[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by climber 

Technically I am still on the sidelines. Regardless of the quality of the PS3, I refuse to hook it up to a preamp that costs five grand. From an aesthetic standpoint alone it is just wrong! I also does not meet all of my requirements, specifically relating to audio.

I'm in the same camp. I have my PS3 hooked up to my LCD in the family/game room, but I refuse to use one as my primary BD player in my HT. It may be a bit of snobbery, but I want a higher quality (and more attractive) unit attached to my RDC 7.1. Currently I'm waiting to check out the Integra Research DB/Universal player, coming out later this year, before I pull the trigger on anything high-end.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm in the same camp. I have my PS3 hooked up to my LCD in the family/game room, but I refuse to use one as my primary BD player in my HT. It may be a bit of snobbery, but I want a higher quality (and more attractive) unit attached to my RDC 7.1. Currently I'm waiting to check out the Integra Research DB/Universal player, coming out later this year, before I pull the trigger on anything high-end.

Oh, COME ON. I have a PS3 connected to a Denon 5802. Granted it's an older machine but you can't tell me that you're not connecting a PS3 to your HT because of THAT reason.

You have to stop thinking "it's a toy", it's not. That's the beauty of today's hardware.

[climber]

Originally Posted by starman 

Oh, COME ON. I have a PS3 connected to a Denon 5802. Granted it's an older machine but you can't tell me that you're not connecting a PS3 to your HT because of THAT reason.

You have to stop thinking "it's a toy", it's not. That's the beauty of today's hardware.

Yep, snobbery at it's finest, guilty as charged. I almost bought a PS3 for a temp solution until something better is actually shipping. But the lack of audio support turns me off. The remote control issue bugs me also. The final kicker is my son's insistence that Dad would be stupid to get one. They have a 360 in the basement and state there are no good games. I also cringe at the idea of them playing games through my B&W's. They have their room, I have mine.

[Shaddim]

My main issues with the PS3 are: it doesn't have coax for digital sound, it doesn't fit well in my rack, it visually doesn't match well with the rest of my gear, and it won't work with my Pronto remote.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Eug 

HD movie downloads are about 6 GB.

Originally Posted by starman 

Eh, no. Lots of people checked the sizes of the files on HD and BR discs and they were in the 18-25GB range.

Originally Posted by goMac 

Good for them? Eug was talking about HD download file sizes.

Originally Posted by starman 

No.
Sh*t.

I was pointing out the difference in what you're getting from a download vs. Blu-Ray.

Jeez, man, what is your problem today?

Meh. It just sounds like you're covering your ass, cuz that's certainly not what you said.

Originally Posted by starman 

Oh, COME ON. I have a PS3 connected to a Denon 5802. Granted it's an older machine but you can't tell me that you're not connecting a PS3 to your HT because of THAT reason.

You have to stop thinking "it's a toy", it's not. That's the beauty of today's hardware.

There are a lot of people who don't want a PS3 anywhere near their home theatre system, just because it's a "toy". I'm not one of them, but it's nonetheless, that's the truth. The PS3 is a console, smells like one, and looks like one.

It wouldn't be so bad if it integrated better (like with IR), but it doesn't, so that's another strike against it.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

My main issues with the PS3 are: it doesn't have coax for digital sound, it doesn't fit well in my rack, it visually doesn't match well with the rest of my gear, and it won't work with my Pronto remote.

Well, you can get an optical to coax converter for something like 12 bux. The remote part is a deal-killer IMO though.

[goMac]

The high definition video format war isn't over. It has just begun... | Computerworld Blogs

When you look at the HD format wars this way, the Blu-Ray (or specifically physical disc) camp seems to be the serious long term underdog. With a $400 price of entry and significant per-title cost, consumers want the format that will be around in 5 years, not something that will be obsolete in 1-2 years.

