rental prices. Amazon relies upon TiVo to supply its hardware, and TiVo is supported in part by its own subscription fees. However, Amazon's partner has been losing tens of millions of dollars every quarter, so that arrangement might not last long either.

Microsoft runs its movie download business as an afterthought for the Xbox 360, which is focused on games. The company has not sold a significant fraction of the market's TV or movie downloads, and its hardware sales are down dramatically year over year. After hitting its peak in 2006, sales of the Xbox 360 nosedived by over 33% last year, as noted in Video Game Consoles 2007: Wii, PS3 and the Death of Microsofts Xbox 360. Whether Microsoft will continue to dump money into the Xbox and particularly the non-gaming side of its Xbox Live service remains to be seen.

In addition to these hardware-centric offerings, there are also three other major movie rental download services, Cinema Now, MovieLink, and Vongo, which are all tied to Windows Media DRM on a PC. Apple has been competing against these three studio-owned businesses, and rapidly outpaced them last year despite the limited appeal of iTunes' SD movies, a lack of any rental options, and no HD offerings. As presented in Apple TV Digital Disruption at Work: iTunes Takes 91% of Video Download Market, Apple began 2007 with 40% of the paid movie download market and essentially all of the paid TV market, and ended with around half of the online movie business and no real competition for TV sales.

That means while Apple is just starting to get serious about Apple TV, it should have no problem with growth in the rental business as other companies such as NetFlix ineffectually scramble to enter the downloads market with PC-only playback and no hardware partnerships in place. Netflix plans to introduce an Apple TV competitor with LG, but that product has not yet been finished.

Of all the set top hardware and PC-centric download services, only Apple has any effective mobile strategy. While Microsoft has an iPod competitor and a smartphone platform to rival the iPhone, it hasn't put together any workable strategy for moving media seamlessly between any of them in the way Apple has. Everyone else is even further behind or has expressed no interest in mobile markets.



Competition from HD Disc

Outside of the download market, Apple TV's movie rental business faces competition from optical disc formats, both the entrenched DVD and the aspiring Blu-Ray and the remains of HD-DVD. All three formats have a luxury of bandwidth that Apple TV--and every other download service--lacks. Even the decade-old DVD delivers a 9.8 Mb/sec data signal; many US households only have a 1.5 Mb/sec connection to the Internet, and the fastest service usually peaks out around 6 Mb/sec.

Despite that advantage, Apple TV can compete well against DVD because that format uses the older MPEG-2 compression. Movies from iTunes use MPEG-4 H.264, which is roughly twice as efficient. That means iTunes can push near DVD-quality video in real time to users with a fast Internet connection, and with a streaming delay, can even deliver HD quality video that bests DVD.

The Blu-Ray format can pump out 36 to over 200 Mb/sec of data, which simply can't be matched by downloads. While the first wave of Blu-Ray discs used MPEG-2, newer titles are beginning to use the same efficient compression that download files use. This enables Blu-Ray to deliver 1080p video and specialty HD audio tracks using much less compression and subsequently more picture clarity and audio fidelity.

However, to appreciate that data stream users will need an HDTV set that has a native 1920 x 1080 resolution. Unless a set specifically advertises 1080p native output, it will automatically display Blu-ray video at a lower 720p resolution, or 1280x768. Further, seeing the difference in resolution between 1080p and 720p requires a set larger than about 50 inches. That reality has effectively pushed HD disc formats such as Blu-Ray into a high end niche similar to the failed DVD-Audio and SACD that were intended to replace CDs with a new audiophile quality disc format.

The market for HD discs turned out to be so small that the two rival formats couldn't coexist. HD-DVD is now all but dead, and Blu-Ray has yet to see widespread adoption. Consumers have instead been buying upconverting DVDs, which present standard definition discs as pristinely as possible on new HDTVs at a much lower cost. There is also a lot more content on DVD; Blu-Ray only has around 350 titles.

The great advantage of HD discs is also paired with its largest drawback: they are physical media that need to be stored and moved around slowly. Renting discs requires traveling to a video store or signing up for a subscription to a service like Netflix. This can compare well in price with download services, particularly for frequent renters, but also limits users to a set of three options for immediate viewing and requires them to set up a queue of titles and wait a day or two for delivery. This difference helps to make Blu-Ray disc and download services like Apple TV more complementary and overlapping than directly competing. A Blu-Ray player also can't access individual TV episodes or other features that Apple TV provides.

