XstreamHD to deliver 1080p to your home

It's thin on details, but XstreamHD has announced its entry into the direct-to-home HD distribution market.

The press release calls out some pretty heavy hitters as competition, and XstreamHD is touting 1080p video and lossless 7.1 audio as its competitive advantage

http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/11/19/xstreamhd-to-deliver-1080p-to-your-home/

So for all those naysayers about the quality of HD from other sources not being equal to HDM . . .

People will never go for downloading media. Look at the robust CD sales that have not been effected by downloading. Look at all the new Walkmans that everybody wants, and the new Walkman phones. People want physical discs that they can carry around everywhere.

People will never go for downloading media. Look at the robust CD sales that have not been effected by downloading. Look at all the new Walkmans that everybody wants, and the new Walkman phones. People want physical discs that they can carry around everywhere.

Ahhhh . . 2007 will be the 7th year in a row that CD sales have declined. I do not call that "robust."

And once again - it is not this or that . . . it is this and that.

sounds to me like a Sat company that is doing on demand by predownloading the shows and storing them on a dvr automatically. Not really anything new at this point.

sounds to me like a Sat company that is doing on demand by predownloading the shows and storing them on a dvr automatically. Not really anything new at this point.

? - 1080P and 7.1 Lossless by anything other than HDM is not new?

With HD DVD and BD we are able to have peak video data rates of about 28Mbps and 40Mbps respectively. Will the video quality be anything like that?

People will never go for downloading media. Look at the robust CD sales that have not been effected by downloading. Look at all the new Walkmans that everybody wants, and the new Walkman phones. People want physical discs that they can carry around everywhere.

Ahhhh . . 2007 will be the 7th year in a row that CD sales have declined. I do not call that "robust."

And once again - it is not this or that . . . it is this and that.

Lee, push that "Detect Sarcasm" switch, will ya? ;)

I keed. Everdog was too.

Lee, push that "Detect Sarcasm" switch, will ya? ;)

I keed. Everdog was too.

Thank you.:)

Next time I will use the /sarcasm tags, but the "walkman phone" should have been a clue. Your phone plays MP3s and streams video? Big deal, mine plays casette tapes and CDs!:D

Here's their press release: http://www.xstreamhd.com/press.html

I would love to have this at home of course, but it's going to be an uphill battle for them. DirectTV and DishNetwork have the mass market, so this may be a niche product.

? - 1080P and 7.1 Lossless by anything other than HDM is not new?

We have no real information about the 1080p video and what is actually being distributed. We don't know the codec being used. The Bitrate being used. If it will capable of 24p output or if it's just deinterlacing an interlaced signal.

As far as the lossless 7.1 there are few 7.1 sources out there and it's not even commonly used in movies. The system may be able to support up to 7.1 lossless audio but I bet that we see 5.1 lossless at best most of the time. I would be surprised if it didn't also support the option for lossy audio compression and that may be what ends up being used most of the time.

Someone throws around a few buzz words with no details and we're suppose to be excited about it? I'll wait till there is some real details.

Well Lee, here is another big bite into Blu Ray HD DVD adoption, eh? That is going to be A LOT of bandwith to put down their pipe whether it's proprietary or not. Does seem like a cool idea, though. If they can get content, it may be worth checking out.

Here's their press release: http://www.xstreamhd.com/press.html

I would love to have this at home of course, but it's going to be an uphill battle for them. DirectTV and DishNetwork have the mass market, so this may be a niche product.

It may very well be niche rdjam, but it's a niche product competing against a niche product (Blu Ray, HD DVD). Something like this is certainly NOT going to help the other two formats.

The only difference is that the HDM products are being pushed @ major retailers across the country, and this provider is going to have a tough time breaking a market that is completely dominated by DTV and Dish.

As said before it might be worth checking out, but I have a feeling a product like this will go the way of Voom.

Rdjam and Lee Stewart,

I didn't think that lossless audio was that important. So why the big press push.....

The only difference is that the HDM products are being pushed @ major retailers across the country, and this provider is going to have a tough time breaking a market that is completely dominated by DTV and Dish.

As said before it might be worth checking out, but I have a feeling a product like this will go the way of Voom.

Didn't Dish or Direct buy Voom and then kill it?
The best we can hope for is one to buy this and then adopt it.

Rdjam and Lee Stewart,

I didn't think that lossless audio was that important. So why the big press push.....
:)

Didn't Dish or Direct buy Voom and then kill it?
The best we can hope for is one to buy this and then adopt it.

Yeah, but I don't necessarily see this going the same route. At that point the HD offerings from both providers were tiny compared to Voom. Now will the allure of 1080p and lossless drive the same amount of sales as what Voom was seeing in the beginning of the HDTV phenom? Doubtful. DTV has plenty of HD content now and more on the way, and I really don't see another provider being able to slide in to the market unless the price was extremely competitive. I have a feeling however, that this will be prohibitively expensive.

People will never go for downloading media. Look at the robust CD sales that have not been effected by downloading. Look at all the new Walkmans that everybody wants, and the new Walkman phones. People want physical discs that they can carry around everywhere.


