That assumes the TV is automatically turned on somehow, otherwise you still need the TV remote just to turn it on. If you have a regular sound system that's not part of the TV, then you still need to turn that on.
Come-on Jeff you should be switching your TV off on the power switch everytime - standby sucks too much electromaticity - got to save the wiggly-amps ($$$) and the planet!
Come-on Jeff you should be switching your TV off on the power switch everytime - standby sucks too much electromaticity - got to save the wiggly-amps ($$$) and the planet!
It is one watt standby. I am not going to unplug it to save that watt. Besides, the TV I have doesn't power up when plugged in, so that still needs the remote.
You have no idea what we're showing. We have access to studio quality direct feed as well as cable access. Not just PCs. It is a large conference center, and dvd content is often a subject of events we hold. Each conference room has a large stack of equipment, including DVD players, connected to the projectors, and some of these rooms are quite large, certainly as large as a movie theater.
Mkay...and if you're meeting THX or SMPTE specs for a movie theater you'd be showing movies at the right viewing distance for movies. There is a reason that digital cinema is using 2K systems and moving toward 4K systems. At the specified viewing distances the limitations of DVD and conference grade projectors become apparent. Now if you're running 2K Christie or Barco gear with good upconversion yah, that works. But not as well as a 720p or 1080p source would.
Almost anything looks good from a sufficient distance.
Quote:
Obviously, if it has an HDMI connector, then DVD isn't all it will do, now will it? Steve said in the event that they were showing 640x480, I think it was. He said "near-dvd".
I rewatched it and yes, he did say you were seeing the same thing as what was on iTunes so it was 480.
Quote:
But as I said, the presence of the HDMI port suggests that the box will do better. Right now, they are limiting the resolution due to download limitations, and as soon as the infrastructure, and the market is right, I am sure that they will upgrade.
Right now, they are proving to the studios that they can deliver the goods. If enough people respond to this, it will result, as the iPod did, in the content providers getting on the bandwagon too. I agree that the timing here is right. All they have to do is convince Hollywood that they can do with this what they did for music.
So there's no real disagreement but you keep responding to my posts, not reading what I write and telling me I'm wrong because you ignore the 2nd half of the sentences.
I never made any such suggestion, go back and read mine again. I said I had read posts IN OTHER FORUMS... about how people were saying it looked.
I was responding to the part where you disagreed that DVD resolution looks like ass which I did say but ONLY in comparison to HD. It also looks like ass when you get too close to the screen which is unfortunately what you need to do to get the immersion like in the theaters.
Resolution isn't everything but eliminating pixelation or screen door or other digital artifacts related to resolution is why the HD spec picked 1080p. That the color space is superior is nice too but replication of the "theater like" experience appears tied to the size of the screen and the percentage of field of view.
OK, question. If I went out and got a Mac mini with Frontrow and an Elgato box plugged into a TV, would the iTV add anything to this setup or is it unnecessary because its functions are already taken by the Mac and Elgato?
I beg to differ on the superbowl thing. It WILL come. I didn't say tomorrow, but today, you can already buy the NFL season for your favorite team streamed to you on ITS. You don't think they'll get around to streaming the Superbowl, too? American idol is on ITS, too, didn't ya know?
As I said, change may not be overnight, but it WILL come. It'll come because the vast majority of Americans with the money that the entertainment industry sells to is willing to buy something new, when it makes their lives and entertainment more comfortable, and they percieve a value in it.
Call it what you will, but it signals a change in American life that will (and is) turning the entertainment industry on its head.
Why stream the superbowl via ITS when it is live? I just don't see the value. Seems like taking a step backwards. Watching American Idol via ITS is watching a re-run. Good if you are into that. Me, I will take it live, thank you.
I agree consumers will buy it if it adds value. I just don't see any value yet. Paying for re-runs, another way to get movies, uh no thanks.
Why stream the superbowl via ITS when it is live? I just don't see the value. Seems like taking a step backwards. Watching American Idol via ITS is watching a re-run. Good if you are into that. Me, I will take it live, thank you.
