I haven't figured out a way to skip the previews and other stuff. Normally pressing "disc menu" or something like it will skip all the nonsense and take me to the main menu, but some discs prevent that. I've probably seen a hundred, maybe more, only a few have been as obnoxious as The Green Zone.
I'd say the kind of DRM that makes you play the content on an Apple device.
Can't you run iTunes on anything (don't know, I only use Apple)?
Quote:
Oppo 83 and the PS3 are smokin fast.
Oppo... too much $$$ for something I expect will be outdated in a couple of years. I thought about the PS3 too, decided on the LG. It was "good enough"
After doing some part to part price comparisons, I found that the base iMac is a little over 200 dollars more expensive than if you built your own computer with identical specs and chips (including OSX, iLife and iWork).
My serious question to all of you Apple fans, what about the computer is worth the extra money to you?
Serious question to Apple haters, is it worth the 200 dollars to build your own and troubleshoot a hackintosh, or linux, or windows?
(Me personally, I can see pros and cons to both sides.)
Well personally my time is worth FAR FAR more than the $200.
Oppo... too much $$$ for something I expect will be outdated in a couple of years.
Yeah, still waiting to hear from Prophet Steve when we can expect all the content providers will agree upon a common, fast delivery mechanism for reference quality audio and video with no copy protection that i can play anywhere and only pay once. It may be coming but until then it's wishes and dreams. I'll keep depending on amazon.com and UPS.
I've done that before and Dell is always far cheaper, but I don't go for the all in one Dell as I have no need of such a design. All I want is a desktop PC, I'm not so short of space that I can't fit a PC case off to one side. As Apple's only non all in one desktops either cost as much as a small planet, or are little toy PCs with no power/expandability.... then the iMac is the only option.
I wouldn't object to Apple's crazy pricing as much (I'm in the UK by the way, where we pay special Apple prices (ie. about 50% higher than in the US) if at least they adopted the latest tech. Blu-Ray and USB 3.0 should have been absolutely top of their list.
And that's exactly why I built my own and I have had zero issues with it and you always know that you can upgrade or change components without having to wait for X company to do it for you. I recently changed the mobo in order to use more and faster RAM and to gain onboard FW; a BR drive would be nice but I can always play those files using VLC and right now I just don't see the use for USB 3.0...
To each his own_if I were to buy an equivalent Mac Pro I would have spent almost twice the cost of this machine and as far as tech support when it comes to hardware I don't need it so as long as I can run OS X natively I am good to go...
A hackintosh isn't without difficulty - it's tedious to get everything working to begin with, and updates tend to break things. It's OK for a determined hacker who doesn't mind such challenges, but for the everyday user a $200 premium isn't that much to pay for the convenience of having everything work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by danvid36
And that's exactly why I built my own and I have had zero issues with it
I assume you have zero issues with Apple's copyright either?
Feature for feature, there is no price difference. It's just that Dull and HP offer low, "teaser" prices for their PCs. When you add everything a Mac comes with out of the box, the price is the same. Always has been. Apple isn't stupid about pricing - they simply don't sell low-end gear.
Even if the PC makers were to give away their cheap junk hardware for free, you'd still have to pay Microsoft about $50 for Windows. I don't believe it's even possible to buy a PC without paying the license fee. That is a "tax".
Well, in my comparison both Dell and Alienware had less features, were not all-in-ones and ended up being 30% more expensive
Imagine what would happen were I to compare it to other all-in-ones...
Well, in my comparison both Dell and Alienware had less features, were not all-in-ones and ended up being 30% more expensive
I didn't even bring up overall cost of ownership, since Apple hardware doesn't become obsolete whenever an update is released. They easily last twice as long as a Windows counterpart, making the real cost of ownership half as much even if the cost were the same. And the truth as you pointed out, Apple is usually cheaper. More so on the high end.
I've had a couple fence-sitters ask recently, after becoming almost but not quite sold on an Apple computer: "but... doesn't every software update make your computer run slower?"
I didn't even bring up overall cost of ownership, since Apple hardware doesn't become obsolete whenever an update is released. They easily last twice as long as a Windows counterpart, making the real cost of ownership half as much even if the cost were the same. And the truth as you pointed out, Apple is usually cheaper. More so on the high end.
I've had a couple fence-sitters ask recently, after becoming almost but not quite sold on an Apple computer: "but... doesn't every software update make your computer run slower?"
