FreeSat is interesting, but i would hope it doesnt replace Freeview for 10/20 years after the 2012 switchover...
I'm dubious about Freesat NOT being taken over by SKY/Virgin, and to a lesser extent Telewest. but at least we live in interesting times \
Freesat is available to anyone that wants it for a one-off payment of 100 quid. I expect it to be bundled with TV's and installed in future sets as standard. It doesn't need to replace digital TV anytime soon as it can happily co-exist, unlike analogue and digital as one will be turned off!
Absolutely no chance of Sky taking over Freesat as it's a conglomeration of, amongst others, the BBC. More likely Sky will put some of their lesser channels on there just like they've had to do with Freeview.
Like it or not HD is coming to an HDTV near you SOON!
No, it doesn't hinge on the MPAA. Fox unilaterally allowed sales at $49.95 in 1977 as sell-throughs. Columbia followed in 1979. Long before 1983. Disney had sell-through in 1980.
And which part of they were all sales from the perspective of the studios do you NOT understand? Studios saw no rental revenue until 1988 with revenue sharing.
Here are the top 10 sales for the early 80s. Note that Billboard did not track rentals until 1982.
Then learn to read what you actually find. I even bolded the relevant section for you. There are dates and numbers and if you don't like that particular history site you can find another with support for your position.
Which you can't because there WERE sales from the very beginning and it didn't go from zero to $700M in sales between 1983 and 1985 starting with Wrath of Khan.
Your position is untenable and wrong.
The MPAA is controlled by the studios, not the other way around. It's a trade organization that lobbies in the interest of studios. Not decide what they are going to do.
The members are competitors and not monolithic (or they'd have backed only one format from the get go). If Disney wants sales, then that's what they'll do. Just as Fox did in 1977 and the MPAA won't say Boo.
Look the page I quoted for you said the first movie for " Sell Through ". So what did you think that meant? I also remember you couldn't buy first run just released to video movies for years without paying the video store price so please it wasn't long ago. There might of been isolated cases ( like clubs ) but compared to really selling movies to the general public as a regular practice it's nothing.
" Sell through refers to sales made directly (Direct sales). Sell in, on the other hand, refers to sales made through a channel. "
Also : " In the home video industry, sell-through refers to units which are sold directly to consumers, rather than to stores that rent them out. Sell-through priced videocassettes were generally under $30 in the United States, as contrasted with full-priced titles, generally priced at over $80 retail. With the coming of movies on DVD, sell-through pricing became the norm for DVDs in the United States. "
So you're so good at this how was " The Godfather " sold and what for in 1980?
In 1987 the movie " Aliens " wasn't available on disc yet. The only way you could get it was on VHS. It cost $90.00. I know I liked the movie so much I had to pay that. So give me an extra big break!
All of these studios are members of the MPAA and have to listen to them.
From that page on how they feel about file sharing :
" Other critics attack the MPAA for its action on copyright issues. They claim that it inhibits legitimate uses of its products through laws such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and that it is too draconian in pursuing copyright infringers. The MPAA replies that it is attempting only to limit the reduction in profits caused by file sharing and other types of copyright infringement although enough valid arguments exist to make its moves highly controversial. In 2006, the MPAA's moral authority on this subject was questioned. Filmmaker Kirby Dick's documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated, itself an attack on the ratings system, was submitted for rating consideration. The organization then made unauthorized copies of it for certain employees of the MPAA itself.[3]
The MPAA was responsible for a police raid on the servers that hosted a Torrent Tracking website called The Pirate Bay on May 31, 2006 by pressuring the Swedish government (where the servers were located) to take action. The Pirate Bay, in response, claimed that they had no basis for the seizure, and were back up and running on backups two days later. The MPAA issued a press release shortly after this raid in which they stated that they lost 6.1 billion dollars nation wide to piracy in 2005, and that internet piracy alone had cost the studios 2.3 billion.[4] However, contrary to MPAA statements, several studies and commentators have concluded that one download hardly equals one lost sale, since many downloaders would not purchase the movie if illegal downloading weren't an option.[5][6][7] This is especially true considering that a good portion ($1.4 billion) of the $6.1 billion figure represents what could be viewed as simply making a non-commercial backup, either virtually on a device or physically on another disc, which is protected under United States law. These numbers are further suspicious due to the private nature of the study, which cannot be publicly checked for methodology or validity.[8][9][10] "
I'm hoping that if downloads become the normal way people get movies that it's not just renting because that will not be the mainstream method. People still like to own. But they'll have to figure out some way of doing it that will make it convenient for the consumer and satisfy their fears of piracy. I haven't heard how yet.
I do remember about sell through and when it really was tried in a serious fashion and that page proved it so just stop. Look I've asked several questions on several points which you've haven't been able to answer except with " You're wrong ", trying to say something that's just not true, or partial facts. It's all your opinion. I came back with complete facts. Your approach seems like the debate team equivalent of talking loud enough to drown out the opposition. That doesn't win arguments. Only facts and logic do that. So as far as I'm concerned I won this a long time ago.
So taking a page from your book " You're just wrong ". And that's all there is to it.
