That's nice. But the problem with internet-served "HD" downloads isn't that they're 720p; it's that they're 4mbps instead of Blu-Ray's 30mbps. And you CAN see the difference in that, unless you're sitting 14 feet away from your screen. "HD" at those kinds of low bitrates is more or less just upconverted DVD, in terms of picture depth and clarity.
I have to agree with you on that. People are far too caught up into the resolution rather than the bitrate. You can have 2160p video, but if it is encoded at a low bitrate it won't look better than than 1080p uncompressed no matter the viewing distance, size of screen, etc. 720p uncompressed video should look great on my 24" monitor, but the 720p content from iTunes doesn't look any better than standard DVD quality, because the bitrate is about the same. In some cases the "HD" video from iTunes even looks a bit grainy.
The bitrates of these digital video services are good enough for DVD quality, but not much better. It is fine for watching stuff on your 24" monitor, but if you output the content to a 46" LCD you are going to really start to see how low the bitrate really is.
At least for the short term, 2-3 years I don't see how digital downloads are going to be much competition for Blu-ray. In the long term though it seems inevitable that bandwidth is going to grow to the point where streaming 1080p content over the internet will become commercially viable.
You would rarely see 1080p contents that require absolute need for 30mbps average bitrate even on blu-ray disc. Unless the studios just like to claim high bitrate and use mpeg2 paired with lossless sound track. When using proper video and audio codec, 15 to 20 mbps is capable of delivering near lossless audio and video contents at 1080p. Which means that pristine 720p contents can be had on demand for only 7 to 10 mbps, which is not a huge streaming demand for current broadband services. Even with 3 mbps would only require 30 to 45 min buffering prior to streaming the content.
Now, see if you can tell the difference between 720p vs. 1080p contents on 60" 1080p HDTV. If some of you think that 480i superbit contents scale well on 1080p HDTV, just imagine how well 720p contents can scale to 1080p.
Regardless, I would still prefer buying and keeping the HiDef disc, but I am probably in the 5% consumer market.
Very funny but this doesn't address the question about moving the file to another place or device like playing on your friend's TV or loaning it to him or her which is what we were talking about. As Northgate said this is a real problem with this idea if you can't burn it to a DVD or something else. And this is just one of the problems with downloading becoming mainstream. Now do you get it?
Would it help if I posted a picture of an 8GB memory stick?
Why would anyone waste time "burning a disk"? (Or scraping tunes into scratches in vinyl)
Would it help if I posted a picture of an 8GB memory stick?
Why would anyone waste time "burning a disk"? (Or scraping tunes into scratches in vinyl)
C.
Ok. Will the movie companies let you do it legally? And to make it clear we're talking about HD copys.
I'd be all for this kind of transport and even posted my take on the fact that a company has already decided to try marketing music in this fashion. However with video there's that studio thing again. And the bandwidth issue.
Also What about the cap that comcast is imposing. Not a good sign that the internet can currently take this kind of traffic. Which most experts say it can't.
You can keep dancing around these issues forever if you want but it's not going to make them go away. Until these issues are resolved downloading will not be the mainstream way people purchase or rent movies.
Grin. You can get quite a tan sitting so close to the screen.
When you watch with your friends... do you like all huddle up?
C.
The couch and loveseat are positioned that way and it seems quite comfortable for the 53".
Probably from the same article you looked up ( it has the same chart ):
Quote:
What the chart shows is that, for a 50-inch screen, the benefits of 720p vs. 480p start to become apparent at viewing distances closer than 14.6 feet and become fully apparent at 9.8 feet. For the same screen size, the benefits of 1080p vs. 720p start to become apparent when closer than 9.8 feet and become full apparent at 6.5 feet. In my opinion, 6.5 feet is closer than most people will sit to their 50" plasma TV (even through the THX recommended viewing distance for a 50" screen is 5.6 ft). [/I]So, most consumers will not be able to see the full benefit of their 1080p TV.
Note the italicized part. So the distance issue is an opinion. The experts have a different one.
