For all of the people saying that they want their HD movies from iTunes now and to hurry up with the upgrades of mac and all that other impatient stuff need to just sit back and relax. I personally haven't been disappointed with Apple because they get the stuff out there and they get it done right. If we had our HD videos right now, we would have people on here saying that the video downloads take too long, instead of being able to buy a song, wait (for me not even 30 seconds) for the video to download, and enjoy a great movie. Apple will get it done and will get it done right, a la the Merom Macbooks and Pros, iTV (TelePort or whatever), "True Video ipod" and the next chapter of Intel chips.
We all just need to sit back. Relax. It will come, and it will be good.
so there were 125,000 bloggers and reporters and that is it? That is crazy reasoning. Just because you do not want to download from iTunes does not mean others do not want to. I would never buy a stupid pasta strainer cooker from TV, but thousands of people do. This numbers tells me that Apple was able to plant the seed of easy movie downloads 125,000 times. And whenever someone wants to see a movie quickly and easily they now have the option to use iTunes. I expect this service to work because people fundumentally people want to be entertained, and many people are willing to sacrafice quality and a few dollars for that pleasure.
Ringtones are used hundreds or thousands of time, depending on number of calls you get. Tough to watch a movie that many time.
So you are saying items should be priced on the number of times you use them?
My point is that ring tones are a complete rip off. Its highly likely one would already own the CD. Cell phone companies could allow you to download your song collection to your phone. Instead the phone is closed and you are forced to buy the song again for $2.50 to $3.00. This is pretty much pure profit for the cell phone company and for record labels.
People who are willing to do this will have little problem with buying movies online.
so there were 125,000 bloggers and reporters and that is it? That is crazy reasoning. Just because you do not want to download from iTunes does not mean others do not want to. I would never buy a stupid pasta strainer cooker from TV, but thousands of people do. This numbers tells me that Apple was able to plant the seed of easy movie downloads 125,000 times. And whenever someone wants to see a movie quickly and easily they now have the option to use iTunes. I expect this service to work because people fundumentally people want to be entertained, and many people are willing to sacrafice quality and a few dollars for that pleasure.
I hope my post wasn't misinterpreted. I am highly satisfied with the new iTunes Store. I was just commenting on the number of people saying they want their super high quality products now and that apple 'better hurry it up', when we all know that apple doesn't get things done fast, they get things done right.
Like iTV over a TubePort dongle. Done right. Not fast.
I bought a movie from iTunes, and I'm not a blogger, nor a reporter
And when you buy a movie from iTunes, it doesn't own your soul, and hard drive.
half.ebay.com sells it used for under $10. Also, prices are cheaper for me when I share titles among family members and friends. And it is pretty convienient to be able to take the DVD to babysitter or cousin's house. The downside is sometimes I don't remember who has the DVD so I don't even know who to ask to get it back.
You clearly don't understand the market this service is aimed at. People want a brainless solution. This is as brainless as you get. Open iTunes Store, click "Buy Movie", download movie, watch movie (even within minutes of download). The don't want go to half.com, find best price, pay for movie, open wallet, type in credit card number, wait for used movie to arrive, etc.
So you are saying items should be priced on the number of times you use them?
My point is that ring tones are a complete rip off. Its highly likely one would already own the CD. Cell phone companies could allow you to download your song collection to your phone. Instead the phone is closed and you are forced to buy the song again for $2.50 to $3.00. This is pretty much pure profit for the cell phone company and for record labels.
People who are willing to do this will have little problem with buying movies online.
Since ringtones were compared to movie downloads, I was merely pointing out that ringtones are used much more than movies. When you compare the bang for your bucks, it doesn't seem like a ripoff. Some might say media format changes are the real ripoff, having buy new hardware and repurchase the movie.
You clearly don't understand the market this service is aimed at. People want a brainless solution. This is as brainless as you get. Open iTunes Store, click "Buy Movie", download movie, watch movie (even within minutes of download). The don't want go to half.com, find best price, pay for movie, open wallet, type in credit card number, wait for used movie to arrive, etc.
Brainless, computer, iTunes, and have money to spend? And know what to do when disk space runs out after ordering many movies. Yes you are definitely right, I don't understand.
