Apple to Debut 'HD+' 1080p iTunes Movie Services Later This Year?

[SirHaakon]

There's nothing magical about Blu-Ray discs. You can put 100% the same quality on a hard drive. The DISC itself is just a storage medium, after all.

Once again, nobody is debating that. You seem to be the only person having these strange arguments with yourself. lol

The discussion is about Apple's new "HD+" service. That's what the topic is about. Go back and read the original post if you need a refresher. What most people, including myself, have stated is that even at 1080p, Apple's offerings will pale in comparison to the files we can get on a Blu-ray disc, and thus it's silly to call it "+" and imply that their offerings go even beyond HD. No one cares about your 93" screen or home media server.

Define mainstream. Most HD content viewed by the public at large is 1080i (not p) and 720p.

No, most *television* content is viewed that way. Most HD movies are progressive, whether they are viewed on Blu-ray discs or online delivery. Even the crappy bitrate stuff isn't interlaced. And once again, the topic is about Apple's iTunes options; NOT Television.

I'm discussing MY setup and most of my movies I have on my server are NOT from iTunes.

This entire discussion is about the future of iTunes offerings, not what you have on your server. (Yes, I sound like a broken record, but only because I am just replying to your same off-topic points over and over).

And I say you are the one that's now trolling. Who the frack do you think you are to tell me that my setup doesn't look "great" when you have NOT seen it and the word 'great is subjective?

Well, "great" is certainly subjective, yes. The point was that if your setup is maxed out at 720p, then the quality is nowhere near what it could be. And I already pointed out in my last post (which you conveniently ignored) that 720p is actually closer to standard-def than 1080p. Take into account that you're watching it on a giant screen, and again, I think even by conservative estimates it's not "great."

My setup looks good enough that I'm not in a mega-rush to upgrade the projector just for the hell of it.

Now that's something entirely different. "Good enough" is obviously subjective, but fortunately the only person it has to be "good enough" for is you! "Good enough" is not the same as "great," however.

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

Again, this chart explains it all in terms of distance versus size versus how much resolution your eye can see.

Yes, we've seen that chart a million times. That's why I already preempted you in my previous post:

There are plenty of people who claim different things about how close or far you have to be to an image to see the difference resolution makes, but with a 93" screen even the most conservative estimations would call your bluff.

Guess what, just because someone posts something on the internet doesn't make it fact. Different people have different vision. Some people need glasses to see clearly. There's no one magic chart that defines good viewing distance (or more accurately, perceptible image quality differences) for the entire population. Maybe if you repeat it even more times in one post, people will start to believe you though.

Unless you sit less than 5 feet from a 48" screen (even less for smaller screens), you aren't seeing 1080p dude. People hold retina displays right up to their faces. That's what you can see it. But unless you actually sit 5 feet or less away from a 48" set, you are NOT seeing 1080p.

Neither of these statements are accurate. I've already debunked this, so I'm not interested in continuing unless you have something to contribute to the actual topic at hand: Apple's rumored upcoming 1080p "HD+" service.

 

[gugy]

Considering the fact that this is a rumor, I think people are getting way too caught up on the title HD+, assuming Apple is calling 1080p some kind of Super HD, while 720 is just regular HD.

They may be what Apple is doing, however it could simply be a new product name, for a new Apple TV Model. For Instance;

TV
- All the features of the current Apple TV Device we have available now

HD+
- Same Features as Apple TV
- 1TB Data Storage
- 1080p Video capability
- WiFi (or Airport) Base Station
- Time Machine Backup Capability
- Wireless Sync of Stored content with iOS devices

IMHO if Apple markets a device that has 1080p Video, and more features than a standard TV, than it deserves the name HD+, because the + is in reference to other features, not better HD.


-

1080p will be great but the thing I am really looking forward is the ability to play my content without the need of a Mac on with iTunes open.
That would be great!

 

[kingtj]

I tend to agree, but ....

