Anamorphic DVD is not as close to anamorphic filming / projection as you seem to think. The concepts are similar but what you do with it is different. For one, it is very likely that if you own widescreen DVD, most of them are anamorphic DVD. A lens is not required to "fix" an anamorphic DVD image. The DVD player (software or deck) or the TV does the (un) stretching, a lens is unnecessary.
"Stretching" is done for either a 4:3 or 16:9 image. Note that assuming a DVD image had square pixels, its aspect ratio would hypothetically be 1.5:1. For a 4:3 image and non-anamorphic widescreen images on a DVD, the pixel is actually narrower than it is tall (.88:1), for widescreen images, the pixel is wider than it is tall (1.18:1). Anamorphic DVD simply makes better use of the image area for widescreen movies. A standard letterboxed 16:9 video would only use 360 scan lines but on an anamorphic DVD would use all 480 scan lines.
Jeff, I know what it is. It is NOT an anamorphic image. It doesn't matter what they want to call it.
The reason is that film has about a 2k x 4k resolution. When you compress the image when filming, you lose quality. But the resolution is already high enough that the resulting compressed image is still high enough quality that mose people can't see the difference, even in the theater.
But, when SD DVD's are doing this, they are doing it on a low resolution image. When they expand it later, you can EASILY see the lower quality across the width of the image. It can be disconcerting, as the result has a noticably sharper result in the horisontal plane, and a much poorer sharpness in the vertical plane.
This is not true anamorphic production.
The problem is that video, unlike film, has a fixed resolution. Usually, when anamorphic productions are done, the shooting stock chosen has a higher resolution than would otherwise be needed. Can't do that with DVD's. They end up looking smeared.
This can be done with an image that is intended for a hi rez front projector, or a high rez flat screen, because the reverse anamorphic image can be interpolated in the vertical resolution plane. It will look smeared, but not pixelated.
But, please tell me just how this would work on a SD Tv.
You start with 720 pixels, and you end with 720 pixels. Nothing can be done.
Your explanation of stretching is incorrect. Think about it. A pixel fits on the SD screen. That's it! You can't stretch 720 pixels to fit on a 720 pixel screen. The screen the image is being viewed on must have more than the number of pixels you start with in the "squeezed" image, because that has 720 pixels. When you unsqueeze it, it will require more than 720 pixels.
What they call anamorphic, is not. Not on an SD Tv.
Jeff, I know what it is. It is NOT an anamorphic image. It doesn't matter what they want to call it.
That's not my problem though. Arguing with me won't change how it is called and I'm not going to go on a crusade to try changing it either. You might call it anisotropic video or what ever the heck you want to call it but that seems to be more work than it's worth.
Quote:
You start with 720 pixels, and you end with 720 pixels. Nothing can be done.
Your explanation of stretching is incorrect. Think about it. A pixel fits on the SD screen. That's it! You can't stretch 720 pixels to fit on a 720 pixel screen. The screen the image is being viewed on must have more than the number of pixels you start with in the "squeezed" image, because that has 720 pixels. When you unsqueeze it, it will require more than 720 pixels.
What they call anamorphic, is not. Not on an SD Tv.
OK, it looks like you are arguing based on playback on a standard old 4:3 TV set. Within that type of set, the difference isn't so apparent. Anamorphic DVDs contain more image detail than what those sets can display properly.
My 4:3 SDTV is one of those few high end sets of the time that changes the raster to display all the detail of an anamorphic DVD, the scan lines are 25% closer together to show the extra detail which is quite a lot. It also shines on widescreen and HDTV sets, and on computer DVD playback. An anamorhpic DVD looks significantly better than a non-anamorphic DVD provided that the player and TV are set up properly. Some DVD players have bad scaling to 4:3 SD sets, such as simply knocking out every fourth image line, which is why anamorphic DVD initially got a bad rap with some people.
It doesn't make more than 720 pixels of the width, it makes more use of the 480 pixels on the height, using scan lines that would otherwise just be black. What anamorphic DVD does is use more of the vertical image area and the player/TV or software adjusts it accordingly depending on the playback circumstances.
That's not my problem though. Arguing with me won't change how it is called and I'm not going to go on a crusade to try changing it either.
OK, it looks like you are arguing based on playback on a standard old 4:3 TV set. Anamorphic DVDs contain more detail than what those sets can display properly.
