PDA

View Full Version : Wireless HDMI Prototype (High Definition Video)


MacRumors
Sep 6, 2006, 02:10 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

ExtremeTech reports (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,2011975,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532) that Tzero Technologies and Analog Devices have announced a prototype wireless HDMI interface. The standards-based system allows manufacturers to stream high definition signals between audio/video equipment (TVs, DVD players).

The standard calls for link reliability of at least 95 percent, packet error rate of less than 1 in one hundred million, interference resistances for microwaves and cordless phones, and the ability to process three or more HD streams at 10 meters.

According to the article, the system will be demonstrated to various manufacturers over the next few months and be available for purchase in November.

While this announcement is not related to Apple, recent rumors have indicated that Apple could introduce a wireless video (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060904194920.shtml) device next week. Of course, if Apple's device is intended to stream iTunes-downloadable movies, high definition video capabilities would likely not be required.

aswitcher
Sep 6, 2006, 02:14 AM
Here's hoping. I hope they put a decent antennae on it.

kresh
Sep 6, 2006, 02:14 AM
Still doesn't solve the issue of getting HD content from Apple's servers to your living room.

I don't think moving HD content around your house is the real issue, the real issue it's getting it to your living room (downloading it).

Multimedia
Sep 6, 2006, 02:20 AM
While this announcement is not related to Apple, recent rumors have indicated that Apple could introduce a wireless video (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060904194920.shtml) device next week. Of course, if Apple's device is intended to stream iTunes-downloadable movies, high definition video capabilities would certainly not be required.According to whom? If it ain't High-Def it's DOA. :rolleyes: The idea of buying standard definition anything seems abhorent to me. Once you see and become accustomed to high-definition television - and particularly the 16x9 aspect ratio on say an Apple 23" or Dell 24" 1920 x 1200 display, I dont' see how anyone will want to view much less even purchase SD content any more whatsoever.

From my point of view, SD Video and all of its content are historical artifacts of the 20th century.

chasemac
Sep 6, 2006, 02:23 AM
I don't think moving HD content around your house is the real issue, it's getting it there.

Downloading you mean? It would be hard to believe this device will be useful yet.

arn
Sep 6, 2006, 02:25 AM
According to whom? If it ain't High-Def it's DOA. :rolleyes:

i'm going to go out on a limb and say that Apple is not going to offer downloads that require HDMI-level bandwidth streaming. but I do see the misinterpretation. I edited it to say "likely not".

arn

odedia
Sep 6, 2006, 02:43 AM
Hey cool, one of my many meaningless, would-be, "maybe-it-has-something-to-do-with-apple" submitions to MacRumors finally made it to the front page :cool: :D ;)

Object-X
Sep 6, 2006, 02:54 AM
Oh, and one more thing: check out our new miniRAID for storing all of your HD content and backups for Time Machine.

Analog Kid
Sep 6, 2006, 02:55 AM
This doesn't seem very useful for desk to livingroom streaming-- 10m just isn't enough, especially if there are walls. This seems like a way to ease setup-- stack the components without the need to get behind the rack to run cables...

That in itself is valuable.

Stridder44
Sep 6, 2006, 03:37 AM
Yeah, it takes long enough getting a regular movie. Too bad Internet speeds suck here in the US, unlike Europe and whatnot. Cool concept tho. Im sure it'll be popular someday.

noservice2001
Sep 6, 2006, 04:00 AM
amazing!

Barabas
Sep 6, 2006, 04:11 AM
An apple RAID-NAS would be a dream come true. If not the new Maxtor one seems sweet with it's built in iTunes support.

Platform
Sep 6, 2006, 04:49 AM
Agree with the most people.....if we get wHDMI.....where do we get the HD content :confused:

Now if they can fix that....:D

skymaXimus
Sep 6, 2006, 04:58 AM
Maybe 2006 will be the year of HD

:)

odedia
Sep 6, 2006, 05:08 AM
Maybe 2006 will be the year of HD

:)

And if not, then 2007, for sure :rolleyes:

Platform
Sep 6, 2006, 05:12 AM
Maybe 2006 will be the year of HD

:)

I belive that was 2005.....Final Cut Pro/Express, iMove, H.264....all went HD or had someting to do with HD.

ezekielrage_99
Sep 6, 2006, 07:24 AM
Still doesn't solve the issue of getting HD content from Apple's servers to your living room.

You're right it's really going to kill the whole movie thing even though you are getting a decent product to play it on you still need a decent connection to get the movies fast.

prady16
Sep 6, 2006, 07:48 AM
There seem to be just too many potential bottlenecks to the entire system. Downloading the hi-def movies in the first place, why stream from a box to a hi-def display 10m away (instead of possibly docking your ipod on it), quality of the audio/video, interference from other sources, etc.

