Buying either Netflix or TiVo is a really bad idea.
Apple should allow Netflix to use AppleTV. AppleTV needs a DVR about as much as a DVD player needs a DVR. They perform two different functions and DVR is being dominated by the cable industry. DVD's don't need a DVR because it has easy access to a wide variety of content. This is what Apple TV needs and Apple Inc. has not secured.
If you sit that far away, don't bother with the video scaler. 480 is all you're seeing clearly anyway. 10 feet is the furthest you can sit to see the full 720p rez.
I agree - I really noticed the effect of the video scaler with my CRT front projector (and 120" screen - being sold with house), but not so much with a 50" screen.
I still use it as an hdmi switch though, at least until I buy a new house and get a new front projector.
Apple should allow Netflix to use AppleTV. AppleTV needs a DVR about as much as a DVD player needs a DVR. They perform two different functions and DVR is being dominated by the cable industry. DVD's don't need a DVR because it has easy access to a wide variety of content. This is what Apple TV needs and Apple Inc. has not secured.
Yeah, Apple will make its own service do whatever Netflix could. Apple doesn't want to get into the business of sending DVD's through the mail, and I don't blame them. It's a perilous business.
Apple's only problem is cooperating with the studios, Netflix does that. So, if Apple did buy the service,it would be stuck with two methods it has resisted, and is trying to move away from.
But, now the word is out that Apple is now cooperation with the studios more, which is why Fox might be aboard, if the story is true.
If it's also true that there is a Fairplay copy aboard every DVD Fox will be making, that takes care of the "buy" part. Let Fox determine the price of the DVD and you get a digital file for free.
I said that Apple must cooperate, and I hope the story is true. It's the only way Apple can do this.
I agree - I really noticed the effect of the video scaler with my CRT front projector (and 120" screen - being sold with house), but not so much with a 50" screen.
I still use it as an hdmi switch though, at least until I buy a new house and get a new front projector.
Most people don't seem to understand this, and get really pissed when I tell them, but it's true. My friend Carlton is well known in the industry and has this very good site explaining it:
Will these videos display unskippable FBI warnings, copyright notices, etc? Will they prevent you from skipping chapters or scrolling to any part of the movie that you want?
Will these videos display unskippable FBI warnings, copyright notices, etc? Will they prevent you from skipping chapters or scrolling to any part of the movie that you want?
How are we supposed to know? You read the same stuff we did.
Finally. Sounds pretty good. The user should then be prompted with an alert saying "Your rental movie "x" expires today. If you pay $y today you may keep it. ( Pay ) - - ( Expire ). Still waiting for this movie business to happen internationally though... it's just bla bla over here until the service arrives for real.
I think expiring files would be a big mistake. It's the most offensive and intrusive form of DRM. One of the reasons Netflix ended up kicking Blockbuster's a$$ originally was the elimination of timed rentals. Charge a monthly fee and let users keep files as long as they want to. Then you avoid putting a price tag on a single rental, which is bound to upset people, anyway. Some say $3.99 is too much. Others think $1.99 would be too much. Heck, people are still complaining about $.99 for owning a music track, which is beyond my comprehension. But $10, $12, even $15 or $18 a month doesn't sound so bad to most people, when you consider how many movies you could watch within that time frame.
Then, if you want to offer discounts on movies already rented, just offer a flat $1 or $2 discount on purchases for anyone with a monthly rental account.
I'm sure Apple would be fine with all of this. Whether or not Fox, or any other studio, would allow it is a different story. We'll find out in a couple of weeks.
And as far as resolution goes, don't look for anything beyond what can be played on the current crop of iPods. Apple isn't going to have multiple versions for different devices, and it isn't likely to force people to buy an Apple TV just to watch rentals. Not yet, anyway. They'll want to push the portability as much as anything else as a major advantage over Netflix.
Everyone owns a DVD player. Almost everyone owns an iPod. Not too many people own Apple TVs. Rentals are sure to help Apple TV sales, but not if the Apple TV is the only way to watch those rentals. In that case, the rental scheme will simply fail.
The iPod nano is the lowest common denominator. Which means 640 x 480 for the time being. People have been crying about this for a while now, but I honestly can't see why. The vast majority of the video watching world watches standard def DVDs, which aren't really noticeably better. And with the heavy compression on most HD TV stations, my iTunes TV and movie purchases actually look just as good as anything else I watch.
