Apple's Moment — Consumers Want To Download To TV

ack154 writes, "With so much recent news surrounding Apple's upcoming iTV system, their timing may be nearly perfect. Ars Technica gives the rundown on a recent report, released from Accenture, stating that about half of users surveyed across the globe are now looking to get downloadable videos, movies and other content onto their TV. Based on the article, if Apple can get the right combination in features, price, and usability, many consumers may be ready to eat it up. Macworld has more speculation on Apple's potential living room dominance."

Comments

It really does work.

[AKAImBatman]

I've been shying away from iTunes television for awhile now, mostly because they're so slow at getting the content on there. It's cheaper and easier for me to watch the latest episode of Battlestar Galactica on SciFi rather than wait two weeks for iTunes.

However, I have long considered that if iTunes was a bit faster at getting the content (or had exclusive content!) I'd hop on the bandwagon in an instant. To that end, I was one of the many who downloaded the Aquaman Pilot to check it out. For a pilot, it was quite good - though a bit too "hip and edgy" in Stargate 200 kind of way. Still, if there were more episodes I would have seriously considered downloading them.

Then iTunes got Eureka.

For those of you who don't know what it is, Eureka is a SciFi Channel original TV Show that is on during weeknight timeslots. Exactly the type of timeslots I don't manage to catch very often. I've been curious about the show for a while now, but wasn't curious enough to pay a $1.99. But then iTunes had a special. The Pilot Episode could be downloaded for FREE, as in at no charge. (A promotion that I'm sad to say appears to be over.) So I downloaded it.

Suffice it to say, this show was GREAT! It was like Stargate hits Andy Griffith, if you can imagine that. All the humor and technobabble of a SciFi show, but combined with a traditionally rooted character who's trying to make the adjustment. As of yesterday, I have now purchased and watched every Eureka episode available. The quality is good, and the price is right. If iTunes would just carry Stargate and stop making us wait 2 weeks, I'd cancel my cable. Even at a $1.99 an episode, I would probably save money over what I pay Comcast today.

I don't know about anyone else, but I just don't watch the TV enough to make cable worth my while. Which means that I'm paying a premium to watch shows like Stargate, BSG, and Star Trek Enhanced. :(

If there's any complaint I have about iTunes its that its video player is still somewhat immature. I often like to watch shows in a small window while I work. (I have a TV card for a TV.) Unfortunately, iTunes still lacks an "Always on Top" feature to prevent the show from getting obscured by the corners of windows. Also, the size controls are a bit random If you undock the window from the postage stamp in the corner. For example, if I minimize the main iTunes window (what else am I going to do with it while I'm watching a show?) the "Fullscreen" control will redock the player rather than switching between full screen and windowed mode.

These aren't MAJOR issues, but I do hope they get fixed in the near future.

Re:It really does work.

[Acidictadpole]

If they do manage to get the stuff up-to-date, with a big enough database. I think this is something that I would go for aswell. It seems very useful to be able to come home, sit in front of the television and pick out things you want to watch, go make a sandwich or something and come back and start the show while the rest downloads.

Re:It really does work.

[Aladrin]

Eureka is a great show.

But I seriously doubt I could bring myself to pay $2 an ep to watch it. And there's no way in hell I'd pay per ep if I'm limited to watching it in low res, in a shitty window, and have no control over what device I get to watch it on.

Re:It really does work.

[pilgrim23]

For a couple of years now I have used an Elgato EyeHome (www.elgato.com). This wonderful gadget outputs to a TV anb inputs from a RJ45. It feeds video content across a network from my Macs (and PCs with a little software voodoo) to the television and even comes with a lazy man's remote control. It works wired or wireless Several other boxes taylored to the PC side also are available but the EyeHome is sleeker cooler, works with a Mac and is cheap (mine was under 200 bucks iirc). It will play most codecs, and with some video tools, you can manipulate those movies which will not play, re-encoding in a format that will. I do not have cable, and never have. I do not watch broadcat televison and if I did not have the Eyehome I would fall back on DVD, Laserdisc, VHS, or just read a book. For at least twenty years the alternative of broadcast television has NOT been an alternative to my tastes at all. Thnak goodness today there are so many ways to get media. Check out the EyeHome and similar systems. It frankly: Rulz! and it is an available alternative...today.

Re:It really does work.

[AceCaseOR]

My main reason for not using iTunes to get TV shows is, mainly, because I've been needing to get more RAM for my PC and have been on a really tight budget recently. Now my budget has improved. However, I'm far enough behind on Lost and Battlestar Galactica, that it'd have to catch up on DVD anyway. However, for shows like Eureka, I may use iTunes (once I get that RAM update) to get the episodes - as I don't have cable (and, as an added bonus, no commerchals!).

Re:It really does work.

[BlueCodeWarrior]

I personally just need to hear two words: Adult Swim.

Re:It really does work.

[mlk]

If iTunes TV came to the UK, even with a two week delay, I'd be a convert.
Might even buy a iTV.

Re:It really does work.

[AKAImBatman]

And there's no way in hell I'd pay per ep if I'm limited to watching it in low res

Depends on what you mean by "low res". iTunes shows TV in standard television resolutions (H.264 - 640x480), which is only low res if you have an HDTV. I'm sure that an HDTV upgrade will be in iTunes' future, but you're correct that it isn't here yet. (Then again, neither is HDTV market penetration.)

in a shitty window

Is there something wrong with watching it in full screen? Especially if you have a large monitor or a TV-OUT.

have no control over what device I get to watch it on

Sorry? You can transfer your iTunes movies to other computers and iPods. With Bonjour, you can even watch it directly over your home network. The only catch is that you have to register the other computers with your credentials, a simple and easy process.

The one downside is that you can't burn them to a DVD through the iTunes interface. However, I actually had to check on this, because I've never considered doing that. In a day in age where massive amounts of digital storage can be ad for cheap, I don't see much reason for creating little plastic frisbees. Especially since more and more consumers are wiring up their computers to be part of their home entertainment system. DVDs won't be phased out for Bluray or HD-DVD. They'll be phased out for digital downloads.

Re:It really does work.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The quality is good, and the price is right. If iTunes would just carry Stargate and stop making us wait 2 weeks, I'd cancel my cable. Even at a $1.99 an episode, I would probably save money over what I pay Comcast today.

I'm not a typical consumer, but I think I do represent a common market segment in some ways. I don't need or want a telephone, aside from my cell phone. I use the internet and my cell phone to communicate. This is very common among younger people. VoIP is going to kill the normal phone business. My choice for Internet access is Satellite (very slow, pretty pricey), Cable bundled with television, or DSL bundled with a phone connection. DSL is about $20 more expensive and I don't want a phone. It is almost useless to me. I do enjoy the occasional television show. Thus, I get my internet from Comcast and have to pay for cable TV to go with it (technically I could just get internet, but that is more expensive than the bundle including it).

Given this, I already have TV coming in. Apple has not provided any way to capture these TV programs and integrate it into their Computer+TV solution. I can manage this on my own, but 99% of the populace won't because it is too hard. Assuming a big chunk of their potential market is like me, and already is paying for TV in order to get internet fast enough to use this service, why do they expect people to pay for it again?

As soon as high speed internet is available to most of the US, not bundled with cable TV, Apple will have a business plan that might work. Until then, however, I don't see it flying. Or, Apple can capitalize on the incoming stream of TV, and provide a cheap and very easy Tivo like solution that makes their shows available in addition to the ones you can buy from Apple. Heck, build a store where you can price out the programs you want and see if it is cheaper to upgrade your cable or buy them ala cart from Apple.

Re:It really does work.

[timster]

Here's a complaint, while we're on the subject. Apple doesn't care about making episodes available ON TIME. It's not possible to plan an evening of iTunes-provided TV watching for a show, because there's no guarantee that any reasonably-recent episode will be made available at any particular time. I've seen episodes of shows that run on a daily schedule show up more than a week late, with no explanation.

Apple support will not respond to this issue, blaming "content providers", but it's Apple's store and Apple's responsibility.

Re:It really does work.

[Aladrin]

I do have an HDTV... I have a 37" HDTV LCD hooked to my computer, as well as my dvd player. And my dvd player can also play divx and xvid via USB. It's quite handy to throw stuff on a thumb drive or usb hard drive and watch it there and free up my computer. (Or not even have it on.)

And I never have to worry about 'registration' or finding out at the last minute the software glitched and I can't watch what I want after all. No thanks.

Re:It really does work.

[iroll]

watching it in low res, in a shitty window.

Yawn, this has been discussed. The resolution (especially now, since they upped it to 640x480) has always been comparable to NTSC broadcast. I bought the pilot for "Knight Rider" just to check it out, and put it on a 35" TV (component video from my iBook using a cheap adapter). It was about what I expected for a twenty five year old pilot, and looked fine. That was at 320x240, I'm sure the latest videos are much better. And what's with the "shitty window" comment? You've never heard of fullscreen mode?

I'm not saying you "have to" buy it; I haven't bought a video since the Knight Rider test. I'm just saying if you're gonna dismiss it, at least give some valid criticism.

Re:It really does work.

[KingSkippus]

But I seriously doubt I could bring myself to pay $2 an ep to watch it.

Hell, that would probably save me money. I'm one of those weird people who watch little enough television that if I could pay for the shows I watch by episode, it would be cheaper then paying a monthly cable/satellite bill.

I'd love to see some kind of tiered pay structure set up. For example:

• $1.99 per episode on the day it's released.
• $1.99 x number of episodes - %discount for prepayment for pre-paying for a whole season that you can download whenever you want to.
• $1.49 per episode a couple of months after it's released.
• $1.49 per episode x number of episodes - %discount for volume purchase for a complete season after all episodes from that season have been released
• $0.49 "bargain bin" for shows that are several years old and that never really got good ratings

I doubt the networks would go for it, because it would cut into DVD sales. (Never mind that it would increase overall sales and end up making them lots and lots more money in the end. Remember, they're stupid.)

But if Apple had enough boxes out there to start developing their own content (i.e. pay television and movie studios to develop good-quality content exclusively for them), not only would they revolutionize how we all watch television, they would revolutionize the entire entertainment distribution medium. There's no telling what kind of major impact it would have on television networks and cable/satellite companies.

Of course, you can probably shortly thereafter count on cable/satellite companies paying lots and lots of money to Congresscritters so that they'll legislate what can and can't be shown via iTV, lest they lose major marketshare. (A la the way cable companies legislated what television networks I can and can't watch via DirecTV here in Atlanta. "Sorry, if you want to watch the New York ABC station, you're SOL!") Hopefully by that time though, Apple will have made enough money to fight that kind of fire with bigger and hotter fire.

At any rate, this is definitely an idea that is right on—not ahead of its—time, and I'll be one of the first in line to get a new iTV. Really exciting stuff!

Re:It really does work.

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who works for a "content provider" to Apple, let me say that Apple Support is 100% correct. In our case, as a music content provider, the blame trickles to the music labels and then the artists (and from there who knows where). But Apple is by far the most responsible of the group, they tell us _exactly_ how long it will take to process new digital content (and it takes a long time usually, a few months). If content providers do not supply Apple with the data they need with enough lead time, it will take longer than people expect. Apple is doing the best it can at this, but there's simply nothing they can do when they don't have the content in time.

Re:It really does work.

[timster]

I'm talking about TV shows. The Daily Show obviously doesn't take months to process, because sometimes the episodes show up within hours of the air time, but other times they are very late. There seems to be no consistency in the process. People on BitTorrent can provide content from a TV show within minutes of its broadcast, and there's no technical reason Apple can't do the same.

Re:It really does work.

[Merle Darling]

Two more: Hell yeah!

The Fix is decent but I'd like to see all the new episodes at the end of each week instead of selected epiodes every so often. I'd gladly drop my cable company and pay a small fee to watch the AS block instead.

Re:It really does work.

[CrazyTalk]

It's cheaper for me to download an episode or two of BSG on iTunes then pay ~$80/month for Digital Cable to get the sci fi channel - hence I use iTunes.

Re:It really does work.

[Moofie]

So in other words, when you found out that your first set of objections had nothing to do with reality, you came up with different ones.

Good job!

Re:It really does work.

[stunt_penguin]

640 * 480 is low res if you've got a DVD player.

1024 * 576 is squarepix PAL DVD resolution, it usually make it onto the disc at 720 * 576
I wouldn't pay for content at any lower a resolution than that, to be honest :0'

Re:It really does work.

[hal2814]

"because I've been needing to get more RAM for my PC"

You're lucky you only need more RAM. Quicktime is a bloated piece of turd on my PIII 450MHz computer with 256MB of RAM and a Radeon TV Out card hooked up to my television. I can play DVDs and most divx encoded videos just fine with this setup but Quicktime videos are terrible.

Re:It really does work.

[Aladrin]

No, I'm saying I won't pay $2/episode for content that I can't enjoy how I want. gg coward.

Re:It really does work.

[andy9701]

The quality is good, and the price is right. If iTunes would just carry Stargate and stop making us wait 2 weeks, I'd cancel my cable.

Admittedly I haven't checked in a while, but last time I checked BSG episodes were available the day after they aired (and I think I've heard of this for other shows, too). Since iTunes started carrying Stargate and Atlantis, I just assumed that it was the same policy for these (and all of their shows, really).

While my wife watches enough TV to make our cable bill worthwhile (plus, not all of the shows that she watches are on iTunes), if it was just me I would definitely consider ditching cable TV and only getting my TV from iTunes.

Re:It really does work.

[Lumpy]

and I scream a big "DUH" to the world. I have been doing this exactly for over a year now with my own hardware because itunes refuses to deliver in a format that is high resolution. Sorry but on a 32" SDTV itunes video content looks like crap. double the resolution and it looks good. So I have a couple of mythtv boxes living at relatives and friends homes recording CableTV for me and feed the shows back to me over broadband at night. works great. I get my Tv shows I want, dont pay for cable or sattelite as it sucks. and my friends and relatives get a free to use PVR that I support for them.

when I worked for comcast 2 years ago I told them that broadcast and CableTV was dead and ala-carte tv shows were what people wanted. I was lauged out of the meeting that I had no idea what people wanted. Nobody likes the 90% crap that is streamed over sattelite and cable. they have a small number of shows that they like and want them on their timeframe.