I agree consumers will buy it if it adds value. I just don't see any value yet. Paying for re-runs, another way to get movies, uh no thanks.
I agree with that, and also don't see why Apple isn't including the Hard Drive for set top PVR. Even if a person gets his shows broadcast in HD to their HD capable PVR, getting that show to the appropriate size by morning, commercial free, so they can watch it on their iPod on the train to work is one more added task they don't need to deal with. I don't think having the PVR functionality would stop TV show sales @ iTS. The convenience of the $2.00 show ready to go is what it should be all about. It would likely reduce some portion of sales on TV shows, but at least Apple wouldn't look they were jumping in bed with big business/big government and trying to screw the consumer from the get go. Just because they are marketing it's features this way, doesn't mean it's the right way. I think we are getting screwed on this thing. It essentially does something near what you wanted it to do, but it's really not doing it the way it should be done. IMO the fact of the matter is, once you look it over, this thing is screwing you.
IMO the fact of the matter is, once you look it over, this thing is screwing you.
Apple might as well get in on the racket.
Everyone I hear with ring tones. I tell them your cell phone company is over charging you for snippets of songs that cost them next to nothing to provide. You are being ripped off. But no one listens.
Why stream the superbowl via ITS when it is live? I just don't see the value. Seems like taking a step backwards. Watching American Idol via ITS is watching a re-run. Good if you are into that. Me, I will take it live, thank you.
I agree consumers will buy it if it adds value. I just don't see any value yet. Paying for re-runs, another way to get movies, uh no thanks.
Yep. You have definitely lost all sense of reality, and have officially become a Zealot. Everything Apple does is not good, and leaving out the hard-drive is definitely one of them. The iPod was already a portable Digital Viewing device, but your essentially saying it's the DVR of the future, and your out of your mind if you think everyone would rather buy their digital programming when it is legally free, and also watch it on a 2 inch screen when you can watch it in HD - Again for free.
Trust me. People would rather Apple included the hard-drive so they could record their programming, and watch it in full screen sitting on a couch.
Apple has completely sold out the consumer/user, and not only that, they have every intention of sticking it them from behind. The iTV demo is living proof of that.
[QUOTE=onlooker]I agree with that, and also don't see why Apple isn't including the Hard Drive for set top PVR. Even if a person gets his shows broadcast in HD to their HD capable PVR, getting that show to the appropriate size by morning, commercial free, so they can watch it on their iPod on the train to work is one more added task they don't need to deal with. I don't think having the PVR functionality would stop TV show sales @ iTS../QUOTE]
Like I just said to pt123, don't ask me, ask the NFL - they signed the agreement with Apple! I imagine it has to do with another revenue stream...
And again, Apple doesn't want you to record your favorite TV show, they want you to buy it from the ITS, period, end of story. Don't look for it anytime soon.
Besides, there's cost. I've heard enough people sputter over the cost - add an HDD, redesign the case, add circuitry to control/power it, and the cost goes up, what - $150? fergit it, that's why they have gigabit ethernet and will have 802.11n wireless for - to connect it to an appliance you'll already own that has that - your PC or Mac.
You don't need to do any of that to watch it on your iPod, the 640x480 is sized to work with the iPod with no compression. Same file, HD or iPod.
And it's not up to you to decide what will or won't stop or diminish TV sales on ITS, that's Apple's call,and they've decided, at least for now. fuhgitaboutit!
OK, question. If I went out and got a Mac mini with Frontrow and an Elgato box plugged into a TV, would the iTV add anything to this setup or is it unnecessary because its functions are already taken by the Mac and Elgato?
I would say you're ok for now. But watch the iTV (or whatever they call it when it's released) for updates in the future, tho. I'm sure that they'll add functionality, just like they did to the iPod.
Both Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates have noted, in public statements, that they feel that the DVD is the last physical media we will see movie content use. This box, and other products like it, will be what makes that come true.
Of course, it'll take a few years, and a few upgrades of the box, to get to that point. But I think this idea will revolutionize the entertainment industry, and maybe the communications industry, too.
Unless both Apple and Microsoft have a plan to enable limitless storage and downloads at the speed of light, for the near term (which means anywhere from the next 3-10 years) that is a complete fantasy scenario.
