Amazon.com's Unbox is a horror show. The Unbox service appears not so much to have been introduced as to have escaped from the laboratory.
Of all the smart and talented people at Amazon, did no one dare say, "Wait, our new service bites! It's slower than a trip to Blockbuster, more expensive than a DVD, absurdly restrictive on how the consumer uses the movie, delivers lower resolution than a DVD, and requires running a cable from the PC to the TV if you want to watch the movie on something larger than a PC monitor"?
Apple's iTunes media store, meanwhile, is the feel-good movie download service of the summer, and builds on the same style and ease of use that has made iTunes the world's leading legal download service for music and television shows. But my local cineplex or cable TV service offers more movie choices than iTunes (which I'll review in detail on Thursday) does at this point, and the missing link - getting the movie from the PC to the TV - is still missing. I think I'll wait for the sequel.
Although it's damning of Amazon's service, the article doesn't exactly sound like a ringing endorsement of either service, and in addition, the comments about "more expensive than a DVD, absurdly restrictive on how the consumer uses the movie, delivers lower resolution than a DVD, and requires running a cable from the PC to the TV if you want to watch the movie on something larger than a PC monitor" also applies to iTunes thanks to absurd restrictions mandated by the studios.
The weird thing is... since Jobs is a big boy at Disney now, couldn't Apple+Disney have at least agreed on less insane restrictions for their Disney/Touchstone/Pixar/Miramax product?
I want to know the sources of the places that sell DVDs for cheaper than $9.99 that isn't used. I go back to my previous example.
I bought Hitchhicker's Guide to the Galaxy off of iTunes for 9.99. Waiting 1 minute and started watching it.
I go to Walmart, or even Amazon.com's DVD section, and its 20.09 and 14.99 respectively.
The weird thing is... since Jobs is a big boy at Disney now, couldn't Apple+Disney have at least agreed on less insane restrictions for their Disney/Touchstone/Pixar/Miramax product?
I think they might want to keep all products equal in resolution. VGA is a decent enough resolution when compared to DVD, and if they manage to get masters that don't have DVD-encoder induced edge enhancement and other nasties, the actual amount of detail present in the video might be the same as what you might find on the DVD.
Also, doesn't Apple's h.264 (don't quote me on the number) have the information there so that when you scale it it knows what to put into the empty information places?
I think I know what you mean but aren't saying it very well. I don't think it helps scaling, it just helps in reconstructing the image with as few bits as possible using interpolation and such. I think most current consumer video codecs do that. It's complicated to explain.
Well, sort of. You technically "own" (or at least have a resticted usage licence to view) your iTunes digital movie, but when you compare all of the other things you don't get with it, I think you're shortchanged.
With the digital version of a movie you are shortchanged because you get no chapters, no special features, no physical DVD possible to view on other devices (this includes no case with artwork, and other nifty printed items that are common today).
You can decide if it's worth the money. It's not for me. I'll continue buying actual DVDs until something comes along that's better.
Also, doesn't Apple's h.264 (don't quote me on the number) have the information there so that when you scale it it knows what to put into the empty information places?
Nope H.264 only takes away information it doesn't do anything to replace it.
Quote:
absurdly restrictive on how the consumer uses the movie
Also true of iTunes, but he may argue that the forthcoming iTV lessens this.
No iTunes doesn't have the same restrictions he's talking about:
You can watch the movie at home or at the office, but the license agreement prohibits you from watching it in "hotel rooms, motel rooms, hospital patient rooms, restaurants, bars, prisons, barracks, drilling rigs" and certain other locations.
I think they might want to keep all products equal in resolution. VGA is a decent enough resolution when compared to DVD, and if they manage to get masters that don't have edge enhancement and other nasties, the actual amount of detail might be the same.
I was more referring to being allowed to back up your own movie on DVD. Resolution is another vexing matter.
You can watch the movie at home or at the office, but the license agreement prohibits you from watching it in "hotel rooms, motel rooms, hospital patient rooms, restaurants, bars, prisons, barracks, drilling rigs" and certain other locations.
Many of those restrictions usually apply to DVDs as well.
I would need to see that. I know there are restriction on screening DVD's in a public place for profit. But I've never seen restriction placed on the exact location of watching a DVD.
Many of those restrictions usually apply to DVDs as well.
I have never seen any of those restrictions apply to private rooms. I don't see how it's any of their business if it's in a hotel room. Public rooms would be a different matter.