On demand in resolutions that are decent are the future and if apple doubles or triples their resolution then they might have something.

Re:It really does work.

[hlimethe3rd]

That isn't just your PIII. iTunes + Quicktime is a bloated piece of turd. Period. And now iTunes 7 uses even more resources! It takes 20% of my 1.8GHz PM and 100 megs of RAM to play a song. Yes I have cover art off, and every other fancy thing off. I'm playing a song. Yetch.

Re:It really does work.

[Space cowboy]

What's a PIII ?

Re:It really does work.

[RAMMS EIN]

I have just one question: how do you _get_ the movies?

Re:It really does work.

[thanasakis]

Well said. And there is another point: There are places where SciFi is not available. Example: For a person that lives in a small country, the demographics are too tight for a channel like SciFi. So, we don't get to see Battlestar Galactica and the producer doesn't get the added revenue in his/her pockets.

As a friend of mine recently pointed out, the long tail has proved a very successful prospect for internet based companies, because of the pervasiveness of the Net. Shows that otherwise would get no audience and hence get cancelled, would be able to succeed that way.

Apple arguably realizes that, they know that there is a goldmine under their feet waiting for to be tapped. If they can transfer the iTunes model of operation to a set-top box in the living room they could make insane profits. The only issue is that they need to be carefull not to make it cumbersome to use. But this is apple we are talking about, they own the personal music player market because they know how to make simple and easy products.

Re:It really does work.

[Shawn is an Asshole]

Get Dish Network. I have the basic plan, Top 60, and get Sci-Fi, Comedy Central, Adult Swim, and MTV2 (for Headbanger's Ball) for $29.99/mo. It's $39.99/mo if you want to get FX and Animal Planet (amoung many other channels). What's nice, too, is when the networks try to force them to carry more channels and raise the price, Dish actually stands up to them. This cost me about two weeks without Comedy Central, but Viacom caved and my rates didn't go up like all my Comcast-using friends rates did.

Re:It really does work.

[Firehed]

While I like your idea of a pricing structure, Apple does already have something to that vague effect regarding full seasons - a season pass feature for sporting stuff and some amount of discount for TV shows as well. Of course, the latter is very inconsistant(sp), saving anywhere from a few cents to a few bucks, but then again it's hardly Apple's fault that some shows have ten episodes per season and some have twenty or more. They're, from what I've seen, still MUCH cheaper than the DVD box-set you'll find at a store, even if your options are somewhat more limited as to what you can do with it.

The iTV is a great idea that Apple will probably pull off flawlessly, though buffering and streaming issues concern me somewhat. While I don't know the average bitrate of their latest H.264 640x480 encoding, I know from personal experience that streaming anything over wireless is still fairly unreliable, especially higher-resolution video content. Assuming some of the theories are correct in that Apple's waiting for 802.11n to become a proper standard to release the thing, I'm a bit curious what happens when your iTV suddenly starts picking up six of your neighbors' content as well.

Re:It really does work.

[TheRaven64]

The resolution (especially now, since they upped it to 640x480) has always been comparable to NTSC broadcast.

I just checked the resolution of an iTunes download (The Village), and it was 640x344. This is only slightly more than half as many lines as PAL, and so doesn't really fall into the category of 'acceptable.' There was also very noticeable aliasing and macro-blocking.

For TV shows, I don't care too much about the quality - 640x344 would probably be enough - but I do care about being able to play it back where I want to. I own a portable device with a nice screen I would like to be able to use for this kind of thing, but I can't because of the DRM.

Re:It really does work.

[andymadigan]

Ok, people need to stop saying the registration process is "simple and easy" my PVR could never play something downloaded by iTunes, and my PVR has fast remote-connection capability (NX which is many times faster than VNC) and can be controlled by remote via LIRC. So, unless iTunes will run on Ubuntu/x86, admit that playing iTunes stuff over the network only works if you pay for a license of Windows for each computer. So that's $2 per episode + $150 per computer (or whatever Windows runs for these days).

Re:It really does work.

[Thrudheim]

You blame Apple even though you have no idea how long Comedy Central waits before getting Apple the data with the show. Have you considered the possibility that they don't want Apple to have the show immediately, at least not yet? They make money from advertisers too, and that portion of their revenue would decline if people stop watching the live broadcast. I would think that they are carefully trying to figure out just how old the iTunes shows can be to maximize their revenue from the combination of the two sources.

In other words, why do you assume that Apple is seeking to deny itself the money you might spend buying the show from iTunes? It makes no sense, and the parent poster's explanation does.

Re:It really does work.

[AceCaseOR]

Thank you for mentioning that. Frankly, if iTunes started carring some good anime series (like, say Crest of the Stars, or Cowboy Bebop), I'd definitely start picking them up.

Re:It really does work.

[und0]

Surely nothing to do with a Wii...

Re:It really does work.

[drewzhrodague]

640 * 480 is low res if you've got a DVD player.

If you're using a tube-based NTSC television, you're only seeing ~200 lines of resolution anyway. This is why I record my shows (MythTV for me!) at a much lower resolution.

Re:It really does work.

[jaysones]

> "What's a PIII ?" I think that's Nintendo's upcoming console.

Re:It really does work.

[Thrudheim]

But now you are blaming Apple for failing to pressure Comedy Central without any evidence that they aren't. Ultimately, Apple can't force them to deliver the content. Apple needs the content more than Comedy Central needs the iTunes outlet.

Need a place to leave a complaint at Comedy Central? Not hard to find. Googled the Daily Show, hit two links, and got this:

http://www.comedycentral.com/help/questionsCC.jhtm l

I can understand that the unpredictability of the posting of the show is annoying. It just seems you are stretching as much as possible to place all the blame on Apple, without any evidence that they are not putting up the show as soon as they can get it. It just doesn't make sense that they would sit on these files when they have such strong incentives to get them up ASAP.

Re:It really does work.

[Bauguss]

In a way, you hit the nail on the head.

You downloaded a pilot for free to check it out. You decided it was a great show, you bought the rest.

iTunes needs to figure this out. Forget about free being a promotion. Free needs to be the first 2-3 episodes of a show. This lets people try shows, decide if they like them. Move on if they don't. This is the only way people can find new shows without already having cable television.

Perhaps Apple already knows this but can't convince MPAA or whoever that this is the way it should be.

Re:It really does work.

[dgatwood]

Funny thing. I missed an episode a few weeks ago, then wrote them a letter complaining about them not rerunning shows on a different day, and not having Eureka on the iTMS, which pretty much meant the only way I could see it would be to download a torrent.

Eureka is now on the iTMS and two of the three episodes on TV Guide's online listing show a reair on a different date.

Not that there's any causation there, but I'd love to think so....

Re:It really does work.

[jacksonj04]

Or you wait for iTV to be released and use that.

Re:It really does work.

[donweel]

Jobs is using his connection with Disney to make all their movies available the same time as the dvd release. This includes Touchstone, Miramax, Hollywood, Disney, Disneytoon and Pixar. You will be able to watch your purchased movie minutes after initiating the download, similar to the way the movie trailers work on the new Itunes 7 using FrontRow . Jobs said pre release would be $12, new release $14, and archive movies $9.99 I believe. I think if it's a go other studios will fall in when they smell money. You can watch the whole thing here. http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/showtime06/ I found the gapless playback to be quite interesting, fixed my Catherine Wheel (David Byrne).

Re:It really does work.

[Rude Turnip]

The Akimbo service provides an online on-demand set-top box. Adult Swim is $5 per month. I had the service but the hardware was craptastic...underpowered and running XP Embedded, too slow for my tastes so I cancelled the service and have this box sitting around now.

Re:It really does work.

[foxtrot]

iTunes would just carry Stargate and stop making us wait 2 weeks, I'd cancel my cable. Even at a $1.99 an episode, I would probably save money over what I pay Comcast today.

I did exactly that-- to get Sci-Fi channel through Adelphia I had to get Digital Cable, and that cost $72/mo after all the cheeseball fees.

Now I pay Apple $2/episode, for better resolution than my Tivo records, with no commercials. (The two weeks doesn't bother me-- I'm usually two or three weeks behind, anyhow, when I get around to watching what the Tivo watched for me...) I come out way ahead on this deal.

Re:It really does work.

[conigs]

Ah, the resolution conversation.

First of all, the actual resolution of a DVD image is 720x480 NTSC and 720x576 PAL. The displayed resolution, however, can vary depending on how you want to interpolate pixels. The common 640x480 is used because it contains all the vertical resolution of an NTSC signal, and squishes the horizontal resolution to display properly in square pixels. This is the equivalent of display a PAL image at 720x540. Oddly enough, if you display an NTSC signal by stretching out the vertical resolution instead of squishing the horizontal resolution, you also get 720x540, but with interpolated pixels. PAL would be 768x576.

The 1024 res you mention is for 16:9 anamorphic image. Do you know why the call it anamorphic? Because the actual signal is 720x576. The image needs to be stretched out to display properly. For NTSC this would be 853x480.

But I see after writing all this, that you did mention square pixel resolution. So I guess this post is rather useless. However, 640x480 isn't that low res if you have an NTSC DVD player, especially considering I'd have to either throw out or interpolate information to to display it properly on a square pixel display. But let's not get into a PAL vs NTSC flame-war. I personally hate them both for different reasons.

Re:It really does work.

[timster]

Yep, real good. I filled out that form months ago. No response.

You're accusing me of levelling a bunch of blame, which is nonsense. I subscribe to the service because I like it, and I'll continue to do so. I just feel that this is an area where improvement could be made. I filled out that form with a detailed and thoughtful description of the problem, which belies your assumption that I'm putting all the blame on Apple.

No, I don't know what's going on inside these companies, but nobody does. It's still a legitimate complaint, and it's frustrating because I don't believe there is any good reason why this is occuring. It'd be nice to see an explanation or solution from someone, and I do believe that Apple could provide at least a better explanation. Early on when some episodes were corrupted, they did a good job handling that, sending out an e-mail that at least informed us that they were aware of the problem and working on a solution (which was eventually offered). When episodes are very late, there isn't any indication that anyone has even noticed.

Re:It really does work.

[kripkenstein]

I doubt the networks would go for it, because it would cut into DVD sales. (Never mind that it would increase overall sales and end up making them lots and lots more money in the end. Remember, they're stupid.)

Hmm, I hate the **AA as much as most Slashdotters do, but this seems a bit much. It might increase overall sales, but it might not; it's too soon to tell.

I agree that they are stupid, but not for this reason. I think they are stupid for not realizing that they need to move to this type of distribution even if it causes a decrease in sales. The alternative - sticking to an outdated business model in the face of reality - may be far more costly in the long run.

Re:It really does work.

[conigs]

The reason the video file is at 640x344 is to compensate for the widescreen aspect ratio. If this was to be viewed on a standard 4:3 NTSC television (let's not get into a PAL vs NTSC debate, I don't like either), it's not much different than viewing an 16:9 anamorphic DVD on a 4:3 NTSC television. (The DVD would be viewed at roughly 720x387.)

Video downloads scew towards the 640 mark becaus a.) for a long, long time, that was how NTSC video was displayed on a computer screen and 2.) because it scales easily to the 320x240 displays of the iPod without having to do any funky interpolation.

Re:It really does work.

[93 Escort Wagon]

"It was like Stargate hits Andy Griffith, if you can imagine that."

Oh man, this is terrible. Upon reading this I immediately remembered a TV show called Salvage 1 , where Andy Griffith played a garbageman (along the lines of Fred Sanford) who built his own spaceship to collect space trash for profit.

Gee, those are wasted hours I'll never get back...

Re:It really does work.

[mr100percent]

Steve Jobs said that alll episodes would be released a day after broadcast on network TV. I'd blame Sci-Fi for being later than everyone else.

Re:It really does work.

[dirty]

1024x576 is not a DVD resolution. PAL DVDs are 720x576, NTSC DVDs are 720x480. 1024x576 maybe what 16:9 PAL DVDs are scaled to, but the video on the disc is 720x576.

Re:It really does work.

[stunt_penguin]

Read my post again. I said 720 * 576 was what made it onto the disc.

Re:It really does work.

[tenton]

What's a PIII ?

Something you do with your Wii

Re:It really does work.

[Fordiman]

Two weeks for BSG?

That's weird. It only usually takes me five hours.

That said, it's via bittorrent; I don't have extensive TV.

And before you go off, I've already bought the DVDs for the previous seasons; it's just the matter of getting to watch them at a reasonable turnaround. (I've also seen seasons 1 & 2 of Doctor Who already).

Re:It really does work.

[WCLPeter]

I'd love to see some kind of tiered pay structure set up. For example:

        * $1.99 per episode on the day it's released.
        * $1.99 x number of episodes - %discount for prepayment for pre-paying for a whole season that you can download whenever you want to.
        * $1.49 per episode a couple of months after it's released.
        * $1.49 per episode x number of episodes - %discount for volume purchase for a complete season after all episodes from that season have been released
        * $0.49 "bargain bin" for shows that are several years old and that never really got good ratings

Good idea, but not quite right. I've often thought that this idea would be better:

*Free* - Standard 45 minute show grown to 1 hour ad supported format.
    1.99 - 1 hour ad free show, extra 15 minutes content exclusive.
    5.00 - 2 episodes shipped to you on a (HD)DVD, with access to 1 hour
                  downloads now.
  40.00 - 24 epsiodes "season pass", or 22 episodes and two hour bonus
                  with discs shipped as above and special edition carrying box.

Make the content exclusive to this format for 18 months and then synicate the *free* version for broadcast. I think this could work great for just about any show out there and allow a viable "broadcast" market afterwards.

Pete...

Re:It really does work.

[Thrudheim]

Yep, real good. I filled out that form months ago. No response.

