I don't think you need to use third party tools to convert videos. If it plays in iTunes, right click or control-click a video track and select "convert to iPod". I think it's been available since 7.0.1. It is slow though.
I do agree that it's pretty annoying that you have to use Apple's selected formats, that's getting more Sony-like. I'm sure they wouldn't have licenced MP3 playback if they thought they could get away with it.
The option has been available since at least version 6 but it's of dubious value.
If the video is muxed mpeg video (which alot of content on the web is), you end up with a video that has no sound. And Quicktime Pro won't touch muxed mpeg video either.
Neither Apple or 3rd party tools can do anything with wmv files either without buying the software from Flip4mac (unless you like seeing a watermark on the whole video).
The option has been available since at least version 6 but it's of dubious value.
If the video is muxed mpeg video (which alot of content on the web is), you end up with a video that has no sound. And Quicktime Pro won't touch muxed mpeg video either.
Neither Apple or 3rd party tools can do anything with wmv files either without buying the software from Flip4mac (unless you like seeing a watermark on the whole video).
I think it was 6.0.1 or later, I don't think iTunes 6 did it.
The MPEG thing is definitely a Quicktime issue. I don't know if it requires the MPEG component, but that's not something I'll buy.
I didn't know about the watermark, I just confirmed it with a WMV export.
...But yes, I am worried that Apple wants to make itself the only source of media. As for CD's, I could easily see the big music companies being very inclined to going to an all digital model with the included DRM that it would put on all content. The major movie studios probably wouldn't mind at all either, especially if iTunes movies really took off and they could stop spending money on producing extras for DVD and just throw out a bare bones movie file.
I really don't see any possibility of that happening. There are millions upon millions of people who don't even have computers who buy lots of CDs and DVDs. Perhaps in a distant future, when computers are as ubiqutious as CD and DVD players, media puchased online might be much more routine. I don't see it ever becoming the only choice. I have friends who swear they will never own a computer, but they listen to CDs.
Your point is taken though. Sure, if Apple or any other online distributor became the only online distributor, and CDs and DVDs were hard to find, it would be a problem.
I fail to see how adding a product somehow equates to less choice (overall or from apple). All the other ways to watch media did not suddenly disappear. It's simply an option some people will like and use, and others won't.
I fail to see how adding a product somehow equates to less choice (overall or from apple). All the other ways to watch media did not suddenly disappear. It's simply an option some people will like and use, and others won't.
I see what you are saying but what it means is that aTV is more restrictive than it needs to be.
If it's an off-the-shelf video decoder chip (IMO, likely), then that probably has built-in MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 decoding capabilities which they aren't offering. It's possible to transcode video, but it's not going to be a viable offering for EyeTV recordings, which are MPEG-2, encoded from analog or bitstream recorded from digital transmission. I don't think it makes any sense to require several hours of encoding just to play a recorded TV show on aTV.
My first point was that Apple continues to offer less and less choice. The AppleTV only easily plays video from the iTunes store. Sure, you can spend hours converting other video from the web to work with it (just not with any tools Apple is willing to provide). And you can spend even more time ripping your DVD's with Handbrake (until you run out of storage and need to go buy another hard drive). But neither one of these options is entirely practical or easy for the average consumer.
The reason that Apple doesn't provide "tools" to easily rip dvd's is because IT'S ILLEGAL.
I see what you are saying but what it means is that aTV is more restrictive than it needs to be.
If it's an off-the-shelf video decoder chip (IMO, likely), then that probably has built-in MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 decoding capabilities which they aren't offering. It's possible to transcode video, but it's not going to be a viable offering for EyeTV recordings, which are MPEG-2, encoded from analog or bitstream recorded from digital transmission. I don't think it makes any sense to require several hours of encoding just to play a recorded TV show on aTV.
Exactly! If AppleTV is running a stripped down version of OS X and Quicktime, why can't it handle other formats that Quicktime natively supports for playback, such as mpeg? If it's using Front Row, why does it have less video capabilities? And if it included the divx and wmv plug-ins (which are available for free), it could handle pretty much any video you'd encounter on the web. Choice is a good thing.
As someone pointed out, you can buy a (crappy) DVD player for less than $40 so the cost to Apple to include one since Front Row already supports it. Why would I want this when I already have a DVD player? Because then I could get rid of a device instead of adding yet another to the mix with AppleTV and because it gives me the choice to buy content from iTunes or watch my existing content from a consistent frontend.
