It won't be getting better because it really has no areas it needs to or could improve. Apple's distribution model and format on the other hand is still trying to play catch up to to DVD, let alone Blu-Ray.
Other than selection, I think Apple has caught up to DVD. Typical network bandwidth isn't fast enough for them to match blu ray. That will change over time. For now, the question is if it's "good enough". It depends on what you're watching. Some movies you want every bit, for others it really doesn't matter all that much.
it's interesting, though, that some complain that Apple's quality isn't as high as Blu Ray while others complain their HD content doesn't stream as fast as the junk quality you get from netflix streaming. For me, Apple's SD content starts about as fast as Netflix, but Apple doesn't degrade the video the way netflix does. My connection is fast enough, netflix streaming rarely gives me their best quality, pretty much never looks as good as Apple, and at times degrades into pixel hell.
Again, the biggest issue is the inability to easily rip DVDs into iTunes. This may never get fixed, they have a partial solution - a key to a free digital copy bundled with some DVDs and Blu Rays. It would be nice if at some point the free copy with a blu ray was the HD version.
Its fine not updating the DVD authoring tools if your customers only want to download movies through Itunes but how are we Mac users going to record our personal Movies and files? last I heard we were computer users and so we need BD or other high capacity media
Another gripe is that there is no price differentiation between the physical and digital version of the movie how greedy can these movie companies be?
Given that the iTunes Extra file is HTML/CSS/AAC/H264, can it be transferred or viewed on the iPhone/iPod Touch? Both devices are capable of displaying such material, so it would be a shame if this feature weren't present at launch.
Such functionality would certainly add to the appeal of iTunes Extra's!
Also, I'm guessing that iTunes 9 now contains WebKit???
Unless Apple's going to start letting any video professional (not just the five major movie studios) publish content on iTunes ? free and otherwise ? then their approach to HD distribution is terribly flawed. It's depressing to think that Apple's focus has shifted from helping it's users create original content to helping the major film and record studios sell their shit.
Regarding the claim that Blu-Ray players are priced "out of the mainstream of the market", they're cheaper than an Apple TV or two of the three iPod Touch models. Who in their right mind would spend $229 to get their overpriced, overcompressed digital movies (of which the selection is limited I might add) onto their HDTV, when they could spend about the same on a Blu-Ray player (whose movies cost the same but are ten times larger in file size) that also includes Netflix streaming, Blockbuster streaming, Pandora streaming and YouTube support.
Could these video professionals not create a HD video podcast? There seems to be a large number of them (all free from my experience though) that are produced by semi-professionals. That would seem to be a reasonable way to distribute your content. Now, can they do these "extras" for a video podcast?!
well, your friends must have the worst CD etiquette on the planet then. My first CD (the 3" single of "One" by metallica) still plays and is flawlessly clean. It boggles my mind when i get rentals from blockbuster or Netflix that's all scratched up. which is one of the reasons why i stopped going to Blockbuster, netflix is way better about care with DVD's.
Out of the the 400+ CD's i own, i've had only to re-purchase one because it fell out of my bag and hit the concrete. The rest are flawless, and i'm not really all that careful. Plus, not that they are all safely downloaded on iTunes i have my entire collection in my pocket.
Studio CD's (from what i've read) are supposed to last up to 100 years. Way longer than any human needs and for Technology to trump it.
If a CD is out lasted by a piece of computer hardware, then you've got problems.
First off, no, my friends do NOT have the worst etiquette on the planet. That honor goes to my old neighbors. They had horrible "etiquette" when it came to CD and DVD care. Almost to the point of using CDs as drink coasters (almost). terrible, I know.
No, most of my friends take really good care of their CDs and DVDs. Most. But what I am saying is that even under the most extreme care and maintenance, ALL current hardware, data storage, etc. is NOT immune from defects, humidity, temperature shifts, etc. But, by also making a "Golden" rule, like you have, that "If a CD is out lasted by a piece of computer hardware, then you've got problems." is utter ridiculous. So, does that mean that my Commodore 64 hardware somehow "defies" logic and truth because it has still survived and has outlived 6 of my CDs? - Which, by the way, were carefully maintained and cared for, but were damaged because of CD Rot ("Initial music CDs were known to suffer from "CD rot", or "laser rot", in which the internal reflective layer degrades. When this occurs the CD may become unplayable.").