My 4:3 SDTV changes the raster to display all the detail of an anamorphic DVD, the scan lines are 25% closer together to show the extra detail which is quite a lot. It also shines on widescreen and HDTV sets. An anamorhpic DVD looks significantly better than a non-anamorphic DVD provided that the player and TV are set up properly. Some DVD players have bad scaling to 4:3 SD sets, which is why anamorphic DVD initially got a bad rap with some people.
What anamorphic DVD does is use more of the vertical image area and the player/TV or software adjusts it accordingly.
You're talking about horizontal resolution. Scan lines. I'm talking about vertical resolution.
Anamorphic projection is intended to have the same height, but a wider image.
What is done on an SD set, is that you are given the same height, with more scan lines, and the same width. The image size is the same as a letterboxed version.
It's totally different. Do you see what I'm saying?
When this anamorphic version is shown on a 16:9 screen, of EDTV or better rez, it is stretched in width to fill the screen, instead of having the scan lines shrink and move closer.
This then results in a smeared, but accurate, image in the vertical plane.
You're talking about horizontal resolution. Scan lines. I'm talking about vertical resolution.
Anamorphic projection is intended to have the same height, but a wider image.
What is done on an SD set, is that you are given the same height, with more scan lines, and the same width. The image size is the same as a letterboxed version.
It's totally different. Do you see what I'm saying?
On SD sets, sure, the final image size and detail remains mostly the same, save possibly differences in artifacts.
On the meaning of anamorphic, I know what you are saying, but I don't understand why you think it matters. You seem to suggest that a word can't have a somewhat different meaning in a somewhat different context, which would be news to me. What you are saying seems to be akin to complaining that computer files can't be files because there aren't any manila folders in a hard drive. Either way, both anamorphic image arrangements involve an anisotropic means of storing an image. The media is different, a data frame vs. a film frame, and the means of changing the image so it displays objects to their correct ratios are different, but the most elemental part of the concept is the same for both media.
Also, if one were so inclined, there are even anamorphic projection lenses that collapse the vertical height and retain the width. I won't say it's necessarily a good idea, but they were available a few years ago.
I don't even understand why you originally said that a DVD has 720 vertical pixels. I thought they were counted horizontally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Let me add this so there is less confusion.
When this anamorphic version is shown on a 16:9 screen, of EDTV or better rez, it is stretched in width to fill the screen, instead of having the scan lines shrink and move closer.
This then results in a smeared, but accurate, image in the vertical plane.
I think that's still superior to scaling up a 4:3 letterboxed image to the same screen and quite a bit superior to anything iTunes is currently offering.
On SD sets, sure, the final image size and detail remains mostly the same, save possibly differences in artifacts.
On the meaning of anamorphic, I know what you are saying, but I don't understand why you think it matters. You seem to suggest that a word can't have a somewhat different meaning in a somewhat different context, which would be news to me. Either way, they both involve an anisotropic means of storing an image.
Words should always have the same meaning, otherwise confusion is ineviable. Terms always have to be agreed upon before a discussion occurs.
Quote:
Also, if one were so inclined, there are even anamorphic projection lenses that collapse the vertical height and retain the width. I won't say it's necessarily a good idea, but they were available a few years ago.
No, they weren't a good idea, so they never became popular. They served little purpose for the greater market, only some scientific ones.
Quote:
I don't even understand why you originally said that a DVD has 720 vertical pixels. I thought they were counted horizontally.
No. The way it works is that the scan lines are the horizontal rez, and the vertical rez is measured as vertical lines across the screen. Like a picket fence. How many of those vertical lines can be fitted across the width of the screen determines the vertical rez.
————
————
————
is scan lines=horizontal rez.
| | | |
would be the vertical rez.
Quote:
I think that's still superior to scaling up a 4:3 letterboxed image to the same screen and quite a bit superior to anything iTunes is currently offering.
You do get a slightly better horizontal rez on an SD set using the method you outlined. But, only if the set in question has the feature to compress the scan lines accordingly. Only some can do that.
But, as now the horizontal detail is finer (smaller), you have to sit closer to be able to see the difference. Few people sit close enough to their sets to see that.
Words should always have the same meaning, otherwise confusion is ineviable. Terms always have to be agreed upon before a discussion occurs.
I really don't think the people familiar with the film projection process are confused by the difference in context here. At least I don't think they should be.
