Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
aristobrat said:
I thought they had 5.1 sound already in the movie downloads?

They are Dolby Surround, not Dolby Digital. Dolby Surround is just matrixed stereo audio.
 
thadgarrison said:
Sadly,
Wal-Mart is God in the retail sector. They have far more power over the success of CDs and DVDs than Apple could dream of. I doubt that is going to change anytime soon, especially not as a result of Apple movie sales.

I think the basic three limiting factors for that are the following:

- no device to connect to the TV to easily reproduce those movies
- not enough standard storage space for HD resolution
- not high enough standard bandwidth for HD resolution

Well at least the first Apple has in it's own hands in January. The other two will take at least 2-3 years more at which time Apple will have missed the head start over physical HD mediums.
 
Casshan said:
They are Dolby Surround, not Dolby Digital. Dolby Surround is just matrixed stereo audio.
Aren't you contradicting yourself? iTS movies are in 5.1, so they are in fact Dolby Digital (encoded in the AC3 or MP4 format).
 
milo said:
From what I've heard, the quality is pretty close to DVD. Have you compared the two? What is your complaint about quality?

First of all I am not complaining. So don't jump to conclusions.
I am stating the obvious. DVD frame size is better than 640x480 frame size.
I acknowledge that the itunes movies are probably good. I just saying that I rather have the DVD frame size and quality. Plus I can have a physical DVD for back up with bonus, extras etc. It's just a preference.
 
This is a great start for Apple and should help sway studios that are still on the fence. Doesnt mean I'm biting though, only thing that'll get me to seriously think of buying a movie would be nothing less than a 720 x 480 reso. I might get impulsive if there are more offerings. Maybe.

I think Apple should seriously consider offering rentals too. Its dumb not to try it out :)
 
evilgEEk said:
Honestly I think movies will come to other countries before TV Shows do. Movies are more universal than TV Shows are, each country has their own TV Shows but everyone wants to watch Lord of the Rings.

I'd of thought movies will come to the rest of the world pretty quickly. There shouldn't be any licensing issues so its probably more due to logistics than anything else.

TV is totally different as most of the main programmes are already licensed to other broadcasters for other markets. Which would make selling episodes online outside of the home market tricky, it'll happen one day but it will take time.

I doubt I'll be buying any movies or tv shows when they come to the UK, I've never bought a single tune before now from iTunes. I run about 6-12 months behind everyone else and buy cds and dvds when they've been reduced, it works out a lot cheaper.
 
You do know that all this talk of Wal-Mart only applies to the US? They mean nothing out in the rest of the world, which is where Apple is taking this service.

Wal-Mart of big, but they are not that big.

Apple can still make a lot of money with Disney for the moment, they have the hearts of minds of children everywhere and parents are inclined sometimes to do things for their children, including downloading movies.

Then there is art house movies and independent movie companies which probably never see the light of day in a Wal-Mart store. There is to much going on that could be stopped by Wal-Mart.

Sucks to be them but they are not exactly the nicest company around.
 
Here's the things I need to see before I even get into this whole dowloading movies thing:

1. A lot more than 75 movies, 1,000 would be a good start.

2. Current quality is probably ok for video-based tv shows such as The Amazing Race or Curb Your Enthusiasm. But, I want at least 720p quality for film-based shows tv shows and movies. Didn't Apple declare last year "The Year of HD"?

3. Faster internet connection into my house to handle all this bandwidth. DSL just doesn't cut it. For video to truly be "on-demand", you can't have to wait overnight for it. It may be slightly more inconvenient, but I can go get a DVD at the store and be back with coffee/beer in under 15 minutes.

4. Ability to start streaming a partial download over iTV, and have the computer know (or give a good estimate) when you can start playing it so it finishes without interruption (as QuickTime streaming movies can).

5. Some sort of buffering in the iTV box so your movie doesn't start stuttering while someone is checking their email on the computer.

6. Multichannel digital surround sound. This should be considered a must for watching movies now, shame on you, Apple. QuickTime already supports it too, and it doesn't take a lot of extra bandwidth compared to the video anyway.

7. EyeTV integration...although this gets a little weird because I'd want my computer in another room, yet the EyeTV would have to be near the tv to accept the input, so it'd have to be connected directly to the iTV box. Is the USB connection going to be adequate to handle that HD bandwidth?
 