So - don't make "Golden" Rules, don't believe the hype, and don't scoff at anyone who thinks that these rules are NOT set in stone and anything else is someone "having problems." Nothing lasts forever and nothing is immune to aging. All I am saying is that everyone should backup, backup, backup, as well as care for their items (hardware, storage, etc.), transfer data every few years to a new storage system and not rely on any set of rules when it comes to a lifespan of anything, especially when it comes to the industry saying anything about their product lasting 100 years. If you believe that, there's this Nigerian Prince who wants to have a chat with you . . .
Listen to that, I got an Apple TV and I got a Blu-Ray player.
I rent the last batman on a Blu-Ray disc and I rent the same thing in HD on the Apple TV.
Then I play both film on my 58 inch plasma 1080p TV and switch from the Blu-Ray to the Apple TV several time to compare the quality of the image.
Conclusion.....
I did'nt see any difference in the quality of the image on both way.
It takes 1 minute to the Blu-Ray to start begining when I put the disc in the disc reader.
It takes also 1 minute for the Apple TV to start to listen the film
BLU-RAY
It takes me 45 minutes of travelling to rent my Blu-Ray, because I went to the video club 4 times for the film. (go get it and return it and come back to home)
I forgot to return the film in time and it cost me another day of renting
APPLE TV
it takes me 0 minute for travelling and if I forgot the film I have no extra charge because the film erase by itself when it's the time
As previously stated, BRD players can’t change chapters as fast my iTunes Store rental or DVD can. There is just too much data for these players to handle that kind of instant switch at this point.
Has this guy ever used a blu-ray player? You can actually see what's in the other chapters while the movie is in progress which is a major advantage- period. The is no need to back out of the movie itself! And is there is a diff is the actual skip - what is it a nana-second? Come on!
Could these video professionals not create a HD video podcast? There seems to be a large number of them (all free from my experience though) that are produced by semi-professionals. That would seem to be a reasonable way to distribute your content. Now, can they do these "extras" for a video podcast?!
Podcasts are a means of distribution, but I'm not convinced there is enough money in it, relying on donations, branded items and sponsored ads, vs. being in the store where the watcher pays money
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron
The ones previously mentioned about time, energy, and expense of going out and getting a BRD and lack of convenience for an instance purchase from your home.
There is a point there, but then, all my BDs show up in my mail box. Unless you have a ripping fast connection, you'll still need to plan ahead a bit either way.
Quote:
Yes, there are. As previously stated, BRD players can?t change chapters as fast my iTunes Store rental or DVD can. There is just too much data for these players to handle that kind of instant switch at this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Has this guy ever used a blu-ray player? You can actually see what's in the other chapters while the movie is in progress which is a major advantage- period. The is no need to back out of the movie itself! And is there is a diff is the actual skip - what is it a nana-second? Come on!
Chapter skips do seem plenty quick to me. iTunes videos seem clunkier to me on a Mac Pro than a BD is on a PS3.
Its a step in the right direction, but there's still a lot of steps along the way. Unless you get a way to import your optical library (with extras) and you get TV options other than a single set top box, you're not going the adoption rates rise much.
Hulu is free. There is no monetary charge thus it is free. Nobody is forced to watch ads, we can visit another website via another tab while the ads play. Yes you don't own it, but you don't own cable TV and that is definitely not free.
Just saying it doesn't make it so.
If they were the same thing there wouldn't be two terms. You can't just say "dogs are cats" and expect it to fly.
Other than selection, I think Apple has caught up to DVD.
Well, that's a rather misleading point of view considering they only offer fourteen movies with extras and their SD quality doesn't match DVD. If they'd launched this new extras thing with thousands of movies ? and upped the quality of the encode in the process ? then I would agree. It's a nice solution in theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gigi
Listen to that, I got an Apple TV and I got a Blu-Ray player.
