I mean, some of the reasons not to support download services are obvious.

(1) If you keep your movies on a hard drive, and the hard drive dies, you are hosed and have fun downloading all your movies again from nothing. On an optical disc, if the drive dies, you just buy a new one and put the disc in the new drive.

(2) With the exception of iTunes and the various cable company services such as Comcast On-Demand, no download service has ever given the impression that you can trust it to be around forever. If the service shuts down, everything you've bought or rented is gone unless someone writes a decryption program.

(3) The copyright licensing agreements are clear: you don't own the content, but you do own the physical media. In that sense, the physical media represents your tangible right to possess the material. With downloading services, now you own neither the content nor do you own any physical media. So you are at the mercy of the download service not to change the terms of your media license to make it more restrictive, or even to ban you from accessing your media if you are suspected of piracy. And you have no recourse if that occurs.

(4) You think the DRM on optical discs is bad? Have you seen the restrictions on the music download services? Some discover too late what it really means to purchase media online you used to own outright. (http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/34709834/m/972000020931) The content providers are anxious to move to a subscription model so they can charge you in perpetuity instead of just once for a physical disc you own for a lifetime.

(5) QUALITY DOES MATTER. Until there are Internet connections which can stream 40mbps to every home on the planet, the quality of HDM on optical discs will remain superior to anything you can download legally. Given the advantages of optical media laid out in points (1)-(4), why would your intentionally choose lower quality and severe restrictions on the content that you have legally purchased? It just doesn't make sense.

Even if you are the most diehard HD DVD supporter, or if you are an insider for HD DVD, surely you must see that download services are a step backwards for consumer rights and for quality of picture and sound. It's time to support HDM on optical discs. Only if there is a physical object that you purchase can you protect your legal rights to fair use of content. If you have any interest in fair use, then optical media is the only way to go, because with download services you have no rights whatsoever to the content you have paid for and your access can be shut off at any time.

I'm planning on renting a few AppleTV movies on those occasions where there there are no new Netflix movies at the house and there are a bunch of us that just want to watch something new. If I like the movie I rent enough to want to want to own it I'll likely order the Blu-ray version from Amazon. Seems pretty logical to me.

Actually, you have a valid point there, I am talking specifically about content you want to own, as opposed to just rent. For rental, download services do make sense as long as the quality is not a primary concern to you. For ownership, download services don't make any sense whatsoever.

Uh, some people might like the convenience and may only want to see something once. Not everyone has the same criteria or weigh them in the same way. That doesn't mean they aren't in their "right mind."

In my view, posts that state a position and then claim that anything and everything else is stupid/pointless/etc. are not that productive.

Good points, but to someone like me who just wants to for the most part rent movies to view once or twice, DL services could potentially be easier. Don't have to wait for Netflix/Blockbuster movies to come in the mail, don't have to make decisions a few days in advance that you want to watch a certain movie. Just click on the movie you want to see, and you can watch it right away (or after it finishes downloading). If they perfect it, it will definitely be a convenient way to rent movies, especially if they do some sort of subscription service (where I don't have to pay 4 dollars per movie like with itunes/comcast/apple tv/etc.).

All that being said, if I want to own a movie, I still think I would prefer to own a hard copy of it, for all of the reasons you mentioned. However, there are very few movies I like enough to own (when compared to the amount of movies I rent).

BTW, I agree with the above poster, as I do not appreciate it being assumed that myself and people like me are not in their "right mind" lol. In my view, posts that state a position and then claim that anything and everything else is stupid/pointless/etc. are not that productive.

In the history of all the media I've owned, I've had more discs fail (bad sectors, scratches, etc) than hard drives fail...

I don't think downloads will ever take over a "collection" format. I think their will always be some form of disc based media. As it allows for a always have format.

You have to consider the infostructure needed for downloading. Atleast 70% of homes would need high speed internet at a very low cost to no cost. As some don't see the point of paying for internet as its not a need or still a lot with only dial up which would never work as movies would take weeks to download

In the history of all the media I've owned, I've had more discs fail (bad sectors, scratches, etc) than hard drives fail...