Freesat is available to anyone that wants it for a one-off payment of 100 quid. I expect it to be bundled with TV's and installed in future sets as standard. It doesn't need to replace digital TV anytime soon as it can happily co-exist, unlike analogue and digital as one will be turned off!
Absolutely no chance of Sky taking over Freesat as it's a conglomeration of, amongst others, the BBC. More likely Sky will put some of their lesser channels on there just like they've had to do with Freeview.
Like it or not HD is coming to an HDTV near you SOON!
Sorry If you misunderstood or I wasn't clear, but I'd be very happy for HD broadcast to come soon
Its the adoption rates I'm concerned about "so soon" after (or in a lot of cases BEFORE) Freeview has even had a chance to get its feet under the table.
Also repeater towers usually don't fall out of the sky satellites do, but dang it, now I'm sounding like Jim
Me too! Watching SD TV on mine (and many) HDTV's often gives a considerably worse picture than an old CRT set, particularly on the channels with lower bandwidth. DVD's looked the same before I got an upscaling player. I think there are some upscaling Freeview/set top options to do the same for broadcast TV.
Is there such a thing as a stand-alone scaler? My Dad has the 37" Westinghouse that doesn't seem to scale anything on its own. HIs satellite looks horrible for instance.
Is there such a thing as a stand-alone scaler? My Dad has the 37" Westinghouse that doesn't seem to scale anything on its own. HIs satellite looks horrible for instance.
Is there such a thing as a stand-alone scaler? My Dad has the 37" Westinghouse that doesn't seem to scale anything on its own. HIs satellite looks horrible for instance.
The Sony PS3 is getting a TV upscaling device in Europe that also turns it into some kind of Tivo.
Look the page I quoted for you said the first movie for " Sell Through ". So what did you think that meant? I also remember you couldn't buy first run just released to video movies for years without paying the video store price so please it wasn't long ago. There might of been isolated cases ( like clubs ) but compared to really selling movies to the general public as a regular practice it's nothing.
You said no buying not the more limited "sell-though" pricing structure. However, the initial sales were to the consumer for $49.95. It wasn't isolated except from the standpoint that ALL sales and rentals were "isolated". Initial rental availability was just as limited.
Mann noted that the sell-through vs. rental controversy dates back to the beginning of the home video industry.
"In August of 1980, nearly 16 years ago, Billboard magazine was reporting on topics [with headlines] that read something like this: `Walt Disney to tackle rent/sell quandary,"' Mann said. "While manufacturers since that time have adopted programs to sell video for both rental and sell-through, the fact remains that at retail, for many stores, they are still separate businesses."
Disney tapes were white clamshells for sales and blue clamshells for rentals. Disney was also unique during that period since studios were trying to STOP rentals and lobbied for laws prohibiting rental of sold tapes.
So videos WERE sold directly to consumers even from the beginning. Pricing and strategy changed over time.
Quote:
So you're so good at this how was " The Godfather " sold and what for in 1980?
Doesn't matter does it? Billboard was tracking SALES which implies that the number was nonzero. Again, you said that no one was buying and Billboard and other historical sources disagrees.
Quote:
All of these studios are members of the MPAA and have to listen to them.
No, they don't except on the voluntary rating system. If Fox wants to do video sales, it does video sales. If Disney wants to sell HD video over iTunes then Disney will do that.
This is one of the dumbest positions you've taken where you give the MPAA dictatorial powers over what the studios can and can't do with their own IP.
From that page on how they feel about file sharing :
" Other critics attack the MPAA for its action on copyright issues. They claim that it inhibits legitimate uses of its products through laws such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and that it is too draconian in pursuing copyright infringers. The MPAA replies that it is attempting only to limit the reduction in profits caused by file sharing and other types of copyright infringement although enough valid arguments exist to make its moves highly controversial."
This has zero to do with studios selling their OWN material via downloads. iTunes is NOT filesharing.
Jeez.
Quote:
I'm hoping that if downloads become the normal way people get movies that it's not just renting because that will not be the mainstream method. People still like to own. But they'll have to figure out some way of doing it that will make it convenient for the consumer and satisfy their fears of piracy. I haven't heard how yet.
And you just got done claiming that the rentals was ALL that happened with videos (ie the mainstream method). You aren't even internally consistent.
You haven't heard how? It's called DRM. It's on iTunes. If you can secure iTunes HD rentals then you can secure iTunes HD sales because the rental DRM has to be equally strong or you just sold a HD copy of a movie for $6.99.
If the studios were concerned about 720p downloads being secure enough against piracy then there would be NO HD rentals on iTunes.
Quote:
I do remember about sell through and when it really was tried in a serious fashion and that page proved it so just stop. Look I've asked several questions on several points which you've haven't been able to answer except with " You're wrong ", trying to say something that's just not true, or partial facts. It's all your opinion. I came back with complete facts.
At every point where I say you're wrong I include the reason and supporting data. And your facts often contradict your position which is most amusing.
Quote:
Your approach seems like the debate team equivalent of talking loud enough to drown out the opposition. That doesn't win arguments. Only facts and logic do that. So as far as I'm concerned I won this a long time ago.
I believe you are alone in that assessment.
Especially given your lack of facts and spectacularly erroneous logic...
