You Fools. NONE of these stupid video iPod designs will EVER work. Guess what people: some people ARN'T left handed. All of these designs have the scroll wheel to the right.
And Apple can't have a setting that flips the whole interface?
Left handed people can't move their right thumbs? I'm right handed and I drive my iPod with either hand. It's not that hard.
we do know, that MacOsX runs on Intel for five years...-
we do know, there's copyprotection/DRM on commercial video DVDs...-
what if?
Apple has built in some "commercial DVD DRM" on system level (since 10.0) and announces on Okt 12th legal DVD ripping ?
now actually we have QT7 and h264....
we get a "DVD" button in iTunes
the limits are: just 1 stream (to a vAE), no re-converting, DRM in h264 streams, playback on up to 5 vPods, etc.pp.
and of course video selling in the iTVS (which allow up to 3 copies...)
which Apple employee said "people cannot rip their DVDs?"
same rules as in music business by installing DRM on system level...-
so, behind the curtain, their is - again - a whole, convenient combo: buy, rip, watch, iTunesRip, iTVS, vPod, vAE? and one more thing: I would like to see some "white HiDef video glasses"
Excuse me for the dumb intervention (and derailing somewhat the discussion), but I really don't know what's going on with the movie downloads. I mean, googling for example "dvd download" will reveal you tons of information and movie download services pretending to be 100% legal. Often there is some fee to pay for a membership. Can anyone tell me how is this possible?
Sure it is. Movie download services already exist.
CinemaNow and MovieLink are both services that the studios, along with companies like MS have launched. CinemaNow has been out for 3-4 years if I'm not mistaken. They only work with Windows, they are usually rentals, but they are offering some purchases.
The website designs are bad and not customer friendly and the sales are low, but they are totally legitimate. It's incorrect to say that the studio don't want this when they're already doing it, albeit unsuccessfully. It's incorrect to say that the bandwidth infrastructure isn't there when clearly it is. Some of what they offer is 720p HD.
Of course, around them are all the illegitimate ones, but there are some legal ones.
I would love to have a DVR/IHome device that could do the following:
?the device is Wireless, so I can download my songs from my computer using itunes and wirelessly send it to the device that's connect to my stereo and TV. The device then store it's information on the HD.
? do the same for videos and movies. In Hi-Def if required.
? the device has a DVR, I can make schedules of the shows on my computer (using a new software develop by Apple) that I want to record and wirelessly send it to the appliance HD.
? Huge hard drive so I can store all my songs, videos and photos.
I think will be better to have a mac computer programming such device wirelessly. So I could use my Itunes, maybe tv/movies store to purchase and download content and then wirelessly transfer these data to the device HD.
That way this device could be simple and small like the minimac have all the connections to plug into your stereo and tv. Who knows, maybe you could connect your laserdisc, dvd, cd player etc. all into this thing. So it would be the heart of your digital entertainment system. And the best of all you would have total control using your Mac. That would be very cool.
I would love to have a DVR/IHome device that could do the following:/quote]
Me too.
Quote:
I think will be better to have a mac computer programming such device wirelessly.
A wireless option is fine, but it is essential that it support wired operation at 100/1000 MBit as well. Wireless isn't going to cut it for high quality HD signals, especially if more than one thing is going on in the network at a time. If they provide this kind of device, my house is already wired and I'll buy two.
I mean, googling for example "dvd download" will reveal you tons of information and movie download services pretending to be 100% legal. Often there is some fee to pay for a membership. Can anyone tell me how is this possible?
My admittedly brief and vague comment was meant to indicate that such a proliferation of "legitimate" download services was not possible.
Legit ones, as you rightly point out, do exist, but they are few and far between.
Sure it is. Movie download services already exist.
CinemaNow and MovieLink are both services that the studios, along with companies like MS have launched. CinemaNow has been out for 3-4 years if I'm not mistaken. They only work with Windows, they are usually rentals, but they are offering some purchases.
The website designs are bad and not customer friendly and the sales are low, but they are totally legitimate. It's incorrect to say that the studio don't want this when they're already doing it, albeit unsuccessfully. It's incorrect to say that the bandwidth infrastructure isn't there when clearly it is. Some of what they offer is 720p HD.
Of course, around them are all the illegitimate ones, but there are some legal ones.