One good online movie stores can potentially do. Once they are able to gain mass market media share is offer an outlet for filmmakers whose material does not fit Hollywoods narrow definitions.
The smaller controversial or challenging work that would otherwise not see wide distribution.
This rate of downloads will NOT sustain into the future.
I hope that you're right and it will prompt Apple & the movie studios to up the quality a little. I'm surprised people don't mention the suck-tastic audio on these files (Dolby Pro-Logic, rather than full 5.1).
I think the ideal quality at these prices is slightly higher resolution, higher bit-rate, and 5.1 surround sound.
Unfortunately, given the fact that many tens of millions of TV shows were bought at low bit-rate 320 x 240 resolution, it would seem likely that the download rate for these movies is not going to decline.
Because the Amazon service came out first and I doubt it has sold much in that time. I was trying to help Amazon out here.
Also, I am glad to see Apple laying down the infrastructure here, but I will quietly wait the first few rounds out. I already pay for cable, so I am not interested in paying another $2 for a TV show. I have a dual tuner DVR so I rarely miss an episode of anything. I would buy some older programs, but the pricing just doesn't entice me. Not because I don't get the extras that I never watch anyway, but simply because I don't place a very high value on TV programming and Comcast already gets what I am willing to pay for it (more, really).
I find the movie service more interesting than TV as I find movies more interesting than TV, and I have an HDTV to really get that theater experience. Apple's current offering doesn't allow me to get that, so I am uninterested in purchasing a bunch of content in a resolution that is on the way out. Maybe if Apple did an upgrade assurance program that let me redownload my purchased content in the new resolution when available for the cost of bandwidth or even with a small convenience fee (no more than $1.00), I might try things out now. Don't get me wrong, I think what they are doing is great, and I love the ecosystem they are setting up, and I can't wait until the internet catches up with my HD set so I can start using this, but for now, I will wait, but impatiently you can be sure.
I hope that you're right and it will prompt Apple & the movie studios to up the quality a little. I'm surprised people don't mention the suck-tastic audio on these files (Dolby Pro-Logic, rather than full 5.1).
I think the ideal quality at these prices is slightly higher resolution, higher bit-rate, and 5.1 surround sound.
Unfortunately, given the fact that many tens of millions of TV shows were bought at low bit-rate 320 x 240 resolution, it would seem likely that the download rate for these movies is not going to decline.
My answer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AjayBot
For all of the people saying that they want their HD movies from iTunes now and to hurry up with the upgrades of mac and all that other impatient stuff need to just sit back and relax. I personally haven't been disappointed with Apple because they get the stuff out there and they get it done right. If we had our HD videos right now, we would have people on here saying that the video downloads take too long, instead of being able to buy a song, wait (for me not even 30 seconds) for the video to download, and enjoy a great movie. Apple will get it done and will get it done right.
We all just need to sit back. Relax. It will come, and it will be good.
This service is targeted towards Joe Blow. You know the one, with his 15' CRT tv and his Gateway 333MHz desktop with 12 inch monitor. For the time being, we High Def people are going to have to wait for our turn. The masses don't have 52 inch 1080p LCD HDTVs with Xbox 360s and BluRay players.
This is a program to make money, not please everysingle person. And right now, Every Single person does not have high def everything.
I hope that you're right and it will prompt Apple & the movie studios to up the quality a little.
That's backward thinking if people don't buy them, the studios won't be interested in the service at all.
Quality is more likely to improve if the service is a hit.
Quote:
I'm surprised people don't mention the suck-tastic audio on these files (Dolby Pro-Logic, rather than full 5.1).
Are there enough people who can actually play 5.1 to justify the larger file and longer download time for everyone?
People who have invested a lot of money in HDTV and surround sound systems want content to play on them. But you have to realize you are the extreme minority.
This is a program to make money, not please everysingle person. And right now, Every Single person does not have high def everything.
Did I say anything about Hi-Def? No.
I said "slightly higher resolution, higher bit-rate and 5.1 audio". My hope is that sales will fall and Apple will be forced to increase quality a bit. My expectation is that it won't happen, and people will continue to pay over-the-odds for iTunes Movies. Or, if anything changes, that the price will go down a bit rather than quality up a bit.
Quality is more likely to improve if the service is a hit.
So that explains why iTunes Music is still 128 kbps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
But you have to realize you are the extreme minority.