Quote:
You do get a slightly better horizontal rez on an SD set using the method you outlined. But, only if the set in question has the feature to compress the scan lines accordingly. Only some can do that.
The part you quoted was discussing displaying on a widescreen ED/HD set, though for the rare SD set like that, it helps there too. The difference is apparent on computer playback too.
Every time a discussion is started about almost any topic it ends up degenerating into an argument about whenther the damn video is 640x480, 720 dpi, HD, blah blah blah OR omfg they didn't release product x, I am so pissed... Give it a damn rest. The article is about Apple and WalMart trying to reach an agreement about selling videos over the internet and yet, once again, I log in to read about it and I have to read through 25 replies about the resolution... for the millionth time.... Sorry, but it would be nice if evry thread didn't look almost identicle.
If Walmart simply threatened to blackball Apple, by not selling any more iPods, or the movie studios, by not selling DVD's, then yes.
But, we really don't know what was said, or the context in which it was said. We don't know if what was said was said in a serious manner, or in an offhand, not really meant way.
If Apple and Walmart come to a deal, it will be better for both of them. Apple will sell more downloads with Walmart selling coupons, and Walmart will sell more iPods. The movie studios will also sell more downloads.
Everyone will be happy.
If Walmart adds something of value to the business, other than just 'allowing' Apple to do business, then I would agree, this is OK. However, if it is simply a case of Apple having to pay Walmart to sell movies, this is obviously wrong. Unless Walmart is somehow involved with Apple selling movies, then it just a pay off, exactly the same as any thug shaking down any other business.
If Walmart adds something of value to the business, other than just 'allowing' Apple to do business, then I would agree, this is OK. However, if it is simply a case of Apple having to pay Walmart to sell movies, this is obviously wrong. Unless Walmart is somehow involved with Apple selling movies, then it just a pay off, exactly the same as any thug shaking down any other business.
You misunderstand.
Walmart will not get a payoff. This is far too big, and public, an issue for that to ever happen, even if Walmart wanted it.
There will be some deal, as I stated, that will make all parties come away with something they didn't have before.
Negotiating ploys are always stated in stark terms before anbody sits down at the table.
It happens all of the time in wage and benefit negotiations. The result ends up somewhere in the middle.
If there is a deal it will almost assuredly be like the iTunes cards deals Apple already has with other vendors. Apple sells a card to WalMart say for something like $22, WalMart then sells it for $25. Standard market behavior shows that a certain number of sold cards never get redeemed, or only partially redeemed. Apple comes out even farther ahead in the deal simply by allowing WalMart to put them on the shelf or in the display case next to the iPods. WalMart is happy because it gets a couple bucks per card that it does not have to carry as inventory, they only pay Apple for cards sold, not unsold cards in the case. Essentially it's like printing money for both companies and Apple already makes good money this way with the iTunes gift cards.
If there is a deal it will almost assuredly be like the iTunes cards deals Apple already has with other vendors. Apple sells a card to WalMart say for something like $22, WalMart then sells it for $25. Standard market behavior shows that a certain number of sold cards never get redeemed, or only partially redeemed. Apple comes out even farther ahead in the deal simply by allowing WalMart to put them on the shelf or in the display case next to the iPods. WalMart is happy because it gets a couple bucks per card that it does not have to carry as inventory, they only pay Apple for cards sold, not unsold cards in the case. Essentially it's like printing money for both companies and Apple already makes good money this way with the iTunes gift cards.
First of all for 85% of consumers, this is NOT a consumer decision over resolution or extras - and perhaps even 95% of Walmart shoppers who are probably playing the DVD on a portable player or on a $79 machine (or lower cost). This is not about specs or resolution, it's about CONVENIENCE.
Everyone here at Ars Technica might be making sure it's anamorphic dolby 5.1 but to the average mass conusmer, it's about convenience and it's about price. They are buying BROTHER BEAR 2 for their kid to play in a Fisher Price DVD player or hooked up to Wal Mart TV - you think they used a calibrator and checked the kelvin temperature? Or made sure their set was 1,980 and not 1,600?
That is what wal mart is afraid of - people still have to get in the car to drive to a walmart - all they need is electricity at home along with a computer. CLICK. Wait a few minutes and you can start watching! Most people think of their DVD's as disposible anyway - you ask most people where are the DVD's they bought 4 years ago - you think they are in their DVD keepcase alpahbetized on a shelf or you think they are stacked or tossed on the floor next to the Xbox & PS2 games?