I'll agree but as the current generation gets older, they are more than likely to embrace download. They are the ones who don't buy CDs but rather have multiple sources online to download them from. They are the ones, in my eyes, that will embrace DLC. Personally it's neat having an HDM at the verge of my fingertips by download but I like having physical media. It will never go away but it will, with time, shrink due to DL.

XstreamHD to deliver 1080p to your home



http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/11/19/xstreamhd-to-deliver-1080p-to-your-home/

So for all those naysayers about the quality of HD from other sources not being equal to HDM . . .


I'd like to see this work before I have an opinion....but I'm guessing there will be loss of PQ and AQ, not to mention what will this to do the already slow bandwiths and what spped would be necc. to keep these downloads to the actual length of the movie?

So for all those naysayers about the quality of HD from other sources not being equal to HDM . . .

uh, yeah, there's a lot more to quality than just the resolution. what's the bitrate? what codec is being used for compression?
plus, i'll have to set up another dish and run more wires. not very exciting.

I think all of you have missed the boat. IMO you are thinking that this is going to replace HDM.

We had that thread about the 800 ib. Gorilla. I believe that after 100+ posts - there was more than 1 Gorilla "at large." Here comes another one. And each dilutes the market for HD programming.

If this comes to pass - we added another choice for the consumer to get his HD programming. This may never get off the ground - or be successful. But there are people who feel it is worth a go and are willing to put money behind it - said money at risk.

If you are asking questions about codec or the number of channels - you are looking at this from a Micro point of view. If you are seeing yet 1 more in a well populated - and soon crowded room full of HD alternatives - any person that picks VuDu or this thing is one less person to buy an HDM player.

This thinking that the 5" disc is the Holy Grail is no longer true. Here is a company that wants to give the same "talking points" that HDM has . . . the only source for 1080P HD and Lossless Audio - together.

I remember when the only way to rent a movie was to go to BBI.

I remember when the only way to carry music with you was either by cassette or CD.

I remember when the majority of "cell phones" was a phone in your car.

I remember when, if you wanted high quality HT - you had two choices - DVD or BUD.

Any changes that come about don't happen in a quarter or a year or even a few years. More like 5 years. We are of course adopting new technology much faster. What took 20 years now takes 10 years . . . and that will soon be reduced to 5 years.

King of the hill is becoming a very difficult game to play - only because "specs" can't be depended on to win any more. It has now resorted to price and convinence.

Lee,

I still think for if there was only one format and the price of software was in the $15 range (without promotions), HDM could really take off. I don't think that the price of hardware is as scary as $35 catalog titles at your local Best Buy.

People are comfortable with optical media. It is portable, easy to use and typically yields great results.

I could see my mother using HDM, but NEVER using a PPV service.

I could see my mother using HDM, but NEVER using a PPV service.

I could see my kids using music and video downloads, but never physical media (discs).:D

The press release is an attempt to get investors. They have no clue about how to accomplish this. Just another pie in the sky....

Lee,

I still think for if there was only one format and the price of software was in the $15 range (without promotions), HDM could really take off. I don't think that the price of hardware is as scary as $35 catalog titles at your local Best Buy.

People are comfortable with optical media. It is portable, easy to use and typically yields great results.

I could see my mother using HDM, but NEVER using a PPV service.

I would love to agree with you . . . except I keep banging into that nasty fact that less than 20% of people that own an HDTV are watching HD on their HDTV.

What? The other 80% live in heavily populated cities and can't put up an antenna? (HD for FREE)

The press release is an attempt to get investors. They have no clue about how to accomplish this. Just another pie in the sky....

QFT

Rdjam and Lee Stewart,

I didn't think that lossless audio was that important. So why the big press push.....I am not sure why you are directing this at me, since I only posted their press release.

There are obviously trying to establish their advantages over some of the other satellite providers.

I am sorry if you feel that lossless is not important, so maybe this feature does not appeal to you then...

I am not sure why you are directing this at me, since I only posted their press release.

There are obviously trying to establish their advantages over some of the other satellite providers.

I am sorry if you feel that lossless is not important, so maybe this feature does not appeal to you then...
Again I will merely reply with a...

:)

Call me Christopher Pike

;)

ummm...not this company specifically, nor the mode of transport they will use, but this is what I kept going on about when we would have debates over downloading taking over and replacing HDM media. I already look at my BD collection as another dust colllector in a few shorts years, like VHS and DVD's. It isn't just about the money spent whether one has money or not. It is about the space it takes, the player that becomes obsolete and all the CE crap that we end up not using, but for a few short years.

ummm...not this company specifically, nor the mode of transport they will use, but this is what I kept going on about when we would have debates over downloading taking over and replacing HDM media. I already look at my BD collection as another dust colllector in a few shorts years, like VHS and DVD's. It isn't just about the money spent whether one has money or not. It is about the space it takes, the player that becomes obsolete and all the CE crap that we end up not using, but for a few short years.

OUCH! Truer words were never spoken.:o

With HD DVD and BD we are able to have peak video data rates of about 28Mbps and 40Mbps respectively. Will the video quality be anything like that?

My thoughts exactly.

