That whole thing is so frustratingly backwards. Most people are upgrading to HD TVs. For its full benefit we watch DVDs upconverted on either an upconverting DVD player or Blu-ray to give us a better than DVD quality- near blu-ray quality actual experience. DVDs when released cost $13-$15 at any Best Buy or Circuit City with tons of extras as well, some with DTS sound. And you can convert the DVD to play on an iPod as well.
Who in their right mind would buy a $15 inferior download with less than DVD quality copy( this near DVDquality description is asinine) and no extras???? That's like throwing money out the window! Both the studios and Apple are trying to put a fast one on uninformed consumers. For what these downloads offer they should cost $7.50 since there is no physical materials involved at all and smear vision. The only thing these files look good on is a small screen iPod and therefor Apple is just as guilty for pushing this crap to sel.
That whole thing is so frustratingly backwards. Most people are upgrading to HD TVs. For its full benefit we watch DVDs upconverted on either an upconverting DVD player or Blu-ray to give us a better than DVD quality- near blu-ray quality actual experience. DVDs when released cost $13-$15 at any Best Buy or Circuit City with tons of extras as well, some with DTS sound. And you can convert the DVD to play on an iPod as well.
Who in their right mind would buy a $15 inferior download with less than DVD quality copy( this near DVDquality description is asinine) and no extras???? That's like throwing money out the window! Both the studios and Apple are trying to put a fast one on uninformed consumers. For what these downloads offer they should cost $7.50 since there is no physical materials involved at all and smear vision. The only thing these files look good on is a small screen iPod and therefor Apple is just as guilty for pushing this crap to sel.
If you read the article you might gain insight as to why movie downloads from Apple are so expensive. (Hint, the cost for Apple is believed to be $16.)
I agree that DL movies should be cheaper than the DVD variety. But how much of a loss do you think Apple can sustain with each sale and continue to offer such a service? I doubt they can afford to loose $7.5 with each sale and provide that service for any extended period of time.
It would seem to me that Apple have the weaker hand here. I think they are offering this service at a loss in order to bolster this service and strengthen their hand in future negotiations .
I think the studios are very shortsighted in their strategy for movie downloaded content. While I can see why their are loathe to see Apple dominate this arena, they also need to contend with piracy. It would seem to me they would be better off encouraging multiple outlets for internet distribution of content rather than just punishing Apple.
The problem with move sales is not the price, it's "files."
People are still confused as to what you're supposed to do with them, how you manage them and use them. Apple needs to do their magic to help people understand here. Time Machine and Apple TV are part of it but there's still some simple concept missing that's needed.
I don't get that assertion, maybe you need to tweak your argument. iTunes music are in files too, and that seems to have been accepted. Maybe movies are considered different for psychological reasons, but I don't think "it's files" is the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
That whole thing is so frustratingly backwards. Most people are upgrading to HD TVs. For its full benefit we watch DVDs upconverted on either an upconverting DVD player or Blu-ray to give us a better than DVD quality- near blu-ray quality actual experience
Upscaling with the current upscaling players isn't any better than DVD quality. At best, it only shows how bad the TV's upscaler is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by petermac
Maybe the studios have a tiered pricing model for new releases versus older movies, also the scale (volume) of Apple's movie sales could turn that loss into a small margin.
But, I definitely agree with others here and elsewhere, its gotta be 720p and less than regular DVD media, because we all know its cheaper to deliver digital content versus actual media.
It may be cheaper, but I don't think the cost difference is that significant.
Upscaling with the current upscaling players isn't any better than DVD quality. At best, it only shows how bad the TV's upscaler is.
Sorry but you are incorrect. If you compare picture quality between a regular DVD player versus one that upscales one can see a difference therefor it is better. Perhaps you can't see it but most can and that is why these players are sold. There would be no need for them if it did not make the qualtity better. More pixels are added to the orignal image hence increaseing the image from 480P to 720P.
If you read the article you might gain insight as to why movie downloads from Apple are so expensive. (Hint, the cost for Apple is believed to be $16.)
I agree that DL movies should be cheaper than the DVD variety. But how much of a loss do you think Apple can sustain with each sale and continue to offer such a service? I doubt they can afford to loose $7.5 with each sale and provide that service for any extended period of time.