You don't seem to understand the point of Apple Tv. The device is designed to create an easy way to get iTunes content from your computer onto your tv. That's it. Period. It's not a convergence device and it's not meant to replace the dvd player that most people already own. Apple is adding another choice into the mix. If you choose not to purchase and/or use iTunes content, then don't. No one is forcing you to.. If you prefer dvd's than go ahead and continue to use them.. However, if you choose to purchase content from the iTunes store and/or watch photos and listen to music that's stored on your computer, Apple tv creates a seamless way for you to get that content on your tv and into your living room.
Exactly! If AppleTV is running a stripped down version of OS X and Quicktime, why can't it handle other formats that Quicktime natively supports for playback, such as mpeg? If it's using Front Row, why does it have less video capabilities? And if it included the divx and wmv plug-ins (which are available for free), it could handle pretty much any video you'd encounter on the web. Choice is a good thing.
Sounds like the device you're looking for to handle all of your needs is called the Mac mini.
You don't seem to understand the point of Apple Tv. The device is designed to create an easy way to get iTunes content from your computer onto your tv. That's it. Period. It's not a convergence device and it's not meant to replace the dvd player that most people already own. Apple is adding another choice into the mix. If you choose not to purchase and/or use iTunes content, then don't. No one is forcing you to.. If you prefer dvd's than go ahead and continue to use them.. However, if you choose to purchase content from the iTunes store and/or watch photos and listen to music that's stored on your computer, Apple tv creates a seamless way for you to get that content on your tv and into your living room.
I think I was hoping I missed the point.
It's basically the world's most expensive iPod video cable.
It's basically the world's most expensive iPod video cable.
The value of Apple TV is all relative to your needs. There is no doubt that if you're looking for a complete living room solution, the Mac mini with an elgato eye tv tuner card is the ticket. But be prepared to spend upwards of $1000 to get the mini configured properly to be such a box.
Despite Apple tv's limitiations, I expect that it will be a hit because of it's simplicity and elegant UI. You can expect funcitionality to be added over time. But as a starting point, Apple tv does what it is intended to do. The slogan for Apple tv says it all"
Sounds like the device you're looking for to handle all of your needs is called the Mac mini.
You could be right. And I wouldn't need to buy a new TV like I would with AppleTV. Not all that much of a price difference either. Although I'd like to wait until Leopard came out to see if they've ironed out any of Front Row's kinks.
You could be right. And I wouldn't need to buy a new TV like I would with AppleTV. Not all that much of a price difference either. Although I'd like to wait until Leopard came out to see if they've ironed out any of Front Row's kinks.
I spent a little less than the cost of a base mini on an original G5 PowerMac 2.0 + EyeTV hybrid, and it works with my XGA projector. I don't have front row, but I don't think it is a very good or useful program, so I don't really miss it.
caliminius interesting name if you look it up the the dictionary... its not QUITE the spelling.. but its close enough.
LESS choice you say... let me see, a company brings out a NEW product that does soemthign NONE of its other products QUITE do... and this is LESS choice?
you remind me of my brother
... give him a wheelbarrow full of gold... and he will complain about the WEIGHT
LESS choice you say... let me see, a company brings out a NEW product that does soemthign NONE of its other products QUITE do... and this is LESS choice?
I don't like this idea at all and I'm not sure why you do either. Apple seems to want to become the gateway to all media: music, TV, movies, etc. Is this any than the current alternatives of CD's, DVD's, cable, satellite and Tivo? At least they provide some level of choice. Do you really want one choice for media?
iTunes provides less value on all of the media fronts then any of the alternatives. Songs of lower quality than CD's and with DRM on top. Movies of lower audio/video quality than DVD with no extras, subtitles, portability, etc and DRM on top. TV that you have to wait (at least) a day for and (obviously) no live content such as sports events and only a small selection of shows to choose from (if you feel like watching an episode of Jeopardy or watch the local news, I hope you have a set of rabbit ears lying around). Want to loan out that movie you bought from iTunes? Too bad, unless you have a laptop you could loan out and your friend has an AppleTV. Less freedom and less options is the only thing that iTunes and AppleTV have to offer.
