BTW...though I don't have new video iPod, I am thinking of "treating myself" to a couple of (U2) videos I have been wanting. How is the playback quality on a 20" iMac?
B: I can copy the shows to VCD or multiple shows to DVD or SVCD for archival and playback on (gasp) non-apple hardware/software
A. I too would hope with a new "Patented caching system" the streaming quality will be better than the current 320x240.
B. Non- Apple hardware? don't count on it.. Apple won't be making money on content (movie) distribution. If they actually do this, it will be to sell Apple hardware. As the article says the new Mac Mini with front row.
I also don't think this method of selling movies will be for PC users because of the whole streaming from iDisk thing. This may be an attempt to lure windows users over to the new intel macs.
I also don't think this method of selling movies will be for PC users because of the whole streaming from iDisk thing. This may be an attempt to lure windows users over to the new intel macs.
Don't be so sure. You need to think less in terms of "PC" and more in terms of a "device that happens to contain PC technology like a CPU, memory, hard drive and OS but isn't really a PC".
Close to half of Apple's revenues now come from the iPod.
I also don't think this method of selling movies will be for PC users because of the whole streaming from iDisk thing. This may be an attempt to lure windows users over to the new intel macs.
Yeah, Apple will want to sell more Macs, but isn't there a Windows utility to access your iDisk? I remember using something like that back when I first converted. (Wow. That really sounds religious. )
Yeah, Apple will want to sell more Macs, but isn't there a Windows utility to access your iDisk? I remember using something like that back when I first converted. (Wow. That really sounds religious. )
Yes there is an iDisk utility for windows, but it there is no Front Row for windows.
I personally believe that this will be a way to sell the new Intel based Mac Mini media computer with front row that by the way will also dual-boot into Windows.
I think this article today from Think Secret explains how Apple will own the living room. It also appears they've solved DRM/piracy issues as well.
Road to Expo: Apple's new media experience coming soon
By Ryan Katz, Senior Editor
December 2, 2005 - Apple is planning to unveil a robust new content distribution system in January at Macworld Expo alongside its revamped media-savvy Mac mini, Think Secret has learned...
Copyright issues
AppleInsider editors should not allow junior members to quote at length the full content of articles published elsewhere, even if acknowledging the source of the article.
To refer to the full content of what is published elsewhere, it is better to give the title and url reference of the article.
In this case, "Road to Expo: Apple's new media experience coming soon", should have been followed by the url:
ThinkSecret lives off publicity and the number of people clicking on the article matters. That's why it's not enough to acknowledge the source of the article.
While there is an exception to copyright rules for the academic use and discussion of published materials, it applies only to quoting select excerpts, limited portions of published materials, not quoting at length the full content of what is published elsewhere.
The problem here is compounded by the fact that a junior member cannot correct his post once it has been published online for one or two hours.
Clearly, this is a matter for the editors who should correct the post by shortening the quote, cutting everything after the first paragraph taken from ThinkSecret, and giving the url reference.
I don't want to blame the junior member who is not a corporate and business lawyer, but the editors should act as soon as they become aware of the problem.
Maybe this is backlash for all of the press and prasie Apple has recieved, but I'm a bit confused by all who are so critical of iTunes video.
This all has to be kept in perspective. This is a first step. Apple is trying something entirely new and dealing with an industry that is afraid.
320X240 isn't great but when you see it isn't that bad. I wonder how many people have actually seen the video clips before they criticize.
This resolution is a compromise between quality and real life data speeds. Once most of the general public has payed money for their video they will want it now, few people would tolerate waiting hours to download an HD show. Well except people who spend lots of time in their mother's basement on the internet and playing video games. But the vast majority of people have live's and little time to wait.
The other complaint is the video DRM. Which is also a comprimise. No content provider would agree to sign up if their was no DRM. No content provider will agree to sell a perfect digital copy of its product and give every user the ability to record and store it any way they desire.
This has little to do directly with Apple and everything to do with multibillion dollar conglometares and their stock holders.
The iDisk utility for Windoze just barely works. Apparently it will not work at all under some configurations, so Apple has alternate instructions for this case. The proceedure involves creating a 'Network Place' and does not involve any addional utility. I gave this a try after flaky results with the util. The util, while flaky, ended up working much better.
I guess the Windoze version of iTunes would have to handle the connection to the iDisk itself to have any chance for reliablity. But now we're talking about marketing .Mac to users of Windoze, which makes no sense.
The iDisk utility for Windoze just barely works. Apparently it will not work at all under some configurations, so Apple has alternate instructions for this case. The proceedure involves creating a 'Network Place' and does not involve any addional utility. I gave this a try after flaky results with the util. The util, while flaky, ended up working much better.