I don't think people with 5.1 capable systems are the "extreme minority". Minority, yes. Extreme, no. Bear in mind that Apple are developing the iTV to accompany this service, and the iTV has an HDMI output and optical audio out.
It seems crazy to me not to put 5.1 surround into these legal downloads when a decent bit-torrent file will have 5.1 surround. The movie studios and Apple need to remember, that just like with music, the main competitor here is piracy, and right now higher quality can be had from P2P.
This rate of downloads will NOT sustain into the future. NOBODY -- and I mean NOBODY -- wants to download movies that are the exact same price as DVD's but offer NO compelling advantages at all. The only reason 125,000 downloads took place in the first week was because all of the reporters & bloggers were testing out the new service to see if it works. Normal people will NOT pay these premium prices to download inferior products. It just won't happen. The rate of downloads for this week has probably already plummeted.
This is exactly what was said about iTunes music files. NOBODY--and I mean NOBODY-- wants to download music encoded at a measly 128kbps. Normal people will NOT pay these premium prices for inferior products (then some diatribe about ogg vorbis usually followed). "I'll just buy the CD and rip it into iTunes."
Yes, yes, we've heard it all before and "normal" people have purchased 1.5 billion "inferior" music files. They will purchase "inferior" movies too. Just wait and see.
So that explains why iTunes Music is still 128 kbps?
Because 128 is indistinguishable from CD quality for 99.9% of people. The only people who refuse to buy 128 kbps also wouldn't by 192 or 256 kbps. They won't buy anything less than lossless.
However, it's really easy to notice any deficiencies in the video quality. Right now, iTunes is just below DVD quality, so I'll probably buy a film at some point...which I wouldn't have considered that at 320x240. But I'm really holding out for around 720p or so, in which case I won't be touching physical media.
In other words, incremental increases bring very noticeable results in video, unlike audio. Apple could use 4 times the bandwidth on audio, I wouldn't tell the difference, and snooty audiophiles still wouldn't touch it. In other words, there's no sales increase to offset the cost of the bandwidth.
In a few years, when iTunes gets up to 720p, they'll be where they are with video that they are with 128 kbps audio. In other words, it COULD be better, but only slightly better for a lot more bandwidth.
Wow, that sucks. They sold 1 million videos in 20 days when TV Shows first came out, and at the current rate they'll sell less than a third of that of their movies. I know that the movies cost more, but they also have a bigger audience.
In dollar terms, it looks like movies would have the advantage. TV episodes are $2 a piece and movies are $10. The movies would seem to be less of an impulse buy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AjayBot
HAHA YES!
And once more, where are you all buying your movies for 10 dollars? The best price I could find was at Amazon for 13.99 for Hitchhickers widescreen DVD.... and iTunes sells it for 9.99. I don't see where people are paying extra for convienience, to me it seems like its cheaper for a similar product. 14.99 for a brand new movie? I can't even find one in stock at walmart for 20 bucks!
It's probably not the same product though. HG2G isn't sold on DVD without the bloopers and such. I don't think those are included with Apple's product.
So that explains why iTunes Music is still 128 kbps?
I don't think people with 5.1 capable systems are the "extreme minority". Minority, yes. Extreme, no. Bear in mind that Apple are developing the iTV to accompany this service, and the iTV has an HDMI output and optical audio out.
It seems crazy to me not to put 5.1 surround into these legal downloads when a decent bit-torrent file will have 5.1 surround. The movie studios and Apple need to remember, that just like with music, the main competitor here is piracy, and right now higher quality can be had from P2P.
There is your answer right there. 5.1 digital surround is a minority. You cannot make a healthy profit by targeting the minority. I consider 'High def' anything that is above the norm really, 480 to me is high def, but to other only 1080 is high def. Anything above stereo is high def to me. Then again, I'm a college student and I still have an old Sanyo TV that doesn't even have AV ports in it. Hell I got a Powerbook G4 1.0 GHz...
And from the sound of the reactions of the people at the Its Showtime! event, the iTV has a sort of device inside of it to convert the 'low quality' (its pretty damn good quality from the movie I've seen) into true HD. At least thats what was reported from iLounge.