Unless both Apple and Microsoft have a plan to enable limitless storage and downloads at the speed of light, for the near term (which means anywhere from the next 3-10 years) that is a complete fantasy scenario.
Hardly. Bandwidth, codec efficiency and storage will all continuously increase.
You have a point. New technology doesn't always take over everywhere. After all, aren't a lot of folks still using rabbit ears to get broadcast Tv frrom just one, two or three local stations?
But if the movie studios decide they like the idea of streamed media, and find that it beats the h*** outta spending those big buck to cut the DVDs - you're gonna be outta luck getting them once they stop selling them, unless from the local yard sales or second hand store.
Legislation? Where'd you get that idea? The only place that comes in is with the switch to HDTV. Movie sales don't enter into that. I predict that broadcast TV signals won't last much past 2020. Technology is moving much faster than that. There may be some local stations pushing signals out beyond that date, but the big media companies will get away from that once this on demand thing gets going.
These markets are driven by the money. Show them the money and they'll come draggin their tongues behind them.
Well, a lot of assumtions there. Consumers have had plenty of control over what has happened in the music and movie industries over the past couple of decades. The DiVX pay per view DVD format failed; record companies caved and allow Apple to sell individual songs for 99 cents; numerous attempts have been made to introduce newer CD audio formats that have failed including ones with DRM, DVD-Audio never really caught on. It certainly wasn't because of what the music or movie industries wanted. There are plenty of people out there who still insist on owning their favorite songs or movies on a physical format like a CD or DVD.
On-demand may work for movies, but I think it's a bit much to assume this will work for first-run TV show series or time driven content like sports and news programs. Also the switch to HD is a huge amount of bandwidth. Blu-ray DVDs are 50 GB. HDTV is something like 1,485 Mbit/sec. On-demand HDTV is leaps and bounds beyond what is currently in the works. Sure, there will be plenty more bandwidth out there by 2020, but many people today still swear by their rabbit ears and have no interest in paying $40, $50 - $100+ a month for cable service. Also don't forget the potential for interactive TV. People like to watch certain events live and/or first run programs at the same time as their friends. Live TV may be very different in 2020 too, and no offense, but broadcast TV is really just the ultimate in live, wireless streaming content. Radio has already gone digital, and still thrives as a non-on-demand format. Maybe some of us don't mind letting others choose what we listen to or watch based on the time of day.
Hardly. Bandwidth, codec efficiency and storage will all continuously increase.
I think it's been over 10 years since George Gilder first proclaimed a future of unlimited bandwidth was just around the corner... and then the market imploded. Things happen much slower than many of us would like, but this is usually the fact.
I think it's been over 10 years since George Gilder first proclaimed a future of unlimited bandwidth was just around the corner... and then the market imploded. Things happen much slower than many of us would like, but this is usually the fact.
Ten years ago, the typical codec to encode movies with on the Internet was MPEG-1, if not something proprietary and horrible like Indeo. Audio was encoded with MP2, if even that; possibly something even more backwards like AIFC. Ten years ago, dial-up was the most typical means of connection, and wireless was completely out of question. This wasn't 56 Kbit/s dial-up, mind you; 33.6, 28.8, 14.4 or even lower were typical connection rates. Storage capacities were in hundreds of Megabytes; if you were lucky, a Gigabyte or two.
Perhaps you would like things to happen "much faster", but quite frankly, they happen very fast as it is.
Ten years ago, the typical codec to encode movies with on the Internet was MPEG-1, if not something proprietary and horrible like Indeo. Audio was encoded with MP2, if even that; possibly something even more backwards like AIFC. Ten years ago, dial-up was the most typical means of connection, and wireless was completely out of question. This wasn't 56 Kbit/s dial-up, mind you; 33.6, 28.8, 14.4 or even lower were typical connection rates. Storage capacities were in hundreds of Megabytes; if you were lucky, a Gigabyte or two.
Perhaps you would like things to happen "much faster", but quite frankly, they happen very fast as it is.
Trust me, I'd love for everything to be much faster, except for looming, inevitable death.