Notice we gained on DVD 2%! At this rate, Blu-ray will have 80% marketshare by the end of the year over DVD! I know, I know higly unlikely, but that is the current rate!
You said no buying not the more limited "sell-though" pricing structure. However, the initial sales were to the consumer for $49.95. It wasn't isolated except from the standpoint that ALL sales and rentals were "isolated". Initial rental availability was just as limited.
Disney tapes were white clamshells for sales and blue clamshells for rentals. Disney was also unique during that period since studios were trying to STOP rentals and lobbied for laws prohibiting rental of sold tapes.
So videos WERE sold directly to consumers even from the beginning. Pricing and strategy changed over time.
Doesn't matter does it? Billboard was tracking SALES which implies that the number was nonzero. Again, you said that no one was buying and Billboard and other historical sources disagrees.
No, they don't except on the voluntary rating system. If Fox wants to do video sales, it does video sales. If Disney wants to sell HD video over iTunes then Disney will do that.
This is one of the dumbest positions you've taken where you give the MPAA dictatorial powers over what the studios can and can't do with their own IP.
This has zero to do with studios selling their OWN material via downloads. iTunes is NOT filesharing.
Jeez.
And you just got done claiming that the rentals was ALL that happened with videos (ie the mainstream method). You aren't even internally consistent.
You haven't heard how? It's called DRM. It's on iTunes. If you can secure iTunes HD rentals then you can secure iTunes HD sales because the rental DRM has to be equally strong or you just sold a HD copy of a movie for $6.99.
If the studios were concerned about 720p downloads being secure enough against piracy then there would be NO HD rentals on iTunes.
At every point where I say you're wrong I include the reason and supporting data. And your facts often contradict your position which is most amusing.
I believe you are alone in that assessment.
Especially given your lack of facts and spectacularly erroneous logic...
" You haven't heard how? It's called DRM. It's on iTunes. If you can secure iTunes HD rentals then you can secure iTunes HD sales because the rental DRM has to be equally strong or you just sold a HD copy of a movie for $6.99. "
So these HD videos from iTunes currently can be burned to a DVD so you can watch them on a regular tv of your choice? That would be something I haven't heard. I thought there was no way to legally burn videos from iTunes ( the piracy thing and all ). Now I have heard of DRM free music on iTunes and I've bought a few albums like that.
Anyway we are ultimately talking about HD sales downloaded from the web and somehow transfered to another medium so you can play them anywhere anytime right?
Me too! Watching SD TV on mine (and many) HDTV's often gives a considerably worse picture than an old CRT set, particularly on the channels with lower bandwidth. DVD's looked the same before I got an upscaling player. I think there are some upscaling Freeview/set top options to do the same for broadcast TV.
ITV 4 has some old 60s stuff on it I'd LOVE to watch.. but the bit rate is stupidly reduced, its such a shame really.. although its not the worst offender.
BBC News24 YUK! I found it ok to acceptable on a 32"CRT, but on a 50" its horrible.
still, having the access is way better than the 3 channels! just a shame that the progress in choice has resulted in the dilution of quality.
Anyway we are ultimately talking about HD sales downloaded from the web and somehow transfered to another medium so you can play them anywhere anytime right?
No, we're not. That's an artifical requirement on your part for HD movie sales.
HD download movie sales will happen with or without managed copy.
No, we're not. That's an artifical requirement on your part for HD movie sales.
HD download movie sales will happen with or without managed copy.
No it's not! It's the same convenience we enjoy today. Without it I seriously doubt people will go for it because of the reasons I've already listed. No one is going to go down a path where the only way you can own a movie is by owning additional proprietary equipment when they can take and play their physical media anywhere there's a similar player. It just won't catch on to that degree. Look at Divx DVD ( not the codec ). It suffered from the same thing. It's cheap but you're really limited in how and where you can play it. So it died quickly. It could be one way of doing it but not the mainstream for the masses way. It's way too cumbersome. If that's the case the mainstream will stay with physical media. Where you can play it at your house on any TV that has a player hooked up or at a friend's house where there's a good chance you'll find a similar player there.
Now say if they said it was ok to download the file transfer it on a iPod like device to any TV that might work. But in the transfer process the studios would have the same fear of piracy. So some form of fool proof anticopy measure would have to be in place. But if you can transfer it to any tv how would that be possible?
Back in the 80's Macrovision was based on a idea that TV's have an AGC ( automatic gain ciontrol ) that regulates how many frames per second it displays. VCRs of the time have a similar device but more sensitive. TVs could drift faster or slower in their frame rates a bit but VCRs had to be right on. When a tape was played and run to the TV it looked fine. But when you tried to run it to another VCR the varing frame rate made the picture unwatchable. That's how they defeated copying back then. Of course not all VCRs reacted this way and of course someone marketed a box that restored the frame rate so there you go.
No it's not! It's the same convenience we enjoy today. Without it I seriously doubt people will go for it because of the reasons I've already listed.
And iTunes (on a laptop) provides streaming to a friend's aTV when you visit. In the future, with more powerful iPod touches they'll be able to do the same.
But its not a requirement to be able to transfer the movie anyway in the digital age. You need to be able to transfer authorization to download and play assuming the bandwidth is present to support downloads to begin with.