Comments
For all of the people saying that they want their HD movies from iTunes now and to hurry up with the upgrades of mac and all that other impatient stuff need to just sit back and relax. I personally haven't been disappointed with Apple because they get the stuff out there and they get it done right. If we had our HD videos right now, we would have people on here saying that the video downloads take too long, instead of being able to buy a song, wait (for me not even 30 seconds) for the video to download, and enjoy a great movie. Apple will get it done and will get it done right, a la the Merom Macbooks and Pros, iTV (TelePort or whatever), "True Video ipod" and the next chapter of Intel chips.
We all just need to sit back. Relax. It will come, and it will be good.
so there were 125,000 bloggers and reporters and that is it? That is crazy reasoning. Just because you do not want to download from iTunes does not mean others do not want to. I would never buy a stupid pasta strainer cooker from TV, but thousands of people do. This numbers tells me that Apple was able to plant the seed of easy movie downloads 125,000 times. And whenever someone wants to see a movie quickly and easily they now have the option to use iTunes. I expect this service to work because people fundumentally people want to be entertained, and many people are willing to sacrafice quality and a few dollars for that pleasure.
A Fortune Magazine Senior Editor is calling Amazon Unbox "a horror show".
The bad horror show not the good one.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/18/tech...tune/index.htm
Great article!! I hope Apple does better.
Ringtones are used hundreds or thousands of time, depending on number of calls you get. Tough to watch a movie that many time.
So you are saying items should be priced on the number of times you use them?
My point is that ring tones are a complete rip off. Its highly likely one would already own the CD. Cell phone companies could allow you to download your song collection to your phone. Instead the phone is closed and you are forced to buy the song again for $2.50 to $3.00. This is pretty much pure profit for the cell phone company and for record labels.
People who are willing to do this will have little problem with buying movies online.
so there were 125,000 bloggers and reporters and that is it? That is crazy reasoning. Just because you do not want to download from iTunes does not mean others do not want to. I would never buy a stupid pasta strainer cooker from TV, but thousands of people do. This numbers tells me that Apple was able to plant the seed of easy movie downloads 125,000 times. And whenever someone wants to see a movie quickly and easily they now have the option to use iTunes. I expect this service to work because people fundumentally people want to be entertained, and many people are willing to sacrafice quality and a few dollars for that pleasure.
I hope my post wasn't misinterpreted. I am highly satisfied with the new iTunes Store. I was just commenting on the number of people saying they want their super high quality products now and that apple 'better hurry it up', when we all know that apple doesn't get things done fast, they get things done right.
Like iTV over a TubePort dongle. Done right. Not fast.
I bought a movie from iTunes, and I'm not a blogger, nor a reporter
And when you buy a movie from iTunes, it doesn't own your soul, and hard drive.
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/09/15...x_to_cust.html
half.ebay.com sells it used for under $10. Also, prices are cheaper for me when I share titles among family members and friends. And it is pretty convienient to be able to take the DVD to babysitter or cousin's house. The downside is sometimes I don't remember who has the DVD so I don't even know who to ask to get it back.
You clearly don't understand the market this service is aimed at. People want a brainless solution. This is as brainless as you get. Open iTunes Store, click "Buy Movie", download movie, watch movie (even within minutes of download). The don't want go to half.com, find best price, pay for movie, open wallet, type in credit card number, wait for used movie to arrive, etc.
So you are saying items should be priced on the number of times you use them?
My point is that ring tones are a complete rip off. Its highly likely one would already own the CD. Cell phone companies could allow you to download your song collection to your phone. Instead the phone is closed and you are forced to buy the song again for $2.50 to $3.00. This is pretty much pure profit for the cell phone company and for record labels.
People who are willing to do this will have little problem with buying movies online.
Since ringtones were compared to movie downloads, I was merely pointing out that ringtones are used much more than movies. When you compare the bang for your bucks, it doesn't seem like a ripoff. Some might say media format changes are the real ripoff, having buy new hardware and repurchase the movie.
You clearly don't understand the market this service is aimed at. People want a brainless solution. This is as brainless as you get. Open iTunes Store, click "Buy Movie", download movie, watch movie (even within minutes of download). The don't want go to half.com, find best price, pay for movie, open wallet, type in credit card number, wait for used movie to arrive, etc.
Brainless, computer, iTunes, and have money to spend? And know what to do when disk space runs out after ordering many movies. Yes you are definitely right, I don't understand.