When I upgraded my 2007 C2D Mini to SL, it ran slower on some things, even after clearing out tons of space on the HD. I could do a clean install, but I shouldn't have to - I don't much of anything with it.
And I don't know if you can reliably get more than 3-4 years out of a computer anymore. If I wanted to get the most out of SL, like OpenCL, H.264 acceleration, I would have to buy a new Mac. It's less than 3 years old. Same thing with my PC, which was about 4 years old. Either SW or the OS will force an upgrade, especially with advances in GPGPU applications and other uses of the GPU/multi-core CPU's.
If I wanted to get the most out of SL, like OpenCL, H.264 acceleration, I would have to buy a new Mac.
My iMac just celebrated its tenth birthday, I've been using it just about every day. Completely wore out three mice, and upgraded the HD (of course). Runs Tiger.
I do want a couple new iMacs and now that the i5 is an option, I'll be upgrading. Didn't like the C2D and the 27" is just too big. Nevertheless, it's hard to justify the purchase, they still do the same things I've ever done, they're just faster at it. How much faster do I need to use the internet anyway?
I don't know of any good reason to upgrade to SL. Tiger does everything I need, especially since the release of Safari 4, which is faster than anything I've ever used before. I make full use of ClickToFlash I'm experimenting now with Leopard, but again I'm hard pressed to come up with anything it does better than Tiger.
Mrs. Galt still uses her Powerbook G4 to make iMovies and DVDs, she says it's fast enough for her needs. I think it's 7 years old. My Powerbook is even older. They all work fine.
I think it's reasonable to expect a useful life of over 5 years from these things. Depends what you need to do with 'em.
I'm a previous purchaser - in fact I have bought around half a dozen Macs over the years - but I didn't ever try to upgrade in the way that was suggested. While I suppose it might work, I don't see why Apple should even consider it. There was nothing wrong with the computer the poster bought, and this industry has a four-decade long history of quick updates.
As long as I've been using Macs (starting with the switch to Intel), you've been able to return an opened Mac (or iPod) for 14 days, taking a 10% haircut for the restocking fee. This guy said he was at day 11.
If a new model comes out and you are within the 14 day return period, the store manager has complete discretion to waive that restocking fee, esp. if you are trading up to the new model at the same (or higher) pricepoint. Then the "old" iMac goes back to Cali for an overhaul and shows up eventually on the refurb store.
Worst case, he's paying 10% for the privilege. Best case he gets a straight swap. There is no shame in taking advantage of Apple's published policies.
I really have no idea what you are talking about. The iMac looks pretty, if that's what's most important to you, but that fancy metal body won't help much when you try to ripp a BD or plug a UDB 3 hard drive into it.
Specs matter, especially with stuff as absolutely fundamental as optical drives and connectivity.
So why does this matter to you - in particular? Do you in fact own a Mac of any class? Probably not. So why consistently come here to piss in the wheaties of the Apple users here? It doesn't make you look smarter, cleverer or more of a tech than anyone else. In fact there is a classic definition of insanity - repeating the same behavior over and over again, expecting a different result. The entire volume of your contributions do not offer any salient discussion, only continual criticism to an entirely unappreciative audience, with the odd exception of the average newbie who hasn't added you to the ignore list yet.
Your insistence that Blu-Ray is better is a personal opinion - that runs smack up against the wall of contrary user experience, not to mention the licensing and OP issues. And USB 3.0 is not a universal standard yet that has sufficiently mainstreamed to interest Apple enough to include it on this yearly update. There are not many devices out there that take advantage of it yet, so why bother - just to me-too the other PC makers that include it only to list it as a feature? Pretty silly reasoning.
Everyone else:
To the average user - again: those unwashed non- to semi- technical users that constitute the large majority of purchasers - eSATA and the rest are essentially meaningless. What matters is the consistent performance for the usual tasks - and that is what the iMac is built to deliver. iMac has NEVER been about delivering cutting edge anything - we need to drop that little error immediately. It is meant to be an excellent all-round general-purpose computing device for the average user. If it can be configured to suit the needs of a super-user, that's an added bonus - but you guys are in the decided minority, and losing ground fast as Apple eases further into the consumer PC market percentages.