I don't like denying people options simply because of the way *I* prefer to do things myself. When I think of all the people I knew who invested big chunks of change on building up a DVD movie library, I just can't see where that was cost-justifiable for them in any concrete sense. (EG. I'm 99.9% certain they never really re-watched the purchased movies enough times to see a real savings over what they would have spent renting and viewing them whenever they wanted to see it.)

But regardless? A lot of those people are rather proud of their collections and obviously enjoy owning them, even if it's not all that practical. It does, of course, have the advantage that they can pop in any of them on-demand and immediately view them. No need to log into some streaming video service and locate a movie first, make sure their Internet bandwidth isn't being used at the time by other things that would slow it down, etc. Plus, they can use them anywhere -- in the car on a road-trip, for example.

As hard drive space gets cheaper and cheaper, it's really *not* that expensive to have enough to hold copies of all of your favorite movies digitally.

The future I see coming (and the one I'd be most happy with) is one where yes, you can inexpensively stream pretty much whatever you want, on-demand. BUT, you can still easily retain copies for personal use too.

I'm of the opinion that movies should be streamed. Personally, I tend to watch a movie once, then maybe watch it again a few months later. It doesn't seem so advantageous to have a local copy, and like you said, we'd run out of space since movies can easily be gigabytes each at 1080p. Then there's the issue of downloading over 3G... One movie per month?...

 

[Che Castro]

You guys really think there going to add a hardrive to the atv3 ?

 

[seedster2]

These videos will likely be more of the low quality overcompressed overpriced stuff they peddle now.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

You guys really think there going to add a hardrive to the atv3 ?

I think the best hope (and it is just hope) is that they DO NOT build in a hard drive but instead normalize an expansion port (USB or maybe TB) and let individuals attach (or not attach) whatever size local storage is best for them. The hackers have long proven this can be done; it's just a matter of Apple choosing to do it.

This way, those who make great arguments of "I stream only and don't want to pay extra for a hard drive I won't use" and those who make great arguments for "I wish there was some way to store all of my content on the device or on the network so that I don't have to leave a computer running" can both get what they want.

I have TV1 and I've upgraded the drive to 320GB. I really like storing a lot of content on the device, but I would love to be able to store ALL of my content on it (without hacks). To grant my wish, Apple would have to build in about 1.5TB or more. Someone else might need substantially more local storage than me, while others might need substantially less. While I can't speak for these other "someones," I wouldn't want to force that extra cost of my local storage desires on others who are only interested in streaming. Thus, I personally would love to get a new (Apple-endorsed) option of connecting whatever local storage anyone wants for their own needs, rather than Apple picking some arbitrary amount of storage or continuing to ignore this popular wish (for some).

If they are going to go 1080p and not compress the files sizes too tight, the need for some buffering may pressure them to build in more SSD storage or maybe make this option require at least a modest amount of user-attached storage. Those with slow Internet but hungry for 1080p will need lots of buffering (and lots of patience) before these HD+ movies can start. The possibility of this scenario would lend some support to my hope of normalizing that USB port (buffer to external storage as needed).

I'm sure they've heard enough gripes about a few benefits of version 1 that they chose to strip away in version 2. Perhaps some of those will be revived in version 3? If so, that plus an app store, 1080p and maybe one stereo audio out (for those zone 2 receivers that only take analog audio for zone 2), and they might be near perfection for almost all camps. My money is ready.

 

[GoHack]

What about all the movies that I've alread bought, which were suppose to be HD, but aren't?

Will I be able to get the HD+ versions for free, or pay the difference in prices between my HD and HD+, if there is a price difference?

What about my Apple TV? Will it support HD+?

.

 

[Enzobot24]

See, when you say that DVD is better than Apple HD I KNOW you're full of it (or blind).

Actually, you shot yourself in the foot here. DVDs might be only 480p and MPEG-2, but the film content usually fills 5-6GB of the disc (sometimes the full 7GB if the special features are on a second disc).

So while Apple uses AVC/MPEG-4 codecs, iTunes HD films are still only 2-3GB.

That's around 6-7Mbit/s for DVD and 3Mbit/s for iTunes HD.