With Internet speeds increasing (A 100Mbps fiber connection is faster than a Blu-Ray read speed 36Mbs-72Mbs) and the ability to download full 1080 HD movies on the horizon. Portability concerns are being addressed as well. Apple is makes their content able to play on any device connected to the AppleTV account.

While Blu-Ray currently offers the best viewing experience and other benefits in storage and archival areas, its recent win vs. HD DVD is only the begining of the HD fight – a fight which I think Blu-Ray will eventually lose.

[Shaddim]

We've all said that eventually HD downloads will be more successful, in about 5+ years.

[climber]

Please explain how the "significant per-title cost" compares to downloads. For rentals it seems they are about equal at around five bucks each. They certainly could not be talking about purchase of a disk could they? As you can not purchase a download at this point. And even if you did there is no better guarantee about future compatibility. In fact less so.

Then what about the cost for a download player. How much is the apple TV again, not that much less than a Blu-ray player.

The fact is that current internet speeds are NOT fast enough on average to support the same quality as Blu-ray. Many do not have connections that are fast enough for 720 conveniently. Maybe we will all have 100Mbit fiber optic connections next week. Anyone here have it now? I doubt it. Don't get me wrong, I would love it if that happened sooner rather than later. But if the progress over the last 10 years is any indication of the future, most of us have a very long wait.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

We've all said that eventually HD downloads will be more successful, in about 5+ years.

Except we're looking at 100 Mbps connections as early as next year from the cable companies..

[goMac]

Originally Posted by climber 

Then what about the cost for a download player. How much is the apple TV again, not that much less than a Blu-ray player.

The AppleTV is half the cost of a Bluray title, and significantly cheaper per title.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Except we're looking at 100 Mbps connections as early as next year from the cable companies..

and another 5 years for it to reach most people and become affordable.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

and another 5 years for it to reach most people and become affordable.

Nope. No wiring upgrades are needed. DOCSIS 3.0 works on the existing cable infrastructure. All you need is a new cable modem. (Actually, it's possible your modem might just need new firmware.)

And the standard was already approved in 2006, so it's already finalized.

[Shaddim]

So, I'd have to give up actually owning the movie and I'd need to go back to Comcast (ugh). No.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

So, I'd have to give up actually owning the movie and I'd need to go back to Comcast (ugh). No.

Your choice. Unless you watch each of your movies 6 times, AppleTV is cheaper. Plus I doubt FIOS will be standing idly by.

To extrapolate on what I said, the cable companies don't have much of a choice. By 2010 we really need to have everyone moved over to IPV6. It's a tall order, but around 2010-2011 we run out of IPV4 addresses. Because IPV4 is not forwards compatible with IPV6 addresses, we really need to have all clients on the internet on IPV6, or else we'll have people cut off from portions of the internet.

The current DOCSIS 2.0 standard does not support IPV6, forcing the cable companies to upgrade every user on their network to DOCSIS 3.0 by 2010/2011. Most of the cable companies have been preparing for this over the last few years. Comcast has already moved everything up to the home to IPV6, and is pretty much ready to move to DOCSIS 3.0. The cable companies have also been backing their networks with more fiber.

DOCSIS 3.0 does 171 Mbps or 343.04 Mbps. It has the potential to be upgraded to, at the discretion of the network operator, 1 Gbps. 171 Mbps is enough to stream 3-5 Bluray quality movies at once, or around 34 AppleTV quality movies at once.

When you understand that this is where we will be in the next few years, internet downloading beating Bluray doesn't look so crazy. FIOS also has these sorts of speeds at their disposal, but they're holding out as they don't have much of a reason to give users these faster sorts of speeds with cable being so slow right now. The only real loser in this case is DSL.

[goMac]

Some iTunes Movies are being added within days of the DVD release:
iTunes Rental availability outperforms promises - The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Your choice. Unless you watch each of your movies 6 times, AppleTV is cheaper. Plus I doubt FIOS will be standing idly by.

I don't care about cheaper, never have. I want the best quality and that's Blu-ray.