And I've made this comment before but it has always been ignored, but how about all the people who get their high-speed internet from the cable company (like myself)? Chances are the only other option most people have is the phone company's DSL. For me (and probably quite a few others), I have a cell phone and have no need of a land line which I'd be required to get for DSL so I'd be paying for something I don't need. Better to use that money on cable+internet and cut out all the costs of buying content from iTunes in the process.
I don't want only one choice for media. That's what we have now with cable and satellite. If those almost almost monopolies had any real competition they would either shape up or go away. I do want to be able to get all or most of my media from one place for convenience, and I would much rather buy bits from the comfort of my sofa rather than buying atoms in a store. I want my media life to be more simple not more complex. The choice comes when and if i become unhappy with that source i can go to another. We have plenty of choices there and apple is offering another choice with iTunes and AppleTV.
The reason I like what they are doing here is because it is one of the solutions that is looking in the right direction for the future. Apple's approach seems to cut out a lot of needless complexity, which is what they are good at. If you want something that tries to be everything to everyone, go with the windows media center thing. Why DVR a show when you can just grab it from iTunes for $2? Why rent or buy a movie from Blockbuster or Netflix when you can download it (which is why there's no dvd player on the thing)? This is what most people (including me) have been wanting for a long time...convenience and simplicity - its called (drumroll please...) ON DEMAND!
Stack your components to the ceiling bro and try not to get stuck in all the cable spaghetti. I'll be sitting on my couch in front of my sharp lcd with nothing but my receiver, my apple tv, my infinitis, and one remote. Weigh the advantages with the disadvantages. The quality will get there. Apple is pushing back on the drm front as we speak. I'll trade 1000 rarely used features for elegance and simplicity any day.
The reason I like what they are doing here is because it is one of the solutions that is looking in the right direction for the future. Apple's approach seems to cut out a lot of needless complexity, which is what they are good at. If you want something that tries to be everything to everyone, go with the windows media center thing. Why DVR a show when you can just grab it from iTunes for $2? Why rent or buy a movie from Blockbuster or Netflix when you can download it (which is why there's no dvd player on the thing)? This is what most people (including me) have been wanting for a long time...convenience and simplicity - its called (drumroll please...) ON DEMAND!
iTunes is not really a rental system (nor is it trying to), so I don't see why you suggest it is a substitute. For $15/mo one can easily rent 8-16 DVDs from Netflix. Or "buy" one (or 1.5) iTunes movie(s). That is an enormous expense trade-off for on demand.
The problem with buying TV shows through that model is that expenses rack up very quickly. It is probably a workable alternative for an individual, but if you watch one TV episode a night, that's still more than basic cable. A household would be a lot better off with cable/sat + PVR.
I don't want only one choice for media. That's what we have now with cable and satellite. If those almost almost monopolies had any real competition they would either shape up or go away. I do want to be able to get all or most of my media from one place for convenience, and I would much rather buy bits from the comfort of my sofa rather than buying atoms in a store. I want my media life to be more simple not more complex. The choice comes when and if i become unhappy with that source i can go to another. We have plenty of choices there and apple is offering another choice with iTunes and AppleTV.
The reason I like what they are doing here is because it is one of the solutions that is looking in the right direction for the future. Apple's approach seems to cut out a lot of needless complexity, which is what they are good at. If you want something that tries to be everything to everyone, go with the windows media center thing. Why DVR a show when you can just grab it from iTunes for $2? Why rent or buy a movie from Blockbuster or Netflix when you can download it (which is why there's no dvd player on the thing)? This is what most people (including me) have been wanting for a long time...convenience and simplicity - its called (drumroll please...) ON DEMAND!
Stack your components to the ceiling bro and try not to get stuck in all the cable spaghetti. I'll be sitting on my couch in front of my sharp lcd with nothing but my receiver, my apple tv, my infinitis, and one remote. Weigh the advantages with the disadvantages. The quality will get there. Apple is pushing back on the drm front as we speak. I'll trade 1000 rarely used features for elegance and simplicity any day.
A quick answer to why DVR and not buy from iTunes. Because for $12.95 a month, I can DVR any number of shows with my Tivo. If I watch more than 7 episodes of anything in a month, I've iTunes beat for value right there. And it's more on demand then iTunes (well for me, with my 3Kbits cable modem connection), I have to wait at least 10 minutes before I could start watching the show.
Comments
I don't think you need to use third party tools to convert videos. If it plays in iTunes, right click or control-click a video track and select "convert to iPod". I think it's been available since 7.0.1. It is slow though.
