New Media Content Distribution System?

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
7,446
8,513


Think Secret claims that Apple is set to unveil a new media content delivery system, which will include feature-length content, expanded television offerings, and more.

According to their source, the new system will rely on .Mac's iDisk for storage, keeping media files from ever being held locally on the purchaser's hard drive, utilizing the rumored Front Row 2.0.

In addition, Think Secret claims that Apple is poised to offer a number of new partnerships with various content providers, possibly including NBC, CBS and Paramount Pictures. Fox Filmed Entertainment has already gone on record as saying they were "open to" a deal with iTunes.
 

DCBass

macrumors 6502
Jan 23, 2004
308
1
Washington, DC
Wow.

Talk about making .Mac worthwhile for the masses as opposed to the few.

I would not have guessed this. Looking forward to seeing what they have in mind.

Edit: Cool, no longer a newbie
 

pdpfilms

macrumors 68020
Jun 29, 2004
2,385
0
Vermontana
Macrumors said:
According to their source, the new system will rely on .Mac's iDisk for storage, keeping media files from ever being held locally on the purchaser's hard drive, utilizing the rumored Front Row 2.0.
Oooh... i do not like this concept.
 

susannahyork

macrumors member
Aug 30, 2005
53
0
Would this mean that one would have to subscribe to .Mac? Not having the files on one's own computer would eliminate file sharing for sure, but would you have to stream the content then to watch it, essentially making this a quasi video on demand?
 

Aaon

macrumors 6502
Jun 30, 2004
287
19
Yeah, would this mean that you'd have to pay for the .mac subscription, then pay for the media? And what happens if you cancel the .mac? Do you lose your media? This sounds like the subscription services offered by Yahoo, Napster, etc, that I really don't like...
 

sfhc21

macrumors member
Oct 16, 2003
31
0
Dallas, TX
Well that sucks. What about the Video iPod? You buy all this content, but you can't use it unless you have an internet connection.
 

Koodauw

macrumors 68040
Nov 17, 2003
3,936
165
Madison
I would think Apple of all people would understand that people want to own their content. Sure you would 'own' it, but if you cant access it without internet, do you really?
 

awesomebase

macrumors regular
Jan 6, 2004
100
0
Maryland
Sounds good!

Well, it seems like a .Mac account would be needed for "verification" rather than storage. I can't imagine Apple trying to open up .Mac space to hold HDTV programs and such, that would increase their storage requirements exponentially. But, such a service provided to .Mac members would certainly be welcomed. I'll admit that the .Mac service has been slow to add real value over the years and only this year it has finally gotten a Backup system that works. I would welcome anything that adds to the value of this $99 annual subscription price!
 

kenaustus

macrumors 6502
Jun 11, 2003
371
11
Here we go again.

I think Apple is taking this road to keep the studios happy and it's something we will have to live with.

My guess is that Apple will store a "key" on .Mac that will let you look at a movie whenever you want. It won't be that hard to transfer this to people who don't use .Mac later when their content library is expanded - just like they brought iTunes to the PC world. I'm happy to let Mac users get the initial experience and I use .Mac (well worth it for $8 a month) so I'm ready. All I need is a way to get FrontRow 2 onto my rev a G5 iMac.
 

Cooknn

macrumors 68020
Aug 23, 2003
2,111
0
Fort Myers, FL
Works for me. I would finally have a reason to subscribe to .Mac

Imagine the possibilities with this! Cable companies better be taking notice. Advertisers as well. This is going to start a major shift in television viewing if Apple does it right.
 

vrabz

macrumors member
Oct 12, 2005
30
0
Madison, WI
this stinks. this will be slow, slow, slow. also, no chance of watching this content while on my airline flights on the laptop, either. have to have .mac as well??? come on, apple. you are turning into TiVo in terms of backing down to the entertainment industry.:confused:
 

EGT

macrumors 68000
Sep 4, 2003
1,606
1
Mudbug said:
agreed - seems a little weird to me. Also begs the question of what if you're not a .Mac subscriber?
I agree too. Not to mention the fact that iDisk is always horribly slow. It'll be interesting to see how this develops.
 

redAPPLE

macrumors 68030
May 7, 2002
2,614
2
2 Much Infinite Loops
negative vote.

i gave this a negative vote. .mac? ha!

i won't even buy/download the videos or tv shows Apple is offering. "low-quality" m4ps, ok? low quality video? no.

i only would buy the videos, if they sell really hard to find stuff.
 

dashiel

macrumors 6502a
Nov 12, 2003
876
0
obviously .mac would change drastically, to the point where the proposition isn't "i need .mac to make this work?", but "if i subscribe to 'back row', i get .mac functionality for free!"

if true, and i must say i find it far fetched, it will be marketed akin to the ipod 5g and iwork, but in reverse. where those two products were marketed as hey buy this product that you know and love for the same price as the old version (ipod, keynote 1) and you get this bonus (video on the ipod, pages). this new thing will be sold as subscribe to this media thing, like you would cable and you get .mac for free.
 