On page 2 of 2: Competition from Cable and Satellite HD; Cost Comparisons; and Picture Quality Comparisons.


Competition from Cable and Satellite HD

The third major competitor supplying HD content is cable and satellite vendors. They can rival the bandwidth available to download services, but rather than providing content on demand and billed a la carte, they sell subscriptions to as many channel feeds as they can carry. In order to deliver as many channels as possible, they heavily compress their signals, defeating their bandwidth advantage.

While cable providers are moving toward on demand services, they typically only have around 300 movie titles available for viewing. Like the download services, they commonly use the 720p HD format, although some also use 1080 interlaced, which delivers a similar effective resolution as 720p.

Gaining access to the channel-oriented delivery of cable and satellite providers commonly requires a DVR to sift through the channels and grab desired content for later viewing. This makes cable a sort of middling offering between the NetFlix-like subscription rental model for physical discs and the Apple TV model for downloading content on demand. Cable and DVR have some of the weaknesses of both: delayed satisfaction and bandwidth limitations that require compromising on quality.

Cost Comparisons

For users who watch occasional movies up to a couple films a week, Apple TV is among the cheapest options even considering the upfront cost of buying the hardware. For users who plan to watch a movie every day, the cost of $4 or $5 rentals from download services adds up quickly, highlighting the value of an all you can eat service like Netflix. At the same time, there are barely 300 HD movies currently available in any format, from either downloads or discs. To watch one every day, you'd have to literally watch everything.

This chart (below) shows a comparison of first year costs, which include any hardware purchases required , and second year costs, which only involve rental and ongoing subscription fees. Highlighted numbers indicate the cheapest options for users watching two movies per month, two per week, or a one every night of the year. Many users will likely mix and match services rather than picking one exclusively. This tends to favor Apple TV, which not only offers a cheap and convenient way to download occasional HD movies, but does a lot of other things that competing systems don't do.



Picture Quality Comparisons

Apple TV stacks up pretty well just considering the convenience and cost advantages it provides. Given the bandwidth limitations inherent with movie downloads, it would seem hard to believe that Apple TV's HD downloads could compete with Blu-Ray in terms of quality. Gizmodo invented a quality timeline that put VHS at 1 and Blu-Ray at 10, and arbitrarily placed HD cable at 7 and Apple TV at 5. However, Charles Starrett of iLounge took screen shot photos that indicate that scale actually needs to tip in favor of Apple TV.

The article Apple TV 2.0 vs. Blu-Ray, DVD & HD Cable: The Comparison presents a variety of still and action shots comparing an upconverted DVD, HD cable, Apple TV, and Blu-Ray disc played by a PS3. In static images, Apple TV's HD downloads were sharper and more defined than upconverted DVD and less pixelated than the noisy, highly compressed HD Cable, although still softer than Blu-Ray.

These examples from Live Free or Die Hard zoom in to exaggerate detail; a viewer on the couch wouldn't see as much of an overall difference; Starrett noted that "because of its cleaner motion and audio, we felt that the Apple experience was better in both overall audio and video quality than the HD cable experience, and for most users, superior to renting a standard DVD as well"

HD picture quality comparison photos via iLounges Blu-Ray, DVD & HD Cable comparison

In motion sequences, Starrett wrote that the Apple TV download "exhibited little in the way of motion blur or compression artifactsit looked as good as could be expected from 720p, which is to say comfortably better than DVD quality, but shy of the best a Blu-Ray Disc can offer on a top TV. The Apple TV video also contained a Dolby Digital 5.1 surround audio track, which the HD cable version did not, and its sound didnt suffer from obvious compression issues like the cable version did."

The example photos he took indicated that Apple TV's HD clips could closely rival Blu-Ray, and where much better than the noisy upconverted DVD and far superior to the pixelated, heavily compressed HD cable version. In addition to having better audio than cable, Apple TV also presented the movie in its normal theatrical screen format; the cable version was presented as an open matte, which fills up the screen but is not accurate to how the director intended to present the film.

HD picture quality comparison photos via iLounges Blu-Ray, DVD & HD Cable comparison

As we presented in the previous installment, the encoding quality performed by the studios that submit their content to download services like iTunes can vary greatly. Individual DVDs and Blu-Ray discs can also vary in quality between movies depending how much effort was put into the mastering process. HD cable providers also get varying levels of quality in the content they deliver, but their distribution systems rely so heavily on compression to serve up quantity rather than quality that heavy artifacting and muddy sound are pretty much a given.