It would seem to me that Apple have the weaker hand here. I think they are offering this service at a loss in order to bolster this service and strengthen their hand in future negotiations .
I think the studios are very shortsighted in their strategy for movie downloaded content. While I can see why their are loathe to see Apple dominate this arena, they also need to contend with piracy. It would seem to me they would be better off encouraging multiple outlets for internet distribution of content rather than just punishing Apple.
Whether they are expensive or not is not the problem . The problem is that they are selling an inferior product that is worse than DVD and should be at least equal. If it fails there should be no guessing or blame as to why. They are optimized for a screen that is miniscule- iPod. The should be optimzed for widescreen TV for Apple TV and be as good as if not better than a DVD- not worse not near DVD quality.
Whether they are expensive or not is not the problem . The problem is that they are selling an inferior product that is worse than DVD and should be at least equal. If it fails there should be no guessing or blame as to why. They are optimized for a screen that is miniscule- iPod. The should be optimzed for widescreen TV for Apple TV and be as good as if not better than a DVD- not worse not near DVD quality.
There are bound to be people who are not as picky about the less than perfect quality and are willing to pay for the convenience of downloading instead of going to the store then ripping and so forth. Technology changes very quickly. This is just the beginning. It will only get better over time. If you don't like the product you don't have to buy your videos from Apple but many people will.
Whether they are expensive or not is not the problem . The problem is that they are selling an inferior product that is worse than DVD and should be at least equal. If it fails there should be no guessing or blame as to why. They are optimized for a screen that is miniscule- iPod. The should be optimzed for widescreen TV for Apple TV and be as good as if not better than a DVD- not worse not near DVD quality.
I've not seen the quality so I cannot comment on that. Have you or are you merely complaining at the thought of this perceived diminished quality?
Everything I read about the quality of rentals suggests that it is pretty good. See here. I don't what the video quality of the movies from Apple is. I think it makes sense to see them before completely panning them.
Although the MBP issue is different to the Bridget Riley Syndrome on the 17" PB, i'm sure Apple will continue to use the "we know nothing" excuse and edit their discussion boards accordingly....then say "it's not a known issue"
Sorry but you are incorrect. If you compare picture quality between a regular DVD player versus one that upscales one can see a difference therefor it is better. Perhaps you can't see it but most can and that is why these players are sold. There would be no need for them if it did not make the qualtity better. More pixels are added to the orignal image hence increaseing the image from 480P to 720P.
No need to be sorry, but it's not adding any detail by any stretch of the imagination. What you're really seeing is the difference between different forms of interpolation. Nothing more, nothing less. Some TVs might use nearest neighbor scaling, and an upscaling player might be using bilinear or bicubic, making it look smoother than without the upscaling player. But the quality still isn't HD, it's just getting around the limitation of a TV's crappy internal scaler.
No need to be sorry, but it's not adding any detail by any stretch of the imagination. What you're really seeing is the difference between different forms of interpolation. Nothing more, nothing less. Some TVs might use nearest neighbor scaling, and an upscaling player might be using bilinear or bicubic, making it look smoother than without the upscaling player. But the quality still isn't HD, it's just getting around the limitation of a TV's crappy internal scaler.
I wonder which has the crappy scaler, my $3500 46" Sharp Aquos or my $350 DVD/RAM recorder?
Logic would suggest my recorder has, I'm going to check it out today. I currently have the recorder /DVD player doing the upscaling, I'll try it with the TV
I wonder which has the crappy scaler, my $3500 46" Sharp Aquos or my $350 DVD/RAM recorder?
Logic would suggest my recorder has, I'm going to check it out today. I currently have the recorder /DVD player doing the upscaling, I'll try it with the TV
There are definately $50 DVD players out there that crush the scaler in your Aquos.
I can't believe they are charging that much. I figured Apple had to buckle more than it's used to get the movie deal off the ground but that seems excessive.
I agree. Totally ridiculous when HMV sells a lot of new releases for 12-14 bucks nowadays. I think this inside source is about as reliable as the majority of AI's other inside sources...
No need to be sorry, but it's not adding any detail by any stretch of the imagination. What you're really seeing is the difference between different forms of interpolation. Nothing more, nothing less. Some TVs might use nearest neighbor scaling, and an upscaling player might be using bilinear or bicubic, making it look smoother than without the upscaling player. But the quality still isn't HD, it's just getting around the limitation of a TV's crappy internal scaler.