Comments
That assumes the TV is automatically turned on somehow, otherwise you still need the TV remote just to turn it on. If you have a regular sound system that's not part of the TV, then you still need to turn that on.
Come-on Jeff you should be switching your TV off on the power switch everytime - standby sucks too much electromaticity - got to save the wiggly-amps ($$$) and the planet!
You will not be watching TV through the iTV.
Could be with EyeTV - but then you're right again why bother when you've got a perfectly good TV right there infront of you?
Come-on Jeff you should be switching your TV off on the power switch everytime - standby sucks too much electromaticity - got to save the wiggly-amps ($$$) and the planet!
It is one watt standby. I am not going to unplug it to save that watt. Besides, the TV I have doesn't power up when plugged in, so that still needs the remote.
You have no idea what we're showing. We have access to studio quality direct feed as well as cable access. Not just PCs. It is a large conference center, and dvd content is often a subject of events we hold. Each conference room has a large stack of equipment, including DVD players, connected to the projectors, and some of these rooms are quite large, certainly as large as a movie theater.
Mkay...and if you're meeting THX or SMPTE specs for a movie theater you'd be showing movies at the right viewing distance for movies. There is a reason that digital cinema is using 2K systems and moving toward 4K systems. At the specified viewing distances the limitations of DVD and conference grade projectors become apparent. Now if you're running 2K Christie or Barco gear with good upconversion yah, that works. But not as well as a 720p or 1080p source would.
Almost anything looks good from a sufficient distance.
Obviously, if it has an HDMI connector, then DVD isn't all it will do, now will it? Steve said in the event that they were showing 640x480, I think it was. He said "near-dvd".
I rewatched it and yes, he did say you were seeing the same thing as what was on iTunes so it was 480.
But as I said, the presence of the HDMI port suggests that the box will do better. Right now, they are limiting the resolution due to download limitations, and as soon as the infrastructure, and the market is right, I am sure that they will upgrade.
Right now, they are proving to the studios that they can deliver the goods. If enough people respond to this, it will result, as the iPod did, in the content providers getting on the bandwagon too. I agree that the timing here is right. All they have to do is convince Hollywood that they can do with this what they did for music.
So there's no real disagreement but you keep responding to my posts, not reading what I write and telling me I'm wrong because you ignore the 2nd half of the sentences.
Vinea
I never made any such suggestion, go back and read mine again. I said I had read posts IN OTHER FORUMS... about how people were saying it looked.
I was responding to the part where you disagreed that DVD resolution looks like ass which I did say but ONLY in comparison to HD. It also looks like ass when you get too close to the screen which is unfortunately what you need to do to get the immersion like in the theaters.
Resolution isn't everything but eliminating pixelation or screen door or other digital artifacts related to resolution is why the HD spec picked 1080p. That the color space is superior is nice too but replication of the "theater like" experience appears tied to the size of the screen and the percentage of field of view.
Vinea
I beg to differ on the superbowl thing. It WILL come. I didn't say tomorrow, but today, you can already buy the NFL season for your favorite team streamed to you on ITS. You don't think they'll get around to streaming the Superbowl, too? American idol is on ITS, too, didn't ya know?
As I said, change may not be overnight, but it WILL come. It'll come because the vast majority of Americans with the money that the entertainment industry sells to is willing to buy something new, when it makes their lives and entertainment more comfortable, and they percieve a value in it.
Call it what you will, but it signals a change in American life that will (and is) turning the entertainment industry on its head.
Why stream the superbowl via ITS when it is live? I just don't see the value. Seems like taking a step backwards. Watching American Idol via ITS is watching a re-run. Good if you are into that. Me, I will take it live, thank you.
I agree consumers will buy it if it adds value. I just don't see any value yet. Paying for re-runs, another way to get movies, uh no thanks.
Why stream the superbowl via ITS when it is live? I just don't see the value. Seems like taking a step backwards. Watching American Idol via ITS is watching a re-run. Good if you are into that. Me, I will take it live, thank you.
I agree consumers will buy it if it adds value. I just don't see any value yet. Paying for re-runs, another way to get movies, uh no thanks.
