MUBiomed
Feb 20, 09:43 PM
Current setup... my sig.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/SilverS3/Photo-0214.jpg
It is time to drink the intel Kool-aid my friend
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/SilverS3/Photo-0214.jpg
It is time to drink the intel Kool-aid my friend
OdduWon
Jan 1, 06:14 PM
with iTv,the new features in iChat (background images), and the rumors of new iSight and apple game console, perhaps we will se see some type of iToy like device.:p
Also, with updates to iChat, perhaps we will see some smaller form of iSight for use with iTv and iPod/TelePod. This would also allow people to watch movies with friends around the world with a core animation powered keynote like Pic in Pic format.
Or perhaps ^QT8^ will provide this function. ;)
Also, with updates to iChat, perhaps we will see some smaller form of iSight for use with iTv and iPod/TelePod. This would also allow people to watch movies with friends around the world with a core animation powered keynote like Pic in Pic format.
Or perhaps ^QT8^ will provide this function. ;)
WRIGHTRACING
Nov 15, 11:39 PM
Toyota fixes all vehicles because they all have the potential to have dangerous problems.
Most iPhone owners have no problem whatsoever, and there's no danger at all to anyone.
So Toyota HAS to fix them all. It would be pointless for Apple to fix all iPhones in the field when most of them never have an issue needing a fix. But if you do have a problem, let them know and they will fix it for you for free. That's hardly a burden for such a non-dangerous situation.
We live in this ridiculous era of expectations. Apple comes out with a reasonable solution to a problem that affects a tiny percentage of users, and they get slammed for it. Hypocrisy.
This isn't necessarily directed at you, but to all of you comparing Apple/Phone manufacturer to Toyota/Car manufacturer.
So the deal with the "SAFETY" recall of the sticking accelerator, the way it works in the auto industry, generally they catch these things in testing "ON TRACK", but this was one that slipped thru the tracks, just the same as software issues Apple had with iOS4.0 and 4.1 on the older iPhones. So the customers experienced the problem, and it was reported. Toyota(the same as all other greedy, self righteous companies out there, deny everything), then had to create a software fix for the problem in the computer of the car. They then mail out letter's to everyone, because this is a safety issue. You can bring your vehicle in, if you feel safe, and if not, they will tow it at cost to warranty.
Now there are also other things that are problems with cars, and are reported by many consumers, but it isn't classified as a recall, because it is not a safety recall. Take the Chrysler 2.7 engine. It was unfortunate, because it was a good engine, but they had a flaw. The cylinder heads over time got oil buildup from the scorched oil around the overhead valvetrain. It was caused by the heads having a flaw in design that caused them to get hot spots and scorching the oil. So it was noted to Chrysler, and they decided if the engine had this problem and the owner kept sufficient evidence of oil changes, and it was within a certain mileage. They never sent this information out to anyone, and most don't know of this replacement, but the dealers know about it, and the company knows about it as well, and they will pay to replace it under certain circumstances, so long as you do your studying, and find what you can on this engine. As I said this is not safety related, and doesn't apply to everyone, so they don't let everyone know, or don't replace everyone's engine.
Most iPhone owners have no problem whatsoever, and there's no danger at all to anyone.
So Toyota HAS to fix them all. It would be pointless for Apple to fix all iPhones in the field when most of them never have an issue needing a fix. But if you do have a problem, let them know and they will fix it for you for free. That's hardly a burden for such a non-dangerous situation.
We live in this ridiculous era of expectations. Apple comes out with a reasonable solution to a problem that affects a tiny percentage of users, and they get slammed for it. Hypocrisy.
This isn't necessarily directed at you, but to all of you comparing Apple/Phone manufacturer to Toyota/Car manufacturer.