You say it clearly is, I say nay. You can't compare torrenting to direct downloading no matter how you look at it. There is going to be a huge difference. The size if the audience Apple would be catering too is just way to large to offer such a thing. That's if they offer all the content I was describing earlier, but I just have to doubt it all.
You say it clearly is, I say nay. You can't compare torrenting to direct downloading no matter how you look at it. There is going to be a huge difference. The size if the audience Apple would be catering too is just way to large to offer such a thing. That's if they offer all the content I was describing earlier, but I just have to doubt it all.
Ok. You aren't listening. The two services I pointed to are legitimate. They aren't torrent sites.
This IS what we're discussing Apple do, though they're mostly rentals and not purchases. The studios started these two sites. They haven't really caught on, but they prove that:
That is not what I am referring to. READ TO LEARN. I'm saying there is a bandwidth problem If apple offered all the things that were being discussed before. Direct downloading isn't the same as torrenting.
Neither one of y'all are having the same conversation.
No shit. He's still stuck on the idea that the world's bandwidth got stuck in 1996.
Apple already shoves 10TB per day out of iTMS. That doesn't include what they push out of the trailers site (for free), out of their regular web, out of .mac, Software Update and god knows what else. And that's just Apple.
If Apple picked up 10,000 movies per day of downloads or 30,000 TV shows per day they'd be in line with iTMS for bandwidth. Since some here seem to think that there aren't that many customers anyway, what's the problem?
BBC will be offering pretty much 24/7 downloading of everything they broadcast for a rolling period of 7 days. That's got to be in line with what Apple would be doing, but it's not impossible there. Why?
We have two download to rent stores, but that's not impossible. Battlenet alone pushes bandwidth on the order of Apple's as well at $10 per month with huge online times per customer.
Bandwidth isn't that expensive. There's plenty of it. If it gets tight, there's lots of ability to add it. It's a non issue.
No shit. He's still stuck on the idea that the world's bandwidth got stuck in 1996.
See, that's where you just couldn't be more wrong! Didn't you get the invitation for the Web 1.0 Summit? (if you've ever done html coding, make sure you read the comments in flickr).
but isn't apples new codec for video supper efficient and ultracompressed making bandwidth a non issue???
Yes. But it's also a real hog and would also require some kind of dedicated decoder chip?perhaps in an airport express type thing?to make all of this work nicely.
No shit. He's still stuck on the idea that the world's bandwidth got stuck in 1996.
Apple already shoves 10TB per day out of iTMS. That doesn't include what they push out of the trailers site (for free), out of their regular web, out of .mac, Software Update and god knows what else. And that's just Apple.
If Apple picked up 10,000 movies per day of downloads or 30,000 TV shows per day they'd be in line with iTMS for bandwidth. Since some here seem to think that there aren't that many customers anyway, what's the problem?
BBC will be offering pretty much 24/7 downloading of everything they broadcast for a rolling period of 7 days. That's got to be in line with what Apple would be doing, but it's not impossible there. Why?
We have two download to rent stores, but that's not impossible. Battlenet alone pushes bandwidth on the order of Apple's as well at $10 per month with huge online times per customer.
Bandwidth isn't that expensive. There's plenty of it. If it gets tight, there's lots of ability to add it. It's a non issue.
I think you're proving onlooker's point without realizing it. Music is small compared to video (especially HD video) -- very small. And Apple alone is pushing out huge volumes. Music is roughly 1.5 MB/min, compared to 30+ MB/min for DVD-quality. HD quality is going to be something like 120 MB/min or more. If Apple introduced this and were successful (why would they bother if they weren't successful?) then their bandwidth demands would increase by a factor 20-80. Bandwidth ain't that cheap, and the existing infrastructure would need serious upgrading.
Of course, if Apple could figure out how to eliminate spam and porn from the net then they wouldn't have any problems at all. On the other hand, if VHS is any indication then porn could be their key to success. Hmmm... the Apple iPMS.
I think that the technological end of things is not really the obstacle in any of this, and those of you who keep coming back to it need to consider how long it took Apple to convince the music labels that their DRM was solid and that the business model would work.
I think that the technological end of things is not really the obstacle in any of this, and those of you who keep coming back to it need to consider how long it took Apple to convince the music labels that their DRM was solid and that the business model would work.
Two ways to look at this: (a) they still aren't completely convinced, (b) since the model has been demonstrated the movie industry might be more receptive more easily.