I guess the Windoze version of iTunes would have to handle the connection to the iDisk itself to have any chance for reliablity. But now we're talking about marketing .Mac to users of Windoze, which makes no sense.
The iDisk utility for Windoze just barely works. Apparently it will not work at all under some configurations, so Apple has alternate instructions for this case. The proceedure involves creating a 'Network Place' and does not involve any addional utility. I gave this a try after flaky results with the util. The util, while flaky, ended up working much better.
I guess the Windoze version of iTunes would have to handle the connection to the iDisk itself to have any chance for reliablity. But now we're talking about marketing .Mac to users of Windoze, which makes no sense.
The article says an iDisk is required, not a .mac account.
Could be a free basic iDisk strictly for viewing iTunes video content.
IF the thinksecret story is right, there's no way its going to be full HD.
Or even 720p.
it's going to be 420p.
Try downloading a HD trailer from Apple.com at 420p and 720p. look at the file sizes.
And more importantly, look which one streams instantly. As others in Macrumors have mentioned - Front Row trailers stream instantly and fully: they can be 'fast-forwarded' no problems. You can scroll thorugh an entire trailer...no waiting....(on my not-so-special cable connection)
I'm not sure what resolution those are...but the same can be done with the HD 420p trailers at Apple.com (throw it to full screen, and start fastforwarding with QT7s new onscreen controls...hmm.....)
As for "I WANT 720p because it looks so so much better...."
Below are two images of DETAIL from a trailer...one 720p one 420p.. (increased sized the 420p in quicktime)
first...a Full frame reference JPEG of the trailer:
720p
420p
So you can tell the difference..and I would demand 720p.....except when BOTH are scaled up to full screen.
Portion of frame as displayed in full screen..meaning actual pixels you see (@ 1920*1200)
720p
420p
There is a difference, but not much. And you have to remeber that the head shot here is jsut a small portion of the whole frame
I'm moderatley happy with the "DVD quality" of 420p.....which is what we'll hear it is. But I don't want to pay tons for it either!
This is a complicated issue. It won't be resoved here.
But first of all, it's poor practice to compare the quality of video streams using a freeze frame from either.
Frozen frames always exhibit more artifacts than streaming frames do.
When I rez a DVD up to 1920 to 1080p om my Mac to my Sony 24" CRT display, people think it is hi def.
I don't know what Apple will do, but broadband issues are going to be at the top of the talking point list.
I wouldn't mind broadcast standard 720 x 480 files. The same as DVD.
Don't forget that the average tv only has about 350 x 480 real resolution. Better sets get the horizontal up to 450, and a few do better. Only LCD, plasma, LoCos, and DLP.
Fact is, 85% of all tv's sold this past year were crt based, and there won't be that much of a change in the coming year either.
Apple has to appeal to those with slower connections, who don't have, or care about hi end video.
This is a complicated issue. It won't be resoved here.
But first of all, it's poor practice to compare the quality of video streams using a freeze frame from either.
Frozen frames always exhibit more artifacts than streaming frames do.
...
Don't forget that the average tv only has about 350 x 480 real resolution. Better sets get the horizontal up to 450, and a few do better. Only LCD, plasma, LoCos, and DLP.
Fact is, 85% of all tv's sold this past year were crt based, and there won't be that much of a change in the coming year either.
Apple has to appeal to those with slower connections, who don't have, or care about hi end video.
Good point on the freeze frame, agreed.
However, some CRTs are capable of amazing picture resolution. Sony's 34" wide screen does full 1080i for example. With the tube, not down scaled or something. If you pay $200 for TV sure, but CRts that do 720 and 1080 go for around $500 and $1400 respectivly don't they?
I personally think CRT is cabable of the best picture quality (NO ghosting, view angle etc) - unless you start spending $10K+ on plasmas. Although my Sony also wieghs in at 200lbs.......
Not to be a nitpicker... but this sentence, "...his proprietary checks with industry sources...", should probably read, "...his checks with proprietary industry sources...", since his process of checking is unlikely to be proprietary.
Not to be a nitpicker... but this sentence, "...his proprietary checks with industry sources...", should probably read, "...his checks with proprietary industry sources...", since his process of checking is unlikely to be proprietary.
Well, you never know. In this day and age, perhaps he has patented his approach to checking and has it protected with all manner of digital rights managment.
Comments
BTW...though I don't have new video iPod, I am thinking of "treating myself" to a couple of (U2) videos I have been wanting. How is the playback quality on a 20" iMac?
Originally posted by a_greer
Call me when:
A: the quality doesnt stink
B: I can copy the shows to VCD or multiple shows to DVD or SVCD for archival and playback on (gasp) non-apple hardware/software
A. I too would hope with a new "Patented caching system" the streaming quality will be better than the current 320x240.
B. Non- Apple hardware? don't count on it.. Apple won't be making money on content (movie) distribution. If they actually do this, it will be to sell Apple hardware. As the article says the new Mac Mini with front row.
