Apple Adds New TV Shows To iTunes

Phaedo00 writes "Ars Technica is reporting that Apple has added eleven new and classic television shows from NBC, the Sci-Fi network, and USA. The new shows include Alfred Hitchcock, Battlestar Galactica, Monk, Surface, Conan O'Brien, Jay Leno, Dragnet, Law & Order, The Office and most importantly: Knight Rider!" From the article: "Steve Jobs took the opportunity to toot Apple's horn, stating that since the inception of video downloads on the iTMS, they'd sold nearly three million individual items. In addition to the sales figures, the PR from Apple stated that their current offering of video stands at approximately 300 episodes. All in all this looks like a slam dunk for Apple as they're rounding up their distribution deals and diversifying their suppliers. If the rumored deals with FOX and CBS are true then Apple will have a dominating lead in this market, much like their current domination in the digital music distribution arena."

Comments

When will the rest of the world sign on?

[mattyohe]

Evidently TV is still only downloadable at the US iTunes store.

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[British]

Which brings up an interesting problem: If this were available in the UK, how would the television license come into play? Would it be rolled up into the cost if you wanted to buy an episode of the UK Office? Since you don't need a tele to play it, just a computer or ipod.

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[IAmTheDave]

When will the rest of the world sign on?

Unfortunately, even if the rest of the world starts releasing programming, it won't be US based. BitTorrent's popularity is driven at least in part due to TV programming restrictions on an international level. Were iTunes to get Dr. Who in the UK, I still doubt it would be available for US users, continuing to leave people no legal way to obtain said programming.

It's like asking when DVD region coding will go away, and when a DVD/movie will have the same release date internationally. Despite the number of times Finding Nemo (etc) was pirated because it was on DVD here in the states even before it launched in theaters across the globe, people in charge of distribution and licensing will (seemingly) never get that it's a global world now.

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[iainl]

I don't remember paying an extra surcharge on DVDs here, so I fail to see this being any different; Apple should be in the clear.

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[BasilBrush]

It wouldn't. The TV license is a fixed fee for people who have a television. It isn't needed to watch video files on a computer.

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[TheRaven64]

It's like asking when DVD region coding will go away

DVD region coding is going away when DVD becomes HD-DVD or BluRay - neither supports region coding (something that really irritates me, since I travel between the UK and the USA quite a bit).

At some point the media cartels will have to start allowing world-wide licensing, for TV especially. If you can either download a show from BitTorrent today, or wait six months for it to be aired in the UK, which do you think sounds more attractive? I would love to be able to legally download a few US shows, and I would be more than willing to pay for the privilege - possibly at the US iTMS price, but not at the UK price, which is almost twice as much.

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[GreyPoopon]

Evidently TV is still only downloadable at the US iTunes store.

Even though I live in the US and have access to the TV shows, I avoid downloading them. Due to the DRM, there doesn't seem to be any way to burn the episodes to a DVD so that I can watch them on my TV without having to drag the computer over and connect it.

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[kmartshopper]

What is this rest of the world that you speak of???

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[Happy Monkey]

Well, the idea is to make sure viewers help fund BBC, so I'd assume some of the iTunes fee would go to the BBC. Which it would anyway.

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[Sockatume]

Technically it's a licence for people who use a television to recieve TV broadcasts. If you don't have an aerial hooked up and are willing to claim you only use the TV for, say, DVDs and videogames, you don't have to pay a licence. Inspectors are quite clear on this although neither the TV licencing site nor the BBC's spokespersons are especially keen to be.

Man, I'm pedantic.

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[Von Helmet]

If you have a TV licence for your house, then it covers all TVs within that house, as well as any and all TVs that can be powered solely from their own internal power source i.e. batteries at any other location. The iPod would qualify for that, so as long as you had a TV license at home (which you almost certainly would) then you'd be OK. If you didn't, then they might have to re-think things. That being said, it would only affect BBC programmes, as the license fee is only there to support the BBC as other channels are supported by commercials, so it would be entirely up to the BBC whether they even made their programmes available via iTunes.

Here's a Google-HTML-ised-PDF from the BBC website about some of the above.

Also, there has been talk - I think it's even been posted here on /. - of altering the TV licence to cover computers too, given that TV shows can be acquired (legitimately or not) through them, though I think it got smacked down at the time and I've not heard any more about it since.

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[Glsai]

I'm sort of torn about this. I recently cancelled my expanded cable service because there were only three shows I watched. Battlestar Galactica, Manchester United games, and the 4400. I figured I'd just start waiting on DVDs for the 4400, and with Manchester United I can go to my brother's house once a week and watch it there. But with Battlestar Galactica I wanted to keep watching it, but figured I'd be stuck with only watching it on DVDs when the season was over. This gives me a lot of hope that it is showing up on iTunes, and when I saw the headline I was hoping they'd have Battlestar Galactica, the only problem is that I'd want it to be able to burn to a DVD so I can get other people hooked on the show.

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[ppff]

I hope this service will be available in Canada soon.

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[frostilicus2]

Here's what wikipedia has to say:

"In the United Kingdom, these fees are set by Parliament and go directly to the funding of the BBC, enabling it to run without the need for market competition. The licence fee, initially for radio sets (exempt since 1971), was mandated by the 1904 Wireless Telegraphy Act. The fee was originally 10 shillings (£0.50) and in 2005 was £126.50 for colour TV and £42 for monochrome TV. There are concessions for the elderly (free for over 75s) and blind people (50% off). Only one licence is required per household. It is believed that approximately 5% of TVs are unlicensed. With the BBC's increased worldwide output (including its online services) there has been a debate as to the abolition of the TV licence, which has been denounced as a violation of the freedom to receive information without inteference. Generally, competing television companies favour the licence fee since it means the BBC will not compete with them for advertising or subscriptions. Proper debate of the licence fee is consistently suppressed by the BBC from its own airwaves. Numerous polls show significant public opposition to the fee.

According to the definition of TV receiving apparatus [1], a licence must be obtained for any device which is "installed or used" for receiving broadcasts, which potentially covers devices such as a tuner card in a PC or a portable television. However a television installed and used for some other purpose, such as a closed-circuit monitor, video player or a games console, is exempt provided the owner can demonstrate it is not used for receiving broadcasts.

Enforcement in the UK is provided by Capita Group and the AMV consortium. Capita agents are paid bonuses on the basis of the convictions they secure. AMV is an advertising and public relations agency. Several hundred thousand prosecutions are brought each year. Observations at magistrates court show that a very large proportion of those prosecuted are single women on benefits. Capita maintain a database of all addresses in the country, with electronics retailers being subject to large fines if they do not pass on the addresses of anyone buying television receiving equipment. Addresses with no licence are assumed to have a television, and are subject to repeated threatening mailshots and visits by the enforcement agency. In addition to the database, the BBC claims that electronic detectors are used to pick up the small amount of energy re-radiated by the local oscillator in the tuning circuitry. There is no evidence of any prosecution ever having been brought on this basis of this warrantless electronic surveillance and it is widely suspected that the famous detector vans are no more than mock-ups designed to intimidate viewers. It's open to doubt how well the much advertised detectors would work on a TV tuner card within the electrically noisy Faraday cage enclosure of a PC: the simpler method of calling round and looking for the aerial or an operating television would seem more effective. Note that, since the inspectors are not police officers or any other type of government official, they have no right to enter private property unless invited. Some feel that the scheme is as a regressive tax, in that the very poorest are those least likely to have a licence, and least able to pay the fine for not having a licence. A report ("TV sinners", March 1998) by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux pointed out that failure to pay the fine is the single largest reason for the imprisonment of single mothers. However, supporters of the licence fee claim that it helps maintain a higher quality of programming on the BBC compared to its commercial rivals. Some also claim that it also leads to better programmes on the commercial channels as they seek to draw viewers/listeners away from the BBC's output."

Any other questions should probably be directed here.

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[Fahrvergnuugen]

So the question I have is, Will americans have a shot of being able to download BBC shows like "Top Gear"? (instead of having to watch the edited / censored version that the discovery channel plays).

If not, I'll have to continue to download top gear via bittorrent...

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[lowrydr310]

Not only can you not burn the shows to DVD, at $1.99 an episode they're not exactly cheap. What's the quality like?

I thought about buying some iTunes shows, but if you wait long enough, you can usually pick up a DVD box set of certain shows for $40. You get high resolution video and sound, special features, and interactive menus.

For now, I'm satisfying my needs with BitTorrent. I like the TV show House (on Fox) but don't own a PVR and I'm usually not home the night it airs. So I turn to BitTorrent and I get a excellent copy of the broadcast a day or two after it airs. Now my only problem with BitTorrent is that my downloads average 15k/s even with a torrent that has 100 seeders and about just as many downloaders. I'm trying to get one torrent that has about 100 seeders and 400 downloaders. It's been open for two days and hasn't downloaded anything yet, but the tracker shows that it's still a healthy torrent. Any ideas?

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[lowrydr310]

Pick up a Philips DVP-642. They're about $60, can play MPEG and DivX movies from data CDs, and you can either remove or reset the region code with a few presses on the remote control. They're not exactly portable, but at that price you can buy two and keep one here and one there.

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[doubledoh]

Much of the speed of your download depends on the speed of your upload. If your upload speed is high, your download speed will typically be much higher too. My advice: increase your upload bandwidth and stop or pause other downloads/uploads if the desired file is a priority. Also, if you are behind a firewall or router, you need to setup port forwarding correctly with most clients.

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[evilspoons]

Hear, hear. I used to get Top Gear on BBC1 (or whatever it is we get on cable in Canada) but they moved it to another station and now I'm left using up large chunks of my montly bandwidth to pull in episodes of this show off of p2p services (i.e.: I also need to upload to get it.). I'd like to see these shows available locally by other means.

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wu-huh?!?

Edited, I can understand... it's a 30min show on an advert-less channel, so to fit it into a commercial channel's progamming slots, they'll probably drop parts of the show.

But 'censored'?

What on earth is there to censor in Top Gear? It's early-evening viewing over here in the UK. Surely there's nothing for the bible-thumping prissy fucks who run your TV over there to object to?

Bizarre.

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[lowrydr310]

I set the slider to the max upload speed based on my connection (I know those numbers are just 'suggestions' but I really don't think my cable connection can upload more than 25k/sec, though I could be wrong). My router is currently configured properly to allow port forwarding through the BitTorrent ports (6881-6889 I believe).

What is the share ratio all about? One of the settings in the control panel is set by default to seed until share ratio reaches 80%. Would seeding longer affect my ability to download faster?

I have several torrents queued, and when one completes the next in the queue doesn't immediately begin. Is this because it's waiting for the share ratio to reach 80% before beginning the next torrent? I'm fairly new at bittorrent, and so far I like the amount of content but I just don't see how it's as fast as everyone's raving about.

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[brunson]

What is everyone else in Canada doing while you're using all the internet?

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[squiggleslash]

I did a little Googling and while I found reports of announcements from the HD-DVD team that they'd provisionally decided against region encoding, I couldn't find anything similar vis-a-vis Blu-Ray. The latest was that sometime in January they'd said they hadn't decided yet - but it's not even clear about what they're undecided (eg. they said the same thing about DRM, by which they meant they weren't sure which scheme to go for. Region encoding could be gone, DVD style, one-per-country, or all manner of alternatives.)

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[whitearrow]

What's the quality like?

I downloaded the post-cancellation episode of Night Stalker from iTunes. The quality is only ok. 320 x 240. It looked acceptable on my 42" HDTV via TV out on my laptop, but far from great. Certainly not nearly as good as a Divx-encoded .avi from an HDTV feed. This service certainly isn't something I'd use as a replacement for my HD-DVR, but in case of emergency or unavailability elsewhere (as with the NS episode) I'm glad it's there. (Cancelling Night Stalker in the middle of a two-parter was particularly cruel on ABC's part, but I'm glad they made the second half available. Even if it did cost $2.)

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[mrchaotica]

The claimed upload speed of my cable connection is 384Kbps (i.e. 48KBps), and I've got my Bittorrent max upload to 40KBps. It works quite well (and leaves a little extra for browsing-related ACKs and such).

If your share ratio is 80%, you should pretty much already have the entire file by the time you reach it (since you should be able to download faster than you can upload). If you've already got the whole file, seeding longer doesn't make the slightest difference (except that you're being nicer to everybody else).

Also remember that your download speed can't be greater than the combined upload speed of the peers that are uploading to you. Right now I'm downloading a torrent at about 8KBps because I'm only connected to 3 seeds and 4 peers.

Another possible cause of the problem could be that your ISP is throttling your download. You could try switching to non-default ports (pick something randomly).

Finally, I personally use Azureus. One particular thing I like about it is the "Health" column, which shows the status of your conections by displaying little colored smiley faces. It's easy to see if you've got a port forwarding problem because all your icons will be yellow (as the help screen mentions).

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[fgrove]

What is everyone else in Canada doing while you're using all the internet?

Watching hockey.

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[PriceIke]

Perhaps the "analog hole" applies to video as well.

If you're on a Mac, buy yourself the full version--as in the video-capture version--of Snapz Pro X. Open Quicktime and watch the show, while Snapz captures the video to MPEG. You'll be left with a very large file, but at least it should be DRM-less.

I have not tried this yet, so I'm not certain it will work, but it's worth a shot. Does anyone else who has a similar utility (Mac or Windows) want to try this and report as to its success/failure?

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[Anonymous Coward]

What?

When was the last time you had to pay the TV licence fee to buy a BBC sell-through?

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[SneakyNinja]

The version I watch is an hour long, so you must have huge chunks missing from yours already ;-)

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this rest of the world that you speak of???

That would be countries who need a two-letter top level domain on their web sites to indicate that they are foreiners using our Internet.

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[Achromatic1978]

You gotta remember, most American TV networks don't like the word 'fuck' in their 'family viewing compendium'.

I'm not a big fan of Top Gear, but I do love watching some of the renovation style shows, particularly the ones where they have a habit of going to shit, and you get people, and presenters too, saying things like "Now we're used to flying by the seat of our pants, but this is a monumental fuckup. Someone's cocked up badly, and I'm going to have to kick their arse." I can see at least three bleeps there for American TV.

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[Anonymous Coward]

re"mailshots"?

Wow - shooting firearms at the viewer's mailbox - the Brits sure don't mess around! Perhaps the IRS could learn a few pointers, so far all they do is keep people fiscally screwed - but now they could fire live rounds at them!

Just imagine.

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[SquadBoy]

I have a couple of videos for mine. Including one music video that I bought, just to have something to show people you can't show pr0n to.

The quality is really good. Crystal clear, good framrate, stays in synch, all that good stuff. The stuff from suicidegirls was filmed for it and thus looks really good. The video loooks good but it's an old song (500 miles). All that said I could see watching a sitcom on it but certainly not anything like BG. It's just too small. That and watching video sucks battery at a prodigious rate.

I bought mine cause the time had come and it's the one that was best for the amount of dosh I wanted to spend. That said I would not get one *for* the video but at this point it's a nice bonus.

Oh and for the menu system the screen just *rocks*.

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[Lord Flipper]

There are concessions for the elderly (free for over 75s) and blind people (50% off).

50% off for blind TV 'viewers'.... ha ha ha, I get it...jesus, Brit humor, eh?

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[lowrydr310]

I just installed Azureus per your recommendation. I changed the ports to something other than the default value and all I can say is WOW!

On my cable connection, I'm getting 165kB/s down and 40kB/s up concurrently! I guess I can blame my ISP for throttling the default port.

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[mrchaotica]

Well, glad I could help! Of course, you didn't need Azureus to change the ports; any client can do that. I just recommended it for the fancy interface.

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[lowrydr310]

you didn't need Azureus to change the ports

I know, but I thought I'd try it out anyway. I like the fancy interface a lot more than BitTorrent's.

Azureus did cause my router to crash twice, but when I first started it a dialog came up that said my WRT54G has problems with uPNP. I disabled it and things seem to be working fine now.

Re:When will the rest of the world sign on?

[mrchaotica]

I have a WRT54G as well, but I had uPNP turned off a long time before I started using Azureus, since I don't think it's a good idea anyway.