You can have a 3 mbps "1080p" stream, but it'll be horribly pixelated and much worse looking than SD. We need to see it to believe it.

I am not sure why you are directing this at me, since I only posted their press release.

There are obviously trying to establish their advantages over some of the other satellite providers.

I am sorry if you feel that lossless is not important, so maybe this feature does not appeal to you then...

I was being sarcastic. Personally I feel that lossless audio is as important as a 1080p video source.

I was referring to the fact that the majority of hd dvd supporters (you and Lee being the two largest on AVS) argued that a lossless track wasn't "needed" on Transformers.

Which way do you want it? Lossless or no lossless? This company feels that 1080p AND lossless is important to their business structure?? Why is it only important to 20% of HD DVD discs??

I already look at my BD collection as another dust colllector in a few shorts years, like VHS and DVD's.

I don't think you are going to see DVD's going anywhere in the next "few short years". It is way to mainstream at the moment.

I am sure people said that about CD's 5 years ago, though sales are down, they still sell quite a few.

As for BD being a dust collector, you might want to throw hd dvd in with it. At the moment, both of them are dying on the vine.

I was being sarcastic. Personally I feel that lossless audio is as important as a 1080p video source.

I was referring to the fact that the majority of hd dvd supporters (you and Lee being the two largest on AVS) argued that a lossless track wasn't "needed" on Transformers.

Which way do you want it? Lossless or no lossless? This company feels that 1080p AND lossless is important to their business structure?? Why is it only important to 20% of HD DVD discs??

During the years of the middle to end of the 1960's we had the era of the Musclecar. Great names like the Road Runner, GTO, Super Sport, Super Bee, Grand Sport and many others. They had massive engines with huge horsepower and incredible torque - as much as 510 ft. lbs.

Yet 40 years later - any of todays "musclecars" can not only beat them in a drag race but leave them in the dust on a road course.

The Musclecar era was more hype than facts and this has been proven time and time again.

I personally don't know why all HD DVD's and BD's don't have Lossless audio. They all have 1080x24P. Doesn't Lossless want to be associated with HDM like Peanut Butter and Jelly?

This whole chapter in CE products . . . HDM . . . is being kept so secret from the consumer and I don't know why. I wish I knew . . but I don't.

One thing I do know. HDM has become THE product sector that spews bragging rights like never before. The Companies themselves do it. And the forum members are doing it.

I believe i have a unique prespective about HT. Got into it very early. And carried it as far as my budget would allow - dedicated HT with $30,000 worth of equipment and another $10,000 in software.

Now I have my HT as part of my living room and it only cost $5000. Not at the bottom - about the lower middle.

So I do understand people like The Bland (who seems to have dropped off of AVS BTW - must have got his HT going) who insist on having the very best made available to him . . . because if he won't . . who will?

But at the same time I do know that we HD DVD owners have not be short changed. We do have DD+. It is an improvement over DD5.1. And there is room to grow with TrueHD.

Some questions for the BD camp . . . if it isn't Lossless - what is the next choice? Does BD use DD+? What is in between DD5.1 and DTS-MA? The core? Is the core equal to DD+?

I was being sarcastic. Personally I feel that lossless audio is as important as a 1080p video source.

I was referring to the fact that the majority of hd dvd supporters (you and Lee being the two largest on AVS) argued that a lossless track wasn't "needed" on Transformers.

Which way do you want it? Lossless or no lossless? This company feels that 1080p AND lossless is important to their business structure?? Why is it only important to 20% of HD DVD discs??
:)

Is it O.K. to enjoy this kind of conversation in our Brave, New AVS?

And FWIW, phansson, I would be FLOORED if rdjam was unaware of your sarcasm.

:)
Is it O.K. to enjoy this kind of conversation in our Brave, New AVS?

And FWIW, phansson, I would be FLOORED if rdjam was unaware of your sarcasm.

I kind of feel like I am breaking the rules.....makes me feel like an outlaw.:D


So I do understand people like The Bland (who seems to have dropped off of AVS BTW - must have got his HT going) who insist on having the very best made available to him . . . because if he won't . . who will?

But at the same time I do know that we HD DVD owners have not be short changed. We do have DD+. It is an improvement over DD5.1. And there is room to grow with TrueHD.

Some questions for the BD camp . . . if it isn't Lossless - what is the next choice? Does BD use DD+? What is in between DD5.1 and DTS-MA? The core? Is the core equal to DD+?

I don't really know where thebland has been, I haven't been posting on AVS much lately myself. To be honest, I am sick of all of the bashing, trolling, misleading posts and other juvenile comments. Plus, I am back logged on movies to watch. I have about 7 in line and another 7 coming in tomorrow.

I never said that hd dvd owners were being short changed. I DO think that priorities are out of whack. I personally don't care about interactivity or PIP. Lossless sound should be 50% of the experience in my book. At the moment, Blu Ray gives me that edge.

Is DD+ @ 1.5 mbps good enough? Maybe, but 640kbps DD+ given to hd dvd and 640 kbps DD for the Oceans movies is a JOKE for HDM. Lossless audio should be mandatory for BOTH formats. I would be interested in hearing a core DTS HD MA track vs the same track in DD+. I don't know what the difference would be, they would probably be close. But if I wanted to listen to the DTS HD MA full bitrate track, I could. That is an option that I feel I deserve.

