PDA

View Full Version : iTunes Movie Store Rumblings


MacRumors
Jun 19, 2006, 09:17 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Variety (http://www.variety.com/VR1117945470.html) has posted an update on negotiations between Hollywood execs and Apple on the rumored iTunes Movie Store. According to the report, negotiations are still ongoing with Hollywood execs, who don't know whether to regard Jobs as a friend or foe.

"He came in with a lot of bravado and said, 'We set our mind to what we were going to do in the music business and revolutionized it, and now we want to do the same thing with film," recalls one studio person close to the talks for movie downloads.

Movie execs anxious to beat piracy are debating how much power to give Jobs, who recently was successful in strong-arming music executives into sticking to a flat $.99 (USD) pricing model per song. Movie execs are hoping to have a tiered model, whereas Jobs is insisting that movies be sold at an easy-to-remember $9.99 (USD).

On March 14th, Apple made its first full-lenth TV movie feature (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060314214419.shtml) available on the iTunes Music Store at $9.99 USD. The movie seemed to indicate that much of the technical groundwork had been laid for iTunes movies, with only content left to be obtained.

Also complicating the deals: The studios are working out terms with a host of other distributors, including Amazon, Movielink and BitTorrent, in part to make sure that one company does not dominate. It seems that none of the studios wants to be first in making a deal with Apple. Disney would be the logical leader, but even they are cautious, fearing it will look like in-house synergy rather than a business decision.

Movie studios have been rolling out their own movie services in past months, including Starz's Vongo (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060103004456.shtml) (subscription-based) and Universal's own download-to-own store (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060323110324.shtml).

Update: There appears to be two similar versions of the original story floating around the web. This Forbes mirror (http://www.forbes.com/2006/06/19/apple-itunes-movies-cx_0619variety.html) adds that the agreements may be in place by the end of the year.

lonepilgrim
Jun 19, 2006, 09:20 AM
Movie studios have been rolling out their own movie services in past months, including Starz's Vongo (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060103004456.shtml) (subscription-based) and Universal's own download-to-own store (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060323110324.shtml).
If Universal has its own store, does that mean that Universal movies won't be on iTunes? (Not that it's going to matter to me here in the UK.)

skoker
Jun 19, 2006, 09:22 AM
I say meh. Downloads of even TV shows take longer than it is to watch them!

Core Trio
Jun 19, 2006, 09:26 AM
unless the movies download at a high enough resolution for me to watch them on a TV (enjoyably) then I still wont be buying anything other than dvds. I have yet to purchase any video content on itunes, aside from videos that sometimes come with albums

ezekielrage_99
Jun 19, 2006, 09:27 AM
US$9.99 a movie I'd prefer to buy the DVD and rip it to my iPod.....

68134
Jun 19, 2006, 09:27 AM
_

AidenShaw
Jun 19, 2006, 09:28 AM
unless the movies download at a high enough resolution for me to watch them on a TV (enjoyably) then I still wont be buying anything other than dvds. I have yet to purchase any video content on itunes, aside from videos that sometimes come with albums
Agree - if they are as bad as DVDs are, it won't be worthwhile.

For 1080p movies in a non-proprietary format, I might be a customer. For "480i", no way...

technicolor
Jun 19, 2006, 09:32 AM
No way in hell.

TV shows are as far as I would go, and Ive only gotten 2..the price isnt worth it.

ezekielrage_99
Jun 19, 2006, 09:32 AM
Agree - if they are as bad as DVDs are, it won't be worthwhile.

For 1080p movies, I might be a customer. For "480i", no way...

That's why I like ripping my own DVDs I know what quality I am getting. (and it's always good :D )

aricher
Jun 19, 2006, 09:33 AM
Again the quality would need to be there. The 128 audio quality keeps me from buy music from iTMS. I'd hate to see Apple step up to the plate with anything less than high-def. DVD-style extras would have to be included of course.

Deepdale
Jun 19, 2006, 09:35 AM
Not a chance.

AidenShaw
Jun 19, 2006, 09:38 AM
That's why I like ripping my own DVDs I know what quality I am getting. (and it's always good :D )
You mean that it's just as bad as the original DVD, don't you?

You can't replace the information that was stripped from the film during the lossy MPEG-2 conversion for the DVD.

medea
Jun 19, 2006, 09:44 AM
Ever watch one of the shows that are available on iTMS on anything other than an iPod? The quality is horrendous and they would need dvd quality to get most people interested. Also you would not get the extra features from a download which means that they would probably not be able to offer foreign releases which would require either subtitles or dubbing. Of course they could release the title with the subtitles already tacked on but if they took that route I believe they'd go with dubbing which is of no interest to me but unfortunately is the choice of most American morons.

Don't get offended by the American morons thing unless you are a moron that happens to be American and walked out of The House Of Flying Daggers because you didn't know you were going to have to read.

thejadedmonkey
Jun 19, 2006, 09:47 AM
I dunno about you guys, but I just bought my latest movie off of amazon.com... it was a whopping $5 used. Ripped it to my hard drive with high resolution, and put the DVD into storage. Sure, it was an older DVD that I got, but it's going to take a LOT to get me to spend twice as much for less content+quality.

a true video player would be nice too... do you remember when the instant-on for DVD and mp3 playing was a fad in laptops. No need to boot Windows to watch your DVD's or listen to music. That's what apple needs..an OS X-less way to play DVD's on your portable (basically frontrow, but without OS X's overhead and distractions)

DTphonehome
Jun 19, 2006, 09:48 AM
You mean that it's just as bad as the original DVD, don't you?

You can't replace the information that was stripped from the film during the lossy MPEG-2 conversion for the DVD.

Are you suggesting that they will remaster movies in HD for the store? No way that will happen.

birch25
Jun 19, 2006, 09:48 AM
if the quality stays the same, there's no way i'll be buying anything. we're on the onset of high-def movies and apple offering 320x240 (or whatever it is) would be a significant step in the wrong direction. if they sold them in 480p, i'd be very happy and more than willing to give them $9.99!

obviously that would drive up the amount of bandwidth used at the store, but that problem could easily be aided if the rumored bittorrent features of the next itunes/10.5 are true.

they're gonna have to do something special if they want to drag me away from netflix. :)

Porco
Jun 19, 2006, 09:49 AM
I would consider it for an occasional film that was deleted or not released on DVD, if the quality was decent (DVD resolution) and the price was right ($9.99/5 is still a little steep IMHO... if it was closer to 10 in the UK then forget it).

So probably not.

I do agree with having a set rate for all tracks/films though. When you go to watch a film at the cinema, you don't get charged more for popular films, or more for films that cost more to produce, so I don't buy this argument from the music and movie industries that they 'need' to have tiered pricing - it's just greed, like Jobs has said, especially when the money they make on music/would make from movies is much more profit per sale than it is on physical products as it is.

thejadedmonkey
Jun 19, 2006, 09:49 AM
Also you would not get the extra features from a download which means that they would probably not be able to offer foreign releases which would require either subtitles or dubbing.
I long for popular formats that can do 5.1 sound instead of 2.0, and the ability to add sub-titles and such to video.

EDIT: I suppose you could somehow add metadata to an mp4 or m4v file for subtitles. You know, a script in the metadata, and somehow keep it synced with the time.

liketom
Jun 19, 2006, 09:50 AM
in a heart beat i would buy movies from the store

if only UK had it :rolleyes:

johnthevulcan
Jun 19, 2006, 09:51 AM
If the world would stop caring about piracy we would all be downloading from one another without bandwith or down server issues. and you better trust to believe apple plays no games when it comes to charging po' folk money. but they also have a knack for doing things right.

