QuickTime 7.5.7 allows SD iTunes playback over DisplayPort
Calming a controversial situation, Apple on Tuesday night released a new QuickTime update that allows standard definition iTunes movies to play over the new MacBooks' DisplayPort to older displays.
The update, currently available only through Software Update on the unibody MacBook and MacBook Pro as well as the second-revision MacBook Air, addresses a widely publicized complaint that the new portables would refuse to play purchased movies on external displays without HDCP support.
This is known to include any display that attaches through the VGA adapter and should also permit similar playback on DVI-equipped displays without HDCP encryption built-in. High definition content isn't immediately affected as TV shows typically aren't required to use the copy protection format.
Apple's change brings the Mac closer into step with the typical behavior of other movie stores and the movie disc industry, which often permits much less restricted playback for regular DVD- or TV-level resolution video but places tighter controls on HD.
The update, currently available only through Software Update on the unibody MacBook and MacBook Pro as well as the second-revision MacBook Air, addresses a widely publicized complaint that the new portables would refuse to play purchased movies on external displays without HDCP support.
This is known to include any display that attaches through the VGA adapter and should also permit similar playback on DVI-equipped displays without HDCP encryption built-in. High definition content isn't immediately affected as TV shows typically aren't required to use the copy protection format.
Apple's change brings the Mac closer into step with the typical behavior of other movie stores and the movie disc industry, which often permits much less restricted playback for regular DVD- or TV-level resolution video but places tighter controls on HD.
Comments
Apple is complicit in all this as well, they implemented the system for iTunes, they sell the content and make some amount of money on it, and such content makes their own hardware more attractive.
There shouldn't be any difference at all. HD is not worth more than SD, certainly not from a piracy point of view.
Wait, what? Of course it is. Doubly so, since BD+ is kind of a hassle at present time, so the easiest way to store the files on your computer is through piracy. Also, if you didn't remember, the iTunes store is pretty much the only legal way to watch HD shows and movies on a Mac.
HDCP doesn't necessarily connect to the resolution, though. For that, you need to have the Image Constraint Token (ICT), and even many Blu-ray movies don't use that.
It shouldn't really stop anything from playing. SD content should be let straight through, and HD content should be degraded to SD on the fly.
HD should be degraded to SD on the fly? How about "HDCP shouldn't exist at all."?
So it's here to stay. Apple had to add it to the video output sooner or later. There really was no choice in the matter except to give up on video sales altogether. And I'm sure those of you who own Apple stock wouldn't like that. To me the REAL mistake Apple made was not telling us it was there so we could make informed buying decisions.
I figured a mistake had been made, and this update seems to confirm that. Apple hadn't intended the DRM to be enforced...yet. Sounds like they are laying the ground work for HD movies on Macs, not just on AppleTV. And since I use a mini as a HTPC, I would welcome that and would purchase an updated mini with DisplayPort. I assume if/when Apple announces HD movies on Macs, they will need to also educate us on exactly what the hardware requirements will be (ie, will HD movies play on my DVI-based MacBook Pro?).
Or do you mean something else by that?
Based on the comments so far, I'm sure some of you will think that I've "drank the kool-aid," but I don't really have a problem with this. Sure, I wish there was no such thing as DRM; but I'm also practical enough to understand why it's necessary. Just think, if all of those greedy music thieves (surely none of us here) had never started the mass theft of music during the Napster days, perhaps we wouldn't be dealing with this mess now. Yes, media companies are pure evil, etc, etc; but we've demonstrated that we can be trusted either.
This obsession with control predates Napster by a long shot. I first encountered it in the early seventies when a girl was told to stop jamming in a restaurant while waiting for her friends to finish eating. Neither she nor the owner had paid the proper "tax" to permit "public" performances.
kaiwai, if you mean the new Unibody MacBooks to be the "newer platforms", then yes, it is only available for them, as they are the only Macs with DisplayPort and therefore HDCP.
Or do you mean something else by that?
Oops, you are right - I didn't read the article properly. It is surprising that they upped the version to 7.5.7 from 7.5.5 hence I assumed it must include more than just the single feature.
Based on the comments so far, I'm sure some of you will think that I've "drank the kool-aid," but I don't really have a problem with this. Sure, I wish there was no such thing as DRM; but I'm also practical enough to understand why it's necessary. Just think, if all of those greedy music thieves (surely none of us here) had never started the mass theft of music during the Napster days, perhaps we wouldn't be dealing with this mess now. Yes, media companies are pure evil, etc, etc; but we've demonstrated that we can be trusted either.
I think that you let the entertainment/content industries off way to easy. After all, Napster thrived in a vacuum of usable solutions offered by those companies.
Countless music titles were either unavailable in digital format at all and what was available could only be used via ridiculous DRM-based rental schemes.
Apple & iTunes changed all that and established the standards under which music is sold today.
Similar mindless consumer-unfriendly schemes are being employed today for movie distribution.
You can only buy movies digitally in SD, rent only a month after SD sales started and only rent HD.
The single reason: Maintain physical DVD (SD/HD) sales that provide higher margins. Even then digital copies on BD are only SD and then often even limited in the time they can be viewed.
Considering of how old HD standards actually are and the FCC digital broadcast mandate in US, it is a joke to consider HD a premium.
Don't get me wrong, I don't support piracy but technologies like HDCP have absolutely zero value to consumers and the lack of HD digital content is appalling in view of the available technologies to support them.
I happen to own royalties in a movie so I know what it's like. I don't agree with how the latest batch of DRM has been implemented but I agree with DRM in concept. I think that no matter what, someone will crack it so it's not really worth investing billions in, but it's important that it's difficult for the average man in the street to do.
