Poll: Are you interested in full-length movies for sale online?

[MacRumors]

Vote: Poll: Are you interested in full-length movies for sale online? (http://www.macpolls.com/?poll_id=467)

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Had to go with maybe.

I got two concerns:
1. HD space. As long as I got a iBook with only a 60 GB HD and a 35+ GB iTunes library, I don't really have place for movies...
2. Quality. I'm a sucker for high quality images, and consider DVD quality as an absolute minimum standard. Maybe H.264 is good enough, but I just don't know, yet...

I have to add that I've never downloaded any movies from some dodgy file sharing scheme either, not only because of the ethics involved, but also the two concerns mentioned above. (The only exception to this was that I downloaded a so called dvd-rip of Spider-Man after I had purchased the DVD to check if there where any noticeable difference in quality. Since I haven't downloaded any more movies you can guess how that went ;).)

But, if I get myself a big enough HD, the quality is good enough, and the price is right then sign me up... :D

[samh004]

Doesn't really seem worth it right now, especially seeing as HD is going to be the next big thing and downloading an HD movie would take a while for most users...

I would have to wait another few years for faster internet speeds to emerge and become more widespread before I considered downloading a full movie, it would take too long right now...

[xtbfx]

I'm only interested if I can burn it to a DVD (I know the MPAA would have a cow with this one).

[KLFloyd]

No, I'm not at all interested. My four big issues:
1. Speed- even with cable or DSL, movies are going to take an insanely long time to download.
2. Quality- I have a large 60" TV, I'm not watching videos on my laptop 99.9% of the time so I'm going to need something with enough quality to play on the big screen.
3. Hard Drive Space- You'd have to download and burn very quickly, I couldn't afford to keep all these movies on my HD for any long period of time.
4. Hassle- Download, Burn, Play. With my 4x DVD burner and the time that it would take to download, I could have run to the video store, bought/rented the movie and been half way finished watching it!

[fixyourthinking]

No, I'm not at all interested. My four big issues:
1. Speed- even with cable or DSL, movies are going to take an insanely long time to download.
2. Quality- I have a large 60" TV, I'm not watching videos on my laptop 99.9% of the time so I'm going to need something with enough quality to play on the big screen.
3. Hard Drive Space- You'd have to download and burn very quickly, I couldn't afford to keep all these movies on my HD for any long period of time.
4. Hassle- Download, Burn, Play. With my 4x DVD burner and the time that it would take to download, I could have run to the video store, bought/rented the movie and been half way finished watching it!


1. 35% US broadband penetration and rapidly growing wireless broadband and broadband wireless will solve this - average movie should be about 3-5 minutes - during download - previews could play - just as in the movies!

2. H.264 is half to 1/4 the size of DVD MPEG quality yet double the quality (if encoded right) - It will look fine on any screen and scales very well - if I'm not mistaken the Star Wars digitial projections were in H.264

3. Repetitive argument - space isn't an issue = the average hard drive size is now 40GB with shipping HDs at 60-200GB - this leaves plenty of space - but yes, you should burn them to DV or store on an external drive or device, you're talking 30 seconds or less to copy each movie to a hard drive and about 15 minutes for a DVD. Again, you shouldn't have to be entertained - but maybe previews could be shown during these processes - or you could simply go grab a snack or take a bathroom break

4. This is again repetitive and is exaggeration - read 1 - 3

5. :-) more

6. Any choice is a good choice, how we choose is what is good vs bad

[MattG]

No, I'm not at all interested. My four big issues:
1. Speed- even with cable or DSL, movies are going to take an insanely long time to download.
2. Quality- I have a large 60" TV, I'm not watching videos on my laptop 99.9% of the time so I'm going to need something with enough quality to play on the big screen.
3. Hard Drive Space- You'd have to download and burn very quickly, I couldn't afford to keep all these movies on my HD for any long period of time.
4. Hassle- Download, Burn, Play. With my 4x DVD burner and the time that it would take to download, I could have run to the video store, bought/rented the movie and been half way finished watching it!

1. Yeah, even downloading TV shows and things like that take forever. I can't imagine downloading a full-length movie!!

2. Damn...can I come over sometime? ;)

3. Exactly...with a store-bought DVD, that's your original, and factory-pressed DVDs have a really long shelf life. Can't say that about DVD-R's, and you'd hate to erase the original from your hard drive.

4. This is why Apple really needs some kind of "Media Center" type computer. But, you still have the problem with hard drives not being infallible.

[wordmunger]

Sure, if I can download it to my TiVo and watch it in Dolby Digital on my big screen TV, in less than 2 hours, for less than $5 a movie. It would be like Netflix without having to worry about the hassle of the Queue and ordering several days in advance.

[varmit]

If they were good quality, good download speed (as in the amount of time it would take me to get to the movie store an back with a movie, 30 minutes total), and I could burn them to DVD to play in a DVD player anywhere I want. The answer would be yes, I would buy online.

[pimentoLoaf]

I prefer my DVD's from Barnes&Noble, Borders, or wherever in nice plastic boxes -- the way it was meant to be.

[narco]

I feel the same way about movies as I do with music: I like having a physical "backup" copy that I can rip at any quality, plus it takes up zero HD space. I'd be up for a movie-streaming deal where you can rent the movie instead of buying it, but not purchasing it.

But offering movie downloads could help companies put out old cancelled TV shows, just like it helped rare out-of-print music to be offered again without spending all the usual printing/advertising costs.

I'd love to be able to see Parker Lewis Can't Lose, Small Wonder, Adventures of Pete and Pete...

Fishes,
narco.

[mad jew]

I'm up for it as long as the companies involved pass the savings of not having to create the actual DVDs themselves onto me, the consumer. I have no qualms with downloading massive files and I'd be content with anything in H.264 because I'm not a huge quality-freak.

Near enough is good enough. :D

[gopher]

Yes. But only if the H.264 requirements aren't as high as some of the current trailers. It should be sufficient to make it work on any Core Image capable machine, and not just dual processor G5s or 128 MB of VRAM machines. My iMac G5 rev A and Powerbook G4 1.5 Ghz can handle H.264 just fine, as long as the compression isn't too complicated.

[clayj]

No. I don't buy bits; I buy containers full of bits, which I can then use in any (legal) manner I choose. Any downloaded movie or music (that you pay for) is going to have technological limitations on its use, which will ultimately inconvenience me even though I use it in strict accordance with copyright law.

Thanks, but I'll keep buying DVDs.

[iGary]

Not until I have a fiber optic trunk running into my house.

[PlaceofDis]

depends on a lot of factors, as mentioned already in this thread
quality, speed, ease of buring and using etc

[Fender2112]

I voted: Maybe. Depends on price and quality, assuming I can burn a copy. If I can't burn to disk then I'm not interested. Used DVD's can usually be bought for under $10. There will definately have to some added value to purchasing a download movie.

[Earendil]

I'd be FAR more interested in renting movies online. as a poor college student without a car, the idea of renting a movie and watching it either on my powerbook, or plugging my PB up to a large TV is a great idea. If I could pay $4 to rent the most current movies, I probably world.

This solves at least one problem too, you don't need to worry about hard drive space, because you weren't be keeping the movies.

Downsides to this (aside from the obvious pirating possibilities) is the limited titles for rent. I doubt that anything that isn't on DVD had a digital copy anywhere, and the time and cost to convert VHS isn't something Apple would take on. But even if the only thing to rent was the last 100 movies released to DVD, that would be great...