Ok fine but my point was that consumers are looking for better image quality for viewing on HD TVs not lesser/inferior quality which is what Apple downloads are. They are optimized for iPods not HD TVs. Uupscalers (DVD players or TVs) still improve the quality of an image even if as you state "it's not adding any detail" but "just getting around the limitation of a TV's crappy internal scaler" you still see an improvement. Apples downloads as currently offered do not offer any visual improvement over DVD just the opposite.
I've not seen the quality so I cannot comment on that. Have you or are you merely complaining at the thought of this perceived diminished quality?
Everything I read about the quality of rentals suggests that it is pretty good. See here. I don't what the video quality of the movies from Apple is. I think it makes sense to see them before completely panning them.
Yes I've seen them. I buy/subscribe to episodes of a current comedy central program for convenience. The image is slightly blocky and smeary- worse than any broadcast and that's not even nearly close to DVD quality. Therefore I would never buy a movie in the specs as currently offered.
The rental of HD is a mixed bag from what I've rented but besides these can't be played on iPods and are not offered for sale.
It's quite funny that you would try to slam me and have not seen anything yourself-What's up with that rationale?
Depends on where you live. They're still legal in Canada and a few other countries. The Canadian recording industry has tried to change that a lot lately, but there are just too many personal freedom and privacy guarantees in our laws for them to be able to make a solid case so far. They keep getting tossed out both on fair use grounds, and on personal privacy grounds (That, and we already pay royalties upfront to the recording industry every time we buy blank media).
Even if they are successful in getting file sharing itself declared illegal, (which is possible) any new law would have no teeth, because of our privacy laws. Industry representatives won't be able to compel an ISP to reveal the identity of the customer suspected of the potential violation. Considering the privacy part has already been upheld in a few constitutional challenges, I just don't see that part ever being overturned.
Depends on where you live. They're still legal in Canada and a few other countries. The Canadian recording industry has tried to change that a lot lately, but there are just too many personal freedom and privacy guarantees in our laws for them to be able to make a solid case so far. They keep getting tossed out both on fair use grounds, and on personal privacy grounds (That, and we already pay royalties upfront to the recording industry every time we buy blank media).
Even if they are successful in getting file sharing itself declared illegal, (which is possible) any new law would have no teeth, because of our privacy laws. Industry representatives won't be able to compel an ISP to reveal the identity of the customer suspected of the potential violation. Considering the privacy part has already been upheld in a few constitutional challenges, I just don't see that part ever being overturned.
Even if the ISP released info on the customer that doesn't mean that the customer was illegally transferring protected content. There is still plenty of reasonable doubt that can easily be brought up as to actually committed the crime.
PS: While in casual conversation we can say torrents are il/legal I just want it to be clear that it's the content being transfers, not the bit torrent technology itself that is the illegal.
Yes I've seen them. I buy/subscribe to episodes of a current comedy central program for convenience. The image is slightly blocky and smeary- worse than any broadcast and that's not even nearly close to DVD quality. Therefore I would never buy a movie in the specs as currently offered.
The rental of HD is a mixed bag from what I've rented but besides these can't be played on iPods and are not offered for sale.
It's quite funny that you would try to slam me and have not seen anything yourself-What's up with that rationale?
I've seen them demoed at the store. Not long enough to really develop a an opinion on quality.
If you have one then you would be capable of making an informed opinion. Many people will post opinions with very little exposure to the the item they're opining on.
The movie studios are digging their own grave here. They'll eventually realise it, but every day they don't, their customers are downloading their movies from other places for free.
As for the backlights, Apple seem to have a general issue with their displays. They frequently seem to have problems with them in various forms...
Funny, I've never had an issue with my Apple Display & so far not a single one of the 58 Macs in our IT shop have had a display issue that I am aware of. How are you reaching this conclusion?
On the other hand the Dell XPS laptops recently had a widespread issue (effected every laptop) with crappy displays that had bad color due to a white balance issue.
So Apple has a few hardware hiccups & we burn them at the steak, sounds fair.
