iPhone Optus rumor; Apple TV allows movie sales; Mac web share - Page 2

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.

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.

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.


.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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"

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

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.

The part where you said


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.

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.

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...

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.

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

Christine Anu: Island Home (iTunes link)

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

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?

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

First of all, all BD is 1080p.

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

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.

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)


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?


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?

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

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?


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.


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.


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?

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


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

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.


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.


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.



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.

That's pretty much what I'm saying.

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.

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.


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.


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.

double post

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.

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?

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.