It seems pretty clear that Apple TV's HD quality is decent enough to compete against the technically superior HD disc formats and also improves over upconverted DVD. It also offers convenience and price advantages for casual renters that make it a compelling alternative to disc players. Add in the fact that Apple TV does a whole lot more than just rent movies, and it's clear why Apple invested so much into revising the unit.

Where to buy Apple TV

Apple TV 40GB (MacMall) $217.28 (reflected at checkout)
Apple TV 160GB (MacMall) $314.28 (reflected at checkout)
Apple TV 40GB (Amazon.com) $229
Apple TV 160GB (Amazon.com) $329
Apple TV 40GB (OnSale.com) $224.00
Apple TV 160GB (OnSale.com) $324
Apple TV 40GB (B&H Photo) $229.00
Apple TV 160GB (B&H Photo) $325.00
Apple TV 40GB (Buy.com) $227.63
post #2 of 98
Thank you, excellent article.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #3 of 98
Please studios -let us buy your HD movies from Apple.
Hey- Toshiba- get your HD DVD studios to let Apple sell all their content on iTunes at least if Sony and the Blu-Ray studios won't. I just feel that renting is like throwing money out a window.
post #4 of 98
Finally....

That will stop some people from whining about Apple TV HD quality in earlier topics posts.
post #5 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Finally....

That will stop some people from whining about Apple TV HD quality in earlier topics posts.

I stand corrected about Apple TV HD vs. Cable HD. (Although since I have FiOS, it would be interesting to see a comparison to that.)

However, despite the prose descriptions to the contrary, the images pretty clearly show that AppleTV HD is much closer to upconverted DVD than to Blu-ray HD.
post #6 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booga View Post

However, despite the prose descriptions to the contrary, the images pretty clearly show that AppleTV HD is much closer to upconverted DVD than to Blu-ray HD.

I'd agree with that. In the pic of the White House I'd even say the up-converted DVD looked slightly better than the AppleTV stile if given a blind test. Some cable companies still use MPEG-2 for their digital content. So until they change this there HD content will continue to be poor.

I don't think we'll see the complaining end. They will find something else to bitch about or put a spin on the article that attempts to invalidate it.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #7 of 98
First time poster to AppleInsider. <ding, ding!>

I love the rumors and speculation that come here. So much of it actually comes true, which is amazing. But I have noticed that there is quite a bit of bias, that is well misinformed. Sometimes, I find the misinformation to be downright unethical.

The data in this post on the AppleTV HD Take2 is only partially correct, and adds skepticism, much like a politician would. For example, to put a question mark for Vudu's native format says it's not really 1920x1080. Or maybe it's just saying that the author really didn't know, and such shouldn't be writing about products they aren't familiar with. Either way, it's not ethical journalism. As well, citing that HD-DVD is already dead is a far reach. The battle of HD-DVD/Bluray market dominance has been going on longer than Beta/VHS did.

For all intents and purposes, AppleTV is a single-feature product. Not like Tivo and PlayStation, which are category-leaders in DVR and Game Console. I, like you, would like to see AppleTV become a category leader in Downloadable Movie Rentals. Don't get me wrong, I love Apple's products, but please save the bias for the sales force at the Apple store.

FWIW - I own an iMac, MacBook Pro, AppleTV, Tivo, and original Xbox.
post #8 of 98
If you are going to list Blu-ray and the PS3 under one heading, and list previews as available free media under other options, you should list it for the PS3 as well.

Also, Blu-ray discs are just beginning to ship with versions on board which can be watched on an iPod or Mac/PC (I believe Alvin and the Chipmunks is the first such title), so your mobile and PC viewing rows also need updating, at least with a note that this feature is becoming available.

All that said, I have already ordered an aTV and expect it to get just as much use for movie viewing as BD on my PS3, as there are a huge number of titles that are worth watching but do not warrant $20+ BD purchases.

With any luck, it will let me convince my wife to dump satellite as well.

BB
post #9 of 98
Quote:
If you are going to list Blu-ray and the PS3 under one heading, and list previews as available free media under other options, you should list it for the PS3 as well.

Agreed... previews can often be downloaded from the PlayStation Network.