Comments
Originally posted by icfireball
You Fools. NONE of these stupid video iPod designs will EVER work. Guess what people: some people ARN'T left handed. All of these designs have the scroll wheel to the right.
And Apple can't have a setting that flips the whole interface?
Left handed people can't move their right thumbs? I'm right handed and I drive my iPod with either hand. It's not that hard.
we do know, there's copyprotection/DRM on commercial video DVDs...-
what if?
Apple has built in some "commercial DVD DRM" on system level (since 10.0) and announces on Okt 12th legal DVD ripping ?
now actually we have QT7 and h264....
we get a "DVD" button in iTunes
the limits are: just 1 stream (to a vAE), no re-converting, DRM in h264 streams, playback on up to 5 vPods, etc.pp.
and of course video selling in the iTVS (which allow up to 3 copies...)
which Apple employee said "people cannot rip their DVDs?"
same rules as in music business by installing DRM on system level...-
so, behind the curtain, their is - again - a whole, convenient combo: buy, rip, watch, iTunesRip, iTVS, vPod, vAE? and one more thing: I would like to see some "white HiDef video glasses"
Originally posted by PB
Often there is some fee to pay for a membership. Can anyone tell me how is this possible?
It isn't.
Originally posted by midwinter
It isn't.
Sure it is. Movie download services already exist.
CinemaNow and MovieLink are both services that the studios, along with companies like MS have launched. CinemaNow has been out for 3-4 years if I'm not mistaken. They only work with Windows, they are usually rentals, but they are offering some purchases.
The website designs are bad and not customer friendly and the sales are low, but they are totally legitimate. It's incorrect to say that the studio don't want this when they're already doing it, albeit unsuccessfully. It's incorrect to say that the bandwidth infrastructure isn't there when clearly it is. Some of what they offer is 720p HD.
Of course, around them are all the illegitimate ones, but there are some legal ones.
Originally posted by midwinter
It isn't.
I don't see what you do mean. Perhaps that the advertised service does not correspond to the real one? Or that it is not legal to do it?
?the device is Wireless, so I can download my songs from my computer using itunes and wirelessly send it to the device that's connect to my stereo and TV. The device then store it's information on the HD.
? do the same for videos and movies. In Hi-Def if required.
? the device has a DVR, I can make schedules of the shows on my computer (using a new software develop by Apple) that I want to record and wirelessly send it to the appliance HD.
? Huge hard drive so I can store all my songs, videos and photos.
I think will be better to have a mac computer programming such device wirelessly. So I could use my Itunes, maybe tv/movies store to purchase and download content and then wirelessly transfer these data to the device HD.
That way this device could be simple and small like the minimac have all the connections to plug into your stereo and tv. Who knows, maybe you could connect your laserdisc, dvd, cd player etc. all into this thing. So it would be the heart of your digital entertainment system. And the best of all you would have total control using your Mac. That would be very cool.
I would love to have a DVR/IHome device that could do the following:/quote]
Me too.
I think will be better to have a mac computer programming such device wirelessly.
A wireless option is fine, but it is essential that it support wired operation at 100/1000 MBit as well. Wireless isn't going to cut it for high quality HD signals, especially if more than one thing is going on in the network at a time. If they provide this kind of device, my house is already wired and I'll buy two.
I mean, googling for example "dvd download" will reveal you tons of information and movie download services pretending to be 100% legal. Often there is some fee to pay for a membership. Can anyone tell me how is this possible?
My admittedly brief and vague comment was meant to indicate that such a proliferation of "legitimate" download services was not possible.
Legit ones, as you rightly point out, do exist, but they are few and far between.
Originally posted by johnsonwax
Sure it is. Movie download services already exist.
CinemaNow and MovieLink are both services that the studios, along with companies like MS have launched. CinemaNow has been out for 3-4 years if I'm not mistaken. They only work with Windows, they are usually rentals, but they are offering some purchases.
The website designs are bad and not customer friendly and the sales are low, but they are totally legitimate. It's incorrect to say that the studio don't want this when they're already doing it, albeit unsuccessfully. It's incorrect to say that the bandwidth infrastructure isn't there when clearly it is. Some of what they offer is 720p HD.
Of course, around them are all the illegitimate ones, but there are some legal ones.
