[awcopus]

While Apple was in this generous mood, giving away album artwork (much of which, by the way, will be going directly to music pirates), they should have considered that maybe people who purchased 320x480 videos within the last 11 months might be due some kind of consideration in downloading 640x480 versions of content they already bought.

But, alas, looks like this isn't an option. No half-off pricing, for example, which would have been, I think, fair.

Moreover, when I go to the iTunes Store, it won't even show me the episodes of BSG, for example, that I already bought. Pretty annoying.

[Elektrix]

I doubt Apple could work out the licensing, etc. to give the new upgraded content to people at a lower price.

[awcopus]

This is where I see the value of a value-based annual membership fee. I'm not fan of the subscription model, but if, for example, Apple charged a fee that enabled you to download upgrades like this, I think I'd probably be on board.

[memory-minus]

Does it say somewhere that all content prior to 9/12/06 has been re-encoded in 640x480 resolution, or are we just assuming that it has? I originally took the announcement to mean all movies are encoded in 640x480, not TV shows and no previous content. I'm not trying to be smart or sarcastic -- I would actually like to know because if so, perhaps we could convince Apple to let us re-download our purchases at the increased resolution.

[Oversoul]

This issue could really present a disincentive for iTunes shoppers to buy shows/movies now. As if other considerations weren't enough to detract from buying movies online, now what if I buy a movie in 640xXXX format only to have Apple, some time later, offer higher resolution downloads?

[imitchellg5]

The iTunes Store is part of iTunes, not the iPod. Therefore this should be in "Applications" not iPod.

[memory-minus]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

The iTunes Store is part of iTunes, not the iPod. Therefore this should be in "Applications" not iPod.

Did you have anything useful to contribute to this thread?

[Cadaver]

Originally Posted by awcopus

While Apple was in this generous mood, giving away album artwork (much of which, by the way, will be going directly to music pirates)

Why would you say that?
I have a large library of music that I've purchased on CD for which there is no art on iTunes. Now there is. How is that contributing significantly to the pirates?

[brokenjago]

Originally Posted by memory-minus

Does it say somewhere that all content prior to 9/12/06 has been re-encoded in 640x480 resolution, or are we just assuming that it has? I originally took the announcement to mean all movies are encoded in 640x480, not TV shows and no previous content. I'm not trying to be smart or sarcastic -- I would actually like to know because if so, perhaps we could convince Apple to let us re-download our purchases at the increased resolution.

I don't know if it says it anywhere, but I know Steve Jobs said it had been done during the keynote.

Everything, including Music Videos and TV shows have been upgraded to 640x480.

[parsec_kadets]

Hey, here's an idea. Maybe I should call Paramount and ask them to give me a new DVD copy of Back to the Future, which I bought on VHS back in 1989. I mean, I bought the movie right, I'm entitled to every future version of that movie that Paramount dreams up right? Or maybe I should call up RCA and complain that they didn't give my dad a copy of that Miles Davis record that they re-released on CD.

Somehow I don't think that will fly. You bought the video at the old resolution, and there's nothing stopping you from continuing to enjoy the video at that size. The only way Apple would owe you a new version is if they reached into your system and deleted the file.

[stwain2003]

Originally Posted by awcopus

While Apple was in this generous mood, giving away album artwork (much of which, by the way, will be going directly to music pirates), they should have considered that maybe people who purchased 320x480 videos within the last 11 months might be due some kind of consideration in downloading 640x480 versions of content they already bought.

But, alas, looks like this isn't an option. No half-off pricing, for example, which would have been, I think, fair.

Moreover, when I go to the iTunes Store, it won't even show me the episodes of BSG, for example, that I already bought. Pretty annoying.

i *strongly dislike* *cough* people like you. ok. just because YOU purchased something that is outdated doesn't mean that they should give you the latest and greatest for a discount!!

[awcopus]

Originally Posted by Cadaver

Why would you say that?
I have a large library of music that I've purchased on CD for which there is no art on iTunes. Now there is. How is that contributing significantly to the pirates?

I say that because a huge number of people have an enormous amount of pirated music on their computers. The fact that I'm not among them and you're not among them, doesn't mean they don't exist and won't benefit same as we will from Apple's generosity.