Quote:
No one is going to go down a path where the only way you can own a movie is by owning additional proprietary equipment...
You mean like a DVD or BluRay player?
Quote:
Look at Divx DVD ( not the codec ). It suffered from the same thing. It's cheap but you're really limited in how and where you can play it. So it died quickly.
No, its not the same thing. Divx was pay-Per-View on a physical media. Not digital downloads that you could own.
Quote:
Now say if they said it was ok to download the file transfer it on a iPod like device to any TV that might work. But in the transfer process the studios would have the same fear of piracy. So some form of fool proof anticopy measure would have to be in place. But if you can transfer it to any tv how would that be possible?
No DRM is perfect as shown by the breaking of BD+ recently and iTunes/aTV already can do this at a secure enough level. You also don't "transfer" it to a TV, you PLAY it on a TV. The movie stays on the secure device that is authorized to play it.
Quote:
The anti piracy thing is a sticky issue.
But not insurmountable since there ARE already HD digital download rentals. The anti-piracy protection on the rental are sufficiently secure for the studios or they never would have released those titles.
Again, we're also talking about 720p HD not 1080p which still aren't equal to the original masters anyway.
Given that Blu-Ray DRM is broken already the whole "piracy will kill 720p movie downloads" thing by you is completely overblown.
And iTunes (on a laptop) provides streaming to a friend's aTV when you visit. In the future, with more powerful iPod touches they'll be able to do the same.
But its not a requirement to be able to transfer the movie anyway in the digital age. You need to be able to transfer authorization to download and play assuming the bandwidth is present to support downloads to begin with.
You mean like a DVD or BluRay player?
No, its not the same thing. Divx was pay-Per-View on a physical media. Not digital downloads that you could own.
No DRM is perfect as shown by the breaking of BD+ recently and iTunes/aTV already can do this at a secure enough level. You also don't "transfer" it to a TV, you PLAY it on a TV. The movie stays on the secure device that is authorized to play it.
But not insurmountable since there ARE already HD digital download rentals. The anti-piracy protection on the rental are sufficiently secure for the studios or they never would have released those titles.
Again, we're also talking about 720p HD not 1080p which still aren't equal to the original masters anyway.
Given that Blu-Ray DRM is broken already the whole "piracy will kill 720p movie downloads" thing by you is completely overblown.
" And iTunes (on a laptop) provides streaming to a friend's aTV when you visit. In the future, with more powerful iPod touches they'll be able to do the same. "
Ok here we are at the heart of the matter. What if your friend doesn't have Apple TV or an iPod? Are you assuming everyone will in the future?
Also You'll remember I said without propriatary equipment It's like you're trying to build your case on the idea that everyone will have Apple equipment.
Look everyone will have a TV and a physical media player ( like a DVD player ) in common. So Gotcha!
" No, its not the same thing. Divx was pay-Per-View on a physical media. Not digital downloads that you could own. "
Sigh! It's the limitations!
You're just dancing around the obvious.
" But not insurmountable since there ARE already HD digital download rentals. The anti-piracy protection on the rental are sufficiently secure for the studios or they never would have released those titles. "
Sigh ( again )!
That's the beauty of renting for these studios. When all you're doing is renting there's no need to transfer this to anything so you can play this ( or loan this ) on your friend's TV ( without Apple TV or an iPod because he never got into those ). You're building your case on the idea that everyone will buy Apple equipment which much as I like Apple we know that's not very likely to happen. However everyone will have a TV and physical media player in common ( like the DVD or BR ).
" Given that Blu-Ray DRM is broken already the whole "piracy will kill 720p movie downloads" thing by you is completely overblown "
No it won't kill it. Just limit it to renting.
" You mean like a DVD or BluRay player? "
Nope! A DVD player is something that most everyone owns. More people own those by far than iPods or Apple TV.
And I'm hoping that BR makes the right moves and becomes mainstream so most everybody has one of those in common as well. So someday when I want to take my BR disc of the new Star Trek movie over to my friend Dave's house ( because he can't leave or he got a new TV or whatever ) he'll have his own BR player sitting there and playing it will be no trouble at all.
Notice we gained on DVD 2%! At this rate, Blu-ray will have 80% marketshare by the end of the year over DVD! I know, I know higly unlikely, but that is the current rate!
Nicely done. In a week with crap movies available they gained 2%. I'm sure it will fluctuate, but it's a stepping stone towards the inevitable. The inevitable that so many are still denying. Just like they were when HD-DVD was dead.
Nicely done. In a week with crap movies available they gained 2%. I'm sure it will fluctuate, but it's a stepping stone towards the inevitable. The inevitable that so many are still denying. Just like they were when HD-DVD was dead.
It would be nice if the same stats can be applied when looking at top 30 or even 50 ranking. When a decent sample size can be monitored, in the size of at least top 100, the HDM proportion will shrink even further. I'd be surprised if the HDM volume can make up even 3% when looking at the representable sample size. However, if 8% is truly representable value against DVD sales, then it's either a huge progress for the HDM market or the indication of shrinking DVD market, or both?
Comments
FreeSat is interesting, but i would hope it doesnt replace Freeview for 10/20 years after the 2012 switchover...