How long did it take from going from MP3 as a grass-roots technophile thing - to mass market?
C.
Trust me this battle has been going on for 30 years with the movie companies. They'll be a much tougher nut to crack than the record companies. While the record companies were looking the other way for years with cassete tape copys of records the movie companies were up in arms about the VCR. Yes we won eventually but they haven't stopped being obsessed with people having free rein over their product. Even though they make more money they still want total control. If it was up to them we wouldn't have home video or computers to copy with. Absolutely paranoid about it.
Also there's currently only so much bandwidth. An HD movie takes up a lot more room than a song.
So if this was so easy how come iTunes doesn't let you burn ( or write to a portable device ) HD video right now?
Ok. Will the movie companies let you do it legally? And to make it clear we're talking about HD copys.
Legality is not all that important when the law gets out of step with what people are doing.
People started using digital music as files and now that is the default mode for buying and using music. The disc has become irrelevant and digital content has become mainstream and legitimate. DRM is on the way out too.
The visual entertainment industry would like to stop this happening to film and television. But it's like commanding the tide not to rise. Nothing they can do can stop it happening. It already *has* happened.
The problem they need to solve now is how to monetize this new way of distributing content.
Legality is not all that important when the law gets out of step with what people are doing.
People started using digital music as files and now that is the default mode for buying and using music. The disc has become irrelevant and digital content has become mainstream and legitimate. DRM is on the way out too.
The visual entertainment industry would like to stop this happening to film and television. But it's like commanding the tide not to rise. Nothing they can do can stop it happening. It already *has* happened.
The problem they need to solve now is how to monetize this new way of distributing content.
C.
No it hasn't already happened legally. How many people right now are downloading all of their video content vs people who buy a DVD?
You think the studios are just going to give in. Well maybe that might happen - in 10 years or so. In that amount of time they may have resolved the bandwidth issues also. Like I've already said. This will probably happen but it's going to take some time to work the issues out. You really need to understand. Video and Audio issues in this convoluted world are not the same. I wish they were. Where money is involved business has always lagged behind technology.
We could have already had broadcast HDTV as the norm 15 years ago if it hadn't been for that aspect.
The THX recommendation for screen size vs. the viewing distance chart is to cover the field of vision to optimize and enhance panoramic viewing experience. Obviously, the chart is design to apply for bigger screens, 80"+ home theater, but not for less then 60" application. I'm sure the chart can be interpolated for shorter distance, but most home theater nuts will prefer 100"+ screen and with 8 to 9' sitting distance than 5' sitting distance on a smaller screen size.
The THX recommendation for screen size vs. the viewing distance chart is to cover the field of vision to optimize and enhance panoramic viewing experience. Obviously, the chart is design to apply for bigger screens, 80"+ home theater, but not for less then 60" application. I'm sure the chart can be interpolated for shorter distance, but most home theater nuts will prefer 100"+ screen and with 8 to 9' sitting distance than 5' sitting distance on a smaller screen size.
Most Home Theater nuts ( like myself ) don't have the room for 100". Really, honestly it looks just fine 6 feet from my 53" TV.
In that amount of time they may have resolved the bandwidth issues also.
Lets talk about bandwidth. Each commercial entity which transmits data pays for the bandwidth. That money goes to pay for an ever improving infrastructure. Data rates double every 18 months. We can cram ever more data down a fibre, and ever more data down a phoneline. Though ADSL, I am getting 8 megabits today, and should be getting 16 megabits in a few months.
This already allows many of us to forego traditional TV and get the majority of our episodic TV via the internet.
Hulu, Apple and NetFlix are paving the legitimate way. And of course you can do even better illegally.
In my ISPs "off-peak window" I can download 11 hours of TV overnight. Much more than I could ever possibly watch. Is the internet crumbling and falling apart as a result? Nope not really.
Yes, for live TV - the internet is probably the wrong infrastructure. But for movie and episodic TV even Sony accepts that consumers will prefer this method of direct delivery. Content creators can bypass networks, disk manufacturers, retail outlets, advertisers and cable companies. It lets them sell their content directly to consumers without middle-men driving the cost up.
