New Media Content Distribution System?

[iTron5]

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

Actually with replay tv and i believe tivo, you can archive the shows it records. I have a few replay tv's and 1.5tb's of harddrive space that hold shows that i can either watch on computer or stream back to any replays in my house to watch. I store them on there until the dvds for whatever i recorded come out then i purchase those and delete the shows to make room for new stuff.

If indeed apple would intend to store the shows on .mac and you stream them down, i would not be interested in this service at all. First i don't have any use for .mac so i don't care to pay for that, and 2nd as people have mentioned i want the content local for many reasons, one being what if my internet connection drops, i can't watch a show i've paid for. I would think this would be a nightmare for apple anyway, MASSIVE storage requirements if this takes off, a huge increase in necessary bandwith for them. For me to be interested in any of the content anyway it would have to be high quality or i don't see the purpose of getting it through this distribution method ( atleast for me ) and high quality shows especially going to HD at some point would make the storage requirements that much larger for apple.

 

[Porchland]

Maybe we don't need a Tivo killer after all...

Tivo stock took a big dive this week on the news that they're not going to get anymore new DirecTV subscribers, and this Apple news isn't going to help.

Tivo's market cap is now less than $500 million, or about a third of what Netflix is worth.

 

[J@ffa]

This article mentions the video iPod; surely it's misguided in saying that you won't actually be able to store the files on your HD? Unless of course Apple has actually discovered the secret of real magic!

 

[ShavenYak]

Tivo's market cap is now less than $500 million, or about a third of what Netflix is worth.

Tivo = 0.5 gigabucks, Netflix = 1.5 gigabucks?
Then Apple has enough CASH sitting in the bank to buy both these companies four times over. Hmmm....

 

[Cooknn]

How much bandwidth is required to stream H.264 at 1080i? I know my cable company uses about 16Mbps to get it done. Right now my internet connection approaches 10Mbps. I imagine H.264 does a lot better than Mpeg-2 for compression. This could work...

Actually with replay tv and i believe tivo, you can archive the shows it records.

I stand corrected! I have a Comcast DVR (Scientific Atlanta SA8000HD).

 

[geerlingguy]

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.

We must remember that this is speculation. I do not think Apple would be stupid enough to not allow some sort of downloading. Part of the reason the subscription music services are down in the dumps is because they initially had no way for people to put the music on portable devices. Apple's model for iTunes works.

Surely Apple sees that hard drive storage is increasing by a vast amount every year, and storage on personal hard drives of movies (especially compressed H.264 files) will not be a huge deal. Plus, if Apple does it right, people could burn movies off to DVDs (with copy protection still on them) and pop them into their Macs when they want to watch them.

The only problem I foresee is the fact that Front Row only works on Macs (justly so!), but that problem could be overcome by turning the Mac mini into a more 'Tivo-like' device - more of an appliance than a computer. Then the whole 'Mac vs. PC' debate would be invalid, since a person or family wouldn't be purchasing the mini as use as a main computer.

 

[iTron5]

I stand corrected! I have a Comcast (Scientific Atlanta SA8000HD) DVR.[/QUOTE]

I don't know about this particular model, but with my hd box from cox cable ( something like motoroal 6320 or something ), i can use firewire and a couple programs apple provides in their firewird sdk to pull video off of my cable boxes including the above hd pvr from cox. It's not nearly as nice a solution as pulling the video off of my replays but it does work. Don't know if you have any interest in doing this but you might check into it. I don't recall the program name, but a search probably on this site or maybe avsforum should turn up results. I'm not at home or i would post the names of the programs.

 

[iMeowbot]

How much bandwidth is required to stream H.264 at 1080i?

20-50Mbps, depending on options. (can be less depending on the content.)

 

[ShavenYak]

How much bandwidth is required to stream H.264 at 1080i? I know my cable company uses about 16Mbps to get it done. Right now my internet connection approaches 10Mbps. I imagine H.264 does a lot better than Mpeg-2 for compression. This could work...

I stand corrected! (I have a Comcast - Scientific Atlanta SA8000HD DVR)

Well, MPEG-4 does decent standard definition at 2 or 3 Mbps, figure four times the data for four times the resolution and you're sitting right at 10Mbps. I have 384kbps broadband, and the fastest I can get is 3Mbps. So if there's HD to be downloaded, Apple's going to have to let me store the files locally at least at some time, because I can't stream it. I'll wait eight hours to watch an HD movie I like - that's still less time than it would take Netflix to mail it to me.

I have an 8000HD also. Man, I wish there was a way to archive the shows off it. You can hook the analog stereo and composite video outs to a standalone DVD recorder, but the quality leaves a LOT to be desired. And the firewire ports look really cool sitting on the back, but they are non-functional.

