Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
True dat but it will be a new Apple TV.
I don't see them leaving out older AppleTVs, especially since they can already play 720p HD. I've never heard of anyone not being able to play properly encoded (i.e., 720p, 24fps, etc.) on their TV.
 
I don't see them leaving out older AppleTVs, especially since they can already play 720p HD. I've never heard of anyone not being able to play properly encoded (i.e., 720p, 24fps, etc.) on their TV.

Yeah, I disagree. They'll add true 720p, and it'll work just fine with existing Apple TVs. The ONLY problem is, it will likely only work on the current generation of iPod Classic, Nano, Touch and iPhone. Basically anything with access to a hardware H.263 decoder (which I believe Apple TV has).

~ CB


I was actually referring to any potential 1080i/P content.

And as long as Fox/Disney are the only providers this will continue as a "hobby".
 
Eh, I don't see this as a huge negative. It's just like video-on-demand. Pricing is the real obstacle. For only 24 hours, I would grade this service:

A+ $1.99
A- $2.99
B $3.99
B- $4.99
 
I get it, you don't want to be wrong. No problem. My original message just said that you should NOT call "Included" services on your cable "free" if you wanted to make a fair comparison. That's all. You wrote a very looooooong response. It's clear you have a legal background. ;) You were still inaccurate, and I think you agreed... you just like the relative feeling that its "free to me", regardless of how incompatible the statement is to the value proposition represented to others.

--Everything else is completely irrelevant, but possibly fun to explore and discuss I 'spose, we shouldn't digress into it though and lose the original point being made.

~ CB

You'd try to argue with someone trying to give you a free pancake. It's included in the cost of the rest of my breakfast! But to each his own. I'll enjoy the pancake at no additional cost.

Of course the digital cable costs money, but Comcast could either not include as much free, er... no-additional-fee on demand programing or none at all and just leave it as pay only. So it's included (although they could just take it all away at any time)... and one way to talk about it - I think accurately - is that it is included for no additional cost. You can call no-additional-cost whatever suits you.
 
You'd try to argue with someone trying to give you a free pancake. It's included in the cost of the rest of my breakfast! But to each his own. I'll enjoy the pancake at no additional cost.
I think there is a difference between "included" and "free". I think its a "free gift" if they give you a 1 GB USB memory stick every month with your cable subscription during a certain "promo" period. Your OnDemand channels are "included". They're actually on the service description, aren't they? Moreover, if they decided tomorrow to take them ALL away tomorrow, and still charge you the same thing... I'm sorry, but I have a feeling you'd have a legal leg to stand on if you declared that they were supposed to be "Included". You wouldn't call them up asking them where your "freebies" were. --I mean, would you? :)

EDIT: Just saw your update.
I'm not going to change my
argument though. :)

Another good example was Register.com. They were the first registrar to provide "free DNS" service with your domain name registration. Network Solutions at the time required you to find a "DNS provider" before you registered your names. Once, Register.com's DNS service was acting up, and my name wasn't pointing to the right website. When I got them on the phone, at one point the person ACTUALLY tried to float to me the explanation of "Well, you're getting this for free anyway..." he heard the tone and my voice and backed off this tactic, and said that they'd have it resolved soon. --So, maybe I would argue about the pancake. I'd still call it "Included" though.

Those monopoly game pieces that give you "free" fast food? Those are "free". It's the quintessential meaning of the phrase "No Purchase Necessary".

Don't feel bad, honestly... a year ago someone pointed this out to me. I'd attended a Salesforce seminar here in Boston, and they were giving out a "FREE" book of "Salesforce for Dummies". I thought it was great. I remarked to my boss... "Hey, its great that they're giving these out for FREE!" He squinted at me, and reminded me that he pays for each and everyone of our Salesforce accounts... and that whether its "Included" or "Complimentary", I shouldn't be under the delusion that its "free". I felt mortified 'cause he was right.

EDIT:
I can see how they're presenting it...
http://comcast.m0.net/m/p/com/mic/view_free_movies.asp
If I was looking at this everyday I can see how I'd start to think they were "free" too.
It's just not workable for comparing that to a service without a subscription.
If you were comparing cable services, it would make complete sense to compare
subscription rates, and compare what each gives you "for free", "complimentarily" or "at no added cost".

~ CB
 
I was actually referring to any potential 1080i/P content. And as long as Fox/Disney are the only providers this will continue as a "hobby".
Actually... same difference, right? I only referred to 720p, because of the issue of practicality for downloading (and that being the lowest you could go and still call it HD). I've gotten over the "swelling" of the standard iTunes video resolution, but it certainly killed playback on my old computer.

That said, AppleTV has already been doing 1080i content. It's only the 1080p content that it doesn't support. I think a number of people have been giving that a whirl. I'm not clear on the tests of streaming vs. on-board HD though.