For smaller independent producers we could be entering a golden age. Larger producers are also seeing the light. Hulu is a good example. Instead of trying to stop piracy, NBC has just gotten with the program.
Comcast, as a conventional provider of television services, has chosen to exploit its position as an ISP and is cynically capping downloads. Not surprising but perhaps someone should make *that* illegal.
Lets talk about bandwidth. Each commercial entity which transmits data pays for the bandwidth. That money goes to pay for an ever improving infrastructure. Data rates double every 18 months. We can cram ever more data down a fibre, and ever more data down a phoneline. Though ADSL, I am getting 8 megabits today, and should be getting 16 megabits in a few months.
This already allows many of us to forego traditional TV and get the majority of our episodic TV via the internet.
Hulu, Apple and NetFlix are paving the legitimate way. And of course you can do even better illegally.
In my ISPs "off-peak window" I can download 11 hours of TV overnight. Much more than I could ever possibly watch. Is the internet crumbling and falling apart as a result? Nope not really.
Yes, for live TV - the internet is probably the wrong infrastructure. But for movie and episodic TV even Sony accepts that consumers will prefer this method of direct delivery. Content creators can bypass networks, disk manufacturers, retail outlets, advertisers and cable companies. It lets them sell their content directly to consumers without middle-men driving the cost up.
For smaller independent producers we could be entering a golden age. Larger producers are also seeing the light. Hulu is a good example. Instead of trying to stop piracy, NBC has just gotten with the program.
Comcast, as a conventional provider of television services, has chosen to exploit its position as an ISP and is cynically capping downloads. Not surprising but perhaps someone should make *that* illegal.
C.
You continue to ignore what the experts ( people more in the know and in control more than you or I ) are saying.
The bottom line is that HD downloads are a novelty item now, and they'll probably stay that way until:
• Higher bandwidth permits the rapid download of huge files
• A quality-assurance system is agreed upon where "HD" refers to specific attributes that go beyond frame resolution
• Hollywood deems it fit to start releasing mainstream videos in great quantities in HD—remember, those dudes hold the keys, now and forever, whether we like it or not.
This will happen like you say but it's going to have to wait until some changes are made. Both Gates and Jobs imply it's close but they have download services to sell. To expect this to be widespread or mainstream soon is naive at best.
You continue to ignore but that won't make it true.
Quote:
Comcast, as a conventional provider of television services, has chosen to exploit its position as an ISP and is cynically capping downloads. Not surprising but perhaps someone should make *that* illegal.
By the way Comcast is one of the biggest ISPs offering broadband in the US 2nd only to At&T. So do the math. That's a lot of people and I'd be willing to bet At&T are saying the same thing.
AT&T Looking at Charging Heavy Internet Users Extra
Quote:
Cable companies are at the forefront of usage-based pricing because neighbors share capacity on the local cable lines, and bandwidth hogs can slow down traffic for others. Phone companies have been less concerned about congestion because the phone lines they use to provide Internet service using DSL, or Digital Subscriber Line technology, aren't shared between neighbors, but AT&T is evidently concerned about congestion higher up in the network.
Those who mainly do Web surfing or e-mail use little data and have scant reason to pay attention to traffic caps. But those who download movies or TV, particularly in high definition, can hit the caps imposed by cable companies.
Download caps could put a crimp in the plans of services like Apple Inc.'s iTunes that use the Internet to deliver video. DVD-by-mail pioneer Netflix Inc. just launched a TV set-top box that receives an unlimited stream of Internet video to a TV set for as little as $8.99 per month.
Yeah sure they'll just make way for this " Tide " just because you want it to be true.
There are many facts in your mix of articles - along with some FUD.
There are multiple issues here. So let's not mix them up.
1. If you own a collection of movies and TV - having that collection on a server of some kind (a video jukebox) is massively more convenient than having hundreds of physical disks.
Physical disks are a pain in the ass. Once you switch, you'll never want to go back.