Okay, so Comedy Central doesn't seem to care that much. That's consistent with what I'm saying.

You're accusing me of levelling a bunch of blame, which is nonsense. I subscribe to the service because I like it, and I'll continue to do so. I just feel that this is an area where improvement could be made. I filled out that form with a detailed and thoughtful description of the problem, which belies your assumption that I'm putting all the blame on Apple.

Earlier, you didn't mention anything about contacting Comedy Central other than that you wished there were a simple way to share your concerns to them, which implied that you hadn't been in touch with them. You did, however, say the following about Apple, which to my read seems like blame:

Apple doesn't care about making episodes available ON TIME.

Apple support will not respond to this issue, blaming "content providers", but it's Apple's store and Apple's responsibility.

People on BitTorrent can provide content from a TV show within minutes of its broadcast, and there's no technical reason Apple can't do the same.

I don't think Apple is doing it on purpose, no, but I don't think they are trying hard enough.

So, no, I don't think my interpretation that you hold Apple responsible (i.e. you are blaming them) is nonsense, although I now understand that you do see that Comedy Central might have some responsbility. I agree with you, though, that the complaint is legitimate. I am just not so ready to point fingers at Apple.

Re:It really does work.

[KingSkippus]

I do like the idea of extra content; it could really help the format take off. I seriously believe that unless Apple really screws this up (and I don't think they will), it could revolutionize the industry.

The example structure I gave was just that—an example. I'd leave it up to the marketing gurus to decide the exact final prices and structure, but the general concept was to charge a premium rate for one-off high-demand content, give a discount for buying an entire season, give a discount for people willing to wait for a show, and give a deep discount for stuff that's so old that people who normally wouldn't care to watch it might buy it just because it's so cheap.

At any rate, I think that the really interesting thing is that it could totally do away with two middlemen: the television networks and the cable/satellite companies. Studios could market and sell their stuff directly to us, the public. That would take the power to decide what we watch out of the hands of pinhead network executives and put it where it belongs: in our hands, the actual consumers.

If enough people buy a show like Firefly, for example, that they pay their costs and make a little bit of profit, there's a strong incentive to keep making it. There's no idiot in the middle with decision-making power like the guy at Fox who said, "Cancel it." There's no accountability to sponsors. There are no networks fighting for space among a limited cable or satellite bandwidth. There is no mentality that a show must be watched by millions and millions of people to be worth being made. Good stuff all around!

Re:It really does work.

[dirty]

"1024 * 576 is squarepix PAL DVD resolution, it usually make it onto the disc at 720 * 576"

That is what you said. You said 1024x576 is a PAL DVD resolution, and that it usually makes it on to the disc as 720x576. This implies that it sometimes makes it on as 1024x576, that is wrong.

Re:It really does work.

[pilgrim23]

Well for one I go to www.archive.org and download from there. the Prellinger collection has a massive store of older industrial films (I am a documentary junkie and would far rather watch a discussion of steel production then some starlet describing her sex life). If you like public domain feature films they have those as well. CERN has downloadable lectures on their site, there are also several universites that host such.
  On pbs.org you find things like NerdTV which can be downloaded. BBC has a wealth of material.
MANY Indie films such as the Star Trek fan film (check out www.starwreck.com), and related can be found. Just Google "Indie Film", lecture + video, or the like. The Net is full of cool stuff that is not "stolen".

    The fact is, if your tastes do not run to the CRAP now playing on a channel near you and brought to you by Fish Oil Deoderant and the like... you can find real content! I gave up on network televison sometime in the early 1980s and never looked back.

Oh and as I said I have DVD, Laserdisc, VHS (and Beta). I also "rip" these to my Macs. Mayhaps not HD quality, but good enough for my tastes.

Re:It really does work.

[Have Blue]

You do know that about two weeks ago Apple did double the resolution of the videos they sell, right?

Re:It really does work.

[NoMaster]

If you're using a tube-based NTSC television, you're only seeing ~200 lines of resolution anyway.

Crap - or if it's true, NTSC TV's suck way more than I thought they did. I know in PAL-land, measuring actual standard def CRT screen resolution of 76cm 16:9 sets by using a linen tester or similar, you get numbers in the order of 700~850 discernable lines. This is a function of the shadow mask/grid size/layout and beam deflection circuitry. HD CRT's of the same size generally top out ~1000 lines.

So, in effect, for SD sets in PAL countries the vertical resolution of the CRT tube is 25%~50% higher than that of the video signal (576 lines, less overscan). I should imagine it's similar - or possibly even better, given that they likely use the same tube &/or mask for NTSC - in the US.

Re:It really does work.

[NoMaster]

Still, it's the wrong way to do it - it should be packaged as a 640x480 file (not quite, but close enough, and you've got to account for all the square-pixel PC displays...) with a widescreen/AR/anamorphic flag. That way, the player gets to decide how to play it - centre cut (with or without P&S vectors), letterboxed, or both (14:9).

Most modern codecs support such flags in the bitstream, as do modern container formats - MPEG (codec & PS/TS/ES), .mov, .mp4 (based on .mov), .mkv, etc (.avi doesn't, but let's not go there...)

(This is something the feckin' idiots in the US ruined for the rest of the world. Why not learn to set the display mode properly in your DVD players, rather than bitching about black bars or tall skinny people on your 4:3 TV's - forcing distributors to letterbox perfectly good 16:9 & 2.21:1 content into a 4:3 flagged frame?)

Re:It really does work.

[Vincman]

there's some softwares that allow you to set a window on-top at all times. For OSX, windowshade does the job (at a price). For windows, there's probably more choice.

Re:It really does work.

[conigs]

I have to agree that adding an anamorphic flag in the video file would be the best way to go. I'm not really sure why that hasn't been done, other than laziness.

Oh, and don't even get me started on people not knowing how to set up their TVs/DVD players to display 16:9 images properly (or even 4:3). I can't tell you how many homes I've been to with people watching SDTV broadcasts on their new LCD HDTVs and have the image stretched out because they don't like the black bars on the side. And it's as useless trying to explain that concept as it is trying to explain how widescreen versions of DVDs dont' actually cut off any picture compared to their full-screen bastard step-children. Some concepts people just can't wrap their head around.

Re:It really does work.

[AKAImBatman]

if it's true, NTSC TV's suck way more than I thought they did.

NTSC and PAL suck way more than you realize. Broadcast signals being what they were back in the day (i.e. horribly inefficient usage of bandwidth), these standards were designed around interlaced signals. The idea behind an interlaced signal is that you can cut the framerate in half (to 30fps and 25fps respectively) by sending alternating lines of video each frame. Thus the vertical resolution drops in half to 240 (NTSC) and 288 (PAL).

This crappy resolution is not only what's broadcast, but it's what's recorded on VHS cassettes. Which is why movies on VHS look so gosh-darn blurry in comparison to DVDs.

Viewing recordings in 480p (progressive scan NTSC) or 576p (progressive scan PAL) solves the resolution problems present in 480i/576i interlaced modes.

Re:It really does work.

[andymadigan]

And spend (guess) $1000 to replace something I already have with something that will be less configurable. Besides, my point is that you can't just magically register any computer you have with iTunes and play music/video through it, you have to stay within Apple's terms for it. What if Apple decides to stop supporting Windows? What if they decide that iTunes music will only play on intel Macs? Why should we give any company the right to decide what content we can play on our hardware?

Re:It really does work.

[SnowDog74]

Resolution does not change on a 16:9 anamorphic DVD (or any other DVD for that matter). NTSC-M standard definition DVDs have a resolution of 720 x 480, which is derived from the 720 x 486 CCIR-601/ITU-R 601 specifications for digital video back in the days of D1. This resolution, once again, does not change. What changes is the way it is displayed (repeat after me: scanlines and digital resolution are two different things). The DVD player takes the MPEG-2 which has a frame aspect ratio of 4:3 and converts the pixel aspect ratio to 1.2:1. That is, the pixels are stretched 1.2 times wider than they are tall, resulting in an effective frame aspect of 16:9 with 720 x 480 pixels. Note that HDTV (ATSC) is a different and thus irrelevant format in terms of discussing the NTSC-M DVD format, DVD MPEG-2 resolution never changes... it is ALWAYS 720 x 480. This talk of "display resolution" is irrelevant. On a standard definition NTSC-M TV, the image displayed is converted from its original, digital signal to an analog one. Once the data passes a D/A converter, the discussion of digital resolution at that point is meaningless. It's only relevant insofar as the potential clarity of the final exhibition from the given source material, but not the effective clarity of the actual image. What I mean to say here is that anything except a fully-digital display does not have a resolution to speak of. Displays can support various resolutions, in principle, but NTSC-M standard definition sets are generally fixed, as opposed to multisync/multiscan.

Re:It really does work.

[conigs]

I'm well aware that the ACTUAL resolution does not change on a 16:9 anamorphic DVD. I'm well aware that it is the displayed resolution that changes. I'm also aware of pixel aspect ratios (and how D1 is .9 and anamorphic is 1.2). . I'm not sure if you caught this part of my post:

Do you know why the call it anamorphic? Because the actual signal is 720x576.

I was refering to PAL, obviously.

I'm really not sure why you're ranting so much. I was pointing out that a 640x480 video file is not that much lower resolution than a DVD image (for NTSC), and how a DVD (or any non-square pixel source) is displayed on a computer monitor. So, if I watch an anamorphic DVD on a computer screen, the display resolution DOES factor in. It depends on how that signal is interpreted, if I didn't want to lose information at all, the displayed resolution of a 720x480 signal with a 1.2 pixel aspect ratio would be 853x480. Now if I wanted to instead not interpolate any pixels on my square pixel display, it would be 720x600. Yes, the original signal is still 720x480. However, when it's displayed, information is either thrown out (by scaling the vertical resolution) or created (by scaling up the horizontal resolution) when viewing on a computer monitor.

But thanks for using a lot of broadcast acronyms that are pretty meaningless to the conversation at hand. No offense, but (to me) your post came off as just trying to sound intelligent, which you may very well be. But I was responding to the original post discussing a 1024x576 square pix resolution for a PAL DVD, and how 640x480 is such a shitty resolution... and explaining that the acutal signal for a PAL DVD is 720x576 and that an anamorphic video signal needs to be stretched out on a square pixel display to show properly and that's where he got the 1024 number from and that the original signal is actually much closer to 640x480 than s/he thinks. (Yay run-on sentences!)

Sorry for being a little of an ass, but I didn't really see the relevence of your post to the conversation at hand. That and since I work in film/video post, I'm well aware of everything you said... Yes, I know NTSC actually has 486 scan lines. Damn, there I go being an ass again...

If everything works out, everything may work out

[Kohath]

...if Apple can get the right combination in features, price, and usability, many consumers may be ready to eat it up

This is often true. If a product can be designed, priced, and produced so that it succeeds, then the product may be a success. Thanks Slashdot!

The moment they...

[beckerist]

The moment they bring back Walker: Texas Ranger is the moment I'll buy this product.

Re:The moment they...

[beckerist]

Simply put: Chuck Norris kicks that much ass.

Re:The moment they...

[Acidictadpole]

Aye, Chuck Norris broke through the ether and increased it's score by one simply because it mentioned his show.

Re:The moment they...

[slarrg]

That's practically the only show on the Hallmark Channel.

This is why Apple "Gets It'

[Tavor]

First they came out with the iPod and iTunes at a time when the 'geekery' (us) and the 'general public' wanted MP3 players and a convenient download service, even though the RIAA cried wolf.
Now, we all want downloadable television/video content (as seen by YouTube, et al.) and iTV seems to be just that.
If the Form Factor is right, the price point is right, it should work.
(UI Omitted, as being Apple the UI *will* be right...)

Full disclosure: I am not an Apple fanboy. And the names give me an iHeadache.

Re:This is why Apple "Gets It'

[Golias]

Jobs was quite emphatic during the Stevenote where this was presented that "iTV" was a code-word name they definitely will not use for the final product. IIRC, his exact words were, "we will come up with a better name for it." I'm sure it will be something people can live with.

Stupid code name, cool final product name. Sort of the opposite of what Nintendo just did this year. :P

Re:This is why Apple "Gets It'

[dfghjk]

Of course, Apple was not the first to "Get It" in either case and prior to Apple "Getting It" it was not "To Be Gotten". mp3 players were not a product for the general public when Apple got involved but they were successful among earlier adopters (remember that the iPod was originally positioned as a mac-only accessory). Jobs himself poopoo-ed video on portable players while Apple was working internally on delivering the feature. Apple may well dominate both markets but it certainly wasn't the first to "Get It".

Re:This is why Apple "Gets It'

[Luscious868]

They actually were the first to "Get It" in both cases. Yeah other products existed that essentially had the same functionality, but Apple "Got It" in that they integrated the software, the hardware and the online store in such a manner that it was easy to use for the non-tech savy out there. For the most part everything just works when it comes to iTunes, the iPod and the iTMS. If they can duplicate that with their iTV device they'll have a hit on their hands.

Not being able to burn to DVD is a downside, but I look at video increasingly like I look at music. I can't tell you the last time I needed to burn a CD. I take my iPod with me when I want to hear my music. I've got an iTrip to broadcast over FM if I need to play music through a standard radio. With iTV there will be no need to burn to DVD if I want to watch something at home and if I want to watch something on someone elses TV you can just take the Video iPod and dock connector and the proper audio and video cables and I can get the same result. It's slighly more of a pain and if Apple was smart they would come up with something that could plug into the iPod that had the audio / video cables connected already to eliminate some of the hassle but as it stands now you can watch iTMS video content on other TVs.

Re:This is why Apple "Gets It'

[NDPTAL85]

The whole point of "Getting It" is to dominate. If your offering is only purchased by a small niche then no, despite first mover advantage, your company does not "Get It"

Re:This is why Apple "Gets It'

[thelost]

Well thankfully Jobs did say that the 'iTV' was it's codename, and that they needed to come up with a better one. I would certainly be annoyed if it came out with that name, as in the UK we have a TV station called ITV that is already deeply embedded in my head, so I get the wrong neurons firing every time I see 'iTV'.