I rent the last batman on a Blu-Ray disc and I rent the same thing in HD on the Apple TV.
Then I play both film on my 58 inch plasma 1080p TV and switch from the Blu-Ray to the Apple TV several time to compare the quality of the image.
Conclusion.....
I did'nt see any difference in the quality of the image on both way.
It takes 1 minute to the Blu-Ray to start begining when I put the disc in the disc reader.
It takes also 1 minute for the Apple TV to start to listen the film
BLU-RAY
It takes me 45 minutes of travelling to rent my Blu-Ray, because I went to the video club 4 times for the film. (go get it and return it and come back to home)
I forgot to return the film in time and it cost me another day of renting
APPLE TV
it takes me 0 minute for travelling and if I forgot the film I have no extra charge because the film erase by itself when it's the time
Some shots look just fine with Apple's low bitrates, because some shots simply don't contain as much information; the same is true for the overly compressed HD content cable companies spit out. When it's a stationary bright shot of just heads talking, it usually looks great; dark scenes or fast moving content however is another story altogether. In my experience those who can't see the difference either don't have their gear connected properly, are sitting too far from their television, or don't have their glasses on.
Holy crap dude. Hulu does not cost the viewer money. Ergo, it's free. If I watch The Daily Show in iTunes it costs me $2 an episode. If I want to watch The Daily Show on television I have to have a minimum $50/mo cable plan to get a package that includes Comedy Central and also sit through commercials. if I watch The Daily Show on Hulu it costs me nothing. See?...
Your kind of deluding yourself here a bit. Hulu is not free in the exact same way as the alternative you are presenting in your argument.
To watch Hulu you have to pay (in my case), about $50 a month for the Internet connection and you have to sit though the ads. It's almost the exact same situation as broadcast TV or cable TV. You say that you can switch away from the ads when they come on and "not watch them," but the same argument was made in 1960 for broadcast Television. It still remains *possible* in both cases to leave the room and not watch the ads, but the reality is that you watch the ads. If you personally don't then fine, you are a demanding OCD type after my own heart, but most people will watch the ads.
In fact, the only real, significant difference between a Hulu situation and broadcast TV is the "breadth" as it were, of the distribution. Broadcast TV (now all but gone), "leaked" and was available to people who didn't pay for it by virtue of having rabbit ears on top of their set. There is a progression from broadcast TV, through cable and satellite, and then specialty channels subscription cable and private satellites, and finally to Hulu, where the media company is trying to close down access. To narrow that pipe and to make the user on the end of it pay more.
To get Hulu for instance, you have to first move to the United States. That may be a side issue to you, but it's relevant in terms of that narrow distribution pipe model. Most of the world can't get Hulu, and if and when they do get such services, they will be different, but similar narrow distribution pipes to other markets if the media companies get their way. The end user also loses out in that with broadcast TV and with cable and satellite, the user can save a copy of what they are watching. With Internet distribution you can't save it, and if you could, you won't be able to remove the ads either.
Things like Hulu are a win-win for the media companies, not the end user. Freedom is restricted, distribution is restricted and ownership is restricted. It's touted as "free" when in fact it is not and also comes with all these restrictions.
I know you probably think I'm making a big deal of it, but it's important. The proverbial wool is being pulled over your eyes and it's important to speak up about what they are doing. You don't really think that NBC or any of the big media companies is going to be doing stuff like this because they love the end user and just want to make them happy with free TV do you?
These companies operate out of self interest and self interest alone and their "customer" is not you, it's the advertiser. Apple at least is a consumer company that has the end user's interests at heart.
Comments
You mean, a bit like Apple's products?
Well said
What inconveniences are those?
It won't be getting better because it really has no areas it needs to or could improve. Apple's distribution model and format on the other hand is still trying to play catch up to to DVD, let alone Blu-Ray.