[awcopus]

Originally Posted by stwain2003

i *strongly dislike* *cough* people like you. ok. just because YOU purchased something that is outdated doesn't mean that they should give you the latest and greatest for a discount!!

Latest and greatest? We're talking about identical video content at 640x(up to)480 versus 320x240. Not a Mac Pro versus a G5, or 5G iPod vs. 3G iPod.

Apple should discount the video content, but not because I deserve it or am somehow entitled to it. I don't and I'm not. Feel better now?

I'm suggesting that it's poor customer relations on Apple's part not to figure a way of incentivizing repeat business from me. It's lost revenue for Apple because most people will make the decision I'm making, essentially to forego "upgrading" my existing iPod Video downloads.

Apple's 640x480 offering, in light of what Jobs was promoting at the recent event, is likely to be short-lived. Consider the idea that people are going to spend $2000+ on an HDTV and then cheap out with 640x480 content streamed from a computer in the other room via a $300 wireless connection? Riiiight. Forget about using higher resolution DVDs/HD-DVDs/BluRay Discs.

Apple started releasing these videos within the last year. So, one might assume that 12 months from now 640x480 will be replaced by Apple with something approaching HDTV's widescreen 720p specification. Why buy now? How much money are customers likely to spend on the same program?

It's a shame that people like me are upsetting to you, but I hardly think that's our fault. Good luck with the cough.

[memory-minus]

Originally Posted by parsec_kadets

Hey, here's an idea. Maybe I should call Paramount and ask them to give me a new DVD copy of Back to the Future, which I bought on VHS back in 1989. I mean, I bought the movie right, I'm entitled to every future version of that movie that Paramount dreams up right? Or maybe I should call up RCA and complain that they didn't give my dad a copy of that Miles Davis record that they re-released on CD.

Somehow I don't think that will fly. You bought the video at the old resolution, and there's nothing stopping you from continuing to enjoy the video at that size. The only way Apple would owe you a new version is if they reached into your system and deleted the file.

DRAMA QUEEN. I was only suggesting Apple might throw its most loyal first adopters (i.e. people who have been purchasing video iPods and video content in the past 11 months) a bone that would cost them a fraction of a penny per video in bandwidth for a re-download. Christ!

The old resolution looked shitty on my TV, which kept me from purchasing many videos. This new resolution looks quite decent so I plan to purchase more. It'd be nice to not have to pay to upgrade my old stuff, that's all. It's hardly a VHS to DVD scenario.

[brokenjago]

Originally Posted by memory-minus

DRAMA QUEEN. I was only suggesting Apple might throw its most loyal first adopters (i.e. people who have been purchasing video iPods and video content in the past 11 months) a bone that would cost them a fraction of a penny per video in bandwidth for a re-download. Christ!

I might add that they pay a large majority of the cost of the video to the Studio that owns the content, so they'd be losing quite a bit of money reselling the video at a lower price.

[parsec_kadets]

Exactly. Apple is merely a distributor. The decision on whether to give you a new copy isn't up to them, it's up to the company that producded the video (i.e. Paramount, Disney, NBC, etc). I'm sure Apple would love it if the studio gave you the video for free, but you still paid their $2 (or whatever) distribution fee.

[memory-minus]

Originally Posted by parsec_kadets

Exactly. Apple is merely a distributor. The decision on whether to give you a new copy isn't up to them, it's up to the company that producded the video (i.e. Paramount, Disney, NBC, etc). I'm sure Apple would love it if the studio gave you the video for free, but you still paid their $2 (or whatever) distribution fee.

BS. If you, for whatever reason (hard drive crash, accidental deletion, etc), lose your purchased downloads, you can email iTunes customer service and they will let you re-download them. Do you really think Apple is paying the studios TWICE for every time they allow someone to re-download a song/video they've already purchased? Nope. Try again.

[icruise]

Well, try telling them that your hard disk crashed...

[slpdLoad]

In my opinion it really is the same difference between wanting to get a discount on a "newer" video iPod. Apple upgraded their product. This time it was an upgrade in resolution. The will upgrade their products again. If you want an upgraded product, you get to pay what Apple wants you to pay. Sorry to hear that you bought a product before something better replaced it, but Apple doesn't care. Welcome to the world.