Re:This is why Apple "Gets It'

[dfghjk]

Apple was the first to integrate an online store with the jukebox. Others integrated the jukebox and player. There were no online stores at that time.

I suppose if you define "Get It" by what Apple does you'll be right every time. Isn't that how it's done here?

Apple was not the first to do an mp3 player nor the first to tie an mp3 player to a jukebox app.
Apple was not the first to integrate video capabilities into a portable media player.

Apple was the first to develop an online content store integrated with such devices. That's it. I watch my portable video content and listen to my music without the "help" of any online store.

Re:This is why Apple "Gets It'

[dfghjk]

Then Apple doesn't "Get It" with the mac or OS X and Microsoft does.

Re:This is why Apple "Gets It'

[ChrisGilliard]

Maybe Apple "gets it", but I'm not sure why this would be any better than youtube? I mean youtube is free and the content is very entertaining in my opinion. Why would I want to buy a small device to watch tv shows on when I have a laptop and can hook it up to my tv so that I get great quality. Apple seems to always come out with cool products that require their hardware to get. It's just so much more expensive and I get a little tiny screen. I'd rather just watch youtube. I don't see why you need to get locked into Apple hardware to get tv shows. If youtube implemented a paid service on a per download basis, I think they'd be much better than this Apple offering.

A la carte

[jasoneisen]

For those of us who for years have demanded a la carte pricing plans from cable companies, we are now finally getting a step closer.

Re:A la carte

[Jeff DeMaagd]

The thing is, you aren't really paying for the channels themselves. What you are doing when you pay Cableco for basic is the cable infrastructure & maintainance, not the channels.

You can still get a la carte with analog C-band satellite. It's gradually going away as channels move to digital C-band, but as I said in another post, I paid $9.99 to get Comedy Central for a year. I do have to buy five options (channels or channel bundles) at a time, so that's about $50/yr.

Re:A la carte

[Empty Yo]

The issue is actually pretty complicated. Up here in Canada, the CRTC has regulated providers (satellite and cable both) into producing 'bundles' for their customers to enhance value. This regulation won't end until 2012 unless there is a fundamental change in the CRTC, so there will be a core set of channels that will be bundled for a long, long time yet. Any new channels can be sold a la carte, of course, and currently are with most providers. My local provider, for example, allows me to order single channels from their digital range (50-60 channels so far), but have left the bundled channels in analog for the time being (they have to be bundled, so why move them yet and piss of analog customers).

Muddying up the issue is that broadcasters with more than one channel in the offing tend to naturally bundle their channels together. To get popular channels, providers generally are forced to buy a bunch of poor sellers they don't much want. Until that practice ends, I can't see how any provider could afford to go a la carte completely.

Re:bah

[tomstdenis]

um, you could just as easily use a Mac Mini for this purpose. Mac Mini + itunes == iTV?

And yes, I hate Apple and MSFT. Big whoop, wanna fight about it?

Tom

Re:bah

[AKAImBatman]

boring for anyone with an ounce of AV skills.

Damn straight! Who needs syndicated television, anyway? As long as you have an ounce of AV skill, you can make your own multimillion dollar television content for your own personal enjoyment. No need for all those fancy-schmansy shows like Stargate and Battlestar Galactica! If we want to see Stargate, we can make our own Stargate show! Do I hear an 'Amen'?

I can't hear you! DO I HEAR AN 'AMEN'?!?

*ponder*

Wait. What was the subject again?

Supply following demand.

[Rob T Firefly]

No kidding! Just as people were trading around digital music for years and years before the labels had the bright idea to try and sell it that way, the powers that be are finally catching up to all the P2P traders of TV episodes.

Personally, I only follow a couple of shows, and all my TV content for the past several years has been either DVDs (watched on a computer,) downloads (P2P-style,) or authorized streams (bless you, Adult Swim!) I haven't owned an actual television for years.

Free TV Online

[RAMMS EIN]

I'm still waiting for free TV online to take off. Just like you can sponsor TV shows with advertisements, so you can sponsor online content with them. Let users select what they want to watch when they want to watch it, then stream it to them. Put in a few advertisements on the interface or even inside the stream, and you'll be collecting revenue.

This sort of thing exists (at least it does in the Netherlands), but it doesn't seem to be taking off. For me, the reason is that I haven't yet found a service that I can use. Most of them are all MSIE & WMP and ActiveX required - and we refuse to even try to give you service if your system fails the test. There's no way I'm going to install all that crap on my system, but I can't imagine it would be too hard for content providers to use more interoperable technologies.

I would love to be able to watch a movie whenever I feel like it, without having to depend on one I like being broadcast in the few hours a day when a few TV channels broadcast them. I'm sure this goes for plenty of othe people, too. Right now, many people are getting their DivX movies from the shady corners of the net, but who wants to wait for hundreds of megabytes to finish downloading, hoping that the quality will be ok, subtitles will be in sync, etc. etc. if they can get free movies off reputable sites, and start watching right away?

Re:Free TV Online

[Em Ellel]

I would love to be able to watch a movie whenever I feel like it, without having to depend on one I like being broadcast in the few hours a day when a few TV channels broadcast them. I'm sure this goes for plenty of othe people, too.

Now if only someone invented a box that would let you watch shows whenever you want to without depending on TV schedule.... Maybe digitaly record tv content and let you watch it whenever... that would be cool....kind of a "Tv In-Video Out" device, something that could Replay TV content any time you want to... you know, this T.I.V.O thing could be very cool if someone just would invent it.... too bad its just a Myth, and there is nothing like that..

-Em

Re:Free TV Online

[RAMMS EIN]

Right, I should check these out. Thanks for pointing this out, and you get bonus points for humor! :-)

On the other hand, what's with all this extra hardware when my computer is already perfectly equiped to play video?

Re:Free TV Online

[RAMMS EIN]

``It seems to me that TV is not free if you're paying the cable company or dish company.''

But who says I am? I can put an antenna on my TV and get the signal right from the air. Besides, if I were paying the cable company, I'd be paying for the infrastructure, not the content.

(As it is, the cable is included in the rent for my appt. It's not exactly "free", but it wouldn't save me any money if I wouldn't use it.)

Apple's biggest challenge: wireless LAN

[snowwrestler]

They want to use wireless to pull near-DVD-quality video/audio off of a Mac and display it on a TV. Problem is the entire rest of the industry is shying away from wireless LAN for this use because it is so difficult to make it work reliably. Data rates are sufficient but error handling and latency are NOT. This is for sure the reason the "iTV" is not ready for prime time yet.

The problem of syncing-up the audio and video latency alone is tough to conquer (and is most likely the reason you can't stream iTMS TV show audio over AirTunes now). On top of that is the much bigger problem of making sure the packets arrive on time, in a home environment that is increasingly bathed in interfering radio signals. Both of these problems can be addressed by caching at the TV end, which is undoubtedly the reason for the large form factor of the iTV (compare to the size of the AirPort Express).

Finally there is the user experience to consider--right now for example, when I change the volume or equalizer settings on my iBook, it takes about 1.5-2 seconds to be manifested in my stereo speakers over AirTunes. How will this be solved on the iTV? I'm used to pausing my movies the instant my finger hits the remote. I guess the remote could command the iTV, and the iTV could communicate the command to the Mac (thus keeping the latency hidden from the viewer). But this would mean that you could not control your movies or TV shows from the Mac itself, which sort of breaks the paradigm of the Mac as the center of your digital life.

Re:Apple's biggest challenge: wireless LAN

[truthsearch]

I stream high quality video over my wireless LAN to my PowerBook all the time. As long as the buffer is set to 1 second or more I have no problems at all.

Re:Apple's biggest challenge: wireless LAN

[Anonymous Coward]

Rumors suggest the iTV has a hard drive. That takes care of all your latency problems.

Re:Apple's biggest challenge: wireless LAN

[tf23]

As long as the ethernet port on the back of the thing is gigabit, I couldn't care what wifi chipset they have in the thing.

My ReplayTV already has cat5 going to it. So I'll either add another jack or add a cheap gigabit switch. No need to deal with wifi problems. Or if the ReplayTV dies (had it for years, it's started acting up lately, my wife's getting fed up with it) I'd just plop the iTV in place.

However, I'd still need to purchase something to capture the video to replace the ReplayTV. This'd be so much easier if the iTV had the ability to capture built into it and small hard drive to keep the capture and later xfer it to your main file server (ie machine running iTunes).

Re:Apple's biggest challenge: wireless LAN

[Have Blue]

All of these problems will be solved if the device streams the compressed file and then performs the decompression itself- the Airport Express does not do this. Audio/video synch wouldn't be an issue because they're both coming out of the iTV. Press a volume key and the volume changes instantly, because the iTV would handle that. This would also greatly decrease the load on the network and the remote Mac.

Re:Apple's biggest challenge: wireless LAN

[illumin8]

The problem of syncing-up the audio and video latency alone is tough to conquer (and is most likely the reason you can't stream iTMS TV show audio over AirTunes now).

Actually, his problem is very easily solved: Read the raw data off of your network filesystem and do the decoding on the set-top box. All audio/video latency problems vanish, unless of course your content was encoded incorrectly.

The problem with the Airport Express and audio syncing with TV is that while the video decoding is taking place on the computer, the audio is being sent in apple lossless codec to the airport express, which is actually decoding it, adding additional latency (and buffering) of it's own. Do the video and audio decoding on the same device and these latency problems disappear.

Re:Apple's biggest challenge: wireless LAN

[Hieronymus Howard]

What software do you recommend to do this? I tried Videolan but couldn't make it work successfully from iMac to iBook. Thnks

Re:Apple's biggest challenge: wireless LAN

[aralin]

This parent post is not really that insightful. First of all, you have ethernet and USB in iTV. So the wireless point is moot. If wireless does not work for you, pull a wire. Second, there is not going to be any delay, you will control iTV directly while sitting at your TV. You will control your Mac when sitting at your Mac. Why would you want to manage your TV from your Mac, which are likely going to be in different rooms is beyond my comprehension. I mean, not why you want to do it, that is obvious, but why would anybody else?

Re:Apple's biggest challenge: wireless LAN

[keeruq]

They do have som good algorithms both in the QuickTime Player and the QuickTimeStreamingServer which if they implemented that in iTunes and iTV could get people playing shows, even over Wireless networks, to get instant play of their shows.

It will be really interesting to see how well it works, but I'm guessing that there will be a significant delay initially but in a future upgrade it will be gone.

Re:Apple's biggest challenge: wireless LAN

[MMC Monster]

Not only that, it doesn't have to be a large storage hard drive or something particularly fast (10gb drive at 5400 rpm should work fine) as long as it's reasonably small.

Re:Apple's biggest challenge: wireless LAN

[Inverted Intellect]

Does the hard drive act as a buffer, or does it actually store stuff?

Even wired internet has some problems transmitting hi-def TV. I wonder why IPTV isn't made to be displayed a few seconds later than normal analog broadcast so that the content can be buffered beforehand. I'm no IPTV expert, but it seems to me like that'd fix the occasional digital hiccup in the displayed image.

Re:Apple's biggest challenge: wireless LAN

[EXMSFT]

Actually, many of the child posts already said this - but the key is in doing the video stream decompression on the device side. Microsoft did quite a bit of work in Windows XP Service Pack 2 with the network stack and QOS specifically around this, so that the Xbox 360 could serve as a Media Center Extender (MCX), which is basically all that iTV is, without the actual TV-integration that an MCX provides. The Xbox 360 is capable of displaying HDTV content (live or pre-recorded) from a Media Center machine, in another room, even if they are separated over a wireless network. So it's been done before - and iTV could do it - it's just a question of engineering. And as to the child post that said "pull a cable" - the reality is that this will be a horrible failure in the market if you HAVE to pull a cable in order to get a decent experience. Wireless is a must. Honestly all of the questions you ask above have already been answered by Microsoft with MCX devices - it will be interesting to see how much Apple mimics Microsoft for a change in the implementation of this "new" device.

Re:bah

[sherms]

Hey, if it helps the not so smart people out there. Great!!!

Although they are going to have to look at some of the other alternatives sneaking up.

Sherm

Tivo or iTV

[Fysiks Wurks]

So, which is cheaper Tivo serivce or buying all my content from the iTunes Store?

Say there are 4 shows I really like @ $2 a show for 20 episodes = $160. That is $13.33/mo
Say there are 8 shows I really like @ $2 a show for 20 episodes = $320. That is $26.66/mo

Yes, ease of use and the cool factor will be a draw; however, economics will be the driving force.

Which model is kicking ass in the legal music word: buy your digital music or subcribe to a service and "rent" the music?

Re:Tivo or iTV

[kannibal_klown]

Well, many shows have Season Pass available. So if you know off-the-bat that you'll be watching a whole season of a show, you can get a season pass. I believe that it cut the price of individual episodes down a lot, around half. I just don't recall the prices off the top of my head.

Re:Tivo or iTV

[Golias]

Say there are 8 shows I really like @ $2 a show for 20 episodes = $320. That is $26.66/mo

If those are cable shows, that's a bargain. Nobody gets cable TV for $26/month. If you only like a handful of shows, disconnect the cable service and download them.

If those are not cable shows, then there's no need for TiVo service either. An EyeTV box will let you tune them in over the air for free and record them to your Mac in glorious HDTV.

Mind you, I would not have reccommended using iTMS for any TV shows a month ago. The crap resolution was a deal-killer unless you planned on only watching them on your iPod screen. The new 640x480 progressive-scan resolution ain't bad though. Apart from a few wide-screen shows, it's not a bad way to go. In many cases, the iTMS season packages are cheaper than the DVD box sets of the same show.

Re:Tivo or iTV

[Fahrenheit 450]

Yes, but you're also freed from paying 40-60$/month for cable/satellite if you're just using them for those 4-8 shows.

Re:Tivo or iTV

[RAMMS EIN]

``Nobody gets cable TV for $26/month.''

I guess I'm nobody. I get cable TV for under $20 a month. But then, I live in Europe.

