[goMac]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

If nobody needs or wants 1080p then why is Walmart now selling 1080p LCD and rear projection TV sets below 800 CAD?

Let's assume you're right. Let's assume there is significant demand for 1080p from the public. There is just one small problem...

Most of the content people watch won't be in 1080p.

Broadcast tv isn't 1080p, and if you're lucky, your average consumer will actually be viewing their broadcast tv at hd rather than just plugging in their SD cable box. And the funny thing is... consumers don't complain about the lack of 1080p broadcast tv. To them, 720p looks great. Heck, even a lot of the people plugging in their 480i cable boxes don't even notice, and actually *think* they're watching their content in HD.

So far the best anyone has been able to claim is that manufacturers are selling 1080p HDTVs. Shocking? Not really. TV manufacturers are always going to upgrade their tv's to try to get people to buy new ones. Are you saying that every feature a manufacturer adds to their devices are actually necessary for the consumer? If so, maybe you should try your hand at becoming a car salesman...

[mrtew]

I don't 'get' how AppleTV compares to Blu-ray either??? Isn't it more of a competitor to Pay-per-view or something like that? How is it even any different than that? I'd compare it to capturing a movie on HBO or even regular TV with your DRV except that you have to pay more and it evaporates after you watch it.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Let's assume you're right. Let's assume there is significant demand for 1080p from the public. There is just one small problem...

Most of the content people watch won't be in 1080p.

Broadcast tv isn't 1080p

Um, didn't I just state something to that same effect? That a lot of people that own 1080p TVs, haven't ever watched actual 1080p content on them?

But you see, the question from that point is, then WHY did they buy a 1080p TV, rather than pay less and get a 720p model?

Now sure, maybe there are a lot who just thought a higher number= better, no matter what, and then got home expecting the 1080p stat to make SD TV look like high def.

But there ARE actually people who bought/are buying/will buy 1080p equipment because they EVENTUALLY want to watch *gasp* the highest possible quality source. There are actually people who know that currently means either of the two HD disc formats.

Trying to claim decisively that for those people a 720p device is the "winner" of the HD format war, and what they've been waiting for, is a bit silly.

[dlefebvre]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Blu-ray's apparent victory may only be temporary, according to this.

Could Apple TV 2.0 End the High-Def Format War? MacWorld 2008 Analysis - Popular Mechanics

To me, my Apple TV will only hurt my Video Rental Store. I love to buy DVD and now Blu-Ray discs. I love my shelves filled up with my favorites movies and TV series. I also love the special features, I bought a lot of movies just for the Making of.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

But you see, the question from that point is, then WHY did they buy a 1080p TV, rather than pay less and get a 720p model?

Where is your evidence that people are actually buying more 1080p tvs? So far all we've agreed on is that more 1080p tv's are for sale, not that more people are buying them...

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

But there ARE actually people who bought/are buying/will buy 1080p equipment because they EVENTUALLY want to watch *gasp* the highest possible quality source. There are actually people who know that currently means either of the two HD disc formats.

Honestly, I doubt consumers are smart enough to realize this. I know plenty of people who plug in their 480i cables boxes into their TV's (TV's with QAM tuners BTW.) I know plenty of people who think their Wii's are running in HD. People simply don't care. It's like saying that the market for 4 cylinder cars is coming to an end because car manufactures have V6 cars on the market. Even if a consumer buys a V6 car, the likelihood that they'll be taking it on on their roads at 80 mph is low.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Trying to claim decisively that for those people a 720p device is the "winner" of the HD format war, and what they've been waiting for, is a bit silly.

Again, why? iTunes by default rips cd's at half cd quality, and iTunes tracks are half cd quality. By your logic, SACD should be destroying iTunes right now because SACD is a leap forward in quality, but iTunes is a leap backwards in quality. Yet, the exact opposite is true. Digital music downloads are destroying SACD sales.

[starman]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Where is your evidence that people are actually buying more 1080p tvs? So far all we've agreed on is that more 1080p tv's are for sale, not that more people are buying them...