Although i can see i possible scenario where i would like to use such a system. Imagine users requesting or searching for movies through the high def tv wirelessly linked to a black box (computer) connected to your wireless network downloading movies from torrents or iTunes Movie Store and streaming it to the tv once it is downloaded! That would be interesting. But basically what i am thinking of here is cutting the cord between the monitor and the cpu and establishing a high bandwidth wireless connection capable of streaming content between the two.

Multimedia
Sep 6, 2006, 07:49 AM
Agree with the most people.....if we get wHDMI.....where do we get the HD content :confused:

Now if they can fix that....:DYeah, I can't even get my FOX affiliate to broadcast HD half the time because of incompetent "engineers" who superimpose the SD signal over the HD. I have to phone them every other day to tell them they are not transmitting HD. Last night they broadcast the season premiere's of House and Standoff in SD in my little market just south of Cupertino. Can you believe it?! :mad:

BillHarrison
Sep 6, 2006, 07:55 AM
Yeah, I can't even get my FOX affiliate to broadcast HD half the time because of incompetent "engineers" who superimpose the SD signal over the HD. I have to phone them every other day to tell them they are not transmitting HD. Last night they broadcast the season premiere's of House and Standoff in SD in my little market just south of Cupertino. Can you believe it?! :mad:

That sucks, house looked great in OTA HD here in NE Ohio. Strange show, never saw it before.

Back on topic, Apple has some strides to make to catch up with microsoft in this area. I love macs, and have a few, but you CANNOT beat microsoft for having solutions to problems that just work -

See above, last night I recorded "House" in HD on my media center pc, while watching it live streamed through my XBOX 360 in high definition.

All this, for around 1000 bucks, I can watch HD movies anytime streamed over my network (Yes, its tough to find content) as well as standard def, pics, etc, and it all works.

So, come on apple, if your going to give it a go, give it a solid go, noone wants to watch movies on a 13" laptop, we want them streamed to our high def bigscreens!

phatspider
Sep 6, 2006, 08:01 AM
New iMacs released :

http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObjects/ukstore

Couldnt see it mentioned anywhere

Multimedia
Sep 6, 2006, 08:05 AM
i'm going to go out on a limb and say that Apple is not going to offer downloads that require HDMI-level bandwidth streaming. but I do see the misinterpretation. I edited it to say "likely not".

arnYes I understand it will not likely be required. I am saying that the problem with the offering is that it is not engineered to be exclusively High-Definition which, as I see it, is the only type of content for this type of service to be able to atttract customers. I am theorizing that SD content is no longer of interest to the market that will adopt these new purchasing paradigms.

Multimedia
Sep 6, 2006, 08:08 AM
New iMacs released :

http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObjects/ukstore

Couldnt see it mentioned anywhereYes it's on ours too. (http://www.apple.com/imac/) How come not on the cover of MacRumors!! 24" $1999 2.16GHz Standard with 2.33GHz option for $250 more.

NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 128MB SDRAM
NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT 256MB SDRAM Add $125

"The NVIDIA 7300 GT that comes standard in your 24-inch iMac provides amazing performance for most graphics tasks and games. Upgrade to the NVIDIA 7600 GT with 256MB of video memory if you need additional performance in 3D and graphics-intensive applications such as multiplayer gaming or 3D animation development.

Your iMac also offers built-in support for attaching an external monitor using either of two modes. Extended Desktop mode allows you to work on two monitors at once for increased desktop real-estate (and increased productivity). Video mirroring is useful when presenting, so you can see the same image on a projector that you're seeing on your Apple display."

Supports 2GB Sticks of RAM. Offer one for +$750 - total of 3GB RAM probably could have 4. 667 DDR2 SDRAM. Base is 2 x 512 for 1GB included.

Congratulations on scooping MacRumors phatspider. :D

mdntcallr
Sep 6, 2006, 08:40 AM
Yeah, I can't even get my FOX affiliate to broadcast HD half the time because of incompetent "engineers" who superimpose the SD signal over the HD. I have to phone them every other day to tell them they are not transmitting HD. Last night they broadcast the season premiere's of House and Standoff in SD in my little market just south of Cupertino. Can you believe it?! :mad:

WOW, sounds like your local kinda blows. :-(.

you may want to get directv and see if you can get "distance" hd signals for your west coast feed. ie the Los Angeles HD stations.

back to topic: glad to hear about this progress. could help apple transmit HD signals. I can see some good uses for this. but for me.... i honestly believe wired is sturdier and better. only so much frequency, i got wireless phones and wifi for my mac.... so.... won't want a system which can further interfer with each other too much.

that said i am optimistic about the advancements everyone is making.

t0mat0
Sep 6, 2006, 09:29 AM
prototype wireless HDMI interface... Streams HD signal between A/V.