The Playstation Network and Xbox Live sell/rent HD videos that are around 6-7GB at 720p. Now that quality certainly bests the average DVD.

While the iTunes HD will look slightly sharper in a screenshot, the DVD will look infinitely more natural when you hit the playback button.

And guess what? With a good video processor (like a DVDO iScan VP50 or Lumagen Radiance), a DVD will actually look better upscaled than the bitrate starved iTunes HD video.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

What about all the movies that I've alread bought, which were suppose to be HD, but aren't?

The general perception is that what Apple has been calling HD is HD. Yes, it's about the most minimal possible interpretation of what is considered HD at 720p and 30fps or less.

Will I be able to get the HD+ versions for free, or pay the difference in prices between my HD and HD+, if there is a price difference?

Right now, this HD+ is just a rumor. There are many such rumors posted here almost every day. Until Apple confirms a rumor with a launch, no one has such answers in any definitive way.

If you are a glass half full kind of guy, you might think about what Apple did with music when they introduced the iTunes Plus format. Pay the difference and get the upgraded quality of song. Don't pay the difference and you can continue to enjoy it at the original quality you downloaded. My guess is they would probably do the same with this (but I'm generally a glass half full guy myself).

What about my Apple TV? Will it support HD+?

Apparently, the latest generation is hardware capped at 720p output. Apparently is has enough muscle to decode 1080p video (which is the hardest part) but it appears Apple built in a hardware gate to only pass through 720p.

Thus, if this HD+ is coming and Apple is going to give us a hardware method of pushing full 1080p video to our TVs, new hardware will be required. I would expect TV3 to launch as a key hardware support part of an "HD+" iTunes announcement.

I would guess existing TVs would still be able to stream and play the 720p or SD versions for those not wanting to upgrade, or those with bandwidth or cap issues, or those with concerns about storage, or those that argue "720p is good enough", etc.

 

[cjbryce]

Can the US's infrastructure handle everyone downloading or streaming HD video? Compared to other places in the world our internet is 2nd rate. The new bandwidth restrictions many ISPs are placing on there customers will also add challenges and expenses for people.

Dunno about the US, but here in the UK we have a really poor and antiquated infrastructure. We have thousands of miles of old poor quality aluminium cable courtesy of British Telecom's 1980s/1990s profiteering and they are very slowly rolling out fibre (which in most instances will give us a whopping 20Mb/s download)

Our cabled areas are sparse (and limited to 40Mb/s where they are available).

The UK average max speed today is a little over 6Mb/s - to run massive 1080p downloads over that is simply too much - you'd have to do it overnight, so the the concept of Video on Demand is essentially broken until the UK providers are driven by the regulators to get investing. Their profits are so high now because there's so little choice that regulator-driven advance is the only way forward.

 

[CWallace]

So earlier I suggested this might be a way to support the iPad HD and a new tv, and now we have a UBS analyst (Maynard Um) reaffirming the rumors that Apple will launch a branded LCD TV and added that said TV could eventually add $100 billion to Apple's market capitalization.

If Apple does launch such a TV, 1080p downloads would be almost a requirement.

So could the September event showcase the launch of the iPhone5, iPad HD+, the tv 3 and an Apple LCD television all capable of supporting the 1080p "HD+" iTunes rentals and purchases?

(And I expect the iPhone 4's and iPod Touch's Retina Displays would handle them, as well).

 

[jp102235]

When I think of all the people I knew who invested big chunks of change on building up a DVD movie library, I just can't see where that was cost-justifiable for them in any concrete sense. (EG. I'm 99.9% certain they never really re-watched the purchased movies enough times to see a real savings over what they would have spent renting and viewing them whenever they wanted to see it.)

But regardless? A lot of those people are rather proud of their collections and obviously enjoy owning them, even if it's not all that practical. It does, of course, have the advantage that they can pop in any of them on-demand and immediately view them. No need to log into some streaming video service and locate a movie first, make sure their Internet bandwidth isn't being used at the time by other things that would slow it down, etc. Plus, they can use them anywhere -- in the car on a road-trip, for example.