~Earendil

[Poff]

I like the idea. Based on this vid (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/hdgallery/tobymacgone.html) from the Quicktime HD gallery, a 1280x720 movie should take up roughly 2,75GB / hour when encoded in H.264.

I have a 2000Kbps connection to the internet. That means an actual download speed of roughly 150KBps, or about 9MBpm.

A typical movie lasting 90 minutes would then take:
4125 Megabytes / 9 MBpm = approx. 7h 40m to download.


That's not too bad. It's not as good as adzoox claim of 3-5 minutes, but still.. I would want it. Download when you sleep, load your iPod the next morning. :D http://forums.macrumors.com/images/icons/icon14.gif And if I pay my provider 50% more, we're looking at a 3h30m download. Fast forward a couple of years and this will be done real-time. (Need approx. 10Mbps connection.)

I doubt Apple will make this move yet, because they'll get a lot of bad press from the people with 700Kbps connections complaining on the 20+ hour download. I hope they will be the first to make the move, but somehow I doubt it.. :/


Apple would need a large server connection to serve us with such big movies, tho..

[mad jew]

(aside from the obvious pirating possibilities)...


This got me thinking. Online music is one thing, there's always been music online and places like ITMS are just means to get things legal again. Online movies is another story. At the moment, you have to be reasonably computer savvy to get a DVD onto your hard disk because of all the encryption/protection etc. Having a store with online DVDs is essentially providing the internet (now there's a generalisation) with copies of movies that can potentially be pirated much more easily.

Whatever the issues with pirating raise, I don't think current average household connection speeds are capable of online movies. Remember, we are geeks and we generally have super-fast connections. That doesn't mean the rest of the world does.

I'd still love it to happen though.

[Applespider]

Not entirely convinced yet by the benefit of downloading movies until ADSL 2 with its 20MB connections become more common. While I relisten to music, I don't often rewatch a film so I'm not sure that the current time factor would be worthwhile. I'd be quicker wandering down to Blockbuster.

Once the higher speed connections come in (without the current trend for usage caps), I'd be slightly interested - although probably in a subscription model where I can download x films a month with an option to burn them if I want to - unlike music!

[Poff]

This got me thinking. Online music is one thing, there's always been music online and places like ITMS are just means to get things legal again. Online movies is another story. At the moment, you have to be reasonably computer savvy to get a DVD onto your hard disk because of all the encryption/protection etc. Having a store with online DVDs is essentially providing the internet (now there's a generalisation) with copies of movies that can potentially be pirated much more easily.

Whatever the issues with pirating raise, I don't think current average household connection speeds are capable of online movies. Remember, we are geeks and we generally have super-fast connections. That doesn't mean the rest of the world does.

I'd still love it to happen though.

Most people I know just download them w/bittorrent.. Not computer savvy ones.

[2GMario]

i answered yes

i have a dual G5 1.8ghz with dual 250gb sata hard drives in raid 1,which i can split up if i had to

this same G5 is in close location with my HD tv

do i have the space ? yes
do i have a means to display on my tv ? sure, with a adaptor

in regards to bandwidth, the server is just as much of a bottleneck as the internet connection

you'd be surprised how fast cable / dsl can actually download at if given a fast server

and there is no reason you couldnt start the download and goto bed, whats the turn around time for a dvd from NetFlicks ? 2, 3 days ? just watch it the next day.

HD prices have come down alot, and thow it doesnt help laptops that come with a built in drive, you can get a 250gb sata for your G5 pretty cheap now adays, not to mention IDE even cheaper i think if u wanted to run a external firewire

for those of you with way to much ********* money, theres allways the xServe Raid :)

-Mario

[mad jew]

Most people I know just download them w/bittorrent.. Not computer savvy ones.


Yeah, I was thinking more along the lines of ripping the movie from an actual DVD but no doubt, movie piracy is an issue too.

[~Shard~]

Personally I think it would be cool - I wouldn't have to spend ages and ages downloading them off P2P, hunting for them in the first place, I'd have a solid, guaranteed connection, good quality, and all that.

However, I question how large Apple's servers would have to be to store tons of movies, and also what type of bandwidth they would have to allow for decent downloading speeds by multiple connections. Even with my DSL, downloading movies would take a while, and if a ton of people were maxing out their transfer rates at +200 KBps like I would be, I don't know if Apple would have enough bandwidth to properly accommodate this. Plus, there's the HD space issues on user's machines.

So, I question the feasibility, but would still welcome some sort of service like this in the future. :cool:

[~Shard~]

Not entirely convinced yet by the benefit of downloading movies until ADSL 2 with its 20MB connections become more common.

We're deploying ADSL 2+ this summer to all our customers as the first stage of our FTTH Project, so I'm quite looking forward to it!

[mad jew]

We're deploying ADSL 2+ this summer to all our customers as the first stage of our FTTH Project, so I'm quite looking forward to it!


Mine should start in the next fortnight or so. I can't wait, 24Mbps. I hope the AirPorts keep up. :D

[fixyourthinking]

I like the idea. Based on this vid (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/hdgallery/tobymacgone.html) from the Quicktime HD gallery, a 1280x720 movie should take up roughly 2,75GB / hour when encoded in H.264.

I have a 2000Kbps connection to the internet. That means an actual download speed of roughly 150KBps, or about 9MBpm.

A typical movie lasting 90 minutes would then take:
4125 Megabytes / 9 MBpm = approx. 7h 40m to download.


That's not too bad. It's not as good as adzoox claim of 3-5 minutes, but still.. I would want it. Download when you sleep, load your iPod the next morning. :D http://forums.macrumors.com/images/icons/icon14.gif And if I pay my provider 50% more, we're looking at a 3h30m download. Fast forward a couple of years and this will be done real-time. (Need approx. 10Mbps connection.)

I doubt Apple will make this move yet, because they'll get a lot of bad press from the people with 700Kbps connections complaining on the 20+ hour download. I hope they will be the first to make the move, but somehow I doubt it.. :/


Apple would need a large server connection to serve us with such big movies, tho..

How many TVs or screens can do 1280x720? Your stats are WAY skewed to yesterday's stats.

I can currently download a 1GB file from California that is coming from a T3 line in 5-7 minutes or slightly less (with a cable modem on my end). (I'm in South Carolina)

Also, note that Apple has Akamai caching all over the world.

They would most likely put out a wide screen choice, 800x600, and 640x480 versions and base it solely on what you type in as the viewing venue (ie your TV, your laptop screen size and resolution, etc etc) or possibly even your download speed.

MOST, if not all people would get the 640x480 version and have it scalable (as H.264 does VERY nicely) - there might be a premium service to get the better resolution service.

I agree for now though, TV episodes would be best marketed for a service like - commercials would just come during the download, instead of during the viewing as breaks or interuptions.

But realize the stats you gave aren't accurate - it wouldn't take hours it would take no longer than 45 minutes and in most cases - less than 10.

[Ugg]

I'd be FAR more interested in renting movies online. as a poor college student without a car, the idea of renting a movie and watching it either on my powerbook, or plugging my PB up to a large TV is a great idea. If I could pay $4 to rent the most current movies, I probably world.

This solves at least one problem too, you don't need to worry about hard drive space, because you weren't be keeping the movies.

Downsides to this (aside from the obvious pirating possibilities) is the limited titles for rent. I doubt that anything that isn't on DVD had a digital copy anywhere, and the time and cost to convert VHS isn't something Apple would take on. But even if the only thing to rent was the last 100 movies released to DVD, that would be great...