I've been asking YOU for evidence for days and you have the audacity to ask someone else?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

Ok, so according to hyteckit, goMac and the rest of the HD DVD turned 720p downloads peanut gallery, nobody needs 1080p and yet a lot of people around the world (the US!=the world) are buying 1080p HDTV's, 1080p blu-ray players (including the PS3), 1080i HD Cableboxes/PVRs and a lot of 1080p physical media.

If nobody needs or wants 1080p then why is Walmart now selling 1080p LCD and rear projection TV sets below 800 CAD?

Hard to explain customer demand to someone who doesn't understand the basic concepts of supply and demand in the economic sense. Here is a short read.

Supply and demand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sony over estimate the demand for the PS3 and bluray. Sony wasn't selling much PS3's at $600 because the demand was not there for consumers to justify the cost when there are cheaper alternatives like the Wii and xbox 360. Once it hits $400, people start buying PS3 because the alternative xbox 360 was selling for $350.

How is Apple able to sell iPods for $400 when it came out, when you can get a portable CD player for $60 that offers you better sound quality? Because there was a demand for portable music device that can store 1000s of songs. Apple is still able to sell iPods that cost 600% more than a portable CD player. That is high demand.

When 42" Plasma TVs where selling $2000 to $3000 3 years ago, not many people were buying them because the demand for flat panel HDTV was not there for people to justify the cost because there are cheaper alternatives. Standard def Projection TVs over 40" were selling for $1500. These days a brand new standard def 32" Tube TV cost as much as a hi def 32" LCD TV. Still, not everyone is rushing out to buy a $500 hi def 32" LCD TV. Only 30% of US households have HDTV. This is low demand.

Amazon.com: Vizio VX32L LCD HD TV - 32", 1366x768, HDMI, 16:9, 0.51 x 0.51 mm Pixel Pitch: Audio & Video

Amazon.com: Sony KD32FS170 32" Trinitron WEGA Hi-Scan Digital Television: Electronics

Originally Posted by aristotles 

It's time to put down the crack pipe and the red Koolaid and face reality. The buying public has chosen Blu-ray as the next generation format and there was no payoff. Even if you want to continue to ignore the 2:1 disc sales lead all last year, you cannot ignore the 5:1 or greater lead in the rest of the world. The world does not revolve around the US anymore. All those international sales pushed Warner to blu-ray and there was no payoff and no Fox deal. It was a hoax just like the Disney rumor.

How are you HD DVD supporters spinning the 85:15 win for this week in the US? To put this into perspective, the average world ratio is now 7:1 in favor of Blu-ray. The fat lady is warming up as we speak.

The US market for Hidef physical media is larger than all the international countries combine.

It wouldn't matter if Blu-ray is beating HDDVD by 99:1. Doesn't mean Blu-ray will replace DVD or HD rentals will die. What is your point here? Blu-ray kicks HDDVD's @ss?

So what. Doesn't change the fact, demand for hidef is small. 30% of US households have HDTV. 10% of US households with 1080p HDTV. How many Blu-ray movies sold so far in the US? 5 million? How many in Europe? A little over 1 million?

How many people have bought from Apple iTunes alone? 125 million TV shows and 7 million movies according to Apple. So iTunes alone is beating Bluray by 95:5. Adding Amazon unbox, standard def movie downloads are beating Blu-ray 99:1, with Blu-ray sales less than 1%.

Should I start crying for hidef media now?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Where is your evidence that people are actually buying more 1080p tvs? So far all we've agreed on is that more 1080p tv's are for sale, not that more people are buying them...

I didn't even bring up who's buying more 1080p TVs. I was talking about people who HAVE bought 1080p, and did so for a reason. And if more 1080p TVs are on sale, then gee, wouldn't that kind of indicate more people are buying them? Personally, I don't really care how many people buy what, just this thread is about blu-ray and HD-DVD, so it would seem virtually anyone who gives a rip which format wins, would know it has to do with HD quality.

Honestly, I doubt consumers are smart enough to realize this. I know plenty of people who plug in their 480i cables boxes into their TV's (TV's with QAM tuners BTW.) I know plenty of people who think their Wii's are running in HD. People simply don't care.

I have to stop right here, because as I think has already been brought up in this thread, you're making the exact same argument people have heard before with earlier format changeovers. "Sorry dude, even if you just bought into that Super-Duper VHS with the S-Video and are really pissed at the prospect of it having been too little, too late, DVD IS here to stay!"