So while it's always fun to toss-off about this feature or that feature, crow about your hack-box that runs a bitchin' GPU that's miles better than the iMac - it is just self-gratification, nothing more, But please, clean-up after your done. *waves hand vaguely* "these are not the iMacs you are looking for. I need to go look at case mods. And over-clock my GPU. And watch some pron from my Blu-ray drive."
There. Not only will you be more satisfied, these threads won't be as long and have so many collapsed/ignored posters.
And that's exactly why I built my own and I have had zero issues with it and you always know that you can upgrade or change components without having to wait for X company to do it for you. I recently changed the mobo in order to use more and faster RAM and to gain onboard FW; a BR drive would be nice but I can always play those files using VLC and right now I just don't see the use for USB 3.0...
To each his own_if I were to buy an equivalent Mac Pro I would have spent almost twice the cost of this machine and as far as tech support when it comes to hardware I don't need it so as long as I can run OS X natively I am good to go...
It was fun for me to build my own too - servers included, until it cost more time than it was worth. It isn't just about parts costs - and if your time is cheap then by all means dive right in! But my time is worth a lot and all of my Macs out-perform comparable PCs over the long-haul - especially around security and vulnerability, but overall performance as well. If parts cost is all that matters to you - you are doing exactly the right thing - for me, time and effort are too precious to spend puttering around on the components. Ease of use, reliability, service and support all are much more critical to me now than building boxes.
I know this borders on being another thread, but..
It seems to me that the overwhelming discussion here about blu ray support
is about watching movies on computers.
This is not the issue really, Mac folks are in large part content creators.
The real need for BR is for back-up of large amounts of data ( on optical not motorized)
and the biggest issue is really this,
- a quote from previous poster-
"hi def video, what exactly are you supposed to do with your masterpiece? Break it up into little pieces and put it in DVD's? Share it with the Mobile Me web gallery?"
and this
"No other format delivers 45mbit 1080p video with lossless 7.1 audio."
Without ways to author a master Hi Def audiophile product on the Mac for the
1st time in Apple history Macs cannot author the content it creates!
what? have to buy windows to do this??..
take your project to someone with a PC..
unthinkable...
We need BRD to author and securely store large volumes of content.
Without this option Mac content creators are at a huge disadvantage..
Come on Steve... at least a BTO burner and a little support...
How tough can it be...
which Blu-ray isn't. Categorically. Most of the content creators I know have storage solutions that are far more robust than Blu-Ray will ever be. Blu-Ray is a consumer grade kludge of a storage solution built to support the resale of existing and sales of future content to the unsuspecting consumer. The fact that the format supports deeper storage is a tangential benefit, not built directly into the marketing profile or intentions of the format drivers. If you really need it buy an external and use it. But don't sully your commentary with claims of superiority that aren't merited for the format. It's primary purpose is to get you to buy over again previously purchased content and to drive licensing and use fees for the format drivers. Period. Any gain you realize beyond that is merely incidental.
And let's get real here - "Mac folks" as you so quaintly put it are increasingly average consumers - especially in the iMac series of devices, not the rabid content creators you allege. Yes, a lot of content creation happens on Macs - for good reason, but you are failing to recognize the primary reason for the device being configured the way it is - to offer a better computing experience to the average user. The same arguments were made when Apple dropped the floppy drive. And when Apple went with SCSI. And so on.
I've seen a lot of posts here complaining about the "small" or "%10" CPU upgrade. I would beg to differ. The change from Core 2 Duo to the Core iX chips is much more than clock frequency (Ghz) indicates (Familiar story, G3/G4/G5 fans?). Go find some benchmarks, and you'll find the change from Core 2 Duo to i5 or i7 most remarkable, beyond just the change from 2 to 4 processor cores. The i3 is only slightly faster, in some cases, than a C2D, but is an upgrade never-the-less and should also draw less power.
These are very good chips.
I mentioned the pitiful 4.6% CPU improvement at the high end (2.8GHz Core i7 to 2.93GHz Core i7) because that machine is most interesting to me.
At the low end the boost is far more significant. The Core i3 system sports an improved motherboard architecture, hyper-threading and discrete GPU.
But seriously folks, the quad core CPU went mainstream in 2007. At the rate Apple is going it will be 2012 before the majority of the iMac lineup sports more than two cores.
Comments
What brand of blu-ray player do you own?
LG BD-590.