~Earendil

My thoughts exactly. Why waste all that money on DVDs when I can rent them from netflix? I can get ~15 movies a month for $18, so an average movie rental is just more than a buck. If I want to see it again, I'll just rent it again. Average DVD price is ~ $20 so that means I can rent a movie 18 times for the same price as buying one.

With Neflix of course, I have to wait a few days but if I was able to download, I could have it the same day. Sure it might take an hour or two but I could just set my computer to download that day's movies, go to work and they'd be there waiting for me when I got home.

As far as DRM is concerned, why not apply the same rules that Netflix applies for their current service. I rent three, watch one and download another one. The one I watched first is now no longer viewable but the other two are until I download another movie.

I want to "own" my music but have no desire to clutter up my life with a bunch of DVDs or CDs for that matter. Digital downloads is the only way for me.

There was an article awhile back in Wired that was very interesting. Since there is virutally no cost to the supplier for digital storage of movies, they could have literally millions of movies and tv shows, etc, on their servers and even if they were only rented once a week, it would still be profitable. This would open up the vast libraries of the movie companies, some of the content would never see the light of day if it had to be released to DVD due to the heavy costs involved. But, by making them downloadable, they could realize some serious profits.

[~Shard~]

Mine should start in the next fortnight or so. I can't wait, 24Mbps. I hope the AirPorts keep up. :D

Yep, the extra speed will sure be nice! It'll help out our IPTV service as well, as currently we're pushing things with having 8 Mbps to the home over regular ADSL and doing what we're doing - our Capacity Management group doesn't like us too much sometimes... ;)

[lokey]

I don't mind giving up the packaging when it comes to my music, but my movies are different. I only really use iTunes to buy single songs, hardly full albums. I only buy the albums of artists I like and know I will like the entire album. As for my movies, I buy movies I've already seen and think highly of, so having the whole package means a lot to me. Maybe that is just me.

[wrldwzrd89]

I'm not particularly interested in this. Besides, feasibility issues still exist, as other posters have mentioned. However, I do think that planning for this capability in the future is a wise move on Apple's part, if in fact this is what they are doing.

[Eniregnat]

I would spend 3 bucks for a limited time use movie; lets say 3 days to a week. This would be perfect for traveling. It would have all the advantages of NetFlix or Blockbuster at the airports, with out any of the hassle. If it were under $5 I would be economic. I’d even take reduced features and resolution.

I would not spend 20+ dollars for a movie that I can't burn permanently. I would not want to buy a movie unless it had all the same features that the physical DVD would have. I would want to be able to burn it at least twice. The first for immediate use and the second for archiving.

[Poff]

How many TVs or screens can do 1280x720? Your stats are WAY skewed to yesterday's stats.

Year of the HD? 720 or 1080?

I can currently download a 1GB file from California that is coming from a T3 line in 5-7 minutes or slightly less (with a cable modem on my end). (I'm in South Carolina)

Good for you. But most people don't have that kind of line.
1GB in 5 minutes is 200MB a minute. That's 3,33 megabytes a second, or 26,6 megabits. So you would almost have to have a 30Mbps line, which equals 30 000Kbps line. This is 15 times faster than my current line, and also faster than the fastest ADSL2 currently provided. (I think 25Mbps)

But realize the stats you gave aren't accurate - it wouldn't take hours it would take no longer than 45 minutes and in most cases - less than 10.

Can you show me the math? I, at least, would not consider downloading a movie that was 640x480 or 800x600 now that HD-DVD's are about to come. How do you get the numbers to fit that a 4GB file would take no more than 45 minutes to download on my 2Mbps line? (note - this is bits, not bytes. And most connections don't always download on full capacity.)

I may have done some wrong calculations, I was tired. I'll try again. :)

2000Kbps = 250 kilbytes / second
250KB*60 = 15 000 kilobytes / minute = 15 megabytes / minute
15MB*60 = 900 megabytes / hour

4gig movie: 4000MB / 900MB = approx. 4hours 30 mins.. with optimal downloading conditions. I don't get that most of the time. So I think 7h 40m could be seen as a sort of "worst case scenario". It wouldn't happen every day, but neither would the 4h 30m "best case scenario".

[~Shard~]

Good for you. But most people don't have that kind of line.
1GB in 5 minutes is 200MB a minute. That's 3,33 megabytes a second, or 26,6 megabits. So you would almost have to have a 30Mbps line, which equals 30 000Kbps line. This is 15 times faster than my current line, and also faster than the fastest ADSL2 currently provided. (I think 25Mbps)

Yes, you are correct with ADSL 2+. As I stated earlier, we're in the process of deploying this technology as we speak, and I can attest that although 25 Mbps is a number that's thrown around and possibly generally accepted, it is more of a "lab limit" then anything. We can hit that data rate in our labs, but when it comes to the actual rates you'll see in the real world, expect it to be effectively less, depending on how its deployed and implemented.

[anubis]

I think I pretty much agree with everyone here on most issues. I voted maybe. The two big areas for me would be that the movies would have to be at or near DVD quality, and I want to be able to burn them to DVD-R. It might take a while to download a 4 gig standard definition DVD on my 1.5mbit DSL, but I wouldn't mind, as long as the price was reasonable. For example I wouldn't pay $20 to spend 2 days downloading and burning a DVD that I could buy at walmart for $20. If the downloadable version was say $10, that might convince me to close my bittorrent client.

However, the MPAA is just as greedy, if not more so, than the RIAA, so I can't imagine this happening

[Bunzi2k4]

are you guys serious about the file sizes? I think it would be crazy if apple offered 1 gigabyte movies. If apple wants to do movies, I think we're talking about 700-900 megs per movie (not including Lord of the Rings type stuff).

Are we serious about downloading the whole VIDEO_TS file or just an MP4?

[gopher]

With Quicktime Pro, I was able to capture an H.264 2 and a half hour file with my iSight and it was 300 MB. This was with no modification to the audio or video settings. Someone with a good A.Pack compression software can bring the audio size of the file even more.

[~Shard~]

are you guys serious about the file sizes? I think it would be crazy if apple offered 1 gigabyte movies. If apple wants to do movies, I think we're talking about 700-900 megs per movie (not including Lord of the Rings type stuff).

Are we serious about downloading the whole VIDEO_TS file or just an MP4?

I think there would have to be some sort of trade-off. Juts like with iTMS now, you aren't downloading the CD-quality WAV file, but it's good enough. I think Apple would have to set it up that the movies would be compressed as you say, and as a result, a lower price could be charged since you wouldn't be getting the full-on, perfect version of the movie.

We're running into the same challenges with our IPTV service. We'll be launching HDTV content over our DSL access in the near future, and are having a fun time trying to decide on the right combinations of codecs (H.264, WM9) etc. to use to shrink down the content to a manageable size, taking into account our bandwidth limitations, yet result in no discernible quality loss for our end customers. Quite a lot of fun!

[ham_man]

On this connection, there is no way that I could download. Nor do I see any point, unless I could rip them to DVD, but that is still the same as iTMS vs. CDs - I would rather have a hard, very high quality (Blue-Ray) disc. Now, if I had some gigabit ethernet...;)

[NeoMayhem]

I am very interested in downloading movies on my computer, but only if they are unrestricted files which I can play with with ANY media player. I am not a fan of quicktime, and would never pay for something I had to use QT/WMP/Real to watch.