Originally Posted by memory-minus

BS. If you, for whatever reason (hard drive crash, accidental deletion, etc), lose your purchased downloads, you can email iTunes customer service and they will let you re-download them.

Maybe I'm just misinformed, but is that really the case? I always remembered reading that it was your own responisbility to back up your music, and you were just out of luck if you lost your purchased music. That's pretty interesting if it's true though.

[icruise]

Well, I've heard of that happening, but it's not official policy as far as I know.

[chrisutley]

Those "big" 640x480 movies are going to look like crap if you try to upsize them to full screen on an HDTV, over the HDMI or component connections on that iTV box. I can't figure out why they would offer HDMI unless they are going to provide HD quality content at some point. This is probably going to be a huge battle with the content providers, since digital DVD or HD quality content freaks them out in terms of piracy.

Regardless, there's that HDMI port ... I can't imagine they don't have serious intentions of providing TV and film in HD at some point.

[slpdLoad]

Originally Posted by chrisutley

Those "big" 640x480 movies are going to look like crap if you try to upsize them to full screen on an HDTV, over the HDMI or component connections on that iTV box. I can't figure out why they would offer HDMI unless they are going to provide HD quality content at some point. This is probably going to be a huge battle with the content providers, since digital DVD or HD quality content freaks them out in terms of piracy.

Regardless, there's that HDMI port ... I can't imagine they don't have serious intentions of providing TV and film in HD at some point.

The soon-to-be-released iTV has component output, which is of very hight quality.

[memory-minus]

Originally Posted by slpdLoad

Maybe I'm just misinformed, but is that really the case? I always remembered reading that it was your own responisbility to back up your music, and you were just out of luck if you lost your purchased music. That's pretty interesting if it's true though.

It's true. Trust me.

[memory-minus]

Originally Posted by chrisutley

Those "big" 640x480 movies are going to look like crap if you try to upsize them to full screen on an HDTV, over the HDMI or component connections on that iTV box.

Not nearly as bad as the original 320x240 resolution.

[slpdLoad]

Originally Posted by memory-minus

It's true. Trust me.

Cool, good to know!

[brokenjago]

Official iTunes Store policy is that if you lose your music through some unfortunate mishap, too bad.

Don't know what the unofficial one is.

[parsec_kadets]

Originally Posted by memory-minus

It's true. Trust me.

Then why does the iTunes support page include this?

Why do I need to back up my music library?
Be sure to make regular backups of your music files (in your iTunes Music folder) by copying them to an external hard disk or other media. Otherwise, if your hard disk becomes damaged or you lose any of the music you've purchased, you'll have to buy any purchased music again to rebuild your library.

Also, let's say Apple improves the quality of the music downloads. Do you expect them to give you new copies of all your music too?

[hardcat1970]

it's just like when you buy a director's cut of a dvd, then the studio release a new ultimate cut of dvd. you won't get a discount on the new upgrade neither. Look at how many copies of terminator 2 flowing out there. It's just the nature of the business world.

[giggs11]

Just wanted to mention that I found this thread hilarious, though not surprising in the technology culture of entitlement.

Let's see, my car is a couple years old and the model has since been refreshed. Wonder if they'll give me half off of a new model. I mean, I figured they'd just keep the model exactly the same in perpetuity.

[Apple2Mac]

Premium bandwidth costs $35 per Megabit when purchased in bulk like Apple would, so

$35 = 1Mbps = 320GB = 327680MB

The average TV show at 640x480 is 515MB

327680 / 515 = 636

35 / 636 = 0.0550314465

So if the TV show was 515MB it would cost Apple $0.06 to let someone download it, if there were 1 million users to all re-download the episode it would cost Apple $55,031.45
I really don't see Apple offering free downloads, the cost adds up real fast
__________________

[MovieCutter]

Yes, you have an excellent point. I am starting a class-action lawsuit to sue the movie companies who wouldn't give me free DVDs of all the movies I have on VHS. I will also be suing them for not giving me HD-DVD and BLuRay copies of the movies I own on DVD.

You're argument is stupid and inherently flawed.