Just because you know people too stupid to tell the difference between 480i and 1080p doesn't mean that everyone is that blind or clueless, or that those clueless people will forever drive the HD market.

Again, why? iTunes by default rips cd's at half cd quality, and iTunes tracks are half cd quality. By your logic, SACD should be destroying iTunes right now because SACD is a leap forward in quality, but iTunes is a leap backwards in quality. Yet, the exact opposite is true. Digital music downloads are destroying SACD sales.

Again though, this is tied to the DEVICE people bought, and what they intend to use it for.

People buy millions of iPods and 25 or so Zunes in order to use downloaded digital music on them? YOU DON'T SAY!

People buy huge 1080p TVs in order to forever settle for less than 1080p content on them? Sure.

[icruise]

I'm not totally up to speed on the various digital video services out there. Do any of them allow you purchase HD movies, rather than just rent them? If not, I think it's a mistake to think that digital downloads are directly competing against optical media. Are we expected to transition from owning movies to an all "pay per view" system? I think there are some major psychological hurdles to overcome if that's the case. I for one enjoy collecting movies and having them available for me to watch at no cost. Even though the amount of money I spend buying DVDs or BR movies is almost certainly greater than the amount I would spend paying each time I watched a particular movie, I hate the idea of having to pay each time. Would digital music have done so well against CDs if we had to pay a fee every time we listened to particular song? I don't think so.

As a competitor to Blockbuster or Netflix, these services have potential (although I think they really need to be more generous with the rules). But replacing optical media all together? Not in their current form.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

But you see, the question from that point is, then WHY did they buy a 1080p TV, rather than pay less and get a 720p model?

Because the sales person tells them that 1080p is "FullHD" and the the 720p model isn't as good?

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Because the sales person tells them that 1080p is "FullHD" and the the 720p model isn't as good?

Which is true BTW.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

Which is true BTW.

Not universally. My 720p tv has a much sharper image than a friends 1080p tv.

[cSurfr]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

Which is true BTW.

Which is exactly why I told my parents that they don't need 1080p before they went to buy. They ended up with a 50" Panasonic 720p plasma. I'm jealous.

[mrtew]

Yeah my 720 looks a lot better than the 1080's in the store, but I heard that's because they use a crappy feed to demo them with. Makes no sense that my cable would be better than their beautiful scenery loops though. Since almost every source of HD is 720 though aside from a Blu-ray or HDdvd player maybe 720 actually does look better most of the time since it's not upscaling all the time, and even when you're using a Blu-ray disc then it's downscaling which might actually sharpen the image as any other type of downscaling does. My new theory is that 720 looks better in every situation, other than when you're sitting 4 feet from the screen and can actually see the individual pixels.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

Which is true BTW.

You're right. Pioneer should stop making their 720p Kuro displays because they suck compared to those Vizio 1080p LCDs...

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Check this out... more stuff that makes GoMac wrong as always:

"HD is coming in a lot of forms these days, but ZDNet's George Ou thinks some of them -- like Apple TV, Xbox Live Marketplace, ABC.com streaming and cable VOD -- don't count. Sure all of these sources are HD resolution, but George's argument is that due to overcompression and low bitrates, they don't compare with 1080p upconverted SD DVDs, much less Blu-ray or HD DVD."

Is Apple TV's (and Xbox Live and VOD's) HD truly high definition? - Engadget HD


"Up north, they're already charging by the bit. According to Bits, under Bell Canada's bandwidth pricing plan -- one which Time Warner it is looking to as a potential model for its own -- customers would pay $30 each time they rented an HD movie from Apple TV, on top of Apple's $3.99 rental fee. Even with gas prices where they are, driving to Blockbuster suddenly looks much more appealing."

Online Video: New Time Warner bandwidth plan could make Apple TV movies rent for $34

[BRussell]

That's such a misleading article on Apple TV. It's not directed at AppleTV movies, it's a usage cap and penalty for people who use the internet excessively. I think it's a bad idea, but it doesn't have anything to do with Apple TV specifically, let alone "charging $34 per AppleTV movie."