AND IF BITTORRENT CAN DO IT SO CAN GOD (JOBS)

bommai
Jun 19, 2006, 09:51 AM
If you guys think $9.99 is too much, the movie studios want $19.99 for new releases. I don't understand this. I think it is pretty certain that the download movie quality won't be better than 480p DVD. I can get new releases at Walmart, etc for $14-$15. Why would I want to pay $19.99 to download a DRM'd version.

crees!
Jun 19, 2006, 10:04 AM
"The movie seemed to indicate that much of the technical groundwork had been laid for iTunes movies" not true at ALL! when you say movies this must mean terabytes upon terabytes not just a one gig movie! Dude, there's no way a single movie will weigh in at a terabyte. You know how big that is right? Do that math. Sure, add up hundreds or thousands of movies and you get terabytes but your comment to the quote doesn't make sense.

liketom
Jun 19, 2006, 10:06 AM
If you guys think $9.99 is too much, the movie studios want $19.99 for new releases. I don't understand this. I think it is pretty certain that the download movie quality won't be better than 480p DVD. I can get new releases at Walmart, etc for $14-$15. Why would I want to pay $19.99 to download a DRM'd version.
i would pay a mixed price model

Just like DVD's are

new releases - 15.99
old has been releases 7.99
Classics 4.99


to be fare , i don't really care that they cost the same as DVD's do - remember with HD-DVD and that other one thats blue are going to be around the 19.99+ mark so digital download will be slightly cheaper but alas not the same quality ,well no where near the same quality

maybe for 19.99 for download would also mean download + DVD in post ?

that might work


just start the movement apple :cool:

hvfsl
Jun 19, 2006, 10:06 AM
BluRay has the ability to include iPod and HD versions of movies on the same disk. Unless the iTunes service is going to have movies in HD, I don't see myself buying any off iTunes.

soosy
Jun 19, 2006, 10:08 AM
I'm afraid I wouldn't be interested in anything less than a full DVD experience (480p + menus/extras).

And with Blu-Ray/HD-DVD arriving this year, I may not even be interested in that....

But I'd REALLY like to see Apple deliver a movie store. If they can work it out with the movie execs, they can all make some mad $$$.

Bad Beaver
Jun 19, 2006, 10:15 AM
$10? If it's high-bitrate HD 720p upwards we can talk. Actually for movies I would like to see a download rental system where you can use a downloaded movie within 48 hours of first usage, two bucks per download or so. I would even be fine "just" DVD quality. In fact that renting makes much more sense than buying unless you are entitled to burn backups.

And of course I want to choose which language & subtitles & sound I get for each individual download. Otherwise I'll just continue to "download" off Amazon.

jaxstate
Jun 19, 2006, 10:16 AM
They would need a subscription service. I use to buy DVDs, and they would just sit there.

Yvan256
Jun 19, 2006, 10:21 AM
Dude, there's no way a single movie will weigh in at a terabyte. You know how big that is right? Do that math. Sure, add up hundreds or thousands of movies and you get terabytes but your comment to the quote doesn't make sense.

I think he meant "terabytes" to comment on the "technical groundwork is in place" comment.

A single movie in DVD resolution in H.264 should fit in 1-2GB, but to store those files you'd need a few petabytes of storage (if not more).

A terabyte isn't even impressive anymore. It's only 1000GB. I got half a terabyte sitting under my Mac mini right now (2 x 250GB).

Mulyahnto
Jun 19, 2006, 10:21 AM
I think no matter what apple does, people are going to buy, not necessarily most people, but there is something to say for not having to run out to the store or waiting for a DVD to be shipped from amazon....consumers are very impulsive and impatient. A simple mixed pricing model, however does sound like a good sales strategy. It has to be simple though.

iGary
Jun 19, 2006, 10:22 AM
No gracias.

andiwm2003
Jun 19, 2006, 10:28 AM
if i'm totally bored and a movie is highly interesting then i could see myself buying a movie for $10 every 3 month or so. more or less dvd quality would be ok. just the download has to be very fast.
i'd prefer even a 480i quality for $5.

Thataboy
Jun 19, 2006, 10:28 AM
These people are nuts.

There is a place for downloadable, lo-res 320x320 movies in this world.... At a SEVERELY LOWERED price point.

DRM's 320x320 movies with no extra content should be $1.99-$4.99. I have to wonder what fairytale land these people are in to believe this stuff is worth $9.99, never MIND $19.99!

$19.99!!! I mean, HONESTLY. I am a super duper crazy nutty Apple fan boy, but I will NEVER buy one of these premium-priced, low-quality movies.

adamfilip
Jun 19, 2006, 10:31 AM
If apple allows you do purchase movies at up to 1080p (give you the option you want to download it at)

but also sets it up.. so you can redownload if you delete it.. in your account
this is one reason i dont like buying music..
if i format my computer and loose the music i bought.. i cant just go back into my itunes account and redownload it.. even tho i bought it already

zim
Jun 19, 2006, 10:31 AM
Maybe, only maybe and it would depend on having an iPod that can play video, which I will have sometime this year, and if I was possibly going on a trip and needed entertainment for the flight etc. But, seeing how I am not even interested in buying TV shows then the chance of me buying a movie is slim to none. I have really no interest in TV or movies on my mac. I do watch podcasts but in part because it is a break from TV and movies.

liketom
Jun 19, 2006, 10:32 AM
if you delete it.. in your account
this is one reason i dont like buying music..
if i format my computer and loose the music i bought.. i cant just go back into my itunes account and redownload it.. even tho i bought it already
yes you can


e-mail itunes support and beg them for a redownload link :cool:

iBrow
Jun 19, 2006, 10:33 AM
Nope, Doesnt interest me and never will.

Tanglewood
Jun 19, 2006, 10:35 AM
The only way I see myself buying a movie off iTunes is for long flights where the inflight movie would probably not interest me. For anything else I'd rather buy the DVD.

treblah
Jun 19, 2006, 10:36 AM
You 'only if it's HD' people are living in bizarro world.

Some very quick calculations based on the Quicktime HD gallery files.

Roughly 100MB for 2 minutes of footage at 720p. Thats about 5.5GB for a 2 hour movie. Which is a 5 hour download at 300KB/s which is on the higher end of broadband speeds.

Still with me. Not to mention the iPod barely plays 320x240 H.264 for 2 hours now. Yet somehow Apple is going to get more than 2 hours at 720p?

Sorry to put a damper on things but the iTMovieS is about selling iPods, not giving you HD content to watch on your TV.

FleurDuMal
Jun 19, 2006, 10:37 AM
No thanks. I'll just continue to rent them and then rip and encode them to my computer :) £7 a month for 4 movies? Yes please!

adamfilip
Jun 19, 2006, 10:39 AM
yes you can


e-mail itunes support and beg them for a redownload link :cool:

I didnt realize that..

begging over email. doesnt sound very convienient

ITR 81
Jun 19, 2006, 10:40 AM
$9.99 going to seem cheap in about yr or two once lowercost BR and HD DVD players hit the marketplace.

The movie industry has already said normal DVD's are priced entirely too low.

So all new HD/BR movies will be selling $24-35 bucks on avg.
Add any other disc to that and your looking at $50-60 bucks.

List price on most all BR movies are $39.99-34.99.
List price on most all HD movies are $30.00-35.00.

When I say low cost HD/BR players...folks getting them with the 360 or PS3 this x'mas...along with folks buying new players.

The whole DVD market is going to get crazy in around 2 yrs.
(I think the std will be set within 3-4 yrs) In 5 yrs I figure 25-35% of the pop will have a BR/HD player of some sort...most them being 360 or PS3 related.