Rocketman said:
Studios rely on physical store dealers for "impulse sales" which has a different character than online. If you are in the online store software or website, it tries to cross-sell you. But retail impulse sales are targeting people who are not shopping for music at all. They just walk by and see it while shopping for something else. The most powerful example of this is Wal-Mart. They sell CD's as a loss leader to generate store traffic of a key range of demographics.
I don't understand your point. Why would Wal-mart try to sell you a CD as an impulse buy if they lose money on them? I don't think that's what you meant to say.

The iTunes Store is about convenience, which is only slightly removed from impulse. If it takes you less time to click on the "buy" button than it does for you to convince yourself that you really don't need it, it's a sale. :)
 
evilgEEk said:
Sometimes it helps to do a quick search. ;)

They do have surround sound support.

It clearly states Dolby Surround and Dolby Pro Logic Systems. This is from the VHS days. DVDs support Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS. This is plain nuts. Not only are you getting slightly inferior picture, the sound is ancient. Dolby Surround is nowhere as good as Dolby Digital. Here is a simple explanation.

Dolby Surround uses two tracks of audio to encode 4 tracks. The two additional tracks are for the center channel and a single rear channel. The single rear channel is not full spectrum (20Hz - 20kHz), but rather something very narrow.

For comparison, if you have a good surround sound system (I am not talking about the $200 Home Theatre in a box system, but a system that cost at least $1000), play a DVD that has both Dolby Surround and Dolby Digital. Play with the Dolby Surround track first and then play with the Dolby Digital track next. Huge difference. I am disappointed. Surely, there is a way they could embed discrete surround with AAC.

The specs for Dolby Digital is as follows: 5 tracks of discrete digital sound full spectrum 20Hz-20kHz. One channel for LFE (low frequency extension) - topping out at about 120Hz. That is why you have 5.1.

Dolby Digital is lossy compression though but still you have 5.1 channels. DTS is another lossy compression format but has a higher bit rate and sounds better than Dolby Digital. DTS typically have about 760kbps while Dolby Digital is about 448kbps.

HD-DVD and Bluray Disk support Dolby TrueHD that supports 8 channels of lossless sound upto 18Mbps. Cool. Well, we are way off from there.
 
Ah, yes Casshan you are right. :) More reasons to stick with hard-copy DVDs.
 

Attachments

  • wwdc06.jpg
    wwdc06.jpg
    23 KB · Views: 151
kresh said:
If it destroys their whole business model, then it is not dumb to not "try it out".

Apple is clearly not interested in the subscription or rental business models.

edit: Clarity
How does it destroy 'their whole business model'? I just think there has to be differentiation between movies and songs. Wheras I have no interest whatsoever (and never will) in renting songs (read: subscription model), I do have an interest in renting movies. I can listen to the same song 10 times over in one day. Can I do the same with a movie? Yes. Will I? No.

I can count the number of movies I've watched more than twice on both my hands. So can a lot of people out there. If you're really interested in being a collector and keeping the movie, downloading it off iTMS is a dumb idea.

So is it dumb for Apple to ignore a market of people such as myself? Yes. Does it destroy their business model to offer movie rentals (NOT TV shows or music)? You explain that to me :confused:
 
gugy said:
First of all I am not complaining. So don't jump to conclusions.
I am stating the obvious. DVD frame size is better than 640x480 frame size.
I acknowledge that the itunes movies are probably good. I just saying that I rather have the DVD frame size and quality. Plus I can have a physical DVD for back up with bonus, extras etc. It's just a preference.
Frame size is bigger but its also interlaced, so in truth its 720x240 every other frame, once its deinterlaced, the picture can get close to the original, but not as good as pure progressive scan. I think, i might take 640x480p over 720x480i, depends on how widescreen is handled (letterboxing vs true widescreen).
 
This is great news, however, I still have a hard time talking myself into paying $10 to $15 for a DRM-"infected" movie file.

1) I cannot sell it or give it away as a gift.
2) I can't share it with a friend.
3) Video quality is not that great.
4) It has no special bonus features as does a DVD.
5) etc.


I think there needs to be a big price drop AND/OR some type of subscription model for this movie download stuff. Why pay that much $$ for something I'll watch only once or twice???!!!
 
brepublican said:
So is it dumb for Apple to ignore a market of people such as myself? Yes.

I think the big problem with rentals is that Netflix has it wrapped up right now. You can get a ton of movies for a monthly fee, and I don't see any way an online service can compete with that, at least not without losing money on it.