I'm dubious about Freesat NOT being taken over by SKY/Virgin, and to a lesser extent Telewest. but at least we live in interesting times
Freesat is available to anyone that wants it for a one-off payment of 100 quid. I expect it to be bundled with TV's and installed in future sets as standard. It doesn't need to replace digital TV anytime soon as it can happily co-exist, unlike analogue and digital as one will be turned off!
Absolutely no chance of Sky taking over Freesat as it's a conglomeration of, amongst others, the BBC. More likely Sky will put some of their lesser channels on there just like they've had to do with Freeview.
Like it or not HD is coming to an HDTV near you SOON!
No, it doesn't hinge on the MPAA. Fox unilaterally allowed sales at $49.95 in 1977 as sell-throughs. Columbia followed in 1979. Long before 1983. Disney had sell-through in 1980.
And which part of they were all sales from the perspective of the studios do you NOT understand? Studios saw no rental revenue until 1988 with revenue sharing.
Here are the top 10 sales for the early 80s. Note that Billboard did not track rentals until 1982.
http://www.inthe80s.com/vidtop10.shtml
Then learn to read what you actually find. I even bolded the relevant section for you. There are dates and numbers and if you don't like that particular history site you can find another with support for your position.
Which you can't because there WERE sales from the very beginning and it didn't go from zero to $700M in sales between 1983 and 1985 starting with Wrath of Khan.
Your position is untenable and wrong.
The MPAA is controlled by the studios, not the other way around. It's a trade organization that lobbies in the interest of studios. Not decide what they are going to do.
The members are competitors and not monolithic (or they'd have backed only one format from the get go). If Disney wants sales, then that's what they'll do. Just as Fox did in 1977 and the MPAA won't say Boo.
Look the page I quoted for you said the first movie for " Sell Through ". So what did you think that meant? I also remember you couldn't buy first run just released to video movies for years without paying the video store price so please it wasn't long ago. There might of been isolated cases ( like clubs ) but compared to really selling movies to the general public as a regular practice it's nothing.
Read the definition of Sell through.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sell-through
" Sell through refers to sales made directly (Direct sales). Sell in, on the other hand, refers to sales made through a channel. "
Also : " In the home video industry, sell-through refers to units which are sold directly to consumers, rather than to stores that rent them out. Sell-through priced videocassettes were generally under $30 in the United States, as contrasted with full-priced titles, generally priced at over $80 retail. With the coming of movies on DVD, sell-through pricing became the norm for DVDs in the United States. "
So you're so good at this how was " The Godfather " sold and what for in 1980?
In 1987 the movie " Aliens " wasn't available on disc yet. The only way you could get it was on VHS. It cost $90.00. I know I liked the movie so much I had to pay that. So give me an extra big break!
All of these studios are members of the MPAA and have to listen to them.
About the MPAA :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPAA
From that page on how they feel about file sharing :
" Other critics attack the MPAA for its action on copyright issues. They claim that it inhibits legitimate uses of its products through laws such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and that it is too draconian in pursuing copyright infringers. The MPAA replies that it is attempting only to limit the reduction in profits caused by file sharing and other types of copyright infringement although enough valid arguments exist to make its moves highly controversial. In 2006, the MPAA's moral authority on this subject was questioned. Filmmaker Kirby Dick's documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated, itself an attack on the ratings system, was submitted for rating consideration. The organization then made unauthorized copies of it for certain employees of the MPAA itself.[3]
The MPAA was responsible for a police raid on the servers that hosted a Torrent Tracking website called The Pirate Bay on May 31, 2006 by pressuring the Swedish government (where the servers were located) to take action. The Pirate Bay, in response, claimed that they had no basis for the seizure, and were back up and running on backups two days later. The MPAA issued a press release shortly after this raid in which they stated that they lost 6.1 billion dollars nation wide to piracy in 2005, and that internet piracy alone had cost the studios 2.3 billion.[4] However, contrary to MPAA statements, several studies and commentators have concluded that one download hardly equals one lost sale, since many downloaders would not purchase the movie if illegal downloading weren't an option.[5][6][7] This is especially true considering that a good portion ($1.4 billion) of the $6.1 billion figure represents what could be viewed as simply making a non-commercial backup, either virtually on a device or physically on another disc, which is protected under United States law. These numbers are further suspicious due to the private nature of the study, which cannot be publicly checked for methodology or validity.[8][9][10] "
I'm hoping that if downloads become the normal way people get movies that it's not just renting because that will not be the mainstream method. People still like to own. But they'll have to figure out some way of doing it that will make it convenient for the consumer and satisfy their fears of piracy. I haven't heard how yet.
I do remember about sell through and when it really was tried in a serious fashion and that page proved it so just stop. Look I've asked several questions on several points which you've haven't been able to answer except with " You're wrong ", trying to say something that's just not true, or partial facts. It's all your opinion. I came back with complete facts. Your approach seems like the debate team equivalent of talking loud enough to drown out the opposition. That doesn't win arguments. Only facts and logic do that. So as far as I'm concerned I won this a long time ago.
So taking a page from your book " You're just wrong ". And that's all there is to it.
Sorry.