Re:Tivo or iTV

[SeaFox]

If those are cable shows, that's a bargain. Nobody gets cable TV for $26/month. If you only like a handful of shows, disconnect the cable service and download them.

I do. You need to inquire about what service is offered below "analog basic" on your local provider. Many have a step that includes mostly the local regular broadcast stations plus CNN, TBS, WGN, and CSPAN and a few others. I have this plus I have internet service through them, which necessitates unblocking some other channels (so I now get MTV, VH1, Food Network, National Geographic and a few others). Bottom line is the only stations I don't have that I wish I did are TNT (which I *did* have when I first got cable, got moved to a higher channel number) and SciFi. I could get both of these if I upgraded to full analog basic, but that would be another $20 for a gain of two stations.

And since I'm not sucked into the gateway drug nonsense of digital, I don't have a stupid external converter box that goes out every other month, and I can freely record any station I want without jumping through DRM hoops.

Re:Tivo or iTV

[Golias]

A roof antenna gets me all that, minus the Ted Turner channels, and I can also record any station without jumping through DRM hoops *and* do so in HD.

$20 for CNN and CSPAN? What a waste! News is on the Internet.

(And what would you want to record of CNN anyway? Other than a couple "shouting at each other" shows, they just run the same half-hour news broadcast about 40 times a day.)

Re:Tivo or iTV

[SeaFox]

A roof antenna gets me all that, minus the Ted Turner channels, and I can also record any station without jumping through DRM hoops *and* do so in HD.

Yeah, that's what was going on. Never had cable before. But moved into a new house and found that I got pretty much zero reception for all channels. Some of our neighbors have antannes - on 25 foot poles in their yards. This just seems to be a lousy place for broadcast TV so we went with cable. And I rather enjoy being able to change channels without playing with the rabbit ears like I used to and being able to watch Adult Swim and National Geographic, ect.

Plus, if I didn't have cable service I would have had to pay an extra $10 fee for cable internet.

Re:bah

[falcon5768]

ounce of AV skill....

Right there you eliminated about 98% of the population, including people who swear they are AV geniuses, which is EXACTLY what Apples product is targeting, the huge portion of the population who think Tivo is a difficult thing to set up and who still 30+ years later can't program the timer on their damn VCRs.

Holy shit... I just said 30 years ago about VCRs.... Im getting too old.

2 weeks?

[Harlockjds]

>It's cheaper and easier for me to watch the latest episode of Battlestar Galactica on SciFi rather than wait two weeks for iTunes.

2 weeks for BSG ep's? If i remember corectly last seasion they were available the next day (BSG is the only reasion i started using itunes since i gave up my dvr i had to watch ep's somehow and firday night isn't allways the best time for me to watch tv)

Double standards?

[DrXym]

People bitch about paying $500 or $600 for a PS3, so why should they pay the same or more for a Mac Mini in a similar role?

Re:Double standards?

[truthsearch]

A Mac Mini is a complete general purpose desktop computer. The PS3 is not.

Re:Double standards?

[CrackedButter]

Plus its a mac, we mac users just lap this kind of shit up!

Re:Double standards?

[DrXym]

Why do you need a general purpose computer under your TV to perform multimedia playback?

Re:Double standards?

[spicyjeff]

Because the iTV is half that price at $299, and tailored specifically to the market. People won't have to fight with it, it will just work. And video content won't be, or seem to be, and secondary consideration to playing games, like on a PS3 or XBox 360.

Re:Double standards?

[Moofie]

Because there are more than one instance of "people" with different value systems? Yeah, I'm crazy.

Re:Double standards?

[DrXym]

Apple never market Mac mini as a playback hardware for your TV

"The full-screen Front Row media experience -- with its intuitive menus, large text and brilliant graphics -- lets you browse the music, photos, and videos on your Mac mini as easily as you browse music on your iPod. The included Apple Remote lets you enjoy your media from anywhere in the room from your desk chair to favorite sofa. Front Row and Mac mini can even play music, photos, and videos saved on other computers in the house, thanks to Bonjour instant networking.(3) So gather your friends and dazzle them with a slideshow of your vacation pics, a home movie, your latest playlist, or a DVD."

Straight from their site. Now they don't mention TV, but go on to the accessory page and you will see them selling various audio and video convertors with hints how to hook it up to the TV. Clearly they want you to use it from your TV.

I expect the pairing will be even more pronounced with the next release, and perhaps that is exactly what the "iTV" is - a diskless Mac Mini, to be stacked on top of a real Mac Mini, or used in the vicinity of one.

Re:Double standards?

[DrXym]

Why do you assume people have to fight with a PS3? If Sony does choose to implement some kind of music, video, game download service you can expect that it will be very straightforward. More likely to scupper any such service would be if they try to rape their customers for that content, charging near DVD prices for content that is bound to the box. If they are smart, they'll follow some kind of movie rental service better suited to the finite capacity in the console.

As for secondary consideration, I think the PS3 stands a good chance of being used as much for its music & video capabilities as for games. After all, it will ship with a Blu-Ray drive and HD capacity. Given the capabilities it shouldn't be some second rate system in that department. You may even find that you can plug your iPod into it and play your unprotected content with little difficulty.

Re:Double standards?

[krakelohm]

You would not and that is not what the mini is sold as. It is sold and marketed as a general pc, but can hook to your television if so desired.

Re:Double standards?

[NDPTAL85]

You seemed to have overlooked Apple's iTV which is only $300.

Re:Double standards?

[DrXym]

And is the iTV used in conjunction with some other device that holds your content or is it standalone? If it works in conjunction with a device that you stream from then you can add the price of that onto your figure. Besides, the XBox 360 has had similar capability to stream from Windows Media Center PCs for a year now. Even Sony has something similar called LocationFree which is tied to the PSP and probably the PS3 too. Then there are various homebrew solutions around MythTV or VLC. In every case it's not a particularly convenient or useful technology simply because you have to buy two quite expensive devices and leave them on just to watch a picture through your TV.

Which is where a console could come in. XBox 360 was crippled by Microsoft to only support video streaming, presumably to force sales of Windows Media Center. If Sony are smart (and usually they are not), they'll make the PS3 capable not only of playing content but receiving it and even acting like a LocationFree base station to send it anywhere else in the house. That's the way around it should be and it would be awesome.

Re:Double standards?

[kannibal_klown]

I read an article. What brief details were offered, it said the device can let you browse the PCs on your network to stream the video from there. I don't know if this is in addition to internal storage or instead of.

I'd imagine they'd have a quick little piece of software to install on any old Windows or Mac box to allow it to stream to the iTV.

Re:Double standards?

[LordVader717]

Neither is their "iTV".

Re:Apples coming lawsuit

[iroll]

Yeah, no. Try again.

You can't sue somebody for their product's internal code name; Apple isn't marketting it as "ITV."

Re:bah

[Hoi Polloi]

"My computer *IS* my...mp3 player...cd player..."

I've tried walking around with my PC strapped to my back but I can't find an extension cord long enough for road trips.

XBMC had made a believer out of me

[hodet]

"..stating that about half of users surveyed across the globe are now looking to get downloadable videos, movies and other content onto their TV"

...and the other half want it when they see someone else do it. I have XBMC on my network and people can't believe that I stream video from my pc to the tv. First thing they say is ....."I want it!".

I don't see much of a market

[deathsquirrel]

I could be wrong but at least for me, and almost everyone I know, this is an astonishingly pointless product. I can pay a couple bucks an episode to watch videos on my TV or I can just record it, no matter when it's on, for $5 a month on my DVR...and that's assuming I don't use a computer for that function in which case there probably a monthly fee at all. In fairness I can't imagine paying for an itunes video at all. Any show I want to see I can tivo and if I'm on a trip I can, oh I don't know, wait a couple of days. Clearly I'm not the target market!

Re:I don't see much of a market

[twelveinchbrain]

You're missing something. Look to the near future and you will find all major network programming, starting with all of ABC, available on the iTunes store. A device like the iTV would allow you to cancel your cable service. The business model of transmitting a 24x7x100(channels) feed of random crap for a fixed monthly fee is showing its age, and is well due to be replaced.

Re:I don't see much of a market

[Moofie]

As a supplement to cable TV, it's not a good deal.

As the a la carte TV package the cable companies will never give you, it has the potential to save me money.

Re:I don't see much of a market

[MrJynxx]

Your not factoring in the cost of actually paying for the full cable service (basic cable with no movie channel let's say)

The people who can benefit from this are the people who don't traditionally sit in front of a TV night after night (I fall into this category) .

I've literally given up on watching TV because I watch maybe a few shows a year that play during a time when I'm not around. But if the cost of DVR + Cable is lower than downloading the specific content you want then yes, it's pointless. But for everyone else it may be a solution to our problems.

MrJynxx

P.S I think it's a cool product, but I wouldn't buy it :)

Re:I don't see much of a market

[nblender]

ah, you must be American.

Up here in the 51st state of the union (Canuckistan), we have to wait a whole year before we get to see the BSG episodes after you see them. Same with the Sopranos. etc.

Re:I don't see much of a market

[deathsquirrel]

So their target market is people that don't watch much TV. Well that's gonna be a success of pippin-like proportions!

Re:I don't see much of a market

[deathsquirrel]

I watch about an hour of TV a week...maybe two. If I were the only person in the house then sure, it might be interesting but since I'd probably turn off the cable and just rely on broadcast TV how would I even know what shows I'm missing & would want to buy?? Thing is, I'm not the only person in the house and even if the three of us all watched as little TV as I do I wouldn't save any money over my satellite service. I can understand the value of this for the single person that likes a couple of shows but doesn't want to pay for cable...but I have have wonder how many such people there really are that would be willing to spend a couple hundred bucks on a video player for downloaded TV content.

And Apple's going to do it for us?

[edunbar93]

I thought they called that "Xbox".

Re:Apples coming lawsuit

[AKAImBatman]

Obviously you haven't heard the story of the Butthead Astronomer.

You can sue for anything. Whether you'll win or not is another story. ;)

Re:bah

[minus_273]

meh, i stay from corporate tv shows they just feed the MPAA. you should really watch tv shows not affiliated with the MPAA. I think there is a website which will let you access lots of local access TV shows and recommends replacemnts for your corporate shows. bobs's ufo show on local access TV beats battlestar galactica anyday.

Aesthetic problem with iTV

[orb_fan]

iTV is a great idea (or a great implementation of an existing idea), but I have one major problem with it; it needs to look the same as other AV equipment. This seems to be a recurring problem with all the tech companies that try to create an AV device. They create these designs that while looking great, just don't fit in with the rest of the components. Please lets have a version that is 19" wide that comes with either brushed aluminum or black, and give it a LCD display so that you don't have to have the damn TV on to browse your music collection.

Re:Aesthetic problem with iTV

[Moofie]

"TV on to browse your music collection."

I bet you $20 that this thing will work perfectly with AirTunes.

Re:Aesthetic problem with iTV

[slim]

"TV on to browse your music collection."

I bet you $20 that this thing will work perfectly with AirTunes.


And how does that help?

Re:Aesthetic problem with iTV

[Moofie]

Um, you don't have to browse your music library on a TV.

Me? I'd much rather browse from a computer or the TV screen than a little two- or three-line VFD, which is why I bought an AirPort Express and not a Slimbox. But that's me, and other people are different, and that's fine.

Re:Aesthetic problem with iTV

[orb_fan]

I'm not saying that you shouldn't be able to browse on a TV if that is your preference - my preference is to browse music on the device that plays it, I don't want to turn on my TV or go to my computer to find the track I want to listen to. I've built a media PC with an LCD screen that allows me to do this. My point is that since Apple want's to get into the AV business, provide a device that looks and acts like other AV components on the market.

Re:Aesthetic problem with iTV

[Moofie]

I don't care whether it's the same shape as other AV components, whose form factor hasn't evolved pretty much ever.

I have a computer right next to my elbow when I'm sitting on the couch listening to my stereo. Why would I want to get up and fiddle with an LCD that happens to be in the component stack? I'd much rather have the interface be close to me than close to the amplifier.

Call me crazy.

Re:Aesthetic problem with iTV

[toddestan]

The most obvious solution would be to put the display on the remote, and have the remote communicate wirelessly with the iTV or whatever you want to call it in your component stack. And having to browse your music collection through a small LCD screen? Luckily, Apple has already solved that problem too, take a look at the iPod.

Re:Is platform independence so hard?

[grapeape]

The biggest problem with platform idependance is that the content providers all pick sides and the hardware vendors all work to "own" the segment rather than share and participate in it. Overall an independant standard would increase sales and adopters all around but its never going to happen.

You'll be disappointed: no bandwidth

[postbigbang]

Go on and try to get all of this great content. Do the abnormal and even think ahead to have things ready when you want them.

This isn't video on demand, it's video-after-drumming-your-fingers. I wish it weren't true, but even with faster DOCSIS 3.0 modems, you'll wait for a long time for teeny little rasters that hardly suit a cell phone.

I truly wish we had distributed networking/cached infrastructure that could do this. But to everyone's surprise, we don't.

Re:You'll be disappointed: no bandwidth

[AKAImBatman]

Go on and try to get all of this great content.

Um... ok.

*click* *click*

(Waits 30 seconds...)

*click* Play>

So... what's the problem again? As I said in the first post, I've watched an entire season of Eureka off of iTunes, presumably in 640x480 - H264. I am able to start watching my show within seconds of the download starting. I am not seeing any of the bandwidth issues you're referring to. Even doing back of the envelope calculations shows that there's more than enough bandwidth on a cable line.

You do know that this stuff is transmitted in a compressed form, right?

Re:You'll be disappointed: no bandwidth

[Jeff DeMaagd]

It's close enough for now. I think we'll get there in due time. Sometimes the demand has to be there to prompt ISPs to upgrade.

BTW: iTunes is now distributing all their paid videos in 640x480 resolution.