Other than selection, I think Apple has caught up to DVD. Typical network bandwidth isn't fast enough for them to match blu ray. That will change over time. For now, the question is if it's "good enough". It depends on what you're watching. Some movies you want every bit, for others it really doesn't matter all that much.
it's interesting, though, that some complain that Apple's quality isn't as high as Blu Ray while others complain their HD content doesn't stream as fast as the junk quality you get from netflix streaming. For me, Apple's SD content starts about as fast as Netflix, but Apple doesn't degrade the video the way netflix does. My connection is fast enough, netflix streaming rarely gives me their best quality, pretty much never looks as good as Apple, and at times degrades into pixel hell.
Again, the biggest issue is the inability to easily rip DVDs into iTunes. This may never get fixed, they have a partial solution - a key to a free digital copy bundled with some DVDs and Blu Rays. It would be nice if at some point the free copy with a blu ray was the HD version.
Another gripe is that there is no price differentiation between the physical and digital version of the movie how greedy can these movie companies be?
Such functionality would certainly add to the appeal of iTunes Extra's!
Also, I'm guessing that iTunes 9 now contains WebKit???
Unless Apple's going to start letting any video professional (not just the five major movie studios) publish content on iTunes ? free and otherwise ? then their approach to HD distribution is terribly flawed. It's depressing to think that Apple's focus has shifted from helping it's users create original content to helping the major film and record studios sell their shit.
Regarding the claim that Blu-Ray players are priced "out of the mainstream of the market", they're cheaper than an Apple TV or two of the three iPod Touch models. Who in their right mind would spend $229 to get their overpriced, overcompressed digital movies (of which the selection is limited I might add) onto their HDTV, when they could spend about the same on a Blu-Ray player (whose movies cost the same but are ten times larger in file size) that also includes Netflix streaming, Blockbuster streaming, Pandora streaming and YouTube support.
Could these video professionals not create a HD video podcast? There seems to be a large number of them (all free from my experience though) that are produced by semi-professionals. That would seem to be a reasonable way to distribute your content. Now, can they do these "extras" for a video podcast?!
well, your friends must have the worst CD etiquette on the planet then. My first CD (the 3" single of "One" by metallica) still plays and is flawlessly clean. It boggles my mind when i get rentals from blockbuster or Netflix that's all scratched up. which is one of the reasons why i stopped going to Blockbuster, netflix is way better about care with DVD's.
Out of the the 400+ CD's i own, i've had only to re-purchase one because it fell out of my bag and hit the concrete. The rest are flawless, and i'm not really all that careful. Plus, not that they are all safely downloaded on iTunes i have my entire collection in my pocket.
Studio CD's (from what i've read) are supposed to last up to 100 years. Way longer than any human needs and for Technology to trump it.
If a CD is out lasted by a piece of computer hardware, then you've got problems.
First off, no, my friends do NOT have the worst etiquette on the planet. That honor goes to my old neighbors. They had horrible "etiquette" when it came to CD and DVD care. Almost to the point of using CDs as drink coasters (almost). terrible, I know.
No, most of my friends take really good care of their CDs and DVDs. Most. But what I am saying is that even under the most extreme care and maintenance, ALL current hardware, data storage, etc. is NOT immune from defects, humidity, temperature shifts, etc. But, by also making a "Golden" rule, like you have, that "If a CD is out lasted by a piece of computer hardware, then you've got problems." is utter ridiculous. So, does that mean that my Commodore 64 hardware somehow "defies" logic and truth because it has still survived and has outlived 6 of my CDs? - Which, by the way, were carefully maintained and cared for, but were damaged because of CD Rot ("Initial music CDs were known to suffer from "CD rot", or "laser rot", in which the internal reflective layer degrades. When this occurs the CD may become unplayable.").
So - don't make "Golden" Rules, don't believe the hype, and don't scoff at anyone who thinks that these rules are NOT set in stone and anything else is someone "having problems." Nothing lasts forever and nothing is immune to aging. All I am saying is that everyone should backup, backup, backup, as well as care for their items (hardware, storage, etc.), transfer data every few years to a new storage system and not rely on any set of rules when it comes to a lifespan of anything, especially when it comes to the industry saying anything about their product lasting 100 years. If you believe that, there's this Nigerian Prince who wants to have a chat with you . . .