Now enter Steve Jobs - smarter than us - knowing it's pointless to tick off walmart - why not work out something and in return, perhaps an even bigger ipod display - and in 3 months, Apple will have an itv and perhps a cell phone to sell - who wouldn't want some primo display space? Or perhaps even the MINI - bundled with a keyboard & a walmart monitor?
Once you get the ipod in the consumers hand - that's the important thing - music or movies are just secondary ...
Because Wal-Mart is the biggest seller of DVD. Some of the studios are probably nervous about joining iTunes because iTunes undercuts Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart prides itself on undercutting everyone else. Studios fear Wal-Mart may retaliate by ordering fewer of their DVD's. Especially around the crucial holidays.
If Apple shares profit with Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart won't be as bitter about loosing sales to iTunes, studios will not fear Wal-Mart retaliation for joining iTunes.
Thus supply and demand is thwarted by business, not served by business.
First of all for 85% of consumers, this is NOT a consumer decision over resolution or extras - and perhaps even 95% of Walmart shoppers who are probably playing the DVD on a portable player or on a $79 machine (or lower cost). This is not about specs or resolution, it's about CONVENIENCE.
Everyone here at Ars Technica might be making sure it's anamorphic dolby 5.1 but to the average mass conusmer, it's about convenience and it's about price. They are buying BROTHER BEAR 2 for their kid to play in a Fisher Price DVD player or hooked up to Wal Mart TV - you think they used a calibrator and checked the kelvin temperature? Or made sure their set was 1,980 and not 1,600?
That is what wal mart is afraid of - people still have to get in the car to drive to a walmart - all they need is electricity at home along with a computer. CLICK. Wait a few minutes and you can start watching! Most people think of their DVD's as disposible anyway - you ask most people where are the DVD's they bought 4 years ago - you think they are in their DVD keepcase alpahbetized on a shelf or you think they are stacked or tossed on the floor next to the Xbox & PS2 games?
Now enter Steve Jobs - smarter than us - knowing it's pointless to tick off walmart - why not work out something and in return, perhaps an even bigger ipod display - and in 3 months, Apple will have an itv and perhps a cell phone to sell - who wouldn't want some primo display space? Or perhaps even the MINI - bundled with a keyboard & a walmart monitor?
Once you get the ipod in the consumers hand - that's the important thing - music or movies are just secondary ...
Everyone HERE at Ars Technica? Are you sure you're in the correct site?
The movie studios are pushing the "convenience" factor as to why they want MORE for downloads than for physical media versions, not less.
It's convenient to buy, but not to play. Perhaps with iTv, it will be.
Comments
Anamorphic DVD is not as close to anamorphic filming / projection as you seem to think. The concepts are similar but what you do with it is different. For one, it is very likely that if you own widescreen DVD, most of them are anamorphic DVD. A lens is not required to "fix" an anamorphic DVD image. The DVD player (software or deck) or the TV does the (un) stretching, a lens is unnecessary.
"Stretching" is done for either a 4:3 or 16:9 image. Note that assuming a DVD image had square pixels, its aspect ratio would hypothetically be 1.5:1. For a 4:3 image and non-anamorphic widescreen images on a DVD, the pixel is actually narrower than it is tall (.88:1), for widescreen images, the pixel is wider than it is tall (1.18:1). Anamorphic DVD simply makes better use of the image area for widescreen movies. A standard letterboxed 16:9 video would only use 360 scan lines but on an anamorphic DVD would use all 480 scan lines.
Jeff, I know what it is. It is NOT an anamorphic image. It doesn't matter what they want to call it.
The reason is that film has about a 2k x 4k resolution. When you compress the image when filming, you lose quality. But the resolution is already high enough that the resulting compressed image is still high enough quality that mose people can't see the difference, even in the theater.
But, when SD DVD's are doing this, they are doing it on a low resolution image. When they expand it later, you can EASILY see the lower quality across the width of the image. It can be disconcerting, as the result has a noticably sharper result in the horisontal plane, and a much poorer sharpness in the vertical plane.
This is not true anamorphic production.
The problem is that video, unlike film, has a fixed resolution. Usually, when anamorphic productions are done, the shooting stock chosen has a higher resolution than would otherwise be needed. Can't do that with DVD's. They end up looking smeared.