Many people with extensive DVD collections are transferring their library to files, because they can finally get their content in convenient way.
So regardless of the means of distribution, liberated media files are more fun.
2. A physical disk - such as a DVD has to be mastered, duplicated, printed, distributed, resold and purchased. There is a massive COST associated with these wasteful processes. The COST of this process is already more than the much lower COST associated with moving bits on the internet.
Here's the core of the distribution argument: Shifting a 4-8GB file is cheaper to do electronically than physically. Everything else follows from that.
Flashback to the 1800s. Someone figured it was cheaper to move goods and people via railroad than on horses.
Problem: There isn't enough capacity in rail network.
You either: Increase the capacity of the rail network or conclude that horses are the future. And try to breed a really big horse.
There are many facts in your mix of articles - along with some FUD.
There are multiple issues here. So let's not mix them up.
1. If you own a collection of movies and TV - having that collection on a server of some kind (a video jukebox) is massively more convenient than having hundreds of physical disks.
Physical disks are a pain in the ass. Once you switch, you'll never want to go back.
Many people with extensive DVD collections are transferring their library to files, because they can finally get their content in convenient way.
So regardless of the means of distribution, liberated media files are more fun.
2. A physical disk - such as a DVD has to be mastered, duplicated, printed, distributed, resold and purchased. There is a massive COST associated with these wasteful processes. The COST of this process is already more than the much lower COST associated with moving bits on the internet.
Here's the core of the distribution argument: Shifting a 4-8GB file is cheaper to do electronically than physically. Everything else follows from that.
Flashback to the 1800s. Someone figured it was cheaper to move goods and people via railroad than on horses.
Problem: There isn't enough capacity in rail network.
You either: Increase the capacity of the rail network or conclude that horses are the future. And try to breed a really big horse.
C.
And they were laying track for a long time.
Eventually it did come to pass. Which is what I've been saying. It just will take awhile. Long enough for BD to become entrenched. So if it's going to go somewhere it'll have that chance to find out.
Will BD become mainstream though that's still a good question. So the real question is when downloading becomes viable enough for mainstream will it have to edge out the new ( really caught on ) DVD or the new ( for videophiles only ) Laserdisc?
Eventually it did come to pass. Which is what I've been saying. It just will take awhile. Long enough for BD to become entrenched. So if it's going to go somewhere it'll have that chance to find out.
Will BD become mainstream though that's still a good question. So the real question is when downloading becomes viable enough for mainstream will it have to edge out the new ( really caught on ) DVD or the new ( for videophiles only ) Laserdisc?
I do agree that it will be some time before the internet replaces TV Broadcast (via Satellite, Antenna and Cable) - Families consume many hours of TV a day and broadcast is still an inexpensive way to shift video in bulk. So I think we will still be seeing broadcast media, of some sort, in 10 years time.
But displacing physical disk distribution can happen much sooner. And has of course is kicking-off with Netflix and Apple in a perfectly viable way. Sony plan to start doing direct downloads soon.
The games industry is about to make a similar transition. The motivation is to cut-out the middle-men retailers who take about half of the revenue (simply for selling a box)
Flashback to the 1800s. Someone figured it was cheaper to move goods and people via railroad than on horses.
Problem: There isn't enough capacity in rail network.
You either: Increase the capacity of the rail network or conclude that horses are the future. And try to breed a really big horse.
C.
]
Actually, your analogy is a little off. Railroads put hauling freight by canals obsolete. When the railroads laid sufficient trackage they did become the transportation of choice for moving large loads over distance, but horse cartage was still the norm for short distances and for distribution transportation until it was displaced by the motor vehicle.
Comments
That's nice. But the problem with internet-served "HD" downloads isn't that they're 720p; it's that they're 4mbps instead of Blu-Ray's 30mbps. And you CAN see the difference in that, unless you're sitting 14 feet away from your screen. "HD" at those kinds of low bitrates is more or less just upconverted DVD, in terms of picture depth and clarity.