So the deal with the "SAFETY" recall of the sticking accelerator, the way it works in the auto industry, generally they catch these things in testing "ON TRACK", but this was one that slipped thru the tracks, just the same as software issues Apple had with iOS4.0 and 4.1 on the older iPhones. So the customers experienced the problem, and it was reported. Toyota(the same as all other greedy, self righteous companies out there, deny everything), then had to create a software fix for the problem in the computer of the car. They then mail out letter's to everyone, because this is a safety issue. You can bring your vehicle in, if you feel safe, and if not, they will tow it at cost to warranty.
Now there are also other things that are problems with cars, and are reported by many consumers, but it isn't classified as a recall, because it is not a safety recall. Take the Chrysler 2.7 engine. It was unfortunate, because it was a good engine, but they had a flaw. The cylinder heads over time got oil buildup from the scorched oil around the overhead valvetrain. It was caused by the heads having a flaw in design that caused them to get hot spots and scorching the oil. So it was noted to Chrysler, and they decided if the engine had this problem and the owner kept sufficient evidence of oil changes, and it was within a certain mileage. They never sent this information out to anyone, and most don't know of this replacement, but the dealers know about it, and the company knows about it as well, and they will pay to replace it under certain circumstances, so long as you do your studying, and find what you can on this engine. As I said this is not safety related, and doesn't apply to everyone, so they don't let everyone know, or don't replace everyone's engine.
Bertmg
Mar 24, 10:57 AM
Is time for Apple to get edgy again. imagine the possibilities of merging two not as popular but full featured products!!!
If Apple were to merge iPod classic with Apple TV we can have a non existent a carry on TiVo/iPod gadget!
of justin bieber house in
Where+does+justin+ieber+
justin bieber house atlanta
Where+does+justin+ieber+
Where+does+justin+ieber+
Justin+ieber+in+atlanta
Drew ieber atlanta with
Justin+ieber+house+in+
Justin+ieber+house+in+
answer justin beiber by ieber
Beyonce, justin bieber tour
Where+does+justin+ieber+
Did atlanta, was bornmar
Justin Bieber#39;s representative
Justin+ieber+house+in+
If Apple were to merge iPod classic with Apple TV we can have a non existent a carry on TiVo/iPod gadget!
haravikk
Jun 22, 02:49 PM
While it'd be kind of cool to have a touch-enabled iMac screen, the only people who will really benefit from this are museums that like to use iMacs as all-in-one systems for an interactive, but then they tend to just buy add-on touch sensors or those rollerball things instead.
Chaos123x
Apr 12, 10:02 PM
$299 are you out of your mind?
ctsport1234
Sep 1, 02:08 PM
This is awsome news! :D
If Apple does make a 23'' imac, I will definately be getting one! (albeit when Leopard is released) :D
If Apple does make a 23'' imac, I will definately be getting one! (albeit when Leopard is released) :D
ipadder
Oct 9, 06:29 PM
The hexgrip cases look slick. http://stores.ebay.com/Cimo-Cases/Soft-Gel-Cases-/_i.html?_fsub=2283659015&_sid=192097565&_trksid=p4634.c0.m322 i like the material as well.
Small White Car
Aug 29, 09:27 AM
I have to say though I hope u are wrong with regard to the Macbooks, i'm hoping for a Core 2 Duo update so I can purchase my first mac. Maybe if they don't i'll just save up some more money and buy and Core 2 Duo MBP when they're released!!
I hate to tell you this, but your "i'll just save up some more money" statement is probably the main reason Apple WON'T put Core 2 in the Macbooks!
Don't get me wrong, I'd love core 2 chips in EVERY Mac that's using Yonah now. That would be totally fantastic.
But I'm not trying to say what I WANT...I'm trying to figure out what I think Apple will DO.
Those are usually not the same thing with ANY company.
I hate to tell you this, but your "i'll just save up some more money" statement is probably the main reason Apple WON'T put Core 2 in the Macbooks!
Don't get me wrong, I'd love core 2 chips in EVERY Mac that's using Yonah now. That would be totally fantastic.
But I'm not trying to say what I WANT...I'm trying to figure out what I think Apple will DO.
Those are usually not the same thing with ANY company.
macquariumguy
Mar 19, 04:36 AM
They do not have the right to kill each other.