This can be done with an image that is intended for a hi rez front projector, or a high rez flat screen, because the reverse anamorphic image can be interpolated in the vertical resolution plane. It will look smeared, but not pixelated.
But, please tell me just how this would work on a SD Tv.
You start with 720 pixels, and you end with 720 pixels. Nothing can be done.
Your explanation of stretching is incorrect. Think about it. A pixel fits on the SD screen. That's it! You can't stretch 720 pixels to fit on a 720 pixel screen. The screen the image is being viewed on must have more than the number of pixels you start with in the "squeezed" image, because that has 720 pixels. When you unsqueeze it, it will require more than 720 pixels.
What they call anamorphic, is not. Not on an SD Tv.
Jeff, I know what it is. It is NOT an anamorphic image. It doesn't matter what they want to call it.
That's not my problem though. Arguing with me won't change how it is called and I'm not going to go on a crusade to try changing it either. You might call it anisotropic video or what ever the heck you want to call it but that seems to be more work than it's worth.
You start with 720 pixels, and you end with 720 pixels. Nothing can be done.
Your explanation of stretching is incorrect. Think about it. A pixel fits on the SD screen. That's it! You can't stretch 720 pixels to fit on a 720 pixel screen. The screen the image is being viewed on must have more than the number of pixels you start with in the "squeezed" image, because that has 720 pixels. When you unsqueeze it, it will require more than 720 pixels.
What they call anamorphic, is not. Not on an SD Tv.
OK, it looks like you are arguing based on playback on a standard old 4:3 TV set. Within that type of set, the difference isn't so apparent. Anamorphic DVDs contain more image detail than what those sets can display properly.
My 4:3 SDTV is one of those few high end sets of the time that changes the raster to display all the detail of an anamorphic DVD, the scan lines are 25% closer together to show the extra detail which is quite a lot. It also shines on widescreen and HDTV sets, and on computer DVD playback. An anamorhpic DVD looks significantly better than a non-anamorphic DVD provided that the player and TV are set up properly. Some DVD players have bad scaling to 4:3 SD sets, such as simply knocking out every fourth image line, which is why anamorphic DVD initially got a bad rap with some people.
It doesn't make more than 720 pixels of the width, it makes more use of the 480 pixels on the height, using scan lines that would otherwise just be black. What anamorphic DVD does is use more of the vertical image area and the player/TV or software adjusts it accordingly depending on the playback circumstances.
That's not my problem though. Arguing with me won't change how it is called and I'm not going to go on a crusade to try changing it either.
OK, it looks like you are arguing based on playback on a standard old 4:3 TV set. Anamorphic DVDs contain more detail than what those sets can display properly.
My 4:3 SDTV changes the raster to display all the detail of an anamorphic DVD, the scan lines are 25% closer together to show the extra detail which is quite a lot. It also shines on widescreen and HDTV sets. An anamorhpic DVD looks significantly better than a non-anamorphic DVD provided that the player and TV are set up properly. Some DVD players have bad scaling to 4:3 SD sets, which is why anamorphic DVD initially got a bad rap with some people.
What anamorphic DVD does is use more of the vertical image area and the player/TV or software adjusts it accordingly.
You're talking about horizontal resolution. Scan lines. I'm talking about vertical resolution.
Anamorphic projection is intended to have the same height, but a wider image.
What is done on an SD set, is that you are given the same height, with more scan lines, and the same width. The image size is the same as a letterboxed version.
It's totally different. Do you see what I'm saying?
When this anamorphic version is shown on a 16:9 screen, of EDTV or better rez, it is stretched in width to fill the screen, instead of having the scan lines shrink and move closer.
This then results in a smeared, but accurate, image in the vertical plane.
You're talking about horizontal resolution. Scan lines. I'm talking about vertical resolution.
Anamorphic projection is intended to have the same height, but a wider image.
What is done on an SD set, is that you are given the same height, with more scan lines, and the same width. The image size is the same as a letterboxed version.
It's totally different. Do you see what I'm saying?
On SD sets, sure, the final image size and detail remains mostly the same, save possibly differences in artifacts.