Apple should be careful about trying the patience of their customers. Once bitten, they are difficult to win back.
Just curious but what does their competition offer?
I don't agree with how the latest batch of DRM has been implemented but I agree with DRM in concept. I think that no matter what, someone will crack it so it's not really worth investing billions in, but it's important that it's difficult for the average man in the street to do.
The problem is that it doesn't really help with regards to stopping piracy. Anyone who wants to pirate something knows to look on torrent sites, where someone else has already done the hard work of breaking the DRM. The only thing this DRM does is annoys legitimate consumers with restrictions.
If DRM actually did make life hard for the pirates, I might be able to see some value in it. But sadly it doesn't: once one guy has broken it (or got around it somehow) then no-one else needs bother. And there will always be that one guy -- someone who likes a challenge, and is clever enough to succeed.
Amorya
Wait, what? Of course it is. Doubly so, since BD+ is kind of a hassle at present time, so the easiest way to store the files on your computer is through piracy. Also, if you didn't remember, the iTunes store is pretty much the only legal way to watch HD shows and movies on a Mac.
Not really. Movies and TV shows can be recorded over the air, in HD, on a Mac. I've been doing such for one or two years.
http://www.elgato.com/elgato/na/main...oduct1.en.html
Wait, what? Of course it is. Doubly so, since BD+ is kind of a hassle at present time, so the easiest way to store the files on your computer is through piracy. Also, if you didn't remember, the iTunes store is pretty much the only legal way to watch HD shows and movies on a Mac.
Even people who pay for these movies tend to say that DVD is good enough. HD is nice yes, but most people don't consider it to be the holy grail of upgrades compared to the vhs to dvd transition.
That means most people are perfectly fine with SD content, particularly DVDs. So are pirates. That means this unnecessary "protection" of HD content is irrational, because they aren't protecting SD content to the same degree.
I'm quite serious, HD content isn't worth more, especially to pirates. I assure you people are just as happy to pirate a 480p copy or even a 320p copy, and HDCP isn't doing a damn thing about that.
I think that you let the entertainment/content industries off way to easy. After all, Napster thrived in a vacuum of usable solutions offered by those companies.
Countless music titles were either unavailable in digital format at all and what was available could only be used via ridiculous DRM-based rental schemes.
Apple & iTunes changed all that and established the standards under which music is sold today.
That's quite a lot of hyperbole. You could even in Napster's day rip a CD to a digital format just as easily as you can today. After all, how do you think all that music got onto Napster in the first place?
Similar mindless consumer-unfriendly schemes are being employed today for movie distribution.
You can only buy movies digitally in SD, rent only a month after SD sales started and only rent HD.
The single reason: Maintain physical DVD (SD/HD) sales that provide higher margins. Even then digital copies on BD are only SD and then often even limited in the time they can be viewed.
How did you come to the backward conclusion that physical sales have a higher margin that downloads? With the cost of preparing the menus and bonus features, pressing discs, packaging the discs, shipping to stores, it's pretty obvious that downloads end up with a much higher margin when all they have to do is pass a couple of files off to the download service (it's probably more than that, but it's obvious there should be a lot less effort involved in prepping a download).
The reason they want to protect physical sales is because brick and mortar stores use DVDs as loss leaders to drive sales to other higher margin items. Thus, B&M stores will offer steep discounts that lead to huge sales numbers for discs. No company offering downloads except Vudu has any real need to push digital video downloads because they are just a side-business used as another feature bullet point on their products. Last year, sales of physical HD content (Blu-Ray and HD DVD) was double that of digital downloads, and HD sales were just a blip on the scope when compared to standard DVD sales.
Then of course there's the fact that there are millions of potential customers that don't have an internet connection capable of downloads. And millions more that just have no interest in fussing with downloads when they just pop a disc into a player.
Considering of how old HD standards actually are and the FCC digital broadcast mandate in US, it is a joke to consider HD a premium.
Despite being fairly old tech, HD is still just coming out of its infancy especially in the US. Also, what does the FCC mandate have to do with HD? Absolutely nothing, there's no requirement to switch to HD in it, only to digital.
Don't get me wrong, I don't support piracy but technologies like HDCP have absolutely zero value to consumers and the lack of HD digital content is appalling in view of the available technologies to support them.
I won't disagree with the fact that HDCP has no value to the consumer. But it does have value to the movie studios. No, it (and the other forms of DRM) won't stop large-scale piracy. It's not meant to, it's meant to curb the casual piracy that has helped to send CD sales into the toilet. It's meant to limit how easy it is for Joe Public to say to his friend, "Sure, I'll make you a copy of that." It's meant to make it hard enough that the average user will decide its just easier to go buy a copy.
In all the years I've owned DVD, the DRM involved never got in the way of me enjoying the movies on the disc the way that Apple's Fairplay has with music. I can't play those movies on any non-Apple product. I can easily take that DVD out of my Sony PS3 and go upstairs and enjoy it on my Pioneer DVD player. In the year and a half I've bought Blu-Ray discs, the DRM has never gotten in my way.
Wait, what? Of course it is. Doubly so, since BD+ is kind of a hassle at present time, so the easiest way to store the files on your computer is through piracy. Also, if you didn't remember, the iTunes store is pretty much the only legal way to watch HD shows and movies on a Mac.
And if you, like me, don't consider an "HD" source that has 1/10th the bandwidth of Blu-Ray to really be "HD" at all, then there is no way at all to do it on a Mac. The iTunes' store's "HD" is a little better than upconverted SD, but not much, and it's certainly not in the same ballpark as Blu-Ray.