These are burned disks?

How can anyone in their right mind support download services?

It is in their financial interest to support download services?

I own near 600 movies maybe 3 have had issues. So must be doing somthing wrong if you've had so many issues.

In the history of all the media I've owned, I've had more discs fail (bad sectors, scratches, etc) than hard drives fail...

Me too, but when the discs failed, I lost one old movie or an album...when the hardrive failed I lost years of stuff that was devestating.

I would never risk my movie collection to a hard drive.

I like it for rentals. For rentals, concerns I would have aren't there because it is a temporary arrangement.

I don't have to buy more drive space and worry about crashes because they're not permanently stored.
If they go belly-up I can switch to another service.
I don't mind the DRM because I'm not looking to keep or copy the content anyway.
Quality is an issue, but I generally am less particular about quality for rentals. The quality should get better, however.

For ownership? No way.

I think that Netflix is good for HDM sales the same way that radio was good for LP, then CD and now even iTunes sales. If I were Apple I would provide a way for people to purchase BD movies directly from the iTunes Store for those rentals that they really like -- maybe even give them credit for the rental price to make it really attractive. Seems like a not brainer to me.

Downloads can come useful in some situations. For a movie that I don't want to purchase nor have an interest to see it in the best quality possible, a 720p/1080i quality movie with a regular DD would do. Just click and start watching it.

As for my favourite movies, I'd like to collect them in the best quality possible. They shouldn't necessarily be on optical discs though; I hope in future we use solid state drives to store movies.

But I can see downloads being very handy in some situations. Instead of going to the local blockbuster, just sit and rent it instantly*

*And then we wonder why obesity is increasing very fast nowadays. :D

Amazing the OP didn't even mention Xbox Live Video marketplace, which is arguably the best looking and sounding of all the download services.

Direct download is great for rentals, and I love buying HD tv shows that I own forever and can download at a friends house too.

As for your bitrate argument, it's been proven that noticable improvement over about 20 mbs is negligiable. But for those that are hardcore puristis that can afford equipment that might reveal bitrate defeciency, there are many sattelite based dd services coming, such as XtremeHD, which claims 80mb/s. You will always be able to argue for HDM, but bitrate won't be in that argument for long.

Amazing the OP didn't even mention Xbox Live Video marketplace, which is arguably the best looking and sounding of all the download services.

Direct download is great for rentals, and I love buying HD tv shows that I own forever and can download at a friends house too.

As for your bitrate argument, it's been proven that noticable improvement over about 20 mbs is negligiable. But for those that are hardcore puristis that can afford equipment that might reveal bitrate defeciency, there are many sattelite based dd services coming, such as XtremeHD, which claims 80mb/s. You will always be able to argue for HDM, but bitrate won't be in that argument for long.
You are talking about rentals and buying. Which is it for HD movies?

But I can see downloads being very handy in some situations. Instead of going to the local blockbuster, just sit and rent it instantly*

*And then we wonder why obesity is increasing very fast nowadays. :D

That's true, but 99% of people who could use downloads have cable or satellite and can accomplish the same thing with video-on-demand or pay-per-view.

That's true, but 99% of people who could use downloads have cable or satellite and can accomplish the same thing with video-on-demand or pay-per-view.
And cable/satellite movie selection? I guess I am one of those in the 1% who does not have cable or satellite for movies. For movies I have purchasing Blu-ray, or renting on Netflix. Something like Apple TV introduces yet another way to rent movies without needing to sign up for a premium service. BTW, I watch TV shows in HD via my ATSC/OTA antenna. No need for cable or satellite.

i would certainly rent, but I have to agree that buying would be out of the question for me personally.

BTW, I watch TV shows in HD via my ATSC/OTA antenna. No need for cable or satellite.

Me too. But most people are not like us.

And cable/satellite movie selection? I guess I am one of those in the 1% who does not have cable or satellite for movies. For movies I have purchasing Blu-ray, or renting on Netflix. Something like Apple TV introduces yet another way to rent movies without needing to sign up for a premium service. BTW, I watch TV shows in HD via my ATSC/OTA antenna. No need for cable or satellite.