I got my first DVD player through the PS2. I'm sure others got one through the Xbox or their computer. It won't be long maybe next yr before computer companies start selling BTO computers with a BR/HD option.

I myself am going BR with the PS3 and I hope Apples does the same.

bretm
Jun 19, 2006, 10:42 AM
Agree - if they are as bad as DVDs are, it won't be worthwhile.

For 1080p movies in a non-proprietary format, I might be a customer. For "480i", no way...

??? What are you doing, watching standard def DVDs on an HDTV? Yeah, that does look horrible. Sorta the interim problem with most HD sets that are plasma or LCD. The tube does better for multrez.

adamfilip
Jun 19, 2006, 10:44 AM
watching 1080p movies on my 24"dell monitor

bigandy
Jun 19, 2006, 10:45 AM
what a bloody stupid poll. i know what it means by "quality remaining the same" but what's to say everyone else does. It should really mention staying the same as iTMS Music Videos.

pah.

ITR 81
Jun 19, 2006, 10:47 AM
No thanks. I'll just continue to rent them and then rip and encode them to my computer :) 7 a month for 4 movies? Yes please!

Has anyone hacked a BR encoded disc yet? Or HD encoded disc?

I'm wondering since this will be the formats of the future in approx. 4-5 yrs.


I bet once HD movies hit the rental shops..the prices to rent will go up as well..since their cost is going up to buy them.

Our local rental shop does a deal where you can rent two and can get two rentals for free. 7 day rentals I think.

I myself usually just buy used DVD's and sometimes new ones..when I want something right-a-way.

I rip DVD's for traveling purposes..(never take your orig. copies of a movie on a trip with you)

crees!
Jun 19, 2006, 10:49 AM
I think he meant "terabytes" to comment on the "technical groundwork is in place" comment.

A single movie in DVD resolution in H.264 should fit in 1-2GB, but to store those files you'd need a few petabytes of storage (if not more).

A terabyte isn't even impressive anymore. It's only 1000GB. I got half a terabyte sitting under my Mac mini right now (2 x 250GB).
So somehow he knows that Apple isn't technically ready to launch such a service? Cause that is exactly what he's saying. Lies.. lies!

dausone
Jun 19, 2006, 10:49 AM
You 'only if it's HD' people are living in bizarro world.

Exactly!!! Man, people are smokin crack this morning... thinking an HD movie is even remotely logical to store and playback on an iPod, even if it is a new iPod with bumped up capacity. Lets get real for a second people... if you want HD buy the damn disc... were talking about an 6G iPod here, not a 10G if your lucky to see it even by then.

FleurDuMal
Jun 19, 2006, 10:58 AM
Has anyone hacked a BR encoded disc yet? Or HD encoded disc?

I'm wondering since this will be the formats of the future in approx. 4-5 yrs.


I bet once HD movies hit the rental shops..the prices to rent will go up as well..since their cost is going up to buy them.

Our local rental shop does a deal where you can rent two and can get two rentals for free. 7 day rentals I think.

I myself usually just buy used DVD's and sometimes new ones..when I want something right-a-way.

I rip DVD's for traveling purposes..(never take your orig. copies of a movie on a trip with you)

I have absolutely no need for HD/BR anyway. Most of the movies I watch are either old (pre-digital days) or are relatively low budget independent films which can't afford to film in a way to take advantage of the new technology (to film in HD can increase filming costs around 50%). By the time I actually buy into the HD/BR generation, it'll be mainstream and I assume someone would've cracked any protection codes by then :)

Bad Beaver
Jun 19, 2006, 10:58 AM
You 'only if it's HD' people are living in bizarro world.

Because we don't want to pay throught the nose for lo-fi quality? Just because people are deaf enough to buy from the iTMS it doesn't mean they are also blind enough for bad video.


Roughly 100MB for 2 minutes of footage at 720p. Thats about 5.5GB for a 2 hour movie. Which is a 5 hour download at 300KB/s which is on the higher end of broadband speeds.

So what? Connections get faster all the time, and an interesting service would only accelerate the process. The higher end of broadband in my region is also rather 16mbit



Not to mention the iPod barely plays 320x240 H.264 for 2 hours now.

Last time I checked "watching a movie" at home was associated with "TV", "Couch", "Surround Sound", "Snacks", "Drinks". Limiting to iPod quality would be utter insanity. They would miss some 98% of the market.



Sorry to put a damper on things but the iTMovieS is about selling iPods, not giving you HD content to watch on your TV.

Ah, good that you know already, we can only stare from behind.

adamfilip
Jun 19, 2006, 10:59 AM
Exactly!!! Man, people are smokin crack this morning... thinking an HD movie is even remotely logical to store and playback on an iPod, even if it is a new iPod with bumped up capacity. Lets get real for a second people... if you want HD buy the damn disc... were talking about an 6G iPod here, not a 10G if your lucky to see it even by then.

who really cares about watching movies on an ipod..

i believe this is more a service for desktop home users then ipod people.
altough i think different pricing for different resolutions would be reasonable

longofest
Jun 19, 2006, 11:00 AM
Has anyone hacked a BR encoded disc yet? Or HD encoded disc?

We haven't really seen any BR encoded disks out yet, nor have we seen many HD-DVD's (although there are some of those floating around). The biggest rumor out there though is that there is in fact still an analog loophole, where at least the first boxes are displaying full HD resolution out of analog outputs despite the claims of the media police.

The thing about the next generation is that they are supposed to be able to change the DRM codec on the fly, so different disks can be protected with different codecs, so you break one and they throw another one at you. Its not like CSS with the DVD's, where they broke it once and that's the end for DVD encryption.

FleurDuMal
Jun 19, 2006, 11:00 AM
You 'only if it's HD' people are living in bizarro world.

Some very quick calculations based on the Quicktime HD gallery files.

Roughly 100MB for 2 minutes of footage at 720p. Thats about 5.5GB for a 2 hour movie. Which is a 5 hour download at 300KB/s which is on the higher end of broadband speeds.

Still with me. Not to mention the iPod barely plays 320x240 H.264 for 2 hours now. Yet somehow Apple is going to get more than 2 hours at 720p?

Sorry to put a damper on things but the iTMovieS is about selling iPods, not giving you HD content to watch on your TV.

If I'm not mistaken, the current gen iPods can't even handle standard definition video in H.264 yet, can they? What is standard definition for DVDs?

Mord
Jun 19, 2006, 11:16 AM
i'd use it if films were 480p itunes had dvd burning integration with the same DRM scheme as music does and they cost 6.99, it bugs me that itms music is 80p which is like $1.43 nearly 50% more.

Leoff
Jun 19, 2006, 11:16 AM
[QUOTE=ITR 81]$9.99 going to seem cheap in about yr or two once lowercost BR and HD DVD players hit the marketplace.

The movie industry has already said normal DVD's are priced entirely too low.

So all new HD/BR movies will be selling $24-35 bucks on avg.
Add any other disc to that and your looking at $50-60 bucks.

List price on most all BR movies are $39.99-34.99.
List price on most all HD movies are $30.00-35.00.

When I say low cost HD/BR players...folks getting them with the 360 or PS3 this x'mas...along with folks buying new players.[QUOTE]

$9.99 is going to seem expensive now, OUTRAGEOUS in a year or two, given the bitrate quality of what is going to be able to be downloaded.

The movie industry has ALWAYS said normal DVD's are priced entirely too low. They'd charge $100 a piece if they could get away with it. Considering it costs them about a $1 to produce each one, the more the better for them.