As hard drive space gets cheaper and cheaper, it's really *not* that expensive to have enough to hold copies of all of your favorite movies digitally.

The future I see coming (and the one I'd be most happy with) is one where yes, you can inexpensively stream pretty much whatever you want, on-demand. BUT, you can still easily retain copies for personal use too.

you know I totally agree with you on this, but like you alluded to, there are special use cases where keeping a large library is beneficial. For a single guy or a couple with no kids - yea - stream away. But I have been in a house full of teenagers and watched the bandwidth just wisp away with the youtube-ing and the netflixing and the hulu-ing. And alot of the times the younger kids (toddler to 10) like to watch the same thing over and over and over again.

so I think each person has to consider the application as to what will work for them. Honestly, we all probably need to not watch so much tv anyway! but its still good to see that Apple is still pushing ahead in this area.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

So could the September event showcase the launch of the iPhone5, iPad HD+, the tv 3 and an Apple LCD television all capable of supporting the 1080p "HD+" iTunes rentals and purchases?

Yes (on iPhone5)
Maybe (iPad HD)
Hopefully apple:TV3)
Doubtful (Apple-branded television).

Why doubtful?

1. Apple would hate TV margins or Apple would price their TV with an Apple margin built in and likely kill their revenue potential. Having TV technology built in is probably not enough of a special Apple benefit to justify the Apple target margins in the price.

2. Odds are high it would be someone elses panel with an Apple logo stuck on the front. If that someone elses TV is several hundred to many hundreds less than Apples version, how many are going to pay up for the logo and a built-in TV? Realize that the competition might be the other model with an external TV3, delivering almost ALL of the benefits for substantially less.

3. Can you imagine the backlash in Apple choices? For example, what screen size is the right size? LCD vs. LED vs. Plasma? How locked down would an Apple Television be? Etc.

Sure, there would be a pool of people that would buy anything that Jobs claimed was Apple's next big thing. BUT this one seems like a probable miss (IMO). Personally, I am extraordinarily interested in several TV3 (with 1080p capabilities). That's a uniquely Apple thing that can be attached to whatever type/size/etc HDTV we each own.

If Apple wants another consumer-branded thing, I'd like to see a revival in the "Apple is buying DISH network" rumor which would solve the "live sports" problem AND the national bandwidth problem (put up an Apple-branded dish and download your 1080p at satt data speeds). Such a move would cut the likes of Comcast, Verizon, Cablevision, Time Warner, etc as bandwidth gatekeepers out of the equation. This would create a direct, relatively fast link between Apple's iCloud and individual Apple customers- wherever they happen to be (even in very rural areas). Probably never happen, but it would be an exciting rumor to go with these.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Actually, you shot yourself in the foot here. DVDs might be only 480p and MPEG-2, but the film content usually fills 5-6GB of the disc (sometimes the full 7GB if the special features are on a second disc).

So while Apple uses AVC/MPEG-4 codecs, iTunes HD films are still only 2-3GB.

That's around 6-7Mbit/s for DVD and 3Mbit/s for iTunes HD.

You utterly failed to take into account DVDs are MPEG2 and ATV HD is H264. They are night and day in terms of efficiency.

While the iTunes HD will look slightly sharper in a screenshot, the DVD will look infinitely more natural when you hit the playback button.

That's certainly not what I see here on the screen. DVDs look way worse in every respect (color capability, resolution and overall picture quality). I tend to think many people talking about iTunes HD have not actually seen it, especially not on a 720p native display. Assumptions are worthless.

And guess what? With a good video processor (like a DVDO iScan VP50 or Lumagen Radiance), a DVD will actually look better upscaled than the bitrate starved iTunes HD video.

Upscaling produces NO new resolution WHAT-SO-EVER. The purpose of up-scalers is to put 480p into the native resolution of the display device you are using (i.e. the whole bad scaler thing I mentioned earlier). A DVD played on a 480i set (like a CRT SDTV) will look better than an upscaled output to a 720 or 1080 set because it's the native output.