Also, the chart lists the costs of Blu-ray discs as well as the cost of a Netflix subscription. Although the subsequent charts are more fair, that first comparison makes Blu-ray look more expensive than it is, I think.

It would also be interesting to see the bitrate listed in the first chart. It's one of the most critical aspects of HD quality (much more so than "native" resolution).
post #10 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by tobyfoote View Post

First time poster to AppleInsider. <ding, ding!>

I love the rumors and speculation that come here. So much of it actually comes true, which is amazing. But I have noticed that there is quite a bit of bias, that is well misinformed. Sometimes, I find the misinformation to be downright unethical.

The data in this post on the AppleTV HD Take2 is only partially correct, and adds skepticism, much like a politician would. For example, to put a question mark for Vudu's native format says it's not really 1920x1080. Or maybe it's just saying that the author really didn't know, and such shouldn't be writing about products they aren't familiar with. Either way, it's not ethical journalism. As well, citing that HD-DVD is already dead is a far reach. The battle of HD-DVD/Bluray market dominance has been going on longer than Beta/VHS did.

For all intents and purposes, AppleTV is a single-feature product. Not like Tivo and PlayStation, which are category-leaders in DVR and Game Console. I, like you, would like to see AppleTV become a category leader in Downloadable Movie Rentals. Don't get me wrong, I love Apple's products, but please save the bias for the sales force at the Apple store.

FWIW - I own an iMac, MacBook Pro, AppleTV, Tivo, and original Xbox.

Would it have been more ethical journalism for the author to have not included the AppleTV's most direct competitor or to leave out the question mark by just assuming that it can output 1080? If you can locate the facts stating the actual resolution of Vudu then by all means submit it to AI, I have no doubt that they will make any corrections that can be verified.

We all know the benefits of game consoles and DVR but this article is titled "HD Movie Comparisons." There is no reason to add that, IMO. The author also didn't add ease of setup and use to the lineup. The AppleTV and TiVothough I'm not sure about the Amazon video rentals sectionare the clear winners here.

I think Apple has a big advantage over everyone else because of the ability to use the same SD rental or purchase on so many devices and in so many different ways, though there is a lock in if movies are rented from the AppleTV interface. The only one I foresee gaining any real ground as a media extender is Netflix/LG and that is only if the rentals are free like they are now, with HD rentals being no more than $2 per movie.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #11 of 98
Apple does provide the best solution to downloadable HD content, I will not concede that it is capable of competing with the optical disc formats. For a casual user (i.e. the guy who thinks up converted crap is HD) it will do fine, but I would tend to argue that if you are spending fairly high sums of money on HDTVs, Amps, Speakers, etc... why not get the superior optical disc, that includes the HD Sound codecs as well. Apple TV by far is the best download service, but it's a stretch to say it can compete with optical disc at this time.

I take offense that this article had some of it's facts based on the Video Game Consoles 2007 article, which after reading it, is nothing more then XBox 360 bashing, plain and simple. Microsoft choose to rush their console to the market to get a year head start on the PS3, which I'd say worked quite well when you look at their installed base. The problem with throwing the 360 and PS3 into this comparison is that they are primarily game consoles and have media capabilities as an afterthought (not counting blu-ray or hd-dvd for arguments sake) They have some media services as a side item, and while both consoles could easily become a full blown front-end media center, both Microsoft and Sony have chosen not to do that. Microsoft has done what no other American console company could do, and that is take a sizable amount of market share away from a Japanese console maker, and thats impressive to say the least.

I don't think that we've seen the last of Microsoft in terms of media downloads, they started almost like Apple. Apple pioneered the MP3 player market and created a great experience for users for digital music purchasing and playing. Microsoft created a brand new market for console gaming with XBox Live and Nintendo or Sony have yet to come up with something so easy to use.

Point is, Apple started small and built up. Microsoft is doing the same. I think we'll see Apple, Netflix, Amazon, and Microsoft as the big players int he downloadable content industry over the next 10 years.

The final point I'd like to make, and think it's the best one, is that both the PS3 and 360 can natively play my Divx/Xvid files with out any hacking, that's something the aTV needs to do.
post #12 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by tobyfoote View Post

First time poster to AppleInsider. <ding, ding!>

The battle of HD-DVD/Bluray market dominance has been going on longer than Beta/VHS did.
.