Cooknn

macrumors 68020
Aug 23, 2003
2,111
0
Fort Myers, FL
anastasis said:
Booo! If I buy something, I want it on my hard drive for archival purposes.
You have to think differently. If you have today's DVR you get to watch your recorded content whenever you want. You can't archive it to another drive though. So what?! It's still yours. Now it will live on .Mac and Apple can deal with the storage issues instead of you. If this rolls out in Hi-Def as I expect it will, you won't want to be archiving this stuff unless you have TB's of HD space anyways :cool:
 

blackpeter

macrumors 6502a
Aug 14, 2001
919
0
Calm down. Whatever Apple decides to go with, it won't be any worse than the current iTMS scheme. Computers will have to be registered to that iTMS account.

Do any of you *really* expect Apple to ask consumers to pay $100 a year just for the ability to purchase content? I didn't go to business school, but even I know that Apple isn't going to require a .Mac subscription to get episodes of The Simpsons online.
 

jdechko

macrumors 601
Jul 1, 2004
4,062
201
I'm glad to see that FOX is possibly getting on board with this. Not too happy about the .mac thing, but we still don't know what it all means, so I'll wait a while to comment on that.
 

alywa

macrumors 6502
May 6, 2004
350
0
Interesting

I would guess it is a ".mac like" service, with remote content storage (ala gmail), with the ablility to transfer content to matched laptops / computers / video ipods for viewing while a internet connection is not available.

This would work well with a set-top box, but if the ability to view while on the go doesn't happen, I sense this will be dissapointing. However, this is apple, so i'm sure they have thought this through.

Should make for an exciting keynote.

-alywa
 

the future

macrumors 65816
Jul 17, 2002
1,484
1,170
Not storing the content on your own HD does have advantages, though...

Think Secret said:
This method, which will be every bit as simple and straightforward for consumers as the iTunes Music Store is now, poses a number of advantages over Apple's current pay-once-download-once system, including saving users' hard drive space and essentially providing a secure back-up of everything purchased. iTunes Music Store customers at present are charged 99 cents every time they download a song, regardless of whether they already bought it, and must back-up purchases themselves. A customer who experiences data loss and loses purchased songs is effectively out of luck as far as Apple is concerned.
 

andiwm2003

macrumors 601
Mar 29, 2004
4,325
379
Boston, MA
kenaustus said:
....................................
My guess is that Apple will store a "key" on .Mac that will let you look at a movie whenever you want. It won't be that hard to transfer this to people who don't use .Mac later when their content library is expanded - just like they brought iTunes to the PC world. I'm happy to let Mac users get the initial experience and I use .Mac (well worth it for $8 a month) so I'm ready. All I need is a way to get FrontRow 2 onto my rev a G5 iMac.
what's the point when i need an internet connection to be allowed to see my movies? the reason for owning the content is that i can watch it in the car, on the train, on the plain, in my backyard or at the beach.

with this concept i might as well stop at the next blockbuster and rent a dvd.

i don't think it's gonna happen like this.
 

ShavenYak

macrumors member
Jan 11, 2005
73
0
awesomebase said:
I can't imagine Apple trying to open up .Mac space to hold HDTV programs and such, that would increase their storage requirements exponentially.
No, there'd probably only be one copy of the video file on the .mac server, and it would be symbolically linked into each user's iDisk who had purchased it. It wouldn't eat into the user's quota, either. Just like the GarageBand Jam Pack samplers in the Software folder... you don't think there's a separate copy of those files for every .mac user, do you?
 

rsamo

macrumors member
Feb 15, 2005
43
0
Video Airport Express

As far as I'm concerned this is all worthless. I want something that will enable me to stream all of this content to my TV rather cheaply. I don't want to buy a 5G iPod right now, and I certainly don't want to buy a laptop to hook up to my TV that has inadequate power, speed, and storage for a digital lifestlyle of making movies, and holding thousands of songs and photos on your computer. Where is my Airport Express with video that supports 802.11n???????? Only then will I be tuly happy!