Universal- Take note of what is happening. 20th Century Fox gets it.
Anyone who uses iTunes will go out of their way to keep it as their software and download vehicle of choice, no matter how hard Universal tries to destroy it.
What Universal does not seem to get is that the iTunes experience is second to none and goes far beyond being a vehicle for downloading only. It is comprehensive in integrating and managing music and media for all it's users after the purchase and download in a way that no retailer can ever compete with. The user experience it provides is nothing short of excellent. Software...
The day will come when Universal will get back with iTunes and most probably in much the same way Disney did...Michael Eisner who butted heads with Steve Jobs over Pixar, was ousted by the board of directors and that's how Disney and Apple became best of partners and Pixar was ultimately bought and merged with Apple, in addition to being a solid and model supplier of content to iTunes.
Universal artists will rise and sue Universal for stifling their careers and acting against their interests. They will also have legitimate ground for breaking their contracts and suing for damages incurred as a result of iTunes lost sales. Ultimately Universal will be cutting their nose to spite their face and loosing out by not being with Apple and this will probably result in the ouster of Doug Morris, which will pave the way for reparation of the Apple Universal relationship.
Though Amazon is solid, it is just a retailer and can never provide the user support and experience that Apple can.
Universal will soon find out that iTunes is it's most profitable outlet.
Eat Crow Doug Morris you arrogant, ignorant, greedy bastard.
I think expiring files would be a big mistake. It's the most offensive and intrusive form of DRM. One of the reasons Netflix ended up kicking Blockbuster's a$$ originally was the elimination of timed rentals. Charge a monthly fee and let users keep files as long as they want to. Then you avoid putting a price tag on a single rental, which is bound to upset people, anyway. Some say $3.99 is too much. Others think $1.99 would be too much. Heck, people are still complaining about $.99 for owning a music track, which is beyond my comprehension. But $10, $12, even $15 or $18 a month doesn't sound so bad to most people, when you consider how many movies you could watch within that time frame.
Then, if you want to offer discounts on movies already rented, just offer a flat $1 or $2 discount on purchases for anyone with a monthly rental account.
I'm sure Apple would be fine with all of this. Whether or not Fox, or any other studio, would allow it is a different story. We'll find out in a couple of weeks.
And as far as resolution goes, don't look for anything beyond what can be played on the current crop of iPods. Apple isn't going to have multiple versions for different devices, and it isn't likely to force people to buy an Apple TV just to watch rentals. Not yet, anyway. They'll want to push the portability as much as anything else as a major advantage over Netflix.
Everyone owns a DVD player. Almost everyone owns an iPod. Not too many people own Apple TVs. Rentals are sure to help Apple TV sales, but not if the Apple TV is the only way to watch those rentals. In that case, the rental scheme will simply fail.
The iPod nano is the lowest common denominator. Which means 640 x 480 for the time being. People have been crying about this for a while now, but I honestly can't see why. The vast majority of the video watching world watches standard def DVDs, which aren't really noticeably better. And with the heavy compression on most HD TV stations, my iTunes TV and movie purchases actually look just as good as anything else I watch.
I don't like that idea, and a number of others have expressed that same opinion.
If they do that, then they would also have to offer a rental per movie as well.
I would rent at $3.99, which is the cost of new releases at my local video rental store. $4.99 seems a bit dear. I think that they will get a lot more rentals at $3.99 than $4.99.
For me, it would have to be less than that, even if local rental shop was my only other option. I have high speed internet, but sometimes it's not quite fast enough to start an iTunes movie within an hour, at which point it's quicker to go to the rental shop. I watch maybe an average of eight movies a month on my $16/mo Netflix 3-out plan, so I have a small variety of stuff to watch and I can pick which of them I want, at half that cost.
I would rather have 480i, actually - how long would a 720p download take? I don't want to wait 5 hours to watch my movie, and on a 50" plasma 480i is fine. How about $2.99 for 480i rentals and $4.99 for 720p rentals?
Why stay with Interlaced? It's time to at least make that jump. Our laptops, iPods, iPhones, and plasma/lcd TVs are all progressive. iTunes widescreen movies are currently 360p.
Different pricing MIGHT be worthwhile, it depends on whether Apple wants to push people forward (like the removal of the floppy drive), AND on whether the backbone can handle everyone on 720p.