I personally look forward to getting an AppleTV and bypassing all the nonsense that is the subject of this thread. They're cheaper than these new generation of DVD drives and they do a whole lot more.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

That's such a misleading article on Apple TV. It's not directed at AppleTV movies, it's a usage cap and penalty for people who use the internet excessively. I think it's a bad idea, but it doesn't have anything to do with Apple TV specifically, let alone charging $34 per AppleTV movie.

Well duh they aren't calling it an Apple TV Cap but the end result is the same.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Not universally. My 720p tv has a much sharper image than a friends 1080p tv.

Originally Posted by cSurfr 

Which is exactly why I told my parents that they don't need 1080p before they went to buy. They ended up with a 50" Panasonic 720p plasma. I'm jealous.

Originally Posted by mrtew 

Yeah my 720 looks a lot better than the 1080's in the store, but I heard that's because they use a crappy feed to demo them with. Makes no sense that my cable would be better than their beautiful scenery loops though. Since almost every source of HD is 720 though aside from a Blu-ray or HDdvd player maybe 720 actually does look better most of the time since it's not upscaling all the time, and even when you're using a Blu-ray disc then it's downscaling which might actually sharpen the image as any other type of downscaling does. My new theory is that 720 looks better in every situation, other than when you're sitting 4 feet from the screen and can actually see the individual pixels.

Originally Posted by jokell82 

You're right. Pioneer should stop making their 720p Kuro displays because they suck compared to those Vizio 1080p LCDs...

How hard is this to understand?

480p < 720p < 1080p

It's a simple numbers game. 1080p offers a higher resolution that 720p. Whether ones input is as high of a resolution is another matter. What the salesman said is accurate: 1080p is "FullHD" and offers a "better" (i.e., higher) resolution than 720p.

Of course if your inputting 720p it might look better on a 720p display. But if you are inputting 1080p (HD-DVD/Blu-ray) it will definitely look better on a 1080p display than a 720p display.

[Eug]

It's a simple numbers game. 1080p offers a higher resolution that 720p. Whether ones input is as high of a resolution is another matter. What the salesman said is accurate: 1080p is "FullHD" and offers a "better" (i.e., higher) resolution than 720p.

There is no such thing as "FullHD", except in marketing materials.

Of course if your inputting 720p it might look better on a 720p display. But if you are inputting 1080p (HD-DVD/Blu-ray) it will definitely look better on a 1080p display than a 720p display.

That is not correct. Many 720p displays simply have superior picture quality to other 1080p displays, even with the same 1080p input.

That said, I agree with you. Most of this just doesn't matter, because it's the marketing the consumer will latch onto.

P.S. For the record, I made a conscious decision to buy all 720p displays (2 TVs and a projector). To get the 1080p equipment that was as good would have cost too much for my tastes. I was considering a 42" 1080p TV, but eventually chose a 720p model, because for the same money the 720p models hands down had the better picture quality. The get similar picture quality in a 1080p model would have meant a 35-50% higher price.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Well duh they aren't calling it an Apple TV Cap but the end result is the same.

No it's not the same at all. It's not "customers would pay $30 each time they rented an HD movie from Apple TV, on top of Apple's $3.99 rental fee." It's complete FUD. It wouldn't apply specifically or only to AppleTV movies, it wouldn't apply until someone reached a very high limit, and it's not even in place. It's utter nonsense.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by icruise 

I'm not totally up to speed on the various digital video services out there. Do any of them allow you purchase HD movies, rather than just rent them? If not, I think it's a mistake to think that digital downloads are directly competing against optical media. Are we expected to transition from owning movies to an all "pay per view" system? I think there are some major psychological hurdles to overcome if that's the case. I for one enjoy collecting movies and having them available for me to watch at no cost. Even though the amount of money I spend buying DVDs or BR movies is almost certainly greater than the amount I would spend paying each time I watched a particular movie, I hate the idea of having to pay each time. Would digital music have done so well against CDs if we had to pay a fee every time we listened to particular song? I don't think so.

As a competitor to Blockbuster or Netflix, these services have potential (although I think they really need to be more generous with the rules). But replacing optical media all together? Not in their current form.