On the meaning of anamorphic, I know what you are saying, but I don't understand why you think it matters. You seem to suggest that a word can't have a somewhat different meaning in a somewhat different context, which would be news to me. What you are saying seems to be akin to complaining that computer files can't be files because there aren't any manila folders in a hard drive. Either way, both anamorphic image arrangements involve an anisotropic means of storing an image. The media is different, a data frame vs. a film frame, and the means of changing the image so it displays objects to their correct ratios are different, but the most elemental part of the concept is the same for both media.
Also, if one were so inclined, there are even anamorphic projection lenses that collapse the vertical height and retain the width. I won't say it's necessarily a good idea, but they were available a few years ago.
I don't even understand why you originally said that a DVD has 720 vertical pixels. I thought they were counted horizontally.
Let me add this so there is less confusion.
When this anamorphic version is shown on a 16:9 screen, of EDTV or better rez, it is stretched in width to fill the screen, instead of having the scan lines shrink and move closer.
This then results in a smeared, but accurate, image in the vertical plane.
I think that's still superior to scaling up a 4:3 letterboxed image to the same screen and quite a bit superior to anything iTunes is currently offering.
On SD sets, sure, the final image size and detail remains mostly the same, save possibly differences in artifacts.
On the meaning of anamorphic, I know what you are saying, but I don't understand why you think it matters. You seem to suggest that a word can't have a somewhat different meaning in a somewhat different context, which would be news to me. Either way, they both involve an anisotropic means of storing an image.
Words should always have the same meaning, otherwise confusion is ineviable. Terms always have to be agreed upon before a discussion occurs.
Also, if one were so inclined, there are even anamorphic projection lenses that collapse the vertical height and retain the width. I won't say it's necessarily a good idea, but they were available a few years ago.
No, they weren't a good idea, so they never became popular. They served little purpose for the greater market, only some scientific ones.
I don't even understand why you originally said that a DVD has 720 vertical pixels. I thought they were counted horizontally.
No. The way it works is that the scan lines are the horizontal rez, and the vertical rez is measured as vertical lines across the screen. Like a picket fence. How many of those vertical lines can be fitted across the width of the screen determines the vertical rez.
————
————
————
is scan lines=horizontal rez.
| | | |
would be the vertical rez.
I think that's still superior to scaling up a 4:3 letterboxed image to the same screen and quite a bit superior to anything iTunes is currently offering.
You do get a slightly better horizontal rez on an SD set using the method you outlined. But, only if the set in question has the feature to compress the scan lines accordingly. Only some can do that.
But, as now the horizontal detail is finer (smaller), you have to sit closer to be able to see the difference. Few people sit close enough to their sets to see that.
Words should always have the same meaning, otherwise confusion is ineviable. Terms always have to be agreed upon before a discussion occurs.
I really don't think the people familiar with the film projection process are confused by the difference in context here. At least I don't think they should be.
You do get a slightly better horizontal rez on an SD set using the method you outlined. But, only if the set in question has the feature to compress the scan lines accordingly. Only some can do that.
The part you quoted was discussing displaying on a widescreen ED/HD set, though for the rare SD set like that, it helps there too. The difference is apparent on computer playback too.
Show those greedy corporate bastards at microsoft who's boss!
Finally, iPods built in Chinese sweatshops can be sold by America's worst labor provider.
Were you born this cynical?
If Walmart simply threatened to blackball Apple, by not selling any more iPods, or the movie studios, by not selling DVD's, then yes.
But, we really don't know what was said, or the context in which it was said. We don't know if what was said was said in a serious manner, or in an offhand, not really meant way.
If Apple and Walmart come to a deal, it will be better for both of them. Apple will sell more downloads with Walmart selling coupons, and Walmart will sell more iPods. The movie studios will also sell more downloads.
Everyone will be happy.
If Walmart adds something of value to the business, other than just 'allowing' Apple to do business, then I would agree, this is OK. However, if it is simply a case of Apple having to pay Walmart to sell movies, this is obviously wrong. Unless Walmart is somehow involved with Apple selling movies, then it just a pay off, exactly the same as any thug shaking down any other business.
Were you born this cynical?
It takes a lot effort for someone to get that way.
If Walmart adds something of value to the business, other than just 'allowing' Apple to do business, then I would agree, this is OK. However, if it is simply a case of Apple having to pay Walmart to sell movies, this is obviously wrong. Unless Walmart is somehow involved with Apple selling movies, then it just a pay off, exactly the same as any thug shaking down any other business.
You misunderstand.