When I can download a movie and it's mine, even burn it to disc for a backup, and it's the same quality as Blu-ray, then I'll consider it. I'd miss the nice packaging though.

[climber]

GoMac just does not get the fact that many people like to collect or own movies. They do the same for music. How long has the market tried to sell us that one?

This argument is pointless until the speeds you claim are actually here. Until then the best term for it is vaporware. Or perhaps someone can coin a new phrase that fits. The point is that those speeds are not the norm, and most people are not willing to wait hours to watch a movie.

If the results of this poll indicate anything, downloads have already lost.

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Your choice. Unless you watch each of your movies 6 times, AppleTV is cheaper. Plus I doubt FIOS will be standing idly by.

Wow dude, you are really myopic aren't you. Not only are you ignoring large segments of the US population that could not get FIOS even if they wanted but the rest of the world as well.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I don't care about cheaper, never have. I want the best quality and that's Blu-ray.

Great. I doubt the market at large will care as much.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

When I can download a movie and it's mine, even burn it to disc for a backup, and it's the same quality as Blu-ray, then I'll consider it. I'd miss the nice packaging though.

The packaging? Really?

Originally Posted by climber 

GoMac just does not get the fact that many people like to collect or own movies. They do the same for music. How long has the market tried to sell us that one?

What are you talking about? Online music downloads have been a huge success. Are you saying having digital copies makes your collection less of a collection?

Originally Posted by climber 

This argument is pointless until the speeds you claim are actually here. Until then the best term for it is vaporware. Or perhaps someone can coin a new phrase that fits. The point is that those speeds are not the norm, and most people are not willing to wait hours to watch a movie.

The spec is finalized and by 2010-2011 it has to be implemented or else the internet is screwed. I don't think it gets any less vaporware than that.

Originally Posted by climber 

If the results of this poll indicate anything, downloads have already lost.

Wasn't Bluray losing in the Bluray/HD-DVD poll?

Originally Posted by aristotles 

Wow dude, you are really myopic aren't you. Not only are you ignoring large segments of the US population that could not get FIOS

Just because your city doesn't have entrenched FIOS doesn't mean everyone else doesn't. Portland, for example, has full FIOS coverage except for some parts of downtown.

Originally Posted by aristotles 

even if they wanted but the rest of the world as well.

Seriously? The rest of the world is doing just great with internet speeds. Asia and most of Europe have far better internet than we do. Japan is on average at 60 Mbps. Korea 45. And France is at 20.

And when I said every person on cable internet needs to be upgraded to DOCSIS 3 by 2010-2011, I didn't just mean US users. Worldwide cable users need to be upgraded to DOCSIS 3. The European version is actually faster than the US version.

[climber]

Originally Posted by goMac 

What are you talking about? Online music downloads have been a huge success. Are you saying having digital copies makes your collection less of a collection?

Music subscription services or rentals of course. How successful have those been? Especially compared to purchases through itunes.

Originally Posted by goMac 

The spec is finalized and by 2010-2011 it has to be implemented or else the internet is screwed. I don't think it gets any less vaporware than that.

Yea yea, the sky is falling! What you fail to grasp is that the general increase in speed for the US is more than just changing specs. It requires substantial investment by businesses that are trying to make some money. If DVD is replaced by downloads in the future that would mean up to a 100 fold increase in the current internet bandwidth. Do you honestly think these companies are going to do this for free? Don't bother answering, I remember you once saying the Government will make increasing prices against the law (or something to that effect). I suppose if that is the case that explains why speeds have remained fairly constant the last couple of years.

I have got news for you. These companies do NOT have to give you 100Mbit internet at the same price as 2Mbit.

Originally Posted by goMac 

Wasn't Bluray losing in the Bluray/HD-DVD poll?

Yep it looks even more bleak for Blu-Ray's competition this time around

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Great. I doubt the market at large will care as much.