If you can't download it (and think about it, we're talking download speeds for say early 2007 maybe) then you merely have to have it on a DVD player. Laptop runs the DVD/bluray (heck, they gotta upgrade MB in 2007 too, right?) and streams to TV. If it streams HD it should be able to stream everything else on your lappy? The oldest business just got HES capabilities? ;)

Or you could just get the large DL from Apple. Broadband is only gonna get cheaper/go faster folks. ADSL 2+ is spreading, and whilst France may whup America's ass currently, there are plenty of other hotspots in the world with decent enough connections to get movies even in HD fast...Remember how small files (e.g. mp3's) used to take an age to download? Now folks can download iso's of films, and lossless albums etc etc.

For H264 at acceptable levels, you could store it on a 6G video ipod, nd if you want to put it through a TV you can with this widget.

twoodcc
Sep 6, 2006, 09:30 AM
this does seem amazing. hope i find use for it one day

srobert
Sep 6, 2006, 10:01 AM
This could be useful in other area.

I remember reading in one of those old "Apple Tablet!!!111Onetwo" threads that it could be a good idea to keep the GPU/CPU/Storage out of the tablet in some sort of base station and simply use the tablet as a display/input device. At the time, the idea was dismissed because it was judged impossible to send a video signal with that big a bandwidth to the tablet. Maybe this could open the door to some interesting similar computer concepts. Just a thought.

Lepton
Sep 6, 2006, 11:16 AM
You don't need true HD to have a very good looking wide-screen viewing experience on a 30" monitor or TV, much less a 24", 17", or future 5" wide iPod.

Look again at Front Row. View some of those movie trailers. There you go! Apple's future movie quality, streaming and transport technology is right there in front of us, being beta tested on our machnes for months already. Most of those trailers look very fine and are wide screen and they stream very well on a broadband connection. They even look good - much better than SDTV, not as good as 720p - on my 100" projection HDTV.

My prediction is that very good widescreen - not HDTV - video is what you are going to see in the music store. And, that you will be able to stream the movie to view it instantly after purchase, and that you can capture that stream as a download, and that you will be able to re-view, and burn to DVD, the movie. For $9.99.

Oh and please God add a wireless HDMI Airport and a widescreen iPod/phone.

transcendent
Sep 6, 2006, 11:25 AM
This is not going to happen on 9/12

a) the upcoming device is supposed to stream from your computer. This will work with 802.11, I'm certain, because:
b) streaming live HD (1.24 Gbps) further than 10m is far beyond the state of the art. (compare to 802.11G at 54Mbps). The only company I've heard of working on enabling technology for this is NewLans, only because the founder was my professor, and they're a few years away from production.

LethalWolfe
Sep 6, 2006, 11:39 AM
According to whom? If it ain't High-Def it's DOA. :rolleyes: The idea of buying standard definition anything seems abhorent to me. Once you see and become accustomed to high-definition television - and particularly the 16x9 aspect ratio on say an Apple 23" or Dell 24" 1920 x 1200 display, I dont' see how anyone will want to view much less even purchase SD content any more whatsoever.

From my point of view, SD Video and all of its content are historical artifacts of the 20th century.

I wouldn't be so sure. Convenience has a long history of trumping quality in the minds of consumers. I know that you dropped a pretty penny on an HDTV and are desperately looking for content for it, but you are in the small minority.


Lethal

Multimedia
Sep 6, 2006, 11:42 AM
You don't need true HD to have a very good looking wide-screen viewing experience on a 30" monitor or TV, much less a 24", 17", or future 5" wide iPod.

Look again at Front Row. View some of those movie trailers. There you go! Apple's future movie quality, streaming and transport technology is right there in front of us, being beta tested on our machnes for months already. Most of those trailers look very fine and are wide screen and they stream very well on a broadband connection. They even look good - much better than SDTV, not as good as 720p - on my 100" projection HDTV.

My prediction is that very good widescreen - not HDTV - video is what you are going to see in the music store. And, that you will be able to stream the movie to view it instantly after purchase, and that you can capture that stream as a download, and that you will be able to re-view, and burn to DVD, the movie. For $9.99.

Oh and please God add a wireless HDMI Airport and a widescreen iPod/phone.I agree. I think it's the 16:9 aspect ratio that I'm hooked on rather than that it has to be HD. I compress HD recordings all the time to mp4 that look great as long as they are in 16:9.