If you're going to post here please get your facts straight. The Beta/VHS battle went on for almost approx 12-13years around 1976 to the late 1980's- a much longer time than this
HD format war.
post #13 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Thank you, excellent article.

But full of errors...

HD DVD has a native resolution of 1080p as well
post #14 of 98
I don't think a 1080p TV is necessary to benefit from Blu-Ray/HD DVD over AppleTV. It helps, but even at 720p it should be better because it's not bandwidth-restricted, so both stills and motion should be sharper on Blu-Ray/HD DVD.
post #15 of 98
I saw the new Apple TV update at MacWorld showing Transformers in HD and I thought it looked great.

I'm no videofile though...
post #16 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by tacojohn View Post

I saw the new Apple TV update at MacWorld showing Transformers in HD and I thought it looked great.

I'm no videofile though...

..... just a videophile!
post #17 of 98
Nice choice of frames guys! I was concerned you might pick animation, which is relatively easy to compress. This verifies what I always thought which is that AppleTV just looks soft. Not a bad picture, but not crisp (which is to be expected). One thing you left out which is very important in my opinion, is a smooth gradation in order to judge banding artifacts in a blue sky or along a smooth wall for example. Any chance we could see that?

Oh and also how about a comparison of noise in the blacks and contrast ratio?
post #18 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

If you're going to post here please get your facts straight. The Beta/VHS battle went on for almost approx 12-13years around 1976 to the late 1980's- a much longer time than this
HD format war.

teckstud, why the hostility?

Wikipedia reports Beta had 100% market share in 1975. By 1981, it had 25%. Somewhere in-between, it lost the battle.
post #19 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by tobyfoote View Post

teckstud, why the hostility?

Wikipedia reports Beta had 100% market share in 1975. By 1981, it had 25%. Somewhere in-between, it lost the battle.

Since HD DVD media has less than 25% global market share today, by this measure the war's over.
post #20 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

But full of errors...

HD DVD has a native resolution of 1080p as well

From Engadget HD:

"...the Xbox 360 will still only upconvert DVDs to 480p, and will play HD DVD movies at a maximum resolution of 1080i. To get 1080p output for movies, you must use a VGA cable..."

Is the VGA cable included or is that extra? If it's not included one could argue that the native output is not 1080p.

Note: This was from an article dated 2006-SEP-21. Things may have changed in the software but this is the most conclusive I've found thus far.

update:
From Engadget on 2006-SEP-20:

"Part two: a software update this year will enable 1080p output on the friggin' Xbox 360! Your rig will finally benefit by pushing the full 60 megapixels per second of visuals to your compatible HDTV. Sorry, no HDMI cable yet (or ever?), though, this is only over component and VGA. Users can expect 1080p upscaling immediately on current games and DVDs and native 1080p on compatible HD DVD titles, but Microsoft hasn't yet announced future games that will rock 1080p natively."

I'd say that counts as native 1080p.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #21 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Would it have been more ethical journalism for the author to have not included the AppleTV's most direct competitor or to leave out the question mark by just assuming that it can output 1080?

It would have been more ethical to not write the article than to put in question marks and misinformation. More research was needed for this article before it was published.
post #22 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booga View Post

Since HD DVD media has less than 25% global market share today, by this measure the war's over.

I'm not aware of this. Can you provide source information?
post #23 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by tobyfoote View Post

I'm not aware of this. Can you provide source information?

As far as I know, Booga's figure is only for the US, Videoscan has been showing 75%/25% the past month. I don't know of any current figures for Europe, Japan or elsewhere. Japan's was reputed to be quite low, like 12% HD DVD last year.
post #24 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by tobyfoote View Post

It would have been more ethical to not write the article than to put in question marks and misinformation. More research was needed for this article before it was published.

I don't think adding a question mark implies trying pulling the wool over your eyes, but just a question mark indicating that the answer isn't fully known at this time but speculated based on available date. To imply that the article should be trashed because the author can't locate one measly bit of data is absurd. If you want to tear apart the article there are certainly other areas you could focus on that would have more validity for your argument of "unethical journalism". Welcome to the internet!
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #25 of 98
NetFlix has multiple subscription plans, each catered to different viewing needs. For instance,
2 Per Month should correspond to 1 at-a-time (2 a month) plan, which costs $4.99 a month ($59.88 per year).
2 Per Week should correspond to 2 at-a-time (unlimited) plan, which costs $13.99 a month ($167.88 per year).
post #26 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

From Engadget HD:

"...the Xbox 360 will still only upconvert DVDs to 480p, and will play HD DVD movies at a maximum resolution of 1080i. To get 1080p output for movies, you must use a VGA cable..."