If you know your best effort won't compare well to Netflix, does it really make sense to try and do it anyway? Or is it smarter just to stay out of such a cutthroat marketplace?
 
bommai said:
It clearly states Dolby Surround and Dolby Pro Logic Systems. This is from the VHS days. DVDs support Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS. This is plain nuts. Not only are you getting slightly inferior picture, the sound is ancient. Dolby Surround is nowhere as good as Dolby Digital. Here is a simple explanation.

Dolby Surround uses two tracks of audio to encode 4 tracks. The two additional tracks are for the center channel and a single rear channel. The single rear channel is not full spectrum (20Hz - 20kHz), but rather something very narrow.

For comparison, if you have a good surround sound system (I am not talking about the $200 Home Theatre in a box system, but a system that cost at least $1000), play a DVD that has both Dolby Surround and Dolby Digital. Play with the Dolby Surround track first and then play with the Dolby Digital track next. Huge difference. I am disappointed. Surely, there is a way they could embed discrete surround with AAC.

The specs for Dolby Digital is as follows: 5 tracks of discrete digital sound full spectrum 20Hz-20kHz. One channel for LFE (low frequency extension) - topping out at about 120Hz. That is why you have 5.1.

Dolby Digital is lossy compression though but still you have 5.1 channels. DTS is another lossy compression format but has a higher bit rate and sounds better than Dolby Digital. DTS typically have about 760kbps while Dolby Digital is about 448kbps.

HD-DVD and Bluray Disk support Dolby TrueHD that supports 8 channels of lossless sound upto 18Mbps. Cool. Well, we are way off from there.

I don't think Apple is aiming for the uber-geek with $25k worth of home entertainment equipment. IMHO, they will never be able to compete in that market.

I think they are reaching for the average joe blow that has a servicable $400 TV that he bought at Wal-mart, and maybe, just maybe, has a stereo hooked up to it. The average Joe doesn't care, and can't tell, that it's Dolby Surround and not Dolby Digital.
 
kresh said:
I don't think Apple is aiming for the uber-geek with $25k worth of home entertainment equipment. IMHO, they will never be able to compete in that market.

I think they are reaching for the average joe blow that has a servicable $400 TV that he bought at Wal-mart, and maybe, just maybe, has a stereo hooked up to it. The average Joe doesn't care, and can't tell, that it's Dolby surround and not Dolby Digital.

I have a ten year old surround system worth about $50 and I can tell the difference between Dolby Surround and Dolby Digital. I think his example was way overkill.
 
I thought TV shows in iTunes won't be a hit, why would any one need to pay $1.99 for the stuff, that is already available in cable, sat, Tivo, DVD's, Block buster, feely on the air in SDTV/HDTV, etc.. and all viewable on big screen TV.:confused:

I never bought any TV shows on iTunes, as I use DVR. I see myself buying online movie downloads, mainly for convenience and the fact that it is available on the same day as DVD.:) . Even though blockbuster is less than 5 min away, it will be at least 45 min trip. Of course I will still be renting/buying DVD's.

One more thing many forget about iTV ( Apple soon come with a real name), is that , it is not just for movies, I would happily pay third of its price just to have music and photos on my receiver and TV with the front row screen/remote.
 
Fukui said:
Frame size is bigger but its also interlaced, so in truth its 720x240 every other frame, once its deinterlaced, the picture can get close to the original, but not as good as pure progressive scan. I think, i might take 640x480p over 720x480i, depends on how widescreen is handled (letterboxing vs true widescreen).

You might be right, I am not going to discuss specifics. but the truth of the matter is that the quality of a DVD is better than the 640x480. Even Apple stats that on their site.
http://www.apple.com/itunes/store/movies.html
That's what I was trying to convey.
Cheers
 
I bought National Treasure and was actually thrilled with the quality. I have the Apple Dock with the Apple Remote, and with National Treasure on my 20" tv in my room, you COULD NOT POSSIBLY tell the diff between a DVD and the download. In fact, I had my friend bring over his copy of National Treasure on DVD, and had them both playing as we flipped back and forth on the tv and you could not tell a difference on my tv.....

Well, it is a SDTV, I have not yet played my download on our HDTV...But DVDs look fine on it, so I'm assuming this will as well.....I am very happy and will definately buy again, just need more titles....
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.