Originally Posted by memory-minus

DRAMA QUEEN. I was only suggesting Apple might throw its most loyal first adopters (i.e. people who have been purchasing video iPods and video content in the past 11 months) a bone that would cost them a fraction of a penny per video in bandwidth for a re-download. Christ!

The old resolution looked shitty on my TV, which kept me from purchasing many videos. This new resolution looks quite decent so I plan to purchase more. It'd be nice to not have to pay to upgrade my old stuff, that's all. It's hardly a VHS to DVD scenario.

Yeah, you're full of it too. You paid $1.99 for a 320x240 video file. That's what you got. Apple owes you NOTHING MORE. Who's the drama queen now? More like a cry-baby. And stop with that "most loyal first adopters" bullsh!t. I've been an Apple customer since the late 80's and have spent $20,000 in the last year alone on Apple products, I got what I paid for and I'm not complaining.

[awcopus]

Originally Posted by Apple2Mac

Premium bandwidth costs $35 per Megabit when purchased in bulk like Apple would, so

$35 = 1Mbps = 320GB = 327680MB

The average TV show at 640x480 is 515MB

327680 / 515 = 636

35 / 636 = 0.0550314465

So if the TV show was 515MB it would cost Apple $0.06 to let someone download it, if there were 1 million users to all re-download the episode it would cost Apple $55,031.45
I really don't see Apple offering free downloads, the cost adds up real fast
__________________

Thank you for that information. Based on your figures, if Apple did what I suggested in the first post of this thread-- charge 1/2 price for resolution upgrades, or $1-- Apple would generate $940,000.00 and good will with customers.

The original post was about Apple creating a compelling reason for people who bought content A 320x480 at $1.99 to buy content A 640x480 at the same price. These are not Director's Cuts, there is no additional content, and the resolution jump, though significant in percentage terms, doesn't reach the HD specs of the TVs that Jobs wants us to connect our computers to.

Somebody thoughtfully observed that Apple is probably quite limited in what they can charge for videos by the various producers with whom they have contracts. Fair enough.

Might Apple offer some kind of tiered pricing structure where people pay a membership fee (cash up front) and get to download content at whichever resolution Apple offers it at as long as they're a member in good standing. You still own the content, the fee is not a subscription. Just a way of saving money over time for customers and generating income for Apple for offering a value-added service.

I think Apple's promise of low-fi wireless connectivity for movie playback is pretty underwhelming to people who have invested in a flat screen setup.

[MovieCutter]

They'll offer HD video when it's feasible, i.e. bandwidth allows for downloads in less than a week and it doesn't eat up half the hard drive on a Mac Mini. They are perfectly in line with both what the market allows/tolerates and what they are ABLE to do feasibly.

[memory-minus]

Originally Posted by MovieCutter

Yeah, you're full of it too. You paid $1.99 for a 320x240 video file. That's what you got. Apple owes you NOTHING MORE. Who's the drama queen now? More like a cry-baby. And stop with that "most loyal first adopters" bullsh!t. I've been an Apple customer since the late 80's and have spent $20,000 in the last year alone on Apple products, I got what I paid for and I'm not complaining.

Dude, you blew my comments way out of proportion. All of you have. I was just thinking about asking Apple to allow a re-download, but I was not demanding it nor am I complaining that it probably won't happen. Show me where I demanded a re-download. Customers aren't allowed to ask a company for anything? Suddenly it's entitlement or equal to asking for a new car? It's an infinitely reproduceable digital download whose only expense is a fraction of a penny bandwidth cost, not a physical item with actual labor and material cost. Can you tell the difference?

And yes, your Apple penis is MUCH bigger than mine. You win.

[memory-minus]

Originally Posted by parsec_kadets

Then why does the iTunes support page include this?

To discourage people from asking.

Originally Posted by parsec_kadets

Also, let's say Apple improves the quality of the music downloads. Do you expect them to give you new copies of all your music too?

Maybe, maybe not. But I'll probably ask anyway.

[memory-minus]

Originally Posted by Apple2Mac

PSo if the TV show was 515MB it would cost Apple $0.06 to let someone download it, if there were 1 million users to all re-download the episode it would cost Apple $55,031.45

Pocket change to a company like Apple.