But just like the iTMS, I am sure the first Movie stores will be cracked and freedom will be given back to customers who want it.

[~Shard~]

I am very interested in downloading movies on my computer, but only if they are unrestricted files which I can play with with ANY media player. I am not a fan of quicktime, and would never pay for something I had to use QT/WMP/Real to watch.

But just like the iTMS, I am sure the first Movie stores will be cracked and freedom will be given back to customers who want it.

Just remember, with Apple the name of the game is proprietary. :cool:

[wdlove]

Yes, I'm interested.

My concern would be quality, but I know that Apple wouldn't support something unless it was quality. Would wonder about download time. Would be a good time to befriend a university student that has access to Internet2. Hopefully they would allow the burning to a DVD.

[Lacero]

Some ISPs don't allow for more than 10GB transfer. Unless my ISP gives me generous allowances, I don't see how an online movie store would work. I'd rather just walk to the nearest Blockbuster and watch it on my TV.

[~Shard~]

Some ISPs don't allow for more than 10GB transfer. Unless my ISP gives me generous allowances, I don't see how an online movie store would work. I'd rather just walk to the nearest Blockbuster and watch it on my TV.

Yah, I know of some that do that as well. I'm lucky here, as we don't employ bandwidth restrictions. I have my server going 24/7, connected to a ton of P2P hubs on DC++, my FTP, etc., and probably have a total of 5-10 GB transferred (downloaded and uploaded) every day. :eek:

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Of course, I would be interested.
Convenience, price, and number of titles.
It would kill off blockbusters though. Who make the effort driving and jump in the car and take a hike down to the local videostore, when you just by hitting a button could buy the film for a slightly higher price.
Most people here in sweden can get 10Mb/s download at home, so speed wont be any problem.

[areyouwishing]

As long as I have at least 5.1 and current DVD quality I would be ok downloading movies for 9.99-14.99, thats assuming there is no wait to download.

[shamino]

are you guys serious about the file sizes? I think it would be crazy if apple offered 1 gigabyte movies. If apple wants to do movies, I think we're talking about 700-900 megs per movie (not including Lord of the Rings type stuff).

Are we serious about downloading the whole VIDEO_TS file or just an MP4?
If I'm going to buy moveis on-line, I'd better be able to play them on my big-screen TV (either directly from the computer or after burning a DVD) and have them look just as good as the DVD I buy. And it had better have a proper 5.1 soundtrack (Dolby Digital or DTS) to go with it.

If it doesn't have all this, then the quality will be no better than VHS. For that, the movies had better be dirt-cheap (meaning under $5 to buy the movie, since I can get DVD movies for $10-15 in stores.)

So, if we're talking about all of DVD's quality and features, we're probably looking at comparable file sizes. Which means we're looking at 4-10GB per movie (what you typically find on DVDs)

At 150K downloads (what I get over my DSL line on a good day) we're talking about up to 18 hours for the download to complete.

If H.264 is used, then the file sizes might be reduced to 1/4 of that size, but that would result in a very length trans-coding operation to turn that into MPEG-2 prior to burning a DVD I can play in my living room. So we end up with about 5 hours to download the content, followed by several more hours to trans-code it prior to burning.

With these speeds, it's just not worth it. It would be faster for me to drive to a local store and buy or rent the movie.

[aprilfools]

forget the fact that you have a super duper top of the line G5 with maxed out everything and no bandwidth restrictions. I think its a bad idea for no other simple reason than this......... my wife thinks I spend too much time on the computer as it is period. It could be a Mac llci. It doesnt really matter now does it. The point is, If you download the movies on your computer you have to watch them on your computer too right? its not like you can burn them to a DVD (legally anyway) and watch them on your home entertainment system with your family. So lets see........ more time on the computer. Oh yeah, everybody needs to spend more time on their computer. Your wife is gonna love that idea!! Not!


b

[shamino]

It would kill off blockbusters though. Who make the effort driving and jump in the car and take a hike down to the local videostore, when you just by hitting a button could buy the film for a slightly higher price.
What if it takes 5-10 hours to complete the download? Now what takes more effort? And you'd be willing to pay more for that?
Most people here in sweden can get 10Mb/s download at home, so speed wont be any problem.
You may have a 10M link, but what makes you think the remote server is going to come close to filling that pipe?

I've got friends with cable modems that have managed to demonstrate 30M/s downloads using test equipment. When connecting to real servers, the actual speeds are much closer to 1-2M.

[~Shard~]

If I'm going to buy moveis on-line, I'd better be able to play them on my big-screen TV (either directly from the computer or after burning a DVD) and have them look just as good as the DVD I buy. And it had better have a proper 5.1 soundtrack (Dolby Digital or DTS) to go with it.

<snip>

With these speeds, it's just not worth it. It would be faster for me to drive to a local store and buy or rent the movie.

Yah, if you're wanting perfect quality, as many other people would probably want as well, then this idea becomes a lot less feasible to implement. It'll be interesting to see how Apple spins this.

[~Shard~]

You may have a 10M link, but what makes you think the remote server is going to come close to filling that pipe?

I've got friends with cable modems that have managed to demonstrate 30M/s downloads using test equipment. When connecting to real servers, the actual speeds are much closer to 1-2M.

Exactly - and let alone filling that pipe for you, but try when hundreds if not thousands of people are trying to download movies simultaneously at those rates. Better hope Apple has bandwidth and a lot of xServes to burn! ;)

[shamino]

But just like the iTMS, I am sure the first Movie stores will be cracked and freedom will be given back to customers who want it.
For me, if I can't burn a DVD from the download, I wouldn't be interested at any price.

And, thanks to prior demands of the MPAA, it is impossible to burn a copy-protected DVD in a consumer drive :p .

Which means one of two things. Either the MPAA will start allowing the sale of drives that can record CSS-protected discs (not likely, since that would also allow duplication of them without decryption) or they will never allow any movie-download service to sell content that can be burned to DVD (far more likely.) :(

[Earendil]

forget the fact that you have a super duper top of the line G5 with maxed out everything and no bandwidth restrictions. I think its a bad idea for no other simple reason than this......... my wife thinks I spend too much time on the computer as it is period. It could be a Mac llci. It doesnt really matter now does it. The point is, If you download the movies on your computer you have to watch them on your computer too right? its not like you can burn them to a DVD (legally anyway) and watch them on your home entertainment system with your family. So lets see........ more time on the computer. Oh yeah, everybody needs to spend more time on their computer. Your wife is gonna love that idea!! Not!


b

Now I'm not going to assume that everyone has a laptop, but I for one do. I keep all kinds of movies on my computer and if someone wants to watch one, I always have my stereo and s-video cables in my backpack. In a college environment where many people have laptops, and these laptops double as DVD players half the time, it's not a hard jump to see college age kids (with fat pipe lines) using a renting service like this. Most of us are land locked in our dorm anyway due to not having a car. Renting a movie from a store is a HASSLE in conjunction with the systems and knowledge that a large percentage of us already have. Would I suggest this system as a replacement to my parents? No, because I wouldn't want to sacrifice HW hours trouble shooting it over the phone.

It does have it's place though. It's pretty equivalent to iTunes. There are those that don't have a clue how to get music from their computer to the hub of their stereo system. Then there are those who's computer serves as the hub.

~Earendil

[sourcemonkey]

if they were offered i'd 'consume' them. if the format issues could be dealt with it will come in time IMO. i think alot more should be downloadable -eg. more applications, full games etc. the 'impulse buyers' out there (like me sadly) would be more likely to buy more.