I haven't figured out a way to skip the previews and other stuff. Normally pressing "disc menu" or something like it will skip all the nonsense and take me to the main menu, but some discs prevent that. I've probably seen a hundred, maybe more, only a few have been as obnoxious as The Green Zone.
What magic button gets you around this?
I'd say the kind of DRM that makes you play the content on an Apple device.
Can't you run iTunes on anything (don't know, I only use Apple)?
Oppo 83 and the PS3 are smokin fast.
Oppo... too much $$$ for something I expect will be outdated in a couple of years. I thought about the PS3 too, decided on the LG. It was "good enough"
After doing some part to part price comparisons, I found that the base iMac is a little over 200 dollars more expensive than if you built your own computer with identical specs and chips (including OSX, iLife and iWork).
My serious question to all of you Apple fans, what about the computer is worth the extra money to you?
Serious question to Apple haters, is it worth the 200 dollars to build your own and troubleshoot a hackintosh, or linux, or windows?
(Me personally, I can see pros and cons to both sides.)
Well personally my time is worth FAR FAR more than the $200.
Oppo... too much $$$ for something I expect will be outdated in a couple of years.
Yeah, still waiting to hear from Prophet Steve when we can expect all the content providers will agree upon a common, fast delivery mechanism for reference quality audio and video with no copy protection that i can play anywhere and only pay once. It may be coming but until then it's wishes and dreams. I'll keep depending on amazon.com and UPS.
-Chris
I've done that before and Dell is always far cheaper, but I don't go for the all in one Dell as I have no need of such a design. All I want is a desktop PC, I'm not so short of space that I can't fit a PC case off to one side. As Apple's only non all in one desktops either cost as much as a small planet, or are little toy PCs with no power/expandability.... then the iMac is the only option.
I wouldn't object to Apple's crazy pricing as much (I'm in the UK by the way, where we pay special Apple prices (ie. about 50% higher than in the US) if at least they adopted the latest tech. Blu-Ray and USB 3.0 should have been absolutely top of their list.
And that's exactly why I built my own and I have had zero issues with it and you always know that you can upgrade or change components without having to wait for X company to do it for you. I recently changed the mobo in order to use more and faster RAM and to gain onboard FW; a BR drive would be nice but I can always play those files using VLC and right now I just don't see the use for USB 3.0...
To each his own_if I were to buy an equivalent Mac Pro I would have spent almost twice the cost of this machine and as far as tech support when it comes to hardware I don't need it so as long as I can run OS X natively I am good to go...
What magic button gets you around this?
I click on the next chapter button
I click on the next chapter button
Doesn't work with The Green Zone. You get the red X
And that's exactly why I built my own and I have had zero issues with it
I assume you have zero issues with Apple's copyright either?
Feature for feature, there is no price difference. It's just that Dull and HP offer low, "teaser" prices for their PCs. When you add everything a Mac comes with out of the box, the price is the same. Always has been. Apple isn't stupid about pricing - they simply don't sell low-end gear.
Even if the PC makers were to give away their cheap junk hardware for free, you'd still have to pay Microsoft about $50 for Windows. I don't believe it's even possible to buy a PC without paying the license fee. That is a "tax".
Well, in my comparison both Dell and Alienware had less features, were not all-in-ones and ended up being 30% more expensive
Imagine what would happen were I to compare it to other all-in-ones...
Can't you run iTunes on anything (don't know, I only use Apple)?
Nope, I can't play the iTunes videos on my PS3, will only run on Apple hardware or Windows computers.
Well, in my comparison both Dell and Alienware had less features, were not all-in-ones and ended up being 30% more expensive
I didn't even bring up overall cost of ownership, since Apple hardware doesn't become obsolete whenever an update is released. They easily last twice as long as a Windows counterpart, making the real cost of ownership half as much even if the cost were the same. And the truth as you pointed out, Apple is usually cheaper. More so on the high end.
I've had a couple fence-sitters ask recently, after becoming almost but not quite sold on an Apple computer: "but... doesn't every software update make your computer run slower?"
I didn't even bring up overall cost of ownership, since Apple hardware doesn't become obsolete whenever an update is released. They easily last twice as long as a Windows counterpart, making the real cost of ownership half as much even if the cost were the same. And the truth as you pointed out, Apple is usually cheaper. More so on the high end.
I've had a couple fence-sitters ask recently, after becoming almost but not quite sold on an Apple computer: "but... doesn't every software update make your computer run slower?"