Re:You'll be disappointed: no bandwidth

[postbigbang]

It's a great idea to put pressure on ISPs to deliver. But what of Net Neutrality? Will Verizon's or Comcast's videos get better data rates than say, Apple's?

The showdown is yet to come.

Add that to the consumption problems when you have three teens in the house and two adults. Planning, codecs, all sorts of things come into the equation. Nonetheless, most people will be disappointed... it's just not fast enough yet.

Re:Oblig

[steveo777]

Honestly, how is that any different from Joe Sixpack and his family worshipping thier TV's as it is? Just makes it worse, I guess.

OTOH, a system like this would take away my extreme loathing of television, though. I don't watch because I don't have time. I refuse to alter my schedule to watch TV, or to buy a TIVO or something like that so I can record shows. And I destest most commercials. Though I'll put up with them if I want to watch sports or something.

But with an iPod... naw. I'm still not paying for TV. Heck, I've never bought a TV (I have bartered for a 10 year old TV, gave my cousin a bag of paintballs when he ran out, he couldn't pay me back, so he gave me his old 27", before that I had a 19" with dials on it that a lady gave me at work. Was playing Game Cube on that baby for months), and as much as I'd love to have a big hi-def set for the occational movie and playing video games I doubt I'll ever buy one.

Re:bah

[ignatiusJ]

maybe, just maybe, not everyone wants to spend hours setting this up. and if you say 'well, it only takes me 15 minutes', remmember that's because you've invested hours aquirring all the knowledge to do it. If you like to do stuff like this, more power to you. just remember, most people don't.

Steam like content

[BMonger]

You know how you could download most (if not all) of Half Life 2 before it was out, then on release day BOOM you could play it?

Why not the same with TV shows? Get a Season Pass to Lost, it preloads the morning of and knows that at 7pm in your time zone (or whatever time it's on) that you are now allowed to watch that content from your iTV.

I know a lot of people here want to pick what cable channels they have and pay a smaller price... it'd be almost nicer to just pick the shows.

Re:Steam like content

[MMC Monster]

Wow. I didn't even think of that. :-) I would love to just buy a season pass of my favorite shows and just cancel my cable completely.

Just means I will have to get my SAN up and running. 1 TB of storage is cheap enough now. :-)

Re:Steam like content

[dr.badass]

I know a lot of people here want to pick what cable channels they have and pay a smaller price... it'd be almost nicer to just pick the shows.


Indeed. If you're paying $40 a month for cable TV and only actually watching a handful of shows, a few $30 season passes on iTunes may come out a lot cheaper over time. Plus, you get the re-watchability of a DVD months before the show is available on DVD.

Re:bah

[Fahrenheit 450]

So how do your AV Skills allow you to get shows from cable/satellite only networks on to your computer if you don't don't pay for one of those services?
What something like iTV allows someone like me to do is dump the satellite package that they're paying for in order to watch one or two otherwise unavailable shows, and instead pay less to be able to buy them elsewhere.

The only thing they need is an option to subscribe to a season of the show, where the price includes the DVD package of that season's shows at a discount from the retail price that it will be released at, then they'd really be golden.

Re:bah

[dfghjk]

"...which is EXACTLY what Apples product is targeting, the huge portion of the population who think Tivo is a difficult thing to set up and who still 30+ years later can't program the timer on their damn VCRs."

iTV and iTunes is differentiated from Tivos and VCRs by far more than ease of use. Who Apple is targetting is not who you say though they will gladly take those customers as well.

Re:bah

[tomstdenis]

The money I save on not buying expensive doo-dahs, I can best and better use on plane tickets and booze.

Ha-cha-cha!

Tom

Undercutting networks, retailers, etc.

[rlgoer]

The main thing that I worry about when I read about schemes to download video directly to people's televisions is that the content providers are so concerned about undercutting retailers, networks, advertisers, etc., that the downloads end up getting priced really high. Should they cost more than a few cents, really, given that delivery is so trivial?

Re:Undercutting networks, retailers, etc.

[duc1701]

It's not just the pennies of server time, it's producing the show, making a profit comparable to the profit of showing it on TV with advertisements, having Apple take a cut, etc.

Might work - except for the paying part

[hey]

I might use a Tivo device that downloaded shows instead for recording from cable/sat.
I can't see wanting to pay for each episode of some show! - yuck.
Also it needs that automatic aspect so you can just tell it want you want generally and it will
download it for you at night.

Re:Might work - except for the paying part

[twelveinchbrain]

People pay something like $12/mo. for TiVo service, on top of the $30-$100 they spend on cable. Do you know how much downloadable TV that would pay for?

Re:Apples coming lawsuit

[NatasRevol]

Ask Carl Sagan... ye old butt head astronomer.

Thank God

[Mateo_LeFou]

(not a sarcastic one this time). My question is -- will Daily Show be $.99 an episode or something? That adds up to a whole cable bill at that point...

Re:Thank God

[Jeff DeMaagd]

The Daily Show can be bought either $1.99 an episode or $9.99 for the next 16 new episodes., that's about $0.63/ep.

I paid $9.99 to get Comedy Central for a year.

Re:Microsoft should adopt this for the 360.

[dfghjk]

MS already does this with the XBox360. What it doesn't do is provide the equivalent of the iTunes Store. Apple doesn't download to the iTV, it downloads to iTunes. Likewise, MS wouldn't download to the XBox via Live, it would download to WMP. The XBox360 doesn't have sufficient local storage to be useful and it doesn't have a powerful enough HID to interact with a storefront (and neither does the iTV).

Re:If everything works out, everything may work ou

[rjschwarz]

The comment was snarky but funny. I suggest this gets moderated up a bit.

Re:bah

[Moofie]

Nobody's coming to take your Gentoo box away. Take a deep breath. It'll be all right. Seriously!

Re:bah

[golgoj4]

I've tried watching video on that tiny ipod screen too...decided it was wasnt worth it. This sounds like a cool idea however but I wonder exactly how many people cant operate a tivo? And the issues with a. paying twice for content because of bundling b. lack of regular shedule. If they overcome that they may have something.

Re:Is platform independence so hard?

[dfghjk]

Yes, provided you don't mind vendor lockin and restricted device support.

Apple's scheme will support and PC that runs iTunes, any video iPod, and a TV with a computer/iPod/iTV hookup. Amazon's is similar with the exception of iTV (though Apple doesn't have iTV yet either). MS has iTV-like devices that Amazon may be able to use.

These services don't really exist in any mature form yet. Expect them to evolve significantly.

Of course, if you have a Tivo and a PC, you can use the bridge software to provide identical features but through different mechanisms. This combination provides all the capability of Apple's service but without DRM and support for all devices (but not OS X). The question is would you rather pay a flat monthly fee for Tivo (plus cable/sat) and get unlimited programming, high bandwidth, broad device support, but variable quality, or would you rather pay ala carte pricing (plus broadband fees) and get slow downloads, DRM and vendor lockin but with consistent quality. Frankly, I see uses for both but I'm not giving up broadcast TV just yet.

Re:bah

[RahoulB]

yup. the original imac didn't do anything that you couldn't do yourself with a screwdriver, a driver disk and a CD-RW drive. it was just packaged so all you needed to do was plug it in.

yup. the ipod didn't do anything that you couldn't do yourself with a USB cable, some crappy jukebox software and an MP3 player. It was just packaged so all you needed to do was plug it in.

noticing a pattern?

Correct prices

[Maxo-Texas]

For "average" person
Entertainment budget: about $120 a month.
Television hours: About 112 a month.
Correct price is about $1 per *HOUR*.

Price TV Series people want... $1 to $2 per hour ($3 for foreign made series often).
Price Movie people want... $2.50 to $5 per hour.
Price "cable" people want... $60 per month of all you can eat with one set of premium channels.

Price music video people want... $1 per 3 minutes.
Price music people want... $1 per 3 minutes.

Can we see why there is so much piracy pressure on music products?

Re:Correct prices

[Maxo-Texas]

look at la femme nikita.

X-files $39, down to $19 recently.

LFN- $83 to start. About $60 now.

There are others like this.

It's JUST plastic with the same hours of entertainment (22).

needless to say... LFN isn't going to be purchased while I own 8 seasons of XF.

Re:bah

[tomstdenis]

You talk funny mister.

Tom

Portability?

[pluther]

I don't necessarily want to download to the TV.

What I want is to be able to download a show and watch it on whatever device I want to watch it on. I want to be able to watch it on my PDA while during the train trip to work, or on my TV in my living room, or on my desktop computer in the den, or on a laptop.

I want to be able to back it up, or burn it to DVD to watch at a friend's house or later at any time without losing my entire collection if my hard drive crashes.

I want to download it on my Windows machine and watch it on my Linux laptop. Or vice-versa. I want to be able to download it over a wireless connection if I'm stuck in the airport for several hours longer than I expected and watch it on my laptop, then later transfer it to my TV and watch it again weeks or months later.

Can their service do all that? Because if not, it still lags behind pirate networks. I'm perfectly happy to pay $1.99 per episode, or maybe even more. But not if it locks me into a single vendor's viewer software, even if it's free, and definitely not if I can't make backups of any of content.

Re:Portability?

[Aditi.Tuteja]

Basically it's a (wireless!) from your Mac to your TV, so you can watch your iTunes store movies on your big plasma TV instead of your iPod. What excites me is the ability of being able to watch a movie without having to book for a blockbuster!!! Ofsource it can not be compared to TV and It doesn't record.

Re:Portability?

[Redundant offtopic t]

"able to watch it on my PDA" - If your PDA is an iPod, yes.
"on my TV in my living room" - with that iTV thingy
"on my desktop computer in the den, or on a laptop" - After installing quicktime and iTunes software, yes
"able to back it up" - yes
"burn it to DVD to watch at a friend's house" - Nope
"download it on my Windows machine and watch it on my Linux laptop" - Mac and Windows only. You can share iTunes libraries.
"download it over a wireless connection" - yes, with a OS X or Windows laptop
"later transfer it to my TV" - with iTV

I agree, Apple's, Amazon's, MS's, et al, services will lag piracy where DRM on the play back end isn't universal. Especially if you want to use Linux, where DRM is antithetical. More correctly, DRM'd media will always lag non-DRM'd media. (e.g., I finally checked out eMusic. Count me as an instant convert--not just from the odd iTunes store single, but from used CDs!)

Granted I've only bothered playing iTunes DRM'd music in various Apple apps (iTunes, QT player, iPhoto, iMovie), but my semi-educated assumption is that fairplay is tied to quicktime, not the iTunes application. So, I assume that any QT-based player will play fairplay music. And by extension, any QT compatible viewer would show DRM'd video. AT least, that's what I gather from bits and pieces of reading and guessing. Someone enlighten me, please.

$2 a show sucks.

[ClioCJS]

How many shows does a $50 cable bill get me? 48 half-hour shows a day multiplied by 30 days = 1440 or so. That's 3.4 cents a show.

Yes, I realize that I don't watch every show that is on, but here's my point:

I watch 1-3 shows a day. Let's call it 2. 30 days times 2 shows = 60 shows, times $2 = $120.

How is paying $120/month helping me? If it's more expensive than my cable (which I've downgraded to $20/month), why would I not just download it via bittorrent?

This is pure greed. This is not as cool as everyone thinks it is.

Re:$2 a show sucks.

[rev_media]

Except that downloading shows via Bittorrent is pure illegal. Most likely people will use it for shows they miss, or want to keep for the long term.

Re:$2 a show sucks.

[Thrudheim]

Guess what? You are not everyone. Shocking, I know.

Seriously, if you are a heavy TV watcher, a cable or satellite subscription with DVR is more economical. I might quibble with your $2 a show figure, because you could potentially do better than that by buying subcriptions to a month's worth of a particular program, as with the Daily Show, but you point still holds.

For many other people, on the other hand, this represents a way to finally get rid of a subscription altogether. There are only a few shows that I really want to watch, but the cable company is not interested in letting me pick and choose channels (that greed thing you talk about). I used to pay $80 for digital cable, but I got tired of paying that much for the two channels I actually watched, so I dropped it for a smaller package of channels via satellite. We are getting to the point where I can drop that too. I really look forward to that day.

So, to each his or her own.

Re:$2 a show sucks.

[bogie]

"For many other people, on the other hand, this represents a way to finally get rid of a subscription altogether. "

You think people are going to dump their cable tv/sat subscription for Itunes ala carte pricing?

Your flat out dreaming if you think this product has the possiblity of even gaining 1% of the market.

PVR's from cable/sat companies are the current and future for both recording and purchasing content. If you think they will let Apple do an end-run around them then you haven't been paying attention. Worst case they will simply lower prices to compete with anything Apple can do. And frankly apple's prices suck.

Re:$2 a show sucks.

[Thrudheim]

Yeah, I'm dreaming all right, dreaming about getting rid of a stupid monthly subscription that gives me 200 channels I don't want just so that I can get the few shows I actually watch.

Honestly, I have no idea what percentage of the market Apple's iTV (whatever it is actually called in the end) will get. Given that only around 10% of households use DVRs, it probably will not be much at first. What I do know is that things are going to change dramatically once this technology becomes easy-to-use and the average consumer becomes aware of it. Yes, the cable companies will have to respond to Apple and others that will sell programing via downloads. Maybe they finally will have to offer a la carte pricing. I am all for that.

And, I resent how the cable companies have fought cable card techology. Unless they give me choices I want, I will happily bolt.

Re:bah

[krakelohm]

Why do you hate specific companies? That kind of thinking baffles me... what did they do personally to you to justify this very strong emotion. I use OS X, XP, Ubuntu on occasion. What do I hate... murders, rapists, molesters and that sort. Looks like someone needs to get a grip and re-evaluate their priorities.

More techies than you think

[RAMMS EIN]

``I can manage this on my own, but 99% of the populace won't because it is too hard.''

I think that number is a bit high. I know it's a popular assumption among Slashdotters that they are in some very small group of people who understand computers enough for certain tasks, but I wonder how true that assumption is. When I was in high school, I think that percentage may have been one or a few percent of my classmates. However, some of these people will have picked up computers skills by now, and I know that none of the people I knew who had the skills back then have lost them now. So, among those people, the percentage of tech-savvy people is almost certainly greater than 1 by now.