So what? Blu-ray will be big for many years, not as big as DVD, but plenty successful for HT enthusiasts like me. The fact of the matter is, I couldn't care less if only 5-10% of movie lovers go for Blu-ray, that's plenty enough to continue releasing discs and fulfilling my needs. I don't care what the rest of the market does. I was a laserdisc customer for almost 10 years and it was a much smaller segment.

The packaging? Really?

Yep, the cases, the inserts, the graphics on the discs themselves, I enjoy it all.

[Montezuma58]

I don't think downloads will ever be widespread unless things get standardized. Right now you have unique hardware tied to specific sources to get the movies. With DVD and Blu-Ray I can go buy any brand player and don't have to worry about who I get the content from. If circuit city goes tits up I can go to best buy, amazon, or almost anywhere else and still get movies.

Then you have to worry about which studios have deals with which services. Just look at the recent dealings with the iTunes video store to see how this is a problem. Unless this get sorted out it will make the HD DVD/Blu-Ray studio alignment issue look simple.

[jokell82]

That really only matters if you have movie sales via download, not rentals. For rentals it doesn't matter if devices have interoperability, as you'll only have the movie for a day or two.

And Apple has a deal with every major studio, and had them all before Blu-Ray did.

[MacinTommy]

I found this article on exactly what this topic is about. Blu-ray Won the Battle, but Now Comes the War - Bits - Technology - New York Times Blog

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

So what? Blu-ray will be big for many years, not as big as DVD, but plenty successful for HT enthusiasts like me. The fact of the matter is, I couldn't care less if only 5-10% of movie lovers go for Blu-ray, that's plenty enough to continue releasing discs and fulfilling my needs. I don't care what the rest of the market does. I was a laserdisc customer for almost 10 years and it was a much smaller segment.

That's fine, but this thread isn't about your household specifically...

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Yep, the cases, the inserts, the graphics on the discs themselves, I enjoy it all.

Seems kind of nit picky to me. I mean, I miss the old software boxes with thick manuals, but that hasn't really hurt my adoption of digital downloads for software...

Originally Posted by climber 

Music subscription services or rentals of course. How successful have those been? Especially compared to purchases through itunes.

Music is different though. Are you going actually going to claim that consumers don't understand the idea of renting movies? The existing movie rental market is very successful. Renting movies is not a new idea.

Or maybe you should tell Blockbuster and Netflix that no one wants to rent movies.

Originally Posted by climber 

Yea yea, the sky is falling!

Yeah, running out of IP addresses really isn't a big deal. It only would mean that we couldn't add new servers and users to the internet. That's all.

Originally Posted by climber 

What you fail to grasp is that the general increase in speed for the US is more than just changing specs. It requires substantial investment by businesses that are trying to make some money.

Substantial investments like Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon have made?

Originally Posted by climber 

If DVD is replaced by downloads in the future that would mean up to a 100 fold increase in the current internet bandwidth. Do you honestly think these companies are going to do this for free?

Yep.

Originally Posted by climber 

Don't bother answering, I remember you once saying the Government will make increasing prices against the law (or something to that effect).

That's completely not what I said. I said the government would be against internet companies selectively filtering certain kinds of traffic. Given the Net Neutrality legislation, it's safe to say the government has already made their position clear.

Originally Posted by climber 

I suppose if that is the case that explains why speeds have remained fairly constant the last couple of years.

No, the reason speeds have remained fairly constant is because the current networks have run out of throughput. The current cable DOCSIS standard only supports up to 40Mbps, most of which is being used right now for proprietary services like OnDemand and so forth. Cable is literally out of throughput, so is DSL. As soon as DOCSIS 3.0 comes out, cable won't be as restricted anymore, leading to them increasing their available bandwidth to compete with FIOS and wireless services, leading to FIOS increasing their bandwidth.

Cable finally getting more bandwidth will start the competition for internet speeds all over again. Right now internet speeds aren't moving because no one can compete because no one has the bandwidth to spare.

Originally Posted by climber 

I have got news for you. These companies do NOT have to give you 100Mbit internet at the same price as 2Mbit.