It'd be nice if a single 720p AVCHD file could also contain a 360p version without increasing the file size (much like Apple's professional video codec). Download the 360p movie first then optionally download the 720p.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
AppleTV needs a DVR about as much as a DVD player needs a DVR. They perform two different functions and DVR is being dominated by the cable industry. DVD's don't need a DVR because it has easy access to a wide variety of content. This is what Apple TV needs and Apple Inc. has not secured.
Apple is trying to change the model for watching TV, but they may need to play with existing systems in order to do that. I think for now that AppleTV PLUS DVR could replace cable entirely for a significant number of people, where AppleTV on its own could not. I wonder what Apple will choose.
Will these videos display unskippable FBI warnings, copyright notices, etc? Will they prevent you from skipping chapters or scrolling to any part of the movie that you want?
You would think the movie studios put the non-skippable FBI warning on the DVD's because they believe it deters piracy so they would put it in these videos also.
So it downloads twice as fast, and works with more equipment.
On CRT, interlaced works fine. And there are certainly more CRTs out there.
If the future was CRT I'd tend to agree go interlaced with the downloads.
But
1) when it comes to Widescreen TVs, the majority are progressive (ie Plasma or LCD).
2) Our laptops, iPods, iPhones are progressive.
3) Interlaced TV shows use less bandwidth (not half as you say, but certainly less), but this is because they cut out every 2nd line... which is ideal IF it was filmed that way
4) Film is done progressively. Typically 24p. This gets converted to 60i. The compression of the original 24p uses less bandwidth than compressing the 60i version, and looks better.
I'm struggling to see the advantage...
Okay... it'd be great if Apple catered for the millions of existing users out there with CRTs and 4:3 screens (users like me, actually) by providing a much smaller TV file that's lower res and interlaced (for any show that was filmed interlaced)
...BUT I think Apple should cater for the new markets of 720p and high bandwidth. Perhaps they can do both.
Comments
Buying either Netflix or TiVo is a really bad idea.
Apple should allow Netflix to use AppleTV. AppleTV needs a DVR about as much as a DVD player needs a DVR. They perform two different functions and DVR is being dominated by the cable industry. DVD's don't need a DVR because it has easy access to a wide variety of content. This is what Apple TV needs and Apple Inc. has not secured.
If you sit that far away, don't bother with the video scaler. 480 is all you're seeing clearly anyway. 10 feet is the furthest you can sit to see the full 720p rez.
I agree - I really noticed the effect of the video scaler with my CRT front projector (and 120" screen - being sold with house), but not so much with a 50" screen.
I still use it as an hdmi switch though, at least until I buy a new house and get a new front projector.
Apple should allow Netflix to use AppleTV. AppleTV needs a DVR about as much as a DVD player needs a DVR. They perform two different functions and DVR is being dominated by the cable industry. DVD's don't need a DVR because it has easy access to a wide variety of content. This is what Apple TV needs and Apple Inc. has not secured.
Yeah, Apple will make its own service do whatever Netflix could. Apple doesn't want to get into the business of sending DVD's through the mail, and I don't blame them. It's a perilous business.
Apple's only problem is cooperating with the studios, Netflix does that. So, if Apple did buy the service,it would be stuck with two methods it has resisted, and is trying to move away from.
But, now the word is out that Apple is now cooperation with the studios more, which is why Fox might be aboard, if the story is true.
If it's also true that there is a Fairplay copy aboard every DVD Fox will be making, that takes care of the "buy" part. Let Fox determine the price of the DVD and you get a digital file for free.
I said that Apple must cooperate, and I hope the story is true. It's the only way Apple can do this.
Forget the DVR.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...-fairplay.html
I agree - I really noticed the effect of the video scaler with my CRT front projector (and 120" screen - being sold with house), but not so much with a 50" screen.
I still use it as an hdmi switch though, at least until I buy a new house and get a new front projector.
Most people don't seem to understand this, and get really pissed when I tell them, but it's true. My friend Carlton is well known in the industry and has this very good site explaining it:
http://www.carltonbale.com/
We sit 13" from the screen and need slightly over a 100" diag. screen to appreciate Blu-Ray at 1080p.
AAPL holding at over $200, got to think this news has helped
I'm pretty sure it's the cause.
Will these videos display unskippable FBI warnings, copyright notices, etc? Will they prevent you from skipping chapters or scrolling to any part of the movie that you want?