[fixyourthinking]

Year of the HD? 720 or 1080?

It may be, but relatively few people in the US have this kind of TV!

Also, my stats were high end, but your stats don't carry the facts of H.264

H.264 is scalable and highly compressed. a 2 hour length movie would probably be in the range of 200-300MB.

Also, the adoption of WiMax (very high bandwidth wireless) will be a huge leap forward for this type of service. And whatta you know, Apple is in talks with Intel for a chip - wow Intel makes those chips and invented the technology behind Wimax.

Wimax is supposed to cover 85% of the US by the end of 2007 - 60% by the end of 2006 - 45% by thend of this year! The service will be as cheap or cheaper than dial up, but be in the 10Mbps range.

Using a cable modem I just downloaded (yesterday) all of the updates for 10.2 to 10.2.8 + other updates - complete download was about 260MBs - it took 25 minutes for the install AND download.

[fixyourthinking]

Exactly - and let alone filling that pipe for you, but try when hundreds if not thousands of people are trying to download movies simultaneously at those rates. Better hope Apple has bandwidth and a lot of xServes to burn! ;)


Through caching and colocation - Apple has colocation with Akamai all over the world!

[Lacero]

H.264 is scalable and highly compressed. a 2 hour length movie would probably be in the range of 200-300MB.If you like your movies 320 x 240 pixels. H.264 is comparable in quality to XviD. So for a 2 hour movie, you're looking at closer to 1.4GB at 720x360.

[fixyourthinking]

If you like your movies 320 x 240 pixels. H.264 is comparable in quality to XviD. So for a 2 hour movie, you're looking at closer to 1.4GB at 720x360.

NO - a 640x480 movie could scale to 1024x768 EASILY (and possibly beyond) - have you seen a high quality H.264?

People that claim they "must have" the high end are either purists (ie this is not for you) or just idiots (ie, i want it because I COULD have it)

There is NOT demand for high def - it is being forced down our throats so we will buy new stuff.

To most people - movies are movies and DVDs are DVDs and TV is TV.

To most kids watching DVDs in the back of a minivan on a 7" LCD TV - are they going to complain about 256 levels of gray and shadow artifacts?

[~Shard~]

Through caching and colocation - Apple has colocation with Akamai all over the world!

Good point, this would indeed help... still though...

[Poff]

NO - a 640x480 movie could scale to 1024x768 EASILY (and possibly beyond) - have you seen a high quality H.264?

You get this all wrong. A 640x480 movie encoded with H.264 won't be able to scale to 1024x768 and beyond. Or, of course you can, but quality won't be better than if you used another codec encoded with 640x480. What they mean with the scalability is that the same codec can scale to a lot of different uses, but not the file.

This is the exact reason why I provided links to ACTUAL H.264 movies encoded in 1280x720. The QUICKTIME movie I linked to, encoded with H.264, was 164MB for 3min 36seconds. Read my first post. If you want to see more examples, go to quicktime.com, click HD-gallery (top right) and there are a lot of examples.

And no, most people don't have HD-TV yet, but more and more plasmas and lcd's are becoming HD, so 720 HD movies should be expected, even though I don't believe we will be able to download movies for 1080i yet. :D

[verozov]

i would love to buy movies off of the internet. it would be much more convenient, time-saving (depending on download time), and possibly money-saving.

my only concerns would be losing the movies in a HD crash (my HD in my eMac is currently "crashed", see thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=128155)), download times, and price of course...

[shamino]

my only concerns would be losing the movies in a HD crash (my HD in my eMac is currently "crashed", see thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=128155)), download times, and price of course...
Another reason why I'd want to be able to burn the movie to a DVD. Get it off of the hard drive, where a drive failure or virus (or typo) could erase it.

[cwedl]

They will have to invent an amazing codec before I buy any movies to download. If the quality isn't as good as DVD's they would have to be a lot cheaper i.e £3-5 before I would consider buying them.

[fixyourthinking]

You get this all wrong. A 640x480 movie encoded with H.264 won't be able to scale to 1024x768 and beyond. Or, of course you can, but quality won't be better than if you used another codec encoded with 640x480. What they mean with the scalability is that the same codec can scale to a lot of different uses, but not the file.

The smallest H.264 looks IDENTICAL to me full screen on my laptop. I helped download Star Wars for our local HD theater (they use a PowerMac G5 by the way) it is in h.264.

I'll ask the movie theater what size it came in and if the resolution was scaled. I know it took 9 hours to come down via encrypted sat download.

[~Shard~]

They will have to invent an amazing codec before I buy any movies to download. If the quality isn't as good as DVD's they would have to be a lot cheaper i.e £3-5 before I would consider buying them.

H.264 is a pretty amazing codec, and the good news it's already invented! ;)

[SiliconAddict]

In a netflix type setting. Very much so. For collecting purposes? Not a chance. I own 586 DVD's and at this point its a collection. If I'm going to buy a movie I'm going to get media and a keep sake case for it.

But again if I can download a couple movies at a time from a netflix system and then have the system deactivate the movie when I'm done and download the next. Yah. Id pay for that service.

[gangst]

I don't think this is a very good idea at the moment if people want high quality, DTS ect. I think it could be done, but download speeds would be poor, a lot of people still use dial up!!
I think in 3-4 years this would be a great idea because fibre channel internet might be available in UK, USA, like it is already available in Japan. I also remember reading something that the Japanese are building 1GB/s connection, now that would make movie downloads good.

[efoto]

In a netflix type setting. Very much so. For collecting purposes? Not a chance. I own 586 DVD's and at this point its a collection. If I'm going to buy a movie I'm going to get media and a keep sake case for it.

But again if I can download a couple movies at a time from a netflix system and then have the system deactivate the movie when I'm done and download the next. Yah. Id pay for that service.
[bold mine]

"Robin, look there."
"Holy crap Batman, 586 DVDs! The Penguin is at it again!"
"Quick, to the batmobile, lets go!"
Duh nu nu na nu nu nah! (spiral bat sound) Intro - *theme music*

Thats quite the collection I'll say. Lets see, 586 movies multiplied by the average cost of say $14USD and you spent roughly $8204USD on movie entertainment alone, not including going to the movies in theatres, perhaps a show or venue, etc etc. I guess time to acquire is of note, but assuming you have that type of budget for entertainment, will you be my daddy?

OT, I think that if Apple or anyone else for that matter, offered a downloadable movie service it would greatly depend on the quality, speed, cost, etc as mentioned by everyone else above which all are inputs to my vote of 'maybe'.
Personally, if I could download recent titles for low cost (say $2-5max USD), I would do it even at lower qualities. You have to remember, this is not going to replace DVDs on hardcopy, its just another option. Personally, I'd pay $2-$4 for a 700-900 meg file encoded with xvid or another codec of similar quality. If someone actually devoted time into encoding an xvid movie, I'm confident they would look better than the torrent ones, and for recent titles with a decent connection I would be willing to spend a few dollars. If I really liked the movie I would go out and by the HHHHH-HD Blue-ray-and-beyond disc that is out tomorrow and have it hardcopy for when I want to show off my 147" HHHHH-HD super LCD-plasma hybrid kick-ass television I am getting delivered Saturday :rolleyes:

Point being, don't look at this as a replacement but rather as an option. Its not a DVD, its not the theatre, its a cheap and easy way to view current titles on a computer or television (by way of computer). I think colleges alone would eat this up, good idea IMO.