Sure they are. I think 100 Mbit will actually be the standard speed. They won't give us the full 360 Mbps, but 100 Mbit sounds about right.

Here's a better reason why cable companies will increase our bandwidth: With stuff like IP telephony, cable companies need to increase bandwidth for their own services. It's in the interests of the cable companies to increase their internet bandwidth offered for their own services.

Originally Posted by climber 

Yep it looks even more bleak for Blu-Ray's competition this time around

You know, you AV people knew what you were talking about in the Bluray/HD-DVD thread. But when it comes to the internet and non-AV technology you don't seem to have as firm a grasp on stuff. I doubt any of you knew anything about DOCSIS 3 or the IPV6 transition which is a very big deal.

[climber]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Music is different though. Are you going actually going to claim that consumers don't understand the idea of renting movies? The existing movie rental market is very successful. Renting movies is not a new idea. Or maybe you should tell Blockbuster and Netflix that no one wants to rent movies.

What I and others have been trying to get you to understand is that the current market for DVD's and Blu-ray disks is comprised of Rentals AND Purchase to own segments. While it makes complete sense that downloads will become a convenient alternative to current rentals once the bandwidth is fast enough, It is certainly far from certain that people will stop buying the disks to put in their personal collection. And yes I know a lot of people purchase movies and only watch them a couple of times. For many it would be cheaper to rent a couple of times. But for some silly reason they like to buy them off the rack at the local store.

Why do you think the current internet rentals cost so much? Heck they are every bit as expensive as renting from the store but they cut out the costs of the disk, distribution and the B&M store. The studios are trying to maximize their profits as much as they can, thats why. The studios also like the profits from selling disks via stores like Wallmart and Best Buy give the studios higher profits than they could get to any rental method including downloads. The point is that regardless of your suggestions, physical media is NOT going to go away anytime soon. The public likes it and the so do the studios. That is why Toshiba gambled millions on HD-DVD.

Originally Posted by goMac 

Yeah, running out of IP addresses really isn't a big deal. It only would mean that we couldn't add new servers and users to the internet. That's all.

That's completely not what I said. I said the government would be against internet companies selectively filtering certain kinds of traffic. Given the Net Neutrality legislation, it's safe to say the government has already made their position clear.

No, the reason speeds have remained fairly constant is because the current networks have run out of throughput. The current cable DOCSIS standard only supports up to 40Mbps, most of which is being used right now for proprietary services like OnDemand and so forth. Cable is literally out of throughput, so is DSL. As soon as DOCSIS 3.0 comes out, cable won't be as restricted anymore, leading to them increasing their available bandwidth to compete with FIOS and wireless services, leading to FIOS increasing their bandwidth.

Cable finally getting more bandwidth will start the competition for internet speeds all over again. Right now internet speeds aren't moving because no one can compete because no one has the bandwidth to spare.

Sure they are. I think 100 Mbit will actually be the standard speed. They won't give us the full 360 Mbps, but 100 Mbit sounds about right.

Here's a better reason why cable companies will increase our bandwidth: With stuff like IP telephony, cable companies need to increase bandwidth for their own services. It's in the interests of the cable companies to increase their internet bandwidth offered for their own services.

You know, you AV people knew what you were talking about in the Bluray/HD-DVD thread. But when it comes to the internet and non-AV technology you don't seem to have as firm a grasp on stuff. I doubt any of you knew anything about DOCSIS 3 or the IPV6 transition which is a very big deal.

I am sorry but I just do not understand your logic. You seem to agree that the current bandwidth needs to be fixed and that companies are having to invest lots of money, but you fall down on the part about them charging more for it.