Important question...

[meringuoid]

The Office

WHICH Office?

This is an important issue here! One is a funny show, the other is the funniest show since Basil Fawlty...

Re:Important question...

[Kazzahdrane]

Free love on the freelove freeway! I was just singing this to myself earlier and felt the need to share :D

Re:Important question...

[jelloshotgun]

The new (Steve Carell) Office. It would be awesome if they got some BBC stuff up there... I already have Fawlty Towers on DVD, but I'd want it up there just so I can tell people to get it!

Re:Important question...

[EggyToast]

It's in the US, so it's the US office. Not the BBC one.

A quick jaunt over to iTunes would also show this. Anyway, it's the one with Steve Carrell.

Re:Important question...

[Angostura]

A quick peek at iTunes shows that it is the U.S office. Getting the UK Office would require Apple to do a deal with the BBC. And wouldn't *that* be a great day.

Re:Important question...

[meringuoid]

Getting the UK Office would require Apple to do a deal with the BBC. And wouldn't *that* be a great day.

Thinking again about this... probably not. The BBC are planning to roll their own online distribution system, and probably wouldn't want to get tied in to a single system like iTunes.

I wish they'd get on with it, though. I want to watch Hartnell-era Doctor Who eps online, dammit!

Re:Important question...

[modecx]

Hell, if that happened, I'd be all over Top Gear, even though I don't have an iPod. The Brits have some great shows, and this one is up among the best. I have yet to find a collection of the many seasons shows that wasn't (illegally) ripped from TV. The video quality sucks, the sound sucks and is often mis-aligned.

Why the heck can't they just give us a set of region-free DVDs to horde--just direct cuts from the aired shows? I'd buy like a dozen sets as gifts, and another dozen just for me! I was starting to like discovery channel version, even though they compressed the show for commercials and sucked most of the fun out of it... Goes to show that it's a great show regardless!

Re:Important question...

[dfung]

Fawlty Towers would be great.

When Apple puts out the "Manuel Special Edition" preloaded with all the episodes and a "He's from Barcelona" hat, you can find me up that the head of the line.

Re:Important question...

[C0rinthian]

...

Que?

Re:Important question...

[jaseparlo]

I have yet to find a collection of the many seasons shows that wasn't (illegally) ripped from TV

Does anyone else find the phrase 'ripped from TV' just slightly weird?

iTMS dominates now that they feature....

[presearch]

International Superstar David Hasselhof.

Re:iTMS dominates now that they feature....

[generic-man]

They've had FOUR of his albums and one EP before Knight Rider was available. (Link requires iTunes.)

Re:iTMS dominates now that they feature....

[Rude Turnip]

Man, I hope these shows will be available in the German market...my AAPL stock will bust through the roof like KITT through a brick wall!

Re:iTMS dominates now that they feature....

[Anonymous Coward]

What is little known is that Knight Rider was selected to help launch iTunes video downloads in Germany. Which once again prooves my time tested theory Germans love David Hasselhof.

Re:iTMS dominates now that they feature....

[DikSeaCup]

There needs to be a "+1, Scary" moderation.

Re:iTMS dominates now that they feature....

[andreMA]

my AAPL stock will bust through the roof like KITT through a brick wall

Roof Kitt? That was Sony BMG, not Apple.

Re:iTMS dominates now that they feature....

[op12]

Make it -1....I don't want to see that!

Re:iTMS dominates now that they feature....

[c_forq]

Or a +1 German

http://www.fakenews.net/update/1994_11_19.html

Re:iTMS dominates now that they feature....

[j-cloth]

And this once again proves my time tested theory that Germans Are Scary People.

Re:iTMS dominates now that they feature....

[The Lynxpro]

"International Superstar David Hasselhof."

Guess they better get "Knight Rider" and "Baywatch" available on the German iTunes Store then for maximum profiteering... :)

Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[hal2814]

Apple's has the opportunity to take a big lead in this new trend just for going out of the gate with it. Here's an idea that will eventually have to take hold. With large bandwidth, modern compression, and the "Media Center" role PCs are starting to play, there will be a market for video-on-demand via the computer. It was obvious, but Apple will get out there first and build a big lead in this market just because they went after it.

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[justin12345]

Apple! Increase the frakking resolution of the video! I would love to download Battlestar Galactica but I won't do it if its only going to look good on my iPod. I want video that will look good anywhere I play it, including my DLP projector.

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[hsmith]

People may want to deny it, but on demand content like this IS the future. Sure, it has DRM, but most people don't care at all. It is about convenience.

Jobs sees this and he has taken hold of it. the success of the iPod proves it, people will pay a moderate sum and be locked in to propriertary content and players. Not even i really care, i'd rather d/l instantly with iTunes and scour the net for 1/2 hour for a song. Move this into other media formats and Jobs is solitifying the long term future of apple. They can move from just computers and ipods to tvs, dvrs, ect. this is the future and he is making apple the leader of the pack

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[2nd Post!]

Would you pay extra for it?

Money does, after all, talk. $1.99 for TV quality, $2.99 for DVD quality, and $3.99 for HD quality, perhaps?

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[Lumpy]

nobody is noticing what this is doing elsewhere. companies like comcast had better be scared shitless as this is what their costomers will want.

If you ask everyone that for what they pay for CableTv they could get a service where they simply subscribe to the TV shows they want... both Stargates, Mythbusters, Lost, Bullshit, etc... and they get the shows as well as some freebie teasers of new shows or "highlighted" shows in the "what's new" section they would buy it in droves. CableTv sucks there is maybe 12% of all the content that a person watches, the rest is useless to them either because the shows are on when they can not watch them, or the viewership is too small to dedicate airtime.

I hop that jobs is working on a higher res version for in home that people will want to tturn to and turn off their cable Tv and sattelite Tv.

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[goofy183]

I would, and I'm sure I'm not alone. If apple gets this working and I can download HD shows $4/show I'll cancel my HD cable subscription. With that costing me $80 / month I could download 20 HD shows a month, watch them whenever I want and be very happy.

The only thing I would be missing is sports. Someone gives me a la carte sports channels and I will be a very happy person.

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[justin12345]

$1.99 puts most programs at about their DVD price, so I expect DVD-ish quality. I wouldn't pay extra, given lack of bonus materials, but I would pay the same for the convenience of downloading them, if they are released closer to the air date of the program.

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[2nd Post!]

Funny, consumers have already shown that quality for convenience trumps price with regards to the music store:

$0.99 for slightly less than CD quality sans liner and jewelcase.

It hasn't stopped the music jaggernaut any.

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[utexaspunk]

CableTv sucks there is maybe 12% of all the content that a person watches, the rest is useless to them either because the shows are on when they can not watch them, or the viewership is too small to dedicate airtime.

It's way WAY less than 12%. If you have 100 channels and you watch your TV 24/7 without sleeping, with picture-in-a-picture turned on, you're still only utilizing 2% of the content you're getting (not accounting for reruns, etc). Most people with cable get more than 100 channels, and don't watch TV anywhere near 24/7. I'd wager the average cable TV subscriber views less than .1% of the content that is piped to their home.

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[justin12345]

Granted its been about 4-5 years since I bought a CD, but last I checked CDs cost a lot more then $10 at most major retailers. Plus then you have to rip them to MP3, which isn't a big deal but is still more effort then a download --and you will probably feel obligated to store the CD, packaging, and liner notes. Even if you have no interest in them.

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[Seanasy]

This raises a question for me:

If I buy a Battlestar Galactica episode from iTunes and then go and download the same episode in HDTV resolution via BitTorrent, am I breaking the law?

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[kannibal_klown]

. $1.99 for TV quality, $2.99 for DVD quality, and $3.99 for HD quality, perhaps?

But DVD is essentially TV quality, just progressive and you don't have to worry about reception. Unless you mean like DVD-writable, at which point I'd gladly pay an extra $1 to be able to burn it to DVD.

US TV and DVD's both store only 480 lines, though our TV signal is interlaced which the DVD is progressive. So as long as the picture is "clean" (no static) and it's progressive then it's probably already DVD quality.

As for HD, I don't know how they'd swing it. 1hr (42min after commercials) shows would still be REALLY big and would take a massive bite out of their bandwith.

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[2nd Post!]

How much effort do you save in not ripping DVDs then encoding them for iPod/iTunes format then?

If a DVD is 4.3gb of data, that itself would take several minutes. Re-encoding to fit an iPod might take several hours.

So $20 for the DVD, and 3 hours to rip and encode vs $1.99 for an episode downloaded in five or ten minutes.

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[ImaNihilist]

I LOVE DRM and eagerly await for the day when I can use Netflix, pay $20 a month, and instantly stream the entire library of videos on demand.

I'll have to wait for hardware DRM to be more prevelant until that launches though.

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[jumpingfred]

The difference in quality between Itunes and a CD is not much. The difference in quality between A tv show on an Ipod and a DVD of the tv show is quite a bit more.

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[2nd Post!]

Perhaps I should have been more literal then.

Come on, TV quality == analog/over the air
DVD quality == digital/on disc
HD quality == digital/on disc

TV also means RCA/composite, DVD is s-video, and HD is pure digital.

The raw data for TV and DVD may be the same, but the way it is presented is not.

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[dwandy]

I think I saw recent numbers somewhere about total TV watching ... it's (IIRC) a couple-three hours a day on average, so 14-28hrs a week depending on age etc.
Since most series are 1-hr, and most sit-coms are 30-min, that means most people watch only 2-6 shows on any given night.
Personally, I only watch about 3-5 shows a week - say $10/week = $40, which is pretty much my monthly cable bill... imho, $2/show is too much. Maybe $5-$10 for a series of (say 10-15 shows) like Lost or Prison Break, and they would be available for download at the same time as they air...otherwise, I'd rather either tape/Tivo/PVR/whatever it or download it later if I'm busy when it airs. They need to remember that they are competing with 'free-to-tape' when they set the price...

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[maxume]

Comcast is making huge investments into on demand video systems and content. They also currently own the fattest pipes into homes. 2+2=4.

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[Anonymous Coward]

You say it is about convenience, but DRM is in direct contradiction to convenience most of the time.

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[ZaMoose]

It hasn't stopped the music jaggernaut any.

Jaggernaut? Who said anything about the Rolling Stones?

Now a Jaegernought, mmmm-mmmm, that's some fine drinkin'!

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[Anonymous Coward]

in short - yes!

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[Have Blue]

This isn't on-demand. On-demand is streaming every time, iTunes is downloading and saving locally. It's just a really, really convenient version of the same model we've always had.

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[sidb]

If I buy a Battlestar Galactica episode from iTunes and then go and download the same episode in HDTV resolution via BitTorrent, am I breaking the law?

Probably the license you agree to for iTunes use states that you are licensing the exact bits or something, not the content itself. Or maybe not. Maybe it would be legal or should be. But the truly relevant question is, of course, would some industry group sue you anyway if they found out? It's not about the law; it's about what they wish the law were and think they can get away with. And in the US, you can't get a ruling on such a point until you or someone else has actually come up against it.

Or you could do what almost everyone else does -- don't get caught, while in your own head thinking your actions are a combination of something that should or might be legal, civil disobedience, and teaching the studios about reality with the only language they understand -- money, or lack thereof.

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[eclectic4]

My wife and I watch Lost via iTunes on our TV, and it's not bad, not bad at all. There are a few gradation anomalies in dark areas, but other than that, it's definetly watchable to say the least... I used to BT recent HDTV grabs, and then convert to mp4, but the time it took wasn't worth the $1.99 to have Apple do it as well as I could.

Spend the $1.99 and try it, it's not that bad at all.

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[2nd Post!]

I dunno, a DVD downsampled to qvga really wouldn't be all that different from a TV show from the iTMS I think :)

Like the music, these videos are supposed to push sales of iPods, not HDTVs. If you want HDTV video, you buy bluray/HD-DVD discs.

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[MBGMorden]

True, but Apple can't really tier it in that way (well, not in good faith). Analog TV broadcasts and DVD's are at the same res on the screen. Analog's lower quality is pretty much because of errors during the transmission/reception. The video from Apple in inherently digital, so that's not possible. They can't reduce the resolution or even the bitrate from "DVD Quality" and get something that could be called "TV Quality". It could be called "Less than DVD Quality", but a lower res or bitrate just isn't going to be analagous with "TV".

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[Morgalyn]

I second this. My husband and I have been watching Desperate Housewives via iTM(V?)S but primarily on my iBook screen. We used to have a cable subscription with good quality (although not digital) and a TiVo. I'd say the compression on the video from iTunes was equivalent to what TiVo does with everything but pure-quality recordings (like 'Medium', I think it was called). It's hardly noticable at all unless you are looking for artifacts - the only one I regularly notice is a little bit of squared-offness of the text in the title during the title sequence, but I think the laptop screen makes it more noticable than it would be on a TV.

Soon I'll be getting my video adapter, and we'll see how it looks fed through our A/V receiver to the TV.

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[MBGMorden]

Like the music, these videos are supposed to push sales of iPods, not HDTVs. If you want HDTV video, you buy bluray/HD-DVD discs.

That method of distribution is failing fast. Apple is showing time and time again that downloadable content can suceed in the market, and in time will be the preferred distribution method. They've already got HD-capable Quicktime out, and it looks GREAT. The only reason I'd suspect that they're not using it for anything other than movie trailers and demos is that: (A) the file sizes are huge, and (B) they take a fairly hefty system to decode. My Athlon XP2100 couldn't play 480p video without major skipping. I upgraded to a Sempron 3400 and now I can play 720p, but even it will stutter on 1080i. Consider how many machines are still out there in the 1-2Ghz range, it's just not feasible for them to market it yet.

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[2nd Post!]

The tiering is quite simple though:
"TV" quality, ~240mb, ~10 minutes
"DVD" quality, ~500mb ~20 minutes
"HDTV" quality, ~1500mb, ~1 hour

In this case the lower quality is not because of errors during transmission/reception, but allowances made for how lone a person is willing to wait for a download.

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[Blakey Rat]

Yes. Duh.

If you own the VHS tape of a movie, and shoplift the DVD, are you stealing?

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[MBGMorden]

I'm not saying they can't do that, I'm saying that it's a mistake to call the lower quality mode "TV Quality". TV is of lower quality than DVD for different reasons than this video stream is going to be. TV has the same res and definition as a DVD, but you get snow, ghosting, and other artifcats associated with analog transmissions.

For instance, lets say that you've got 2 cars (A & B). Both are sports cars that can do 150mph. Car A handles terribly though and has a tendancy to break down a lot. Car B handles great and is extremely reliable. I think we'd agree that all other things being equal, B is better than A.

Now lets say we make a line of motorcyles. We have motorcycle C & D. Both are extremely reliable, handle great, get same gas mileage, etc. Bike D can do 150mph though, and Bike C maxes out at 80mph. In this case D is better than C.

Now if we were to equate Motorcyle D with Car B, then that's fine, but Motorcycle C certainly doesn't equate with Car A. Sure it's not as good as it's companion, but it's for completely different reasons.

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[porcupine8]

Hell, forget subscribing even to individual shows... If I could pay the basic cable rate (that gives you about 10 channels - that they pick) and instead get any ten channels I want, I'd sign up in a heartbeat.

No, I don't have cable at all right now - there are maybe 3-5 channels I really, really want, and 3-5 more I'd like to have, and beyond that it's a waste of money for me. A la carte channel selection would make all the difference. In fact, I think I'd even prefer it to show selection, because if I only subscribed to a few shows I'd never find anything new.

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[phritz]

If you own the VHS tape of a movie, and shoplift the DVD, are you stealing?

Yes, but that's not the same situation. The same situation is "Is it legal to download a higher-resolution copy of a VHS film you already own?"

The main question is "what did you buy?" If all you bought was a physical copy of the media, then you should be able to copy it at will - you own it, after all. If, instead, you bought a license to watch the media, then you can legally download it since you already own it - you can't steal something you already have.

The grandparent brings up a good point - the *AA can't have it both ways, although they will undoubtedly try to.