Edit: Just saw that I had OT written which is commonly used as Off Topic....this time it means On Topic, as I was getting back OnTopic :p

[Anonymous Freak]

As title, only if there's an easy way to get it to my TV in high quality, and through my surround sound system. Basically, I want the experience to be the same as using a DVD in my home DVD player. If this means a new 'media-Mac', fine; if it means an 'AirPort Express Video', fine. But plugging my PowerBook into my TV doesn't cut it. And without digital audio, the Mac mini doesn't cut it. HD would be nice, but isn't required.

H.264 is the obvious choice for file format, and either 720p or 1080i would be a nice format... Some quick math, based on the file sizes and running times of the trailers on Apple's "HD Gallery", 1080p weighs in at about 7.5GB for two hours. And the 720p clips about half that. 3.25GB is still a lot of data.

Even over my recently-upgraded-to-7Mb/s DSL line, that's still over an hour for a 720p movie. And over slower 1.5Mb/s connections? Forget about streaming, a 1.5Mb/s connection can't handle 720p. (Not to mention that some ISPs have monthly data transfer caps less than 7GB.) I have a feeling Apple would unfortunately have to stick with SD downloads, at least at first. Not that I would be surprised if they did HD, just that at least having an SD option makes sense because of the technical limitations. (Not to mention that unless they make a dedicated H.264 decoding box, it takes a G5 to play even the 720p files reasonably.

There are lots of technical problems to be sorted out still... Unless there is an 'AirPort Express Video' that's less than $200, I can't see taking advantage of any movie downloads...

But... What if the rumors are wrong, and it's not a movie download service, but rather a TV download service... Think about it, lots of TV shows are already HD, so it's probably less work to convert them to H.264 than to deal with movie sources. TV show episodes tend to be 1 hour max, some half an hour. And, since the revenue has already come in from their first broadcast airing, they could be cheap. Maybe even 99 cents! (Because of bandwidth requitements, I doubt it, though. Maybe $2.99 for a half-hour show, $4.99 for a full hour?)

[efoto]

Even over my recently-upgraded-to-7Mb/s DSL line, that's still over an hour for a 720p movie. And over slower 1.5Mb/s connections? Forget about streaming, a 1.5Mb/s connection can't handle 720p. (Not to mention that some ISPs have monthly data transfer caps less than 7GB.) I have a feeling Apple would unfortunately have to stick with SD downloads, at least at first. Not that I would be surprised if they did HD, just that at least having an SD option makes sense because of the technical limitations. (Not to mention that unless they make a dedicated H.264 decoding box, it takes a G5 to play even the 720p files reasonably.

But... What if the rumors are wrong, and it's not a movie download service, but rather a TV download service... Think about it, lots of TV shows are already HD, so it's probably less work to convert them to H.264 than to deal with movie sources. TV show episodes tend to be 1 hour max, some half an hour. And, since the revenue has already come in from their first broadcast airing, they could be cheap. Maybe even 99 cents! (Because of bandwidth requitements, I doubt it, though. Maybe $2.99 for a half-hour show, $4.99 for a full hour?)[edit mine]

Okay, so a 'g5 decoding box' is a neat idea, to standardize the playback a little and make it usable by all instead of the high-performance systems only. The TV download service, which was mentioned previously, I think is a good idea, however I would never pay $2.99 or $4.99 for a half-hour or hour, respectively, long show. Look at the *average* monthly television bill for basic or enhanced level programming (example of my parents, MI (USA) with 78 channels, no HD programming, no 'premium' channels). We have our cable internet provided through the same as company as our television provider, and we get a discount for having both. The services seperate bill at $40USD each, and together we pay $64 for having both.

Point being, to pay $3 or $5 dollars for 30min or 60min of programming I have already seen would be rediculous! thats 5% or 8%, respectively, of my monthly bill for an hour of programming tops! and that is of the joint bill of internet subscription too...for just tv those numbers jump to 8% and 12.5% for just TV.

Personally, I am not going to spend from 5% to 12% of my monthly bill AGAIN just to see a missed show. Now, if the downloads were of Xvid quality with good sound and a decent connection/download rate to the server, I MIGHT be tempted to spend $0.75 to $1.50 for 30/60min programs. Other than that, count me out and I say extortion!

[Anonymous Freak]

Okay, so a 'g5 decoding box' is a neat idea, to standardize the playback a little and make it usable by all instead of the high-performance systems only. The TV download service, which was mentioned previously, I think is a good idea, however I would never pay $2.99 or $4.99 for a half-hour or hour, respectively, long show.

The 'decoding box' wouldn't have to be a G5, just have an H.264 decoder chip in it. They'll eventually be cheap, just like MPEG-2 decoders are cheap now. (Think about the $29 DVD players out there.) A dedicated box for just decoding H.264 doesn't need a full-blown G5, so it can be cheap.

As for the price? Yeah, on second thought that seems high for 30/60 minute TV shows. Unfortunately, from a bandwidth perspective, unless they build in a BitTorrent-like system, it'd be tough. Movies I can understand, because they have more intrinsic value than a TV show. And as someone else raised the point, this kind of service WOULD be one that lends itself to more of a short term approach, unless you can burn them to DVD. (Maybe that's why DVDSP got H.264 "HD DVD" encoding? No need for a Blu-Ray drive, when your current 'SuperDrive' can burn an HD H.264 DVD†... Would a new iTunes Movie Store support burning HD H.264 DVDs?)

† As the term 'HD DVD' can refer to the upcoming high-capcacity format called 'HD-DVD', or the competing Blu-Ray, OR Apple's new H.264-on-a-9GB-DVD, I use 'HD H.264 DVD' to refer to Apple's new version, 'HD-DVD' for the Toshiba-backed HD replacement for DVD, and 'Blu-Ray' for Sony's. I use double-quotes "HD DVD" when quoting Apple on their new standard, which is just H.264 content on existing 4.7/8.5GB DVD±R/RW/DL discs.

[howard]

the more i think about it the more i like the idea of downloading movies.

I would have to leave the house to pick it up..or wait a few days for netflix. just a few mins of download...depending on the size. But then that really is the question. there is all this speculation of how big they will be. for a 2 hour movie in h.264 what is someones estimate, for dvd quality rip? 200, 400, 600, 800 mbs??

also as far as resolution goes. what is dvds resolution? what resolution does it need to look that good?

also as far as hardrives are concerned, in my opinion this is where a video ipod would come in perfectly. for most people...not all. I have a 15 mb collection on a 40gb ipod. that means i can have... lets cut it down to 20 gb of movies. at say 400mb a movie (just an avg estimate) that would be 50 moves that i could take around, watch on the go, and bring to a friends house to watch! come on...you can't say thats not cool. and with ipods hard drives getting bigger all the time..that just more movies you can fit.

also i completely agree with everyone in that you should be able to burn it on a dvd easily.

only other question now is... subscription or pay per download??

[howard]

But... What if the rumors are wrong, and it's not a movie download service, but rather a TV download service... Think about it, lots of TV shows are already HD, so it's probably less work to convert them to H.264 than to deal with movie sources. TV show episodes tend to be 1 hour max, some half an hour. And, since the revenue has already come in from their first broadcast airing, they could be cheap. Maybe even 99 cents! (Because of bandwidth requitements, I doubt it, though. Maybe $2.99 for a half-hour show, $4.99 for a full hour?)

i'd love a tv download services... especially if you didn't have commercials!!! I'd download all my favorite simposns/seinfeld etc... and if there was a video ipod i could watch them on the go, no one would mind tv on a small screen, and the episodes are so short anyway it would be perfect!