I also don't think this method of selling movies will be for PC users because of the whole streaming from iDisk thing. This may be an attempt to lure windows users over to the new intel macs.
Originally posted by solsun
I also don't think this method of selling movies will be for PC users because of the whole streaming from iDisk thing. This may be an attempt to lure windows users over to the new intel macs.
Don't be so sure. You need to think less in terms of "PC" and more in terms of a "device that happens to contain PC technology like a CPU, memory, hard drive and OS but isn't really a PC".
Close to half of Apple's revenues now come from the iPod.
Originally posted by solsun
I also don't think this method of selling movies will be for PC users because of the whole streaming from iDisk thing. This may be an attempt to lure windows users over to the new intel macs.
Yeah, Apple will want to sell more Macs, but isn't there a Windows utility to access your iDisk? I remember using something like that back when I first converted. (Wow. That really sounds religious.
Originally posted by bikertwin
Yeah, Apple will want to sell more Macs, but isn't there a Windows utility to access your iDisk? I remember using something like that back when I first converted. (Wow. That really sounds religious.
Yes there is an iDisk utility for windows, but it there is no Front Row for windows.
I personally believe that this will be a way to sell the new Intel based Mac Mini media computer with front row that by the way will also dual-boot into Windows.
Originally posted by solsun
I think this article today from Think Secret explains how Apple will own the living room. It also appears they've solved DRM/piracy issues as well.
Road to Expo: Apple's new media experience coming soon
By Ryan Katz, Senior Editor
December 2, 2005 - Apple is planning to unveil a robust new content distribution system in January at Macworld Expo alongside its revamped media-savvy Mac mini, Think Secret has learned...
Copyright issues
AppleInsider editors should not allow junior members to quote at length the full content of articles published elsewhere, even if acknowledging the source of the article.
To refer to the full content of what is published elsewhere, it is better to give the title and url reference of the article.
In this case, "Road to Expo: Apple's new media experience coming soon", should have been followed by the url:
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0511contentdist.html
ThinkSecret lives off publicity and the number of people clicking on the article matters. That's why it's not enough to acknowledge the source of the article.
While there is an exception to copyright rules for the academic use and discussion of published materials, it applies only to quoting select excerpts, limited portions of published materials, not quoting at length the full content of what is published elsewhere.
The problem here is compounded by the fact that a junior member cannot correct his post once it has been published online for one or two hours.
Clearly, this is a matter for the editors who should correct the post by shortening the quote, cutting everything after the first paragraph taken from ThinkSecret, and giving the url reference.
I don't want to blame the junior member who is not a corporate and business lawyer, but the editors should act as soon as they become aware of the problem.
Pierre
I agree with Mel Gross its very unApple.
Maybe this is backlash for all of the press and prasie Apple has recieved, but I'm a bit confused by all who are so critical of iTunes video.
This all has to be kept in perspective. This is a first step. Apple is trying something entirely new and dealing with an industry that is afraid.
320X240 isn't great but when you see it isn't that bad. I wonder how many people have actually seen the video clips before they criticize.
This resolution is a compromise between quality and real life data speeds. Once most of the general public has payed money for their video they will want it now, few people would tolerate waiting hours to download an HD show. Well except people who spend lots of time in their mother's basement on the internet and playing video games. But the vast majority of people have live's and little time to wait.
The other complaint is the video DRM. Which is also a comprimise. No content provider would agree to sign up if their was no DRM. No content provider will agree to sell a perfect digital copy of its product and give every user the ability to record and store it any way they desire.
This has little to do directly with Apple and everything to do with multibillion dollar conglometares and their stock holders.
I guess the Windoze version of iTunes would have to handle the connection to the iDisk itself to have any chance for reliablity. But now we're talking about marketing .Mac to users of Windoze, which makes no sense.
Originally posted by funkfeend
The iDisk utility for Windoze just barely works. Apparently it will not work at all under some configurations, so Apple has alternate instructions for this case. The proceedure involves creating a 'Network Place' and does not involve any addional utility. I gave this a try after flaky results with the util. The util, while flaky, ended up working much better.
I guess the Windoze version of iTunes would have to handle the connection to the iDisk itself to have any chance for reliablity. But now we're talking about marketing .Mac to users of Windoze, which makes no sense.
But it would be cool!
Originally posted by funkfeend
The iDisk utility for Windoze just barely works. Apparently it will not work at all under some configurations, so Apple has alternate instructions for this case. The proceedure involves creating a 'Network Place' and does not involve any addional utility. I gave this a try after flaky results with the util. The util, while flaky, ended up working much better.