And we have a right to try to stop them killing each other?
No.
And we have a right to try to stop them killing each other?
No.
Krizoitz
Mar 21, 08:13 AM
and since Apple is missing the market so bad its sales have sunk to the lowest % in its history. there will come a point that it wont matter how much money is in their bank because no one will be buying the stuff. Look at iJon even he uses a PC for gaming. most people dont have a pc and a Mac so what do they buy? a PC.
It doesn't matter if they sell to a market where the won't be able to make money and will likely lose money. Apple isn't a commodity PC dealer like Dell, they dont' sell in quantity, they sellin quality. As for gaming, sorry gamers make up a small percentage of the market, and since most games are PC first/PC only it doesn't make sense for them to buy a Mac anyway. Is it getting better? Yes and maybe that will change someday, but that doesn't mean squat right now. I think Apple is doing a fine job. What frustrates me is no matter how good they do for some people its never enough, they seem to want Apple to sell a 9Ghz Quad proccesor G6 with a terabyte of ram and a 200 petabyte harddrive with dual 30" plasma screens for $299. Give me a break.
It doesn't matter if they sell to a market where the won't be able to make money and will likely lose money. Apple isn't a commodity PC dealer like Dell, they dont' sell in quantity, they sellin quality. As for gaming, sorry gamers make up a small percentage of the market, and since most games are PC first/PC only it doesn't make sense for them to buy a Mac anyway. Is it getting better? Yes and maybe that will change someday, but that doesn't mean squat right now. I think Apple is doing a fine job. What frustrates me is no matter how good they do for some people its never enough, they seem to want Apple to sell a 9Ghz Quad proccesor G6 with a terabyte of ram and a 200 petabyte harddrive with dual 30" plasma screens for $299. Give me a break.
iW00t
Jan 7, 12:45 AM
But the screen on the 17in MBP (1680x1050) by definition can't do HD (1920x1080). I don't care how well it can scale down, scaling down is not playing at true native resolution, and with most new content heading toward 1080i (and eventually 1080p), getting anything less than that now is just heading toward a dead end media wise IMO.
Why do you need HD on such a small device?
People have been watching TV on 640*480 28" TV sets for decades just fine. Likewise your Macbook Pro at 17" is doing as good as it possibly can at 17 inches, not like that extra 30 pixels vertically will make some difference.
My main concern with the Macbook Pros getting higher resolution displays is that there may be a possibility that Apple will break away from the current crop of low quality grainy displays and drop something else better in. Perhaps when Leopard is released we may even get the option to BTO in a higher resolution display.
Why do you need HD on such a small device?
People have been watching TV on 640*480 28" TV sets for decades just fine. Likewise your Macbook Pro at 17" is doing as good as it possibly can at 17 inches, not like that extra 30 pixels vertically will make some difference.
My main concern with the Macbook Pros getting higher resolution displays is that there may be a possibility that Apple will break away from the current crop of low quality grainy displays and drop something else better in. Perhaps when Leopard is released we may even get the option to BTO in a higher resolution display.
JackAxe
Mar 25, 06:44 PM
This is LAME and I'm say that in the nicest most passive agressive way. ;)
I'm coming from the standpoint of someone that owns a G25 racing wheel, a Track IR 5 head tracker, and racing games and sims all of which support my toys. Games that run dead-locked at 60 fps -- as I enable what's called VSYNC --- at a substantially higher detail level than any low-powered GPU/CPU can currently muster.
I'm coming from the standpoint of someone that owns a G25 racing wheel, a Track IR 5 head tracker, and racing games and sims all of which support my toys. Games that run dead-locked at 60 fps -- as I enable what's called VSYNC --- at a substantially higher detail level than any low-powered GPU/CPU can currently muster.
guez
Sep 7, 03:37 PM
Actually the move to Intel has opened Apple to fast depreciation - and that isnt going away.