[Xiabelle]

I'm really not interested in downloading them.

I mean, in honesty? I like having the physical media. I enjoy the DVD extras too. I'm not particularly interested in watching movies on my computer. The closest I've come was when I used bittorrent to download a couple of TV shows I'd wanted to see but missed because I had plans the night they were on (and they looked beautiful in the HDTV). I tend to walk around and do a lot of stuff while watching TV; it's easier to have a big TV that I can see from the kitchen.

Of course, I might also be one of the few people left in the world who really prefers to actually buy CDs to buying individual tracks. I just rip what I want for my own use.

[wdlove]

I'm really not interested in downloading them.

I mean, in honesty? I like having the physical media. I enjoy the DVD extras too. I'm not particularly interested in watching movies on my computer. The closest I've come was when I used bittorrent to download a couple of TV shows I'd wanted to see but missed because I had plans the night they were on (and they looked beautiful in the HDTV). I tend to walk around and do a lot of stuff while watching TV; it's easier to have a big TV that I can see from the kitchen.

Of course, I might also be one of the few people left in the world who really prefers to actually buy CDs to buying individual tracks. I just rip what I want for my own use.

My thought is that we should be able to save the downloaded movie to a DVD. That way it could be shown on a home entertainment center.

I'm one of those that thinks a movie looks good on a computer display. Don't really look at the DVD extras anyway.

[Lacero]

I still think downloading movies is a bad idea, unless you have a 1.5Mbit internet connection or faster, and even with H.264 encoding, it'll still take hours to download. And if you wanted to store them, you'll need a lot of HD space, but eventually you want to store them in a more permanent, crash-proof media, which means the only cheapest method is still to buy or rent DVDs.

[shamino]

I'm one of those that thinks a movie looks good on a computer display. Don't really look at the DVD extras anyway.
I'm not going to argue what you do or do not like here, but my opinion is the 100% opposite.

I replaced my 20" TV with a 34" widescreen TV in order to make my movies look their best. Why would I want to go back to a 20" screen to watch them on my computer?

As for extras, I watch them all. I'm one of those weirdos that watched the extended Lord Of The Rings movies five times in order to hear all of the running commentary tracks, and then played every one of the documentary tracks. I do this with most movies I buy.

[~Shard~]

As for extras, I watch them all. I'm one of those weirdos that watched the extended Lord Of The Rings movies five times in order to hear all of the running commentary tracks, and then played every one of the documentary tracks. I do this with most movies I buy.

You have a lot of free time on your hands. :p ;)

[cb911]

maybe.

H.264 might be able to give good quality for low file sizes, but unless i can have the file in about half an hour then i don't think it'll really be too popular.

it would also have to be reasonably priced, or course, and not come with some nonsense usage/license agreement. if it's not people will just continue to go down to the local Blockbuster and rent the DVD, rip it, watch it.

[shamino]

You have a lot of free time on your hands. :p ;)
That's what evenings are for. It's not like there's anything worth watching on TV.

[~Shard~]

That's what evenings are for. It's not like there's anything worth watching on TV.

Very true - I find myself watching less and less TV these days. I have my 3 or 4 favorite shows that I watch weekly, and that's about it. I have the TV on in the background while I'm cooking, cleaning, whatever, just as noise more than anything.

[wdlove]

I'm not going to argue what you do or do not like here, but my opinion is the 100% opposite.

I replaced my 20" TV with a 34" widescreen TV in order to make my movies look their best. Why would I want to go back to a 20" screen to watch them on my computer?

As for extras, I watch them all. I'm one of those weirdoes that watched the extended Lord Of The Rings movies five times in order to hear all of the running commentary tracks, and then played every one of the documentary tracks. I do this with most movies I buy.

Everybody has a right to their opinion.

To me the widescreen TV is just too expensive. For that kind of money I would prefer a Power Mac G5. Like others I don't watch that much TV. So I would get more use of of the G5.

I happy to hear that you find enjoyment on the full utilization of your DVD. Don't think that you are weird at all.

[noel4r]

I'm not totally interested in it. I have Netflix so if I want to watch a particular movie, I'll just click on the website and 2 days later its in my DVD. For 17.99 a month, I can watch one movie a day. It has to be really really inexpensive for me to buy it and still I'm not too sure if I want to take the time and bandwith to download it.

[efoto]

Very true - I find myself watching less and less TV these days. I have my 3 or 4 favorite shows that I watch weekly, and that's about it. I have the TV on in the background while I'm cooking, cleaning, whatever, just as noise more than anything.

Being in France currently on work, and having no TV, I find that I don't miss programs at all, but I do miss that background fuzz and noise. Not having TV made me think about all the times I would sit around, laptopin' on the couch with the TV on, never actually looking at it but just to have noise and the color variations and general chaos it produced.

Worse yet, I don't have internet in my flat here, so unless I go to the Wifi Café I can't even do email or browse a forum without paying :(

[~Shard~]

Being in France currently on work, and having no TV, I find that I don't miss programs at all, but I do miss that background fuzz and noise. Not having TV made me think about all the times I would sit around, laptopin' on the couch with the TV on, never actually looking at it but just to have noise and the color variations and general chaos it produced.

Worse yet, I don't have internet in my flat here, so unless I go to the Wifi Café I can't even do email or browse a forum without paying :(

Yikes, no TV AND no Internet - I feel for ya!

[efoto]

Yikes, no TV AND no Internet - I feel for ya!

Yeah its not the best situation for staying in touch with the rest of the world, but it works and its only for three months (only one more to go!!!....I kind of want to go home :rolleyes: ). It isn't too bad, makes me get out and meet people and be more active since I have zero veg. time (save for watching one of the five movies I brought over.....again and again).

Went to Paris this past weekend though, took a nice little holiday on Friday and had a full three days, it was awesome (my first time there). Things like that make no tv seem like the least of worries.

[~Shard~]

Went to Paris this past weekend though, took a nice little holiday on Friday and had a full three days, it was awesome (my first time there). Things like that make no tv seem like the least of worries.

Yah, it's funny how that works. I know whenever I'm off backpacking for months at a time, I sparingly use the Internet, and never watch TV - I'm always out doing stuff, experience things - and I don't miss the idiot box or staring at an LCD whatsoever! Experiencing the world kind of puts things in perspective. :cool:

[efoto]

Yah, it's funny how that works. I know whenever I'm off backpacking for months at a time, I sparingly use the Internet, and never watch TV - I'm always out doing stuff, experience things - and I don't miss the idiot box or staring at an LCD whatsoever! Experiencing the world kind of puts things in perspective. :cool:

You sure have that right. I went rockclimbing south of where I live a whle ago (outdoor) and we were gone for only a few days, not a long trip. While packing to leave I knew there were a ton of emails to get to, and that I would miss my 'favorite' :rolleyes: show at the time over the weekend (and I refuse to VHS tape tv, looks aweful), but once I was out there, it made zero difference what was on tv or what I wanted/had to do on the computer. It is truly amazing how getting off your ass and doing something can really motivate your inner self and just make you feel sooooo much better :D

[~Shard~]

You sure have that right. I went rockclimbing south of where I live a whle ago (outdoor) and we were gone for only a few days, not a long trip. While packing to leave I knew there were a ton of emails to get to, and that I would miss my 'favorite' :rolleyes: show at the time over the weekend (and I refuse to VHS tape tv, looks aweful), but once I was out there, it made zero difference what was on tv or what I wanted/had to do on the computer. It is truly amazing how getting off your ass and doing something can really motivate your inner self and just make you feel sooooo much better :D

I know exactly what you mean! I think I'll always have the travel bug - there's just far too much to see and experience out there in our great world that I can't waste time sitting on a couch staring at the idiot box stuffing fattening chips into my face like so many of my friends do.