When I look at my younger brother's friends and classmates, it seems they all grew up with computers. I can very well imagine how that would lead the proportion of tech-savvy people among them to be higher.

My youngest brother could do a Windows XP install when he was six years old. That was the age at which I first got to touch a PC.

All in all, I think the "99% of people" figure may have been true at some point, but probably isn't true anymore. I would be interested to find out exactly what the figure is like for some commonly debated things (ability to keep Windows machines malware-free, ability to work with Ubuntu, ability to program, using GNU/Linux, etc.)

Re:More techies than you think

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

All in all, I think the "99% of people" figure may have been true at some point, but probably isn't true anymore.

I think you'll find if you do a random survey, you might find a few computer users who are confident they can install a TV tuner card or device and a few more that can attach their computer to their TV to display it. You'll find a small number that would rather do this than just plug in a Tivo and an even smaller number that overlap with the group that know how and are motivated to do so that also are interested in buying television shows ala cart. There is a big difference between who can set up such a thing and who is motivated to do so and doesn't already have a different solution to this problem that does not include Apple.

No one WANTS to download tv. They have to.

[kinglink]

Don't know about the rest of you, but when I watch 24, or Lost or any other drama they are usually shown once a week. However if you miss that one episode you're screwed because every episode leads to another episode. This would be fine except for the fact that if you don't see this one episode you're lose the thrust of the story, and every episode is important to understanding the show.

So let's say you're driving home at 6:51 and you're car breaks down, you're show is on at 7:00, you've missed it, so either you have two options, download the episode (legally/illegally) or skip the rest of the season because you don't want to spoil yourself.

But wait what if we have DVR? Ok that works.

Come home at 8:00 all mad at the mechanic for overcharging you and find that there was a cable outage and your DVR didn't record the program, you're still in the same place.

The way TV shows works now the only option is to have something where you can see the episode so you can keep watching the show so the advertisers will keep paying for advertising. The part I disprove of is the fact that they charge you for the right to watch the show again, and will scream bloody murder if they find out you downloaded the episode for free, personally I find the system to be broken and Apple is only a stopgap.

Re:Oh yeah, compressed. Yup.

[AKAImBatman]

It's so nice that you're pleased with such a small raster.

Dude, it's 640x480. My television can't do any better than that. Why shouldn't I be satisfied?

Frame rate? Spectra? 5.1?

Do the words, "television signal" hold any meaning to you? I'm seeing close to the same thing on my computer screen as I would see on my television screen. (Assuming they weren't the same, which they are.)

No fades, pixellation, or sound sync issues?

That would be the fault of the encoding studio. Considering that I'm paying Apple money for these videos, there had better not be any fades, noticable pixellation, or sound sync issues. (Which there aren't.)

And you're using binoculars, right?

Good God. What is it with people these days? You try to replace their television signal with a (*gasp!*) television signal, and suddenly they complain. Did you use binoculars to watch your tube before HDTV? Do you use binoculars to watch broadcast television on your TV today? No? Then stop being an ass.

Well, that sucks.

[ClioCJS]

I certainly don't consider downloading a show I've already paid access to watch on cable via bittorrent "pure illegal". It is perfectly legal for me to record a show on VHS, and let a friend watch it. I can even sell it for a modest copying fee (1982 act), as long as the recipient has paid their cable bill and is licensed to view it.

So this is only for shows we miss? Sounds like a losing business model if they want to "dominate the living room". If it's just for shows we miss, that implies that everyone still has to buy their cable.

So now.. we're paying more money because we're too lazy to program our VCR / TIVO / video capture card? Sheesh. Americans will buy anything. Bottled water and the swiffer are perfect examples.

Re:Apples coming lawsuit

[ack154]

Actually, if you recall the keynote Jobs made:

It's called iTV. That's a codeword. we need to come up with a better name.

greed? nay! it destroys ppv & current vod!

[Stu Charlton]

Rogers in Canada has video on demand, which is pretty popular (especially for porn) -- TV shows run at around $2-4 each, movies run $6, porn is $9-12 each. And you can only access the movie for 24 hours.

On the other hand, what still continues to work is the Movie Network On Demand (also supported by rogers) is sort of the equivalent of HBO here -- they're subscription based, if you subscribe to the network you get the on demand service. Unfortunately it's still streamed, so if they stop offering a movie, you can't watch it anymore (unless you recorded it).

Let's also look at pay-per-view (PPV) movies which run $5+ and run on 20+ stations.

It strikes me that iTunes is going to have a big impact movie rentals, PPV, and VOD services as-is, which is a growing market.

As for watching 1-3 shows A DAY, you're apparently either really big into news, game shows, or re-runs. Or is there REALLY that much interesting new stuff on TV??? (that would be 15-20 weekly shows you regularly watch, wow)

15 shows is pretty easy

[ClioCJS]

King Of The Hill, Simpsons, Family Guy, American Dad, Boondocks, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, Minoriteam, Moral Orel, 24, Smallville, South Park, Drawn Together...... I also watched all 265 episodes of Frasier this year [all TV is watched with the wife; never alone].

Okay, maybe not all of those are running at all times... But I don't sit there thirsty for the next new release. I watch shows I choose at a pace I choose. Currently working through Season 1 of The Boondocks uncensored versions. Must watch the uncensored Striperellas. My video agenda (Text file of what i plan to watch next) is multiple pages....

The point is, they want to move everyone to a new model where they actually pay more for less. And people are falling for it, hook line & sinker, becuase the cable companies have jacked up the prices so high that it "seems" cheaper. It is not.

Imagine cancelling your cable and only doing it this way -- it would cost $2 just to "flip channels" to TRY a new show.

Re:bah

[NDPTAL85]

You've got to be kidding. You seriously want people to abandon their popular culture just to protest licensing terms? Why not just committ suicide right now? Afterall by living you have to buy stuff to stay alive, purchases that fuel other corporations.....

okay..

[ClioCJS]

how much are season passes, then?

Re:Oh yeah, compressed. Yup.

[kannibal_klown]

They changed it. For starters, it's now 640x480 (or 480p). That's better than basic shows (unless you have HD, which there are only a new non-premium channels).

And for the screen, you realize you can do a fullscreen... right? Just double-click on the tiny-image at the bottom-left.

MythTV for me!

[drewzhrodague]

Why do TiVo, when you can MythTV? Spend $50 on a PVR-150, and record all the shows that you want. Drag them onto your laptop when you get around to it. That, and the other 90% of MythTV really makes the television something interesting again -- it's got shows I want to watch.
Plus, it eats the commercials -- how cool is that?

Re:MythTV for me!

[kannibal_klown]

Why do TiVo, when you can MythTV? Spend $50 on a PVR-150, and record all the shows that you want. Drag them onto your laptop when you get around to it. That, and the other 90% of MythTV really makes the television something interesting again -- it's got shows I want to watch.
Plus, it eats the commercials -- how cool is that?

1. Requires 2 machines, one of which a laptop or small/quiet desktop
2. It requires a sliver of IT knowledge
3. Other reasons

Don't get me wrong, it's a good solution... IF you have the know-how, hardware, and time. And while I'd imagine a lot of slashdotters fit all 3 conditions, they aren't really a good sampling of the general public. Plus, I'm sure a HUGE percent (though still a minority) of slashdotters fail to meet 1 or 2 of the conditions.

Tivo is rather simple... plug and play.

Re:Microsoft should adopt this for the 360.

[Acidictadpole]

They have the ability to move things to the 360 as far as movies go.. But before I posted this I checked their media and they just had movie trailers. If they were able to put stuff like BSG series' up on there, I would be happy.

Both iTivo

[Kamiza Ikioi]

iTV probably isn't going to carry local news, and if it carries sports, it's going to be with a BIG price tag for live games.

I'll take my football on regular TV (and Tivo will save it to watch later if I miss it), and I'll take The Daily Show via iTV, because I never see it, and I have to get an extended cable plan to watch that one show.

With a little interface (hey, if Apple can interface with a sneaker, they can work out a deal with Tivo), then a person could get by with iTV for the high quality specialty shows and normal cable or even digital broadcast (antenna) for local news, sports, and abc/cbs/nbc/fox/wb/etc network shows, and even grandma could figure it out. (Hey, they're two very UI conscious companies... could be the best remote control ever designed in the history of TV remotes, or the worst ever... either way, an instant Smithsonian collection item.)

Re:Microsoft should adopt this for the 360.

[dfghjk]

I'm highly annoyed by the anemic 20GB hard drive that the XBox360 offers. Can't do much content with that. Interfacing to an online store with a game controller, while possible, would be a miserable experience (though not as bad as with an Apple remote!).

Re:bah

[minus_273]

sigh. it was a copy of a post about the RIAA and music on another thread. basically people advocating stuff like this http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/ that tell you not to buy music from your favorite artist.

Re:If market manipulation doesn't cancel it out

[screwthemoderators]

It sounds obvious to a Econ101 student, but in the "MP3" electronics field there are many good products that had the qualities mentioned that haven't come close to iPod sales. So the OP was not only snarky, but also just plain wrong. another Engineer vs Marketer issue- and we don't find it so funny anymore...sigh

Re:No one WANTS to download tv. They have to.

[prockcore]

Well, with Lost I can pop over to abc.com and watch it the next day for *free* (ooh so I have to watch three 30 second ads on a 43 minute show)

iTunes does carry some Adult Swim titles

[BearRanger]

At the moment they have Aqua Teen Hunger Force, The Venture Brothers and Sealab 2021. It's even easy to find, as they list "Adult Swim" as a seperate network.

The stuff they don't actually produce (read: Anime) will likely take some time, if it ever happens.

Sagan didn't win that suit.

[geekoid]

Although Apple won the suit, they changed the name to "BHA." When Sagan learned that this meant "Butt-Head Astronomer," he instigated a libel suit. Apple claimed the right to free speech under the First Amendment and again won. This prompted Apple to change the name for the 7100 again to "LAW," known internally as meaning "Lawyers Are Wimps."

--Wikipedia

Re:bah

[@madeus]

boring for anyone with an ounce of AV skills. My computer *IS* my TV, mp3 player, movie player, dvd player, cd player, etc....

You watch TV shows and movies on your monitor? Nasty.

I have a 24" flat panel screen on the games system in the study, and it has 5.1 surround, but as a nice a gaming system as it is [for FPS games/MMO's], it's hardly the best way to enjoy good video content, which - like console gaming - lends itself to a totally different environment.

If I'm going to watch a movie or show at home then I want to watch it on a decent sized display (in my case, a 50" Plasma), with the best sound system in the house, and on comfy seating in the lounge (where I can watch it with friends too, rather than say have them huddle round a monitor).

I think most people with a computer are going to have a TV with a screen that's about twice as large as their monitor (from Joe User with a 15-17" monitor who has a 28-32" TV - to those who spend a bit more on their hardware - who might have a 19" TFT on their computer, but a 40-42" Plasma in the living room).

It's got nothing to do with having 'A/V skills', large displays (even 1080p) in the lounge make for lousy monitors (it's really uncomfortable using one like a monitor, even with a wireless keyboard and mouse) and computer monitors don't make for very good TV's. Different things, different purposes.

TiVos rarely miss

[PRMan]

My Tivos have missed about 3 shows in the last 2 years combined.

Not seeing the problem here.

Re:If market manipulation doesn't cancel it out

[@madeus]

It sounds obvious to a Econ101 student, but in the "MP3" electronics field there are many good products that had the qualities mentioned that haven't come close to iPod sales

I agree there are a lot of players very nearly as good as the iPod (and in some cases, better), but as an owner of both the first commercial available portable MP3 player (the 32 MB Diamond Rio) and the first model of iPod (the 5GB one, followed by a 15 GB, 20 GB and 60 GB one - largely due to losing them/dropping them a lot) and as someone who has endured using a Mini Disc, I think it's wrong to paint it as 'another Engineer vs Marketer issue'.

That's because there is one big, IMO crucial difference between the iPod and every other player.

The quality of software that comes with it.

Not the software on the iPod, but iTunes, which was the first (and only) package most users have ever used to 'rip' a CD. It makes the process really painless, and it even makes it easy to burn your own CD's (to the extent that even my 50-something year old mother is happy with it, is very happy to buy music via the iTMS, and she still can't work out how to use the channel browser on her digital TV set top box).

Now I don't think for a minute that users make a conscious decision to purchase an iPod on the basis of iTunes nor do I think users even give a second thought to iTunes (i think that's part of the 'magic' of good software that's targeted at a mass market audience), but I do think that iTunes has been and is absolutely crucial to the product's success, and that if Apple had tried to ship it with the same horrible quality Rio Jukebox BS that Creative did, or the crap that Sony provide, their is no way it would have gained the momentum and be in the position it's now in.

I also think, by the same token, that vendors like Sony and Creative have been hurt by their poor quality products- perhaps in a way that's difficult to measure directly, but because their products have failed to become know as being being 'easy to use' (which is killer when your trying to sell a new type of product most consumers are still a bit confused by and wary of).

I think that the advertising campaign has of course definitely been instrumental in the iPod's meteoric rise to dominance, but I think it's one product where the magic - the underlying reason for the whole success of the product - really is in the software (just perhaps, not in the obvious place - that is, not on the iPod itself but in the seemingly coincidental bundled software that makes it 'just work').

No, I want HD and I don't want to download it

[PRMan]

No, I don't want to watch SD TV on a tiny screen on my iPod or on my PC screen. I have a 50" HDTV for TV viewing.

Am I the only one waiting for more shows (such as Amazing Race) to go HD, rendering them practically undownloadable by modern methods?

The wrong side of pointless

[SuperKendall]

I don't see much of a point myself in paying $50+ per month, and a $10/month fee additional for a PVR just in case something I might want to watch comes on.

Instead, why not pay for the shows you are interested in watching?