 

[swagi]

<snip>
There's nothing magical about Blu-Ray discs. You can put 100% the same quality on a hard drive. The DISC itself is just a storage medium, after all. Once my projector is upgraded to a 1080p model, all I have to do is plug a Crystal HD card into one of my Generation 1 ATV units and I have 1080p playback capability ready to go.

I hate to break it to you, but AFAIR there is no good solution to rip a Blu-Ray and store it on your HDD on the Macintosh side. So I urge you to elaborate, how you aquire 1080p content for your Mac system. I am perfectly aware that you also can't do that on Windows LEGALLY - as you circumvent copy protection methods. Nevertheless on the Mac side of the fence it's a major PITA due to the "bag of hurt"-mantra.

Define mainstream. <snip>

Err...BluRay. Yes, it's mainstream already. Don't give me that "It won't take off"-phrase, as Blu has clearly taken off. Currently my favorite brick&mortar movie rental has a quote of 25% Blus, and every new release is offered with several DVDs and Blus. So the market is not only there - it's becoming mainstream (sic!).

<snip> Once I upgrade the projector (I don't have money to just burn, after all), I can easily get 1080p output with a simple $30 Crystal HD card and XBMC. If AppleTV 3 comes out by then with 1080p and is also $100, I'd probably go that way to preserve the GUI interface.

So currently you have to jailbreak your Apple TV to get this function. I guess jailbreaking an Apple TV can not be seen as mainstream.

<snip>
As for redbook CD versus iTunes, it's not that hard to prove. A double-blind test setup can be used to prove one can hear the differences between 256kbps AAC and redbook CD. I have yet to read about a single person proving that yet. Not even one.
<snip>

I just spend 10 minutes on Google trying to find that study I read about. But I remember the outcome was quite interesting: It's a matter of habituization. In a blinded study people with the habit of rather listening to MP3s on their personal music players actually thought the MP3 to be the higher quality audio medium. Sorry, couldn't find it fast enough, but I'm definitely sure I read about it. And from my personal experience I just grant you the point, that MP3 or AAC is "good enough". As is e.g. DivX for casual video watching.

But this doesn't help the fact that there are several feature movies I'd rather watch in Blu.

<snip>
Unless you sit less than 5 feet from a 48" screen (even less for smaller screens), you aren't seeing 1080p dude. People hold retina displays right up to their faces. That's what you can see it. But unless you actually sit 5 feet or less away from a 48" set, you are NOT seeing 1080p.<snip>

Sorry to break it to you - but this definitely depends on the source material and your eyesight. You shouldn't use generalizations on this one. Some people see the difference - me included. Maybe you should use perfect source material (i.e. perfectly good encoded) like animated movies from Pixar. I see it - granted my eyesight ist scored at 1,3 with my contact lenses

 

[AidenShaw]

You utterly failed to take into account DVDs are MPEG2 and ATV HD is H264. They are night and day in terms of efficiency.

Actually, you utterly exaggerate the H.264 codec's capabilities.

At its sweet spot, most consider that H.264 can deliver a picture of similar quality to an MPEG-2 stream of double the bitrate.

At high bitrates, the difference is much less (some of the early BD releases had fantastic quality MPEG-2 video streams).

Define mainstream.

It looks like "mainstream" is defined as "not Apple".

In short, I'm SICK of people talking out their rear-ends on this subject.

Calm down - perhaps you should discuss some of your anger management issues with a professional.

 

[SirHaakon]

Agreed. Just pointing out that he doesn't even know what he's criticizing.

Fair enough.

 

[Enzobot24]

You utterly failed to take into account DVDs are MPEG2 and ATV HD is H264. They are night and day in terms of efficiency.

No... I did take that into account.

AVC and H.264 are synonymous.

 

[emulator]

Megamind (Blu-ray + Standard DVD): Blu-ray for $13
iTunes $14.99

So other than idiots, why would anyone get their content "to own" from iTunes is beyond me.