Multimedia
Sep 6, 2006, 11:44 AM
I wouldn't be so sure. Convenience has a long history of trumping quality in the minds of consumers. I know that you dropped a pretty penny on an HDTV and are desperately looking for content for it, but you are in the small minority.Not so much. Just tacked a 24" Dell ($700) to the Quad G5 with an EyeTV 500 HD recorder - now EyeTV hebrid for only $150.The problem w/ this is many people still don't have high def screens. My family doesn't. It's nice to have it, but won't be of much use until more people have high def screens.In the USA penetration is already about 20% and will be 59% by 2011 according to research analysts on the growth of the market (http://www.screendigest.com/reports/06highdeftv/readmore/view.html). That's an additional 40% of the market over the next 4 years. Probably something like:

+ 5% in 2007
+ 8% in 2008
+ 12% in 2009 when all analog transmissions cease.
+ 15% in 2010.

"By the end of 2005 there were 19m households with HDTV sets in the US (17% of total TV households) with 11m of these watching HD broadcasts"

"On a global basis, by the end of 2010 the number of HD ready households will reach 174m or 22% of TV households. The figure will be 59% in the US, 66% in Japan and 30% in Western Europe. "i beg to differ... while i certainly agree that the majority of tv watchers out there own an SD set... there are a TON of people with HDTVs... most of the people i know own one...

with prices dropping so dramatically, if i were in the market for a new tv, it would be hard to justify the purchase of an SD tv...

for example...
i bought a 46" DLP 3 years ago that was 3G when i got it... a few months ago i saw its equal , but 3 generations newer (and better specs) for $999.00

an sdtv that is 34-36" is around 899 :eek:Exactly. Plus your computer monitor is a High Definition TV Screen. All you need to do is add a $150 EyeTV hybrid Digital-Analog Tuner (http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna). The new 24" iMac is a native resolution High Definition Screen.

I think an even more outstanding issue is that the vast majority of people do not realize that there is a FREE High Definition Broadcast signal passing over their home all the time.

Biggest travesty in current digital boradcasting - CBS Failed to go High-Def News when Katie Couric started yestereday. Outrageous!

I only watch Digital TV. Anyone else here with me on that? :eek:

guzhogi
Sep 6, 2006, 01:58 PM
The problem w/ this is many people still don't have high def screens. My family doesn't. It's nice to have it, but won't be of much use until more people have high def screens.

Electro Funk
Sep 6, 2006, 08:05 PM
The problem w/ this is many people still don't have high def screens. My family doesn't. It's nice to have it, but won't be of much use until more people have high def screens.

i beg to differ... while i certainly agree that the majority of tv watchers out there own an SD set... there are a TON of people with HDTVs... most of the people i know own one...

with prices dropping so dramatically, if i were in the market for a new tv, it would be hard to justify the purchase of an SD tv...

for example...
i bought a 46" DLP 3 years ago that was 3G when i got it... a few months ago i saw its equal , but 3 generations newer (and better specs) for $999.00

an sdtv that is 34-36" is around 899 :eek:

LethalWolfe
Sep 6, 2006, 11:25 PM
Not so much. Just tacked a 24" Dell ($700) to the Quad G5 with an EyeTV 500 HD recorder - now EyeTV hebrid for only $150.
Oh, okay. For a second I thought you were in the minority of TV viewers in America because you bought an HDTV. Now I realize that you are in the minority of TV viewers in America because you bought a big computer monitor capable of HD resolutions and a third party HD turner for pretty much the same price of an HDTV set. I guess that's what I get for jumping to conclusions. ;)


In the USA penetration is already about 20% and will be 59% by 2011 according to research analysts on the growth of the market (http://www.screendigest.com/reports/06highdeftv/readmore/view.html). That's an additional 40% of the market over the next 4 years. Probably something like:

+ 5% in 2007
+ 8% in 2008
+ 12% in 2009 when all analog transmissions cease.
+ 15% in 2010.

"By the end of 2005 there were 19m households with HDTV sets in the US (17% of total TV households) with 11m of these watching HD broadcasts"

"On a global basis, by the end of 2010 the number of HD ready households will reach 174m or 22% of TV households. The figure will be 59% in the US, 66% in Japan and 30% in Western Europe.
The first time I heard about the move to mandatory digital b'casting was in 1998 and the deadline for stopping analog transmissions was sometime in 2003, IIRC. Now the date is pushed back (again) to '09 (we'll see if we reach the magic number of 85% by then) and HD is still floundering to find a foothold. Eventually we'll get there because the only TV sets for sale will be HD, but you'll forgive me if I take the so far super-slugish move to HD/digital as a sign that the average consumer just doesn't care all that much right now.

But talking about future HD penetration is a bit off topic.