I guess the Windoze version of iTunes would have to handle the connection to the iDisk itself to have any chance for reliablity. But now we're talking about marketing .Mac to users of Windoze, which makes no sense.
The article says an iDisk is required, not a .mac account.
Could be a free basic iDisk strictly for viewing iTunes video content.
Or even 720p.
it's going to be 420p.
Try downloading a HD trailer from Apple.com at 420p and 720p. look at the file sizes.
And more importantly, look which one streams instantly. As others in Macrumors have mentioned - Front Row trailers stream instantly and fully: they can be 'fast-forwarded' no problems. You can scroll thorugh an entire trailer...no waiting....(on my not-so-special cable connection)
I'm not sure what resolution those are...but the same can be done with the HD 420p trailers at Apple.com (throw it to full screen, and start fastforwarding with QT7s new onscreen controls...hmm.....)
As for "I WANT 720p because it looks so so much better...."
Below are two images of DETAIL from a trailer...one 720p one 420p.. (increased sized the 420p in quicktime)
first...a Full frame reference JPEG of the trailer:
720p
420p
So you can tell the difference..and I would demand 720p.....except when BOTH are scaled up to full screen.
Portion of frame as displayed in full screen..meaning actual pixels you see (@ 1920*1200)
720p
420p
There is a difference, but not much. And you have to remeber that the head shot here is jsut a small portion of the whole frame
I'm moderatley happy with the "DVD quality" of 420p.....which is what we'll hear it is. But I don't want to pay tons for it either!
Originally posted by solsun
The article says an iDisk is required, not a .mac account.
Could be a free basic iDisk strictly for viewing iTunes video content.
i can't see how they could do that. i mean, lots of people streaming content... someone's gotta pay for that bandwidth somewhere.
Originally posted by ouragan
I don't want to blame the junior member who is not a corporate and business lawyer,...
I think I know someone who claims to be, though.
Lighten up, sue, or go away.
But first of all, it's poor practice to compare the quality of video streams using a freeze frame from either.
Frozen frames always exhibit more artifacts than streaming frames do.
When I rez a DVD up to 1920 to 1080p om my Mac to my Sony 24" CRT display, people think it is hi def.
I don't know what Apple will do, but broadband issues are going to be at the top of the talking point list.
I wouldn't mind broadcast standard 720 x 480 files. The same as DVD.
Don't forget that the average tv only has about 350 x 480 real resolution. Better sets get the horizontal up to 450, and a few do better. Only LCD, plasma, LoCos, and DLP.
Fact is, 85% of all tv's sold this past year were crt based, and there won't be that much of a change in the coming year either.
Apple has to appeal to those with slower connections, who don't have, or care about hi end video.
Originally posted by rok
i can't see how they could do that. i mean, lots of people streaming content... someone's gotta pay for that bandwidth somewhere.
Yes, that's a very good point.
Originally posted by melgross
This is a complicated issue. It won't be resoved here.
But first of all, it's poor practice to compare the quality of video streams using a freeze frame from either.
Frozen frames always exhibit more artifacts than streaming frames do.
...
Don't forget that the average tv only has about 350 x 480 real resolution. Better sets get the horizontal up to 450, and a few do better. Only LCD, plasma, LoCos, and DLP.
Fact is, 85% of all tv's sold this past year were crt based, and there won't be that much of a change in the coming year either.
Apple has to appeal to those with slower connections, who don't have, or care about hi end video.
Good point on the freeze frame, agreed.
However, some CRTs are capable of amazing picture resolution. Sony's 34" wide screen does full 1080i for example. With the tube, not down scaled or something. If you pay $200 for TV sure, but CRts that do 720 and 1080 go for around $500 and $1400 respectivly don't they?
I personally think CRT is cabable of the best picture quality (NO ghosting, view angle etc) - unless you start spending $10K+ on plasmas. Although my Sony also wieghs in at 200lbs.......
Originally posted by ouragan
Copyright issues
Wow, that sure was a verbosely serious version of what I was gonna suggest:
It would have been enough just to post the article title/link and let ThinkSecret collect their page hits.
Originally posted by ouragan
Copyright issues
AppleInsider editors should not allow junior members...
Pierre
Maybe the "junior member" got permission and maybe he is a law breaker.
Either way, I can't for the life of me understand why you think newer members are subject to certain rules and imply the rest of us are not.
Originally posted by SpamSandwich
Not to be a nitpicker... but this sentence, "...his proprietary checks with industry sources...", should probably read, "...his checks with proprietary industry sources...", since his process of checking is unlikely to be proprietary.
Well, you never know. In this day and age, perhaps he has patented his approach to checking and has it protected with all manner of digital rights managment.