Comments
That whole thing is so frustratingly backwards. Most people are upgrading to HD TVs. For its full benefit we watch DVDs upconverted on either an upconverting DVD player or Blu-ray to give us a better than DVD quality- near blu-ray quality actual experience. DVDs when released cost $13-$15 at any Best Buy or Circuit City with tons of extras as well, some with DTS sound. And you can convert the DVD to play on an iPod as well.
Who in their right mind would buy a $15 inferior download with less than DVD quality copy( this near DVD quality description is asinine) and no extras???? That's like throwing money out the window! Both the studios and Apple are trying to put a fast one on uninformed consumers. For what these downloads offer they should cost $7.50 since there is no physical materials involved at all and smear vision. The only thing these files look good on is a small screen iPod and therefor Apple is just as guilty for pushing this crap to sel.
Here here!!
That whole thing is so frustratingly backwards. Most people are upgrading to HD TVs. For its full benefit we watch DVDs upconverted on either an upconverting DVD player or Blu-ray to give us a better than DVD quality- near blu-ray quality actual experience. DVDs when released cost $13-$15 at any Best Buy or Circuit City with tons of extras as well, some with DTS sound. And you can convert the DVD to play on an iPod as well.
Who in their right mind would buy a $15 inferior download with less than DVD quality copy( this near DVD quality description is asinine) and no extras???? That's like throwing money out the window! Both the studios and Apple are trying to put a fast one on uninformed consumers. For what these downloads offer they should cost $7.50 since there is no physical materials involved at all and smear vision. The only thing these files look good on is a small screen iPod and therefor Apple is just as guilty for pushing this crap to sel.
If you read the article you might gain insight as to why movie downloads from Apple are so expensive. (Hint, the cost for Apple is believed to be $16.)
I agree that DL movies should be cheaper than the DVD variety. But how much of a loss do you think Apple can sustain with each sale and continue to offer such a service? I doubt they can afford to loose $7.5 with each sale and provide that service for any extended period of time.
It would seem to me that Apple have the weaker hand here. I think they are offering this service at a loss in order to bolster this service and strengthen their hand in future negotiations .
I think the studios are very shortsighted in their strategy for movie downloaded content. While I can see why their are loathe to see Apple dominate this arena, they also need to contend with piracy. It would seem to me they would be better off encouraging multiple outlets for internet distribution of content rather than just punishing Apple.
Sachin
The problem with move sales is not the price, it's "files."
People are still confused as to what you're supposed to do with them, how you manage them and use them. Apple needs to do their magic to help people understand here. Time Machine and Apple TV are part of it but there's still some simple concept missing that's needed.
I don't get that assertion, maybe you need to tweak your argument. iTunes music are in files too, and that seems to have been accepted. Maybe movies are considered different for psychological reasons, but I don't think "it's files" is the problem.
That whole thing is so frustratingly backwards. Most people are upgrading to HD TVs. For its full benefit we watch DVDs upconverted on either an upconverting DVD player or Blu-ray to give us a better than DVD quality- near blu-ray quality actual experience
Upscaling with the current upscaling players isn't any better than DVD quality. At best, it only shows how bad the TV's upscaler is.
Maybe the studios have a tiered pricing model for new releases versus older movies, also the scale (volume) of Apple's movie sales could turn that loss into a small margin.
But, I definitely agree with others here and elsewhere, its gotta be 720p and less than regular DVD media, because we all know its cheaper to deliver digital content versus actual media.
It may be cheaper, but I don't think the cost difference is that significant.
Upscaling with the current upscaling players isn't any better than DVD quality. At best, it only shows how bad the TV's upscaler is.
Sorry but you are incorrect. If you compare picture quality between a regular DVD player versus one that upscales one can see a difference therefor it is better. Perhaps you can't see it but most can and that is why these players are sold. There would be no need for them if it did not make the qualtity better. More pixels are added to the orignal image hence increaseing the image from 480P to 720P.
If you read the article you might gain insight as to why movie downloads from Apple are so expensive. (Hint, the cost for Apple is believed to be $16.)
I agree that DL movies should be cheaper than the DVD variety. But how much of a loss do you think Apple can sustain with each sale and continue to offer such a service? I doubt they can afford to loose $7.5 with each sale and provide that service for any extended period of time.
It would seem to me that Apple have the weaker hand here. I think they are offering this service at a loss in order to bolster this service and strengthen their hand in future negotiations .