Very true.
My interest in watching TV is very low.
Except few TV shows and some important sport tournaments, I have no interest in watching TV at all. And that's why I like XBLM or Apple TV; you don't need to sign up for other movie services. You buy the device and rent on demand in HD quality.
I think Internet is also the future of TV as well. Many video podcasts are much more fun to watch than some TV shows. And the good thing is podcasts are on demand, can be in HD, free to move around into different devices and also you watch many shows which specifically deal with areas that you are interested in.
the ONLY thing Apple TV and XBLM lack is broadcasting sports. Once that heppens, I can safely cancel all my TV services.

I'm with the OP 100%.

Hmnmmmm.

Rush Hour 3, a movie I am not even sure I'm going to like:

Blu-ray: $34.99. (39.99 at FYE)
XBLVM: 480 points (roughly 4 bucks).

Count me in for downloading more than purchasing. Hell, even if I wanted to watch the movie multiple times it would take over 6 viewings to equal the purchase price.

You (the OP) are assuming that a download service needs to be designed to replace your owned movie collection. And you're assuming the quality is going to be lower.

But what if that's not what eventually gets delivered? What if you could pay a reasonable monthly fee for an all-you-can-eat streaming service, with quality like HDM and selection like NetFlix? I'd sign up for that in a second,.

You (the OP) are assuming that a download service needs to be designed to replace your owned movie collection. And you're assuming the quality is going to be lower.

But what if that's not what eventually gets delivered? What if you could pay a reasonable monthly fee for an all-you-can-eat streaming service, with quality like HDM and selection like NetFlix? I'd sign up for that in a second,.

those current monthly fees will buy a few disc that you actually own at a higher aq and pq.

You (the OP) are assuming that a download service needs to be designed to replace your owned movie collection. And you're assuming the quality is going to be lower.

But what if that's not what eventually gets delivered? What if you could pay a reasonable monthly fee for an all-you-can-eat streaming service, with quality like HDM and selection like NetFlix? I'd sign up for that in a second,.

I think you are onto something. My question is what is a reasonable price? Could we take the Netflix model where it is all you can eat (3 at a time) for $17/month? How much would you be willing to pay for how many movies? I would say that if Apple TV HD movies cost $5 per rental, maybe a committed service at $17/month should let us watch HD movies at $3 a pop or maybe 6 movies a month for $18. Does that make sense?

For me, one viewing is not worth $5, but that's just me. I'd rather pay $8 to see it in the theater or $15-$20 for the disk. But $17 for NetFlix is an awesome bargain. I could see paying something comparable to monthly satellite/cable fees, but no more. And that would have to be unlimited.

They've forgotten Divx? :o

Downloading sounds fine to replace the rental model, but the retail model? Not a chance.

You (the OP) are assuming that a download service needs to be designed to replace your owned movie collection. And you're assuming the quality is going to be lower.

But what if that's not what eventually gets delivered? What if you could pay a reasonable monthly fee for an all-you-can-eat streaming service, with quality like HDM and selection like NetFlix? I'd sign up for that in a second,.
Agreed... part of what digital distribution has over physical media is new and better ways to consume movies. just because physical media does it one way doesnt mean thats the best way.

Its a very compelling idea to have a huge list of movies all ready to play instantly or within a few mins after selecting a movie. And get all of that with a monthly fee.

Not to mention I will never buy a large collection of movies again.... I dont want to keep having to rebuy the collection every 10 yrs. I did it with vhs and dvd and am not going to do it anymore. Ever since netflix came around its completely changed my habits and a digital distribution model of that is the next generation of that. This model eliminates almost all of your "complaints" and is the model i see winning out.

I'd be open to downloads in addition to physical media, not totally replacing it. For rentals, and maybe TV shows or other programs that I don't need in a pristine presentation, the convenience factor is compelling. Of course that all depends on pricing structure.

One thing that might be cool is the video equivalent to 'podcasts'- independently produced programs that have no distribution network. Think if someone created a good quality weekly 30 minute A/V type show for the enthusiast. That would be too niche for cable or a disc, but might work as a downloaded series.