Is the VGA cable included or is that extra? If it's not included one could argue that the native output is not 1080p.

PS3 does not come with HDMI nor component cable either. And newer version of Xbox 360 comes with HDMI output, which is fully capable of 1080p.

In addition, HD DVD format itself is 1080p.

AppleInsider should've made a note of these facts. It is making HD DVD look much worse than it actually is.
post #27 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I don't think adding a question marks implies trying pullling a fast one over you, but just a question mark indicating that the answer isn't fully known at this time but speculated based on available date. To imply that the article should be trashed because the author can't locate only measly bit of data is absurd. If you want to tear apart the article there are certainly other areas you could focus on that would have more validity for your argument or ethical journalism. Welcome to the internet!

solipsism, I agree. But should we let AppleInsider get to the point where we must always evaluate the validity and bias of the author's article?

Journalists abide by a Code of Ethics. The section on "Seek Truth and Report It" says "Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error." These aren't ethics just for the Wall Street Journal. These are ethics for all journalists.

From the replies to this article so far, it looks like there's more than a little misinformation.
post #28 of 98
There is nothing free on Comcast HD Cable!

To get my "free" HD channels on Comcast, I am compelled to rent a converter box for $7/month. Of course, with AppleTV, I have to have Comcast as my ISP for about $40/month PLUS a $3/month cable modem rental.

To get true costs, people would have to figure out how much of their monthly bandwidth they are using to feed the AppleTV. Soon, it becomes so complicated that the figures get more and more inaccurate and, therefore, meaningless.

I'm just going to try to enjoy the content and not worry too much about the $$$. Wish me luck
post #29 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by filburt View Post

PS3 does not come with HDMI nor component cable either. And newer version of Xbox 360 comes with HDMI output, which is fully capable of 1080p.

In addition, HD DVD format itself is 1080p.

AppleInsider should've made a note of these facts. It is making HD DVD look much worse than it actually is.

Getting simple facts right is apparently just asking too much from people trying to show how AppleTV is indisputably better.
post #30 of 98
I think using still shots is a rather poor way to judge the overall quality of a movie. It's contrived: no one watches a movie one frame at a time. And you could just as easily take five different stills from any one file and get varying degrees of quality.

I think that, as the article states, the amount of time and expertise that goes into the compression on the studio's end makes more of a difference than anything else.

Having said that, it is unfair to compare Apple TV to physical HD disk media. There's really no question that Blu-Ray is better than anything you can download. Apple TV vs. Cable is very valid, however, and I agree with the findings here, based on my own experience. With the exception of sports programs, which tend to be very good, HD cable broadcasts are barely better than the non-HD ones. They're certainly no better than my standard DVDs.
post #31 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by tobyfoote View Post

teckstud, why the hostility?

Wikipedia reports Beta had 100% market share in 1975. By 1981, it had 25%. Somewhere in-between, it lost the battle.

tobyfoote- No hostility at all- but putting out misinformation is wrong. And now you stuck your foot in your mouth becauseBeta only had 100% in 1975 because VHS didn't come out until 1976!!!! And then what you've just stated in your follow up is a 6 year differential. HD HDVD and Blu-ray are not even 2 years old!!!. And your % is not telling a completely accurate story as Beta had dominant share in many parts of the world i.e. Japan for at least 10 years, And BTW the format war was still really not over until SONY finally released a VHS machine in 1988- per wikipedia. Please re-read it.
post #32 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjoec123 View Post

I think using still shots is a rather poor way to judge the overall quality of a movie. It's contrived: no one watches a movie one frame at a time. And you could just as easily take five different stills from any one file and get varying degrees of quality.

I think that, as the article states, the amount of time and expertise that goes into the compression on the studio's end makes more of a difference than anything else.

Having said that, it is unfair to compare Apple TV to physical HD disk media. There's really no question that Blu-Ray is better than anything you can download. Apple TV vs. Cable is very valid, however, and I agree with the findings here, based on my own experience. With the exception of sports programs, which tend to be very good, HD cable broadcasts are barely better than the non-HD ones. They're certainly no better than my standard DVDs.