With Apple, this is going to be a "quick and dirty" movie availability thing. The quality is going to be poor compared to everything else and they know that. They have to keep the bitrate down, otherwise we're looking at downloads in the HOURS for the average person and average people aren't going to do that.

I'm shocked that Apple is asking $10 a pop for these things. $6, maybe. $10? forget it.

Passante
Jun 19, 2006, 11:17 AM
Ever watch one of the shows that are available on iTMS on anything other than an iPod? The quality is horrendous and they would need dvd quality to get most people interested. snip


Last time I downloaded a missed episode of 24 it looked great on my TV. Better than my analog cable

milatchi
Jun 19, 2006, 11:19 AM
Yeah, I doubt I would. A big factor as always is the quality and the DRM.

Scruff
Jun 19, 2006, 11:23 AM
If I was able to redownload the movies a good number of times in several file formats/resolutions, then perhaps I would buy them. In fact, I probably would.

And a burn-straight-to-DVD (with maybe an included menu? I don't mean one you make in iDVD, I mean the proper DVD menu) would be great.

princealfie
Jun 19, 2006, 11:24 AM
The movie industry is nuts to think that they could charge $100 per flick. At that rate, I'm going to listen to my cd's now.

AvSRoCkCO1067
Jun 19, 2006, 11:24 AM
Last time I downloaded a missed episode of 24 it looked great on my TV. Better than my analog cable

Yeah...am I the only one who doesn't mind the current quality right now?

I've purchased over a hundred TV Shows - and although I'd probably not purchase too many movies, the price is more of a consideration than the quality. <Shrug> :o

Bad Beaver
Jun 19, 2006, 11:24 AM
The movie industry has ALWAYS said normal DVD's are priced entirely too low. They'd charge $100 a piece if they could get away with it. Considering it costs them about a $1 to produce each one, the more the better for them.

Remember Laserdisc? They *did* charge $100 :D (or $50, they were around 100 Deutschmarks back then, but I guess the Dollar did better back then too) Anyway, LDs demanded cleanroom manufacturing conditions (unless they were made by Sony :rolleyes: ) so they were anything but cheap, and had zero copy protection. ... oh, and there was nothing you could really copy them to anyway :D

AvSRoCkCO1067
Jun 19, 2006, 11:24 AM
The movie industry is nuts to think that they could charge $100 per flick. At that rate, I'm going to listen to my cd's now.

Where'd we get the 100 dollar rate???!!!! :eek:

Mac Fly (film)
Jun 19, 2006, 11:26 AM
NO Waaaaaaaaay!!!!!:eek: :eek: :( :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

whooleytoo
Jun 19, 2006, 11:26 AM
Given that I know people who spend days (not just hours) downloading AVC encoded recordings of rugby games, I'm not surprised that a lot of people would have the patience for high quality (but lengthy) movie downloads too.

thunderclap
Jun 19, 2006, 11:28 AM
When I can buy the movie at at least DVD quality and be able to burn it to disc then I'll be interest. Until then it's a novelty at best.

supermacdesign
Jun 19, 2006, 11:36 AM
Apple needs a new device (video iPod or something else) to play such content on as a motivator. I would never buy a movie for 9.99 just to have it confined to my iPod of computer and in such a puny format. For 9.99 I might as well by the DVD so I can enjoy it where ever in high quality, rip it to my Pod or imply ebay the sucker if I ever got bored of it. I fear for the future of digital content because I don't like being limited to a license. This goes for Music, Movies and now especially games. Maybe I am old school but I still want something tangible for my money. A DVD in the case or a game in a box, that sort of thing. At the very least when we purchase/download one of this films I want it DVD bunable. Perhaps it could somehow download with all the DVD menu graphics and links intact so its like buying one from the store.

Stella
Jun 19, 2006, 11:42 AM
No.

The price will probably be too high - better to buy the CD.

Additionally, any service will be for the states only while apple drags its feet in negoitations for the rest of the world.

Savage Henry
Jun 19, 2006, 11:50 AM
I don't ever want to watch anything on less than a 32inch widescreen with the clarity of a pacific ocean night sky and a sound system that would wake the Gods.

I don't seem convinced that it will take off.

jephrey
Jun 19, 2006, 11:56 AM
Well, I wouldn't get sub-par videos either. Videos should be available in multiple formats at different prices (as well as audio, I would buy more apple lossless files than I do the compressed garbage)

So, the idea is to buy/download a 1080i movie that can be played at the iPod level, although not practical. The idea could be just to have 3-4 movies on your pod at this quality that when you dock the thing, you can output to a 1080i TV and watch at full quality. Is downloading something that big practical? Even more so if apple can built the BT protocol into iTunes. So it won't be instantaneous, but you'll get the thing within 24hrs, and for services like netflix, that's the going lead-time.

For those that don't care, offer a lowQ version at 320x240.

If you look at the way Phish has set up their download scheme (you can get mp3s or flac) at different prices. This is perfect www.livephish.com.

I think it's reasonable to only want 1080i (or the best that the movie is capable of, obviously older movies won't be able to reach that level).

So, I'm just scared that the offering won't be quality, and I won't buy.

But finally, the quality of the 320x240 isn't the worst and I do keep some favorites on the pod.

But what the hell do I know?

Jephrey

notjustjay
Jun 19, 2006, 11:59 AM
The movie industry has ALWAYS said normal DVD's are priced entirely too low. They'd charge $100 a piece if they could get away with it.

Remember that's exactly what they did with VHS tapes, too. When movies finished their theatrical run, the VHS tapes would be released. They would cost $100 or so at first ("priced for rental"). Obviously the only buyers at this point would be Blockbuster, etc. who would pay for dozens of copies of these movies at $100, and rent them out. If the VHS tape wore out or broke, they'd have to buy another copy.. for another $100.

(When Star Trek: Generations came out on VHS, apparently there were a lot of Trekkers who gladly paid the $100 to be first on the block to own the movie... other, ostensibly smarter, fans, waited until the "sell-through" date or bought the LD.)

After a few months of this, the VHS tapes would be mass-marketed to home video, and you'd get it at Wal-Mart for $15.

There were exceptions, like some very popular Disney or family titles, which were released all on the same day, all at the consumer price.

When DVDs first came out, studios would often release the movie on a given date, priced to own on DVD and priced to rent on VHS (e.g. $100). There would be a second announcement that movie x was "now available to own" on VHS, a few months later.

Nowadays nobody buys VHS, and Blockbuster pays the same $15 for their rental DVDs that you and I pay for our own copies. And I think this is where the studio execs want to try and get their money again.

(Edited: looked up some figures on Google)

DTphonehome
Jun 19, 2006, 12:04 PM
So what? Connections get faster all the time, and an interesting service would only accelerate the process. The higher end of broadband in my region is also rather 16mbit

"megabytes per second" and "megabits per second" are VERY different. RCN offers 20 megaBITS per second in area, which is about 2.3 megaBYTES per second. And that's theoretical download speed. Speeds will vary tremendously from that. The movie file sizes are stated in megaBYTES. An HD movie will download too slowly on even the fastest internet connections for it to give the instant gratification you get with iTMS music files. Net connections will have to be an order of magnitude faser than they are now for HD delivery to be practical.

So the question still stands: who in their right mind would buy movies at or near DVD prices when the quality on your TV is VHS or less?

hyperpasta
Jun 19, 2006, 12:08 PM
Apple's being retarded. First off, adding BitTorrent technology to iTunes would let you download EVERYTHING on the whole damn store so much faster, freeing up bandwidth to serve broadcast-quality video.