Many here seem to 'bitch' that Mac is now in competition with the PC in the hardware stakes and sadly that damages your resale value however the benefits are immense, I am sure Apple will be able to secure lower unit costs aswell as faster processors and newer technology. Its great for apple and for us buying, just bad if you sell hardware before it looses all value completely. It also means we will see these refreshes more often and so we will be buying more up to date hardware which as a PC user is great...
This raises an interesting question. I'm not so much interested in depreciation as obsolescence. My experience has been that if you buy the right Mac (this is key), it can last 4 years, or more, and system updates/upgrades will not seriously degrade performance (sometimes there can even be an improvement, as with Panther). This is NOT my experience with Wintel. Is this going to change with Intel? Perhaps the readership of this blog does not fall in this category, but Macs have historically appealed to those who want to spend a little more money for more value (including a longer useful life)-the same people who drive a Honda Civic into the ground rather than buying a Chevy Malibu every three years (sorry, I couldn't think of another example).
Are we entering the age of the Walmart-ifation of Macs: less value, but cheaper?
Many here seem to 'bitch' that Mac is now in competition with the PC in the hardware stakes and sadly that damages your resale value however the benefits are immense, I am sure Apple will be able to secure lower unit costs aswell as faster processors and newer technology. Its great for apple and for us buying, just bad if you sell hardware before it looses all value completely. It also means we will see these refreshes more often and so we will be buying more up to date hardware which as a PC user is great...
This raises an interesting question. I'm not so much interested in depreciation as obsolescence. My experience has been that if you buy the right Mac (this is key), it can last 4 years, or more, and system updates/upgrades will not seriously degrade performance (sometimes there can even be an improvement, as with Panther). This is NOT my experience with Wintel. Is this going to change with Intel? Perhaps the readership of this blog does not fall in this category, but Macs have historically appealed to those who want to spend a little more money for more value (including a longer useful life)-the same people who drive a Honda Civic into the ground rather than buying a Chevy Malibu every three years (sorry, I couldn't think of another example).
Are we entering the age of the Walmart-ifation of Macs: less value, but cheaper?
0815
Apr 19, 12:23 PM
Honestly with the new Quad Core MBP lineup it makes much more sense to get a monitor and add it to your notebook than to get an iMac. (Unless you really need 16GB of ram vs 8GB).
I can see one day only having the Mac Pro for those of use that need one (video editing, digital creation etc) and the high-powered MBP for those who don't want a tower.
You are absolut right. There are fewer and fewer reasons to get a desktop. Internal storage options and main memory are the remaining main reasons - otherwise, laptops got so powerful that they can act desktop replacement. I still like to have my iMac (and will get a new one), but guess I'm a bit 'old fashioned' here - I also have a MacBook Pro and can do everything there that I can do on my iMac.
I can see one day only having the Mac Pro for those of use that need one (video editing, digital creation etc) and the high-powered MBP for those who don't want a tower.
You are absolut right. There are fewer and fewer reasons to get a desktop. Internal storage options and main memory are the remaining main reasons - otherwise, laptops got so powerful that they can act desktop replacement. I still like to have my iMac (and will get a new one), but guess I'm a bit 'old fashioned' here - I also have a MacBook Pro and can do everything there that I can do on my iMac.
Horrortaxi
May 2, 02:59 AM
I must have missed something. What does latin have to do with "Saving" Apple? :confused:
Nothing at all. He was showing us how smart he is. I tremble before his ostentatious display of knowledge. He is truly my superior. He doesn't need a point--that's how cool he is.
Nothing at all. He was showing us how smart he is. I tremble before his ostentatious display of knowledge. He is truly my superior. He doesn't need a point--that's how cool he is.
gorgeousninja
Apr 20, 09:15 AM
I'll be darned! This is the first post this guy has made in months that hasn't annoyed me! This is a good sign!
+1 (though not convinced it will last);)
+1 (though not convinced it will last);)
xterm
Jul 14, 09:21 AM
As purely a data storage format, obviously Blu-ray has the potential to store more data than HD DVD.