Freesat is available to anyone that wants it for a one-off payment of 100 quid. I expect it to be bundled with TV's and installed in future sets as standard. It doesn't need to replace digital TV anytime soon as it can happily co-exist, unlike analogue and digital as one will be turned off!
Absolutely no chance of Sky taking over Freesat as it's a conglomeration of, amongst others, the BBC. More likely Sky will put some of their lesser channels on there just like they've had to do with Freeview.
Like it or not HD is coming to an HDTV near you SOON!
Sorry If you misunderstood or I wasn't clear, but I'd be very happy for HD broadcast to come soon
Its the adoption rates I'm concerned about "so soon" after (or in a lot of cases BEFORE) Freeview has even had a chance to get its feet under the table.
Also repeater towers usually don't fall out of the sky
I'd be very happy for HD broadcast to come soon
Me too! Watching SD TV on mine (and many) HDTV's often gives a considerably worse picture than an old CRT set, particularly on the channels with lower bandwidth. DVD's looked the same before I got an upscaling player. I think there are some upscaling Freeview/set top options to do the same for broadcast TV.
Is there such a thing as a stand-alone scaler? My Dad has the 37" Westinghouse that doesn't seem to scale anything on its own. HIs satellite looks horrible for instance.
http://www.anchorbaytech.com/products/systems/
Is there such a thing as a stand-alone scaler? My Dad has the 37" Westinghouse that doesn't seem to scale anything on its own. HIs satellite looks horrible for instance.
The Sony PS3 is getting a TV upscaling device in Europe that also turns it into some kind of Tivo.
Look the page I quoted for you said the first movie for " Sell Through ". So what did you think that meant? I also remember you couldn't buy first run just released to video movies for years without paying the video store price so please it wasn't long ago. There might of been isolated cases ( like clubs ) but compared to really selling movies to the general public as a regular practice it's nothing.
You said no buying not the more limited "sell-though" pricing structure. However, the initial sales were to the consumer for $49.95. It wasn't isolated except from the standpoint that ALL sales and rentals were "isolated". Initial rental availability was just as limited.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m..._18563551]Link
Mann noted that the sell-through vs. rental controversy dates back to the beginning of the home video industry.
"In August of 1980, nearly 16 years ago, Billboard magazine was reporting on topics [with headlines] that read something like this: `Walt Disney to tackle rent/sell quandary,"' Mann said. "While manufacturers since that time have adopted programs to sell video for both rental and sell-through, the fact remains that at retail, for many stores, they are still separate businesses."
Disney tapes were white clamshells for sales and blue clamshells for rentals. Disney was also unique during that period since studios were trying to STOP rentals and lobbied for laws prohibiting rental of sold tapes.
So videos WERE sold directly to consumers even from the beginning. Pricing and strategy changed over time.
So you're so good at this how was " The Godfather " sold and what for in 1980?
Doesn't matter does it? Billboard was tracking SALES which implies that the number was nonzero. Again, you said that no one was buying and Billboard and other historical sources disagrees.
All of these studios are members of the MPAA and have to listen to them.
No, they don't except on the voluntary rating system. If Fox wants to do video sales, it does video sales. If Disney wants to sell HD video over iTunes then Disney will do that.
This is one of the dumbest positions you've taken where you give the MPAA dictatorial powers over what the studios can and can't do with their own IP.
About the MPAA :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPAA
From that page on how they feel about file sharing :
" Other critics attack the MPAA for its action on copyright issues. They claim that it inhibits legitimate uses of its products through laws such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and that it is too draconian in pursuing copyright infringers. The MPAA replies that it is attempting only to limit the reduction in profits caused by file sharing and other types of copyright infringement although enough valid arguments exist to make its moves highly controversial."
This has zero to do with studios selling their OWN material via downloads. iTunes is NOT filesharing.
Jeez.
I'm hoping that if downloads become the normal way people get movies that it's not just renting because that will not be the mainstream method. People still like to own. But they'll have to figure out some way of doing it that will make it convenient for the consumer and satisfy their fears of piracy. I haven't heard how yet.
And you just got done claiming that the rentals was ALL that happened with videos (ie the mainstream method). You aren't even internally consistent.
You haven't heard how? It's called DRM. It's on iTunes. If you can secure iTunes HD rentals then you can secure iTunes HD sales because the rental DRM has to be equally strong or you just sold a HD copy of a movie for $6.99.
If the studios were concerned about 720p downloads being secure enough against piracy then there would be NO HD rentals on iTunes.
I do remember about sell through and when it really was tried in a serious fashion and that page proved it so just stop. Look I've asked several questions on several points which you've haven't been able to answer except with " You're wrong ", trying to say something that's just not true, or partial facts. It's all your opinion. I came back with complete facts.
At every point where I say you're wrong I include the reason and supporting data. And your facts often contradict your position which is most amusing.
Your approach seems like the debate team equivalent of talking loud enough to drown out the opposition. That doesn't win arguments. Only facts and logic do that. So as far as I'm concerned I won this a long time ago.
I believe you are alone in that assessment.
Especially given your lack of facts and spectacularly erroneous logic...
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/ques...0608/index.php
WE: BD-84% HDD-16% YTD: BD---% HDD---% SI: BD-67% HDD-33%
Notice we gained on DVD 2%! At this rate, Blu-ray will have 80% marketshare by the end of the year over DVD!