I am not going to go back and re-read your posts, but I believe you said that the government will not allow the bandwidth to be limited by the internet providers due to increased usage. You were arguing against the suggestion that download caps and surcharges will increase the cost of movie downloads. Someone pointed out that some companies do that now. You said the government will stop it. So at this point what do you believe, that market forces alone will give most of us 100Mbit in a year, or will the Gov mandate it via a new law?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by climber 

What I and others have been trying to get you to understand is that the current market for DVD's and Blu-ray disks is comprised of Rentals AND Purchase to own segments. While it makes complete sense that downloads will become a convenient alternative to current rentals once the bandwidth is fast enough, It is certainly far from certain that people will stop buying the disks to put in their personal collection. And yes I know a lot of people purchase movies and only watch them a couple of times. For many it would be cheaper to rent a couple of times. But for some silly reason they like to buy them off the rack at the local store.

You do realize iTunes is a mixed buy/rent service, right? Not all movies are rent only. Regardless, renting is still cheaper until you watch each movie 6 times. And you can keep the file and just get a new license for it.

Originally Posted by climber 

Why do you think the current internet rentals cost so much? Heck they are every bit as expensive as renting from the store but they cut out the costs of the disk, distribution and the B&M store. The studios are trying to maximize their profits as much as they can, thats why. The studios also like the profits from selling disks via stores like Wallmart and Best Buy give the studios higher profits than they could get to any rental method including downloads. The point is that regardless of your suggestions, physical media is NOT going to go away anytime soon. The public likes it and the so do the studios. That is why Toshiba gambled millions on HD-DVD.

No, Toshiba gambled millions on HD-DVD because they're a physical media company. Toshiba isn't exactly going to turn around and invest in online downloads...

Originally Posted by climber 

I am sorry but I just do not understand your logic. You seem to agree that the current bandwidth needs to be fixed and that companies are having to invest lots of money, but you fall down on the part about them charging more for it.

Do you not understand the concept of market competition? By your argument, every new Mac that Apple comes out with should cost more than the last one. But this isn't true, because of market competition.

Originally Posted by climber 

I am not going to go back and re-read your posts, but I believe you said that the government will not allow the bandwidth to be limited by the internet providers due to increased usage.

No, that's not what I said, and if you're going to claim that's what I said, you better go back and read it. I said that internet companies are not likely to try to block stuff like iTunes or reduce the bandwidth because that's monopolistic. You can't decrease the bandwidth to rival services in order to push people to your own. That's against the law. Comcast, for example, couldn't try to clamp down on iTunes bandwidth in order to drive people to OnDemand. That's illegal. And shortly, with Net Neutrality, it will be very clearly laid out in the law.

Originally Posted by climber 

You were arguing against the suggestion that download caps and surcharges will increase the cost of movie downloads.

Right, and that is illegal.

Originally Posted by climber 

Someone pointed out that some companies do that now.

No one does this now. What someone pointed out is that one company was experimenting with charging per MB.

Originally Posted by climber 

What I and others have been trying to get you to understand is that the current market for DVD's and Blu-ray disks is comprised of Rentals AND Purchase to own segments. While it makes complete sense that downloads will become a convenient alternative to current rentals once the bandwidth is fast enough, It is certainly far from certain that people will stop buying the disks to put in their personal collection. And yes I know a lot of people purchase movies and only watch them a couple of times. For many it would be cheaper to rent a couple of times. But for some silly reason they like to buy them off the rack at the local store.

You do realize iTunes is a mixed buy/rent service, right? Not all movies are rent only. Regardless, renting is still cheaper until you watch each movie 6 times. And you can keep the file and just get a new license for it.

Originally Posted by climber 

Why do you think the current internet rentals cost so much? Heck they are every bit as expensive as renting from the store but they cut out the costs of the disk, distribution and the B&M store. The studios are trying to maximize their profits as much as they can, thats why. The studios also like the profits from selling disks via stores like Wallmart and Best Buy give the studios higher profits than they could get to any rental method including downloads. The point is that regardless of your suggestions, physical media is NOT going to go away anytime soon. The public likes it and the so do the studios. That is why Toshiba gambled millions on HD-DVD.