I have to agree with you on that. People are far too caught up into the resolution rather than the bitrate. You can have 2160p video, but if it is encoded at a low bitrate it won't look better than than 1080p uncompressed no matter the viewing distance, size of screen, etc. 720p uncompressed video should look great on my 24" monitor, but the 720p content from iTunes doesn't look any better than standard DVD quality, because the bitrate is about the same. In some cases the "HD" video from iTunes even looks a bit grainy.
The bitrates of these digital video services are good enough for DVD quality, but not much better. It is fine for watching stuff on your 24" monitor, but if you output the content to a 46" LCD you are going to really start to see how low the bitrate really is.
At least for the short term, 2-3 years I don't see how digital downloads are going to be much competition for Blu-ray. In the long term though it seems inevitable that bandwidth is going to grow to the point where streaming 1080p content over the internet will become commercially viable.
Now, see if you can tell the difference between 720p vs. 1080p contents on 60" 1080p HDTV. If some of you think that 480i superbit contents scale well on 1080p HDTV, just imagine how well 720p contents can scale to 1080p.
Regardless, I would still prefer buying and keeping the HiDef disc, but I am probably in the 5% consumer market.
When the problems are worked out so they can be practical for the masses.
How long did it take from going from MP3 as a grass-roots technophile thing - to mass market?
C.
Very funny but this doesn't address the question about moving the file to another place or device like playing on your friend's TV or loaning it to him or her which is what we were talking about. As Northgate said this is a real problem with this idea if you can't burn it to a DVD or something else. And this is just one of the problems with downloading becoming mainstream. Now do you get it?
Would it help if I posted a picture of an 8GB memory stick?
Why would anyone waste time "burning a disk"? (Or scraping tunes into scratches in vinyl)
C.
Oh by the way I sit comfortably at 6 feet from my 53" set.
Grin. You can get quite a tan sitting so close to the screen.
When you watch with your friends... do you like all huddle up?
C.
Would it help if I posted a picture of an 8GB memory stick?
Why would anyone waste time "burning a disk"? (Or scraping tunes into scratches in vinyl)
C.
Ok. Will the movie companies let you do it legally? And to make it clear we're talking about HD copys.
I'd be all for this kind of transport and even posted my take on the fact that a company has already decided to try marketing music in this fashion. However with video there's that studio thing again. And the bandwidth issue.
Also What about the cap that comcast is imposing. Not a good sign that the internet can currently take this kind of traffic. Which most experts say it can't.
You can keep dancing around these issues forever if you want but it's not going to make them go away. Until these issues are resolved downloading will not be the mainstream way people purchase or rent movies.
Grin. You can get quite a tan sitting so close to the screen.
When you watch with your friends... do you like all huddle up?
C.
The couch and loveseat are positioned that way and it seems quite comfortable for the 53".
Probably from the same article you looked up ( it has the same chart ):
What the chart shows is that, for a 50-inch screen, the benefits of 720p vs. 480p start to become apparent at viewing distances closer than 14.6 feet and become fully apparent at 9.8 feet. For the same screen size, the benefits of 1080p vs. 720p start to become apparent when closer than 9.8 feet and become full apparent at 6.5 feet. In my opinion, 6.5 feet is closer than most people will sit to their 50" plasma TV (even through the THX recommended viewing distance for a 50" screen is 5.6 ft). [/I]So, most consumers will not be able to see the full benefit of their 1080p TV.
Note the italicized part. So the distance issue is an opinion. The experts have a different one.
http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/
How long did it take from going from MP3 as a grass-roots technophile thing - to mass market?
C.
Trust me this battle has been going on for 30 years with the movie companies. They'll be a much tougher nut to crack than the record companies. While the record companies were looking the other way for years with cassete tape copys of records the movie companies were up in arms about the VCR. Yes we won eventually but they haven't stopped being obsessed with people having free rein over their product. Even though they make more money they still want total control. If it was up to them we wouldn't have home video or computers to copy with. Absolutely paranoid about it.
Also there's currently only so much bandwidth. An HD movie takes up a lot more room than a song.