There's no real reason the same concept (perhaps different content) couldn't work on the iPhone. AppleTV should be possible too...
I rent the last batman on a Blu-Ray disc and I rent the same thing in HD on the Apple TV.
Then I play both film on my 58 inch plasma 1080p TV and switch from the Blu-Ray to the Apple TV several time to compare the quality of the image.
Conclusion.....
I did'nt see any difference in the quality of the image on both way.
It takes 1 minute to the Blu-Ray to start begining when I put the disc in the disc reader.
It takes also 1 minute for the Apple TV to start to listen the film
BLU-RAY
It takes me 45 minutes of travelling to rent my Blu-Ray, because I went to the video club 4 times for the film. (go get it and return it and come back to home)
I forgot to return the film in time and it cost me another day of renting
APPLE TV
it takes me 0 minute for travelling and if I forgot the film I have no extra charge because the film erase by itself when it's the time
Having our own film done by our camera and create menu like a DVD but exportable to the Apple TV or iTunes, the same way that iTunes extra work.
I think this is the way iDVD will evolved and this will be unique in the market.
Since when are DVD movies encoded at 720p!?
They're not- who said they are?
Youre' talking HD downloads. The article never mentions that. The vast majority of content in iTunes is measley SD- "near DVD quality".
SD iTunes movies have always sucked big time compared to DVDs in resolution.
As previously stated, BRD players can’t change chapters as fast my iTunes Store rental or DVD can. There is just too much data for these players to handle that kind of instant switch at this point.
Has this guy ever used a blu-ray player? You can actually see what's in the other chapters while the movie is in progress which is a major advantage- period. The is no need to back out of the movie itself! And is there is a diff is the actual skip - what is it a nana-second? Come on!
Could these video professionals not create a HD video podcast? There seems to be a large number of them (all free from my experience though) that are produced by semi-professionals. That would seem to be a reasonable way to distribute your content. Now, can they do these "extras" for a video podcast?!
Podcasts are a means of distribution, but I'm not convinced there is enough money in it, relying on donations, branded items and sponsored ads, vs. being in the store where the watcher pays money
The ones previously mentioned about time, energy, and expense of going out and getting a BRD and lack of convenience for an instance purchase from your home.
There is a point there, but then, all my BDs show up in my mail box. Unless you have a ripping fast connection, you'll still need to plan ahead a bit either way.
Yes, there are. As previously stated, BRD players can?t change chapters as fast my iTunes Store rental or DVD can. There is just too much data for these players to handle that kind of instant switch at this point.
Has this guy ever used a blu-ray player? You can actually see what's in the other chapters while the movie is in progress which is a major advantage- period. The is no need to back out of the movie itself! And is there is a diff is the actual skip - what is it a nana-second? Come on!
Chapter skips do seem plenty quick to me. iTunes videos seem clunkier to me on a Mac Pro than a BD is on a PS3.
Hulu is free. There is no monetary charge thus it is free. Nobody is forced to watch ads, we can visit another website via another tab while the ads play. Yes you don't own it, but you don't own cable TV and that is definitely not free.
Just saying it doesn't make it so.
If they were the same thing there wouldn't be two terms. You can't just say "dogs are cats" and expect it to fly.
I'd love to buy all new movies as downloads but simply refuse to pay the same price as physical DVDs or Blu Rays, why should I?
They don't have to burn it to disc, seal it, ship it and pay shops commision, downloads should reflect this but they don't!
A-men!
Other than selection, I think Apple has caught up to DVD.
Well, that's a rather misleading point of view considering they only offer fourteen movies with extras and their SD quality doesn't match DVD. If they'd launched this new extras thing with thousands of movies ? and upped the quality of the encode in the process ? then I would agree. It's a nice solution in theory.