No, Toshiba gambled millions on HD-DVD because they're a physical media company. Toshiba isn't exactly going to turn around and invest in online downloads...

Originally Posted by climber 

I am sorry but I just do not understand your logic. You seem to agree that the current bandwidth needs to be fixed and that companies are having to invest lots of money, but you fall down on the part about them charging more for it.

Do you not understand the concept of market competition? By your argument, every new Mac that Apple comes out with should cost more than the last one. But this isn't true, because of market competition.

Originally Posted by climber 

I am not going to go back and re-read your posts, but I believe you said that the government will not allow the bandwidth to be limited by the internet providers due to increased usage.

No, that's not what I said, and if you're going to claim that's what I said, you better go back and read it. I said that internet companies are not likely to try to block stuff like iTunes or reduce the bandwidth because that's monopolistic. You can't decrease the bandwidth to rival services in order to push people to your own. That's against the law. Comcast, for example, couldn't try to clamp down on iTunes bandwidth in order to drive people to OnDemand. That's illegal. And shortly, with Net Neutrality, it will be very clearly laid out in the law.

Originally Posted by climber 

You were arguing against the suggestion that download caps and surcharges will increase the cost of movie downloads.

Right, and surcharges for media downloads is illegal.

Originally Posted by climber 

So at this point what do you believe, that market forces alone will give most of us 100Mbit in a year, or will the Gov mandate it via a new law?

I never said anything about the government mandating internet speed. I think it would be nice if they took control of the backbones and forced some sort of quality of service onto the ISP's, but I don't think it's likely at this point.

The entire reason we're stuck at the same speed right now is because only one network has the capacity to go faster, and that is FIOS. FIOS has no reason to increase their speeds to consumers because they have no competition. As soon as cable is in a position to compete, we'll see speed war between the two.

And there's no telling what speeds the wireless services could get to. It won't be long before they're at the same speeds as cable, and they have an advantage of not needing a wiring infrastructure.

I don't think you have a good grasp of what the original discussion was about. If you don't want to go back and reread it, that's fine, but you're wasting my time with a lot of stuff that I never said that you think I said, or stuff I said that you've taken an entirely different meaning to.

[climber]

GoMac, having trouble with your cut and paste skills I see. Perhaps you should try and clean it up a bit.

Itunes rentals are NOT available in HD. I think you know why. I certainly did. Now if you would like a response you will at least have to try and understand what the poster is saying. I will make it simple.

People like to Buy disks. The studios like to Sell them. That is NOT changing.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by climber 

Itunes rentals are NOT available in HD.

Funny, I just rented Live Free or Die Hard in HD. Did Apple lie to me?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by climber 

Itunes rentals are NOT available in HD. I think you know why. I certainly did. Now if you would like a response you will at least have to try and understand what the poster is saying. I will make it simple.

Hil-ar-ious.

I'm going to take two guesses as to why. One, you could be one of those people who don't consider 720p in HD. Or two, you overlooked that because, as you have pointed out before, the AppleTV has HDCP that it can download HD content from iTunes.

[climber]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Funny, I just rented Live Free or Die Hard in HD. Did Apple lie to me?

Well unless I am mistaken, I thought you could only do that through a Apple TV directly. I do not use itunes very often, but I do have an Apple TV on my list.

Originally Posted by goMac 

Hil-ar-ious.

I'm going to take two guesses as to why. One, you could be one of those people who don't consider 720p in HD. Or two, you overlooked that because, as you have pointed out before, the AppleTV has HDCP that it can download HD content from iTunes.

Nice job at avoiding the point. But I will answer yours. Yes 720p is HD. It is better than SD but not as good as 1080p. I am aware of the HDCP issues. I have NOT upgraded my apple monitor for at least two years because of it. I still have the old plastic bevel 23" LCD. The one with the funky ADC (?)