You say it clearly is, I say nay. You can't compare torrenting to direct downloading no matter how you look at it. There is going to be a huge difference. The size if the audience Apple would be catering too is just way to large to offer such a thing. That's if they offer all the content I was describing earlier, but I just have to doubt it all.
Originally posted by onlooker
You say it clearly is, I say nay. You can't compare torrenting to direct downloading no matter how you look at it. There is going to be a huge difference. The size if the audience Apple would be catering too is just way to large to offer such a thing. That's if they offer all the content I was describing earlier, but I just have to doubt it all.
Ok. You aren't listening. The two services I pointed to are legitimate. They aren't torrent sites.
CinemaNow:
http://www.cinemanow.com/AboutUs-Background.aspx
MovieLink:
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-965194.html
This IS what we're discussing Apple do, though they're mostly rentals and not purchases. The studios started these two sites. They haven't really caught on, but they prove that:
1) It's possible
2) The studios will buy into such a service
Originally posted by midwinter
Neither one of y'all are having the same conversation.
No shit. He's still stuck on the idea that the world's bandwidth got stuck in 1996.
Apple already shoves 10TB per day out of iTMS. That doesn't include what they push out of the trailers site (for free), out of their regular web, out of .mac, Software Update and god knows what else. And that's just Apple.
If Apple picked up 10,000 movies per day of downloads or 30,000 TV shows per day they'd be in line with iTMS for bandwidth. Since some here seem to think that there aren't that many customers anyway, what's the problem?
BBC will be offering pretty much 24/7 downloading of everything they broadcast for a rolling period of 7 days. That's got to be in line with what Apple would be doing, but it's not impossible there. Why?
We have two download to rent stores, but that's not impossible. Battlenet alone pushes bandwidth on the order of Apple's as well at $10 per month with huge online times per customer.
Bandwidth isn't that expensive. There's plenty of it. If it gets tight, there's lots of ability to add it. It's a non issue.
Originally posted by johnsonwax
No shit. He's still stuck on the idea that the world's bandwidth got stuck in 1996.
See, that's where you just couldn't be more wrong! Didn't you get the invitation for the Web 1.0 Summit? (if you've ever done html coding, make sure you read the comments in flickr).
Originally posted by NOFEER
but isn't apples new codec for video supper efficient and ultracompressed making bandwidth a non issue???
Yes. But it's also a real hog and would also require some kind of dedicated decoder chip?perhaps in an airport express type thing?to make all of this work nicely.
Wouldn't that be nice? Airport A/V.
Originally posted by johnsonwax
No shit. He's still stuck on the idea that the world's bandwidth got stuck in 1996.
Apple already shoves 10TB per day out of iTMS. That doesn't include what they push out of the trailers site (for free), out of their regular web, out of .mac, Software Update and god knows what else. And that's just Apple.
If Apple picked up 10,000 movies per day of downloads or 30,000 TV shows per day they'd be in line with iTMS for bandwidth. Since some here seem to think that there aren't that many customers anyway, what's the problem?
BBC will be offering pretty much 24/7 downloading of everything they broadcast for a rolling period of 7 days. That's got to be in line with what Apple would be doing, but it's not impossible there. Why?
We have two download to rent stores, but that's not impossible. Battlenet alone pushes bandwidth on the order of Apple's as well at $10 per month with huge online times per customer.
Bandwidth isn't that expensive. There's plenty of it. If it gets tight, there's lots of ability to add it. It's a non issue.
I think you're proving onlooker's point without realizing it. Music is small compared to video (especially HD video) -- very small. And Apple alone is pushing out huge volumes. Music is roughly 1.5 MB/min, compared to 30+ MB/min for DVD-quality. HD quality is going to be something like 120 MB/min or more. If Apple introduced this and were successful (why would they bother if they weren't successful?) then their bandwidth demands would increase by a factor 20-80. Bandwidth ain't that cheap, and the existing infrastructure would need serious upgrading.
Of course, if Apple could figure out how to eliminate spam and porn from the net then they wouldn't have any problems at all. On the other hand, if VHS is any indication then porn could be their key to success. Hmmm... the Apple iPMS.
Originally posted by midwinter
I think that the technological end of things is not really the obstacle in any of this, and those of you who keep coming back to it need to consider how long it took Apple to convince the music labels that their DRM was solid and that the business model would work.
Two ways to look at this: (a) they still aren't completely convinced, (b) since the model has been demonstrated the movie industry might be more receptive more easily.