Secondly, who wants to own a movie? The attraction of iTunes for most people isn't that you OWN what you buy; it's that you can get things in small chunks. I spend $100+ on music every year now, wayyy more than I did before iTunes. I also enjoy the music I DO buy more now... since I actually want every song, and am not being forced into buying a lot of bundled crap. It's a win-win.

Now look at movies. $10 isn't something you spend on impusle, and I bet a huge amount of iTunes sales are based on impulse. I buy tons of music on impulse. Even $1.99 for a video is hard to justify sometimes, but 99c is perfect for a song.

iTunes needs to rent movies for say, $2.99 for 3 days (but can be downloaded a few extra days in advance: the timer is started when you play the video for the first time). Broadcast quality. BitTorrent takes care of bandwidth. They make more money since people use the service more now that it's convenient. People rent movies on impulse. The movie studios are happy since it lowers piracy. The large files dissappear in the end anyway, so HD space isn't a concern.

It's a win-win-win-win-win! Why doesn't Apple do it!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Mac Fly (film)
Jun 19, 2006, 12:14 PM
Secondly, who wants to own a movie?
Exactly I never heard of people buying Dvd's before. Huh?

JimmyB248
Jun 19, 2006, 12:15 PM
Ok, I agree that higher quality would be brilliant, but it is physically not possible, many of the points I've read on here are not going to happen ever because it is not what Apple is aiming to do.

The small resolution is due to the fact that internet speeds are not up to the task of downloading HD video, sure 480i would be acceptable, but the file size would be huge and it would take hours and hours to download.

$9.99 is I think a good deal for the movie, you're paying for convenience. Tagged movies, on your hard drive, also on your iPod, at the click of a button. This is the point of iTunes, convenience. It's also digital media, Apple would never send you a copy of the HD-DVD in the post along with your order, because Apple does not want you to have hard copies, it's all about the digital. CD's should cease to exist, it'll all become digital (should the quality be increased to lossless).

You guys do not represent the majority of the users to iTunes, you're perfectionists, of course, and high quality is essential, however to the average user who prefers convenience to quality, this would be a brilliant idea. I've purchased several of the TV Shows off iTunes and I have to say that the compression is quite incredible, H.264 is a godsend, for a 320x240 file size it looks quite amazing, and of course the files are designed to be viewed on the iPod, and on there they are perfect quality, couldn't be much better.

I have faith that when the internet speed increases and hard drive size increases for the iPod and laptops that Apple will upgrade the quality of the videos (they'd have to, music is easier as many people don't notice the sound difference, but with video it is far easier to see the difference) for free to those who have previously bought them, unless of course the prices increase which I cannot imagine happening.

Mac Fly (film)
Jun 19, 2006, 12:16 PM
People rent movies on impulse.
No they don't.

Mac Fly (film)
Jun 19, 2006, 12:21 PM
Ok, I agree that higher quality would be brilliant, but it is physically not possible, many of the points I've read on here are not going to happen ever because it is not what Apple is aiming to do.

The small resolution is due to the fact that internet speeds are not up to the task of downloading HD video, sure 480i would be acceptable, but the file size would be huge and it would take hours and hours to download.

$9.99 is I think a good deal for the movie, you're paying for convenience. Tagged movies, on your hard drive, also on your iPod, at the click of a button. This is the point of iTunes, convenience. It's also digital media, Apple would never send you a copy of the HD-DVD in the post along with your order, because Apple does not want you to have hard copies, it's all about the digital. CD's should cease to exist, it'll all become digital (should the quality be increased to lossless).

You guys do not represent the majority of the users to iTunes, you're perfectionists, of course, and high quality is essential, however to the average user who prefers convenience to quality, this would be a brilliant idea. I've purchased several of the TV Shows off iTunes and I have to say that the compression is quite incredible, H.264 is a godsend, for a 320x240 file size it looks quite amazing, and of course the files are designed to be viewed on the iPod, and on there they are perfect quality, couldn't be much better.

I have faith that when the internet speed increases and hard drive size increases for the iPod and laptops that Apple will upgrade the quality of the videos (they'd have to, music is easier as many people don't notice the sound difference, but with video it is far easier to see the difference) for free to those who have previously bought them, unless of course the prices increase which I cannot imagine happening.
What are you talking about? :confused: :rolleyes:

JimmyB248
Jun 19, 2006, 12:22 PM
What isn't to understand? I'm confused, surely the post explains itself, people on this board seem to be expecting the impossible.

andiwm2003
Jun 19, 2006, 12:25 PM
No they don't.

I do.

Hyperpasta's business model would be what i want. except that i wouldn't necessary want'need HD. Whatever resolution i get now on standard TV (is it 640x480 or so?) is good enough.

Bad Beaver
Jun 19, 2006, 12:26 PM
people on this board seem to be expecting the impossible.

Yes, we are Apple customers.

vniow
Jun 19, 2006, 12:27 PM
I wouldn't do it unless there was some sort of Netflix style option. Music I prefer buying because I listen to it a lot but movies are a different story. I watch them once and don't usually watch them again until some time later. I don't mind waiting a few days for my DVDs to come in but it would be nice if there was a similar service where I could download and watch it later.

I'm not interested in owning movies, just having them accessable.

JimmyB248
Jun 19, 2006, 12:32 PM
Yes, we are Apple customers.

There is a difference between wishing for the impossible and expecting the impossible. You guys act as if the idea of this movie service is a pile of crap that no one wants and is completely useless when it's a bold and sensible move by Apple that if they don't go for now will not happen as it'll go to others and they'll be too late in the game, the quality they're offering is the most suitable for them to suceed.

Bad Beaver
Jun 19, 2006, 12:46 PM
There is a difference between wishing for the impossible and expecting the impossible.

Indeed. Yet I do not notice anything impossible about expecting a high quality service, or at least a service with a flexible quality offering. There are some puny technical limitations in place that can hardly command the lable "impossible". If you think about it you will notice that there are only a few things that are truly impossible.



You guys act as if the idea of this movie service is a pile of crap that no one wants and is completely useless

Which movie service are we talking about? What is served on the iTMS is not a movie service. iTMS sells video at iPod quality for portable use.


the quality they're offering is the most suitable for them to suceed.

True. And we all hope that the quality of any future movie service will also be set at exactly that point. Which is not iPod quality.

baleensavage
Jun 19, 2006, 12:49 PM
You guys do not represent the majority of the users to iTunes, you're perfectionists, of course, and high quality is essential, however to the average user who prefers convenience to quality, this would be a brilliant idea.

I disagree. Most people are not going to want to watch a full length movie on their iPod. TV shows, sure, they're 40 minutes long and are perfect for a short commute or soemthing similar. Even Sony's UMD discs are not doing that well and the screen on the PSP is twice an iPods screen. Therefore, when they download the movies they will either: a. watch it on their PC (in full screen mode) or b. watch it on their TV. Either way the quality from the iTunes store will not stand up. With people able to get HD content on cable and satellite now, and with most people having 19" plus TVs, there will be no comeptition. You can go to Walmart and get a DVD for $3.99 that will look good AND have surround sound to boot, or you can pay $10 and get a pixelated movie with mediocre sound where anything red goes all wacky that you can't even rip to a DVD. The average consumer may not care about HD or surround sound, but they sure do care about bad picture quality.

68134
Jun 19, 2006, 01:02 PM
_

Bad Beaver
Jun 19, 2006, 01:02 PM
You can go to Walmart and get a DVD for $3.99 that will look good AND have surround sound to boot, or you can pay $10 and get a pixelated movie with mediocre sound where anything red goes all wacky that you can't even rip to a DVD. The average consumer may not care about HD or surround sound, but they sure do care about bad picture quality.