[shamino]

Yikes, no TV AND no Internet - I feel for ya!

Homer: No TV and no Internet make Homer something something
Marge: Go crazy?
Homer: Don't mind if I do! Bleaaaaaaaah!!!!

[~Shard~]

Homer: No TV and no Internet make Homer something something
Marge: Go crazy?
Homer: Don't mind if I do! Bleaaaaaaaah!!!!


Actually it was "beer", but I suppose that the Internet could be a possible substitute depending on the circumstances... ;)

[shamino]

Actually it was "beer", but I suppose that the Internet could be a possible substitute depending on the circumstances... ;)
Yes, but efoto wasn't complaining about not having beer :D

[~Shard~]

Yes, but efoto wasn't complaining about not having beer :D

Yes, point taken. :)

[MontyZ]

I won't be very interesting if the videos are lower quality than what you get on DVDs, the way iTunes files (128 bps) are lower quality than actual CDs. It's like two steps backward for every step forward.

[efoto]

Yes, but efoto wasn't complaining about not having beer :D

There is an ample supply of that so no worries. I appreciate the concern though.

MontyZ - If you look at it as not a replacement to DVDs or videos but rather a completment, I think it has a chance at that lower quality for many people who don't care about the extreme best.

[MontyZ]

MontyZ - If you look at it as not a replacement to DVDs or videos but rather a completment, I think it has a chance at that lower quality for many people who don't care about the extreme best.
If the movies are $3.95, then maybe. But if they charge the same thing they do for DVDs and offer lower-quality files with no packaging or even digital versions of the inserts (like iTunes Store), it'll be less interesting to a lot of people.

[Ugg]

If the movies are $3.95, then maybe. But if they charge the same thing they do for DVDs and offer lower-quality files with no packaging or even digital versions of the inserts (like iTunes Store), it'll be less interesting to a lot of people.

I definitely want DVD quality but who in the digital age really cares about the packaging? I could care less what the marketing department has included in the packaging, I'm more interested in the extras, behind the scenes, making of the movie kind of stuff. I would be very disappointed if these were excluded from the download. Maybe they could make it optional or something.

Once again, I'm not interested in buying the movie, only renting it. Few movies are worth seeing more than once and if they are then digital downloads make it extremely easy and inexpensive to download it again if I want to see it more than once.

[~Shard~]

You can't pelase everyone, so I think Apple will have to create a model that appeals to as much of the public as possible. What that model is though, is the challenging question!

Perhaps to limit file sizes, bandwidth requirements, cost, etc., they will sell cheap movies, which won't be as expensive as DVDs, but also won't be DVD quality - and maybe this will be good enough for the majority who just want to watch a movie and don't need it in perfect quality. Perhaps this would appeal to current iTMS customers who buy music which isn't perfect CD Audio quality but they pay less as a result than they would for the CD in the store.

But, then again, there will be people who no doubt want perfect DVD quality but don't want to pay top dollar for it. I don't know how you satisfy them - I guess we'll leave that one up to Apple.... :cool:

[shamino]

Once again, I'm not interested in buying the movie, only renting it. Few movies are worth seeing more than once and if they are then digital downloads make it extremely easy and inexpensive to download it again if I want to see it more than once.
The real issue, for those who want to rent, is not whether it will work, but if it's any better than traditional rental systems.

Rental stores like Blockbuster charge a small fee for a few days. Rental time is on the order of hours (time to drive to the store and back, plus time to return it afterwards).

Mail-order rental places like Netflix charge a monthly fee without regard to how long you hold it. These are more convenient (don't have to worry about store hours), but they take longer (4-8 days turnaround time: 2-4 to mail a disc back and another 2-4 to get the next title on your list.)

A download service must compete against these. They've got the convenience factor (just visit the right web site or run the right program.) The price will have to be competitive - could be per-title, or could be monthly subscription. If the price is per-title, then the downloads will probably expire - the timeout will have to be competitive with stores that charge late fees.

Finally, there's the turnaround time - if they have enough server capacity, customers with cable modems and DSL can probably download a full-quality title in 10-20 hours, or a reduced-quality title in 2-6 hours. People with slower internet connections (or if the servers can't keep up) will experience much longer download times. These won't be as fast as traditional store-based rentals, but should be faster than mail-order rentals.

Personally, I wouldn't be interested. My DSL line isn't fast enough to make this more attractive than current rental systems. But someone with a much faster line might like it.

[shamino]

But, then again, there will be people who no doubt want perfect DVD quality but don't want to pay top dollar for it. I don't know how you satisfy them - I guess we'll leave that one up to Apple.... :cool:
I suspect they'll do what they do now. Rent DVDs, or buy DVDs from discount stores.

[Ugg]

Finally, there's the turnaround time - if they have enough server capacity, customers with cable modems and DSL can probably download a full-quality title in 10-20 hours, or a reduced-quality title in 2-6 hours. People with slower internet connections (or if the servers can't keep up) will experience much longer download times. These won't be as fast as traditional store-based rentals, but should be faster than mail-order rentals.

Personally, I wouldn't be interested. My DSL line isn't fast enough to make this more attractive than current rental systems. But someone with a much faster line might like it.

Unless one folds, or uses the computer 24/7 I don't think it would be impossible to set the computer to download at night, when there is less usage or, for that matter during the day while you're at work.

Also, Netflix turnaround is based upon where you live. I sent 3 movies in on Wednesday and will have 3 new ones on Saturday, so I'm able to get about 18-20 a month if I really work at it.

I doubt that a downloadable system would allow me to get that many movies a month for $18. But, what it would allow is for me to download movies that Netflix currently doesn't offer. Either because they've never been put on DVD or there isn't a demand for them. Back catalogs of movies would be very cheap to store digitally and even a few rentals would justify their existence. Just as iTunes has proven to be a great place for new/unknown groups to sell music. The overhead costs have plummeted in comparison to a brick and mortar store.

Personally, I would probably keep Netflix and use a downloadable system for those movies Netflix doesn't offer, until, of course, Netflix goes out of business or goes to downloads itself.

[~Shard~]

I suspect they'll do what they do now. Rent DVDs, or buy DVDs from discount stores.

I agree - I just meant I don't know what Apple will do to please them. And perhaps nothing - they're content with renting and buying DVDs as they are - so be it.

[shamino]

Also, Netflix turnaround is based upon where you live. I sent 3 movies in on Wednesday and will have 3 new ones on Saturday...
4 days turnaround. The low-end of the range I mentioned (4-8 days.) With Netflix, you are subject to the speed of the post office. Which, for most small packages, is 2-4 days each way.
I doubt that a downloadable system would allow me to get that many movies a month for $18. But, what it would allow is for me to download movies that Netflix currently doesn't offer.
Maybe. I'll believe it when I see it. When you're talking about catalogs and selections, you're now in the realm of lawyers and not technology.