When I upgraded my 2007 C2D Mini to SL, it ran slower on some things, even after clearing out tons of space on the HD. I could do a clean install, but I shouldn't have to - I don't much of anything with it.
And I don't know if you can reliably get more than 3-4 years out of a computer anymore. If I wanted to get the most out of SL, like OpenCL, H.264 acceleration, I would have to buy a new Mac. It's less than 3 years old. Same thing with my PC, which was about 4 years old. Either SW or the OS will force an upgrade, especially with advances in GPGPU applications and other uses of the GPU/multi-core CPU's.
If I wanted to get the most out of SL, like OpenCL, H.264 acceleration, I would have to buy a new Mac.
My iMac just celebrated its tenth birthday, I've been using it just about every day. Completely wore out three mice, and upgraded the HD (of course). Runs Tiger.
I do want a couple new iMacs and now that the i5 is an option, I'll be upgrading. Didn't like the C2D and the 27" is just too big. Nevertheless, it's hard to justify the purchase, they still do the same things I've ever done, they're just faster at it. How much faster do I need to use the internet anyway?
I don't know of any good reason to upgrade to SL. Tiger does everything I need, especially since the release of Safari 4, which is faster than anything I've ever used before. I make full use of ClickToFlash
Mrs. Galt still uses her Powerbook G4 to make iMovies and DVDs, she says it's fast enough for her needs. I think it's 7 years old. My Powerbook is even older. They all work fine.
I think it's reasonable to expect a useful life of over 5 years from these things. Depends what you need to do with 'em.
I'm a previous purchaser - in fact I have bought around half a dozen Macs over the years - but I didn't ever try to upgrade in the way that was suggested. While I suppose it might work, I don't see why Apple should even consider it. There was nothing wrong with the computer the poster bought, and this industry has a four-decade long history of quick updates.
As long as I've been using Macs (starting with the switch to Intel), you've been able to return an opened Mac (or iPod) for 14 days, taking a 10% haircut for the restocking fee. This guy said he was at day 11.
If a new model comes out and you are within the 14 day return period, the store manager has complete discretion to waive that restocking fee, esp. if you are trading up to the new model at the same (or higher) pricepoint. Then the "old" iMac goes back to Cali for an overhaul and shows up eventually on the refurb store.
Worst case, he's paying 10% for the privilege. Best case he gets a straight swap. There is no shame in taking advantage of Apple's published policies.
I really have no idea what you are talking about. The iMac looks pretty, if that's what's most important to you, but that fancy metal body won't help much when you try to ripp a BD or plug a UDB 3 hard drive into it.
Specs matter, especially with stuff as absolutely fundamental as optical drives and connectivity.
So why does this matter to you - in particular? Do you in fact own a Mac of any class? Probably not. So why consistently come here to piss in the wheaties of the Apple users here? It doesn't make you look smarter, cleverer or more of a tech than anyone else. In fact there is a classic definition of insanity - repeating the same behavior over and over again, expecting a different result. The entire volume of your contributions do not offer any salient discussion, only continual criticism to an entirely unappreciative audience, with the odd exception of the average newbie who hasn't added you to the ignore list yet.
Your insistence that Blu-Ray is better is a personal opinion - that runs smack up against the wall of contrary user experience, not to mention the licensing and OP issues. And USB 3.0 is not a universal standard yet that has sufficiently mainstreamed to interest Apple enough to include it on this yearly update. There are not many devices out there that take advantage of it yet, so why bother - just to me-too the other PC makers that include it only to list it as a feature? Pretty silly reasoning.
Everyone else:
To the average user - again: those unwashed non- to semi- technical users that constitute the large majority of purchasers - eSATA and the rest are essentially meaningless. What matters is the consistent performance for the usual tasks - and that is what the iMac is built to deliver. iMac has NEVER been about delivering cutting edge anything - we need to drop that little error immediately. It is meant to be an excellent all-round general-purpose computing device for the average user. If it can be configured to suit the needs of a super-user, that's an added bonus - but you guys are in the decided minority, and losing ground fast as Apple eases further into the consumer PC market percentages.
So while it's always fun to toss-off about this feature or that feature, crow about your hack-box that runs a bitchin' GPU that's miles better than the iMac - it is just self-gratification, nothing more, But please, clean-up after your done. *waves hand vaguely* "these are not the iMacs you are looking for. I need to go look at case mods. And over-clock my GPU. And watch some pron from my Blu-ray drive."