 

[840quadra]

Megamind (Blu-ray + Standard DVD): Blu-ray for $13
iTunes $14.99

So other than idiots, why would anyone get their content "to own" from iTunes is beyond me.

For some, convenience, and Instant gratification trump Quality any day. For others, the quality differences are not enough to worry about.

Just get used to the fact that this world isn't full of like minded people. If it was, everyone on here would be driving Black Audi Sedans, because that is what I own and like .

 

[MCIowaRulz]

With 1080p becoming the norm, I hope Apple offers a "scalable option" for people (like me) who have nothing faster then 3mbps as I'd rather stream then download.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I hate to break it to you, but AFAIR there is no good solution to rip a Blu-Ray and store it on your HDD on the Macintosh side. So I urge you to elaborate, how you aquire 1080p content for your Mac system. I am perfectly aware that you also can't do that on Windows LEGALLY - as you circumvent copy protection methods. Nevertheless on the Mac side of the fence it's a major PITA due to the "bag of hurt"-mantra.

Who said I use the Mac side of anything? I own more than one computer. I couldn't give a crap about inane laws created by the greedy corporation and their bought and paid for cronies in the government. Fair Use should trump any consideration of copy protection that is designed to PREVENT fair use. If I bought a Blu-Ray disc, I have the right to watch its content. How I watch it should be irrelevant.

Err...BluRay. Yes, it's mainstream already. Don't give me that "It won't take off"-phrase, as Blu has clearly taken off.

That's why I asked for a definition of "mainstream". To me, 20% of the market doesn't equal mainstream. My Mac is not mainstream, IMO at 7-8% market share. You act like I have a problem with Blu-Ray in and of itself. Beyond the same annoyances of DVD (animated menus, long previews and FBI warnings with no ability to skip them, etc.) that keep me from just starting the movie (never was a problem on Laserdisc, for example), I have no issue with Blu-Ray. I do have an issue with people that have nothing better to do than bash everything and everyone they don't agree with. I see more problems in this world over the inability of some to accept others' rights to be different than anything else (religions come to mind for one thing). If you love Blu-Ray, good for you. How am I stopping you from enjoying it by watching my movie collection through a hard driver server across multiple viewing points in the house?

So currently you have to jailbreak your Apple TV to get this function. I guess jailbreaking an Apple TV can not be seen as mainstream.

AppleTV itself isn't mainstream, so what's your point? I have no statistics on the number of "jailbreaked" AppleTV units, so I cannot comment on such matters. All I know is that it's simplicity itself to do (load USB stick into computer; run ATVUSB-Creator and then put stick in back of ATV unit and reboot. Remove stick and reboot again and voila. You now have XBMC and Boxee installed. To add true HDTV output, put in CrystalHD card, plug in Ethernet cable instead and load USB stick with Linux/XBMC setup instead. True 1080p output for $30 extra. I could buy a Popcorn or something else instead, though. It's beside the point. Either is better than a disc system.

Can you watch the same BD movie in two different rooms of your house at the same time? No? I can watch HD movies in two different rooms at the same time. If I want to watch The Matrix, I don't have to run downstairs or upstairs to find the BD disc. It's available anywhere I have a player. I can even start watching a movie in one room and finish in another with ATV. Try that with a BD disc.... I know. It's just convenience. So is air-conditioning and I wouldn't particularly want a house without that either.

The future is inevitable. Discs are outdated and outmoded. It's only a matter of time before everything is streaming or stored on a drive of some kind. Do you still use CDs in your car? I sure as heck don't. I can fit 800 CDs on a tiny memory stick and plug it into the USB on my car. WTF would I want to carry 800 CDs around? It's just convenience, after all.

I just spend 10 minutes on Google trying to find that study I read about. But I remember the outcome was quite interesting: It's a matter of habituization. In a blinded study people with the habit of rather listening to MP3s on their personal music players actually thought the MP3 to be the higher quality audio medium. Sorry, couldn't find it fast enough, but I'm

I don't care what people 'think'. A 256kbps AAC file is indistinguishable from the source material it's extracted from in all double blind tests I've ever read about (no that does not mean 128kbps MP3 files!) Saying you can hear something and proving it are two different things, after all.