I agree completely with your still shot comparison. The movement of the image across the sreen is just as important I think. Do you think cable standard is better than standard iTunes programs?
post #33 of 98
Great article, I like the way you laid out the various HD options and the truth about the death knell of certain choices :-)

I am impressed with the screen shots, certainly looks like Apple TV can compete and like you said in Part 1: if your TV is 50" or less and you are sitting the recommended distance away for the size of TV you have, you won't notice the difference with 1080p. This is something that Home Theater magazine has been saying all along. My Panasonic 50" plasma makes DVD look great, HD 720p or 1080i look great and even SD over digital cable looks good (not great). Upconverted DVDs look pretty darn good IMO.

One thing that differentiates the Apple TV for me is the UI. I have a Dlink DSM320 and the UI sucks. An really important feature of any of these devices is to link with your media library and I think most people have a lot of stuff there. If you can't search or scan through your library quickly, it's painful to use these other devices. The DLINK is glacial in scrolling through songs, albums, etc. So much so that it's almost useless as a media player (unless you like listening to all your "A" or "B" artists :-))

The price is right, it's a real steal. In fact it would be worth it just as a music player, it's not that long ago that companies were charging more than the Apple TV for streaming music only.

Go Apple TV!
post #34 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

tobyfoote- No hostility at all- but putting out misinformation is wrong. And now you stuck your foot in your mouth because Beta only had 100% in 1975 because VHS didn't come out until 1976!!!! And then what you've just stated in your follow up is a 6 year differential. HD HDVD and Blu-ray are not even 2 years old!!!. And your % is not telling a completely accurate story as Beta had dominant share in many parts of the world i.e. Japan for at least 10 years, And BTW the format war was still really not over until SONY finally released a VHS machine in 1988- per wikipedia. Please re-read it.

Of course Betamax had 100% in 1975. You can only have 100% dominance when there are no other competitors -- this is implied! When VHS was introduced in 1976, it only took a couple years to become the new dominant player. VHS overthrew a giant! There was only a short while when both were at 50% market share. Both Bluray and HD-DVD came on the scene around the same time, with neither being the market leader to date.

Why was the VHS/Betamax format war not over until SONY finally release a VHS machine in 1988? Because Sony made Betamax? Does that mean that if theoretically, the Zune somehow attains 75% market share, Microsoft wouldn't be the dominant player until Apple made a Zune?
post #35 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by tobyfoote View Post

I'm not aware of this. Can you provide source information?

In the US, it's about 70/30 in 2008 according to Neilson. In Europe, it's about 75/25 according to GfK. In Japan, it's about 90/10 in favor of Blu-ray according to Nikkei. The average is around 75/25 in favor of Blu-ray for sales. (Although my understanding is that rentals favor Blu-ray even more, and that as the announcements have been coming out in 2008 it's been swaying more and more in Blu-ray's favor each week.)

In terms of total players sold, it's about 9:1 in favor of Blu-ray if you count all standalone players, HD DVD XBox360 and PS3 sales according to each company's sales records.

So if 25% market share for Betamax is a sign that they lost the war by that time, then HD DVD has already lost the current war.
post #36 of 98
sorry, but the info presented in the chart about the PS3 is just so wrong it needs to be corrected. i mean, i own one and use it, i know how it works.

one problem is, the chart ignores the fact the PS3 includes a very useable web browser - which AppleTV lacks. so the notation that its "Free SD/HD Content" is "None" is just plain wrong. you can get whatever content is available via the web - movie trailers of course and much more - and play it in full screen option if available - upconverted. i've done it, works great.

second problem is, PS3 "Movie Library Size" is shown as "350." what does that mean? obviously the Netflix library that one can utilize with the PS3 is huge, the biggest of all, over 10,000.

third, "PC Playback" is notated "With Onerous DRM and BluRay Drive." what does that mean? in fact, the PS3 is a complete "media extender" for Windows PC's (sure, including whatever DRM comes with their content), but can also do basic media extender services for Macs with shareware like MediaLink with no DRM. be fair, and list its capabilities correctly.

fourth, there is no line in the chart for "DRM." if there were, both ATV and PS3 would have to be shown as HDCP restricted for their HDMI outputs, not just PS3. and ATV applies Apple's new (unnamed) DRM for movie rentals too. but neither DRM affects your computer, just these external boxes.