I would need to see that. I know there are restriction on screening DVD's in a public place for profit. But I've never seen restriction placed on the exact location of watching a DVD.
Have you never read those warning texts that come up at the end of the credits on many DVDs? They all say that you aren't allowed to watch the DVD in public places such as hospitals, oil rigs etc. etc.
I have never seen any of those restrictions apply to private rooms. I don't see how it's any of their business if it's in a hotel room. Public rooms would be a different matter.
Indeed, the hotel room one is really odd.
But, no-one is going to enforce these ludicrous restrictions anyway, so who cares?
HD is slowly making into peoples homes. Last year there were 5 HD channels, this year perhaps 10 channels. Content creators want to create HD but there is a lag and they are steadily buying the gear to add more HD programming. Until HD TV becomes standard HD downloads really won't. People's perception of value comes from their points of reference. When my main comparison is SD iTunes download isn't that bad, when HD is my baseline the download would seem sub-par. The service and downloads will advance when it is financially viable, and the value to the consumers is greater. Today the value is not greater than the "total cost" therefore even if 1080p 5.1 is feasable and would work, it doesn't make business sense. When it makes sense Apple will move forward. iTV will handle HD from everything we have seen, the modern PC and Mac is a fantastic HD decoder, and will only get better over the next year. Things will progress, and the fantastic thing is Apple is building a digital library that with only a few months worth of encoding can have the movies at HD if they wanted. Todays news of 125,000 downloads in 1 week is just the start of this new platform, and I am sure Apple has been fielding calls from Hollywood all day.
and the fantastic thing is Apple is building a digital library that with only a few months worth of encoding can have the movies at HD if they wanted.
Can we be sure that Apple are keeping copies at a higher resolution and bit-rate than they are selling them at? They certainly don't do that with music (the publishers send Apple 128kbps AAC files, only recently was the option of Apple Lossless provided to publishers for uploading).
After listening to Bob Iger on the Goldman Sachs call, he made it very clear that the encoding process was simple once the web distribution rights had been cleared.
["more expensive than a DVD, absurdly restrictive on how the consumer uses the movie, delivers lower resolution than a DVD, and requires running a cable from the PC to the TV if you want to watch the movie on something larger than a PC monitor" also applies to iTunes thanks to absurd restrictions mandated by the studios.
iTunes movie restrictions are more lenient: a movie (like a song) can be played on up to 5 computers (Unbox is just the computer that downloaded the movie).
Also there are chapter marks in the movies--at least in the one that I downloaded.
["more expensive than a DVD, absurdly restrictive on how the consumer uses the movie, delivers lower resolution than a DVD, and requires running a cable from the PC to the TV if you want to watch the movie on something larger than a PC monitor" also applies to iTunes thanks to absurd restrictions mandated by the studios.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottiB
iTunes movie restrictions are more lenient: a movie (like a song) can be played on up to 5 computers (Unbox is just the computer that downloaded the movie).
Also there are chapter marks in the movies--at least in the one that I downloaded.
Thanks for the clarification about the chapters. That's news to me... maybe it's studio optional.
When I said restrictive, I also meant the practical restrictions of owning a digital format movie... as opposed to a physical DVD which can travel, be sold, traded, etc.
Comments
From the article--- Although it's damning of Amazon's service, the article doesn't exactly sound like a ringing endorsement of either service, and in addition, the comments about "more expensive than a DVD, absurdly restrictive on how the consumer uses the movie, delivers lower resolution than a DVD, and requires running a cable from the PC to the TV if you want to watch the movie on something larger than a PC monitor" also applies to iTunes thanks to absurd restrictions mandated by the studios.
The weird thing is... since Jobs is a big boy at Disney now, couldn't Apple+Disney have at least agreed on less insane restrictions for their Disney/Touchstone/Pixar/Miramax product?
I want to know the sources of the places that sell DVDs for cheaper than $9.99 that isn't used. I go back to my previous example.
I bought Hitchhicker's Guide to the Galaxy off of iTunes for 9.99. Waiting 1 minute and started watching it.
I go to Walmart, or even Amazon.com's DVD section, and its 20.09 and 14.99 respectively.
I want DVDs for less than 9.99!
My apologies, I thought the h.264 smoothed out the video.
The weird thing is... since Jobs is a big boy at Disney now, couldn't Apple+Disney have at least agreed on less insane restrictions for their Disney/Touchstone/Pixar/Miramax product?