I do agree that it's pretty annoying that you have to use Apple's selected formats, that's getting more Sony-like. I'm sure they wouldn't have licenced MP3 playback if they thought they could get away with it.
The option has been available since at least version 6 but it's of dubious value.
If the video is muxed mpeg video (which alot of content on the web is), you end up with a video that has no sound. And Quicktime Pro won't touch muxed mpeg video either.
Neither Apple or 3rd party tools can do anything with wmv files either without buying the software from Flip4mac (unless you like seeing a watermark on the whole video).
The option has been available since at least version 6 but it's of dubious value.
If the video is muxed mpeg video (which alot of content on the web is), you end up with a video that has no sound. And Quicktime Pro won't touch muxed mpeg video either.
Neither Apple or 3rd party tools can do anything with wmv files either without buying the software from Flip4mac (unless you like seeing a watermark on the whole video).
I think it was 6.0.1 or later, I don't think iTunes 6 did it.
The MPEG thing is definitely a Quicktime issue. I don't know if it requires the MPEG component, but that's not something I'll buy.
I didn't know about the watermark, I just confirmed it with a WMV export.
...But yes, I am worried that Apple wants to make itself the only source of media. As for CD's, I could easily see the big music companies being very inclined to going to an all digital model with the included DRM that it would put on all content. The major movie studios probably wouldn't mind at all either, especially if iTunes movies really took off and they could stop spending money on producing extras for DVD and just throw out a bare bones movie file.
I really don't see any possibility of that happening. There are millions upon millions of people who don't even have computers who buy lots of CDs and DVDs. Perhaps in a distant future, when computers are as ubiqutious as CD and DVD players, media puchased online might be much more routine. I don't see it ever becoming the only choice. I have friends who swear they will never own a computer, but they listen to CDs.
Your point is taken though. Sure, if Apple or any other online distributor became the only online distributor, and CDs and DVDs were hard to find, it would be a problem.
I fail to see how adding a product somehow equates to less choice (overall or from apple). All the other ways to watch media did not suddenly disappear. It's simply an option some people will like and use, and others won't.
I see what you are saying but what it means is that aTV is more restrictive than it needs to be.
If it's an off-the-shelf video decoder chip (IMO, likely), then that probably has built-in MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 decoding capabilities which they aren't offering. It's possible to transcode video, but it's not going to be a viable offering for EyeTV recordings, which are MPEG-2, encoded from analog or bitstream recorded from digital transmission. I don't think it makes any sense to require several hours of encoding just to play a recorded TV show on aTV.
No, you've sort of missed my two points entirely.
My first point was that Apple continues to offer less and less choice. The AppleTV only easily plays video from the iTunes store. Sure, you can spend hours converting other video from the web to work with it (just not with any tools Apple is willing to provide). And you can spend even more time ripping your DVD's with Handbrake (until you run out of storage and need to go buy another hard drive). But neither one of these options is entirely practical or easy for the average consumer.
The reason that Apple doesn't provide "tools" to easily rip dvd's is because IT'S ILLEGAL.
I see what you are saying but what it means is that aTV is more restrictive than it needs to be.
If it's an off-the-shelf video decoder chip (IMO, likely), then that probably has built-in MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 decoding capabilities which they aren't offering. It's possible to transcode video, but it's not going to be a viable offering for EyeTV recordings, which are MPEG-2, encoded from analog or bitstream recorded from digital transmission. I don't think it makes any sense to require several hours of encoding just to play a recorded TV show on aTV.
Exactly! If AppleTV is running a stripped down version of OS X and Quicktime, why can't it handle other formats that Quicktime natively supports for playback, such as mpeg? If it's using Front Row, why does it have less video capabilities? And if it included the divx and wmv plug-ins (which are available for free), it could handle pretty much any video you'd encounter on the web. Choice is a good thing.
As someone pointed out, you can buy a (crappy) DVD player for less than $40 so the cost to Apple to include one since Front Row already supports it. Why would I want this when I already have a DVD player? Because then I could get rid of a device instead of adding yet another to the mix with AppleTV and because it gives me the choice to buy content from iTunes or watch my existing content from a consistent frontend.