Stop laughing.
Yes, it's actually for them to use.
You said no buying not the more limited "sell-though" pricing structure. However, the initial sales were to the consumer for $49.95. It wasn't isolated except from the standpoint that ALL sales and rentals were "isolated". Initial rental availability was just as limited.
Disney tapes were white clamshells for sales and blue clamshells for rentals. Disney was also unique during that period since studios were trying to STOP rentals and lobbied for laws prohibiting rental of sold tapes.
So videos WERE sold directly to consumers even from the beginning. Pricing and strategy changed over time.
Doesn't matter does it? Billboard was tracking SALES which implies that the number was nonzero. Again, you said that no one was buying and Billboard and other historical sources disagrees.
No, they don't except on the voluntary rating system. If Fox wants to do video sales, it does video sales. If Disney wants to sell HD video over iTunes then Disney will do that.
This is one of the dumbest positions you've taken where you give the MPAA dictatorial powers over what the studios can and can't do with their own IP.
This has zero to do with studios selling their OWN material via downloads. iTunes is NOT filesharing.
Jeez.
And you just got done claiming that the rentals was ALL that happened with videos (ie the mainstream method). You aren't even internally consistent.
You haven't heard how? It's called DRM. It's on iTunes. If you can secure iTunes HD rentals then you can secure iTunes HD sales because the rental DRM has to be equally strong or you just sold a HD copy of a movie for $6.99.
If the studios were concerned about 720p downloads being secure enough against piracy then there would be NO HD rentals on iTunes.
At every point where I say you're wrong I include the reason and supporting data. And your facts often contradict your position which is most amusing.
I believe you are alone in that assessment.
Especially given your lack of facts and spectacularly erroneous logic...
" You haven't heard how? It's called DRM. It's on iTunes. If you can secure iTunes HD rentals then you can secure iTunes HD sales because the rental DRM has to be equally strong or you just sold a HD copy of a movie for $6.99. "
So these HD videos from iTunes currently can be burned to a DVD so you can watch them on a regular tv of your choice? That would be something I haven't heard. I thought there was no way to legally burn videos from iTunes ( the piracy thing and all ). Now I have heard of DRM free music on iTunes and I've bought a few albums like that.
Anyway we are ultimately talking about HD sales downloaded from the web and somehow transfered to another medium so you can play them anywhere anytime right?
Why is this thread still going?
Come on. People are still talking about the Newton. What do you expect from Apple fans?
Me too! Watching SD TV on mine (and many) HDTV's often gives a considerably worse picture than an old CRT set, particularly on the channels with lower bandwidth. DVD's looked the same before I got an upscaling player. I think there are some upscaling Freeview/set top options to do the same for broadcast TV.
ITV 4 has some old 60s stuff on it I'd LOVE to watch.. but the bit rate is stupidly reduced, its such a shame really.. although its not the worst offender.
BBC News24 YUK! I found it ok to acceptable on a 32"CRT, but on a 50" its horrible.
still, having the access is way better than the 3 channels!
Anyway we are ultimately talking about HD sales downloaded from the web and somehow transfered to another medium so you can play them anywhere anytime right?
No, we're not. That's an artifical requirement on your part for HD movie sales.
HD download movie sales will happen with or without managed copy.
No, we're not. That's an artifical requirement on your part for HD movie sales.
HD download movie sales will happen with or without managed copy.
No it's not! It's the same convenience we enjoy today. Without it I seriously doubt people will go for it because of the reasons I've already listed. No one is going to go down a path where the only way you can own a movie is by owning additional proprietary equipment when they can take and play their physical media anywhere there's a similar player. It just won't catch on to that degree. Look at Divx DVD ( not the codec ). It suffered from the same thing. It's cheap but you're really limited in how and where you can play it. So it died quickly. It could be one way of doing it but not the mainstream for the masses way. It's way too cumbersome. If that's the case the mainstream will stay with physical media. Where you can play it at your house on any TV that has a player hooked up or at a friend's house where there's a good chance you'll find a similar player there.
Now say if they said it was ok to download the file transfer it on a iPod like device to any TV that might work. But in the transfer process the studios would have the same fear of piracy. So some form of fool proof anticopy measure would have to be in place. But if you can transfer it to any tv how would that be possible?
Back in the 80's Macrovision was based on a idea that TV's have an AGC ( automatic gain ciontrol ) that regulates how many frames per second it displays. VCRs of the time have a similar device but more sensitive. TVs could drift faster or slower in their frame rates a bit but VCRs had to be right on. When a tape was played and run to the TV it looked fine. But when you tried to run it to another VCR the varing frame rate made the picture unwatchable. That's how they defeated copying back then. Of course not all VCRs reacted this way and of course someone marketed a box that restored the frame rate so there you go.
The anti piracy thing is a sticky issue.
No it's not! It's the same convenience we enjoy today. Without it I seriously doubt people will go for it because of the reasons I've already listed.
And iTunes (on a laptop) provides streaming to a friend's aTV when you visit. In the future, with more powerful iPod touches they'll be able to do the same.