Consumers are seemingly more than happy to get inferior quality music off the internet even though they most likely already own a CD player and a number of CDs. They also don't seem too shy about buying TV shows off the iTMS even though the quality is significantly inferior to anything they'll see on TV or DVD. There is also a growing trend of people only owning cell phones even though land lines are a much more reliable and secure form of communication. Audio cassettes out sold records, and VHS survived both BetaMax and LaserDisc (only to be done in by DVD of course). Never underestimate the power of "good enough." :D

If Apple sells movies over the internet at HD res that would be awesome. But if they don't I highly doubt the "movie store" will be DOA.

I think an even more outstanding issue is that the vast majority of people do not realize that there is a FREE High Definition Broadcast signal passing over their home all the time.
I agree w/that. I've talked to a number of people that don't know you can get free, OTA HD signals. They though the only way to get HD was to buy the "HD package" from their cable or satellite company. Of course I've also talked to people that just plugged their SD cable box or DVD player into their HDTV and thought they were watching stuff in HD.


I only watch Digital TV. Anyone else here with me on that? :eek:
Meh. I just watch what I find entertaining. I watched "V for Vendetta" last week on DVD and I liked it as much as I did when I saw it in the theater.


i beg to differ... while i certainly agree that the majority of tv watchers out there own an SD set... there are a TON of people with HDTVs... most of the people i know own one...

You can beg all you want, but that won't make your anecdotal evidence any less inaccurate. ;)


Lethal

jesteraver
Sep 7, 2006, 06:37 AM
Time too wait and see. Now have too find another type of projector for this thing. HDMI-capable. Which would be sweet hooking it upto an iMac, and having ur 24" turning into 86". Finally some nice real estate.

Teddy's
Sep 7, 2006, 11:55 AM
I only watch Digital TV. Anyone else here with me on that? :eek:

The content is KING.

greenstork
Sep 7, 2006, 02:09 PM
i'm going to go out on a limb and say that Apple is not going to offer downloads that require HDMI-level bandwidth streaming. but I do see the misinterpretation. I edited it to say "likely not".

arn

UDI appears to be Apple's connectivity cable of choice, which is fully compatible with HDMI. I'll go on record saying that some sort of wireless connection will be made from Mac to TV, and I believe it will be a revised Airport Express with a digital video output like UDI and optical audio out. I'll concede that it could be a set-top box, but I think Apple will let their computers do the heavy lifting.

Apple and Intel are in partnership developing UDI, more here:
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1586

HD streaming, here we come baby! Now, we'll just need a spiffy remote, which is absoutely key to any sort of legitimate media center.

balamw
Sep 7, 2006, 02:12 PM
an sdtv that is 34-36" is around 899 :eek:
Not to mention that CRT HDTVs of about the same size are about the same price too. ;)

Someone must be buying the large number of HDTVs I see at Costco every time I visit...

B

greenstork
Sep 7, 2006, 02:19 PM
This is not going to happen on 9/12

a) the upcoming device is supposed to stream from your computer. This will work with 802.11, I'm certain, because:
b) streaming live HD (1.24 Gbps) further than 10m is far beyond the state of the art. (compare to 802.11G at 54Mbps). The only company I've heard of working on enabling technology for this is NewLans, only because the founder was my professor, and they're a few years away from production.

You don't need 1.24 Gbps to stream HD, it's more like 480 Mbps for an uncompressed 720p stream - more from Arstechnica here:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060906-7681.html

greenstork
Sep 7, 2006, 02:34 PM
I wouldn't be so sure. Convenience has a long history of trumping quality in the minds of consumers. I know that you dropped a pretty penny on an HDTV and are desperately looking for content for it, but you are in the small minority.


Lethal

While he may be in a growing minority now, HD is the wave of the future you can be sure. According to a survey of major retailers in June, 41% of all new TV sales were HD-TVs, up from 25% in 2005. Most analysts predict that by 2010, HD marketshare (not subscriber base, mind you) will be closer to 90%.

For Apple to not get on the HD bandwagon early with any entree into the livingroom would be completely missing the boat. While content may be SD at the inception of a movie store, as bandwith increases and HD adoption grows by leaps and bounds, I'd expect video content from Apple will be in HD in the near future (if not immediately).

EDIT: Just because people don't demand high quality music doesn't mean they won't demand high quality HD content for TV viewing, you can't really draw parallels here, IMO. SD on a pretty flat screen looks bad, people will notice and demand more, especially after dropping big cash on new HD TV's, and people are dropping the cash in growing numbers, make no mistake.

JAT
Sep 7, 2006, 03:08 PM
The first time I heard about the move to mandatory digital b'casting was in 1998 and the deadline for stopping analog transmissions was sometime in 2003, IIRC. Now the date is pushed back (again) to '09 (we'll see if we reach the magic number of 85% by then) and HD is still floundering to find a foothold.