You don't seem to understand the point of Apple Tv. The device is designed to create an easy way to get iTunes content from your computer onto your tv. That's it. Period. It's not a convergence device and it's not meant to replace the dvd player that most people already own. Apple is adding another choice into the mix. If you choose not to purchase and/or use iTunes content, then don't. No one is forcing you to.. If you prefer dvd's than go ahead and continue to use them.. However, if you choose to purchase content from the iTunes store and/or watch photos and listen to music that's stored on your computer, Apple tv creates a seamless way for you to get that content on your tv and into your living room.
Exactly! If AppleTV is running a stripped down version of OS X and Quicktime, why can't it handle other formats that Quicktime natively supports for playback, such as mpeg? If it's using Front Row, why does it have less video capabilities? And if it included the divx and wmv plug-ins (which are available for free), it could handle pretty much any video you'd encounter on the web. Choice is a good thing.
Sounds like the device you're looking for to handle all of your needs is called the Mac mini.
You don't seem to understand the point of Apple Tv. The device is designed to create an easy way to get iTunes content from your computer onto your tv. That's it. Period. It's not a convergence device and it's not meant to replace the dvd player that most people already own. Apple is adding another choice into the mix. If you choose not to purchase and/or use iTunes content, then don't. No one is forcing you to.. If you prefer dvd's than go ahead and continue to use them.. However, if you choose to purchase content from the iTunes store and/or watch photos and listen to music that's stored on your computer, Apple tv creates a seamless way for you to get that content on your tv and into your living room.
I think I was hoping I missed the point.
It's basically the world's most expensive iPod video cable.
I think I was hoping I missed the point.
It's basically the world's most expensive iPod video cable.
The value of Apple TV is all relative to your needs. There is no doubt that if you're looking for a complete living room solution, the Mac mini with an elgato eye tv tuner card is the ticket. But be prepared to spend upwards of $1000 to get the mini configured properly to be such a box.
Despite Apple tv's limitiations, I expect that it will be a hit because of it's simplicity and elegant UI. You can expect funcitionality to be added over time. But as a starting point, Apple tv does what it is intended to do. The slogan for Apple tv says it all"
"If it's on iTunes, it's on Apple tv."
Sounds like the device you're looking for to handle all of your needs is called the Mac mini.
You could be right. And I wouldn't need to buy a new TV like I would with AppleTV. Not all that much of a price difference either. Although I'd like to wait until Leopard came out to see if they've ironed out any of Front Row's kinks.
You could be right. And I wouldn't need to buy a new TV like I would with AppleTV. Not all that much of a price difference either. Although I'd like to wait until Leopard came out to see if they've ironed out any of Front Row's kinks.
I spent a little less than the cost of a base mini on an original G5 PowerMac 2.0 + EyeTV hybrid, and it works with my XGA projector. I don't have front row, but I don't think it is a very good or useful program, so I don't really miss it.
LESS choice you say... let me see, a company brings out a NEW product that does soemthign NONE of its other products QUITE do... and this is LESS choice?
you remind me of my brother
... give him a wheelbarrow full of gold... and he will complain about the WEIGHT
LESS choice you say... let me see, a company brings out a NEW product that does soemthign NONE of its other products QUITE do... and this is LESS choice?
This has already been pointed out and discussed.
This has already been pointed out and discussed.
what? is their a limit on the amount of times something can be disscussed?
no flame ment, but the board would die without the constant rehashing that some people seem to thrive on
what? is their a limit on the amount of times something can be disscussed?
no flame ment, but the board would die without the constant rehashing that some people seem to thrive on
No, it was pointed out two pages ago in this very thread. I would understand if it was some other thread.
I don't like this idea at all and I'm not sure why you do either. Apple seems to want to become the gateway to all media: music, TV, movies, etc. Is this any than the current alternatives of CD's, DVD's, cable, satellite and Tivo? At least they provide some level of choice. Do you really want one choice for media?
iTunes provides less value on all of the media fronts then any of the alternatives. Songs of lower quality than CD's and with DRM on top. Movies of lower audio/video quality than DVD with no extras, subtitles, portability, etc and DRM on top. TV that you have to wait (at least) a day for and (obviously) no live content such as sports events and only a small selection of shows to choose from (if you feel like watching an episode of Jeopardy or watch the local news, I hope you have a set of rabbit ears lying around). Want to loan out that movie you bought from iTunes? Too bad, unless you have a laptop you could loan out and your friend has an AppleTV. Less freedom and less options is the only thing that iTunes and AppleTV have to offer.