~ CB
 
Don't feel bad, honestly... a year ago someone pointed this out to me. I'd attended a Salesforce seminar here in Boston, and they were giving out a "FREE" book of "Salesforce for Dummies". I thought it was great. I remarked to my boss... "Hey, its great that they're giving these out for FREE!" He squinted at me, and reminded me that he pays for each and everyone of our Salesforce accounts... and that whether its "Included" or "Complimentary", I shouldn't be under the delusion that its "free". I felt mortified 'cause he was right.

Sounds like that book was right up your alley!
 
It immediately struck me that both reports are likely correct. What we have is 2 numbers. 30 days and 24 hours. This is basically the standard with most of these services, no? 30 days to watch, once you start it expires in 24 hours. Am I missing something here?
 
Actually... same difference, right? I only referred to 720p, because of the issue of practicality for downloading (and that being the lowest you could go and still call it HD). I've gotten over the "swelling" of the standard iTunes video resolution, but it certainly killed playback on my old computer.

That said, AppleTV has already been doing 1080i content. It's only the 1080p content that it doesn't support. I think a number of people have been giving that a whirl. I'm not clear on the tests of streaming vs. on-board HD though.

~ CB

To me "true HD" means 5.1 DD..Something the current Apple TV wont do.
 
It's just not workable for comparing that to a service without a subscription.
If you were comparing cable services, it would make complete sense to compare
subscription rates, and compare what each gives you "for free", "complimentarily" or "at no added cost".

~ CB

But that's the point of my post CB. For folks that have digital cable (like me), will Apple's service be alluring, fill any gaps / needs? Will it add something that folks will want for the $2 to $5 if they're already getting a to-the-tv service with at least some no additional charge programming and $3.99 rentals.

Like I said, the delivery charge is bundled with Comcast - I pay them for access and content when it comes to TV. Because the delivery and content are unbundled, you think of iTunes as free but I pay Comcast $40 to access the web and iTunes. So for the iTunes rental service, I'll still pay $40 (broadband access) plus $2 to $5 per film to use it.

For me, it just seems that folks that have digital cable may not find a to-the-computer rental service a longed for addition. But as I said knowing Apple there may be some surprise twist to it all.

Go Pats.
 
To me "true HD" means 5.1 DD..Something the current Apple TV wont do.

Why would you think the type of audio defines a video source "true HD". This would mean, using your definition, that 480i with 5.1 is HD whereas 1080p with stereo is not? HD refers to the number of pixels in a single frame to me, thus anything around or over 1 Million Pixels is worthy of that title today (who knows in 5 years). Maybe I am not understanding your meaning here.
 
But that's the point of my post CB. For folks that have digital cable (like me), will Apple's service be alluring, fill any gaps / needs? Will it add something that folks will want for the $2 to $5 if they're already getting a to-the-tv service with at least some no additional charge programming and $3.99 rentals.
I know. I get into arguments all the time on the "true for me" relativity thing. I have a friend that regularly plays devil's advocate without warning, its unnerving. You're totally right for people in your situation. I went back to terrestrial a few years ago, after a friend chided me for not realizing how many people don't need cable to watch TV (I'd been regularly buying Lost episodes from iTunes along with Battlestar Galactica).

Pats? OMG. I hadn't even looked!
I saw they were down last night.
38 to 35. Wow. Must have been a great game.
NFL History. Nice.
Why would you think the type of audio defines a video source "true HD". This would mean, using your definition, that 480i with 5.1 is HD whereas 1080p with stereo is not? HD refers to the number of pixels in a single frame to me, thus anything around or over 1 Million Pixels is worthy of that title today (who knows in 5 years). Maybe I am not understanding your meaning here.
I think he really means "high definition" straight up. It's fairly RIDICULOUS to have a high resolution picture and NO surround sound in the audio track. It's not as if AAC doesn't support 5.1 either. Hopefully they'll sort this out along with closed captions and language options.

~ CB
 
Even if just 24 hours... this is not a major problem for me, especially if it ends up just supplementing my Netflix subscription.

If I'm in the mood to watch a movie... I (personally) can go online... choose a movie... and then watch it within the next 24 hours. If it's a 24 hour window that begins when I start watching the movie... all the better. But, I'm fine with the former scenario. Really, it's comparable to most (store) rentals.

However....

If it can match the benefits (and costs) of Netflix... I'll quit my Netflix subscription and move over entirely. But, if it's more costly, I'll likely keep my Netflix... and just use this 24 hour service on rare occasions. In regards to Netflix, I love to pick 10+ movies out in advance... and just not think about it for 2+ weeks. I also think it's a good value... at roughly $2- 3 per video (if I'm not sitting on a DVD for a week).