Listen to that, I got an Apple TV and I got a Blu-Ray player.
I rent the last batman on a Blu-Ray disc and I rent the same thing in HD on the Apple TV.
Then I play both film on my 58 inch plasma 1080p TV and switch from the Blu-Ray to the Apple TV several time to compare the quality of the image.
Conclusion.....
I did'nt see any difference in the quality of the image on both way.
It takes 1 minute to the Blu-Ray to start begining when I put the disc in the disc reader.
It takes also 1 minute for the Apple TV to start to listen the film
BLU-RAY
It takes me 45 minutes of travelling to rent my Blu-Ray, because I went to the video club 4 times for the film. (go get it and return it and come back to home)
I forgot to return the film in time and it cost me another day of renting
APPLE TV
it takes me 0 minute for travelling and if I forgot the film I have no extra charge because the film erase by itself when it's the time
Some shots look just fine with Apple's low bitrates, because some shots simply don't contain as much information; the same is true for the overly compressed HD content cable companies spit out. When it's a stationary bright shot of just heads talking, it usually looks great; dark scenes or fast moving content however is another story altogether. In my experience those who can't see the difference either don't have their gear connected properly, are sitting too far from their television, or don't have their glasses on.
I'd love to buy all new movies as downloads but simply refuse to pay the same price as physical DVDs or Blu Rays, why should I?
They don't have to burn it to disc, seal it, ship it and pay shops commision, downloads should reflect this but they don't!
But they need to built a big campus with a lot of server to contain all those movie and extra, pay for the enormous bandwith.
Holy crap dude. Hulu does not cost the viewer money. Ergo, it's free. If I watch The Daily Show in iTunes it costs me $2 an episode. If I want to watch The Daily Show on television I have to have a minimum $50/mo cable plan to get a package that includes Comedy Central and also sit through commercials. if I watch The Daily Show on Hulu it costs me nothing. See?...
Your kind of deluding yourself here a bit. Hulu is not free in the exact same way as the alternative you are presenting in your argument.
To watch Hulu you have to pay (in my case), about $50 a month for the Internet connection and you have to sit though the ads. It's almost the exact same situation as broadcast TV or cable TV. You say that you can switch away from the ads when they come on and "not watch them," but the same argument was made in 1960 for broadcast Television. It still remains *possible* in both cases to leave the room and not watch the ads, but the reality is that you watch the ads. If you personally don't then fine, you are a demanding OCD type after my own heart, but most people will watch the ads.
In fact, the only real, significant difference between a Hulu situation and broadcast TV is the "breadth" as it were, of the distribution. Broadcast TV (now all but gone), "leaked" and was available to people who didn't pay for it by virtue of having rabbit ears on top of their set. There is a progression from broadcast TV, through cable and satellite, and then specialty channels subscription cable and private satellites, and finally to Hulu, where the media company is trying to close down access. To narrow that pipe and to make the user on the end of it pay more.
To get Hulu for instance, you have to first move to the United States. That may be a side issue to you, but it's relevant in terms of that narrow distribution pipe model. Most of the world can't get Hulu, and if and when they do get such services, they will be different, but similar narrow distribution pipes to other markets if the media companies get their way. The end user also loses out in that with broadcast TV and with cable and satellite, the user can save a copy of what they are watching. With Internet distribution you can't save it, and if you could, you won't be able to remove the ads either.
Things like Hulu are a win-win for the media companies, not the end user. Freedom is restricted, distribution is restricted and ownership is restricted. It's touted as "free" when in fact it is not and also comes with all these restrictions.
I know you probably think I'm making a big deal of it, but it's important. The proverbial wool is being pulled over your eyes and it's important to speak up about what they are doing. You don't really think that NBC or any of the big media companies is going to be doing stuff like this because they love the end user and just want to make them happy with free TV do you?
These companies operate out of self interest and self interest alone and their "customer" is not you, it's the advertiser. Apple at least is a consumer company that has the end user's interests at heart.
wheres the beatles ???
They somewhere getting older and forgotten.