And I've made this comment before but it has always been ignored, but how about all the people who get their high-speed internet from the cable company (like myself)? Chances are the only other option most people have is the phone company's DSL. For me (and probably quite a few others), I have a cell phone and have no need of a land line which I'd be required to get for DSL so I'd be paying for something I don't need. Better to use that money on cable+internet and cut out all the costs of buying content from iTunes in the process.
I don't want only one choice for media. That's what we have now with cable and satellite. If those almost almost monopolies had any real competition they would either shape up or go away. I do want to be able to get all or most of my media from one place for convenience, and I would much rather buy bits from the comfort of my sofa rather than buying atoms in a store. I want my media life to be more simple not more complex. The choice comes when and if i become unhappy with that source i can go to another. We have plenty of choices there and apple is offering another choice with iTunes and AppleTV.
The reason I like what they are doing here is because it is one of the solutions that is looking in the right direction for the future. Apple's approach seems to cut out a lot of needless complexity, which is what they are good at. If you want something that tries to be everything to everyone, go with the windows media center thing. Why DVR a show when you can just grab it from iTunes for $2? Why rent or buy a movie from Blockbuster or Netflix when you can download it (which is why there's no dvd player on the thing)? This is what most people (including me) have been wanting for a long time...convenience and simplicity - its called (drumroll please...) ON DEMAND!
Stack your components to the ceiling bro and try not to get stuck in all the cable spaghetti. I'll be sitting on my couch in front of my sharp lcd with nothing but my receiver, my apple tv, my infinitis, and one remote. Weigh the advantages with the disadvantages. The quality will get there. Apple is pushing back on the drm front as we speak. I'll trade 1000 rarely used features for elegance and simplicity any day.
The reason I like what they are doing here is because it is one of the solutions that is looking in the right direction for the future. Apple's approach seems to cut out a lot of needless complexity, which is what they are good at. If you want something that tries to be everything to everyone, go with the windows media center thing. Why DVR a show when you can just grab it from iTunes for $2? Why rent or buy a movie from Blockbuster or Netflix when you can download it (which is why there's no dvd player on the thing)? This is what most people (including me) have been wanting for a long time...convenience and simplicity - its called (drumroll please...) ON DEMAND!
iTunes is not really a rental system (nor is it trying to), so I don't see why you suggest it is a substitute. For $15/mo one can easily rent 8-16 DVDs from Netflix. Or "buy" one (or 1.5) iTunes movie(s). That is an enormous expense trade-off for on demand.
The problem with buying TV shows through that model is that expenses rack up very quickly. It is probably a workable alternative for an individual, but if you watch one TV episode a night, that's still more than basic cable. A household would be a lot better off with cable/sat + PVR.
I don't want only one choice for media. That's what we have now with cable and satellite. If those almost almost monopolies had any real competition they would either shape up or go away. I do want to be able to get all or most of my media from one place for convenience, and I would much rather buy bits from the comfort of my sofa rather than buying atoms in a store. I want my media life to be more simple not more complex. The choice comes when and if i become unhappy with that source i can go to another. We have plenty of choices there and apple is offering another choice with iTunes and AppleTV.
The reason I like what they are doing here is because it is one of the solutions that is looking in the right direction for the future. Apple's approach seems to cut out a lot of needless complexity, which is what they are good at. If you want something that tries to be everything to everyone, go with the windows media center thing. Why DVR a show when you can just grab it from iTunes for $2? Why rent or buy a movie from Blockbuster or Netflix when you can download it (which is why there's no dvd player on the thing)? This is what most people (including me) have been wanting for a long time...convenience and simplicity - its called (drumroll please...) ON DEMAND!
Stack your components to the ceiling bro and try not to get stuck in all the cable spaghetti. I'll be sitting on my couch in front of my sharp lcd with nothing but my receiver, my apple tv, my infinitis, and one remote. Weigh the advantages with the disadvantages. The quality will get there. Apple is pushing back on the drm front as we speak. I'll trade 1000 rarely used features for elegance and simplicity any day.
A quick answer to why DVR and not buy from iTunes. Because for $12.95 a month, I can DVR any number of shows with my Tivo. If I watch more than 7 episodes of anything in a month, I've iTunes beat for value right there. And it's more on demand then iTunes (well for me, with my 3Kbits cable modem connection), I have to wait at least 10 minutes before I could start watching the show.