There. Not only will you be more satisfied, these threads won't be as long and have so many collapsed/ignored posters.
And that's exactly why I built my own and I have had zero issues with it and you always know that you can upgrade or change components without having to wait for X company to do it for you. I recently changed the mobo in order to use more and faster RAM and to gain onboard FW; a BR drive would be nice but I can always play those files using VLC and right now I just don't see the use for USB 3.0...
To each his own_if I were to buy an equivalent Mac Pro I would have spent almost twice the cost of this machine and as far as tech support when it comes to hardware I don't need it so as long as I can run OS X natively I am good to go...
It was fun for me to build my own too - servers included, until it cost more time than it was worth. It isn't just about parts costs - and if your time is cheap then by all means dive right in! But my time is worth a lot and all of my Macs out-perform comparable PCs over the long-haul - especially around security and vulnerability, but overall performance as well. If parts cost is all that matters to you - you are doing exactly the right thing - for me, time and effort are too precious to spend puttering around on the components. Ease of use, reliability, service and support all are much more critical to me now than building boxes.
I know this borders on being another thread, but..
It seems to me that the overwhelming discussion here about blu ray support
is about watching movies on computers.
This is not the issue really, Mac folks are in large part content creators.
The real need for BR is for back-up of large amounts of data ( on optical not motorized)
and the biggest issue is really this,
- a quote from previous poster-
"hi def video, what exactly are you supposed to do with your masterpiece? Break it up into little pieces and put it in DVD's? Share it with the Mobile Me web gallery?"
and this
"No other format delivers 45mbit 1080p video with lossless 7.1 audio."
Without ways to author a master Hi Def audiophile product on the Mac for the
1st time in Apple history Macs cannot author the content it creates!
what? have to buy windows to do this??..
take your project to someone with a PC..
unthinkable...
We need BRD to author and securely store large volumes of content.
Without this option Mac content creators are at a huge disadvantage..
Come on Steve... at least a BTO burner and a little support...
How tough can it be...
which Blu-ray isn't. Categorically. Most of the content creators I know have storage solutions that are far more robust than Blu-Ray will ever be. Blu-Ray is a consumer grade kludge of a storage solution built to support the resale of existing and sales of future content to the unsuspecting consumer. The fact that the format supports deeper storage is a tangential benefit, not built directly into the marketing profile or intentions of the format drivers. If you really need it buy an external and use it. But don't sully your commentary with claims of superiority that aren't merited for the format. It's primary purpose is to get you to buy over again previously purchased content and to drive licensing and use fees for the format drivers. Period. Any gain you realize beyond that is merely incidental.
And let's get real here - "Mac folks" as you so quaintly put it are increasingly average consumers - especially in the iMac series of devices, not the rabid content creators you allege. Yes, a lot of content creation happens on Macs - for good reason, but you are failing to recognize the primary reason for the device being configured the way it is - to offer a better computing experience to the average user. The same arguments were made when Apple dropped the floppy drive. And when Apple went with SCSI. And so on.
I've seen a lot of posts here complaining about the "small" or "%10" CPU upgrade. I would beg to differ. The change from Core 2 Duo to the Core iX chips is much more than clock frequency (Ghz) indicates (Familiar story, G3/G4/G5 fans?). Go find some benchmarks, and you'll find the change from Core 2 Duo to i5 or i7 most remarkable, beyond just the change from 2 to 4 processor cores. The i3 is only slightly faster, in some cases, than a C2D, but is an upgrade never-the-less and should also draw less power.
These are very good chips.
I mentioned the pitiful 4.6% CPU improvement at the high end (2.8GHz Core i7 to 2.93GHz Core i7) because that machine is most interesting to me.
At the low end the boost is far more significant. The Core i3 system sports an improved motherboard architecture, hyper-threading and discrete GPU.
But seriously folks, the quad core CPU went mainstream in 2007. At the rate Apple is going it will be 2012 before the majority of the iMac lineup sports more than two cores.
Well, I don't want to buy a compressed crap, sold as HD movie, on iTunes store for 20 bucks, when I can get a true HD movie for 10 bucks.
But you don't have to wait for 15 minutes for ads to start rolling before you watch your movie!
No USB 3, no eSATA, no Blu-Ray...
.
and no kotatsu;