It all depends on how much you watch TV as to which seems "pointless". I only have basic cable (and that only because it reduces the cost of my cable modem). I don't watch more than a handful of shows, and those sporadically - I may go months without watching TV. For me downloading TV makes a lot of sense, even if I pay some small amount for it
.

Re:bah

[crabpeople]

"Why do you hate specific companies? That kind of thinking baffles me... what did they do personally to you to justify this very strong emotion"

Well *personally*, Apple wouldnt repair my ipod (even at cost to me) since it was out of waranty. they wouldnt even consider repairing it if I paid them...

PNY makes SHIT PRODUCTS that rgularly fail. They claimed a $400 video card was "lost" in transit, untill i got the signature of the one who signed for it from UPS and faxed it to them (thank god i always say signature required on RMA's...). ( Don't buy PNY is now a personal mantra )

Microsoft, well come on, if you work with microsoft products you just have to hate them for being so mindless or, alternatively, thinking too much (outlook is an example of the worst product design in exsistance. All they needed to do was bolt a calendar and reminders onto OE but noooo...).

Samsung makes VERY shitty laser printers whoes mechanical paperfeeding parts wear out after 5000 pages. The CLP-510 is probably the worst designed printer in exsistance. And all the cartridges track total number of pages printed, even if its not in that colour, so it says cyan empty, even when its almost completely full.

Most new adobe products can lick my nuts as they take far longer to startup, are very crash prone, and constantly nag you for meaningless updates, even when you explictly turn off the nagging.

Tigerdirect sends me daily spams, and if i tell them I dont want daily spams they stop sending me catalogues as well.

Amazon resold my information to multiple third parties and I have seen my real name on amazon affiliated websites after shopping there. Not to mention, try canceling your amazon account. You practically have to telephone them to cancel your account. Even if you manage to cancel it online through the email ( there is no way to cancel it from the webpage, just try), you will find your account is not actually closed but just "deactivated" with your credit card still on file.

And those are just the companies I hate off the top of my head today...

Last ten feet could be PodNet

[SuperKendall]

One of the articles mentions the problems that other companies have had being bridging the "ten-foot" gap, how you get a device into peoples homes that they can set up to receive video.

Apple could be very successful at solving this problem because they have people using a network today that can bridge that gap - the iPod. A sort of next generation sneaker-net, it would be very easy for most people to download video to an iPod and then hook that into an iTV device to play. Then they wouldn't even need a good coonection at home, they could use one at work...

Of course the iTV will probably also have more advanced connections that power users would want, but the key is going to be making the iTV work for people that cannot and will not set up a computer network at home.

Re:No one WANTS to download tv. They have to.

[kinglink]

I know I'm thrilled about lost for that, but I also liked alias back when it was on, 24, and many more (I'm a drama junkie) and not everyone is willing to do that... yet.

Personally I buy DVD sets (I get them for around half price) though they come out too infrequently. I'm not willing to buy tv shows online with out a hard copy.

cable isn't just about cable only networks

[brokeninside]

The main reason I moved to cable was signal strength. Sure, I could pull in all seven (now down to six) national over the air networks available in the US but reception for half of those was the pants. I suppose I could have went old school and put a fugly antenna up on my house but that would have been no small expense and actually lowered the property value. And even with the antenna, I'm pretty certain that my problem with reception on some of the local VHF channels was due to interference in their bandwidth rather than being unable to bring their signal in.

Viiv

[GWBasic]

Viiv is supposed to do what the Ars Technical article describes. Specifically:

• You have a Viiv PC where you subscribe to some TV services and store home movies.
• Your Viiv TV, (or Viiv-compatible set top box) automatically grants you access to the TV services and home movies.
• Hopefully, if HomePlug ever works, then all you have to do is plug everything into a wall outlet and it just magically works without any configuration.

Hopefully, it all works... I just think it's going to take a few years before the system is ready for the early adopter market.

Personal Show Archiving

[Bones3D_mac]

While I probably won't use iTMS for video content, I have been continuously archiving several hours of various tv shows onto my new 80GB iPod ever since it arrived last week. Not only am I ripping content from DVDs I own, I've also been collecting up several shows onto a digital video recorder and then transferring that content onto my computer for export to the iPod. This has proven to be a great solution for keeping an organized collection of shows you can't otherwise through other sources.

In my case, the bulk of my collected content has been animated shows that are currently very difficult to obtain, such as "Rocko's Modern Life", which have yet to be released on DVD.

However, being an animator myself, having the ability to archive and organize large amounts of animated content serves a purpose beyond simple entertainment. It allows me to access any scene, in any episode, of any show on demand, and then lets me examine the scene in question for ideas that I can use within my own work. This is extremely useful, since I no longer have to interrupt my workflow to locate examples of various techniques used in the industry. As long as I know what episode and approximately where in the episode the scene I need occurs, I can bring it up in a matter of seconds.

I could see this having applications in other fields as well. For example, auto manufacturers could create a video-database of how to repair/replace certain parts of a vehicle, and then allow auto mechanics to store this database locally onto an iPod style device. Then, as the mechanic is working on a vehicle, if something comes up he can't quite figure out, he can simply pull out the device in question, go to vehicle's manufacturer/make/model in the database and bring up video relevant to the problem he's trying to fix. It's definitely not something cool like "augmented reality goggles", but it's certainly a step up from having to climb up out of the pit, and then flip through a 1,000+ page book to locate the needed info.

iTV Community Already Started...

[MyFinanceForum.com]

The ink on the Apple announcement isn't even dry and there's already a forum started for iTV too...check it out: http://myitv.org/

Re:iTV Community Already Started...

[ben there...]

hmm...MrFinanceForum.com...I wonder whose forum that would be?

Re:iTV Community Already Started...

[MyFinanceForum.com]

Yeah, I'm a dick for providing a free place for people to talk about something (iTV) they're interested in. What was I thinking?

Re:iTV Community Already Started...

[ben there...]

Relax. I wasn't calling you a dick.

Just pointing out that which was obscured by your language (as if it wasn't obvious by your name).

Re:iTV Community Already Started...

[MyFinanceForum.com]

Obscured? Interesting considering the last 8 words of your last sentence...

Re:iTV Community Already Started...

[ben there...]

Yeah, you didn't come right out and say it's your site. You pretended like someone else started. I don't know how I can make that any more clear to you. And you are a dick. There I said it this time. Happy?

Re:iTV Community Already Started...

[MyFinanceForum.com]

Yes, thanks for making your "point" clear. Your powers of observation and logical argument are god-like...

Re:If market manipulation doesn't cancel it out

[rjschwarz]

The point is not marketing vs engineering. The comment is making fun of an poorly designed sentence. It doesn't say designed, priced, and produced so that it will/should or might succeed. It says "So that it succeeds., then the product may be a success." I think that is a well crafted bit of snark that your hanging your own issues upon.

Re:Apples coming lawsuit

[Nerdy McDrunk]

How about meTooVo?

Re:Oh yeah, compressed. Yup.

[ben there...]

Have you ever done more than read the spec sheets on these signals? NTSC is a lousy signal, and yet you're touting it as if it were coming out of a DVI port!

Or actually tried recording it. I record several shows in the highest quality I can from cable, then get a copy again on iTunes to get versions with far less noise in the picture. Even with H.264, it's still slightly blocky in freeze frame, but the lack of analog noise more than makes up for it.

Also, no matter how much tweaking I do, I can never seem to get the analogue recordings with just the right saturation/intensity. I don't have to worry about adjusting that for every channel when I can just download a perfect copy from iTMS/Amazon.

Re:Microsoft should adopt this for the 360.

[Acidictadpole]

I didn't get the core system, the remote for the 360 has a faily decent layout. As far as the HD goes, I probably would fill it up pretty quickly, but I would just go out and get another HD, or store them on an external hd.

Re:Apples coming lawsuit

[SilverAlicorn]

Ah-ha. And on the right side of that web page, what do I see?

An iPod advert.

Which means Apple is already giving them money.

Re:Microsoft should adopt this for the 360.

[dfghjk]

I wasn't aware that the XBox360 could support external hard drives or that swapping the optional ones was a realistic option. I can certainly see the appeal of doing what you say, I just see technical hurdles in the way. I hate the popup keyboards you have to use to enter personal information for purchasing or to do searches :(

What iTunes Lacks right now: Captions

[hebcal]

Captions (or subtitles, I can't keep them straight) are a very valuable part of TV & Movies which is sorely missed when downloading video from ITMS.

Loud environments, quiet dialog, nonnative-english-speaking-viewers (or whatever the language of the video is), all are strong reasons for making captions easier to find and use, not harder. Please listen, Apple!

I have been surprised by how hard it is to view captions in the Quicktime format using the Quicktime player. The format seems to have all the necessary pieces ( I think ), but the player makes no provision for doing the right thing, in particular, the way DVD players and TVs composite the text with the video.

Instead the only option seems to be black bands with text on top of them, either via bolt-on SMIL, or via embedded data in the .MOV file.

http://newmedia.scetv.org/webaccesstc/html/capvids eg.html
http://www.webaim.org/techniques/captions/quicktim e/

So it's do-able, but so ugly and unintegrated that nobody does it. (e.g. where is the captions on/off button on the QT player?)

Re:What iTunes Lacks right now: Captions

[SnowDog74]

There's fundamentally no reason why the subtitles can't be integrated into iTunes video moving forward. H.264 is MPEG-4, Part 10. MPEG-4 is a scalable, multilayered codec and while H.264 as-is may not support subtitles presently, one or another MPEG-4 variant could be configured to encapsulate the subtitles in a data stream synchronized to the video stream. All that would then be required is for the Quicktime and iTunes software to be updated to read, format and display the additional layer of text as subtitles... which is basically what a DVD player does with the MPEG-2 and subtitle data. Though the method of encapsulation is different, the idea is essentially the same.

Re:Microsoft should adopt this for the 360.

[uncreativ]

I'm sure MS is seething at Apple doing firts what it talked about doing for the past decade....moving the computing experience into the living room, make the computer the center of entertainment.

I'm no Mac fanboy by any means. I've always loathed any Mac pre OSX--but have found OSX a nice envirnoment with all the convenient UNIXy tools I frequently use. We'll see what MS does with Vista and it's new mp3 player, but really Apple has pulled ahead in innovation. MS went after gaming, Apple went after multimedia entertainment. I think Apple chose wisely--sorry you gamers out there.

About time Apple came back anyway. I really think Windows 95 was the huge improvement over 3.1 simply because Apple had a nicer GUI. MS may finally do something to recover--Intel's another tech company that has so far effectively hit back with a good product after being challenged by AMD. I'm so glad MS wasn't first with a TV product--it would have sucked and then killed the idea. Maybe now MS will feel it has something it has to beat and will be compelled to either do or die.

Re:If market manipulation doesn't cancel it out

[@madeus]

I don't think you realise which post I'm replying to.

Re:bah

[tehcyder]

I've tried walking around with my PC strapped to my back but I can't find an extension cord long enough for road trips.

You know, you've just given me a great idea...how about a battery-operated computer, with an integrated monitor, light enough to rest on your top of your lap and about the same size as a thick notebook.

But, nah, that's just dreaming, it'd never catch on.

Re:bah

[tehcyder]

So how do your AV Skills allow you to get shows from cable/satellite only networks on to your computer if you don't don't pay for one of those services?

Obviously, you hack into the central servers of the cable or satellite companies and re-route the encrypted output via secret military satellites then a network of redundant one-time only Trojanned relay PCs to your home rig.

Noob.

Re:If market manipulation doesn't cancel it out

[rjschwarz]

Perhaps you are not sure which I was replying to as well because I wasn't applying to you.

$10 a show sucks more

[argent]

Cable is $40 a month.

There's maybe one show in any given month that I'm really interested in watching.

Four weekly episodes, that's $10 per episode.

Before I got married, I didn't even own a TV. I've got cable internet, and it's fantastic, and the TV belongs to the wife and kids, and I catch one show a week at most. If I have to pay $8 a month more because I can't catch that show when it's on, or get it recorded, that's a bargain.

Sounds

[ClioCJS]

...sounds like you shouldn't be paying for cable.

Previously, people would pay $50 for 50-100 channels. Oooh, look at sattelite, I have 500 channels now!! I'll pay $75 for that!

Now we're being persuaded to pay equal money for less selection. It's crap.

People like you should just get a season dvd.

Re:Sounds

[argent]

sounds like you shouldn't be paying for cable.

If I wasn't getting better internet that way, and if I wasn't getting it for the wife and kids, I wouldn't be.

Point is, iTunes Store is for people like me. I don't buy albums - I buy tracks. I don't pay for cable - I buy shows.

...but

[ClioCJS]

but you do buy cable :D

My point is -- if america is eventually culturally shifted to this new "paradigm", people will end up paying MORE to corporations, and receiving LESS.

This is part of a broader trend where, quite simply, everybody is getting progressively more fucked in the ass than they were 10 or 20 years ago. I remember when TV was free, and watching more TV than someone else did not incurr extra costs.

Re:If market manipulation doesn't cancel it out

[@madeus]

Perhaps you are not sure which I was replying to as well because I wasn't applying to you.

You replied to my post, whether you meant to or not.

You probably need to check out the FAQ.

And the problem with this is, what?

[argent]

if america is eventually culturally shifted to this new "paradigm", people will end up paying MORE to corporations, and receiving LESS.

Paying more and receiving less television?

This is only a problem if television is considered a social good. Personally, I'm skeptical.

Re:And the problem with this is, what?

[ClioCJS]

That's not really your choice to make for people -- and money wasted is a bad thing no matter what...

Re:And the problem with this is, what?

[argent]

That's not really your choice to make for people

Would you mind going back in this exchange and pointing out where I'm making someone else's choice for them?

and money wasted is a bad thing no matter what...

I'm inclined to interject roars of laughter and broad guffaws here. If I was on TV the laugh track would do it for me.

iTunes software engineering

[bubbaD]

I think you're quite right. You failed to mention the tack that many players also took, which was to rely on Windows Media Player. If WMP was good enough, iTunes and maybe iPod would not get where it is.