Nobody in their right mind is supporting downloading services. The type of infrastructure it takes for downloadable movies assures niche format status. You need huge disk, backups, and fast broadband. Broadband speeds that support it will come, but the average joe will not purchase the kind of computer hardware necessary for downloads.

Video On Demand is another story.

Downloading as an alternative to rental is reasonable to me, but not likely as a method of owning movies, at least not soon. Certainly not in any of the forms available today.

i can see j6p complaining about his 300.00 computer having issues with downloading
hd because he refused to buy a 600.00 computer.

Well said.

Actually, you have a valid point there, I am talking specifically about content you want to own, as opposed to just rent. For rental, download services do make sense as long as the quality is not a primary concern to you. For ownership, download services don't make any sense whatsoever.


Took the words out of my mouth.

I mean, some of the reasons not to support download services are obvious.

(1) If you keep your movies on a hard drive, and the hard drive dies, you are hosed and have fun downloading all your movies again from nothing. On an optical disc, if the drive dies, you just buy a new one and put the disc in the new drive.

Correct me if I'm wrong (because I don't use iTunes), but I believe if your drive fails and you loose all of your iTunes purchases, Apple allows you to dowload them again. What happens if your optical disc fails?

(2) With the exception of iTunes and the various cable company services such as Comcast On-Demand, no download service has ever given the impression that you can trust it to be around forever. If the service shuts down, everything you've bought or rented is gone unless someone writes a decryption program.

I expect that consumers will flock more to the bigger established names as a result.

(3) The copyright licensing agreements are clear: you don't own the content, but you do own the physical media. In that sense, the physical media represents your tangible right to possess the material. With downloading services, now you own neither the content nor do you own any physical media. So you are at the mercy of the download service not to change the terms of your media license to make it more restrictive, or even to ban you from accessing your media if you are suspected of piracy. And you have no recourse if that occurs.

Wouldn't the studios see it as a big positive if they could eliminate reselling of their content by customers? I imagine that the studios would love to eliminate all of the added costs associated with physical media as well. It seems like it would be a win-win for them.

(4) You think the DRM on optical discs is bad? Have you seen the restrictions on the music download services? Some discover too late what it really means to purchase media online you used to own outright. (http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/34709834/m/972000020931) The content providers are anxious to move to a subscription model so they can charge you in perpetuity instead of just once for a physical disc you own for a lifetime.

Again, wouldn't the studios (especially Fox) appreciate a service that gives them more control over their content? A number of posters were highlighting that all of the added DRM in Blu-ray was attractive to the studios and made it the more likely format to garner the majority of studio support. Downloads would seem even more attractive in that case.

(5) QUALITY DOES MATTER. Until there are Internet connections which can stream 40mbps to every home on the planet, the quality of HDM on optical discs will remain superior to anything you can download legally. Given the advantages of optical media laid out in points (1)-(4), why would your intentionally choose lower quality and severe restrictions on the content that you have legally purchased? It just doesn't make sense.

For the same reason so many people buy music downloads. They're not doing it because the quality is better, they're doing it for the convenience.

Even if you are the most diehard HD DVD supporter, or if you are an insider for HD DVD, surely you must see that download services are a step backwards for consumer rights and for quality of picture and sound. It's time to support HDM on optical discs. Only if there is a physical object that you purchase can you protect your legal rights to fair use of content. If you have any interest in fair use, then optical media is the only way to go, because with download services you have no rights whatsoever to the content you have paid for and your access can be shut off at any time.

Ultimately consumers will vote with their pocketbooks, and they will decide how valuable convenience is. Of course I suspect that 5 years from now there will be a great deal of HD catalog content that is not available on BD, but is available as HD downloads. That kind of limits the consumers choice, but that's nothing new.

Me too, but when the discs failed, I lost one old movie or an album...when the hardrive failed I lost years of stuff that was devestating.

I would never risk my movie collection to a hard drive.

Clearly you can't have valued the information enough for you to completely ignore backups.