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[Jherek Carnelian]

$1.99 for TV quality, $2.99 for DVD quality, and $3.99 for HD quality, perhaps?

I would pay more for HD, but $2 for TV quality is too high a baseline. I'm thinking $1 for 480p (DVD) and $1.50 for 1080p at the very most. Here's why:

Production costs for Lost are under $3M per episode and it is considered the most expensive show on TV today.
Citation: http://starbulletin.com/2005/01/26/news/story2.htm l

Lost has been averaging over 20M viewers per episode this season
Citation: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051117/n ews_lz1c17nielsen.html>

If we presume that for-pay tv downloading will become the dominate form of distribution, then at $1/episode that would translate into about a 700% return on investment - that kind of ROI is absolutely unheard of for a TV show - I mean it is so ridiculous that the entire management structure at ABC would die overnight from overdosing on the cocaine they bought with their bonuses if that should ever come to pass.

In fact, most shows, probably even including Lost today, lose money during their initial airing and only become profitable during syndication. It is those profitable shows that enable the funding for a lot of riskier and ultimately money-losing shows like Firefly, for example. Ultimately a ROI of 5-10% is probably close to what hollywood averages over all tv shows.

Thus even $1/episode is a heck of a lot for a popular show, although it might be appropriate for a show with a much smaller, niche market.

(and before any points out that I am ignoring infrastructure costs, they are in the noise at this level, particularly if a bandwdith-borrowing mechanism like bittorrent is employed).

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[Thing 1]

Yes, your specific question indicates that you'll be breaking the law:

A purchase on iTunes is not a license to distribute, which you will be doing as soon as you get the first chunk from BitTorrent.

(phritz had a decent response, but missed that you specified you would be uploading (parts of) the file.)

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[modmans2ndcoming]

really? lets say you enjoy 5 shows and never miss them. 26 episodes a season, 5*26 = 130 dollars. basic cable (we will assume the cheapest way to get MOST good shows) is about 40 bucks a month. 40*12 = 480 dollars. seems liek 2 bucks a show for TV quality is a steel, even at TV's lowest prices.

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[Anonymous Coward]

we will assume the cheapest way to get MOST good shows) is about 40 bucks a month

Except that $40/month is paying for a whole lot more than just those shows. Even if you only watch those 5 shows, you are still paying for the opportunity to watch all the other shows. The opportunity is

1) Typically used by other members of the household watch a bunch of other shows
2) Not available with download-only
3) Not worth the price either, hence I don't pay for cable tv.

Re:Apple's going to take the lead just for trying.

[bill_mcgonigle]

That's right - Knight Rider season 1 is ~$34 on iTMS and about $34 on DVD. With the DVD you get a physical product, an archival-quality backup, double the resolution, and understand that there are costs in meatspace distribution.

Plus, unless you're in a rush for a full season of Knight Rider, you're not tying up your internet connections with downloads and there's [effectively] no DRM to worry about. I can see individual 'impulse-buy' episodes being popular but it's a crummy way to build a collection. The DVD will arrive by time you've watched a few episodes (in a non-insane fashion).

So, $19 for Knight Rider Season 1 on iTMS seems about the right price point in the world of DVD's.

Not for me.

[Seth Finklestein]

Let's get out my handy-dandy little red pen here.

h.264 format? I guess that's okay.

'FairPlay' DRM? Not good. I can't play it outside iTunes.

Open and accessible store? Nope. You need iTunes which is only available for Macintosh and Windows.

Compatibility with many devices? Nope. Only one: the iPod 5G.

Well at least I can create a DVD, like iTunes lets me burn a CD with my purchased songs, right? Nope. No burning. Only playback.

Well at least the new episodes of Law & Order, which are filmed in HDTV, will be shown in brilliant 1280x720 resolution, right? Nope. 320x240.

Good for you, Apple. Welcome to the 19th century. I'll be over here with my trusty BitTorrent client.

Re:Not for me.

[mr100percent]

You CAN play it outside iTunes, I'm looking at Jay Leno in Quicktime player right now. You're right about not being able to export it, however.

Re:Not for me.

[richdun]

Sorry, but I have to rebutt this.

h.264 will be the format of choice with the next-gen video cards with hardware support for h.264.

FairPlay does sort of suck, since you can't do anything with it, but at least it works, and doesn't get the movie/music people are bent out of shape.

Mac + Windows represents virtually all the _consumer_ market. Plus, iTunes can run on Linux via CrossOverOffice and others, so this point is not all that strong. The market just isn't there for solid native Linux support.

You can play these videos are FAR many more devices than the 5G iPod, like EVERY PC and Mac with iTunes. Yes, the videos right now are built for the iPod, but if you think the iPod is the only intended device, you've missed the point - the iPod is just a test.

Why do you need to burn a DVD when you can hook up your PC/Mac to your TV/HDTV, or even better yet, watch them on your nice high res monitor? Most people don't have HDTVs, so their computer monitors are as high res as they go. And you can burn the files to a data DVD to take wherever, or network share, or whatever. The DVD isn't tomorrow's technology - it's barely even today's. These videos represent a physical media-free environment, so again, whether this is a good thing or not, I think you're missing the point.

HDTV downloads would take FOREVER. Of course, if reports from Front Row-equipped iMacs streaming in HD trailer without stuttering or loading times is true, Apple is two steps ahead of us on this already.

Point is - this isn't meant to be a be all that ends all offering. This is a test, this is only a test. Why the heck else would they pick such a crazy variety of shows to test many potential demographics?

Re:Not for me.

[grimJester]

Although parent is trollish, the point is still valid. It's not that p2p content is free that makes me choose it. The free content is better in most ways that count. Official, legal channels can do better than illegal ones in two ways; assured quality and convenience. Guaranteed low quality and draconian DRM screw up both of these.

Imagine what trouble Diesel would be in if the fakes had the quality of the original while the official product lost their color and shrank the first time you wash them.

Re:Not for me.

[Hrvat]

'FairPlay' DRM? Not good. I can't play it outside iTunes.
It's an Apple service intended for video iPod users. Why would they want you to have it anywhere else?

Open and accessible store? Nope. You need iTunes which is only available for Macintosh and Windows.
Hm, Mac OS X and Windows. That covers how much market?

Compatibility with many devices? Nope. Only one: the iPod 5G.
Here's an idea. Lets build a time machine and go back and build in video functionality in the old iPods.

Well at least I can create a DVD, like iTunes lets me burn a CD with my purchased songs, right? Nope. No burning. Only playback.
Hrm. Let's see. Can you play a DVD on your iPod? No?

Well at least the new episodes of Law & Order, which are filmed in HDTV, will be shown in brilliant 1280x720 resolution, right? Nope. 320x240.
Again, you're talking about a service for the video iPod. The resolution it can display is only so high.

Good for you, Apple. Welcome to the 19th century. I'll be over here with my trusty BitTorrent client.
19th century? Wow. I guess you're trying to make your point. Yet Apple is the first company to offer something like this.

As for BitTorrent, grow up. Do you seriously expect that everyone would work for free to create these shows?
Imagine if half the audience for Lost suddenly started watching the shows only on BitTorrent. The advertisement rates for the slot would drop, creating less cash for the network and the show, probably causing the network to pull the show because it's not creating enough revenue.
That is one of the reasons I shell out $40 for the seasons worth of Battlestar Galactica. I know I can get a reasonable quality copy off BitTorrent, probably even the very same DVD images. However I'd like to see more of the show. Thus I pay some money so the actors and the crew and the network can earn some money and be encouraged to create another season.

Re:Not for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

QVGA, not MCGA. 320x240 full color, not 300x200 256 or 640x480 monochrome. It's pretty comparable to VHS format, and downloads much quicker than a full VGA or HDTV file would.

Re:Not for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think the iPod 5G was the first portable device ever to play video, you're sorely mistaken. My Archos has played video since the iPod first touted Breakout as a "feature." It even has a larger and higher-resolution screen than your iPod, and it cost about the same. I didn't have to pay $2 per episode for poor-quality rips, either.

Re:Not for me.

[Walkiry]

>Why do you need to burn a DVD when you can hook up your PC/Mac to your TV/HDTV, or even better yet,
>watch them on your nice high res monitor?

Because I have a really nice, slim, silent DVD player hooked to my TV in the living room that works like a charm, with an excellent remote and all, which can be turned on/off at any point and do so in a fraction of a second, draws minimal power from the outlet, doesn't heat up at all, uses a total of 3 cables (power, TV and, because I'm fancy, audio cabe), needs just about zero maintenance, and is overall much much more convenient to use for watching DVDs or VCDs than my PC.

Re:Not for me.

[Chicane-UK]

Let me just get out my handy-dandy little red pen, and use it to illustrate a few points which you seem to have otherwise overlooked.

I think the most important one is this - we all know that bittorrent is out there and that whatever solution that the movie & television studios and their affiliates come up with will never give us the freedom / choice that we currently have. But right now its a LEGAL WAY OF DOING THINGS, and maybe you should accept that there will never be a legal system that just gives you every TV show, ever aired, whenever you want it.

You're a fool - Apple are at least making the effort to get something off the ground that could potentially bloom.. yeah, right now its a bit lousy that its only in low res and you can only play it on your iPod but its step one - and only complete ignorami like yourself would completely overlook the bigger picture in this case, and sing about the same old song about not being able to play it on your Linux PVR or being able to burn it to DVD.

This, like it or not IS the 21st century. Get over it.

Re:Not for me.

[Ironsides]

Well at least the new episodes of Law & Order, which are filmed in HDTV, will be shown in brilliant 1280x720 resolution, right? Nope. 320x240.

Hell, we're using computers. They might as well offer it in 1080p for those of us with big enough monitors.

Re:Not for me.

[Pozican]

Look, The issue here is that linux isn't able to get the content. Regardless of whether YOU can get it, I can't.

As for the video being small? THAT *SUCKS* -- If they wanted to overcome the bittorrent downloads they needed quality that rivals that. Why would pirates *PAY* for something that isn't the quality they are getting for *FREE*

If this was a service for ipod, then why would they allow playback on the computer (IE quicktime)? If this were truely a service for the ipod they would have a proprietary format. Now you will say "let's build a time machine yipee!" -- but no, currently it's only availible to 5G users, so if it was gonna be for ipod users exclusively they would release another version and sell it for more ( YOU CAN PLAY VIDEOS! Give me more money. )

I dont' expect the actors to act for free, but I do expect decent quality video when I pay for something. Why would I work to get money, just to waste it, by buying a tv show that I have to squint to see?

"The advertisement rates for the slot would drop, creating less cash for the network and the show, probably causing the network to pull the show because it's not creating enough revenue."
This is inevitable.
In the event that TV cards didn't exist and the only way to get a show from itunes, it's obvious someone would just buy the movie, edit commercials, and bittorrent it out. If this is gonna happen, it is happening. Itunes won't stop that, and neither will providing legislation to end Bittorrent, there are far too many p2p protocols, and we all know that dcc WORKS!

o man, give me a break, *some* of you must know what dcc is.

Re:Not for me.

[hal2814]

What's the deal with silent? I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but I read that a lot and don't quite follow. My PC that sits next to the TV makes a little noise but when it's showing a TV show, it's not noticable. Heck, even when a TV show is not playing, it's not really noticable. The fire in my fireplace is louder.

Also, what kind of DVD player "doesn't heat up at all"? I though the DVD laser generates a small bit of heat. :)

Re:Not for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it very humorous that you are so highly advocating this system, yet as a UK resident (based on your nickname) you won't be able to use it. Videos are only available in the US iTunes store, and there has been nothing to suggest that Apple is even exploring UK expansion for video sales.

Keep up that cargo cult mentality, sir.

Re:Not for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Finky, you still wear that creepy blue Cobra Commander mask in the winter time? Well anyhow, I think you need to wait before you pass total judgement here. Please recognize that Apple is moving with baby steps. We won't be stuck with a 320x240 video-iPod only service forever.

But yeah if you're still using Linux or something, then you'll be out of luck. But that's your own fault really. Difference for the sake of difference! Yeah!

Re:Not for me.

[vadim_t]

Well, nice rebuttal. I'm definitely not going to pay even one cent for something described as "sort of sucks", especially with the "you can't do anything with it" part.

And while HDTV would indeed take quite a while to download, most things distributed on BitTorrent have much better quality than 320x200, and I can get that for free. Now when somebody starts offering high quality video for download, without tons of crap attached, then I'll gladly pay for it.

Re:Not for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

he was talking about the service (itms), not the ipod, you dumb shit.

Re:Not for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well at least the new episodes of Law & Order, which are filmed in HDTV, will be shown in brilliant 1280x720 resolution, right? Nope. 320x240.

Good for you, Apple. Welcome to the 19th century. I'll be over here with my trusty BitTorrent client.

My great-great grandfather wrote in his diary how long it took to download Kinetoscope episodes on his steam-powered Babbage Analytic Engine using the latest version of BitCanal. The old episodes of Baywatch were simply scandalous for thier time...The lifeguards swimsuits barely covered their knees!!!

Re:Not for me.

[danaris]

Let's get out my handy-dandy little red pen here.

Sure, let's. I'll get out my bright green pen and join you.

h.264 format? I guess that's okay.

Oh, you're too kind.

'FairPlay' DRM? Not good. I can't play it outside iTunes.

Well, actually, you can play it in QuickTime. A much better video player.

Open and accessible store? Nope. You need iTunes which is only available for Macintosh and Windows.

And...Apple should cater to the 1% of computer users who run only Linux with this why, exactly?

Compatibility with many devices? Nope. Only one: the iPod 5G.

Um, actually, it's compatible with those 99% of computers running Windows and Mac OS X.

Well at least I can create a DVD, like iTunes lets me burn a CD with my purchased songs, right? Nope. No burning. Only playback.

I'll admit that this is kind of annoying, but I have little doubt that it will change, given time. Don't forget, this is still a very new service.

Well at least the new episodes of Law & Order, which are filmed in HDTV, will be shown in brilliant 1280x720 resolution, right? Nope. 320x240.

Ah...well, you may have a nice fat OC3 to download shows on, but many (if not most) of us are still stuck on nominally 784kbps pipes, that actually turn out to be more like 80kbps most of the time if we're lucky. Oh, and most of us don't have HDTVs to watch them on, either.

Good for you, Apple. Welcome to the 19th century. I'll be over here with my trusty BitTorrent client.

And I'll be here with my copy of iTunes, watchin' the next Law & Order legally in what I, and many, many others consider to be a perfectly acceptable resolution and format, on my laptop, or maybe plug my TV into it and watch it there (it'll probably be higher quality than what comes over the cable anyway).

I think your real problem is that you are both rich and extremely myopic. You seem to think that Apple's (essentially) brand-new service should provide the absolute top-of-the-line product to be worth purchasing at all, when in reality, most people either couldn't use that product ('cause it would take them 3 days to download the file) or it wouldn't be any different, for them, than what they're getting ('cause they don't have a 60" 1080p HDTV with 9.2 ultra-surround--they have a 28" analog TV with ordinary stereo speakers).

So take a peek outside your soundproof, well-upholstered, $30,000 technological paradise and glance at the real world once in a while, and you'll see why Apple is doing this. Then stop being such a whiner.

Dan Aris

Re:Not for me.

[thebdj]

Look, The issue here is that linux isn't able to get the content. Regardless of whether YOU can get it, I can't.

iTunes supposedly works in CrossOver office. If not then dual boot or run more then one machine. Seriously I know very few Linux users who have absolutely no Windows or Mac machines sitting around somewhere.

As for the video being small? THAT *SUCKS* -- If they wanted to overcome the bittorrent downloads they needed quality that rivals that. Why would pirates *PAY* for something that isn't the quality they are getting for *FREE*

Check out the resolutions of most of these shows. They are not always as great as they can be, and much of the HD content ones are not at the natives resolutions in which they were broadcast. I know this much because I have to use the 'fit to screen' function on my media player to get them to stretch to an appropriate size for display at 1080i. The resolution is actually not too uncommon either, and if the video compression is handled well might not make a huge visual difference on most TVs.