also missing is a comparison of remote control options. for example, you can use a much more convenient bluetooth keyboard/mouse with PS3, but you cannot with ATV.

another bad mistake, this time about Comcast: "Free SD/HD Content" is listed only as "Broadcast Channels." Wrong. the On Demand service includes a lot of free movies and other free stuff too.

and if a line were added "Can Legally Copy SD/HD Content" were added to the chart, here TiVo's big advantage would get the recognition it deserves. not the rentals of course, but all the free SD/HD Content available via CATV - which is a heck of a lot - can be recorded and transferred back to your PC/Mac (which is why i just bought a TiVo too).

alas, this Chart is a sloppy job and very unfair to ATV's competition.
post #37 of 98
I've researched this some and the article is effectively correct though biased. Apple TV is probably the cheapest option, if you want something that plays nice with your Macs and you aren't concerned about how underpowered the hardware is.

The best deal, after looking into it, is the PS3 though. You get a game system, media player, Blu-ray player, browser and more ... Nullriver's MediaLink software ties it all nicely into your iTunes library.

What's Comcast doing in the table? Comcast sucks (and I have them, so I know from experience). Comcast certainly has 1080i content (broadcast), though I'm not sure about on demand (is it just 720p?). As someone else already mentioned, if you have Comcast in your area, you're probably already using them for Internet service ($$$/month) just to use the media services on these other boxes. So, add Internet costs in for everything else.

And where's the total costs line???
post #38 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booga View Post

In the US, it's about 70/30 in 2008 according to Neilson. In Europe, it's about 75/25 according to GfK. In Japan, it's about 90/10 in favor of Blu-ray according to Nikkei. The average is around 75/25 in favor of Blu-ray for sales. (Although my understanding is that rentals favor Blu-ray even more, and that as the announcements have been coming out in 2008 it's been swaying more and more in Blu-ray's favor each week.)

In terms of total players sold, it's about 9:1 in favor of Blu-ray if you count all standalone players, HD DVD XBox360 and PS3 sales according to each company's sales records.

So if 25% market share for Betamax is a sign that they lost the war by that time, then HD DVD has already lost the current war.

Thanks Booga. These stats are astonding!
post #39 of 98
To me, the speed of streaming the video and the differences between the Vendors trying to catch up to Apple are not as important as the final experience as reflected in the picture quality and resolution of the final product.

The statement that 720p is as good as 1080p below 50" is a matter of opinion and
a function of the viewers eyesight. I strongly disagree even with my 76 year old eyes.

Personally, I have noted a significantly superior resolution all the way down to the 32" 1080p
Sharp Aquos compared to the 720p Sharp or any other 720p set. 720p is fine but 1080p is GREAT, even at that size. If you can't tell the difference below 50", check with your optometrist.

If 1080p wasn't better, Sharp wouldn't make them, and their monopoly at 32" shouldn't last long - I hope.

Thus far I have been unable to find any other 32" set providing 1080p, but am waiting to see if Samsung brings one out this year, because of the greater selection of interface connections and very intelligent user remote capabilities on most Samsungs.

We have a 40" 1080p Samsung and a 23" 720p Samsung gaming set, both of which are excellent quality. The 23" has Playstation 3 and digital Comcast cable HDMI inputs, component DVD, and a Mac Pro PC input and is able to recognize which inputs are on and available, ignoring non-operating devices when cycling with the "Source" button on the remote.

I can't ask for more than that just now and am hoping for a Samsung 32" 1080p with the same sensibility this spring when the new year products usually appear. I hope Samsung is listening!

We also have a 26" 720p Sharp Aquos which is a fine product but marginally less friendly on the remote capabilities. It has a problem with setting picture size on individual inputs and does not
ignore non-functional source inputs - but a great picture.

I'm waiting for some more clarity in the streaming issues shakeout before going beyond our very pleasant high speed Comcast cable feeding digital TV, Internet to our three networked Macs and Playstation 3/BluRay and DVD inputs. One can only handle so much input. Somewhere you have to decide,
"This is enough".
post #40 of 98
[QUOTE=Alfiejr;1215253]

Concur with Alfiejr. The Comcast and other sources and methods noted on the chart are
misleading and inaccurate.

It needs correction and reposting.

Intelligent use of the Macs and Playstion 3 on line are an enormous source.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple TV Take 2 review (part 2): HD Movie Comparisons