Sorry, to get off topic.

People will never go for downloading media. Look at the robust CD sales that have not been effected by downloading. Look at all the new Walkmans that everybody wants, and the new Walkman phones. People want physical discs that they can carry around everywhere.

With all due respect, actually, most people understand CD is dying, your post is the first time I read about 'robust CD sales'.

I kind of feel like I am breaking the rules.....makes me feel like an outlaw.:D




I don't really know where thebland has been, I haven't been posting on AVS much lately myself. To be honest, I am sick of all of the bashing, trolling, misleading posts and other juvenile comments. Plus, I am back logged on movies to watch. I have about 7 in line and another 7 coming in tomorrow.

I never said that hd dvd owners were being short changed. I DO think that priorities are out of whack. I personally don't care about interactivity or PIP. Lossless sound should be 50% of the experience in my book. At the moment, Blu Ray gives me that edge.

Is DD+ @ 1.5 mbps good enough? Maybe, but 640kbps DD+ given to hd dvd and 640 kbps DD for the Oceans movies is a JOKE for HDM. Lossless audio should be mandatory for BOTH formats. I would be interested in hearing a core DTS HD MA track vs the same track in DD+. I don't know what the difference would be, they would probably be close. But if I wanted to listen to the DTS HD MA full bitrate track, I could. That is an option that I feel I deserve.

Sorry, to get off topic.

I respectfully disagree on the audio side. I see better than I hear. It would be nice to get lossless audio via DTHD or other means, but as long as Warner is using the same video encode for both formats, I'd rather they avoid the VBR DTHD and just stick to either DD+ or DD640kpbs. In order to put in DTHD, they'll have to lower the cap on the max bitrate for the video rather drastically [by the max bitrate of the VBR DTHD], and when they do that, well, I've rather have video with lower quantization.

While we're on it, I'd also ask that they cap their pip stream to 1Mbps max and not let it peak higher as that reduces the available bitrate to the main video. In fact, I'd ask that they not do that pip thing, but I understand there are people who really like that pip feature, so I ask only that they cap that pip stream bitrate as low as possible. That should keep everyone happy.

People will never go for downloading media. Look at the robust CD sales that have not been effected by downloading. Look at all the new Walkmans that everybody wants, and the new Walkman phones. People want physical discs that they can carry around everywhere.

ROFLMAO :D

Man I want one of those cdPhones for Christmas. All of the music is lossless PCM. ;)

CD - Perfect sound forever

Thank you.:)

Next time I will use the /sarcasm tags, but the "walkman phone" should have been a clue. Your phone plays MP3s and streams video? Big deal, mine plays casette tapes and CDs!:D


I hate to say this but on the forum there are times that folks post things that are that ignorant and they are serious. Unless one follows their posts it would be easy to fall into Lee's mistake,I did but felt that it would only take about two seconds for someone else to take care of it.:D

Art

During the years of the middle to end of the 1960's we had the era of the Musclecar. Great names like the Road Runner, GTO, Super Sport, Super Bee, Grand Sport and many others. They had massive engines with huge horsepower and incredible torque - as much as 510 ft. lbs.

Very true Lee, although now we have a slightly different way of measuring horsepower. Most of those numbers were grossly overstated.



Yet 40 years later - any of todays "musclecars" can not only beat them in a drag race but leave them in the dust on a road course.

Not only beat them, but stomp on them....badly. There are 4 cylinders that can beat these cars 0-60, and out handle them...these are good times for cars. I love a good car talk:D

This whole chapter in CE products . . . HDM . . . is being kept so secret from the consumer and I don't know why. I wish I knew . . but I don't

Not only that, but has essentially divided two camps. I think this format war as it's called may just go out with a whimper, rather than a bang.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I just have no use for downloads. I don't download music, I don't read e-books, and I don't do VOD.

If I can't OWN a PHYSICAL COPY of media AND the usage licensing rights that go with it, I am 100% unwilling to pay for it.

Pay-per-use is simply a more efficient way to separate consumers from cash, while opening up the door to easy censorship by both owners and governments. Keep in mind that physical media provides both a relatively permanent copy and access to the media, as well as proving proof-of-ownership.

You can't retroactively censor a book that has been printed and sold, but you can delete a file on an e-book server's hard drive.

You can't retroactively censor a VHS tape or DVD that has been pressed, but you can revoke a BD+ key in a 'mandatory' firmware upgrade that will render a BD unusable (and I assume that the same is true for HD DVD).

You can't retroactively censor an LP or CD that has been pressed, but you can delete all server-based copies of an MP3 or iTune and revoke access rights - even after the usage fee has been paid.

As for BD being a dust collector, you might want to throw hd dvd in with it. At the moment, both of them are dying on the vine.


If they are both dying what will be left standing - IYO?
....hopefully not this low quality download crap that most people have nowhere near enough speed for. I can't wait to run my computer for 24hrs.+ to get a bad quality download. :rolleyes:

With all due respect, actually, most people understand CD is dying, your post is the first time I read about 'robust CD sales'.