I dont' expect the actors to act for free, but I do expect decent quality video when I pay for something. Why would I work to get money, just to waste it, by buying a tv show that I have to squint to see?

Squint to see? Are you blind? The display on the 5G ipods is suppose to be rather good for viewing, and if you are viewing on a PC no one said you HAVE to watch it in 320x240. You ever heard of resizing your player window.

This is inevitable.

Actually no it isn't. You will probably find that a lot of people will purchase shows that are available to them. Most the content that my friends or I ever keep is shows which are presently not on DVD or which we are waiting for the money to afford the DVDs. If it were available online in a similar format as what I presently have, then I would also probably consider purchasing in that method and so would a great many people. You know why? Because on a few rare occassions the sales of DVDs and media like this will help drive the show and produce revenue. For cancelled shows, it could help bring them back to life. I am sure we are pretty much all aware of what show got brought back to life thanks to DVD sales and it's syndication on another network.

The real goal should always be to minimalize piracy. By offering services like iTunes you work towards that end by providing users a means for purchasing music or shows they want without having to get physical media and in digital formats they like. While other people will continue to pirate things and be the first people to say if they weren't making crap we would buy it. Well it was obviously worth your time to DL, and you obviously watched/listened to it, so it must not be THAT bad.

The end of all piracy will occur when usenet workgroups and IRC servers begin getting taken down by the RIAA/MPAA. Which is not real likely because as far as I have seen they have never even attempted to try.

Re:Not for me.

[peragrin]

I am tempted to go download Battlestar Galactica as it's the show that I have seen some but always manage to miss.

Of course the 320x240 resolution is a pain. but then again it's H.264 which tends to scale well. My hope is that i can play it using mplayer so I can go to full screen without much of a problem. Well it's that or push it out to my tv with minimal fuss. If I have to buy quicktime pro though I am going to be annoyed.

Re:Not for me.

[Walkiry]

> What's the deal with silent?

It totally depends on what you're watching, and on personal preference. I'm pretty sure you can get a PC specifically designed to be as silent as possible (throw in a watercooling system, or very big slow moving fans with a Pentium-M or somesuch), but getting a silent DVD player is extremely easy: pretty much all of them are. I like silent. I find the drone of fans when I'm watching something quite distracting.

>Also, what kind of DVD player "doesn't heat up at all"? I though the DVD laser generates a small bit of heat. :)

I'm not at home, but I can get the model for you if you want. I've put my hand on top of it after watching a few DVDs: Nothing. Not even warmish. Wasn't a feature I was looking for (I'm ok if it gets warm, not a big deal as long as it has no fans), but it just is. Maybe it uses the shelf as a heatsink, dunno. I haven't actually opened it (I do enough opening and fiddling with my PC case already...).

But yeah, maybe I should have worded it better ;) My point was that a DVD player doesn't heat up as much as a PC. Airflow considerations and such are prctically moot with a regular DVD player.

Re:Not for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an Apple service intended for video iPod users. Why would they want you to have it anywhere else?

Because then I'd buy it and they would make money from me. This way I don't and they don't. Why would they want to make money?

Hm, Mac OS X and Windows. That covers how much market?

It doesn't cover me.

Re:Not for me.

[Man in Spandex]

Well at least the new episodes of Law & Order, which are filmed in HDTV, will be shown in brilliant 1280x720 resolution, right?Nope. 320x240.

Apple sure did a lot of things right in the past but this is one thing that's wrong and here I agree with your attitude towards this.

Even some porn sites offer you choices of many resolutions to satisfy most customers and yet, a big company like Apple cannot do a task as simple as recompressing a video into different resolutions. 320x240? That's so, not today.

I'll stick to normal TV for now even though I barely watch it, for things like Family Guy.

Re:Not for me.

[jmelloy]

You're probably not going to get it to play using mplayer, though I haven't checked on the DRM-cracking progress.

It looks better on my TV than my laptop; on my TV I can't tell the difference between it and broadcast.

Re:Not for me.

[bubba451]

HDTV downloads would take FOREVER. Of course, if reports from Front Row-equipped iMacs streaming in HD trailer without stuttering or loading times is true, Apple is two steps ahead of us on this already.

I basically agree with you. I just wanted to say that I unfortunately do get stuttering when watching movie trailers with my new iMac G5 (20", 2.1 GHz) over 1.5 Mbps DSL. Seems like they're a little optimistic about how much to buffer. The first bit plays fine, then they stutter in the middle, and by then end it's all caught up.

It's impressive nonetheless, but not as impressive as downloading an H.264 teaser and showing it full screen. That really makes some jaws drop.

Re:Not for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is normally fairly badass when it comes to meeting user desires. I would suspect that part of their license to create video content for the iPod was that it be mostly for use with the iPod.

I suspect the networks required the lower resolution so as you would still feel tempted to buy the DvDs as well.

They say never to attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity, but I'll take Fox being stupid *and* malicious over apple being stupid these days.

Re:Not for me.

[Ex Machina]

Doesn't iTunes have an option to full screen video now?

Re:Not for me.

[C0rinthian]

People seem to be forgetting that this is a start. It's not all they're ever going to offer. Keep in mind that this is intended to be portable. Filesize trumps resolution when you're trying to cram video on an ipod. It's still standard TV broadcast quality, and looks just fine on a normal TV. Plus it doesn't take ages to download.

Your average person doesn't have HDTV, and doesn't have insane amounts of bandwidth to download it. Your average person doesn't use an alternative OS, or give a rats ass about DRM. Apple is aiming at the biggest market segment with this. I'm sure they will add high end stuff for us geeks once the base product proves commercially viable and establishes itself.

Give it time guys...

Re:Not for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

A shame a giant multi-billion dollar corporation isn't about to bend over backwards to please you, who make up about 6% of the consumer market that DOESN'T run OS X or Windows.

Honestly, Apple's offerings are as close to perfect as you're going to get (for now) in the consumer market. The lower resolutions are a fit for the new iPod (which, unless I'm horribly mistaken, is greatly outselling any video-device offerings from Archos or -insert competitor's brand-) and make it so that one really can download an episode off of iTMS and not wait hours - and the quality isn't bad (I've just downloaded my first video ever from iTMS - the pilot of The Office - and it's no worse than watching some TV over my six-year-old TV Tuner). If you're expecting HD or even SD without DRM, then you'll be waiting a while - that's a pipe dream.

Re:Not for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

yes.

Re:Not for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Um, actually, it's compatible with those 99% of computers running Windows and Mac OS X."

You got Linux wrong by a factor of
three. You should have said:

"Um, actually, it's compatible with those 95% and 2% of computers running Windows and Mac OS X, respectively."

Anyway, I don't think the resolution
is too bad, and would buy a few just
to try them out if I could legally
watch them. Which I can't, thanks to
the DMCA. Yay, DMCA. That last bit
was sarcasm, for the contexual-clue
impaired.

But I am serious about not buying
protected content as long as these
stupid laws prevent me from using
said content.

j

Re:Not for me.

[danaris]

OK, I forgot that my 1% was just those people running Linux who don't also run Windows or Mac OS X. I should, indeed, have said 97% or so.

And I have no problem with an ideological opposition to DRM and the DMCA, so long as you don't try to blame Apple for them...

And by the way, why on earth do you use such a small column width? I should think you could at least have 80-character columns...unless you're working on some incredibly ancient terminal or something...

Dan Aris

Re:Not for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

As for the video being small? THAT *SUCKS* -- If they wanted to overcome the bittorrent downloads they needed quality that rivals that.

If they made the videos HDTV quality, they would take forever to download on your average user's 256Kbps or 512Kbps DSL connection. Not everyone has 1.5Mbps. People are already complaining about the download times... it was one of the main complaints when the service was first launched. Imagine if the files took 5 times as long to download.

Why would pirates *PAY* for something that isn't the quality they are getting for *FREE*

They won't. They're pirates. Meanwhile the rest of the world will happily download the files from ITMS and laugh at the pirates when they get busted by the MPAA.

Re:Not for me.

[GaryPatterson]

Cool. So which other legal service will you be using?

None? You'll pirate instead? That's great! That means your opinion doesn't matter to the people who want to sell you stuff. They lump you in with other pirates and look to track you through BitTorrent (which was never an anonymous P2P app anyway) to make an example of you.

If Apple are doing the wrong thing, then some other company will step up and do it better. That's the whole capitalism thing, which is meant to be a Good Thing (tm). If no-one can, then either there's no profit to be had, or there's some technical limitation at work stopping it.

No-one is forcing you to buy from Apple. And no-one is stopping any other company from setting up their own store and selling content like Apple does. The problem is that no-one else is doing this - Apple seems to be the first and only.

I agree with one point - the resolution should be better. I think they should provide 640x480 and make the iPod downsample to the smaller screen from a larger render buffer, but I recognise that this would mean file sizes around 4 times larger for no quality improvement to the target market - the iPod users. Great for watching on the home TV though. I hope that a track record of successful video sales leads to better video quality, but we'll just have to wait and see.

Your 19th Century jab is childish. Apple are the first ones doing it, so by definition they're the most advanced right now.

Good luck with your pirating. It really lends weight to your point.

Re:Not for me.

[toddestan]

That's not too terribly surprising, as all that iTunes does is call up Quicktime whenever you tell it to play a video file.

However, there is still no way to play the files without some kind of Apple hardware/software.

Re:Not for me.

[jensen404]

I can easily watch 1080p WMP files on my PC. But Quicktime is choppy even at 720p. I have to use Quicktime Alternative to watch trailers at 720p... but that won't work well with DRM. Maybe when Apple switches to Intel they will improve the performance of Quicktime.

Re:Not for me.

[Chicane-UK]

So what if its not available to me? I can still champion the cause. It is inevitable that they will be available here eventually.

Its nothing to do with a cult mentality - I don't even own an Apple machine and the only iPod I own is a Shuffle. I just feel that its a good product and a good model, therefore it gets my support and maybe one day my business.

Re:Not for me.

[mkiwi]

19th Century... You mean in the 1800's right?

21st Century = 2000's

20th Century = 1900's

19th Century = 1800's

So, what I am lead to believe is that Apple has churned out a product that plays video before the advent of the motion picture? You are a century off my red-pended friend.

I want Firefly!

[Lispy]

And while youre at it, I want new episodes.

Re:I want Firefly!

[Anonymous Coward]

If Apple distribution becomes significant enough, perhaps you will get them...

Re:I want Firefly!

[wingfoot]

I second that. Firefly for all! Why can't the scifi channel fund new episodes of Firefly instead of a few of the crappy shows they are currently funding? Thats my question.

Re:I want Firefly!

[Anonymous Coward]

For what it's worth, I currently have all 14 episodes of Firefly on my iPod. It's as simple as:

1. Buying the DVDs.

2. Converting the DVD video to MP4.

While the option to purchase the episodes individulally would be nice, if you have an urge to listen to the "Hero of Canton" during your commute, this is a good solution.

Re:I want Firefly!

[Anonymous Coward]

And if wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak.

Re:I want Firefly!

[Mercano]

Sure, they have the money for it, and probably the inclination, too, problem is Universal Studios (who, I belive, is corperate cousin of the SciFi chanel) only has the movie rights to the franchise. Fox still has the TV rights. They'd need to get Fox to sell them.

Can stop Paying

[jlebrech]

... My TV License. will probably only be watching 200 episodes. How much will that amount to. I would Pay around £200 for my license if i didnt have a housemate to pay it for me :D

Re:Can stop Paying

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd pay £200 for your licence? Well that'd be very generous of you; the rest of us are only paying ~£120.

Re:Can stop Paying

[TheRaven64]

I think your housemate might be making you pay the entire license, and pretending you're only paying half. The license fee this year is £126.50 - a lot less than £200, and under 50p a day. I haven't watched TV since the last season of Doctor Who ended (and will probably end up watching the next one via the live web stream), but the license fee seems worth it at the moment for the news RSS feeds.

In case you haven't noticed, the cost of videos from iTMS is £1.89 - almost twice the price of the American equivalent, for a more limited selection of content. This works out at just under 67 episodes for the cost of the license - and episodes recorded from the TV have no DRM.

Re:Can stop Paying

[jlebrech]

I couldnt remember what it is because im not paying for it right now. If i lived on my own i wouldnt have a tv, i download all my series of the net.

Re:Can stop Paying

[lowrydr310]

I'm not too familiar with the UK TV license (what a ridiculous concept) but what happens if you just don't pay it?

Re:Can stop Paying

[Anonymous Coward]

The Queen shits on your head.

Re:Can stop Paying

[Anonymous Coward]

what a ridiculous concept

I know. Next someone will tell us it's perfectly O.K to carry a gun around the streets of the US. Some people are just full of crazy ideas.

Re:Can stop Paying

[Professor_UNIX]

n case you haven't noticed, the cost of videos from iTMS is £1.89 - almost twice the price of the American equivalent, for a more limited selection of content. This works out at just under 67 episodes for the cost of the license - and episodes recorded from the TV have no DRM.

My PVR records episodes for free with no DRM here in the USA too. People that pay $1.99 for a single television episode encumbered with DRM are suckers. If it would've been in MPEG2 format I might bite at that, but as it stands now it is much cheaper for me to wait until the season is over and simply purchase it on DVD for the series I want to watch (or just record them in first-run on my PVR).

Re:Can stop Paying

[Onan]

Most seasons of recent television on DVD cost somewhere around $40-$50 for about 22 episodes. I'm having a hard time finding the "much cheaper" there.

And that of course requires me to wait a year after the television in question, buy the DVDs, store the DVDs, and haul out the correct DVD any time I want to show a particular episode. Which sounds like considerably more of a pain in the ass than clicking a couple of times to acquire content speedily or to then play it later.

So explain to me again how "somewhat cheaper and notably more convenient" translates into "suckers"?

Re:Can stop Paying

[Professor_UNIX]

So explain to me again how "somewhat cheaper and notably more convenient" translates into "suckers"?

Simple, if I get the DVD I can rip it and make backup copies or convert to DivX and store it on my MythTV box, the Apple versions of these shows however are encumbered by DRM that make this impossible to view outside their proprietary environment.

Re:Can stop Paying

[Onan]

And if that tradeoff of effort for flexibility is a good deal for you, cool; I won't call you a sucker for it.

However, there are those of us who find that to be a less worthwhile deal. I'd imagine we'd appreciate the same courtesy.

As a non-itunes user...

[imsabbel]

Are those shows downloadable in decent quality, or only in poststamp ipod format?

Re:As a non-itunes user...

[Southpaw018]

Actually, the shows are pretty nice. Granted, they're not perfect quality when replayed on a big ol TV, but they're quite watchable on both the iPod and bigger screens.

Re:As a non-itunes user...

[Ahnteis]

320X240 size IIRC.

If that resolution isn't exact, it's around that size. Works for cartoons, a bit too small to really enjoy other shows on your TV.

Re:As a non-itunes user...

[mr100percent]

Depends. I've been able to watch it on a TV, and I've even ripped my own shows. A few artifacts here and there, but people are still wowed by a tiny iPod playing a video on a big HDTV.

Re:As a non-itunes user...

[stevenprentice]

I have a new iMac G5 with a 20" flat panel screen. The TV shows I've downloaded look great at full-screen. This is not HDTV, but if you've been viewing standard TV for years, you won't notice the difference.

Re:As a non-itunes user...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that TVs have incredibly bad resolution for the most part, so the "poststamp" iPod size isn't really all that much worse than TV resolution.

Adam-12

[MrFreak]

Wow, the entire first season of Adam-12! I've been waiting for this.

Re:Adam-12

[Rude Turnip]

Adam-12 has been available in a compact, portable format for some time...as Viewmaster slide wheels! I think I even had a 33rpm record to go along with it.

Re:Adam-12

[MasonMcD]

You apparently weren't a fan of Emergency! and ate out of one of these every day at school.

Rampart! One ADAM-12!

Are the TV execs thinkin about the future?

[Suburbanpride]

Many music execs now regret agreeing to stanard pricing acorss the board.I wouldn't bee suprised if the TV execs left themselves room in the contract to mess arounf with prices once video downloading really starts to take off. I think its reasonable that yesterday's "Lost" would cost more than an old episode of Knight Ridder.