They've forgotten Divx? :o

Downloading sounds fine to replace the rental model, but the retail model? Not a chance.

Why would a failed service be the model upon which you base all future models? The aim is to succeed after all.

I'm getting tired of seeing the same people argue for or against downloads. Those that argue for are open minded enough to believe that a viable model will one day be achieved. Those that are against continue to harp on about failed hard drives, the cost of quota and the belief that bitrate will never exceed the magical number that is Blu Ray.

Downloads don't need to replace physical discs for people to embrace. Just as BD doesn't need to exceed DVDs for the studios to invest in.

Also, downloads does not necessarily mean that it has to be layer 3 internet bandwidth. There is more than one way to distribute movies, and enough interest for the big wigs to keep trying.

Correct me if I'm wrong (because I don't use iTunes), but I believe if your drive fails and you loose all of your iTunes purchases, Apple allows you to dowload them again. What happens if your optical disc fails?



I expect that consumers will flock more to the bigger established names as a result.



Wouldn't the studios see it as a big positive if they could eliminate reselling of their content by customers? I imagine that the studios would love to eliminate all of the added costs associated with physical media as well. It seems like it would be a win-win for them.



Again, wouldn't the studios (especially Fox) appreciate a service that gives them more control over their content? A number of posters were highlighting that all of the added DRM in Blu-ray was attractive to the studios and made it the more likely format to garner the majority of studio support. Downloads would seem even more attractive in that case.



For the same reason so many people buy music downloads. They're not doing it because the quality is better, they're doing it for the convenience.



Ultimately consumers will vote with their pocketbooks, and they will decide how valuable convenience is. Of course I suspect that 5 years from now there will be a great deal of HD catalog content that is not available on BD, but is available as HD downloads. That kind of limits the consumers choice, but that's nothing new.

If your hard drive fails you get 1,2, maybe 3 downloads. If you buy a new computer that takes up one of your downloads. Once you meet your limit, your songs are gone forever. Expect the same from a video service.

The studios having more control isn't a positive for consumers. DRM is good for physical media, but digital downloads is the worst thing you can imagine. I "used" to be able to listen to my $800 in napster songs, that is untill I unsubscribed or ran out of redownloads. That doesn't sound very convienent to you does it?

The HD catalog is goign to have to have more than new releases to succeed. VOD only works to get a new release. Downloads will fail unless we see a library of thousands of movies.

We should keep in mind most of the above stated problems with download services are really just problems with attempts at strong copy protection, not download.

Downloads can easily be made to work. But there are yet no consumer friendly ways to put data onto a consumers PC and still satisfy Hollywood that it won't escape onto the Internet. So the current efforts so far have all been pretty much crippled and of little value for long term ownership.

I do not know what the eventual answer should be.

- Tom

We should keep in mind most of the above stated problems with download services are really just problems with attempts at strong copy protection, not download.

Downloads can easily be made to work. But there are yet no consumer friendly ways to put data onto a consumers PC and still satisfy Hollywood that it won't escape onto the Internet. So the current efforts so far have all been pretty much crippled and of little value for long term ownership.

I do not know what the eventual answer should be.

- Tom

I think it will work the other way around, the studios gonna bring us bad transfer method, and "other people" will create there own download services. And when the pie of alternative downloads getting to large, the studios wanna get into that buissness.

What downloads lacks is a clear container that everyone is happy with. Mp3 really stod out in the music area.

What downloads lacks is a clear container that everyone is happy with. Mp3 really stod out in the music area.

How is there one container? Although MP3 is the de facto standard for unprotected compressed music, iTunes uses AAC, not MP3. The other paid download services use WMA. So, there are different formats just like with movies.

I would say though, that I believe one of the reasons why music downloads have been successful is due to the iPod and iTunes. With a very popular device driving one provider that controls around 70-80% of the market, it makes for something approaching a standard for paid music downloads. I wonder if movies will have that one hot device that most people buy, to which they can tie a service.

It won't be hard for downloads to surpass HDM in selection. There are more television programs available for HD downloads now on Xbox than available on HDM discs. HDM needs to step up the release schedule or it'll be left behind.