So if this was so easy how come iTunes doesn't let you burn ( or write to a portable device ) HD video right now?
Ok. Will the movie companies let you do it legally? And to make it clear we're talking about HD copys.
Legality is not all that important when the law gets out of step with what people are doing.
People started using digital music as files and now that is the default mode for buying and using music. The disc has become irrelevant and digital content has become mainstream and legitimate. DRM is on the way out too.
The visual entertainment industry would like to stop this happening to film and television. But it's like commanding the tide not to rise. Nothing they can do can stop it happening. It already *has* happened.
The problem they need to solve now is how to monetize this new way of distributing content.
C.
Note the italicized part.
Someone at THX needs to remove the pocket protector.
Even when TVs were flickery 18" cathode ray tubes. Families sat more than 10' away from them.
A 5'6" viewing distance is nuts.
I'll say it again, unless you own a projector. 1080p is of no benefit to typical consumers.
Yes a handful of "enthusiasts" may prefer to sit 5 feet from their screen. Just as I prefer to avoid hats with propellers.
C.
Someone at THX needs to remove the pocket protector.
Even when TVs were flickery 18" cathode ray tubes. Families sat more than 10' away from them.
A 5'6" viewing distance is nuts.
I'll say it again, unless you own a projector. 1080p is of no benefit to typical consumers.
Yes a handful of "enthusiasts" may prefer to sit 5 feet from their screen. Just as I prefer to avoid hats with propellers.
C.
Just as I prefer to avoid hats with propellers.
Then make some valid arguments about your supposition about the other issues with downloading.
Legality is not all that important when the law gets out of step with what people are doing.
People started using digital music as files and now that is the default mode for buying and using music. The disc has become irrelevant and digital content has become mainstream and legitimate. DRM is on the way out too.
The visual entertainment industry would like to stop this happening to film and television. But it's like commanding the tide not to rise. Nothing they can do can stop it happening. It already *has* happened.
The problem they need to solve now is how to monetize this new way of distributing content.
C.
No it hasn't already happened legally. How many people right now are downloading all of their video content vs people who buy a DVD?
You think the studios are just going to give in. Well maybe that might happen - in 10 years or so. In that amount of time they may have resolved the bandwidth issues also. Like I've already said. This will probably happen but it's going to take some time to work the issues out. You really need to understand. Video and Audio issues in this convoluted world are not the same. I wish they were. Where money is involved business has always lagged behind technology.
We could have already had broadcast HDTV as the norm 15 years ago if it hadn't been for that aspect.
The THX recommendation for screen size vs. the viewing distance chart is to cover the field of vision to optimize and enhance panoramic viewing experience. Obviously, the chart is design to apply for bigger screens, 80"+ home theater, but not for less then 60" application. I'm sure the chart can be interpolated for shorter distance, but most home theater nuts will prefer 100"+ screen and with 8 to 9' sitting distance than 5' sitting distance on a smaller screen size.
Most Home Theater nuts ( like myself ) don't have the room for 100". Really, honestly it looks just fine 6 feet from my 53" TV.
In that amount of time they may have resolved the bandwidth issues also.
Lets talk about bandwidth. Each commercial entity which transmits data pays for the bandwidth. That money goes to pay for an ever improving infrastructure. Data rates double every 18 months. We can cram ever more data down a fibre, and ever more data down a phoneline. Though ADSL, I am getting 8 megabits today, and should be getting 16 megabits in a few months.
This already allows many of us to forego traditional TV and get the majority of our episodic TV via the internet.
Hulu, Apple and NetFlix are paving the legitimate way. And of course you can do even better illegally.
In my ISPs "off-peak window" I can download 11 hours of TV overnight. Much more than I could ever possibly watch. Is the internet crumbling and falling apart as a result? Nope not really.
Yes, for live TV - the internet is probably the wrong infrastructure. But for movie and episodic TV even Sony accepts that consumers will prefer this method of direct delivery. Content creators can bypass networks, disk manufacturers, retail outlets, advertisers and cable companies. It lets them sell their content directly to consumers without middle-men driving the cost up.