Walmart will not get a payoff. This is far too big, and public, an issue for that to ever happen, even if Walmart wanted it.
There will be some deal, as I stated, that will make all parties come away with something they didn't have before.
Negotiating ploys are always stated in stark terms before anbody sits down at the table.
It happens all of the time in wage and benefit negotiations. The result ends up somewhere in the middle.
If there is a deal it will almost assuredly be like the iTunes cards deals Apple already has with other vendors. Apple sells a card to WalMart say for something like $22, WalMart then sells it for $25. Standard market behavior shows that a certain number of sold cards never get redeemed, or only partially redeemed. Apple comes out even farther ahead in the deal simply by allowing WalMart to put them on the shelf or in the display case next to the iPods. WalMart is happy because it gets a couple bucks per card that it does not have to carry as inventory, they only pay Apple for cards sold, not unsold cards in the case. Essentially it's like printing money for both companies and Apple already makes good money this way with the iTunes gift cards.
That's right.
Everyone here at Ars Technica might be making sure it's anamorphic dolby 5.1 but to the average mass conusmer, it's about convenience and it's about price. They are buying BROTHER BEAR 2 for their kid to play in a Fisher Price DVD player or hooked up to Wal Mart TV - you think they used a calibrator and checked the kelvin temperature? Or made sure their set was 1,980 and not 1,600?
That is what wal mart is afraid of - people still have to get in the car to drive to a walmart - all they need is electricity at home along with a computer. CLICK. Wait a few minutes and you can start watching! Most people think of their DVD's as disposible anyway - you ask most people where are the DVD's they bought 4 years ago - you think they are in their DVD keepcase alpahbetized on a shelf or you think they are stacked or tossed on the floor next to the Xbox & PS2 games?
Now enter Steve Jobs - smarter than us - knowing it's pointless to tick off walmart - why not work out something and in return, perhaps an even bigger ipod display - and in 3 months, Apple will have an itv and perhps a cell phone to sell - who wouldn't want some primo display space? Or perhaps even the MINI - bundled with a keyboard & a walmart monitor?
Once you get the ipod in the consumers hand - that's the important thing - music or movies are just secondary ...
Its business.
Because Wal-Mart is the biggest seller of DVD. Some of the studios are probably nervous about joining iTunes because iTunes undercuts Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart prides itself on undercutting everyone else. Studios fear Wal-Mart may retaliate by ordering fewer of their DVD's. Especially around the crucial holidays.
If Apple shares profit with Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart won't be as bitter about loosing sales to iTunes, studios will not fear Wal-Mart retaliation for joining iTunes.
Thus supply and demand is thwarted by business, not served by business.
First of all for 85% of consumers, this is NOT a consumer decision over resolution or extras - and perhaps even 95% of Walmart shoppers who are probably playing the DVD on a portable player or on a $79 machine (or lower cost). This is not about specs or resolution, it's about CONVENIENCE.
Everyone here at Ars Technica might be making sure it's anamorphic dolby 5.1 but to the average mass conusmer, it's about convenience and it's about price. They are buying BROTHER BEAR 2 for their kid to play in a Fisher Price DVD player or hooked up to Wal Mart TV - you think they used a calibrator and checked the kelvin temperature? Or made sure their set was 1,980 and not 1,600?
That is what wal mart is afraid of - people still have to get in the car to drive to a walmart - all they need is electricity at home along with a computer. CLICK. Wait a few minutes and you can start watching! Most people think of their DVD's as disposible anyway - you ask most people where are the DVD's they bought 4 years ago - you think they are in their DVD keepcase alpahbetized on a shelf or you think they are stacked or tossed on the floor next to the Xbox & PS2 games?
Now enter Steve Jobs - smarter than us - knowing it's pointless to tick off walmart - why not work out something and in return, perhaps an even bigger ipod display - and in 3 months, Apple will have an itv and perhps a cell phone to sell - who wouldn't want some primo display space? Or perhaps even the MINI - bundled with a keyboard & a walmart monitor?
Once you get the ipod in the consumers hand - that's the important thing - music or movies are just secondary ...
Everyone HERE at Ars Technica? Are you sure you're in the correct site?
The movie studios are pushing the "convenience" factor as to why they want MORE for downloads than for physical media versions, not less.
It's convenient to buy, but not to play. Perhaps with iTv, it will be.
Thus supply and demand is thwarted by business, not served by business.
You will have to explain that.