In the meantime, Im happy to see more shows on itunes

Re:Are the TV execs thinkin about the future?

[BasilBrush]

Be careful what you think is reasonable. Despite what they may say in public, the only reason that music execs want variable pricing is so they can charge more than they do now when they think they can get away with it.

I suspect the TV companies are asking for variable pricing right now, and the reason they are only coming on-board slowly and with a limited number of programmes is because Apple won't budge on the issue.

Re:Are the TV execs thinkin about the future?

[disserto]

It's also reasonable that people who want yesterday's episode will either wait a week (month, whatever) for the reduced pricing or just go back to stealing it. Bad PR and no increased profit, whichever method people choose.

If you know the price will drop in a week, you'll wait. This isn't a limited commodity where, when the price drops, people are going to buy up what's left in stock and leave you out in the cold.

I'd say...

[Anonymous Coward]

that this is a triumph for Apple.

David Hasselhoff show, but not Baywatch???

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe it. I mean, I like Knight Rider as much as the next guy, but if I had to pick one David Hasselhoff series it would be Baywatch. Call me crazy.

Re:David Hasselhoff show, but not Baywatch???

[Kjella]

I can't believe it. I mean, I like Knight Rider as much as the next guy, but if I had to pick one David Hasselhoff series it would be Baywatch. Call me crazy.

In other words: Breasts! (No, not David's)

Re:David Hasselhoff show, but not Baywatch???

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm.. I was never a big Baywatch fan. Even as a young kid I thought there was too much clothing (never been a fan of the one piece suit).

I'll download Knight Rider from iTunes, then I'll use my 'other' video download subscription service to get my better-than-baywatch fix.

Spoooon!

[Anonymous Coward]

"dealing with FOX"? Can THE TICK be far behind!

Turbo Boost...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's the BabeWatch?

Not only is David a superstar, he's a world singer ;)

Re:One Future Channel

[xoip]

In the future, there will only be one 'channel': Apple.
Thats until the batteries run dead.

Not so impressive as it sounds.

[Caspian]

"...since the inception of video downloads on the iTMS, they'd sold nearly three million individual items...."

So what? Three million items at, what, 99 cents per? (I'm not familiar with the pricing scheme for their video downloads.) That's what the average MPAA member company makes in, what, around 5 days?

N.b.: I love Apple, but jeebus, it probably cost them more than the amount they made on those three million items just to set up the stinkin' video download system.

Re:Not so impressive as it sounds.

[TheRaven64]

Video downloads cost $1.99, £1.89, or 2.49, depending on the store you use. If you are in the US, they are relatively cheap, but in the UK they cost over 50% more (the EU are ripped off slightly less).

Re:Not so impressive as it sounds.

[yetdog]

I don't think it's meant to be impressive on a monetary scale. I think the significance of the PR is that TV show downloads are a viable market, and hey, we're Apple, and it just so happens we're pioneering it in an economic way.

Knight Rider

[nganju]

Although I loved Knight Rider as a child, I just can't watch it any more because my suspension of disbelief can't hold up to it any more. First, it's obvious that no AI can be as good as KITT. But even if you choose to accept that, then the next question is, why did they think the best use for such amazing AI software is to shove it in a car so some vigilante can fight crime? Or why didn't they at least make copies of it for a thousand other uses?

Also, whenever I see David Hasselhoff now, I just think, "really, really, really, really bad German pop star".

Re:Knight Rider

[Skater]

Or why didn't they at least make copies of it for a thousand other uses?

They didn't want to get into the ethical issues behind cloning.

Re:Knight Rider

[saboola]

... or maybe it's just a TV show and should not be taken so seriously? Just a thought.

Re:Knight Rider

[Anonymous Coward]

First, it's obvious that no AI can be as good as KITT. But even if you choose to accept that, then the next question is, why did they think the best use for such amazing AI software is to shove it in a car so some vigilante can fight crime? Or why didn't they at least make copies of it for a thousand other uses?

More importantly, isn't it outright slavery to take something as intelligent as KITT's AI and force it to stay in a car and work for you?

Also, does it stay on when the rest of the car is turned off? When David Hasselhoff leaves work to go to sleep each night, does KITT just sit there thinking, "Gee, I wish Michael would come back"?

Re:Knight Rider

[BasilBrush]

Were you put off Star Trek by the travelling faster than light thing? Because an AI indistinguishable from a person is not only theoretically possible, but inevitable eventually. But FTL travel has a more fundamental breaking-the-law-of-physics problem.

Re:Knight Rider

[Rude Turnip]

Here's your answer: don't let "reality" dull your sense of imagination and fantasy and you won't have to worry about it.

"Or why didn't they at least make copies of it for a thousand other uses?"

Lest we forget CARR...and look how that turned out!

Re:Knight Rider

[Anonymous Coward]

Lest we forget CARR...and look how that turned out!

That's KARR (Knight Automated Roving Robot) as opposed to KITT (Knight Industries Two Thousand). Yes, I have wasted my life.

Re:Knight Rider

[2nd Post!]

What do you think all this research for the DARPA Grand Challenge is?

1) If nothing else, someone will figure out how to create a remote car, and then the AI will be a human.
2) The first uses will be for unmanned vehicles in city environments such as Farujda in combat, in supply and convoy lines, etc.
3) You don't create a million copies of something that hasn't been tested.

Re:Knight Rider

[osu-neko]

Because an AI indistinguishable from a person is not only theoretically possible, but inevitable eventually.

That's an interesting article of faith, but not one universally agreed upon, and certainly very far away from being scientifically justified...

Re:Knight Rider

[BasilBrush]

Not at all. We already have a working model - everyone carries one in their skull. That is proof that it can be done. DNA manufactures very many of them every day. It's a reverse engineering project. Just a very difficult one.

If your objection is a religious one, then you're probably on the wrong site. We don't do hocus pocus here.

Re:Knight Rider

[rpdillon]

Have you even *read* Godel, Escher, Bach? The issue is quite a bit more complex than simply if we can "reverse engineer" the human brain - this presumes that the structure in our brains has a certain analog (digital?) in computers, which is far from certain. We can simulate certain activities that we usually associate with intellengence (playing chess), but *true* intelligence is far from given in this context.

Religious? This has nothing to do with religion as far as I can tell. =)

Re:Knight Rider

[BasilBrush]

No, I've never read it. But it was written in the 1970s. A time when AI was concerned with finding rules, with the idea that if only they could string enough rules together in the right orders, they could simulate intelligence. We've come such a long way since then in all sorts of related science and engineering. Huge advances in for example neural networks and other self learning technologies, decoding the human genome, nanotechnology and simply understanding how the human brain works. There's plenty more distance to go to produce real artificial intelligence, but what was beginning to look like a lot of dead ends in AI in the late 1970s and early 1980s is now full of possibilities. The only objections to AI now are philosophical and religious objections. There is nothing in science or engineering that places a insurmountable barrier to eventually producing a Turing Test passing AI. Not like there is for FTL travel.

this presumes that the structure in our brains has a certain analog (digital?) in computers, which is far from certain.

Huh? The brain is a biological, chemical and electric machine. If DNA can construct such a machine by putting atoms together in workable configurations, such that the machine can learn and develop intelligence from the patterns it receives, then there is no reason to assume that engineering won't be able to do the same, or an equivalent.

It's only a matter of time and engineering.

Re:Knight Rider

[osu-neko]

Well, actually, we can create intelligences easily. Give me a willing lady and nine months and we'll get you one.

So the fact that humans can create intelligent things is a given. When we talk about AI, however, I'm assuming we're talking about a more interesting proposition: can we make computers intelligent. That is far from certain. Our brains operate very differently from digital systems. We don't know enough about how it all works to even know whether making intelligent computers is possible even in principle.

The fact that we have brains that work proves that intelligent systems can be created, but it tells us nothing about whether AI is possible in any respect other than simply creating brains that work exactly like ours do down to the atomic level, which, as I pointed out at the beginning, we've been able to do since prehistoric times.

There is nothing in science or engineering that places a insurmountable barrier to eventually producing a Turing Test passing AI. Not like there is for FTL travel.

Again, that's an interesting article of faith you have there, but it's nothing more than pure faith. Before Einstein, there was still an insurmountable barrier to producing FTL rockets, we just didn't know it because we didn't understand physics well enough. We currently don't understand the mind terribly well. There may or may not be an insurmountable barrier. To claim to know there either is or isn't one is to express an article of faith.

Knight Rider

[NWJeepn]

MMMMMM.....Hunka Hunka

Link to ARS = published on /.

[amichalo]

Oh I get it, When I submitted this news story two hours ago, I simply linked to the Official Press Release. I didn't realize that I needed to link to ARS to satiate the whims of the dup-approving /. editors.

There is also a Quicktime video of the announcement (appropriate I believe).

Re:Link to ARS = published on /.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, just keep on submitting it. It will eventually get reposted on /.

Re:Link to ARS = published on /.

[amichalo]

Masterful moderation of the parent - a link to the Press Release and the Quicktime video of the announcement is "Offtopic"??? Let me try this instead:

"Apple releases lame non-Ogg / Linux compatible content for their crap ass music/video store."

Is that better /.?

This will be news when...

[blinder]

... when they lock up some kind of deal with rhino to distribute mystery science theater 3000.

yeah... now *that* would be a dream come true? need a quick manos fix? go to itms... and watch on your ipod.

*thinks about productivity*

perhaps that isn't such a great idea.

but yeah... wonder if mister jobs is a misty?

Re:This will be news when...

[Amouth]

man if i could get ms3000 i don't think i would leave my computer for a very long time..

Re:This will be news when...

[filterban]

Oh my god, you're absolutely right. Imagine getting access to all MST3K episodes? I'd buy all of them (and any HDDs needed). And a lot of other MSTies would too. MASTER NINJA I! *Drools*

Re:This will be news when...

[SilentChris]

www.dapcentral.org All of the episodes that haven't been released by Rhino. Best Brains (the company that made the show) encourages "tape trading" so they don't mind the service (as long as no one makes a quick buck off it).

I currently have about 40-50 downloaded episodes, some near-DVD quality. Great resource.

Re:This will be news when...

[blinder]

oh my... someone with teh mod points... please mod the parent of this post to informative... damn too bad there isn't a "+5 wow, you are awesome!" mod option

i can't believe i am actually now downloading "the day the earth froze" !!! thank you!

Re:This will be news when...

[C0rinthian]

I 3 you

Re:This will be news when...

[Professor_UNIX]

... when they lock up some kind of deal with rhino to distribute mystery science theater 3000.

The problem with MST3k was that they only showed really horrible movies. They need to have an MST3K viewing of the AFI Top 100 Films list. Lets see them rip on the Godfather instead of the crappy movies they watched.

/I know, I know, it'd never happen.. the point is to rip on bad movies

Re:This will be news when...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have all of the dap episodes, and none of them are even close to DVD quality. They're compressed recordings from videotapes, for chrissakes. There may be a couple of exceptions to that fact, but not many.

FWIW, I also have every MST3K DVD that Rhino has sold (including the ones that are now out of print), and I delete the dap videos whenever a new DVD set comes out (which I buy instantly, of course).

Re:This will be news when...

[SilentChris]

"I have all of the dap episodes, and none of them are even close to DVD quality. They're compressed recordings from videotapes, for chrissakes. There may be a couple of exceptions to that fact, but not many."

Actually, the DVD DAP episodes are the direct MPEG stream pulled right off a DirecTV Tivo. It's about the clearest picture you're going to get short of, like you said, buying the episodes (and I too buy them when they come out).

As for the older episodes, what exactly do you expect? I doubt anyone has a digital copy of the KTMA days.

Hasselhoff?

[sczimme]

Just when you thought you'd never be able to get live action David Hasselhoff on your iPod video

s/thought/hoped

Re:Hasselhoff?

[ultramk]

Would this be a good time to remind people of the THE HASSELHOFFIAN RECURSION?.

Go ahead, try to get that image out of your mind.

Good luck.

M-

Re:Hasselhoff?

[Widowwolf]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! !! The Humanity!

After all the years

[Southpaw018]

After all the years of insanely stupid business decisions, lagging in the markets, struggling to compete, and relying on loyal users to keep it up, look at Apple now. ITMS dominates, and it does so for the right reasons - good software, good hardware. No acts of Congress involved. Good for them.

Re:After all the years

[frank_adrian314159]

...and it does so for the right reasons - good software, good hardware.

And you even forgot the most important reason - David Hasselhoff!

Re:After all the years

[j.bellone]

iTunes is a piece of shit, but the hardware is decent.

Danger! Danger! Non-uniform pricing!!

[ZachPruckowski]

I'd like to point out that most of the Jay Leno and Conan O'Brien stuff is $1.99, which means it costs the same as 45 minutes of LOST. But they are selling two roughly hour-long specials from Conan for $9.99. This is a big example of non-standard pricing, and I wouldn't be suprised to see more of it in the future.

Kind of nice.

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I suppose this is fine for missing a single episode, but for me and episodes of currently running series, I'm thinking a DVR is going to be a better way to go. I have MythTV set up 95%, I've just been putting off finishing it up, and for those that don't go for self-flagellation like installing Myth, there are commercial DVRs too that don't seem too bad. For TV shows that aren't run anymore, the DVDs are better deals anyway, I'm hoping there will be easier conversion software.

Re:Kind of nice.

[aengblom]

I suppose this is fine for missing a single episode, but for me and episodes of currently running series, I'm thinking a DVR is going to be a better way to go.

Obviously DVR is the better way to go, assuming you're planning to continuing paying the $40+ you're probably paying for cable. I split a cable subscription with my roomates, but if I got my own place and the offerings were a little bit more developed, I'd seriously consider dumping cable and paying iTube.

Re:Kind of nice.

[voorko02]

Your right for shows on channels you already subscribe to, but the real allure of this a la carte offering is for channels you don't have access to. I canceled my HBO subscription a couple of years back (my fiance stopped watching when Sex and the City went off the air and we put the money towards a Netflix subscription instead), but I'd still like to catch the latest episodes of Entourage or Weeds (thats Showtime I think) or whatever other original programming they offer these days. If HBO or Showtime start offering shows at 2 bucks a pop, I'd snap them up in a heartbeat. Right now its not a good enough replacement for DVRs because most of the shows offered don't even require cable (last I checked you could snag CBS, NBC, etc with a regular old antenna), but when they start to offer premium shows or shows in advance then I think we'll see a much more dramatic jump in sales.

Thought for the day...

[pubjames]

Everybody is talking about possible future Apple products - the iphone, icamera etc. I think there is a more logical and much more interesting product apple could make - an Apple TV.

Think about it - Sony and Microsoft are currently battling it out with gaming machines assuming that it's going to become the "media hub" for the home. What if they're completely wrong?

Apple have got many of the pieces of the puzzle already - Frontrow, itunes, a rock solid OS to base things on.

I can imagine my old mum and dad buying an Apple TV, but they would never in a million years buy an XBox or playstation.

Re:Thought for the day...

[Ducon Lajoie]

Has been done. A couple years too early perhaps...

http://www.lowendmac.com/roadapples/mactv.shtml

Re:Thought for the day...

[NotFamous]

I think there is a more logical and much more interesting product apple could make - an Apple TV
...called the iCandy

Re:Thought for the day...

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't look much like a TV to me. More like just a standard desktop.

Re:Thought for the day...

[Winterblink]

Or, pair up with an existing manufacturer like Samsung and create a tie-in to their services available in the TV itself. I just picked up a Samsung DLP set the other day, and it's got built in TV Guide support (wasn't expecting that). Imagine if it came with Front Row and access to download and play things from iTMS?

Instant market through integration. More than a slam dunk in this case, they'd shatter the backboard.

Re:Thought for the day...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's awesome. iCandy!

Re:So what?

[penguinoid]

Sorry to bust your bubble, but you're talking about the Soviet Russian ipod there.

How about some free downloads too?

[digitaldc]

Why not offer some episodes for free as an incentive to download the others?