Honestly, I hope that the features and benefits EXCEED Netflix & other DVD rental services. I'd hate to see this thing get started and then see it either fall apart (via the studios disliking Apple's profit-sharing) or not win people over because it's a terrible value, doesn't meet people's needs, etc. I don't want to see any flops with Apple in the near future. But, I guess sometimes trying to be innovative means taking risks and trying to create new trends vs. following everyone else. So, I hope Apple does well with this... and it doesn't end up being useless.
 
Why would you think the type of audio defines a video source "true HD". This would mean, using your definition, that 480i with 5.1 is HD whereas 1080p with stereo is not? HD refers to the number of pixels in a single frame to me, thus anything around or over 1 Million Pixels is worthy of that title today (who knows in 5 years). Maybe I am not understanding your meaning here.

In the real world High Definition movies,TV shows and radio almost always has Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound.That's what I meant by "true HD".
 
My real Opinion

some folks will go for a 24-hour rental. My rommate and I have done the red-box rental which is only 24 hours; the trouble is internet reliability. If I go to the red box, I have the dvd in my hand (oh and it's cheaper than the rumored rates) so I don't have to worry about having the movie when the friends come over. but if I have to download, the cable company might do unannounced service that day, and I won't have the file. While it's true you can watch a movie as its downloading with present day download speeds, it's also the case that there's a chance as you're watching part of the movie you don't get the rest of it. So when you come to Friday night, something goes haywire, maybe your friends can't come back over 'till Sunday night, but you have to pay for the movie again? At this point, you say "%&$( it, I'll get something from Red Box, it's cheaper anyway." 24-hours is not the kind of rental time I'm sure Steve will press for, (because let's face it, in the tech industry, other than game developers he's the only person who cares how people feel when they use his products). At least 2 days for the rental, no more than $1.99, otherwise "%($^#% it."
45 minute TV shows are $1.99.
1.5 hour movies are $9.99
Why is the scale so non-linear?
TV shows give you so much more bang for your buck, as long as it's not "Bone Detectives." (Oh my gosh I wanted to die of boredom!)
 
Mm. That's just sad. I was also looking up 1080i just know, I guess there's a lot of confusion out there. Apple TV ALSO doesn't do 540p at 60 fps, so its not really able to REALLY do kosher 1080i either, right (just upscaled 720p at 30 fps)? I guess I misspoke. Sorry.

~ CB

Movies are shot at 24 fps anyway. That's what really bugs me. I can see 24 fps, so movies always look jittery to me. Being in a theater is like going to watch a strobe light in my face. At least they blur the frames together when they move to NTSC TV on DVD's. When they pan the camera in these new "reality" movies it makes everything so blurry you can't read anything anymore. I only go for the immersive experience.
 
45 minute TV shows are $1.99.
1.5 hour movies are $9.99
Why is the scale so non-linear?
TV shows give you so much more bang for your buck, as long as it's not "Bone Detectives." (Oh my gosh I wanted to die of boredom!)

Well, movies and TV shows are pretty different when it comes down to it. A 2 hour movie may take many months to film and produce, and could cost $100 or more. The box office used to be the primary source or revenue for movies (prior to VCS/DVD.) I'm not sure what DVDs have done to the model though.

TV shows on the other hand are produced in bulk, maybe 20 per season, at a much lower cost. Generally advertising is the ultimate vehicle that funds TV shows.

I'm not really sure how they price DVDs and downloaded movies and TV shows though. In all cases, I suspect that the additional income is just "gravy", and that the content has already been paid for by advertising, box office sales, etc.
 
Current movie rental limits on TiVo (same as iTunes?)

The way that Amazon Unbox does this for my TiVo is

I choose a video rental from our TiVo for ($0.00 to $3.99)
The video is downloaded to our TiVo
We have 30 days to start watching it after the download completes
After we begin watching the video, we have 24 hours to view it as many times as we want before the video is deleted

So if I download a 2 1/2 hour movie and the family starts watching it two weeks later at 8:30pm and for some reason we can't finish so we continue watching the same movie the next day at say 8:00pm, the movie will be abruptly deleted by our TiVo right at 8:30pm while we are still watching it.
All we have after that is some copyright holder message.

I believe this is some industry standard copyright rule and the way it will work for iTunes.
 
Here's hoping for subscription...

I would love a Netflix style subscription for this service, personally. $20-$30 a month, unlimited viewing until you "return" the movie. X active movies at a time (based on monthly fee). A queue that as soon a the movie is "returned" the new one starts to download. I would even be fine with a limit to the number of movies per month that you can view, say 10 for a $20 plan and 20 for a $30 plan. The only problem with this would be the integration of the mobile devices. Perhaps they only allow playback for 24-48 hours after sync, then they need to be re-synced to ensure the movie has not been "returned"? This style would probably work best for me... so I'm sure it won't be offered.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.