And it is a shame too. I too rip music sometimes, but the quality is no good. That's what keeps me buying CD's.
Ease over quality is not something I believe in.

If they are both dying what will be left standing - IYO?
....hopefully not this low quality download crap that most people have nowhere near enough speed for. I can't wait to run my computer for 24hrs.+ to get a bad quality download. :rolleyes:

IMHO, upconverted dvd is "HD" to most people. I think that will be the winner for quite some time.

it's rather ironic that musclecars vs. today's cars are being used here, since the same argument went on in reference to them...

i.e. that 4 banger will never beat my fire-breathing, 5 zillion ci, beast... and that old chestnut "there's no replacement for displacement"... etc..

the same argument is being made by those who think that vod will never replace physical media as the dominant form of rentals (at the very least)...

those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it... ;)

imo, physical media will survive, but it will be small compared to virtual media...

it's rather ironic that musclecars vs. today's cars are being used here, since the same argument went on in reference to them...

i.e. that 4 banger will never beat my fire-breathing, 5 zillion ci, beast... and that old chestnut "there's no replacement for displacement"... etc..

the same argument is being made by those who think that vod will never replace physical media as the dominant form of rentals (at the very least)...

those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it... ;)

imo, physical media will survive, but it will be small compared to virtual media...


But we can always choose to like quality, even if it is on it's slow way out. ;)
There's no substitute for true HDM just like a true big block.

it's rather ironic that musclecars vs. today's cars are being used here, since the same argument went on in reference to them...

i.e. that 4 banger will never beat my fire-breathing, 5 zillion ci, beast... and that old chestnut "there's no replacement for displacement"... etc..

the same argument is being made by those who think that vod will never replace physical media as the dominant form of rentals (at the very least)...

those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it... ;)

imo, physical media will survive, but it will be small compared to virtual media...

RED . . . . . :D

We have had an important shift (IMO) in what the consumer is looking for:

Old Way:

1. Price
2. Quality
3. Convinence

New Way:

1. Convinence
2. Price
3. Quality

I want to be able to download and store it for playback as many times as I want with the same quality it arrives in. If I can't do that then you can kiss this goodbye. If studios are going to all kinds of lengths to protect their content I can't see this method facilitating non protected distribution. Otherwise it offers little difference, other than the lossless/1080p vs 1080i/lossy, with the current delivery process.

well, you are making the assumption that quality will decline... personally, i don't think it has to, in the long run... the bandwidth will be there... as more and more hd sets hit the consumer's living room, the demand will be there...

consider this... think about what some people pay for their "movie channel" packages now... don't you think they'd pay the same amount per month for movies on demand?

Hmmm.. I think the best thing for me to do is simply state that I have never argued against lossless audio - but merely stated that Transformers proves that DD+ has got the goods. I can't speak for Lee, of course, only myself.

My position on this is always pretty consistent. While it is no doubt easier to transfer a superb audio track with lossless, with a little less skill, whoever worked on the Transformers soundtrack showed that it is not lacking in any way - certainly light years beyond anything we've heard on DVDs.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

What kind of supplements will we get with this? Oh yeah, none.

BTW, why is music always the medium pointed to as an example for movie download success? Ebooks haven't exactly set the world on fire.

What kind of supplements will we get with this? Oh yeah, none.

BTW, why is music always the medium pointed to as an example for movie download success? Ebooks haven't exactly set the world on fire.

well, that's not really a good comparison. ebooks are actually less convenient to use than "hard-copy".

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I just have no use for downloads. I don't download music, I don't read e-books, and I don't do VOD.

If I can't OWN a PHYSICAL COPY of media AND the usage licensing rights that go with it, I am 100% unwilling to pay for it.

I doubt this is where you're going with that comment, but I agree completely. I did not buy a single HDM (OK I finally gave in to the acronym) until there was a way for me to place a copy of it on my media server.

The industry is so focused on locking their content down. Well if they don't want me to "own" what I buy, I won't buy it. I'll netflix, or do without, and that can't be good for their revenue stream.

Pay-per-use is simply a more efficient way to separate consumers from cash, while opening up the door to easy censorship by both owners and governments.

I agree PPV is horrible, but I think the netflix "watch now" model is the way to go. Pay a monthly fee and have access to almost anything.

Keep in mind that physical media provides both a relatively permanent copy and access to the media, as well as proving proof-of-ownership.

You can't retroactively censor a book that has been printed and sold, but you can delete a file on an e-book server's hard drive.

You can't retroactively censor a VHS tape or DVD that has been pressed, but you can revoke a BD+ key in a 'mandatory' firmware upgrade that will render a BD unusable (and I assume that the same is true for HD DVD).

Yet another reason not to buy DRM-laden media.

You can't retroactively censor an LP or CD that has been pressed, but you can delete all server-based copies of an MP3 or iTune and revoke access rights - even after the usage fee has been paid.

Which is why, I think, in the long run the model will not be to "buy" digital copies, but to pay for montly access to them, basically exactly what we do today with Cable and Satellite TV but with on demand programming instead of linear feeds.