For example, why not offer some freebies of more unpopular shows as an incentive to download the popular ones?

Why can't NBC/SciFi/Steve Jobs just give some things away as a way of saying thanks for all the millions of dollars they make?

Re:How about some free downloads too?

[j-beda]

I would think that some of the things listed at Public Domain Movie Database, which includes a number of Dragnet episodes would be perfect for free distribution, in all the markets where the iTMS operates.

Re:How about some free downloads too?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not offer some episodes for free as an incentive to download the others? For example, why not offer some freebies of more unpopular shows as an incentive to download the popular ones?

How is this "incentive"? "Ooh, Hitler Science Theatre Y2K! Makes me want to download Law & Order!" Hmm, I don't see this working. (It's also a much more extreme case of non-uniform pricing, which people already seem to dislike.)

Why can't NBC/SciFi/Steve Jobs just give some things away as a way of saying thanks for all the millions of dollars they make?

Because it's not sustainable. And when their charity money runs out, their offerings will get worse: no more freebies. And then you risk upset customers, becuase Apple's usual strategy is to gradually *lower* prices for the same functionality (as for most computer companies).

Re:How about some free downloads too?

[RobotRunAmok]

Why not offer some episodes for free as an incentive to download the others?

Because if I'm Steve Jobs, slashdot is the first site I click each day for marketing advice.

Re:How about some free downloads too?

[thepotoo]

You do know that SciFi did that with Battlestar Galactica, right? They released the first episode of the first season and the last episode of the first season completely uncut and ad free for webstreaming.

And BSG did really well. Whether this was because of the promotional, or because the show was genuinely good, I don't know (but I do have a good idea).

Also, as above mentioned, if you want free episodes, there's bittorrent. No, it ain't legal, but when the alternative is a low-res ep on your ipod or a DVD comming out 2 years later, I shall keep on breaking the law.

Re:How about some free downloads too?

[Lumpy]

It's called trying it out moron. same as why XM radio and Sirius should have at least 1 free channel that comes in on even unregistered sattelite radio recievers. to get you hooked.

Cripes drug dealers have had this as a very sucessful marketing plane for centuries. Get them hooked on the freebie and they come back to buy more and more and even to upgrade.

try it before you buy it will get people hooked quite fast on iPod video shows. hell I have at least 5 people at work desperately trying to find a used archos gmini 400 on ebay because they are really impressed by mine. espically when I show them the neat script I built that grabs a bittorrent of my shows off of pirate bay, downloads them and then converts tot he archos gmini smaller formfactor with a simple click. (you HAVE to love python!)

Sadly I have to be a criminal to have the TV of tomorrow today.

Re:How about some free downloads too?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called trying it out moron. [...] Cripes drug dealers have had this as a very sucessful marketing plane for centuries. Get them hooked on the freebie and they come back to buy more and more [sic]

In that case, the drug dealers are giving out *actual drugs*. If the drug dealer on the corner gave out aspirin for free, you're not going to upgrade to cocaine just because you like their aspirin. (Not to mention that drugs create a physiological dependency...)

Having "freebies of more unpopular shows" is not like giving out free cocaine.

hell I have at least 5 people at work desperately trying to find a used archos gmini 400 on ebay because they are really impressed by mine.

Again, because they saw your *actual device*. If they saw a cheap, "unpopular" bootleg ripoff of your MP3 player, would they be as interested in the "archos gmini 4000"? Doubtful.

Re:How about some free downloads too?

[Have Blue]

Apple already offers a free song every week. I won't be at all surprised if they start doing this with TV shows.

Re:How about some free downloads too?

[ScottCooperDotNet]

What better way to hook in some new users than offering a first run of a show in iTunes? Just the buzz it will create for the first airing will be worth it.

Re:How about some free downloads too?

[porcupine8]

Notice that there always is something you can download for free on the iTMS. Just not in the video section - yet. Remember that 1) This is a very new thing, with very, very limited content. Whatever content they can get their hands on is very valuable to them right now. 2) Downloading a video costs them more bandwidth than a song, so free episodes are going to cut into their (probably already thin) profit margins more than free songs. I'll be once bandwidth prices fall a bit and they have the range of content they have in music, they'll have a few freebies.

A Deal With FOX?

[That's Unpossible!]

Please, for the love of all things funny, PLEASE God save Arrested Development using this iTMS deal.

I'd pay $100 for a season of Arrested Development. I'm 30 years old, and this is the funniest show I've ever seen on TV.

Re:A Deal With FOX?

[That's Unpossible!]

(To clarify my $100 remark -- I'd pay $100 for a 4th season of AD.)

Re:A Deal With FOX?

[jratcliffe]

I'd pay $100 for a season of Arrested Development. I'm 30 years old, and this is the funniest show I've ever seen on TV.

Lucky you, you can get TWO seasons for just $44 at Amazon...

Re:A Deal With FOX?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. That's the first thing I thought about when I saw this news.

Why must Fox cancel stuff like Futurama, Family Guy, and Arrested Development (the best of the three), while introducing complete crap like "Ice Skating with Celebrities".

Are they really that dumb?

Re:A Deal With FOX?

[mgblst]

agreed. check out curb your enthusiasm as well.

(sorry about no caps, typing while holding the computer up to the window, at 11:30 pm stealing free wifi in paris, but not waking anyone else up)

Important Add-on comment

[ZachPruckowski]

I'd like to point out that most of the Jay Leno and Conan O'Brien stuff is $1.99, which means it costs the same as 45 minutes of LOST.

The important part of that sentence is that the Leno and Conan stuff is 5-10 minutes long for the same price.

Re:Important Add-on comment

[generic-man]

I'm assuming that's the contents of the shows that don't include anything that would require more royalties: celebrity interviews, musical guests, Walker: Texas Ranger clips...

$2 for a 6-minute monologue is mighty steep, though.

Re:Important Add-on comment

[kponto]

Actually, the whole Walker bit came about because NBC merged with Universal, so they own the rights to it. No royalties needed. I'm a little surprised that it's not available on iTMS on it's own, to sort of extend the original joke.

That, and I'm pretty sure that when celeb's or anything else appears on these shows, an agreement is reached beforehand giving them the rights for redistribution. Could be wrong though.

Re:Important Add-on comment

[generic-man]

I think Universal owned only the television syndication rights to Walker because USA Network was airing repeats at the time Conan started rebroadcasting it. The show's production company and distributor are CBS/Viacom and Sony, not Universal, so new Walker content (!!) can't be distributed on the iTunes Music Store under that agreement.

Great, but...

[dduardo]

I'm still waiting for the Ipod Micro so I can watch the shows in High Definition.

Re:Great, but...

[Sockatume]

Don't you mean iPod Kilo? I mean, if it's going to be getting bigger. ;)

Re:Great, but...

[ZachPruckowski]

I'm still waiting for the Ipod Micro so I can watch the shows in High Definition. ...on my fingernail.

Kudos to Apple again

[thunderpaws]

Apple leads the way again. Quality and simplicity, giving people what they really want. Microsoft will get into this market and mess it up with complexity and buggery. Others will join the fray, and some will be taken and some will be left, while the press and pundits will forsee Apple's demise again and again.

Re:Kudos to Apple again

[Anonymous Coward]

complexity and buggery

I wondered how long it would take for someone to mention p0rn

Meanwhile IPod porn is exploding.

[putko]

I'm guessing they aren't going to make noise about the fact that porn for the iPod is exploding. E.g. http://www.onthegox.com/index.php?a=70747&adtr

And that's just one site. There are tons.

Re:Meanwhile IPod porn is exploding.

[circusboy]

I'm impressed, how'd they get video on that older model ipod?

Firefly

[electrosoccertux]

This would be a perfect time for Fox to release Firefly on the Ipod and pull in some extra monies. Perhaps people might buy it?

Ahhh, yes...

[Xserv]

More shows to watch on a screen the size of a vanilla wafer. It could at least be as tasty... *grumbles*

Re:Ahhh, yes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could watch them hooked up to your TV. Or you could watch them on your monitor. But of course it's harder to whine when you restrict yourself to whining about actual limitations.

Battlestar Galactica

[Hektor_Troy]

I thought it was the old show ...

But no.

Season 1: $25.87
Season 2: $1.99/episode

*drools*

Re:Battlestar Galactica

[Anonymous Coward]

And here in Europe we buy season 1 from Play.com for £17.99 or something like $32.

But the day I can buy TV shows and movies in high quality on the norwegian iTMS, and then i don't just mean norwegian TV shows I'll go out and buy a larger HD.

Re:Battlestar Galactica

[tbmaddux]

I stumbled across the news of Season 2 being sold on iTunes and immediately purchased it. I'm trying to watch them all again before January when the second half of Season 2 is shown, and this works for me. I can probably find better quality illegal downloads somewhere, but the convenience of this is too good to pass up. I'm hoping I can even play the sound through my stereo via AirTunes.

There's always a couple...

[Frobozz0]

There's always a couple nay sayers. Everyone, including Apple, acknowledges this is the first critical baby step towards IPTV and TV on demand *for purchase.*

It is widley rumored that Apple will be releasing an Intel based "media" mac, perhaps the revamped Mini, at MWSF this year. Considering the new software and integration plans for this product, you can begin to see how additional features will come out.

And, come on ... who the hell cares about Linux support for this? How many Linux users, who don't even want to pay for their Operating System, will want to pay for their video? I seriously doubt they'd get a lot of converts. As you so eleoquently point out, they'll fire up a P2P and illegally download it instead. This isn't a "Linux sucks" argument-- it's an argument about the small market share and even smaller likelihood for financial success on Linux given the content at hand.

Re:There's always a couple...

[Anonymous Coward]

And, come on ... who the hell cares about Linux support for this? How many Linux users, who don't even want to pay for their Operating System, will want to pay for their video?

Yeah man, because the only reason for using Linux is that it costs no money! :rolleyes:

Re:There's always a couple...

[sp0rk173]

Er...No. I use the best operating system for my platform that suits my needs. Being poor and not owning a Mac, I use linux. When I had a Mac, when i wasn't quite so poor, I bought the operating system happily. I even bought upgrades. Why? Because it was the best for the platform I was on and it suited my needs perfectly. That said, I would happily pay for non-DRMed digital video content if it were available, much like how i currently happily pay for non-DRMed digital music from independent bands I like. Until then, i'll get it however I can.

Re:There's always a couple...

[Achromatic1978]

"Everyone, including Apple, acknowledges this is the first..."

Wow. Even Apple "acknowledges" that one of it's own products is an advancement, and futurelooking??

Well, knock me down with a feather. I'd have thought they'd be one of the naysayers too!

Labeling my own recordings

[thatshortkid]

one thing that has irked me about the new ipod and itunes is labeling my own tv show recordings as 'tv shows'. the current itunes will only let me label them as either 'movie' or 'music video', while shows bought from itms show up as 'tv shows'. anybody know a workaround / hack?

yes, offtopic. but hot damn, my recordings are legit!

Re:Labeling my own recordings

[theurge14]

Well, a somewhat ugly workaround is to label all your own tv show recordings "My TV Show", either as an addition to the track name or just put that text in some other field of your choice. Then just make a Smart Playlist called something like "My TV Shows" and filter everything with "My TV Show" in that field.

Re:Resistance is Futile

[mr100percent]

Only when Apple tries to kill off other companies. Apple can't and won't kill off Adobe or Microsoft or Netscape or lie to the government or break antitrust laws.

Yawn...

[Psarchasm]

Let me know when 720x400 video is available for download.

Re:Yawn...

[NaruVonWilkins]

Yep. If I buy the iPod Video "HD" later on, I don't want to be stuck buying things over again. These displays will be 640x480 if not 1280x720/768 within a couple of years.

Apple should make it clear to their customers (if they intend to do this) that later versions will be made available to those who have purchased the original version.

Re:Yawn...

[mblase]

I've downloaded episodes of "Lost" for viewing on my computer, since I don't own/can't afford a video iPod. I was pleased to see that I could watch it on my 17" monitor from several feet away on the couch and enjoy it -- the quality is comparable to a medium-quality home VHS recording. You could see the pixelation in, say, the stubble on Jack's chin, but printed text was completely legible.

Now, keep in mind that a 45-minute episode of "Lost" takes 10-20 minutes to download. You want twice the resolution, that's almost four times the data and would take an hour to download, if not longer. Most customers aren't going to want to download video if it takes longer than the episode itself to do so.

iTMS' current resolution for video is "good enough" for viewing at home and on a portable device. It does the job it was meant to do. If you want it higher than this, you're honestly better off spending the money on the DVD set or a good cable TV connection.

Re:Yawn...

[praxis]

If indeed that is their plan. If their plan is to offer higher resolution video in the future but not offer a trade up program then it's in their best interests to *not* tell you that. They wouldn't want to canabilize current sales because people will be waiting for resolutions worth-while.

Re:Yawn...

[NaruVonWilkins]

That's why I had the bit in parentheses with the "if".

Re:Yawn...

[osu-neko]

Honestly, I don't think most current iPod customers, at least of the video-capable 5G iPods, are that concerned about it. Someone plunking down $400 on an MP3 player isn't exactly a penny-pincher. If higher resolutions are available later but additional purchases are required, so be it. If I want it, I'll pay for it. If I have to pay for it twice because I want it now and want it better then, I'll do so. It's not like I can't afford it. If cost were an issue, I'd have purchased a much cheaper player to begin with. It's a $1.99, for crying out loud. I pay more than that for a cup of coffee, not to mention a video rental for just a few days. If I have to do it twice when new, better versions are available, I'll do it twice. Gladly, for the improved quality and to support the service that is providing it to me.

Re:Yawn...

[NaruVonWilkins]

I agree, that $2 isn't very much when considering the player; however, do remember that a rental typically has more than one disc, and one disc has more than one episode. For, say, Battlestar Galactica, you're paying something on the order of $30 for all the episodes on iTunes, as much as a purchase of the DVD set.

Knight Rider

[Anonymous Coward]

The old or new Knight Rider? The new one was cancelled by ABC. Damn them!!

Re:Danger! Danger! Non-uniform pricing!!

[GauteL]

Two hours of talk show for $9.99 is a ridiculous price. Are they of particularly fantastic quality?

Scripted TV shows and movies are stuff you watch several times and your favourites are stuff you want to collect. Companies can thus get away with charging a premium on it. Are there really that many that will want to watch a particular episode of Late Night Show over and over again unless a relative happened to be on it?

I'll find it surprising if these work out as anything but a free teaser for other material.

Re:Danger! Danger! Non-uniform pricing!!

[SoCalChris]

I didn't look at the Conan stuff yet, but the Leno stuff that's available is just small portions of the show. I'm not paying $2 for the headlines (Which are available for free on NBC's web site), or the Jay Walking skit. I might pay $2 for a whole episode, if it included the interviews and band, and I wanted to see one of those, but no way am I paying $2 for something I can get free on their web site.

Apparently you've never heard the saying...

[everphilski]

Apparenlyt you've never heard the saying that children are the future? Get them hooked now and you have a consumer for life. Not trying to be cynical, but your parents are just that much closer (15-30 years) to not being active consumers...

-everphilski-

Re:Apparently you've never heard the saying...

[pubjames]

Apparenlyt you've never heard the saying that children are the future? Get them hooked now and you have a consumer for life. Not trying to be cynical, but your parents are just that much closer (15-30 years) to not being active consumers...

There were gaming consoles when I was a kid. But now I've got kids of my own, a job and other responsibilities I don't have time for a Playstation or XBox. But I might buy an Apple TV. Or do you think I'm not a good demographic either? That's my point - I think the market for an Apple TV is probably much larger than that for games consoles.

International Superstar David Hasselhof...

[wombatmobile]

rendered 4 pixels tall.

Pamela Anderson can say a lot with only two pixels.

Word

[everphilski]

I just blued myself.

-everphilski-

What Technology is Behind iTMS?

[johnthorensen]

I'm curious as to what technology underlies the iTunes Music Store. Are they using Apple hardware on the hardware side? WebObjects on the software side? If it's an "all-Apple" solution that's a major success story that they ought to be leveraging to sell their server products.