But its not a requirement to be able to transfer the movie anyway in the digital age. You need to be able to transfer authorization to download and play assuming the bandwidth is present to support downloads to begin with.
No one is going to go down a path where the only way you can own a movie is by owning additional proprietary equipment...
You mean like a DVD or BluRay player?
Look at Divx DVD ( not the codec ). It suffered from the same thing. It's cheap but you're really limited in how and where you can play it. So it died quickly.
No, its not the same thing. Divx was pay-Per-View on a physical media. Not digital downloads that you could own.
Now say if they said it was ok to download the file transfer it on a iPod like device to any TV that might work. But in the transfer process the studios would have the same fear of piracy. So some form of fool proof anticopy measure would have to be in place. But if you can transfer it to any tv how would that be possible?
No DRM is perfect as shown by the breaking of BD+ recently and iTunes/aTV already can do this at a secure enough level. You also don't "transfer" it to a TV, you PLAY it on a TV. The movie stays on the secure device that is authorized to play it.
The anti piracy thing is a sticky issue.
But not insurmountable since there ARE already HD digital download rentals. The anti-piracy protection on the rental are sufficiently secure for the studios or they never would have released those titles.
Again, we're also talking about 720p HD not 1080p which still aren't equal to the original masters anyway.
Given that Blu-Ray DRM is broken already the whole "piracy will kill 720p movie downloads" thing by you is completely overblown.
And iTunes (on a laptop) provides streaming to a friend's aTV when you visit. In the future, with more powerful iPod touches they'll be able to do the same.
But its not a requirement to be able to transfer the movie anyway in the digital age. You need to be able to transfer authorization to download and play assuming the bandwidth is present to support downloads to begin with.
You mean like a DVD or BluRay player?
No, its not the same thing. Divx was pay-Per-View on a physical media. Not digital downloads that you could own.
No DRM is perfect as shown by the breaking of BD+ recently and iTunes/aTV already can do this at a secure enough level. You also don't "transfer" it to a TV, you PLAY it on a TV. The movie stays on the secure device that is authorized to play it.
But not insurmountable since there ARE already HD digital download rentals. The anti-piracy protection on the rental are sufficiently secure for the studios or they never would have released those titles.
Again, we're also talking about 720p HD not 1080p which still aren't equal to the original masters anyway.
Given that Blu-Ray DRM is broken already the whole "piracy will kill 720p movie downloads" thing by you is completely overblown.
" And iTunes (on a laptop) provides streaming to a friend's aTV when you visit. In the future, with more powerful iPod touches they'll be able to do the same. "
Ok here we are at the heart of the matter. What if your friend doesn't have Apple TV or an iPod? Are you assuming everyone will in the future?
Also You'll remember I said without propriatary equipment
Look everyone will have a TV and a physical media player ( like a DVD player ) in common. So Gotcha!
" No, its not the same thing. Divx was pay-Per-View on a physical media. Not digital downloads that you could own. "
Sigh! It's the limitations!
You're just dancing around the obvious.
" But not insurmountable since there ARE already HD digital download rentals. The anti-piracy protection on the rental are sufficiently secure for the studios or they never would have released those titles. "
Sigh ( again )!
That's the beauty of renting for these studios. When all you're doing is renting there's no need to transfer this to anything so you can play this ( or loan this ) on your friend's TV ( without Apple TV or an iPod because he never got into those ). You're building your case on the idea that everyone will buy Apple equipment which much as I like Apple we know that's not very likely to happen. However everyone will have a TV and physical media player in common ( like the DVD or BR ).
" Given that Blu-Ray DRM is broken already the whole "piracy will kill 720p movie downloads" thing by you is completely overblown "
No it won't kill it. Just limit it to renting.
" You mean like a DVD or BluRay player? "
Nope! A DVD player is something that most everyone owns. More people own those by far than iPods or Apple TV.
And I'm hoping that BR makes the right moves and becomes mainstream so most everybody has one of those in common as well. So someday when I want to take my BR disc of the new Star Trek movie over to my friend Dave's house ( because he can't leave or he got a new TV or whatever ) he'll have his own BR player sitting there and playing it will be no trouble at all.
Now please tell me you understand?
Nielsen/VideoScan Numbers ending March 30th
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/ques...0608/index.php
WE: BD-84% HDD-16% YTD: BD---% HDD---% SI: BD-67% HDD-33%
Notice we gained on DVD 2%! At this rate, Blu-ray will have 80% marketshare by the end of the year over DVD!
Nicely done. In a week with crap movies available they gained 2%. I'm sure it will fluctuate, but it's a stepping stone towards the inevitable. The inevitable that so many are still denying. Just like they were when HD-DVD was dead.
Nicely done. In a week with crap movies available they gained 2%. I'm sure it will fluctuate, but it's a stepping stone towards the inevitable. The inevitable that so many are still denying. Just like they were when HD-DVD was dead.
It would be nice if the same stats can be applied when looking at top 30 or even 50 ranking. When a decent sample size can be monitored, in the size of at least top 100, the HDM proportion will shrink even further. I'd be surprised if the HDM volume can make up even 3% when looking at the representable sample size. However, if 8% is truly representable value against DVD sales, then it's either a huge progress for the HDM market or the indication of shrinking DVD market, or both?