And it is a shame too. I too rip music sometimes, but the quality is no good. That's what keeps me buying CD's.
Ease over quality is not something I believe in.

What do you rip to? I rip every CD and DVD (and hopefully soon HD DVD) I buy to my media server and put the original disc on the shelf, never to be used again unless I lose the media server copy. And the copies on my media server are exactly the same quality (bit for bit) as the original, only much more convenient.

RED . . . . . :D

We have had an important shift (IMO) in what the consumer is looking for:

Old Way:

1. Price
2. Quality
3. Convinence

New Way:

1. Convinence
2. Price
3. Quality

It's interesting that so few here recognize this fact. Convenience trumps all these days. Just look at the iPod. There were 60 and 80GB iPods that were capable of storing large libraries of lossless, true CD quality audio. But the new models are back down to 6 and 8GB which means lossy audio. Yet another example of convenience trumping quality.

What kind of supplements will we get with this? Oh yeah, none.

It would be interesting if it were possible to get actual statistics of how much extras are actually used on discs. I know there are polls studies that say people want extras, but I've never looked at extras on movies, I don't doubt extras sell movies, but I really wonder how many people really truely view the extras on their movies.

BTW, why is music always the medium pointed to as an example for movie download success? Ebooks haven't exactly set the world on fire.

Ebooks don't have convenient, portable devices to carry your ebooks with you. Movies do (car DVD players, portable DVD players, iPod videos, etc).

It's interesting that so few here recognize this fact. Convenience trumps all these days. Just look at the iPod. There were 60 and 80GB iPods that were capable of storing large libraries of lossless, true CD quality audio. But the new models are back down to 6 and 8GB which means lossy audio. Yet another example of convenience trumping quality.



well, no... the new "large storage quantity" ipods are 80gb and 160gb (the larger of the 2 actually having twice the capacity of the previous gen)... you are referring to the new nanos, which have the same storage capacity as the last gen ones...

I just want to know if all this means it's safe to buy JDS Uniphase stocks again?

well, no... the new "large storage quantity" ipods are 80gb and 160gb (the larger of the 2 actually having twice the capacity of the previous gen)... you are referring to the new nanos, which have the same storage capacity as the last gen ones...

Ah, forgot about the 160s. Actually I was referring to the iPod Touch.

I doubt this is where you're going with that comment, but I agree completely. I did not buy a single HDM (OK I finally gave in to the acronym) until there was a way for me to place a copy of it on my media server.

Agreed, but the key is that YOU decide what you want to do with the copy you bought - you will always have access to that recording.

The industry is so focused on locking their content down. Well if they don't want me to "own" what I buy, I won't buy it. I'll netflix, or do without, and that can't be good for their revenue stream. I will do without - netflix is only good for stuff I don't care about owningm so it really doesn't solve the problem.

I agree PPV is horrible, but I think the netflix "watch now" model is the way to go. Pay a monthly fee and have access to almost anything.

No, you pay a monthly fee and have access only to whatever media the Netflix people decide to make available - this is the crux of the issue, and the lack of owned physical media is the root problem.

Yet another reason not to buy DRM-laden media. Agreed.

Which is why, I think, in the long run the model will not be to "buy" digital copies, but to pay for montly access to them, basically exactly what we do today with Cable and Satellite TV but with on demand programming instead of linear feeds. This is a lousy model to adopt, because it absolutely eliminates your ability to watch/listen to something you bought 30 years ago, but has been declared 'out of print'.

Some examples: I have played on a TON of recordings, many of which are long out of print, or were limited pressings (or works-for-hire that weren't publicly available to begin with). Were they to have only ever been available as a 'play-on-demand' or by download, I would likely not be able to go back and listen to these works and/or play them for my kids. As a performer, I have a SERIOUS problem with this approach.

What do you rip to? I rip every CD and DVD (and hopefully soon HD DVD) I buy to my media server and put the original disc on the shelf, never to be used again unless I lose the media server copy. And the copies on my media server are exactly the same quality (bit for bit) as the original, only much more convenient.

The only ripping I do is for rehearsal discs, which are effectively personal compilation discs. These are short-term in nature, and generally are only used for a few weeks. This is purely a convenience matter, and has nothing to do with circumventing usage rights. By and large, I listen directly to CDs and vinyl

Ebooks don't have convenient, portable devices to carry your ebooks with you. Movies do (car DVD players, portable DVD players, iPod videos, etc).

Not if it's VOD. Again, however, if I own hard copy of the media, I can use it wherever and whenever I like - for as long as I hold onto the media. To me, that trumps any convenience benefits of downloading by a tremendous margin.

Agreed, but the key is that YOU decide what you want to do with the copy you bought - you will always have access to that recording.

But the content industry is trying really hard to make it so you have no choice .

No, you pay a monthly fee and have access only to whatever media the Netflix people decide to make available - this is the crux of the issue, and the lack of owned physical media is the root problem.

How is that any different than being limited in what you can find for sale?

This is a lousy model to adopt, because it absolutely eliminates your ability to watch/listen to something you bought 30 years ago, but has been declared 'out of print'.