On spot. :)

Xenious
Jun 19, 2006, 01:07 PM
I purchase based on the freedom of information and the quality of source. For example if I want music I will buy the CD and rip into iTunes. If the iTunes music store has an exclusive, or just a single track I want I will buy it there.

Along those lines for movies if I like it I will buy a DVD. If it is an exclusive to the iTunes "movie" store I would buy it there, but mostly what I would like is a subscription model ala Netflix. Then I could pay say 15$/mo and download any movie I wanted any time I wanted. Mostly what I would like to do is be able to rip DVDs (yea I know, DCMA, haha) into iTunes for viewing on the computer or my "video iPod."

Goldfinger
Jun 19, 2006, 01:07 PM
I think it's reasonable to only want 1080i (or the best that the movie is capable of, obviously older movies won't be able to reach that level).
Obviously they will... Film has a much higher resolution than HD.

As for me, I don't really care. I like to own things physically. And downloading HD content is impossible at the moment. Not with the current speed of broadband. +15mbit lines are still quite rare and even +20 bit is too slow for downloading HD content IMHO.

I however do agree that IF Apple does release a Movie Store they should provide HD 1080p and not low res stuff for iPods. If they don't then they better offer nothing.

BlueRevolution
Jun 19, 2006, 01:24 PM
I've never bought from the iTunes music store, and I never plan to buy from the iTunes movie store either. It may be an improvement over physical music distribution, but it's still playing to the abomination of a record industry that we have today. I'd greatly prefer it if the entire industry was structured Magnatune-style.

JimmyB248
Jun 19, 2006, 01:26 PM
As for me, I don't really care. I like to own things physically. And downloading HD content is impossible at the moment. Not with the current speed of broadband. +15mbit lines are still quite rare and even +20 bit is too slow for downloading HD content IMHO.

I however do agree that IF Apple does release a Movie Store they should provide HD 1080p and not low res stuff for iPods. If they don't then they better offer nothing.

But....that makes no sense? Downloading HD content is impossible at the moment and yet if Apple come out with a movie store they should offer not only HD, but 1080p that, as you just said is impossible to download...so surely...low res for iPods would be better than nothing because maybe people want to watch films on their...iPods? No?

Maybe it's different here in England but I know a lot of people who watch Movies on their iPod over here as we dont get videos on our ITMS, so everyone I know that owns a 5g iPod has ripped their own movies and watched them straight off the iPod, often on commutes to work, watch the first half on you're way in and finish it off on the way home.

I'm just saying, you must remember you guys are the hardest of the hardcore Apple fans, just because something does not meet your standards does not mean that it is rendered useless.

baleensavage
Jun 19, 2006, 01:48 PM
But....that makes no sense? Downloading HD content is impossible at the moment and yet if Apple come out with a movie store they should offer not only HD, but 1080p that, as you just said is impossible to download...so surely...low res for iPods would be better than nothing because maybe people want to watch films on their...iPods? No?
I have to agree with you here. I don't think that HD download makes much sense and that is not what the majority of people want. And as much as a tiered setup would be nice, it isn't going to happen, because Apple and the public want simplicity. Most everyday users don't even know or care that there are like three formats of HD and so on. There's going to be one size and that's it.

I just think that it would make more sense to offer the movies at 800x450 or whatever the regular TV size is and not the 200 pixels across they do now. Let iTunes rip them down when they go onto the iPod.

Mac Fly (film)
Jun 19, 2006, 01:50 PM
I do.

Hyperpasta's business model would be what i want. except that i wouldn't necessary want'need HD. Whatever resolution i get now on standard TV (is it 640x480 or so?) is good enough.I was intending the average.

Mac Fly (film)
Jun 19, 2006, 01:53 PM
the quality they're offering is the most suitable for them to suceed.For movies if they keep the current quality it would be a stupid move. Bit torrent client, would enable higher data rates. Either way people want a movie in dvd or HD quality.

JimmyB248
Jun 19, 2006, 01:54 PM
Actually that's not a bad idea. The Shuffle has the capabilty to convert on the fly to 128kbps as you sync, this could be done with videos. I'm personally dreaming of a new codec brought out at WWDC this year with Quicktime 8 so that the conversion wouldn't even be needed, smaller files with higher resolution.

I agree the resolution could be a lot higher, but people expecting HD is just rediculous.

Mac Fly (film)
Jun 19, 2006, 01:58 PM
I disagree. Most people are not going to want to watch a full length movie on their iPod. TV shows, sure, they're 40 minutes long and are perfect for a short commute or soemthing similar. Even Sony's UMD discs are not doing that well and the screen on the PSP is twice an iPods screen. Therefore, when they download the movies they will either: a. watch it on their PC (in full screen mode) or b. watch it on their TV. Either way the quality from the iTunes store will not stand up. With people able to get HD content on cable and satellite now, and with most people having 19" plus TVs, there will be no comeptition. You can go to Walmart and get a DVD for $3.99 that will look good AND have surround sound to boot, or you can pay $10 and get a pixelated movie with mediocre sound where anything red goes all wacky that you can't even rip to a DVD. The average consumer may not care about HD or surround sound, but they sure do care about bad picture quality.
My sentiments exactly!

Even my niece of 10 years old agrees with me.

celebrian23
Jun 19, 2006, 01:59 PM
No thanks. It's not about the quality- I simply would have no need for it. I don't like watching videos on my ipod anyways. It's good for short little clips, but anything over 30 minutes and I don't want to watch to watch it when I could watch it big and bold on a tv

JimmyB248
Jun 19, 2006, 02:02 PM
For movies if they keep the current quality it would be a stupid move. Bit torrent client, would enable higher data rates. Either way people want a movie in dvd or HD quality.

No, you guys want a movie in dvd or HD, not everyone. I agree bittorrent could increase speeds in a large way, but HD content is a definite no, it just could not happen, not with technology as it is. And how many Apple users own laptops? 120gb HDD max, people are already filling that and needing more with the movies averaging around 1gb, correct me if I'm wrong but an HD movie would be around what? 5gb? More? Download speed could not get that in a suitable amount of time, and it's not what the mass market would want. If space is not an issue, then you are not the target market for Apple, you are the ones who will buy the HD DVD's, so why should they bother ignoring the majority of the users for those who don't really need the service?

Stridder44
Jun 19, 2006, 02:06 PM
No way in hell.

TV shows are as far as I would go, and Ive only gotten 2..the price isnt worth it.


Preach on.

JimmyB248
Jun 19, 2006, 02:07 PM
No thanks. It's not about the quality- I simply would have no need for it. I don't like watching videos on my ipod anyways. It's good for short little clips, but anything over 30 minutes and I don't want to watch to watch it when I could watch it big and bold on a tv

I completely agree, given the choice I would rather watch a movie on a TV than on my iPod.

Given the choice I would rather listen to music on some nice loud speakers than on my iPod.

But I don't spend my entire life at home, I spend a lot of time commuting, waiting for trains, often for up to an hour with where I live. Millions of other people get the train every day and with our live's getting busier and busier there is less time to sit at home in the evenings and watch TV. Of course thanks to the iPod now you can shove the newest episode of Lost on your iPod in the morning and watch it on your way to work, that way you've got more time at home to spend time with family or friends.

The inclusion of video on the iPod was just as revolutionary as the original creation of the 1g iPod was, people have just set their standards far higher as, because we're Apple fans, we're used to brilliance.

mrgreen4242
Jun 19, 2006, 02:18 PM
$10 and no disc or packaging (read: provide your own backup - not that DVDs are much better, but I'd argue that a DVD is at least more secure than a downloaded file) I'd expect more than a DVD in terms of quality or features, if not both.