I concur, people who are into HT, and collecting in general, like the boxes. I know I do. There's something about physically holding the disc case, seeing the cases in neat rows on your shelves, and digital downloads can't deliver that.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

Of course if your inputting 720p it might look better on a 720p display. But if you are inputting 1080p (HD-DVD/Blu-ray) it will definitely look better on a 1080p display than a 720p display.

Just to be clear, you think a 1080p signal will look better on a Vizio 1080p LCD than a Pioneer Kuro 720p display????

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

No it's not the same at all. It's not "customers would pay $30 each time they rented an HD movie from Apple TV, on top of Apple's $3.99 rental fee." It's complete FUD. It wouldn't apply specifically or only to AppleTV movies, it wouldn't apply until someone reached a very high limit, and it's not even in place. It's utter nonsense.

They would if it worked out that 1 gig costs you $6. Then a 5 gig movie from Apple would cost $30 plus the rental fee.

I can't find any hard numbers on what they're charging, though, so I don't know for sure.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

They would if it worked out that 1 gig costs you $6. Then a 5 gig movie from Apple would cost $30 plus the rental fee.

I can't find any hard numbers on what they're charging, though, so I don't know for sure.

Right, IF the policy was in place, IF the person reached the cap, and even then it would apply to ALL downloads, not just AppleTV movies.

I mean, it's like writing an article about a potential sales tax that's not even in place, and singling out one product and saying this one product will cost more, but not mentioning that even if it was in place it would only apply under certain rare conditions and it would apply to all purchases and not just this one. It's quite dishonest.

[edit] I think the policy itself would suck if enacted, and is basically anti-competitive in nature. I just think the article linked above is extremely misleading.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I concur, people who are into HT, and collecting in general, like the boxes. I know I do. There's something about physically holding the disc case, seeing the cases in neat rows on your shelves, and digital downloads can't deliver that.

It's not just the act of physically owning something, though (although I admit that's important). It's the idea of having to pay each time you watch something. I remember a while back when the local phone company went from a flat fee for local calls to charging $0.05 a call. Even though we probably ended up paying a little less under the new system, we didn't like to have to feel like we were actually paying money each time we picked up the phone. For my favorite movies, I'd really hate having to justify whether it was worth a few dollars to me each time I wanted to watch it. That's especially true if you only wanted to see a part of it.

The more I think about it, for digital downloads to actually replace optical discs, they either have to sell you the movies like iTunes has done in the past or do a subscription-based system, where you pay a monthly fee to have access to a certain library of titles.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

[edit] I think the policy itself would suck if enacted, and is basically anti-competitive in nature. I just think the article linked above is extremely misleading.

It's misleading in that it singles out the AppleTV, just like countless articles have singled out the iPod when they actually mean all MP3 players. But it's also true that policies like this could effectively kill online distribution of movies.

[starman]

I still don't like digital downloads for films because I have to back them up, which would cost a tremendous amount in terabyte hard drives.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Right, IF the policy was in place, IF the person reached the cap, and even then it would apply to ALL downloads, not just AppleTV movies.

I mean, it's like writing an article about a potential sales tax that's not even in place, and singling out one product and saying this one product will cost more, but not mentioning that even if it was in place it would only apply under certain rare conditions and it would apply to all purchases and not just this one. It's quite dishonest.

[edit] I think the policy itself would suck if enacted, and is basically anti-competitive in nature. I just think the article linked above is extremely misleading.

See I read an article that talked about it not being a cap, but a pay-per-gigabyte plan. If that were the case, then no matter what an AppleTV HD download would cost $34 if the price is $6/gig.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by icruise 

It's not just the act of physically owning something, though (although I admit that's important). It's the idea of having to pay each time you watch something. I remember a while back when the local phone company went from a flat fee for local calls to charging $0.05 a call. Even though we probably ended up paying a little less under the new system, we didn't like to have to feel like we were actually paying money each time we picked up the phone. For my favorite movies, I'd really hate having to justify whether it was worth a few dollars to me each time I wanted to watch it. That's especially true if you only wanted to see a part of it.

The more I think about it, for digital downloads to actually replace optical discs, they either have to sell you the movies like iTunes has done in the past or do a subscription-based system, where you pay a monthly fee to have access to a certain library of titles.

I generally agree, however there are way more movies I'd rather see once and forget about than own.

[starman]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

I generally agree, however there are way more movies I'd rather see once and forget about than own.