I agree with that, and also don't see why Apple isn't including the Hard Drive for set top PVR. Even if a person gets his shows broadcast in HD to their HD capable PVR, getting that show to the appropriate size by morning, commercial free, so they can watch it on their iPod on the train to work is one more added task they don't need to deal with. I don't think having the PVR functionality would stop TV show sales @ iTS. The convenience of the $2.00 show ready to go is what it should be all about. It would likely reduce some portion of sales on TV shows, but at least Apple wouldn't look they were jumping in bed with big business/big government and trying to screw the consumer from the get go. Just because they are marketing it's features this way, doesn't mean it's the right way. I think we are getting screwed on this thing. It essentially does something near what you wanted it to do, but it's really not doing it the way it should be done. IMO the fact of the matter is, once you look it over, this thing is screwing you.
I agree with that, and also don't see why Apple isn't including the Hard Drive for set top PVR.
Its possible Apple may have agreed to not manufacture DVR equipment in their deal with television and movie studios.
Apple really does not have to as long as their are third party manufacturers who do provide this capability.
IMO the fact of the matter is, once you look it over, this thing is screwing you.
Apple might as well get in on the racket.
Everyone I hear with ring tones. I tell them your cell phone company is over charging you for snippets of songs that cost them next to nothing to provide. You are being ripped off. But no one listens.
So Apple get on the gravy train of ignorance.
Why stream the superbowl via ITS when it is live? I just don't see the value. Seems like taking a step backwards. Watching American Idol via ITS is watching a re-run. Good if you are into that. Me, I will take it live, thank you.
I agree consumers will buy it if it adds value. I just don't see any value yet. Paying for re-runs, another way to get movies, uh no thanks.
Don't ask me, ask the NFL!!
Yep. You have definitely lost all sense of reality, and have officially become a Zealot. Everything Apple does is not good, and leaving out the hard-drive is definitely one of them. The iPod was already a portable Digital Viewing device, but your essentially saying it's the DVR of the future, and your out of your mind if you think everyone would rather buy their digital programming when it is legally free, and also watch it on a 2 inch screen when you can watch it in HD - Again for free.
Trust me. People would rather Apple included the hard-drive so they could record their programming, and watch it in full screen sitting on a couch.
Apple has completely sold out the consumer/user, and not only that, they have every intention of sticking it them from behind. The iTV demo is living proof of that.
Jeez you write some rubbish sometimes.
Like I just said to pt123, don't ask me, ask the NFL - they signed the agreement with Apple! I imagine it has to do with another revenue stream...
And again, Apple doesn't want you to record your favorite TV show, they want you to buy it from the ITS, period, end of story. Don't look for it anytime soon.
Besides, there's cost. I've heard enough people sputter over the cost - add an HDD, redesign the case, add circuitry to control/power it, and the cost goes up, what - $150? fergit it, that's why they have gigabit ethernet and will have 802.11n wireless for - to connect it to an appliance you'll already own that has that - your PC or Mac.
You don't need to do any of that to watch it on your iPod, the 640x480 is sized to work with the iPod with no compression. Same file, HD or iPod.
And it's not up to you to decide what will or won't stop or diminish TV sales on ITS, that's Apple's call,and they've decided, at least for now. fuhgitaboutit!
OK, question. If I went out and got a Mac mini with Frontrow and an Elgato box plugged into a TV, would the iTV add anything to this setup or is it unnecessary because its functions are already taken by the Mac and Elgato?
I would say you're ok for now. But watch the iTV (or whatever they call it when it's released) for updates in the future, tho. I'm sure that they'll add functionality, just like they did to the iPod.
Both Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates have noted, in public statements, that they feel that the DVD is the last physical media we will see movie content use. This box, and other products like it, will be what makes that come true.
Of course, it'll take a few years, and a few upgrades of the box, to get to that point. But I think this idea will revolutionize the entertainment industry, and maybe the communications industry, too.
Unless both Apple and Microsoft have a plan to enable limitless storage and downloads at the speed of light, for the near term (which means anywhere from the next 3-10 years) that is a complete fantasy scenario.