However, as someone who has been following the whole BD vs. HD DVD consumer video format war, and as someone who has bought an HD DVD player (and, until recently, had a BD video player on order), at this (albeit early) stage of the game, HD DVD is the superior video format.
HD DVD has 30gb dual layer discs available (almost all the latest video releases on HD DVD are 30gb dual layer.) There are many more titles available for HD DVD right now (probably because it's been out longer and the discs themselves are easier to manufacture.) HD DVD uses a more efficient codec (Microsoft's VC-1, which is akin to H.264, in that it's much much more efficient than MPEG-2.) HD DVD titles have either Dolby Digital Plus (a higher bit-rate multichannel audio codec) and Dolby TruHD (a lossless multichannel audio codec).
BD only has 25gb single layer discs available now. Apparently the 50gb dual layer discs are hard to manufacture and the yields are not ready for prime time. No BD retail video discs are above 25gb single layer. No timetable for 50gb discs has been announced. The video is MPEG-2, meaning it takes up more space on the disc. And, the most recent BD releases all suffer from more MPEG artifacts than any HD DVD releases. BD audio is either standard Dolby Digital or space consuming uncompressed PCM audio (which sucks up even more disc space, leaving even less for video.)
The current Samsung BD player actually has the same (Broadcom) chip that the current Toshiba HD DVD player has in terms of outputing video... and it only outputs 1080i. The Samsung player tacks on another (Faroudja) chip to deinterlace it, so it outputs 1080p (so BD can say "we output 1080p!"), except, that chip apparently stinks and makes the picture somewhat soft. In reality, any HDTV worth its salt can easily deinterlace 1080i signals, so the whole "we output 1080p" is a false advantage anyway. Both BD and HD DVD discs store the video as 1080p, by the way.
So, what you have, on the video front, BD has a smaller capacity disk with less efficient video and audio codecs (that look and sound worse). And it is TWICE the price ($500 vs. $1000). And has less titles. And is late.
If you read any reports on BD video quality vs. HD DVD video quality on boards like AVSforum.com, HD DVD beats BD hands down.
Who knows how this video format war will shake out, but Blu-ray is way behind right now.
-Terry
Good post, sums up the current situation very nicely.
Given that dual layer 50GB blu-ray discs cant even be produced yet, i think the 200GB claim is complete vaporware.
I hope HD-DVD wins this war soon, as it is out of the gates first, and thus far a far superior format. If Blu-Ray were to give up now, i dont think many people would be sad. One format is better for everyone.
However, as someone who has been following the whole BD vs. HD DVD consumer video format war, and as someone who has bought an HD DVD player (and, until recently, had a BD video player on order), at this (albeit early) stage of the game, HD DVD is the superior video format.
HD DVD has 30gb dual layer discs available (almost all the latest video releases on HD DVD are 30gb dual layer.) There are many more titles available for HD DVD right now (probably because it's been out longer and the discs themselves are easier to manufacture.) HD DVD uses a more efficient codec (Microsoft's VC-1, which is akin to H.264, in that it's much much more efficient than MPEG-2.) HD DVD titles have either Dolby Digital Plus (a higher bit-rate multichannel audio codec) and Dolby TruHD (a lossless multichannel audio codec).
BD only has 25gb single layer discs available now. Apparently the 50gb dual layer discs are hard to manufacture and the yields are not ready for prime time. No BD retail video discs are above 25gb single layer. No timetable for 50gb discs has been announced. The video is MPEG-2, meaning it takes up more space on the disc. And, the most recent BD releases all suffer from more MPEG artifacts than any HD DVD releases. BD audio is either standard Dolby Digital or space consuming uncompressed PCM audio (which sucks up even more disc space, leaving even less for video.)
The current Samsung BD player actually has the same (Broadcom) chip that the current Toshiba HD DVD player has in terms of outputing video... and it only outputs 1080i. The Samsung player tacks on another (Faroudja) chip to deinterlace it, so it outputs 1080p (so BD can say "we output 1080p!"), except, that chip apparently stinks and makes the picture somewhat soft. In reality, any HDTV worth its salt can easily deinterlace 1080i signals, so the whole "we output 1080p" is a false advantage anyway. Both BD and HD DVD discs store the video as 1080p, by the way.