How are we supposed to know? You read the same stuff we did.
Finally. Sounds pretty good. The user should then be prompted with an alert saying "Your rental movie "x" expires today. If you pay $y today you may keep it. ( Pay ) - - ( Expire ). Still waiting for this movie business to happen internationally though... it's just bla bla over here until the service arrives for real.
I think expiring files would be a big mistake. It's the most offensive and intrusive form of DRM. One of the reasons Netflix ended up kicking Blockbuster's a$$ originally was the elimination of timed rentals. Charge a monthly fee and let users keep files as long as they want to. Then you avoid putting a price tag on a single rental, which is bound to upset people, anyway. Some say $3.99 is too much. Others think $1.99 would be too much. Heck, people are still complaining about $.99 for owning a music track, which is beyond my comprehension. But $10, $12, even $15 or $18 a month doesn't sound so bad to most people, when you consider how many movies you could watch within that time frame.
Then, if you want to offer discounts on movies already rented, just offer a flat $1 or $2 discount on purchases for anyone with a monthly rental account.
I'm sure Apple would be fine with all of this. Whether or not Fox, or any other studio, would allow it is a different story. We'll find out in a couple of weeks.
And as far as resolution goes, don't look for anything beyond what can be played on the current crop of iPods. Apple isn't going to have multiple versions for different devices, and it isn't likely to force people to buy an Apple TV just to watch rentals. Not yet, anyway. They'll want to push the portability as much as anything else as a major advantage over Netflix.
Everyone owns a DVD player. Almost everyone owns an iPod. Not too many people own Apple TVs. Rentals are sure to help Apple TV sales, but not if the Apple TV is the only way to watch those rentals. In that case, the rental scheme will simply fail.
The iPod nano is the lowest common denominator. Which means 640 x 480 for the time being. People have been crying about this for a while now, but I honestly can't see why. The vast majority of the video watching world watches standard def DVDs, which aren't really noticeably better. And with the heavy compression on most HD TV stations, my iTunes TV and movie purchases actually look just as good as anything else I watch.
Anyone who uses iTunes will go out of their way to keep it as their software and download vehicle of choice, no matter how hard Universal tries to destroy it.
What Universal does not seem to get is that the iTunes experience is second to none and goes far beyond being a vehicle for downloading only. It is comprehensive in integrating and managing music and media for all it's users after the purchase and download in a way that no retailer can ever compete with. The user experience it provides is nothing short of excellent. Software...
The day will come when Universal will get back with iTunes and most probably in much the same way Disney did...Michael Eisner who butted heads with Steve Jobs over Pixar, was ousted by the board of directors and that's how Disney and Apple became best of partners and Pixar was ultimately bought and merged with Apple, in addition to being a solid and model supplier of content to iTunes.
Universal artists will rise and sue Universal for stifling their careers and acting against their interests. They will also have legitimate ground for breaking their contracts and suing for damages incurred as a result of iTunes lost sales. Ultimately Universal will be cutting their nose to spite their face and loosing out by not being with Apple and this will probably result in the ouster of Doug Morris, which will pave the way for reparation of the Apple Universal relationship.
Though Amazon is solid, it is just a retailer and can never provide the user support and experience that Apple can.
Universal will soon find out that iTunes is it's most profitable outlet.
Eat Crow Doug Morris you arrogant, ignorant, greedy bastard.
I said that Apple must cooperate, and I hope the story is true. It's the only way Apple can do this.
Yes hopefully everyone is coming to an agreement that works for all parties.
I think expiring files would be a big mistake. It's the most offensive and intrusive form of DRM. One of the reasons Netflix ended up kicking Blockbuster's a$$ originally was the elimination of timed rentals. Charge a monthly fee and let users keep files as long as they want to. Then you avoid putting a price tag on a single rental, which is bound to upset people, anyway. Some say $3.99 is too much. Others think $1.99 would be too much. Heck, people are still complaining about $.99 for owning a music track, which is beyond my comprehension. But $10, $12, even $15 or $18 a month doesn't sound so bad to most people, when you consider how many movies you could watch within that time frame.
Then, if you want to offer discounts on movies already rented, just offer a flat $1 or $2 discount on purchases for anyone with a monthly rental account.
I'm sure Apple would be fine with all of this. Whether or not Fox, or any other studio, would allow it is a different story. We'll find out in a couple of weeks.