In 1998 it had qualifiers on it and plans to readdress the law before the deadline, as you've indicated. Those qualifiers are removed now. 2/17/09 and done is what it says. They would have to completely scrap the current law to change this, now. Very doubtful.

LethalWolfe
Sep 7, 2006, 11:00 PM
While he may be in a growing minority now, HD is the wave of the future you can be sure. According to a survey of major retailers in June, 41% of all new TV sales were HD-TVs, up from 25% in 2005. Most analysts predict that by 2010, HD marketshare (not subscriber base, mind you) will be closer to 90%.
Like I said, eventually everything will be HD because you won't be able to buy anything else. But it's still an agonizingly slow transition because the general public has yet to see a compelling reason to buy a new TV, new DVD player, and buy new copies of their movies again. If there wasn't a government mandate to go digital (and the de facto digital standard being HiDef) HD would crash and burn as a mainstream consumer format, IMO.

EDIT: Just because people don't demand high quality music doesn't mean they won't demand high quality HD content for TV viewing, you can't really draw parallels here, IMO. SD on a pretty flat screen looks bad, people will notice and demand more, especially after dropping big cash on new HD TV's, and people are dropping the cash in growing numbers, make no mistake.
Consumer trends over the past 25 years don't really agree w/your opinion. I'm not gonna repeat everything I've already said but I will add this. If, as you say, the general public cares so much about video quality how did VHS survive BetaMax and LaserDisc? Any particular reason D-VHS and it's amazing image quality tanked? Why did Voom go bankrupt? Why is it taking so long for HD to get off the ground, yet Apple is selling crappy little 320x240 videos hand over fist?

Again, of course the move to HD will not slow down or stop. It can't. All the alternatives are being phased out of the market place.


You don't need 1.24 Gbps to stream HD, it's more like 480 Mbps for an uncompressed 720p stream - more from Arstechnica here:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060906-7681.html
According to the link you provided, "Reality suggests that once traffic conditions are accounted for, 720p video and higher will effectively be compressed, with 1080i requiring more than a 50% compression level to stream. As such, the convenience of wireless HDMI is made less tasty by the loss of what HDMI is supposed to bring, namely pristine HD signals."


JAT,
Thanks for the clarification, I didn't realize the the qualifiers (such as 85% of the people being able to receive the digital signal) had been scrapped.


Lethal

greenstork
Sep 8, 2006, 02:15 PM
Like I said, eventually everything will be HD because you won't be able to buy anything else. But it's still an agonizingly slow transition because the general public has yet to see a compelling reason to buy a new TV, new DVD player, and buy new copies of their movies again. If there wasn't a government mandate to go digital (and the de facto digital standard being HiDef) HD would crash and burn as a mainstream consumer format, IMO.


Consumer trends over the past 25 years don't really agree w/your opinion. I'm not gonna repeat everything I've already said but I will add this. If, as you say, the general public cares so much about video quality how did VHS survive BetaMax and LaserDisc? Any particular reason D-VHS and it's amazing image quality tanked? Why did Voom go bankrupt? Why is it taking so long for HD to get off the ground, yet Apple is selling crappy little 320x240 videos hand over fist?

Again, of course the move to HD will not slow down or stop. It can't. All the alternatives are being phased out of the market place.

I'm not really sure there's an argument here. I got the impression that you thought HD viewers were a small, insignificant minority and I was simply pointing out that this smacks in the face of industry-wide trends. I'm not arguing for or against those trends or what the consumer really wants or needs. I have my personal tastes but I wouldn't dare say what's best for everyone. All I was saying is that HD can't be ignored, to do so would be a business mistake on Apple's part. I got the sense that you didn't think HD mattered (or shouldn't matter), when indeed industry trends would dictate otherwise.

So you can stand by your consumer trends and say that nobody cares about quality and by extension, nobody cares about HD-TV, but I think you're dead wrong, industry trends suggest otherwise. Adoption rates are accelerating rapidly, more and more HD content is coming online. An entire content industry has been significantly upgraded in a matter of 3-5 years, which I don't perceive to be all that "agonizingly slow". The only limitation at this point is bandwith, legacy analog, and new hardware costs, not the fact that the consumer doesn't care. As LCD and plasma prices continue to decline, as predicted, consumer demand will only increase. I hardly characterize this as an industry "floundering for a foothold".

As an aside, I personally believe that Laserdisc, VHS vs. Beta, SACD, you name it, is more about internal business & marketing decisions, pricing, licensing, partnerships and coalitions, and content availability than it is about consumer demand. There are so many factors that play into adoption of a new standard and consumer demand is only one of them (albeit an important one).