I think the studios are very shortsighted in their strategy for movie downloaded content. While I can see why their are loathe to see Apple dominate this arena, they also need to contend with piracy. It would seem to me they would be better off encouraging multiple outlets for internet distribution of content rather than just punishing Apple.
Whether they are expensive or not is not the problem . The problem is that they are selling an inferior product that is worse than DVD and should be at least equal. If it fails there should be no guessing or blame as to why. They are optimized for a screen that is miniscule- iPod. The should be optimzed for widescreen TV for Apple TV and be as good as if not better than a DVD- not worse not near DVD quality.
Whether they are expensive or not is not the problem . The problem is that they are selling an inferior product that is worse than DVD and should be at least equal. If it fails there should be no guessing or blame as to why. They are optimized for a screen that is miniscule- iPod. The should be optimzed for widescreen TV for Apple TV and be as good as if not better than a DVD- not worse not near DVD quality.
There are bound to be people who are not as picky about the less than perfect quality and are willing to pay for the convenience of downloading instead of going to the store then ripping and so forth. Technology changes very quickly. This is just the beginning. It will only get better over time. If you don't like the product you don't have to buy your videos from Apple but many people will.
Whether they are expensive or not is not the problem . The problem is that they are selling an inferior product that is worse than DVD and should be at least equal. If it fails there should be no guessing or blame as to why. They are optimized for a screen that is miniscule- iPod. The should be optimzed for widescreen TV for Apple TV and be as good as if not better than a DVD- not worse not near DVD quality.
I've not seen the quality so I cannot comment on that. Have you or are you merely complaining at the thought of this perceived diminished quality?
Everything I read about the quality of rentals suggests that it is pretty good. See here. I don't what the video quality of the movies from Apple is. I think it makes sense to see them before completely panning them.
http://www.crosspond.com/apple/hall_of_shame/23
Sorry to offend all the "Mac Propaganda-gravy-train foot soldiers Apple Fanboys"...
.
Sorry but you are incorrect. If you compare picture quality between a regular DVD player versus one that upscales one can see a difference therefor it is better. Perhaps you can't see it but most can and that is why these players are sold. There would be no need for them if it did not make the qualtity better. More pixels are added to the orignal image hence increaseing the image from 480P to 720P.
No need to be sorry, but it's not adding any detail by any stretch of the imagination. What you're really seeing is the difference between different forms of interpolation. Nothing more, nothing less. Some TVs might use nearest neighbor scaling, and an upscaling player might be using bilinear or bicubic, making it look smoother than without the upscaling player. But the quality still isn't HD, it's just getting around the limitation of a TV's crappy internal scaler.
No need to be sorry, but it's not adding any detail by any stretch of the imagination. What you're really seeing is the difference between different forms of interpolation. Nothing more, nothing less. Some TVs might use nearest neighbor scaling, and an upscaling player might be using bilinear or bicubic, making it look smoother than without the upscaling player. But the quality still isn't HD, it's just getting around the limitation of a TV's crappy internal scaler.
I wonder which has the crappy scaler, my $3500 46" Sharp Aquos or my $350 DVD/RAM recorder?
Logic would suggest my recorder has, I'm going to check it out today. I currently have the recorder /DVD player doing the upscaling, I'll try it with the TV
I don't think Apple is selling anything at a loss. Steve Jobs is smart enough to make sure that Apple is never at a loss.
Sachin
Besides, did you look at the prices? Phew!
I wonder which has the crappy scaler, my $3500 46" Sharp Aquos or my $350 DVD/RAM recorder?
Logic would suggest my recorder has, I'm going to check it out today. I currently have the recorder /DVD player doing the upscaling, I'll try it with the TV
There are definately $50 DVD players out there that crush the scaler in your Aquos.
I can't believe they are charging that much. I figured Apple had to buckle more than it's used to get the movie deal off the ground but that seems excessive.
I agree. Totally ridiculous when HMV sells a lot of new releases for 12-14 bucks nowadays. I think this inside source is about as reliable as the majority of AI's other inside sources...