I think they might want to keep all products equal in resolution. VGA is a decent enough resolution when compared to DVD, and if they manage to get masters that don't have DVD-encoder induced edge enhancement and other nasties, the actual amount of detail present in the video might be the same as what you might find on the DVD.
Also, doesn't Apple's h.264 (don't quote me on the number) have the information there so that when you scale it it knows what to put into the empty information places?
I think I know what you mean but aren't saying it very well. I don't think it helps scaling, it just helps in reconstructing the image with as few bits as possible using interpolation and such. I think most current consumer video codecs do that. It's complicated to explain.
Well, sort of. You technically "own" (or at least have a resticted usage licence to view) your iTunes digital movie, but when you compare all of the other things you don't get with it, I think you're shortchanged.
With the digital version of a movie you are shortchanged because you get no chapters, no special features, no physical DVD possible to view on other devices (this includes no case with artwork, and other nifty printed items that are common today).
You can decide if it's worth the money. It's not for me. I'll continue buying actual DVDs until something comes along that's better.
Also, doesn't Apple's h.264 (don't quote me on the number) have the information there so that when you scale it it knows what to put into the empty information places?
Nope H.264 only takes away information it doesn't do anything to replace it.
absurdly restrictive on how the consumer uses the movie
Also true of iTunes, but he may argue that the forthcoming iTV lessens this.
No iTunes doesn't have the same restrictions he's talking about:
You can watch the movie at home or at the office, but the license agreement prohibits you from watching it in "hotel rooms, motel rooms, hospital patient rooms, restaurants, bars, prisons, barracks, drilling rigs" and certain other locations.
I think they might want to keep all products equal in resolution. VGA is a decent enough resolution when compared to DVD, and if they manage to get masters that don't have edge enhancement and other nasties, the actual amount of detail might be the same.
I was more referring to being allowed to back up your own movie on DVD. Resolution is another vexing matter.
Give us some darn TV and movies in the UK! Grrr
I share your anger and pain!! Arrrghhhggy..
I share your anger and pain!! Arrrghhhggy..
* whispers in Ireland's left ear like a scene out of Citizen Kane * "...BitTorrant..."
You can watch the movie at home or at the office, but the license agreement prohibits you from watching it in "hotel rooms, motel rooms, hospital patient rooms, restaurants, bars, prisons, barracks, drilling rigs" and certain other locations.
Many of those restrictions usually apply to DVDs as well.
Many of those restrictions usually apply to DVDs as well.
I have never seen any of those restrictions apply to private rooms. I don't see how it's any of their business if it's in a hotel room. Public rooms would be a different matter.
I would need to see that. I know there are restriction on screening DVD's in a public place for profit. But I've never seen restriction placed on the exact location of watching a DVD.
Have you never read those warning texts that come up at the end of the credits on many DVDs? They all say that you aren't allowed to watch the DVD in public places such as hospitals, oil rigs etc. etc.
I have never seen any of those restrictions apply to private rooms. I don't see how it's any of their business if it's in a hotel room. Public rooms would be a different matter.
Indeed, the hotel room one is really odd.
But, no-one is going to enforce these ludicrous restrictions anyway, so who cares?
Anyway the point was so far these are not explicit restriction on iTunes movies
and the fantastic thing is Apple is building a digital library that with only a few months worth of encoding can have the movies at HD if they wanted.
Can we be sure that Apple are keeping copies at a higher resolution and bit-rate than they are selling them at? They certainly don't do that with music (the publishers send Apple 128kbps AAC files, only recently was the option of Apple Lossless provided to publishers for uploading).
From the article---
["more expensive than a DVD, absurdly restrictive on how the consumer uses the movie, delivers lower resolution than a DVD, and requires running a cable from the PC to the TV if you want to watch the movie on something larger than a PC monitor" also applies to iTunes thanks to absurd restrictions mandated by the studios.
iTunes movie restrictions are more lenient: a movie (like a song) can be played on up to 5 computers (Unbox is just the computer that downloaded the movie).
Also there are chapter marks in the movies--at least in the one that I downloaded.
iTunes movie restrictions are more lenient: a movie (like a song) can be played on up to 5 computers (Unbox is just the computer that downloaded the movie).
Also there are chapter marks in the movies--at least in the one that I downloaded.
Thanks for the clarification about the chapters. That's news to me... maybe it's studio optional.
When I said restrictive, I also meant the practical restrictions of owning a digital format movie... as opposed to a physical DVD which can travel, be sold, traded, etc.