It seems to me, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you just don't like the move to HD-TV. I can respect that, but nobody will make you throw away your CRT & DVD collection, I'm sure it will still work for years.

According to the link you provided, "Reality suggests that once traffic conditions are accounted for, 720p video and higher will effectively be compressed, with 1080i requiring more than a 50% compression level to stream. As such, the convenience of wireless HDMI is made less tasty by the loss of what HDMI is supposed to bring, namely pristine HD signals."


You seem be assigning me the role of wireless HDMI proponent and I'm really not. When I purchase an HDTV, I'll be using cables until the technology is a little further along. And it appears to be moving in that direction: Avocent's Emerge MPX1000 (http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/08/avocents-emerge-mpx1000-unspecified-wireless-hdmi-extender/)

LethalWolfe
Sep 8, 2006, 11:23 PM
To keep us from arguing in circles I'll just hit some high points. ;)
I'm not really sure there's an argument here. I got the impression that you thought HD viewers were a small, insignificant minority and I was simply pointing out that this smacks in the face of industry-wide trends. I'm not arguing for or against those trends or what the consumer really wants or needs. I have my personal tastes but I wouldn't dare say what's best for everyone. All I was saying is that HD can't be ignored, to do so would be a business mistake on Apple's part. I got the sense that you didn't think HD mattered (or shouldn't matter), when indeed industry trends would dictate otherwise.
HDTV owners are a small minority. People who own HDTVs and actually subscribe to HD channels are an even smaller minority. The majority of TV viewers and TV content is in SD. Is that changing? yes. Will it keep changing? Of course, companies are EOLing SD equipment and there is a government mandate that will shift all broadcasts to digital (w/HD being the defacto standard).

It seems to me, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you just don't like the move to HD-TV. I can respect that, but nobody will make you throw away your CRT & DVD collection, I'm sure it will still work for years.
I think we are looking at this from two different perspectives. I've been following the move to digital b'casts since '98 and (to varying degrees) the move to HD since 2001ish. Pretty much every year since 2002 someone has said, "This year is gonna be when HD makes it's mark!" and I'm still waiting for that mark to be made. Whether it's Lucas shooting Episode II or excitement about VOOM (bankrupt) or HDnet (not bankrupt only because Mark Cuban has more money than god) or JVC's introduction of the first "low end" HD camera (flop) there has always been a teasing of what HD may or may not be someday in the not too distant yet still far away future.

So the date for digital b'casting gets pushed back because neither consumers nor corporations will meet the set goals in time, but we are all giddy again as HiDef DVDs are being talked about. The giddiness quicky changes to "ugh" as we see another format war coming. "Ugh" turns to frustration as the launches are delayed and when people finally get their hands on them the reports from early adopters seem to be underwhelming (not surprising for a first gen product, but still a far cry from the rah-rah build up to their release). Oh, I almost skipped the part about HDCP that completely screwed over people who bought HDTVs before HDMI became standard. There is also the fact that after working w/HD on the production side of things seeing what ends up on the other end of the pipeline in people's homes just doesn't hold a candle to the original material. It's like getting your first paycheck... and then seeing your first after tax paycheck. Yeah... it's still exciting... but not nearly as exciting as pre-tax. :D

I agree that the move to HD is happening, but it's not going to experience a "boom" like DVD or the iPod. It's going to continue to be a slow, cumbersome, expensive, incremental crawl that will drag on for years. Computers, monitors, TVs, players, video cameras... they'll all have to be replaced and that's no small chunk of change.

I had people telling a company I used to work for "Hey, HD is right around the corner. You might consider starting the switch 'cause you don't want to be left behind." And now, 3 years later, people are still saying the same thing. But at least when they are saying it now it's not a complete line of bull as the switch is currently happening and companies do have to start considering their upgrade options.

So, you'll understand if after years of watching (and working) in the industry and seeing more than a couple false starts I'm not willing to jump on the "Yeah, HD is here!" bandwagon. ;)

You're excited about it, I'm already burned out on it, and I think we can just leave it at that. :p


Lethal

greenstork
Sep 9, 2006, 12:47 AM
I agree that the move to HD is happening, but it's not going to experience a "boom" like DVD or the iPod. It's going to continue to be a slow, cumbersome, expensive, incremental crawl that will drag on for years. Computers, monitors, TVs, players, video cameras... they'll all have to be replaced and that's no small chunk of change.