A brand new release on DVD runs ~$15 at a discount store, like WalMart, and you get the disc with a 480p30/480i60 (depending on you TV, DVD player, and point of view) widescreen movie , 5.1 surround sound, and generally some extra features [which may or may not be of any value to you]. I can also play the movie back with a $30 DVD player on my considerably more expensive TV (which is also significantly larger than my computer monitor).

For $9.99, I have to supply my own DVD (20 cents to $1 depending on brand and source), don't get extras, can watch on either my computer or use a $400+ player to get it to my TV (iPod video + AV dock). Plus, there's the very good chance these will be closer to VHS quality, and only have stereo sound.

Sounds like a rip off to me. iTMS songs are a good buy - I'm getting a roughly equivelent product for about the same price (whole albums), and I have to choice to get a proportionally cheaper product with individual tracks, if that's what I want.

Now, if they were DVD quality, playable on DVD players, or at least made playable through a special simple and inexepensive player, and the price was down to $8.99 or so it would be worth it.

Better yet would be higher quality - at least 480p60 widescreen material, preferable 720p60 or 1080i60 material. I'd put up with having to buy a special player, or only watching on my computer and paying a higher price for that sort of service. Of course, it's just not possible right now. The bandwidth and server capacity needed to distribute such a product isn't available at a price that would leave much room for profits AND reasonable pricing. Plus, the playback requirements are high enough that it wouldn't be affordable to have a TV based unit to watch them. My 1.42ghx G4 mini won't playback 720p material without dropping ~50% of the frames.

As it is, I'll stick with DVDs and Netflix, and snag an HDDVD player (and keep using Netflix) when they are reasonably priced.

i-unit123
Jun 19, 2006, 02:37 PM
i think quality is really important. for apple to not be limited to a simple ipod + mac computer base, these movies have to be watchable on big screen tvs, etc. also, not being able to burn the movies to a dvd would be too limiting, IMHO

beatle888
Jun 19, 2006, 02:50 PM
these POLLS are getting really lame.

does macrumors really think they will remain the same quality? i mean sure i can say yes/no at its currently quality but is that really relevant? im sure there will be some type of HD selection.


give me a break. who comes up with those POLLS anyway? the options/questions are horrible. i wish i could remember the last one i saw...really juvenile, i wish i could find it to use as an example.


edit: it seems that the majority here on the boards are complaning about the quality of videos. well, let me just say that i highly doubt they created front row for little iPod sized movies. you guys are hung up. why dont you talk about how cool its going to be when apple does release the high quality movies. it just seems silly to think that apple is going to offer only the small iPod sized movies and thats that. of course there will be better quality movies.

beatle888
Jun 19, 2006, 03:04 PM
i got a new poll for macrumors.


If apple stops updrading their hardware would that be a good business move?

yes

no

i dont know

yes if they gave the hardware away to people with a special offer coupon found in cereal boxes


stupid :rolleyes:

JimmyB248
Jun 19, 2006, 04:25 PM
Here's a question for ya! If the video's could not be played on your computer and only on the iPod, would people complain? I hear nobody complaining abou the fact that you cannot played PSP DVD's on computers or on TV, and with the videos from iTunes seems to me you get a much better deal? So why the complaining?

treblah
Jun 19, 2006, 04:29 PM
i believe this is more a service for desktop home users then ipod people.


And the TV shows were from desktop home users? No. Everything Apple does in relation to the iTMS is for one reason: To sell more iPods.

does macrumors really think they will remain the same quality? im sure there will be some type of HD selection.


Doubt it. I'm sure Apple would love to alienate those 20,000,000 people who have bought a iPod with video in the last 12 months by releasing new videos that are 5 or 6 times better that they can't play on their recent purchase.

boncellis
Jun 19, 2006, 04:35 PM
One has to think about Apple's perspective on this, not just the consumer's point of view--what does Apple have to gain by making feature-length movies available through the iTMS?

Music: iPod Nano/Shuffle
Music & TV: 5G iPod
Music & TV & Movies: 5G iPod? Mac Mini? An as yet unannounced machine?

I really wonder what will be the pitch from Apple if this ends up happening.

Bad Beaver
Jun 19, 2006, 04:50 PM
Here's a question for ya! If the video's could not be played on your computer and only on the iPod, would people complain?

Since it would totally deny iTunes core principle of synchronisation - yes they would.


I hear nobody complaining abou the fact that you cannot played PSP DVD's on computers or on TV,

People really buy UMDs in the US? :eek:


I'm sure Apple would love to alienate those 20,000,000 people who have bought a iPod with video in the last 12 months by releasing new videos that are 5 or 6 times better that they can't play on their recent purchase.

Would not be the first time ;) Seriously, I think we really have to wait what Apple comes up with (Logic?! No Way! :eek: :D ). I'd imagine you get several versions of the content, or they implement a very non-on-the-fly system comparable to the iPod shuffle codec conversion. Those intel chips must be good for something.

mrgreen4242
Jun 19, 2006, 05:34 PM
Here's a question for ya! If the video's could not be played on your computer and only on the iPod, would people complain? I hear nobody complaining abou the fact that you cannot played PSP DVD's on computers or on TV, and with the videos from iTunes seems to me you get a much better deal? So why the complaining?

The reason you don't hear anyone complain is that no one is buying them [so there's nothing to complain about]. UMD (PSP movies) have failed miserably, for the exact reason that an iTMS movie service [that didn't have some simple, cheap way to get it to your TV] would fail: why pay for a product that only works in a limited set of conditions when for a little more (or a little less, in the PSP's case) you can get the DVD, watch it on your TV, computer, and use readily available software to shift that copy to pretty much any other device you please?


I'm sure Apple would love to alienate those 20,000,000 people who have bought a iPod with video in the last 12 months by releasing new videos that are 5 or 6 times better that they can't play on their recent purchase.

Wasn't one of the features that made H.264 so great was the ability to store several copies of the same video in a single file, with varying resolutions, bitrates, audio tracks, etc? Why not give you both and make iTunes automatically copy just the 'appropriate' one to the device you wanted to use?

treblah
Jun 19, 2006, 06:50 PM
Wasn't one of the features that made H.264 so great was the ability to store several copies of the same video in a single file, with varying resolutions, bitrates, audio tracks, etc? Why not give you both and make iTunes automatically copy just the 'appropriate' one to the device you wanted to use?

I'm think you are confusing the scaling ability of H.264 with something else.
Is this what you are referring to? (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technologies/h264/)

H.264 achieves the best-ever compression efficiency for a broad range of applications, such as broadcast, DVD, video conferencing, video-on-demand, streaming and multimedia messaging. And true to its advanced design, H.264 delivers excellent quality across a wide operating range, from 3G to HD and everything in between. Whether you need high-quality video for your mobile phone, iChat, Internet, broadcast or satellite delivery, H.264 provides exceptional performance at impressively low data rates.

Even if you could put a few resolutions in one file you are still left with a large multi-gigabyte file on the iPod. I have a hard time believing Apple will go from advertising '10,000 songs in your pocket' to '10 HD movies in your pocket'. But I have been wrong before. ;)

ezekielrage_99
Jun 19, 2006, 10:31 PM
You mean that it's just as bad as the original DVD, don't you?

You can't replace the information that was stripped from the film during the lossy MPEG-2 conversion for the DVD.

Yeah but it's nice having Underworld, Underworld Evolution and Fight Club ripped in H.264 on my iPod Video for all of those long plane and train trips :D

Multimedia
Jun 19, 2006, 11:37 PM
Ego Trips are keeping this from happening. :( :rolleyes:

treblah
Jun 19, 2006, 11:40 PM
Ego Trips are keeping this from happening. :( :rolleyes:

Is 'Ego Trips' new slang for 'greed'?