The smaller controversial or challenging work that would otherwise not see wide distribution.
This rate of downloads will NOT sustain into the future.
I hope that you're right and it will prompt Apple & the movie studios to up the quality a little. I'm surprised people don't mention the suck-tastic audio on these files (Dolby Pro-Logic, rather than full 5.1).
I think the ideal quality at these prices is slightly higher resolution, higher bit-rate, and 5.1 surround sound.
Unfortunately, given the fact that many tens of millions of TV shows were bought at low bit-rate 320 x 240 resolution, it would seem likely that the download rate for these movies is not going to decline.
Why the first TWO weeks?
Because the Amazon service came out first and I doubt it has sold much in that time. I was trying to help Amazon out here.
Also, I am glad to see Apple laying down the infrastructure here, but I will quietly wait the first few rounds out. I already pay for cable, so I am not interested in paying another $2 for a TV show. I have a dual tuner DVR so I rarely miss an episode of anything. I would buy some older programs, but the pricing just doesn't entice me. Not because I don't get the extras that I never watch anyway, but simply because I don't place a very high value on TV programming and Comcast already gets what I am willing to pay for it (more, really).
I find the movie service more interesting than TV as I find movies more interesting than TV, and I have an HDTV to really get that theater experience. Apple's current offering doesn't allow me to get that, so I am uninterested in purchasing a bunch of content in a resolution that is on the way out. Maybe if Apple did an upgrade assurance program that let me redownload my purchased content in the new resolution when available for the cost of bandwidth or even with a small convenience fee (no more than $1.00), I might try things out now. Don't get me wrong, I think what they are doing is great, and I love the ecosystem they are setting up, and I can't wait until the internet catches up with my HD set so I can start using this, but for now, I will wait, but impatiently you can be sure.
I hope that you're right and it will prompt Apple & the movie studios to up the quality a little. I'm surprised people don't mention the suck-tastic audio on these files (Dolby Pro-Logic, rather than full 5.1).
I think the ideal quality at these prices is slightly higher resolution, higher bit-rate, and 5.1 surround sound.
Unfortunately, given the fact that many tens of millions of TV shows were bought at low bit-rate 320 x 240 resolution, it would seem likely that the download rate for these movies is not going to decline.
My answer?
For all of the people saying that they want their HD movies from iTunes now and to hurry up with the upgrades of mac and all that other impatient stuff need to just sit back and relax. I personally haven't been disappointed with Apple because they get the stuff out there and they get it done right. If we had our HD videos right now, we would have people on here saying that the video downloads take too long, instead of being able to buy a song, wait (for me not even 30 seconds) for the video to download, and enjoy a great movie. Apple will get it done and will get it done right.
We all just need to sit back. Relax. It will come, and it will be good.
This service is targeted towards Joe Blow. You know the one, with his 15' CRT tv and his Gateway 333MHz desktop with 12 inch monitor. For the time being, we High Def people are going to have to wait for our turn. The masses don't have 52 inch 1080p LCD HDTVs with Xbox 360s and BluRay players.
This is a program to make money, not please everysingle person. And right now, Every Single person does not have high def everything.
I hope that you're right and it will prompt Apple & the movie studios to up the quality a little.
That's backward thinking if people don't buy them, the studios won't be interested in the service at all.
Quality is more likely to improve if the service is a hit.
I'm surprised people don't mention the suck-tastic audio on these files (Dolby Pro-Logic, rather than full 5.1).
Are there enough people who can actually play 5.1 to justify the larger file and longer download time for everyone?
People who have invested a lot of money in HDTV and surround sound systems want content to play on them. But you have to realize you are the extreme minority.
My answer?
This is a program to make money, not please everysingle person. And right now, Every Single person does not have high def everything.
Did I say anything about Hi-Def? No.
I said "slightly higher resolution, higher bit-rate and 5.1 audio". My hope is that sales will fall and Apple will be forced to increase quality a bit. My expectation is that it won't happen, and people will continue to pay over-the-odds for iTunes Movies. Or, if anything changes, that the price will go down a bit rather than quality up a bit.
Quality is more likely to improve if the service is a hit.
But you have to realize you are the extreme minority.