Cheers Lethal, good discussion. On this one point I quoted, we may diverge. I can see where you are coming from about promises and expectations not quite meshing with reality. I'm guessing that the hype is what got HD this far and I agree that it hasn't fully delivered and probably won't for years to come (for true HD - 1080p). However, I think it will reach a tipping point -- a magical combination of lower flat panel prices, more HD content, more fancy HD DVRs (TiVo Series 3?), a more established high definition DVD. I think we're on the cusp of this tipping point and there will be one year (perhaps 2007, maybe 2008) when adoption rates skyrocket. HD has been plodding along steadily and is just starting to gain steam and I think that acceleration will continue. We'll see... ;)

balamw
Sep 9, 2006, 01:00 AM
I think we're on the cusp of this tipping point and there will be one year (perhaps 2007, maybe 2008) when adoption rates skyrocket.
The switch from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 for the US DBS providers will be another big factor in pushing more HD content into homes. I know that DBS doesn't represent a huge segment of the market, but it's not insignificant and does represent a good chunk of early adopters.

Just like when the cell providers switched from analog to 2G this will push a bunch of subsidized hardware into the hands of subscribers in a swell foop.

B

Electro Funk
Sep 10, 2006, 08:26 PM
You can beg all you want, but that won't make your anecdotal evidence any less inaccurate. ;)

Lethal


How is anything i said inaccurate?

i agreed that the majority of people watching tv own an SD set...

i also said i believe more people own HDTVs than you think...

just my opinion... wasnt stating a fact or trying to back it up with any evidence... ;)

LethalWolfe
Sep 11, 2006, 01:44 AM
How is anything i said inaccurate?

i agreed that the majority of people watching tv own an SD set...

i also said i believe more people own HDTVs than you think...

just my opinion... wasnt stating a fact or trying to back it up with any evidence... ;)

How is what you've said been accurate when you admittedly have not facts or stats to back up your statements?

You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.;)

I've seen the numbers and I know an accurate approximation of how many people own HDTVs in the US. Just because "a ton" of people you know own HDTVs doesn't mean "a ton" of people everywhere in the US own HDTVs. I'm not basing my position on how many people I personally know that own HDTVs, but on statistical evidence.


Lethal

Electro Funk
Sep 11, 2006, 09:03 PM
How is what you've said been accurate when you admittedly have not facts or stats to back up your statements?

You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.;)

I've seen the numbers and I know an accurate approximation of how many people own HDTVs in the US. Just because "a ton" of people you know own HDTVs doesn't mean "a ton" of people everywhere in the US own HDTVs. I'm not basing my position on how many people I personally know that own HDTVs, but on statistical evidence.


Lethal


have you been reading any of my posts?

i agreed from the start that the majority of people own SD sets...

what i did say is that i think more people own HD sets than you may believe... never tried to back it up with any facts... if you have numbers that can prove my ASSUMPTION wrong... lets see them...

EDIT: this is from an artical in march regarding the PS3 release & HDTV from here:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june06/dvds_3-22.html

"About 22 percent of Americans own a high-definition television, according to a Gallup poll, and that number is expected to climb as the costs of the sets fall."

22% of Americans is a good number of people... and thats just here in the states...

i dont know how accurate this number is but i would harldy say that HDTV owners are miniscule...

LethalWolfe
Sep 12, 2006, 03:09 AM
have you been reading any of my posts?

i agreed from the start that the majority of people own SD sets...
Which means a minority of people in the US own HDTVs. Which is what I've been saying. I know you are reading my posts 'cause you are replying to them but I don't think you are comprehending what I'm saying.

what i did say is that i think more people own HD sets than you may believe... never tried to back it up with any facts... if you have numbers that can prove my ASSUMPTION wrong... lets see them...
How can more people own HD sets than I may believe when I base my beliefs on the reported numbers of HDTVs people own?

EDIT: this is from an artical in march regarding the PS3 release & HDTV from here:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june06/dvds_3-22.html

"About 22 percent of Americans own a high-definition television, according to a Gallup poll, and that number is expected to climb as the costs of the sets fall."

22% of Americans is a good number of people... and thats just here in the states...

i dont know how accurate this number is but i would harldy say that HDTV owners are miniscule...
Last time I checked 22% would quality as a "minority" which is what I've been saying HDTV owners are. Why did you go dig up a link when this info has already been posted in this thread?


Lethal

Electro Funk
Sep 17, 2006, 07:03 PM
Which means a minority of people in the US own HDTVs. Which is what I've been saying. I know you are reading my posts 'cause you are replying to them but I don't think you are comprehending what I'm saying.


How can more people own HD sets than I may believe when I base my beliefs on the reported numbers of HDTVs people own?


Last time I checked 22% would quality as a "minority" which is what I've been saying HDTV owners are. Why did you go dig up a link when this info has already been posted in this thread?


Lethal

Because you are trying to portray HDTV owners as slim to none, which i and approximately 66 million others would disagree.

i am not arguing that HDTV owners are the minority... but almost 70 million viewers in the US alone is a lot of people.