So, what you have, on the video front, BD has a smaller capacity disk with less efficient video and audio codecs (that look and sound worse). And it is TWICE the price ($500 vs. $1000). And has less titles. And is late.
If you read any reports on BD video quality vs. HD DVD video quality on boards like AVSforum.com, HD DVD beats BD hands down.
Who knows how this video format war will shake out, but Blu-ray is way behind right now.
-Terry
Good post, sums up the current situation very nicely.
Given that dual layer 50GB blu-ray discs cant even be produced yet, i think the 200GB claim is complete vaporware.
I hope HD-DVD wins this war soon, as it is out of the gates first, and thus far a far superior format. If Blu-Ray were to give up now, i dont think many people would be sad. One format is better for everyone.
SciFrog
Feb 9, 05:35 PM
Was crunching for another team before. The stats from Berkley show the aggregate as do some tools like the FAH Wudget.
Mercury
Apr 2, 07:02 PM
interesting. Wonder if they'll keep variations of this in rotation while adding model-specific ones?
jav6454
Mar 24, 02:50 PM
Why not????
Because we have the 6000 series now....
Because we have the 6000 series now....
pagansoul
Sep 7, 06:12 PM
For the prices they are asking $14/15 for a new movie that can only be viewed on 2 computers and a portable doesn't cut it for me as it would be better to just buy the DVD. The TV shows at $2 is like iTunes and I have only used that to download free pilots and some of Surface I just had to see. :D With HD and BRay coming out I find the price of a simple DVD drop so if I want something I tend to get it, usually used for $5-10. Still, I do see people renting off the site for 2 to 4 dollars if they have the time and bandwidth.
milo
Sep 7, 08:01 AM
Personally, I wouldn't want to DL a large movie file without the option of being able to burn it to DVD so I can have that tangible hard copy that makes me feel safe and warm. Then I wouldn't have a problem deleting it off of my hard drive.
I don't think there's any question about that...it's just that you'd burn it to a data DVD and play it in computers with the DRM enabled, not on a DVD player. Backing up drm media isn't limited, just playing it back.
Hopefully someday we'll see real DVD burns allowed, but the way the studios are going I don't know how likey that is.
Unlike music, you rarely watch a movie twice.
I think you meant to say "*I* rarely watch a movie twice". You may not, but many people do, especially kids, who will be well covered by disney releases. It really just depends on the consumer and the movie, there's no question that millions of DVDs are sold.
There are a few issues with rentals. Besides DRM, they'd have to compete with netflix and similar companies, which would mean the price would have to be incredibly cheap, probably far less than the studios would be willing to go (don't forget, really the studios are setting prices, not apple). There's simply no way they could compete with netflix without losing money (assuming the studios even allowed it, which would never happen).
And for all the people who will be disappointed if apple can't compete with their piracy scheme? Give me a freaking break. :rolleyes:
The best option (besides a rental model, which we know is not going to happen) would be to release a media center (iTheatre, iHome, etc.) that has a 250GB or 500GB hard-drive. All the movies could be downloaded through the GUI on the TV!
But apple has an even better idea, just have an airport on your tv and stream the video from ANY computer in your house. WAY cheaper, and you're not wasting an expensive computer by having it sitting by the TV all day instead of using it for computer stuff.
But yes... paying for something that it can be accidentally DELETED from your harddrive is NOT cool...
So back it up, why would it be any different than the video and audio content apple already sells? Their current DRM hasn't been hacked yet, has it?
still think the prices are a little steep for things that can be watched on an ipod.
You won't just watch these on an ipod, apple will release a streaming solution for TVs along with the movie store.
Apple keeps track of all the songs you buy anyway, so it's my opinion that you should be able to just "get another copy" if you have already purchased a song.
But sending you files over and over costs apple money. Why don't you just back your files up?