 

[stoid]

Well if they do HD h.264 and expect users to mac mini, it's going to have to have one HELL of a processor since decoding 1080p requires a dual 2.0 G5!

Of course if they go 720p which would be reasonable I think (also more bandwidth capable) they would only need a single G5 1.8 (or a 2.8Ghz intel Pentium).

 

[besler3035]

Okay, first off, the article says iDisk - NOT .Mac. Now I know in order to use iDisk, you need to have .Mac (I'm a subscriber myself). But do you think that Apple could open a portion of iDisk to everyone? That's one option.

Another option is to have specific content only for .Mac subscribers, like Apple does with third party software packages and GarageBand loops. Might be a big positive of .Mac. I'm sure Apple knows that their subscriptions for .Mac aren't exactly high right now, and this might make people want to have it. After all, .Mac is accesible on Macs and PCs.

Or heck, why not make .Mac free?

 

[neutrino23]

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?

You beat me to it. Clearly, if Apple goes this route, there are a number of advantages to this. The number of copies of the files is greatly reduced. You don't have to wait for the file to download to view it. You can start watching almost immediately after purchasing. Just like streaming QuickTime the software will probably buffer a minute or two ahead to smooth out network stalls. There is a lot to like about this.

On the other hand, there are serious objections. What about viewing content on your laptop or iPod when you don't have a network connection? I think we'll have to wait and see what Apple does before getting too worked up.

Perhaps, like with music, there will be a way to treat the iPod as a write-only device. Movies could be sent to the iPod but not read out. Currently it is possible to get songs back off an iPod. However, with a firmware change it shouldn't be that hard to disallow getting files out of an iPod.

Maybe the same would apply to a laptop. You could download the low resolution file for viewing away from a network connection while at home where you have the network connection and your large screen TV you can stream the high resolution HD version of the content.

It certainly seems that Apple has been testing the waters of digital streaming lately. Last years MWSF keynote was streamed at 24 fps (move rate) and at quite high resolution. A few months ago there was a period where suddenly downloads from Apple happened at something like one megabyte per second.

This baby step towards the digital age might be enough to keep everyone in the game till we're ready for the next step.

 

[ShavenYak]

i can use firewire and a couple programs apple provides in their firewird sdk to pull video off of my cable boxes including the above hd pvr from cox. It's not nearly as nice a solution as pulling the video off of my replays but it does work. Don't know if you have any interest in doing this but you might check into it. I don't recall the program name, but a search probably on this site or maybe avsforum should turn up results. I'm not at home or i would post the names of the programs.

I'ts VirtualDVHS. I've tried it with my DVR (from Charter) and it does not work.

 

[iHavenolife]

I read the there was a lot of piracy the other day in The Wall Street Journal.
Could be good or bad.

 

[stuBCN75]

Well, this does not sound so great to me. If this is true then does Apple presume we all have big fat ADSL connections ? Mine is only 1Mbit, which i know is pants, but it's the best I can get at my current location.

I would also be not so keen on having to buy a .Mac account, I already pay for hosting elsewhere. I would rather Apple expand the iTunes store to a iMedia store, at least I can download stuff to my Mac in the same way I do when I buy music.

To be honest I am getting a bit fed up with DRM stuff, it would be nice to get a CD quality copy of a song when I buy it. It would also be nice if i am no strangled by Apples DRM.

I just reinstalled my OS and I had to re-authorize my tunes I had bought. I also bought most of them on my laptop. So now i only have 3 'lives' left ! I did by the blo**dy music, it seems a bit unfair. Does it ? It looks like I will have to buy the music again in a few years when I have run out of DRM 'lives'

 

[GFLPraxis]

I haven't seen ANY indication that you won't be able to have it on your hard drive. Sounds to me like it will auto-backup to your .Mac so you can stream it to any Mac online, but I see no reason you can't also have it on your Mac.

 

[nagromme]

I don't buy it. Why store the content on Apple's media servers AND on their iDisk servers, AND in their caches? Why add the extra bandwidth, storage, and complexity for the user? Just stream from Apple's media servers directly to the caches to you.

All the user needs for their "library" is a LIST on Apple's servers. No need to involve iDisk.

But if there's some truth to this, then:

a) BOO media companies and their insistence DRM (I don't blame Apple, I blame the media companies and the pirates). I know, the ship has sailed. But it's a reason to look closely at the terms, and for some people to just say No.

b) It's time for a lower-end .Mac package. Dare I say free? Otherwise it would be needlessly limiting the customer base.