Would you like to comment on the following this time: People like to Buy disks. The studios like to Sell them. That is NOT changing.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by climber 

Well unless I am mistaken, I thought you could only do that through a Apple TV directly. I do not use itunes very often, but I do have an Apple TV on my list.

It sounded like you didn't know HD downloads were available on the TV, but that's what I was referring to.

Originally Posted by climber 

Nice job at avoiding the point. But I will answer yours. Yes 720p is HD. It is better than SD but not as good as 1080p. I am aware of the HDCP issues. I have NOT upgraded my apple monitor for at least two years because of it. I still have the old plastic bevel 23" LCD. The one with the funky ADC (?)

Would you like to comment on the following this time: People like to Buy disks. The studios like to Sell them. That is NOT changing.

No one claims it's changing. But people like to rent discs too. A lot of them. And the studios like to sell them to the rental companies. There's no reason that both scenarios can't exist.

[goMac]

To further show what sort of internet speeds we'll get within the next few years:

Super-speed Internet satellite blasts off in Japan - CNN.com

Japan has launched a satellite which supplies 1.2 Gbps internet for consumers. All wirelessly, no wires.

You can't seriously argue with this sort of technology hitting the market that cable is going to sit at 6 Mbps for the next 5 years.

[Shaddim]

5 years ago a I saw a demonstration for 100Mbps access over powerlines, I'm sure it'll be along any day now...

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by goMac 

To further show what sort of internet speeds we'll get within the next few years:

Super-speed Internet satellite blasts off in Japan - CNN.com

Japan has launched a satellite which supplies 1.2 Gbps internet for consumers. All wirelessly, no wires.

You can't seriously argue with this sort of technology hitting the market that cable is going to sit at 6 Mbps for the next 5 years.

Actually, if that article is correct, the speed would be 9.6Gbps. The article mentions 1.2 gigabytes per second, and there are 8 bits in a byte.

[goMac]

Comcast has promised 100 Mbps consumer internet by next year.

So Fios is about halfway there about at best, and Comcast's 100 megabit per second connection, which it promised at CES would be a reality by 2009, could pull it off.

Digital downloads will be Blu-ray's downfall | Tech news blog - CNET News.com

Told you so?

[Shaddim]

By the end of 2009 they may have limited 100Mb access for a very (very) small area of the country. I'm all aquiver.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

By the end of 2009 they may have limited 100Mb access for a very (very) small area of the country. I'm all aquiver.

Again, the existing wiring will work just fine for 100 Mbit. Coax can transmit data at very high speeds. And according to the DOCSIS spec, they should be able to deploy it everywhere in very short order.

You don't have any proof backing up your claims, and the evidence points to them being able to deploy it very quickly. Read up on the DOCSIS spec. The networks are forwards compatible.

[Shaddim]

I'll believe it when I see >50% saturation. I'm sure all the ISPs are chomping at the bit to give people 100Mb access for the same price as 6. Yup, that'll happen any day now. Wait for it, wait for it...

[starman]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Comcast has promised 100 Mbps consumer internet by next year.



Digital downloads will be Blu-ray's downfall | Tech news blog - CNET News.com

Told you so?

It's in print so it MUST be true.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by starman 

It's in print so it MUST be true.

Ah, so now print sources are suspect?

I'll keep that in mind next time you post an article.

[starman]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Ah, so now print sources are suspect?

I'll keep that in mind next time you post an article.

Same. I'll even throw in an "I told you so?".

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh 

Laserdisc? Haven't bought one since 2000.

The more I read about the Apple TV, the more I am interested in one. Too bad I don't have an HD capable set.

I wanted to rent War of the Worlds after catching part of it on TV, but, alas, HD downloads are only for AppleTV owners and not iTunes. In addition, it wasn't even on the small list of movies available. I guess I have to rent a DVD from a B&M (I am not interested in how much everyone hates Tom Cruise, so save it. I just want to see the tri-pod effects.)

In a year or two, I'll likely get a blu-ray player unless downloads take off and can match the picture quality.

The PS3 also does video downloads