Some examples: I have played on a TON of recordings, many of which are long out of print, or were limited pressings (or works-for-hire that weren't publicly available to begin with). Were they to have only ever been available as a 'play-on-demand' or by download, I would likely not be able to go back and listen to these works and/or play them for my kids. As a performer, I have a SERIOUS problem with this approach.

I think you and I are looking at this thing differently, you're looking at it (it seems) largely from the niche/hard to find content perspective. I'm looking more from the mass-market perspective. Basically I think before too long, there will be a service that is essentially Netflix, but where the content is delivered electronically instead of by mail. And I think such a service has many advantages over the current system and will be quite popular.

Now that's not to say it will wipe out physical media, quite the contrary, there will be physical media for a long time. I mean they still press vinyl.

But on your issue about stuff that's hard to find. Even that, I think, will move to non-physical media. It may not be through the same channels as larger content, but I think even that will be available electronically.

Also, "on demand" electronic deliver is just a method of getting content from producer to consumer, it doesn't mean that there won't be a physical copy somewhere. Movies are still shot on physical film, even though they're distributed digitally.

The only ripping I do is for rehearsal discs, which are effectively personal compilation discs. These are short-term in nature, and generally are only used for a few weeks. This is purely a convenience matter, and has nothing to do with circumventing usage rights. By and large, I listen directly to CDs and vinyl

That question was directed toward E-A-G-L-E-S, who was complaining about the quality of ripped media. My point was that rip does not equate to poor quality.

Not if it's VOD.

But what if the electronic delivery system provided a way to make your own physical copy? Like what if the STB had say a Blu-ray or DVD burner?

Again, however, if I own hard copy of the media, I can use it wherever and whenever I like - for as long as I hold onto the media. To me, that trumps any convenience benefits of downloading by a tremendous margin.

For the record, I don't use, nor do I particularly like any of the electronic delivery systems available today (Netflix Watch Now has the right pricing model, but not the quality or selection, Live Marketplace has the quality but not the pricing model or selection, and the same with VOD). However I do believe a system could be built, with technology available today, that solves all the issues with electronic delivery systems, and I believe that when someone finally does that, it will be a paradigm shift in how we interact with media.

I was being sarcastic. Personally I feel that lossless audio is as important as a 1080p video source.

I was referring to the fact that the majority of hd dvd supporters (you and Lee being the two largest on AVS) argued that a lossless track wasn't "needed" on Transformers.

Which way do you want it? Lossless or no lossless? This company feels that 1080p AND lossless is important to their business structure?? Why is it only important to 20% of HD DVD discs??

I agree. And anybody who says lossless is not important, pop in 300 and compare the lossy v. lossless track. Anyway, even if digital download has equivalent picture and sound as HD media (which I seriously doubt), it will never be sucessful in my opinion because:
1. Many people will not have their home theater connected to the internet (or want to in my case)
2. They want the actual media
3. Depending on the service, they would not want to pay very much for a mere download
4. They will not have the storage capacity to hold very many movies
5. They would not want to wait to download a 50gig file (if that is even the size of it, which I doubt). If it is a stream, that would mean paying for a one-time viewing, and they better have a damn fast internet connection
6. They would not want to spend the money for the service itself. I can just imagine how much Comcast would want to charge for such a service.

I also think the music download business is not comparable to movies. There is just a much larger dynamic to the purchaser and the equipment. Every teenager does not own their own home theater, and the difference in quality from media versus download would be much more apparent with a movie than with music. I also find it strangely interesting that the studios that seem to be pushing the download angle comes from a certain camp (and I thought Microsoft did not have those intentions in mind).

1. Many people will not have their home theater connected to the internet (or want to in my case)

a) Why is it assumed that digital distribution will require "the internet"?
b) Why not? Even with HD DVD the, it's clear the industry sees digital distribution as a key to success (online/downloadable content on HD DVD).

2. They want the actual media

Why? Really? To take up space? To look nice on a shelf?

3. Depending on the service, they would not want to pay very much for a mere download

Again, why does everyone assume it's a "download"?

4. They will not have the storage capacity to hold very many movies

Why does everyone assume digital distribution will require tons of storage on the end-user's premises?

5. They would not want to wait to download a 50gig file (if that is even the size of it, which I doubt). If it is a stream, that would mean paying for a one-time viewing, and they better have a damn fast internet connection

Again, why does it have to be via the "internet", and why assume the end user will be able to tell if it's "streaming" or "downloading".

Seems like most are way to closed minded/near sighted WRT digital distribution of media.

6. They would not want to spend the money for the service itself. I can just imagine how much Comcast would want to charge for such a service.

How much do people pay for Cable and Satellite TV?

I also think the music download business is not comparable to movies. There is just a much larger dynamic to the purchaser and the equipment. Every teenager does not own their own home theater, and the difference in quality from media versus download would be much more apparent with a movie than with music.

Are you so sure? Look at how many people claim upconverted DVD is "almost" HD.

2. They want the actual media
Why? Really? To take up space? To look nice on a shelf?

To have physical proof of ownership and guaranteed long-term availability of the media they purchased.