[Apple2Mac]

Pocket change! no it isn't, fist off iTunes Music store runs on razor thin margins, something as simple as this would put it in the red. How many millions of users would re-download their content. It adds up and in the end it would shave maybe $0.01 cent off of Apples earnings per share, that may not sound like a big deal but trust me it is huge.

[brokenjago]

Don't forget that in addition to bandwidth costs, they'd pay about $1.60 to people like Disney, ABC, Fox News, etc to allow the redownload of the content. SO in the end it would be more like 1.6 million dollars...

[memory-minus]

Originally Posted by brokenjago

Don't forget that in addition to bandwidth costs, they'd pay about $1.60 to people like Disney, ABC, Fox News, etc to allow the redownload of the content. SO in the end it would be more like 1.6 million dollars...

Incorrect. See my post above.

[memory-minus]

Originally Posted by Apple2Mac

Pocket change! no it isn't, fist off iTunes Music store runs on razor thin margins, something as simple as this would put it in the red. How many millions of users would re-download their content. It adds up and in the end it would shave maybe $0.01 cent off of Apples earnings per share, that may not sound like a big deal but trust me it is huge.

If they made it a voluntary program that only the users who asked or complained were offered, I'm willing to bet less than 5% of all users who downloaded video content in the past 11 months would participate. Coincidentally they would all be registered MacNN forums users. Most people would just not care.

Personally, I submitted a politely worded request to re-download my videos. I am awaiting a response and will report back.

[icruise]

I agree with both sides of this issue, actually. It's true that when you download something from the iTS, you are agreeing to download whatever it is (music, video) in a particular format (resolution, bit rate, etc) and if Apple upgrades the format, you have no legal right to demand that they allow you to download the new versions.

However, from a customer service standpoint it makes sense to allow people to do this. I basically haven't downloaded any video from the iTS because I thought that it wasn't a good deal compared to ripping your own DVDs, and even bumping the resolution to 640 x 480 doesn't really change my mind. But if I had spent lots of money building up a collection of videos, you can bet that I would be upset to see that the people who waited to start buying videos would get better quality than the early adopters who contributed to the store's success. It might sound stupid, but knowing that part of my collection is of lesser quality might even put me off from buying more videos in the future.

None of us knows the details of Apple's licensing agreement, so I don't know if it would be feasible for them to just allow everybody to redownload their videos, but it does seem like they should make some kind of allowance for the people who really care about this kind of thing. They aren't obligated to do so in any way, but it would generate a lot of goodwill.

[memory-minus]

Originally Posted by Icruise

None of us knows the details of Apple's licensing agreement, so I don't know if it would be feasible for them to just allow everybody to redownload their videos, but it does seem like they should make some kind of allowance for the people who really care about this kind of thing. They aren't obligated to do so in any way, but it would generate a lot of goodwill.

My point all along is, and I reiterate, if Apple is willing to let you re-download all your purchases if you accidentally delete your library (just email them and ask), why not allow those who want to upgrade to the higher resolution videos? The cost to them is negligible and the goodwill immeasurable.

[phrenzy]

While it may not be Apple's OBLIGATION to allow re-downloading of purchased content at a higher resolution, it certainly does not make me want to buy anything from them now.

Don't try to compare this to a tangible good like an actual DVD either. That is an incorrect analogy. The proper comparison would be to a piece of software that upgrades a point release. Sure, some companies will charge for a point release and others won't. Guess which company has more loyal customers?

The whole point of downloadable content restricted by DRM is that you are buying a LICENSE to play it. You are not buying a physical object. With all the restrictions placed on video downloaded from iTunes (can't burn to dvd, etc) you would think they would at least want to be fair about allowing paying customers the benefit of content that has no other difference other than being encoded at a higher resolution.

If they allowed re-downloading like this, it would go a long way to actually showing a clear ADVANTAGE to using the ITMS for video content over a DVD. As it is, there is NO difference, except that I can actually BACK UP a DVD if I want to, and even loan it to friends. I can NOT do this with ITMS content.

Look, if any of the shows differed in some way other simply being a higher (watchable) resolution then I could see charging, but to charge full price to simply re-download content you have already bought the license for at full price is pathetic.