For smaller independent producers we could be entering a golden age. Larger producers are also seeing the light. Hulu is a good example. Instead of trying to stop piracy, NBC has just gotten with the program.
Comcast, as a conventional provider of television services, has chosen to exploit its position as an ISP and is cynically capping downloads. Not surprising but perhaps someone should make *that* illegal.
C.
Lets talk about bandwidth. Each commercial entity which transmits data pays for the bandwidth. That money goes to pay for an ever improving infrastructure. Data rates double every 18 months. We can cram ever more data down a fibre, and ever more data down a phoneline. Though ADSL, I am getting 8 megabits today, and should be getting 16 megabits in a few months.
This already allows many of us to forego traditional TV and get the majority of our episodic TV via the internet.
Hulu, Apple and NetFlix are paving the legitimate way. And of course you can do even better illegally.
In my ISPs "off-peak window" I can download 11 hours of TV overnight. Much more than I could ever possibly watch. Is the internet crumbling and falling apart as a result? Nope not really.
Yes, for live TV - the internet is probably the wrong infrastructure. But for movie and episodic TV even Sony accepts that consumers will prefer this method of direct delivery. Content creators can bypass networks, disk manufacturers, retail outlets, advertisers and cable companies. It lets them sell their content directly to consumers without middle-men driving the cost up.
For smaller independent producers we could be entering a golden age. Larger producers are also seeing the light. Hulu is a good example. Instead of trying to stop piracy, NBC has just gotten with the program.
Comcast, as a conventional provider of television services, has chosen to exploit its position as an ISP and is cynically capping downloads. Not surprising but perhaps someone should make *that* illegal.
C.
You continue to ignore what the experts ( people more in the know and in control more than you or I ) are saying.
http://gizmodo.com/352392/vudu-test-...eds-to-be-done
The bottom line is that HD downloads are a novelty item now, and they'll probably stay that way until:
• Higher bandwidth permits the rapid download of huge files
• A quality-assurance system is agreed upon where "HD" refers to specific attributes that go beyond frame resolution
• Hollywood deems it fit to start releasing mainstream videos in great quantities in HD—remember, those dudes hold the keys, now and forever, whether we like it or not.
And http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=511
And http://www.akamai.com/hdwp
And http://www.ip-dev.net/downloads/HD-T...the%20Bill.pdf
And http://wiredinc.com/downloading-hd-m...or-you-2008-03
Do I need to go on?
This will happen like you say but it's going to have to wait until some changes are made. Both Gates and Jobs imply it's close but they have download services to sell. To expect this to be widespread or mainstream soon is naive at best.
You continue to ignore but that won't make it true.
Comcast, as a conventional provider of television services, has chosen to exploit its position as an ISP and is cynically capping downloads. Not surprising but perhaps someone should make *that* illegal.
By the way Comcast is one of the biggest ISPs offering broadband in the US 2nd only to At&T. So do the math. That's a lot of people and I'd be willing to bet At&T are saying the same thing.
Well look at what we found here!
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=5058262
AT&T Looking at Charging Heavy Internet Users Extra
Cable companies are at the forefront of usage-based pricing because neighbors share capacity on the local cable lines, and bandwidth hogs can slow down traffic for others. Phone companies have been less concerned about congestion because the phone lines they use to provide Internet service using DSL, or Digital Subscriber Line technology, aren't shared between neighbors, but AT&T is evidently concerned about congestion higher up in the network.
Those who mainly do Web surfing or e-mail use little data and have scant reason to pay attention to traffic caps. But those who download movies or TV, particularly in high definition, can hit the caps imposed by cable companies.
Download caps could put a crimp in the plans of services like Apple Inc.'s iTunes that use the Internet to deliver video. DVD-by-mail pioneer Netflix Inc. just launched a TV set-top box that receives an unlimited stream of Internet video to a TV set for as little as $8.99 per month.