-JT

Re:What Technology is Behind iTMS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. It's all us. Bit customized on the software side, you understand, but there are just racks of Xserves serving up media.

Re:What Technology is Behind iTMS?

[ediron2]

The deep-down URLs in apple.com usually mention webobjects, so that's a safe bet, but nobody sane would actually run a farm of business-critical servers based on BSD. Get real. </snark>

Re:What Technology is Behind iTMS?

[amichalo]

iTunes Music Store is using Web Objects. Macworld reports in this article that it runs on Xserve and Xserve RAID and every investor knows Akamai (AKAM) is the bandwidth provider.

Re:What Technology is Behind iTMS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple has had a long history of "eating their own dogfood." They use their own technology, their own OSs, and their own hardware. Top to bottom.

Re:What Technology is Behind iTMS?

[adpowers]

Yep. And even though they are running their computer store and music store on WebObjects, they don't seem to be trying to sell it to anyone else.

Re:What Technology is Behind iTMS?

[amichalo]

I don't agree that Apple isn't trying to sell WebObjects to anyone else. I believe that Apple is choosing its battles wisely.

WebObjects can only be served on Apple computers. Apple is still very new to the datacenter and is gaining publicity and credability with the Xserve RAID's performance and price/GB. But Apple needs to establish itself in the datacenter before pushing a Web Objects campaign. No doubt IT pros are asking the same question we ask on /. "What's the mojo behind the iTunes data center?" and Apple enterprise sales are no doubt happy to tell the tale. But Apple knows its a loosing battle to push their Web Objects yet.

Wait until there are "Intel Inside" Xserves in the data center and then Web Objects will begin to proliferate.

Re:What Technology is Behind iTMS?

[adpowers]

I agree that they are new to the datacenter and people are still skeptical. However, I that wasn't quite what I intended (I'll admit my comment was unclear). I'm no expert on the history of WebObjects, but this is the impression that I've gotten from my more in-the-know Apple friends and colleague that used to work at Apple: Apple used to have a larger WebObjects team (including in-house consulting staff to help other companies) when it was based on Objective-C. I think with one version, they moved WebObjects (the programs written in it, at least) to Java and significantly cut their development and team. I don't think they've made many major changes recently (well, changes might not be necessary). It seems to me that they still offer it for people that want it, but mainly just develop it so they can use it in house. Take this previous paragraph with a grain of salt.

Also, outside of the datacenter, it seems like small businesses could use WebObjects. A small Mac shop could buy a PowerMac, stick it in an empty office or back room, and run whatever they need off that, no 'datacenter' necessary.

Re:What Technology is Behind iTMS?

[repetty]

Well, if you are a student then you could buy WebObject for $100.

Re:What Technology is Behind iTMS?

[adpowers]

Well, I mean, it is available to purchase, but they don't seem to be pursing customers at all. I am a student, so perhaps I'll check it out at some point, but right now my web apps are written in perl. I'd probably like to learn Ruby on Rails before WebObjects.

Re:What Technology is Behind iTMS?

[amichalo]

adPower - good point that a small shop might be interested in Web Objects rather than a larger datacenter.

My experience in small business consulting has been that (sadly) small business customers how no IT in house knowledge or worse, someone with strong leanings one way or another. In any case, samll business is much more apt to do it the Microsoft Way or the way of their good friend Bob's nephew or whomever they trust. They rarely take the time to evaluate a solution. They are too busy stopping the bleading.

Add to this that most small bsuinesses are running on the solution they had when they got started ten years back (or whatever) which means it is a windows program. Heck I know one small business that won't upgrade from Win98 boxes because their DOS inventory program will go nuts. So they buy eBay boxes when one of teh workstations dies!

Re:What Technology is Behind iTMS?

[mr100percent]

WebObjects isn't that young. Didn't Apple switch WebObjects from a OS X Server application to a slower Java one in order to be cross-platform?

Re:What Technology is Behind iTMS?

[Phroggy]

but nobody sane would actually run a farm of business-critical servers based on BSD. Get real.

Apple has been dying for the last two decades; it was a match made in heaven!

Re:What Technology is Behind iTMS?

[axp_bofh]

Or install current XCode and get the WebObjects developer kit for slightly less (i.e., *free*).

...and a pony!

[Shag]

(had to be said, sorry)

SD Quality Downloads

[Frobozz0]

It's Standard Definition (SD) quality television. In fact, it can look a lot better than SD if you play it through an HD set with upsampling or other quality improving technologies.

For example, I have a Sony 50" LCD Projection HDTV (Love it, BTW.) I also have a PowerBook. All I do is plug the S-Video cable from my computer to my TV and play all those episode of LOST I love. I had never seen LOST prior to downloading on iTunes, so I thought I would DL a couple and try it out. I was really impressed by the quality. It's better than a normal SD broadcast, the colors are amazing, and the compression is almost never noticable.

So, yes, I would like HD quality downloads for video (nominal charge is fine for bandwidth) and I'd like higher quality AAC's (norminal charge fine) as an option. But this is a great start and will prove the validity of the concept.

Re:SD Quality Downloads

[imsabbel]

So its definitely NOT 320x200 pixels?
Because the definition of SD quite vague...

Re:SD Quality Downloads

[nidhogge242]

Well actually, the standard definitions of Standard Definition are fairly rigid, and are only varied between different regions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/576i

XBMC?

[Zelet]

Is there any way to play these episodes on XBMC? Is there any way to strip the copy protection and just have the file if not?

What? What's the Online Competition?

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW, it's $1.99 per episode.

But heck, what's the comparison? What other source offers per-episode pricing for TV shows? The competition isn't the MPAA -- the studios and the networks are the clients. Right now, I don't think there is much competition except your TV to get the shows live. Yes, you can record shows for free to DVR or whatever.

This new batch of shows (Dragnet, Hitchcock, etc.) shows the real promise -- that studios and networks will start to digitize their old shows as a new source of revenue. Heck, I'll pay $1.99 to download episodes of some older shows. Who wants the whole season if you have 1-2 favorite episodes?

(Granted, I'd prefer higher resolution files, but let's assume that will come at some future point.)

funny, i SEE MSNBC, but i dont see AppleCBS...

[haute_sauce]

I would think that with the current partnership MicroSoft has with NBC should include streaming distribution. It would not take much to extend from news to network programming.

It is almost as if they network of Law & Order is playing Microsoft against Apple...

Re:funny, i SEE MSNBC, but i dont see AppleCBS...

[doughrama]

Every thought of AppleBC? Maybe this could be the result of another realationship, Disnar.

Re:funny, i SEE MSNBC, but i dont see AppleCBS...

[dancpsu]

I thought of AppleBS, but only from Jobs' keynotes

Here's why there are no iTunes video freebies

[doublem]

Freebies?

What do you think people have been getting from P2P for ages????

Sheesh.

Resolution

[everphilski]

Well at least the new episodes of Law & Order, which are filmed in HDTV, will be shown in brilliant 1280x720 resolution, right? Nope. 320x240.

As has already been noted, you can play your media in another player, that's not an issue. The real kick in the nuts is resolution. Until they increase it to decent-looking on a monitor... the market is limited.

-everphilski-

Re:Resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong! I just plugged my 5G iPod video into my standard (not HD) 32" TV and played an episode of Lost. Broadcast quality ... not HD mind you. But the same pciture quality I normally get on my TV. And guess waht ... now I could take this episode to a friends house and plug my iPod into her Tv and she gets to see it too. Make sure you know that facts before pronouncing the technology stupid, stupid.

Well, I'm sold

[dimer0]

I had absolutely no plans of upgrading from my old 3G, until now.

Can't wait to download all the Office episodes.

Keep it up, AAPL!

Re:Well, I'm sold

[ciroknight]

Yes, keep AAPL up, I'm making a fortune.

I'm excited about BSG

[guru8376]

I don't have cable(not by choice) therefore, I've had to torrent the second season so far, so i'm glad i'll be able to get a legitimate copy of it to watch. Now if they would put Stargate SG-1 and atlantis on Itunes, I could get rid of my torrent program altogether.

Re:I'm excited about BSG

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they will. Sci-Fi shows they are interested in dealing. I wouldn't be surprised if it took a while to do something about 9 seasons of compresion for SG-1, but Atlantis shouldn't be too far out.

Re:So what?

[RingDev]

I for one agree. Give me a standard API library that interfaces with their system and let me build my own user interface on what ever OS I want.

-Rick

Four letters

[Pup5]

FIFA

I don't have cable or reception... to my chagrin. I couldn't care less about seeing Buffy, but I sure would like to see the Champions League.

When will leagues start to think of themselves as content producers and go direct to the customer with services like this?

Re:Four letters

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen!

A week after the original launch I wrote to Major League Soccer (MLS) and SUM (the US English language licensee distributor of the World Cup and MLS broadcaster) and asked them to look into providing games via iTMS next year for the league and WC. I realize SUM can't make the decision for the WC but it'd be nice if they could take the case to FIFA. I'd love to have a season pass to my favorite team and be able to have a copy of every game they play.

Finally getting Fox Soccer Channel and GolTV on Thursday. Can't wait to spend a weekend on the couch watching Premiership games... ah, heaven.

Re:Four letters

[Anonymous Coward]

UEFA Champions League games can be streamed from the UEFA.com web site. Subscription is required. Real Media is the format.

I appreciate it isn't in iTunes format, but it's better than nothing.

Tempting

[Doc Ruby]

I can't wait until Apple Computer starts selling downloads of the Beatles movies, and Apple Lawyer Records sues them again.

Soon in France...

[Sylvain]

Apple was about to open the TV shows download service in France but backed out at the last minute after a market analysis showed that nobody would care unless Apple offers all seasons of MacGyver in HD.

Will speed up IPTV deployments

[Bruha]

I doubt Apple will ever move into the set top box world for cable providers.

But I see this pushing deployments for bigger and better VOD libraries with cable providers ONCE Apple makes a viable and afforadable media center Mac.

And it better be HD capable!

Overpriced!

[utexaspunk]

These shows are ridiculously overpriced. Do the math- we'll look at the highest-rated show, Desperate Housewives:

Average number of viewers/episode: 17.44mil
Number of ads per show: Probably about 10min of National ads (20 30-second spots), 5 of local ads (10 30-second spots)
Price per 30-second National spot: $560,000
National ad revenue per show: $11.2m
Value/viewer: $.64!

Now, this isn't counting the value of the local ads (which sell in the tens of thousands of $/spot, depending on the market and timeslot), what the show will make in syndication, or DVD sales, but neither is it counting the costs associated with broadcasting television, which are far greater than the cost of hosting a file. I just can't imagine a single show being worth more than a dollar. $2!? I think I'll find [ahem!] other ways to get the shows for a better price point.

I'd gladly pay a quarter for the rights to watch a 30-min show ad-free for 24hrs, encumbered with DRM and everything. If there were a huge database of these shows, I might even go back at a later date and pay to watch them again. A system like that would have to be at LEAST as profitable as broadcast TV, if not moreso...

Re:Overpriced!

[Skim123]

Agreed.

What irks me is the across-the-board $1.99 price tag for episodes. Why does last night's Law and Order cost as some random one from Season 3, for example?

Re:Overpriced!

[theurge14]

Elvis Presley's "Heartbreak Hotel" still costs $0.99, it's not exactly a new release either.

Keep fighting the good fight!

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple needs to learn to start providing HDTV quality video that can be played using any device at bargain basement prices, or they're NEVER going to get business from unethical people who are fine with pirating stuff. You're right, man, Apple REALLY dropped the ball on this one!

Geez, do you really believe what you're saying yourself? Apple may not be open, but it knows what people want, which is more than I can say for all the "open" MP3 players and stores out there. Why WOULD a company build a hugely successful business model and then just give it to their competitors on a silver platter, or to freeloaders who complain about every little thing that constrains their absolute freedom to work with the material that stealing provides them? But if you keep complaining about Apple on /. message boards and threaten to continue pirating, I'm sure they'll realize what a loss in sales you are and mend their ways.

BTW, it's pretty much guaranteed that Apple will start providing higher quality video and other playback methods in the near future. They're testing the market. But complain away, freeloader man!

AOL + Nick Apple

[LoudMusic]

I'm more interested in the link in the article to the AOL and Nickelodeon teamup for free video with a couple inserted commercials. I don't understand the need to watch TV on a 3" screen, nore pay $2 for a show that aired last night. And furthermore my friends and I have been talking about old Nick toons for some time now. In highschool I stayed up watching Nick at Nite on a regular basis. I think AOL might have done something good! *shock and amazement*

When you get home from work
Where your boss was a jerk
And you feel like a trugaladite.
There's instant relief
From this hardship and grief.
Thank goodness for Nick *ding-dling* at NITE!

Leno and Conan

[jessecurry]

it seems that the episodes of Leno and Conan are not actually episodes, but collections of segments. I would've really liked to be able to download entire episodes, but at least this is a start.

error: did not parse

[ebbomega]

'quick manos fix'???

such a thing doesn't exist.

i can watch that episode maybe once every other year. sure, you think it's funny early on, then you start to say to yourself 'the only thing keeping this funny is the riffing'.

by the end of the movie, even mst can't save this one. your finger just propells itself to your eye.

btw, i have a copy of the movie unedited. i've had it since my birthday, but still haven't watched it (6 months now). simply because i watched it back in april with mst and i don't think it'll be at least now.... maybe another year... before i can trudge through it sans riffing.

seriously. manos fix? you poor masochist.

Re:error: did not parse

[blinder]

but but but! how can you not just enjoy the line from torgo: "i look after the place while the master is away"

or the "itsy bitsy spider" bit?

oh sure, a little manos goes a long way. i do not mean to suggest watching it the whole way through... just pieces of it here and there, just to keep a little weirdness and a lot of badness near you at all times :)

Re:error: did not parse

[Anonymous Coward]

You cannot stay.

It will be dark soon.

You cannot stay.

NSFW Parent Link

[Peridriga]

Just incase you couldn't tell by context but, the link the parent is Not Safe For Work.

Just a heads up for those who aren't network administrators :-)

Did you get the memo?

[Guysmiley777]

Sony is Evil now. Oh, and about yout TPS reports...

Even their DRM sounds pretty tame, though...

[maillemaker]

From the iTunes web site:

http://www.apple.com/itunes/videos/

"Browse featured listings or search the archive to find just what you want, then click to buy. Once you do, you get stutter-free, ad-free video delivered directly to your desktop. From there, the sky's the limit, because you own purchased video forever. Watch as many times as you choose, share between five computers, burn to data CDs or sync to the new iPod. Instant gratification never looked better."

-> "...because you own purchased video forever." -

Steve

Only 300 episodes?

[yardbird]

the PR from Apple stated that their current offering of video stands at approximately 300 episodes.

That can't be right: with Law & Order, it must be more like 30,000.

Re:Only 300 episodes?

[ciroknight]

They only have the first season, and part of the 16th season (roughly half), which is only about 35 episodes total, making Law and Order roughly 10% of Apple's video offerings.

My guess is they didn't want to flood the market with 16 Seasons of Law and Order, 9 Seasons of L&O:SVU and N seasons of L&O:CI and have it be about 80% of what they're distributing.

That being said, I've already purchased the whole first season, simply because the episodes don't come on TV anymore, and they're absolutely brilliant. I remember posting in the first iTMS tv article that as soon as they had Law and Order they had me, and now.. :), just in time for christmas.

Re:Only 300 episodes?

[KeyMacker]

that may be part of the reason, but also perhaps it's because the studio itself wants to be sure the DRM doesn't get cracked and suddenly the entrie version of the cracked series goes to p2p, granted they could have had more than 2 season at least. It seems that for the actual TV series, they only have 1st season and current season, for the vintage ones since there is only the first seasons because there is no 'current' season. Also when putting up all those seasons at once some people may get so addicted that they'll watch the entire run at once, (who knows there are crasy people out there, heck since it's the U.S. someone might even sue blaming it on their inability to concentrate on work, but maybe that's a big stretch). Either way it's probably the studios being cautious. They know this is a huge potential base but they are still wary of the effectiveness of DRM and it's ability of staying uncracked.

great. now uncripple the shows and I will buy it.