That's very true, that's what rentals are for. However, lots of movie buffs like myself would rather own than rent.

I'll give you a reason why: theaters suck nowadays. The turning point for us was "As Good As It Gets", one of the most harmless films ever made. There were these girls from the 'hood sitting in front of us that just kept talking back to the screen. Loudly. I finally asked them politely to keep quiet and I got the 'tude in my face. I never, EVER wanted to actually hit someone before in my entire life, but this bitch really got to me. So that was it and the movie theaters because before that incident, there were the parents bringing their kids to rated R movies, cell phones, etc. I finally realized it cost less to pay for the DVD than to actually go out. Yeah, rentals are less, but my wife and I went to the theater EVERY weekend so the cost wasn't really a factor, it was something we did anyway.

Then again, not many people I know collected 35mm prints either :/

[Shaddim]

I guess it comes down to whether a person is a "renter" or an "owner". Personally, all technical and quality issues aside (and there are several), I can't stand renting anything. The thought of putting money into something that I don't own makes me "itchy". My wife looked into leasing a car last year, a Cooper S, and the thought of it almost drove me nuts (heh). We just went and paid cash instead, despite the idiot salesman trying to push us into a lease for over 20 minutes.

Me: "I have cash."
Salesman: "But a lease will save you so much money!"
Me: "No, we're paying cash."
Salesman: "Well, the trade-in value was based on the idea it was a lease."
Me: "Bollocks. You quoted us a certain amount for her car and I'm holding you to it."
Salesman: "I need to clear this with my manager."
....
Manager: <walks up with salesman> "Everything ok?"
Me: "Frank, tell this fella that I'm paying cash."
Manager: "He's paying cash."
Me: "Do you want a check or do you want me to get a stack of $100s from the bank across the street?"
Manager: "A check is fine."

I don't rent movies, games, or anything that I feel I'm going to use or enjoy more than twice. Hell, I even bought a professional carpet cleaner. After renting a machine twice, in less than a year, I got irritated. Turns out it was a great idea, we use the thing quite a bit (stupid f@$%ing light carpet).

Anyway, it all depends on what kind of person you are.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by icruise 

It's misleading in that it singles out the AppleTV, just like countless articles have singled out the iPod when they actually mean all MP3 players. But it's also true that policies like this could effectively kill online distribution of movies.

I agree that it would be terrible for online movies, and you can see why a cable company like Time-Warner would want to do it.

But it's not even just movies - it would apply to anything downloaded. I don't think people use the term "iPod" when they're referring to all consumer electronics. And it's also misleading because it would occur only if you reached a certain (unknown) limit, and then, unknown charges would be incurred. They just made up some numbers based on other policies in other countries, and said "customers would pay $30 each time they rented an HD movie from Apple TV, on top of Apple's $3.99 rental fee." And they happened to say this right after Apple announces rentals. It's the definition of FUD.

[exca1ibur]

I like to watch a movie when I feel like at any time without reaching for my wallet, or being put on a curfew of 24 hours from purchase.

[starman]

Originally Posted by exca1ibur 

I like to watch a movie when I feel like at any time without reaching for my wallet, or being put on a curfew of 24 hours from purchase.

And I'll amend that by saying I'd like to watch a movie on whatever device I want in the best format.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by icruise 

It's not just the act of physically owning something, though (although I admit that's important). It's the idea of having to pay each time you watch something. I remember a while back when the local phone company went from a flat fee for local calls to charging $0.05 a call. Even though we probably ended up paying a little less under the new system, we didn't like to have to feel like we were actually paying money each time we picked up the phone. For my favorite movies, I'd really hate having to justify whether it was worth a few dollars to me each time I wanted to watch it. That's especially true if you only wanted to see a part of it.

The more I think about it, for digital downloads to actually replace optical discs, they either have to sell you the movies like iTunes has done in the past or do a subscription-based system, where you pay a monthly fee to have access to a certain library of titles.

Exactly. It was tough, but I finally found a good cell phone provider that was willing to do a reasonable flat rate on all of our phones, and that includes local, roaming, and long distance. The only thing we have to pay extra for are Int'l calls (and if I could get those added, I would).

Renting or per use charges just... ugh.