No need to be sorry, but it's not adding any detail by any stretch of the imagination. What you're really seeing is the difference between different forms of interpolation. Nothing more, nothing less. Some TVs might use nearest neighbor scaling, and an upscaling player might be using bilinear or bicubic, making it look smoother than without the upscaling player. But the quality still isn't HD, it's just getting around the limitation of a TV's crappy internal scaler.
Ok fine but my point was that consumers are looking for better image quality for viewing on HD TVs not lesser/inferior quality which is what Apple downloads are. They are optimized for iPods not HD TVs. Uupscalers (DVD players or TVs) still improve the quality of an image even if as you state "it's not adding any detail" but "just getting around the limitation of a TV's crappy internal scaler" you still see an improvement. Apples downloads as currently offered do not offer any visual improvement over DVD just the opposite.
I've not seen the quality so I cannot comment on that. Have you or are you merely complaining at the thought of this perceived diminished quality?
Everything I read about the quality of rentals suggests that it is pretty good. See here. I don't what the video quality of the movies from Apple is. I think it makes sense to see them before completely panning them.
Yes I've seen them. I buy/subscribe to episodes of a current comedy central program for convenience. The image is slightly blocky and smeary- worse than any broadcast and that's not even nearly close to DVD quality. Therefore I would never buy a movie in the specs as currently offered.
The rental of HD is a mixed bag from what I've rented but besides these can't be played on iPods and are not offered for sale.
It's quite funny that you would try to slam me and have not seen anything yourself-What's up with that rationale?
aren't torrents illegal?
Depends on where you live. They're still legal in Canada and a few other countries. The Canadian recording industry has tried to change that a lot lately, but there are just too many personal freedom and privacy guarantees in our laws for them to be able to make a solid case so far. They keep getting tossed out both on fair use grounds, and on personal privacy grounds (That, and we already pay royalties upfront to the recording industry every time we buy blank media).
Even if they are successful in getting file sharing itself declared illegal, (which is possible) any new law would have no teeth, because of our privacy laws. Industry representatives won't be able to compel an ISP to reveal the identity of the customer suspected of the potential violation. Considering the privacy part has already been upheld in a few constitutional challenges, I just don't see that part ever being overturned.
Depends on where you live. They're still legal in Canada and a few other countries. The Canadian recording industry has tried to change that a lot lately, but there are just too many personal freedom and privacy guarantees in our laws for them to be able to make a solid case so far. They keep getting tossed out both on fair use grounds, and on personal privacy grounds (That, and we already pay royalties upfront to the recording industry every time we buy blank media).
Even if they are successful in getting file sharing itself declared illegal, (which is possible) any new law would have no teeth, because of our privacy laws. Industry representatives won't be able to compel an ISP to reveal the identity of the customer suspected of the potential violation. Considering the privacy part has already been upheld in a few constitutional challenges, I just don't see that part ever being overturned.
Even if the ISP released info on the customer that doesn't mean that the customer was illegally transferring protected content. There is still plenty of reasonable doubt that can easily be brought up as to actually committed the crime.
PS: While in casual conversation we can say torrents are il/legal I just want it to be clear that it's the content being transfers, not the bit torrent technology itself that is the illegal.
Yes I've seen them. I buy/subscribe to episodes of a current comedy central program for convenience. The image is slightly blocky and smeary- worse than any broadcast and that's not even nearly close to DVD quality. Therefore I would never buy a movie in the specs as currently offered.
The rental of HD is a mixed bag from what I've rented but besides these can't be played on iPods and are not offered for sale.
It's quite funny that you would try to slam me and have not seen anything yourself-What's up with that rationale?
I've seen them demoed at the store. Not long enough to really develop a an opinion on quality.
If you have one then you would be capable of making an informed opinion. Many people will post opinions with very little exposure to the the item they're opining on.
The movie studios are digging their own grave here. They'll eventually realise it, but every day they don't, their customers are downloading their movies from other places for free.
As for the backlights, Apple seem to have a general issue with their displays. They frequently seem to have problems with them in various forms...
Funny, I've never had an issue with my Apple Display & so far not a single one of the 58 Macs in our IT shop have had a display issue that I am aware of. How are you reaching this conclusion?
On the other hand the Dell XPS laptops recently had a widespread issue (effected every laptop) with crappy displays that had bad color due to a white balance issue.
So Apple has a few hardware hiccups & we burn them at the steak, sounds fair.