Unless both Apple and Microsoft have a plan to enable limitless storage and downloads at the speed of light, for the near term (which means anywhere from the next 3-10 years) that is a complete fantasy scenario.
Hardly. Bandwidth, codec efficiency and storage will all continuously increase.
You have a point. New technology doesn't always take over everywhere. After all, aren't a lot of folks still using rabbit ears to get broadcast Tv frrom just one, two or three local stations?
But if the movie studios decide they like the idea of streamed media, and find that it beats the h*** outta spending those big buck to cut the DVDs - you're gonna be outta luck getting them once they stop selling them, unless from the local yard sales or second hand store.
Legislation? Where'd you get that idea? The only place that comes in is with the switch to HDTV. Movie sales don't enter into that. I predict that broadcast TV signals won't last much past 2020. Technology is moving much faster than that. There may be some local stations pushing signals out beyond that date, but the big media companies will get away from that once this on demand thing gets going.
These markets are driven by the money. Show them the money and they'll come draggin their tongues behind them.
Well, a lot of assumtions there. Consumers have had plenty of control over what has happened in the music and movie industries over the past couple of decades. The DiVX pay per view DVD format failed; record companies caved and allow Apple to sell individual songs for 99 cents; numerous attempts have been made to introduce newer CD audio formats that have failed including ones with DRM, DVD-Audio never really caught on. It certainly wasn't because of what the music or movie industries wanted. There are plenty of people out there who still insist on owning their favorite songs or movies on a physical format like a CD or DVD.
On-demand may work for movies, but I think it's a bit much to assume this will work for first-run TV show series or time driven content like sports and news programs. Also the switch to HD is a huge amount of bandwidth. Blu-ray DVDs are 50 GB. HDTV is something like 1,485 Mbit/sec. On-demand HDTV is leaps and bounds beyond what is currently in the works. Sure, there will be plenty more bandwidth out there by 2020, but many people today still swear by their rabbit ears and have no interest in paying $40, $50 - $100+ a month for cable service. Also don't forget the potential for interactive TV. People like to watch certain events live and/or first run programs at the same time as their friends. Live TV may be very different in 2020 too, and no offense, but broadcast TV is really just the ultimate in live, wireless streaming content. Radio has already gone digital, and still thrives as a non-on-demand format. Maybe some of us don't mind letting others choose what we listen to or watch based on the time of day.
Hardly. Bandwidth, codec efficiency and storage will all continuously increase.
I think it's been over 10 years since George Gilder first proclaimed a future of unlimited bandwidth was just around the corner... and then the market imploded. Things happen much slower than many of us would like, but this is usually the fact.
I think it's been over 10 years since George Gilder first proclaimed a future of unlimited bandwidth was just around the corner... and then the market imploded. Things happen much slower than many of us would like, but this is usually the fact.
Ten years ago, the typical codec to encode movies with on the Internet was MPEG-1, if not something proprietary and horrible like Indeo. Audio was encoded with MP2, if even that; possibly something even more backwards like AIFC. Ten years ago, dial-up was the most typical means of connection, and wireless was completely out of question. This wasn't 56 Kbit/s dial-up, mind you; 33.6, 28.8, 14.4 or even lower were typical connection rates. Storage capacities were in hundreds of Megabytes; if you were lucky, a Gigabyte or two.
Perhaps you would like things to happen "much faster", but quite frankly, they happen very fast as it is.
Ten years ago, the typical codec to encode movies with on the Internet was MPEG-1, if not something proprietary and horrible like Indeo. Audio was encoded with MP2, if even that; possibly something even more backwards like AIFC. Ten years ago, dial-up was the most typical means of connection, and wireless was completely out of question. This wasn't 56 Kbit/s dial-up, mind you; 33.6, 28.8, 14.4 or even lower were typical connection rates. Storage capacities were in hundreds of Megabytes; if you were lucky, a Gigabyte or two.
Perhaps you would like things to happen "much faster", but quite frankly, they happen very fast as it is.
Trust me, I'd love for everything to be much faster, except for looming, inevitable death.