Sorry to break it to you - but this definitely depends on the source material and your eyesight. You shouldn't use generalizations on this one. Some people see the difference - me included. Maybe you should use perfect source material (i.e. perfectly good encoded) like animated movies from Pixar. I see it - granted my eyesight ist scored at 1,3 with my contact lenses

Sorry to break it to you, but that chart is not a generalization. It's based on the human eye's maximum resolving ability, not the vision of deer or foxes. They don't just test one person to make those charts. Sorry, but I see more fantastical claims based on wishful thinking than reality and audio testing is a prime example (double-blind testing boxes are readily available). Many people make bold claims about audio. Very few, if any, are able to prove those claims.

 

[OhNoItsGojira]

Just Sad

I'm not a user of iTunes to watch studio content, but hearing this news is really just sad. No 1080p available? For real? As a video editor I hardly even consider 720p HD. 1080p is true High Definition. And Steve continuing to whine about blu-ray not being possible for licensing purposes is just a joke. How can nearly every conceivable PC manufacturer have a blu-ray drive in their laptops and a Mac can't have one?

 

[AidenShaw]

The answer is easy....

How can nearly every conceivable PC manufacturer have a blu-ray drive in their laptops and a Mac can't have one?

Other Intel computer manufacturers listen to their customers, The Steve doesn't listen to anyone.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Actually, you utterly exaggerate the H.264 codec's capabilities.

At its sweet spot, most consider that H.264 can deliver a picture of similar quality to an MPEG-2 stream of double the bitrate.

So you're saying the average 2-hour movie 4GB 720P ATV HD file (I don't know where a certain poster gets 2-3 from; the few I've purchased from iTunes have been 4GB for 2 hours) is equivalent to an 8GB Mpeg2 file? From what I've read, it's actually more like 2.3x more efficient which would make it more like 9.2GB. My average DVD encode to ATV format ends up being 1.5-2GB using the default optimum settings on Handbrake. A 2-hour DVD movie would take up around 4-7GB (without extras) and frankly, I don't know that a DVD needs a full double-layer to achieve relative transparency for 480p (i.e. 7GB versus 4-5GB). Certainly, a 9.2GB equivalent MPeg2 file could offer significantly higher quality than 480p even compared to maximum DVD settings. H264 does not go "blocky" as bandwidth becomes insufficient. It simply gets softer. This is why no AppleTV movies I've seen have ever gone blocky (unlike 1080 cable rentals, which are obviously not using H264).

Someone here said 720p is closer to 480p than 1080p, yet total pixels for 720p (921,600 pixels) are 2.67x higher than 480p (337,920 pixels) while 1080p (2,073,600 pixels) is about 2.2x higher than 720p. So sorry, but 720p is closer to 1080p than 480p.

2.3x more compression added to a 4GB H264 versus a 4GB MPEG2 isn't far off from that 2.67x figure. Hence, this idea that ATV HD files don't have high enough bit-rates to possibly look good is absurd. They should look at about as good as a 2-hour single layer DVD equivalent bit-rate bumped upward to accommodate 720p at their best and without any blocky issues at their worst (resolution becomes softer instead). Whomever said DVDs actually look better than iTunes HD obviously never saw it.

In short, I don't think I exaggerated anything that much. H264 is vastly superior to MPeg2 (2-2.3x more efficient and soft picture instead of blocky if the scene gets too complex). MPeg2 is simply inferior. iTunes HD movies may not be ideal, but they're a far cry from what some are making it out to be on here.

It looks like "mainstream" is defined as "not Apple".

My only concern is whether ATV3 will be a useful replacement for ATV2 at this point (i.e. 1080p capability for a reasonable price). What Apple offers on their iTunes store to buy is pretty much moot to me. I only care about the ability to play back my own library and possibly rent movies (which is always faster than having to run out and rent a BD or wait for one in the mail).