Much of the media that I own is from companies that are now defunct. Since I have a physical copy, I am not dependent on that company nor its servers to support my ability to play back those recordings.

Again, why does everyone assume it's a "download"?

What else can it be? Either I get a physical copy on purchase, or I have to download it from somebody's storage to my storage. What other option is there?

Why does everyone assume digital distribution will require tons of storage on the end-user's premises?

Because most of us are not willing to pay signficant fees for pay-per-view. If I am to store a copy of what I paid for, I have to have storage space. If I don't own a copy for future use in whatever manner I like, it's not worth paying for.

Again, why does it have to be via the "internet", and why assume the end user will be able to tell if it's "streaming" or "downloading".

Portability. Ownership that does not rely on realtime connectivity. Bandwidth. I could go on......

Seems like most are way to closed minded/near sighted WRT digital distribution of media.

Not closed-minded as much as jaded. Remember Divx? "Screw me once......."

To have physical proof of ownership and guaranteed long-term availability of the media they purchased.

What about AACS, BD+... Discs don't last forever, neither do players to play them. How many people are glad they have a collection of eigth tracks, or VHS tapes today?

Much of the media that I own is from companies that are now defunct. Since I have a physical copy, I am not dependent on that company nor its servers to support my ability to play back those recordings.

What else can it be? Either I get a physical copy on purchase, or I have to download it from somebody's storage to my storage. What other option is there?

Live playback on demand via high-bandwidth "local" connection.

Because most of us are not willing to pay signficant fees for pay-per-view. If I am to store a copy of what I paid for, I have to have storage space. If I don't own a copy for future use in whatever manner I like, it's not worth paying for.

What if it's not PPV?

Portability. Ownership that does not rely on realtime connectivity. Bandwidth. I could go on......

What if the option was given to make a physical copy for a small fee to support portability?

Not closed-minded as much as jaded.

Closed-minded in that all you see is what's available today. DRM-laiden downloads that are low quality and/or rediculously priced. I have not, do not, and will not consider purchasing any of the current crop of electronic deliveries. And I agree with you that these are bad and will never take off.

However they do show that there is a market for non-physical delivery of media. That is why I think once somebody starts a service without the drawbacks of current systems (PPV, low quality, poor selection, buffering, downloading) it will be a hit.

Remember Divx? "Screw me once......."

Fortunately I skipped DivX, but with each new physical format we're getting closer and closer to DivX again.

CD was the last open physical audio format.

Laserdisc was the last open video format.

The content industry is determined to make ownership impossible. What happens when they succeed?

You should do the math on how long it takes to download 50GB on an average broadband Internet connection today, and how many people have a couple hundred GB of hard drive space kicking around to store these rentals, and then you will arrive at the agreement that this sort of thing is still utterly infeasible given the current Internet and the kinds of crappy computers most people are using today. Maybe if Verizon FiOS was available to every single person in this country, then maybe it would be feasible, but only barely. As it stands right now I believe 0.00003% of the country has Verizon FiOS.

Also, owning a physical piece of media means that my right to view the movie I paid for can never be taken away. That's something downloads will never be able to replace.

Verizon FIOS is testing 1 Terabyte per second somewhere down in Texas from what my sources tell me. Verizon has also tested their Fiber to 4 Terabytes with "no limit in sight" as far as higher speeds are concerned.

In Germany, they have tested Fiber to 14 Terabytes with no problem. Currently, I have 20mbps with Verizon FIOS in NY and was geting close to that with Comcast Cable in Hingham, MA as well.

I can easily see the day in the foreseeable future when HD / BD Quality downloads are available in seconds on your home server.

Rich



You should do the math on how long it takes to download 50GB on an average broadband Internet connection today, and how many people have a couple hundred GB of hard drive space kicking around to store these rentals, and then you will arrive at the agreement that this sort of thing is still utterly infeasible given the current Internet and the kinds of crappy computers most people are using today. Maybe if Verizon FiOS was available to every single person in this country, then maybe it would be feasible, but only barely. As it stands right now I believe 0.00003% of the country has Verizon FiOS.

Also, owning a physical piece of media means that my right to view the movie I paid for can never be taken away. That's something downloads will never be able to replace.

Verizon FiOS now boasts of 50 Mbps download speed

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/11918.cfm

I think the infrastructure for Fiber is further along than you might believe and mass Storage is getting cheaper by the month. Bottom line, I do not see the movie stored on a local HD anyway.

I see one copy of the movie located on Verizon's server with authorizations for access by consumers. You own it, but do not need to store it locally. One copy on Verizon's server could service millions of consumers.

All I know is that if this HD / BD War does not end soon...it could very well up being like SACD and DVD-A .... dead and dead.

Outside of us bleeding edge early adopter types ... Consumers will not make a decision if they are confused.

Also, if nobody raises the bar on the quality of these HD / BD releases, as we have tried doing and in return have been blasted for in these forums, then Joe and Jane Consumer will remain unconvinced that there is enough advantage / benefit to HD / BD verses any good upscaling DVD Player. They do not have the same knowledge or interest in HD / BD as we do.