And as far as resolution goes, don't look for anything beyond what can be played on the current crop of iPods. Apple isn't going to have multiple versions for different devices, and it isn't likely to force people to buy an Apple TV just to watch rentals. Not yet, anyway. They'll want to push the portability as much as anything else as a major advantage over Netflix.
Everyone owns a DVD player. Almost everyone owns an iPod. Not too many people own Apple TVs. Rentals are sure to help Apple TV sales, but not if the Apple TV is the only way to watch those rentals. In that case, the rental scheme will simply fail.
The iPod nano is the lowest common denominator. Which means 640 x 480 for the time being. People have been crying about this for a while now, but I honestly can't see why. The vast majority of the video watching world watches standard def DVDs, which aren't really noticeably better. And with the heavy compression on most HD TV stations, my iTunes TV and movie purchases actually look just as good as anything else I watch.
I don't like that idea, and a number of others have expressed that same opinion.
If they do that, then they would also have to offer a rental per movie as well.
We sit 13" from the screen and need slightly over a 100" diag. screen to appreciate Blu-Ray at 1080p.
13 inches. You must have short legs and remarkable wide-angle vision.
I would rent at $3.99, which is the cost of new releases at my local video rental store. $4.99 seems a bit dear. I think that they will get a lot more rentals at $3.99 than $4.99.
For me, it would have to be less than that, even if local rental shop was my only other option. I have high speed internet, but sometimes it's not quite fast enough to start an iTunes movie within an hour, at which point it's quicker to go to the rental shop. I watch maybe an average of eight movies a month on my $16/mo Netflix 3-out plan, so I have a small variety of stuff to watch and I can pick which of them I want, at half that cost.
I would rather have 480i, actually - how long would a 720p download take? I don't want to wait 5 hours to watch my movie, and on a 50" plasma 480i is fine. How about $2.99 for 480i rentals and $4.99 for 720p rentals?
Why stay with Interlaced? It's time to at least make that jump. Our laptops, iPods, iPhones, and plasma/lcd TVs are all progressive. iTunes widescreen movies are currently 360p.
Different pricing MIGHT be worthwhile, it depends on whether Apple wants to push people forward (like the removal of the floppy drive), AND on whether the backbone can handle everyone on 720p.
It'd be nice if a single 720p AVCHD file could also contain a 360p version without increasing the file size (much like Apple's professional video codec). Download the 360p movie first then optionally download the 720p.
AppleTV needs a DVR about as much as a DVD player needs a DVR. They perform two different functions and DVR is being dominated by the cable industry. DVD's don't need a DVR because it has easy access to a wide variety of content. This is what Apple TV needs and Apple Inc. has not secured.
Apple is trying to change the model for watching TV, but they may need to play with existing systems in order to do that. I think for now that AppleTV PLUS DVR could replace cable entirely for a significant number of people, where AppleTV on its own could not. I wonder what Apple will choose.
13 inches. You must have short legs and remarkable wide-angle vision.
Heh. You know what I mean.
Will these videos display unskippable FBI warnings, copyright notices, etc? Will they prevent you from skipping chapters or scrolling to any part of the movie that you want?
You would think the movie studios put the non-skippable FBI warning on the DVD's because they believe it deters piracy so they would put it in these videos also.
Why stay with Interlaced?
So it downloads twice as fast, and works with more equipment.
So it downloads twice as fast, and works with more equipment.
On CRT, interlaced works fine. And there are certainly more CRTs out there.
If the future was CRT I'd tend to agree go interlaced with the downloads.
But
1) when it comes to Widescreen TVs, the majority are progressive (ie Plasma or LCD).
2) Our laptops, iPods, iPhones are progressive.
3) Interlaced TV shows use less bandwidth (not half as you say, but certainly less), but this is because they cut out every 2nd line... which is ideal IF it was filmed that way
4) Film is done progressively. Typically 24p. This gets converted to 60i. The compression of the original 24p uses less bandwidth than compressing the 60i version, and looks better.
I'm struggling to see the advantage...
Okay... it'd be great if Apple catered for the millions of existing users out there with CRTs and 4:3 screens (users like me, actually) by providing a much smaller TV file that's lower res and interlaced (for any show that was filmed interlaced)
...BUT I think Apple should cater for the new markets of 720p and high bandwidth. Perhaps they can do both.
Am I missing something?