I don't think people with 5.1 capable systems are the "extreme minority". Minority, yes. Extreme, no. Bear in mind that Apple are developing the iTV to accompany this service, and the iTV has an HDMI output and optical audio out.
It seems crazy to me not to put 5.1 surround into these legal downloads when a decent bit-torrent file will have 5.1 surround. The movie studios and Apple need to remember, that just like with music, the main competitor here is piracy, and right now higher quality can be had from P2P.
This rate of downloads will NOT sustain into the future. NOBODY -- and I mean NOBODY -- wants to download movies that are the exact same price as DVD's but offer NO compelling advantages at all. The only reason 125,000 downloads took place in the first week was because all of the reporters & bloggers were testing out the new service to see if it works. Normal people will NOT pay these premium prices to download inferior products. It just won't happen. The rate of downloads for this week has probably already plummeted.
This is exactly what was said about iTunes music files. NOBODY--and I mean NOBODY-- wants to download music encoded at a measly 128kbps. Normal people will NOT pay these premium prices for inferior products (then some diatribe about ogg vorbis usually followed). "I'll just buy the CD and rip it into iTunes."
Yes, yes, we've heard it all before and "normal" people have purchased 1.5 billion "inferior" music files. They will purchase "inferior" movies too. Just wait and see.
So I'm nobody. And millions of others are nobody.
So I'm not a normal person either. Works for me. I like to be special.
So, they're inferior, not normal, and don't exist, since they're all nobody?
Um... I think he's arguing the same thing that you are, that while the quality isn't perfect, most people don't care, as evidenced by sales.
Because 128 is indistinguishable from CD quality for 99.9% of people. The only people who refuse to buy 128 kbps also wouldn't by 192 or 256 kbps. They won't buy anything less than lossless.
However, it's really easy to notice any deficiencies in the video quality. Right now, iTunes is just below DVD quality, so I'll probably buy a film at some point...which I wouldn't have considered that at 320x240. But I'm really holding out for around 720p or so, in which case I won't be touching physical media.
In other words, incremental increases bring very noticeable results in video, unlike audio. Apple could use 4 times the bandwidth on audio, I wouldn't tell the difference, and snooty audiophiles still wouldn't touch it. In other words, there's no sales increase to offset the cost of the bandwidth.
In a few years, when iTunes gets up to 720p, they'll be where they are with video that they are with 128 kbps audio. In other words, it COULD be better, but only slightly better for a lot more bandwidth.
Wow, that sucks. They sold 1 million videos in 20 days when TV Shows first came out, and at the current rate they'll sell less than a third of that of their movies. I know that the movies cost more, but they also have a bigger audience.
In dollar terms, it looks like movies would have the advantage. TV episodes are $2 a piece and movies are $10. The movies would seem to be less of an impulse buy.
HAHA YES!
And once more, where are you all buying your movies for 10 dollars? The best price I could find was at Amazon for 13.99 for Hitchhickers widescreen DVD.... and iTunes sells it for 9.99. I don't see where people are paying extra for convienience, to me it seems like its cheaper for a similar product. 14.99 for a brand new movie? I can't even find one in stock at walmart for 20 bucks!
It's probably not the same product though. HG2G isn't sold on DVD without the bloopers and such. I don't think those are included with Apple's product.
I don't think people with 5.1 capable systems are the "extreme minority". Minority, yes. Extreme, no. Bear in mind that Apple are developing the iTV to accompany this service, and the iTV has an HDMI output and optical audio out.
It seems crazy to me not to put 5.1 surround into these legal downloads when a decent bit-torrent file will have 5.1 surround. The movie studios and Apple need to remember, that just like with music, the main competitor here is piracy, and right now higher quality can be had from P2P.
There is your answer right there. 5.1 digital surround is a minority. You cannot make a healthy profit by targeting the minority. I consider 'High def' anything that is above the norm really, 480 to me is high def, but to other only 1080 is high def. Anything above stereo is high def to me. Then again, I'm a college student and I still have an old Sanyo TV that doesn't even have AV ports in it. Hell I got a Powerbook G4 1.0 GHz...
And from the sound of the reactions of the people at the Its Showtime! event, the iTV has a sort of device inside of it to convert the 'low quality' (its pretty damn good quality from the movie I've seen) into true HD. At least thats what was reported from iLounge.