[Yonder Way]

If they would:

1) Drop the DRM
2) Distribute at full resolution, not tiny iPod size

I would pay for it. I would love to have my MythTV subscribe to the full HD episodes of Battlestar Galactica and let my tuner grab some less important shows. I would pay $3 or $4 per episode, every week, for the convenience of this. I can think of a few other shows that I'd be willing to pay for to download to my MythTV without commercials, without the little station bug in the bottom right corner, and in full HD glory.

moderation

[markdowling]

there isn't a -1 Whiny option.

If iTMS music sales are a precedent...

[Reverberant]

Why not offer some episodes for free as an incentive to download the others?

... they just might. Remember that the iTMS started off with music sales, and now they offer one free track each week.

Perhaps the annual(?) Pepsi iTMS giveaway may be extended to videos?

We can hope...

Knight Rider AI

[Anonymous Coward]

To me the AI was never that great, I watched hundreds of episodes waiting for KITT to say:

"With all due respect, Michael, you can't be that big of a Tool... Oh my word, you are!" ...alas, it never happened.

Overheard

[green pizza]

"One Adam Twelve, One Adam Twelve, see the man, a 240 and a 484, mugging with iPod theft at the corner of Coldwater and Mulholland"

Re:Oh Knight Rider.

[earthbound kid]

"Or so the Germans would have us believe."

More likely

[SuperKendall]

Given that the president of Sony was on stage at an Apple event last year, I'd say it's far more likley you are going to be inserting an Apple Media Center disc into a PS3 next year. It has the ports and connectivity. All Apple has to do is add FrontRow for the PS3 and have it link back to files on your PC.

Re:More likely

[aristotle-dude]

That president was fired soon after that show and replaced by some british dude.

Re:More likely

[bill_mcgonigle]

Don't forget, Sony's "advertised" that the PS3 can run Tiger.

Hasselhoff

[rjung2k]

"Also, whenever I see David Hasselhoff now, I just think, 'really, really, really, really bad German pop star'."

Go see the Spongebob Squarepants movie (stop laughing!). David has a sizable cameo in that, and the stuff he gets into makes up for a lot of the "bad German pop music" work, IMO.

If nothing else, you'll never see David's pecs the same way again...

Well...

[SuperKendall]

He might have got the memo if you hadn't titled it $sys$Memo! What were you thinking?

Meanwhile...

[IntergalacticWalrus]

All non-US stores are still empty, including Canada.

Hello? Internet is global? When will they fucking understand? (note: I'm not blaming Apple, I know it's not their fault the companies they're making deals with are completely missing the boat)

Re:Important question... (OT reply sorry!)

[gibbsjoh]

modecx... why not order some region 2 dvds from here (UK) and rip them (straight up, no compression, just a VIDEO_TS folder), and re-burn as Region Free? Not the ideal solution but better than a kick in the trousers :). MacTheRipper will do this on MacOS X, Im sure there's a Windows/Linux package to do the same.

FWIW I love Top Gear too!

JG

Re:So what?

[FyRE666]

Wow, downmodded again, there's a surprise...

Mistaken value

[SuperKendall]

Let's say you are following a series like Lost, and you missed one episode.

Are you honestly saying that that missing episode is only going to be worth $.64? Hardly, if you miss an episode of a series you are really into, people will generally go to a lot more than $.64 worth of bother to obtain it before the next episode airs.

Your calculations only show why networks are idiots not to sell shows on ITMS, they do not indicate anything about the price being a good value for the consumer.

Re:Mistaken value

[utexaspunk]

but not every show is a series where you just HAVE to see every episode. Shows like CSI, Law & Order, ER, etc, are usually self-contained episodes that the viewer can take or leave. I doubt they want commercial-free internet downloads to replace TV, but if it is ever to do so it will have to be at a price that people can afford to casually watch. $2/hr is not an amount most people would idly fritter away like they do with their time when they're watching regular TV.

I don't care about OWNING the show. I just want to be able to watch TV when I feel like it, without commercial interruption, and I'd be happy to pay the equivalent cost to make up for the one less pair of eyeballs they are able to sell to advertisers. The question is whether they're in the business of making content and selling it to customers or attracting viewers and selling their attention to advertisers. It's a new business model for them- what I'm talking about isn't so much television as theatre on a national, time-independent scale.

Just another form of broadcast

[SuperKendall]

I read the AOL deal and If I want broadcast TV I can get it today. I don't need to hook up to an AOL streaming server.

I'd rather pay $2 thanks for the ability to play video whereever I like - a TV or my computer or a portable device. And commercial free which adds to the value.

Crossover Office 5 runs iTunes 4.9

[theurge14]

Video was introduced to iTunes in iTunes 6.

So currently there is no video option for Linux users even with Crossover Office and iTunes.

Dixie!!

[Black-Man]

Christ... how many women did she inspire to get into nursing thinking hanging out at the ol' ER was cool?

And don't forget that D5W and transport!

Re:AOL + Nick Apple

[mcwop]

Because I fly Southwest often, and they do not have in-flight movies. I do like to read on the plane, but it would be nice to watch some TV shows too.

Heck, it is even a good option for airlines that provide movies, since those are usually bad comedies or chick-flicks.

Hockey?

[XiticiX]

Can I get hockey on the ipod tv thingy? Like, LIVE hockey.

Or, for something a little more educational....

[Deadplant]

One of my local universities recently started posting lectures online formatted for ipod video.
check it out:
http://www.carleton.ca/cutv/vod/vodcast.htm

[disclosure: my company helps them with hosting and other related stuff]

USA, But no UP! All Night.

[kneel]

Damn. When I saw there was a USA deal, I was hoping they would release their back-catalog of awesome B-movies.

Didn't anyone else love that show?

Re:USA, But no UP! All Night.

[emamousette]

I loved the show, but really wished Gilbert Godfried would talk in a normal voice. At the times when he was actually funny, his voice still acted as a laugh-suppressant

US as others said

[denjin]

Not a bad show, I'd really love to see Gervais' office, too. Like another poster said, BBC shows up here would really be a great thing. But isn't the BBC planning on their own delivery method for something like this? Although using an already-established system like iTunes sounds good...

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which community? The NeXT developers? I think they hired them; isn't that enough thanks?

ESPN thinking Apple

[kherr]

I have no idea what kind of content they'd be considering, but apparently ESPN is thinking about Apple's video distribution. Now if only that means seeing stuff like The Ocho would be showing ("If it's almost a sport, we've got it!").

Re:Important question... (OT reply sorry!)

[modecx]

I've thought of that believe me, and yeah, DVD ripping is no problem for me. There are two things that bother me, though... I can only seem to find these DVDs:

Top Gear - Back in the Fast Lane, with seasons 1,2: sounds like a 90-minute dealie with clips of stuff and whatnot.. Sort of a Best Of album-Uaeah I hate those :D
Top Gear - Revved Up: apparently Jeremy disses automakers, or something. Meh?

They're probably pretty good, but I've watched quite a few ripped/downloaded shows, and these sound like what everyone else in the US experienced with Discovery Channel's take on it. No celebrity interviews, fewer power laps, etc. If you can point me to a place with actual season DVDs, as aired, that would be super!

My only other issue is the exchange rate... It'd be worth it, though, oh yes ;) But, damn our stupid government! A month ago it was 1 GBP:1.65 USD, now it's 1:1.74! Give it another month or two and it's gonna be 1:2! #$%@! Like we actually produce anything here--what good is devalued currency?! *sigh*

...and a plastic rocket!

[henni16]

Dear Buddha.. ;-)


(THAT had to be said, in all "serenity")

Clip of the scene

[henni16]

..can be found on the official site:

http://serenitymovie.com/nonflash_site/video.html? movie=operative&size=QTsmall

Does not mean the relationship is dead

[SuperKendall]

Still, it's an indication of high level ties between Sony and Apple - as is Apple's precence in the Blu-Ray forum.

I still think it would be easier for Apple to piggyback on the PS3 than build a consumer AV device that would satisfy most people.

Apple + ABC = AppleBC

[sweetaction]

AppleBC is way more likely with ties to Disney.

I'd pay $100 an episode...

[Anonymous Coward]

For more Firefly.

Re:Danger! Danger! Non-uniform pricing!!

[adpowers]

The two approximately hour long episodes are: 10th Anniversary Special, and a Best of Triumph episode. The short clips (15 minute) include a few Triumph clips and some other skits. All of the skits offered for download (at $2 a pop!) are pretty old (4-5 years?). I'm a little disappointed.

Resolution

[ZildjianKX]

The whole resolution issue just seems like another example of where a pirated product is superior to a legal product.

Not to mention the lack of DRM makes it superior... oh well.

Just bought some shows off iTMS...

[d0n quix0te]

I was expecting the quality to suck, but the quality surprised me...! Connected my Powerbook to our board room projector (800x600).... the quality is much better than I anticipated. Granted its not DVD quality, but the image is much better than most TVs.

I don't know what apple is doing, but the 320x240 video looks better than TV quality. The images are crisp, colors are quite lush and yes, no blotchy spots from bad encoding.

Took almost 20 minutes to download a 40 min episode... and this on a shared T1. The files are between 110-120 MB each. I can see why they are not doing HD quality... 400-600 MB would take for ever to download... (not everyone has an OC-3 pipe at home....; stuck with Comcast at home....).

All in all a good compromise between speed and quality. Pleasantly surprised, is more like it!

Re:Just bought some shows off iTMS...

[pherth]

Using h.264 a 40 min episode in 700x400 resolution would be about 300 MB, which would be doable with DSL. That resolution would make me a really happy shopper :)

Re:Just bought some shows off iTMS...

[Anonymous Coward]

(not everyone has an OC-3 pipe at home....; stuck with Comcast at home....).

I pay roughly $60/month for an 8Mbps/768Kbps pipe from comcast. That ain't OC-3, but it is a lot faster than a T1 - and I can sustain 7.5Mbps from giganews 24x7.

Re:What is there to censor?

[Fahrvergnuugen]

References too fat ass americans and shitty american cars. I guess the Discovery channel thinks the truth might reduce their audiences approval.

nice bait-and-switch, archos boy

[Anonymous Coward]

hell I have at least 5 people at work desperately trying to find a used archos gmini 400

You had me right up until you blew your cover, Archos fanboy, and now you've lost me. Face it: your kind have even less credibility than all of the most raving Apple fanbois, BSD nerds, GNU hippies, Steve Ballmers, and Linux posers in the world--COMBINED. If Archos was as cool as you guys think it is, it would cause deadly explosive hemorrhaging of the pleasure centers of the brain--but it is not, and it does not. It would also be available in a store near you, which is is not, or on ebay, which you claim it is not (go figure).

Re:So what?

[anothy]

You're modded down because you're an obvious troll, and ignorant and wrong to boot. Apple's given a lot back to the open source community. there's absolutely no reason why you should get to decide the form in which they give back. Apple got an open source core for their OS, and had given back substantial patches and improvements to the same; they got the KHTML rendering engine, and have given back substantial improvements to the same, including those that got Konquerer to be the second browser (after Safari) to be Acid2 compliant. if you don't like the nature of their contributions, or if you're one of those zealots who believe they're somehow obligated to give things away to a community who don't contribute any revenue, that's fine, but don't pretend Apple's not giving back. that's just dishonest.

video library?

[qwp]

Why can't we just form a digital library?
If i can go to my local public library and rent a video for free.
Why can't we just do the same with digital media?

It seams rather stupid that there is this aurora around digital files, that has been delt with for ages in the physical print and videos.

I don't quite understand the difference between my public library and a drm'ed video stream.

Do the math ... properly

[podperson]

Let's suppose you use Myth TV. My guess is that you'll probably waste ... oh ... 10h getting it working. In a couple of years you'll need to rebuild it from scratch. So let's call that 10h @ $50/h = $500 + $500 worth of hardware. Both of these figures are conservative.

So that's $1000 for 2y of PVR.

Or you could buy a TiVo. That's $50-300 + $200 of subscriptions for 2y of PVR (by which time TiVo is bankrupt...). And sales tax. Yada yada yada.

Then there's your cable TV bill (or are you doing all this for broadcast?). Let's call that $50/month. So now we're at:

$50 x 24 = $1200.
$250 - $1000 for PVR.

Add a bunch more for premium stations. Add a bunch more for more than one PVR.

This will buy you, say 29-44 SEASONS of TV on DVD @$50/season or 725-1100 episodes of iTMS video. I just don't watch that much TV... So it's already cheaper to buy TV content on DVD (but you have to wait for it to come out and miss stuff that never comes out) or iTMS (but it's not HD and it's arguably not quite broadcast quality -- but you do get to keep it).

Re:Do the math ... properly

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah you could buy a TiVo, and then all your watching habits and prefernces are sold to marketing. It's no longer a matter of you having a convience that you pay a monthly fee for, your privacy comes into question.

Don't need an Ipod

[sideshow]

Hell, if that happened, I'd be all over Top Gear, even though I don't have an iPod.

By using iTunes, you can watch the TV shows on your desktop, not just on an iPod.

Knight Rider Videos...

[Cutting_Crew]

2 Videos Knight Rider....

A shadowy flight into the dangerous world of a man who does not exist.

Michael Knight, A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent,
the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Re:Knight Rider Videos...

[mederjo]

Michael Knight, A young loner

Apart from the old guy who runs the Foundation ( Elliot, Devon ?? ) and the girl super mechanic plus whoever drives that truck he's always pulling into the back of, and I guess all the members of the Foundation who support him...

on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless,

As long as they or someone they know ( older sister, guardian etc. ) are cute and Michael can hook up with them at the end of the show.

in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Not so many criminals who operate within the law ... or they wouldn't be criminals.

It was on TV here ( New Zealand ) again fairly recently. Used to love it as a kid, found it harder to watch this time around. The music/opening credits are the best part.

Regards,

Jo Meder

Re:Oh Knight Rider.

[Anonymous Coward]

You guessed it: Frank Stallone.

So where's HBO?

[AugstWest]

They already have a pay-to-watch model, so they wouldn't be screwing traditional outlets as much as the networks, and MAN it would be nice to be able to get HBO tv shows without having to pay for the rest of the crap cable and satellite force you to pay for.

Baywatch Hawaii!

[Cyno01]

W/ the hot redhead aussie.

Hopefully we see more sci-fi on this service

[jonwil]

Battlestar Galactica is a good start but more would be nice :)

A few questions on this...

[XiticiX]

I don't suppose LIVE events are possible? I'd like to watch hockey. In Canada. On my ipod. While travelling. Too much to ask?

Re:A few questions on this...

[mh101]

Well, then it's not live, is it? :)

I wouldn't be surprised if CBC is looking into the possibility of video podcasts of various shows. They seem to be into podcasting, so who knows?

Re:A few questions on this...

[XiticiX]

Well, that's what I mean. A live, streaming NHL broadcast via satellite directly to my ipod. Now that's a technology I'd actually buy. Screw this downloading sh*t.

How big was your TV?

[antdude]

Probably looks decent on a small 20" TV. How abou 50"?

Giligan's Island and Star Trek

[johnrpenner]

when are they going to have gilligan's island and star trek!?
(some addams family and twilight zone would be cool too).

Re:AOL + Nick Apple

[mr100percent]

Yes! I'd pay for Rocko's Modern Life.

Re:So what?

[GaryPatterson]

What?
Like open sourcing the core of OS X, Darwin?
Or open sourcing Webkit?
Or like providing Konquerer devs with Apple's improvements?

What, specifically, are you saying? Your point about Apple 'giving back' is just plain wrong - they do plenty.

That's why you get modded down. If you can be a bit more specific, that might help.

if you are going to put old shows out there...

[dr-kdog]

How about baywatch? The real race to dominate the portable video market lies on securing that show.

Had forgotten that...

[SuperKendall]

I remember reading about that before, but had forgotten - thanks for the extra bit of information. Possibly a slip on Sony's part reveling something more...