[starman]

BTW: The 'hack' to turn back your clock on your computer and get more time out of your rentals was DEBUNKED.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by starman 

I still don't like digital downloads for films because I have to back them up, which would cost a tremendous amount in terabyte hard drives.

I agree, and that's a problem with the iTS implementation. But I think they could just make a system where everything was streamed, or one like eMusic's, where you can redownload anything you have purchased.

Originally Posted by jokell82 

I generally agree, however there are way more movies I'd rather see once and forget about than own.

Of course, but that is what rentals are for. It's not an either-or proposition.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Poll: So, are you buying an Apple TV now? - Engadget HD

The results is what I expected.

[starman]

But...but....720p is good enough and....AppleTV is the future.

/snicker

[jokell82]

So 20% of geeks that know what 720p and 1080i/p mean are going to get an AppleTV now? That's a pretty good ratio I would think.

Imagine how appealing it is to people who don't know anything other than the fact that it plays HD.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

So 20% of geeks that know what 720p and 1080i/p mean are going to get an AppleTV now? That's a pretty good ratio I would think.

Imagine how appealing it is to people who don't know anything other than the fact that it plays HD.

Man, "geeks" are the only ones who would consider buying a device that streams video over the interwebs. The people who are most likely to buy an AppleTV are the same ones panning it due to lousy specs.

Well, back to the drawing board.

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

I generally agree, however there are way more movies I'd rather see once and forget about than own.

I was about to agree because I think most movies are terrible, but actually I'd rather own a good movie, and if it's not then not see it at all.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by starman 

But...but....720p is good enough and....AppleTV is the future.

/snicker

480i DVD movies: 5 to 8 mbps
HD Steaming: 1.5 to 4 mbps
XBOX360 Dloads: 6.8 mbps
HD DVD: 28 mbps (max)
Blu-ray: 40 mbps (max)
Uncompressed 1080p video at 60fps: 3000 mbps

Note: Apple reports HD movies will be about 5GB, which would represent a bitrate more on par with DVD standards.

Sad: HD Downloads Are Pretty Much Lies?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Poll: So, are you buying an Apple TV now? - Engadget HD

The results is what I expected.

So 50% of 1080p TV owners won't be getting an AppleTV. Since 90% of US households don't have a 1080p set, that leaves 95% of US households as potential market.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

So 50% of 1080p TV owners won't be getting an AppleTV. Since 90% of US households don't have a 1080p set, that leaves 95% of US households as potential market.

Damn, I wish I had your optimism... about anything, really.

[Shaddim]

BY SNITCH29 AT 02:35 PM

hey hey if M$$ & apple say its HD its HD OK, am just loving my apple tv right now, no subscriptions no waiting for movies in the mail, heck i won't even have to drive 5 miles to go to blockbuster anymore to find out the movie i want has been rented out or not available, just turn apple TV when ever i want to watch something and that it. Nice

Wow, it's HD for the Ritalin generation.

"Gimme the pellet NOW! NOW! NOW!"

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Note: Apple reports HD movies will be about 5GB, which would represent a bitrate more on par with DVD standards.

With a vastly superior codec.

[hyteckit]

I don't understand most of the arguments here.

Why can there be only one option? Either digital download is the only option or physical media is the only option?

When you are planning to get a car, you can choose to either lease or buy. I'll lease because the upfront cost is smaller and I want to drive a new car every 2-3 years. I'll buy if I want to mod the sh*t out of it and drive it for 10 years.

When it comes to movies, I will rent if I plan to watch the movie only once or twice. I will buy if I know I love that movie and plan to watch it multiple times.

For someone who wants to rent a movie, digital downloads is the future because they prefer the convenience.

For someone who wants to buy a movie, optical media is here to stay because they prefer the practicality.

I don't know why people are arguing why digital downloads is going to be dead or how physical media is going to be dead.

Digital downloads will dominate the market for those who want to rent.

Physical media will continue to be the norm for those who want to buy.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Damn, I wish I had your optimism... about anything, really.

You do when it comes to 1080p and 7.1 channel surround sound adoption rates. So don't feel all that bad about yourself.

Recent survey of the general public only shows about 17% who are really interested in HDTV while 55% have little to no interest.