Free .Mac would include two things at a minimum: first storage, but ONLY for the paid content (sort of like signing up for iTunes is free, but you pay for songs). And secondly, it would include what should have always been free: a mac.com email address. NOT Webmail--I guess that costs Apple too much--but a simple FORWARDING address you could use as your Reply-To. No server space needed from Apple, then. And it would get "@mac.com" in front of lots and lots of non-Mac email recipients. Good for mindshare.

I imagine some truth hides behind all this, but not in the form it appears. As TS suggests: what if you want to watch a movie on a flight?

This may simply be a small, heavily-restricted toe-in-the-water type feature. Much like video on iPods. Something the press and rumors made FAR too much of in advance, but Apple was smarter--they made it a SMALL feature, just an "extra" on a MUSIC player. So maybe this rumor is true, it's just not as BIG a deal as it could be. Yet. Sometimes "limited appeal" and a slow start are a fine strategy--as long as it's not "THE reason" to own a Mac Mini.

I can believe the direct-to-iPod part. Sure, people will find ways to extract the files from there, but the iPod versions won't be the full-quality original video--and may not be easy to play even if they're extracted, if computers themselves are never "authorized."

 

[neutrino23]

Well if they do HD h.264 and expect users to mac mini, it's going to have to have one HELL of a processor since decoding 1080p requires a dual 2.0 G5!

Of course if they go 720p which would be reasonable I think (also more bandwidth capable) they would only need a single G5 1.8 (or a 2.8Ghz intel Pentium).

That is if the decoding is done through the CPU. The better way to do this is through the GPU. Here is ATI's take on it.

http://www.ati.com/technology/h264.html

This is currently how your DVD player works with MPEG2. Think of a Mac mini as a glorified DVD player with a graphics chip that can decode H.264 as well as do a number of other neat tricks. As pointed out above this could obviate the need of working with Windows. Apple wouldn't distribute this as an application (like iTunes or QuickTime). Instead it would be an appliance that happens to use OS X underneath the Front Row interface.

 

[ShavenYak]

Or heck, why not make .Mac free?

I've thought for some time that they should offer a free ".Mac lite", with a smaller iDisk allocation and maybe banner ads on Homepages. Perhaps tie it to a hardware purchase, and make it good for like three years. With additional revenue coming from video sales, this might be plauible.

 

[dernhelm]

So does this mean .mac will be opened up for everybody? I'd be ticked if I actually purchased .mac for a year, and then had this open up. Unless of course, this is only available for .mac subscribers, in which case anyone on a windows machine would be out in the cold.

I dunno, seems a bit odd all around...

 

[Cooknn]

I'ts VirtualDVHS. I've tried it with my DVR (from Charter) and it does not work.

So have I. For HDTV content - at least for me - everything is encrypted.

 

[Yvan256]

agreed - seems a little weird to me. Also begs the question of what if you're not a .Mac subscriber?

Isn't .Mac exclusive to OS X users anyway? What about those on dial-up and low-speed DSL/cable? What about those with metered service (pay-per-GB)?

Seems way too complicated and limiting if you ask me. Also very costly for Apple (bandwidth usage).

And as someone said, such a method wouldn't work with the new 5th gen. iPod.

 

[DCBass]

Isn't .Mac exclusive to OS X users anyway? What about those on dial-up and low-speed DSL/cable? What about those with metered service (pay-per-GB)?

Seems way too complicated and limiting if you ask me. Also very costly for Apple (bandwidth usage).

And as someone said, such a method wouldn't work with the new 5th gen. iPod.

Good point. If Apple went this route, they would obviously have to open up .Mac, at least a portion of its services, to pc users. I also think that if this is the case, that apple should have some baseline free services mentioned in the post above.

Peace.

 

[CaptainScarlet]

Booo! If I buy something, I want it on my hard drive for archival purposes.

Do you REALLY need on your hard drive if you watch it maybe once or twice???

I sure in hell wouldn't want it around...


It's just like renting a movie from blockbuster...once you pay for it, watch it, you return it and it's gone!!

 

[dashiel]

here's an interesting thought... one of the ways that video compression works is by comparing two frames and only changing the pixels on the screen that are different between the two. obviously camera shifts, loads of action etc... are hard to compress and take more filesize/bandwidth.

perhaps apple is planning a system that downloads the more complex frames to a secure location on your hard drive at the initial purchase the rest of the content gets streamed to you. they could also do something where they send you ipod video quality video that would handle transferring the content to ipod and also a situation where your internet connection drops. broadcast television already does this to an extent, but instead of lower quality video you get digital blocking.

it would certainly make piracy more difficult with content DRM's with fair play and with content split in two locations. not that i care about DRM, but obviously the media companies do.