HD or whatever you fancy, it's cool with me, but talking about quality, why are the iTunes songs still at that lousy 128 bitrate. I mean if they can do movies, nice quality (at least 256) songs are not that diffucult?
Because 128 is "good enough" for most listeners. The "good enough" point for movies is probably 480(i or p).
I don't think there's any question about that...it's just that you'd burn it to a data DVD and play it in computers with the DRM enabled, not on a DVD player. Backing up drm media isn't limited, just playing it back.
Hopefully someday we'll see real DVD burns allowed, but the way the studios are going I don't know how likey that is.
Unlike music, you rarely watch a movie twice.
I think you meant to say "*I* rarely watch a movie twice". You may not, but many people do, especially kids, who will be well covered by disney releases. It really just depends on the consumer and the movie, there's no question that millions of DVDs are sold.
There are a few issues with rentals. Besides DRM, they'd have to compete with netflix and similar companies, which would mean the price would have to be incredibly cheap, probably far less than the studios would be willing to go (don't forget, really the studios are setting prices, not apple). There's simply no way they could compete with netflix without losing money (assuming the studios even allowed it, which would never happen).
And for all the people who will be disappointed if apple can't compete with their piracy scheme? Give me a freaking break. :rolleyes:
The best option (besides a rental model, which we know is not going to happen) would be to release a media center (iTheatre, iHome, etc.) that has a 250GB or 500GB hard-drive. All the movies could be downloaded through the GUI on the TV!
But apple has an even better idea, just have an airport on your tv and stream the video from ANY computer in your house. WAY cheaper, and you're not wasting an expensive computer by having it sitting by the TV all day instead of using it for computer stuff.
But yes... paying for something that it can be accidentally DELETED from your harddrive is NOT cool...
So back it up, why would it be any different than the video and audio content apple already sells? Their current DRM hasn't been hacked yet, has it?
still think the prices are a little steep for things that can be watched on an ipod.
You won't just watch these on an ipod, apple will release a streaming solution for TVs along with the movie store.
Apple keeps track of all the songs you buy anyway, so it's my opinion that you should be able to just "get another copy" if you have already purchased a song.
But sending you files over and over costs apple money. Why don't you just back your files up?
HD or whatever you fancy, it's cool with me, but talking about quality, why are the iTunes songs still at that lousy 128 bitrate. I mean if they can do movies, nice quality (at least 256) songs are not that diffucult?
Because 128 is "good enough" for most listeners. The "good enough" point for movies is probably 480(i or p).
applekid
Jul 18, 08:20 AM
Good news and bad news. Movies good, rental bad if not offered with sale. However, if rentals are cheap, I'd probably just as soon rent so i could buy the physical disc which would be much higher quality anyway.
If rentals go for like 99 cents for a given amount of time, I'd probably try the movie with a rental and go out and buy the DVD if I want a high-quality movie with all of the extras that I could always rip. For a lot of the iTunes shows, I might buy an episode, but I usually just rip them from my DVDs to have high quality rips on my computer and a separate rip if I want to transfer them to my Palm (got no video iPod...)
As long as the pricing and rental term is fair, this should be a decent system. It definitely should be close to 99 cents a day. The cheapest physical movie rental service I can think of is RedBox (http://www.redbox.com/) which is $1 a night. Maybe Steve worked out a good deal to do a buck or two for a week.
If rentals go for like 99 cents for a given amount of time, I'd probably try the movie with a rental and go out and buy the DVD if I want a high-quality movie with all of the extras that I could always rip. For a lot of the iTunes shows, I might buy an episode, but I usually just rip them from my DVDs to have high quality rips on my computer and a separate rip if I want to transfer them to my Palm (got no video iPod...)
As long as the pricing and rental term is fair, this should be a decent system. It definitely should be close to 99 cents a day. The cheapest physical movie rental service I can think of is RedBox (http://www.redbox.com/) which is $1 a night. Maybe Steve worked out a good deal to do a buck or two for a week.
No comments:
Post a Comment