Analog Kid
Jun 19, 2006, 11:53 PM
Maybe it's different here in England but I know a lot of people who watch Movies on their iPod over here as we dont get videos on our ITMS, so everyone I know that owns a 5g iPod has ripped their own movies and watched them straight off the iPod, often on commutes to work, watch the first half on you're way in and finish it off on the way home. Yeah, that's why the gadget markets in Europe and Japan are so different from the US-- you're train cultures. We can't watch video on our commute because we've got to keep our eyes on the bumper ahead of us as we inch along the expressway.

Thanatoast
Jun 19, 2006, 11:57 PM
IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2006-06-19/) Says Jobs lost the fight and to welcome tiered pricing. (fourth story down)

Analog Kid
Jun 19, 2006, 11:58 PM
I've said it before: $2-3 DVD quality downloads to own. Undermine the rental market and make the studios fat and happy.

Analog Kid
Jun 20, 2006, 12:09 AM
Doubt it. I'm sure Apple would love to alienate those 20,000,000 people who have bought a iPod with video in the last 12 months by releasing new videos that are 5 or 6 times better that they can't play on their recent purchase.
I've never understood why people think it's so catastrophic that technology improves with time and their year old purchase isn't as good as the one they see today on the store shelf...

Those 20 million have an iPod they thought was worth the money when they bought it. I'm not alienated by the fact that I can't receive satellite radio on my stereo. I'm not alienated that my Mac doesn't burn Blueray discs. Things evolve and I either decide I'm happy with what I have or I upgrade.

If that 20 million was a market worth worrying about, they'll offer compatible files for them-- either bundled or separately. They still sell VHS and DVD is almost obsolete now...

jimgleeson
Jun 20, 2006, 12:34 AM
No they don't.

As far as saying that people do not rent movies on impulse, all I can say is that I do. I will browse along the Blockbuster new Releases and go gestalt until I see something that I like and by impulse, I will get it. I feel an impelling need to get it that is not based on rational evaluation.

For instance, sometimes I will rent a movie based on the attractive female on the cover. This is an impulsive irrational behavior and in fact the movie probably is in a quality that is inversely proportional to the attractiveness of the actress on the cover of the DVD. Yet, still I fall to rather primal impulses in getting movies in that way.

Other times I use other irrational impulses to rent other movies. Like what am I in the mood for. Or what am I eating tonight and what movie would go well with that form of cuisine (Italian Food with Goodfellas).

In many ways we are creatures of impulse. That is why a movie case is fraught with advertising that is meant to appeal to impulse. "Spine Tingling Adventure" and "A thrill ride." Do you think these decriptions appeal to a consumer who goes for a movie based on rational evaluation.

There are movies people rent for rational reasons. They are called documentaries. :)

Still it takes all kinds.

Jim Gleeson

http://jimzworld.com/cgi/wp

ezekielrage_99
Jun 20, 2006, 01:09 AM
I've said it before: $2-3 DVD quality downloads to own. Undermine the rental market and make the studios fat and happy.

If that was the case count me in :D

Unspeaked
Jun 20, 2006, 01:52 AM
Wait a minute, so all you folks are saying that it's fine for Apple to charge $9.99 for a music album at the iTunes store when a CD typically goes for about $9.99 the week it's released and about $12.99 retail thereafter (at a Target or Best Buy), PLUS only takes a few minutes to rip to a Mac after purchase

YET

It's a rip off that they want to charge $9.99 for a movie that typically is on sale for between $14.99 and $19.99 the week of release and retails for between $14.99 and $24.99 thereafter and takes a half hour to rip to a machine

???

I'd be WAY more likely to buy a movie at the iTunes Store than an album... (though not likely to do either, I must admit).

treblah
Jun 20, 2006, 02:27 AM
I've never understood why people think it's so catastrophic that technology improves with time and their year old purchase isn't as good as the one they see today on the store shelf...


I'm totally for technology improving, I was just giving examples as to why it won't in the near future as far as resolution of the videos goes. It's not like I'm bemoaning my 3G iPod not having the ability to play videos.

Analog Kid
Jun 20, 2006, 03:30 AM
If that was the case count me in :D
My point exactly... I'd stop renting if I could download for the same cost and keep the file-- it's not like many people rent a movie twice anyway. Instead of selling one disc per 20-50 renters, the studio would sell 20-50 downloads, save the manufacture, warehousing and shipping costs and make more money. It's a win for everyone except Blockbuster...

Once HD discs come out, there would still be a place for rentals and studios would still sell discs either in HD or DVDs to the people who want all the extra stuff that comes with them. Sell the special features for a buck a download and they'd make what they do on a DVD anyway.

Analog Kid
Jun 20, 2006, 03:36 AM
Wait a minute, so all you folks are saying that it's fine for Apple to charge $9.99 for a music album at the iTunes store when a CD typically goes for about $9.99 the week it's released and about $12.99 retail thereafter (at a Target or Best Buy), PLUS only takes a few minutes to rip to a Mac after purchase

YET

It's a rip off that they want to charge $9.99 for a movie that typically is on sale for between $14.99 and $19.99 the week of release and retails for between $14.99 and $24.99 thereafter and takes a half hour to rip to a machine

???

I'd be WAY more likely to buy a movie at the iTunes Store than an album... (though not likely to do either, I must admit).
One big difference is convenience. I can get to the video store and back much faster than I can download a 1GB movie, but not to the music store and back before downloading an album.

Another is divisibility. I'll buy a song from an album, but not a scene from a movie.

And, I think you're making a false assumption-- I think albums are priced too high for what you get. They'd have a better deal if instead of songs you were getting the video with high quality audio. Then there would be a reason to pay the same price as you'd pay for the physical media-- you're getting something extra.

Lastly, my condolences to those of you who have to go to Target to buy your music...

ezekielrage_99
Jun 20, 2006, 06:46 AM
My point exactly... I'd stop renting if I could download for the same cost and keep the file-- it's not like many people rent a movie twice anyway. Instead of selling one disc per 20-50 renters, the studio would sell 20-50 downloads, save the manufacture, warehousing and shipping costs and make more money. It's a win for everyone except Blockbuster...

I also can't see the point of selling an online movie for close to the price of a new DVD, I'd buy the DVD anytime over the downloaded file.

Scruff
Jun 20, 2006, 07:33 AM
Why are you all so sure that there will only be one file formant/resolution offered, either iPod quality or HD quality? They seem to be the two extremes here...

Is it not possible that when you buy the film you can choose between several formats/resolutions? Seems like it to me. And even if they only offered HD quality films, they'd include a feature that would let you convert it for your iPod without affecting the source file, it's only common sense.

Mac Fly (film)
Jun 20, 2006, 03:58 PM
Why are you all so sure that there will only be one file formant/resolution offered, either iPod quality or HD quality? They seem to be the two extremes here...

Is it not possible that when you buy the film you can choose between several formats/resolutions? Seems like it to me. And even if they only offered HD quality films, they'd include a feature that would let you convert it for your iPod without affecting the source file, it's only common sense.
My idea, bandwidth issues aside. Is $9.99, but you get two downloads of the same film for that price.

(i) First you get an iPod or iPod (Video) 6G version
(ii) You get a HD or close version. (If you like you can watch the iPod version while you wait, for the HD version to download)

This way you don't need to do any converting, and it works out more user friendly. You can watch it on the big screen in beautiful HD or take it with you. :D