Yeah sure they'll just make way for this " Tide " just because you want it to be true.
It's going to take awhile ( years ).
There are multiple issues here. So let's not mix them up.
1. If you own a collection of movies and TV - having that collection on a server of some kind (a video jukebox) is massively more convenient than having hundreds of physical disks.
Physical disks are a pain in the ass. Once you switch, you'll never want to go back.
Many people with extensive DVD collections are transferring their library to files, because they can finally get their content in convenient way.
So regardless of the means of distribution, liberated media files are more fun.
2. A physical disk - such as a DVD has to be mastered, duplicated, printed, distributed, resold and purchased. There is a massive COST associated with these wasteful processes. The COST of this process is already more than the much lower COST associated with moving bits on the internet.
Here's the core of the distribution argument: Shifting a 4-8GB file is cheaper to do electronically than physically. Everything else follows from that.
Flashback to the 1800s. Someone figured it was cheaper to move goods and people via railroad than on horses.
Problem: There isn't enough capacity in rail network.
You either: Increase the capacity of the rail network or conclude that horses are the future. And try to breed a really big horse.
C.
There are many facts in your mix of articles - along with some FUD.
There are multiple issues here. So let's not mix them up.
1. If you own a collection of movies and TV - having that collection on a server of some kind (a video jukebox) is massively more convenient than having hundreds of physical disks.
Physical disks are a pain in the ass. Once you switch, you'll never want to go back.
Many people with extensive DVD collections are transferring their library to files, because they can finally get their content in convenient way.
So regardless of the means of distribution, liberated media files are more fun.
2. A physical disk - such as a DVD has to be mastered, duplicated, printed, distributed, resold and purchased. There is a massive COST associated with these wasteful processes. The COST of this process is already more than the much lower COST associated with moving bits on the internet.
Here's the core of the distribution argument: Shifting a 4-8GB file is cheaper to do electronically than physically. Everything else follows from that.
Flashback to the 1800s. Someone figured it was cheaper to move goods and people via railroad than on horses.
Problem: There isn't enough capacity in rail network.
You either: Increase the capacity of the rail network or conclude that horses are the future. And try to breed a really big horse.
C.
And they were laying track for a long time.
Eventually it did come to pass. Which is what I've been saying. It just will take awhile. Long enough for BD to become entrenched. So if it's going to go somewhere it'll have that chance to find out.
Will BD become mainstream though that's still a good question. So the real question is when downloading becomes viable enough for mainstream will it have to edge out the new ( really caught on ) DVD or the new ( for videophiles only ) Laserdisc?
And they were laying track for a long time.
Eventually it did come to pass. Which is what I've been saying. It just will take awhile. Long enough for BD to become entrenched. So if it's going to go somewhere it'll have that chance to find out.
Will BD become mainstream though that's still a good question. So the real question is when downloading becomes viable enough for mainstream will it have to edge out the new ( really caught on ) DVD or the new ( for videophiles only ) Laserdisc?
I do agree that it will be some time before the internet replaces TV Broadcast (via Satellite, Antenna and Cable) - Families consume many hours of TV a day and broadcast is still an inexpensive way to shift video in bulk. So I think we will still be seeing broadcast media, of some sort, in 10 years time.
But displacing physical disk distribution can happen much sooner. And has of course is kicking-off with Netflix and Apple in a perfectly viable way. Sony plan to start doing direct downloads soon.
The games industry is about to make a similar transition. The motivation is to cut-out the middle-men retailers who take about half of the revenue (simply for selling a box)
C.
...
Flashback to the 1800s. Someone figured it was cheaper to move goods and people via railroad than on horses.
Problem: There isn't enough capacity in rail network.
You either: Increase the capacity of the rail network or conclude that horses are the future. And try to breed a really big horse.
C.
]
Actually, your analogy is a little off. Railroads put hauling freight by canals obsolete. When the railroads laid sufficient trackage they did become the transportation of choice for moving large loads over distance, but horse cartage was still the norm for short distances and for distribution transportation until it was displaced by the motor vehicle.