Hmnmmmm.

Rush Hour 3, a movie I am not even sure I'm going to like:

Blu-ray: $34.99. (39.99 at FYE)
XBLVM: 480 points (roughly 4 bucks).

Count me in for downloading more than purchasing. Hell, even if I wanted to watch the movie multiple times it would take over 6 viewings to equal the purchase price.

Well, on Amazon it is;
List Price: $39.98
Price: $27.95 & this item ships for FREE with Super Saver Shipping. Details
You Save: $12.03 (30%)

I will likely save my rental fees and buy this one. In any event, it won't be a total loss as if I don't like it, I can always post it on AVS or ebay it and get 2/3 (typically) of my money back Thats pretty close to your $4.00 rental fee and money in the bank if I want to keep it.

Neither way is wrong, but just another set of options...

Nobody in their right mind is supporting downloading services. The type of infrastructure it takes for downloadable movies assures niche format status. You need huge disk, backups, and fast broadband. Broadband speeds that support it will come, but the average joe will not purchase the kind of computer hardware necessary for downloads.

Video On Demand is another story.
On VOD, I have Comcast and I find it somewhat unreliable for VOD and a bit worse for HDVOD. I have stuttering, tearing, and communications timeouts in about 1 in 10 of the movies I try to watch. I can't say if that’s typical of VOD, just my experience to date.

the assumption that downloading will take the disc's place will be a long time off
when not every household has highspeed internet and most likely half of those that
have internet are still using some form of dial-up.

Well, on Amazon it is;
List Price: $39.98
Price: $27.95 & this item ships for FREE with Super Saver Shipping. Details
You Save: $12.03 (30%)

I will likely save my rental fees and buy this one. In any event, it won't be a total loss as if I don't like it, I can always post it on AVS or ebay it and get 2/3 (typically) of my money back Thats pretty close to your $4.00 rental fee and money in the bank if I want to keep it.

Neither way is wrong, but just another set of options...

That's a lot of gymnastics. So, your options are:

1. Simply buy the HDVOD version / watch it at your DVR for $5 / day.

Or:

1. Buy the version of the movie for $27.95.
2. wait four days for its delivery.
3. Watch it, decide if you don't like it.
4. Sell it on eBay / AVS, getting back 2/3 of the money and spend 1/3.
(1/3 (27.95) = $ 9.31)
5. $9.31 is still not $5, but I'll give you ballpark.

If convenience is your target, then HD VOD is probably better, since just buying it temporarily you're just down $5 if you don't like it, as opposed to $9.31 by the longer, inconvenient buying it no matter what.

In the history of all the media I've owned, I've had more discs fail (bad sectors, scratches, etc) than hard drives fail...

My HD TiVo failed with 20 movies on it about two months ago these films are just gone . Most are films with rewatch potential and aren't shown much if at all.

This is a real problem for me. I agree with the OP on this point for sure.

Art

I agree that downloads to a hard disk drive need to be able to be backed up. I understand that it is possible to do so with a HD TiVo, but when using PC's, doing backups is a normal thing for those who worry about a hard disk crash. Another reason to stear away from unique point solutions that display & store. Being able to use the home network for downloaded movies gives less of an excuse for losing movies due to HDD crashes.

With external ½ terabyte USB 2.0 drives, that come with backup software, now at $130 it is hard to claim that doing backups is too expensive or too hard, IMHO.

I mean, some of the reasons not to support download services are obvious.

(1) If you keep your movies on a hard drive, and the hard drive dies, you are hosed and have fun downloading all your movies again from nothing. On an optical disc, if the drive dies, you just buy a new one and put the disc in the new drive.


Back it up to disk? Back it up to BD-R / HDDVD-R? Only a question of time until these become as widespread as DVD-R today.


(2) With the exception of iTunes and the various cable company services such as Comcast On-Demand, no download service has ever given the impression that you can trust it to be around forever. If the service shuts down, everything you've bought or rented is gone unless someone writes a decryption program.


Not an issue if you get to keep your purchased download (again only a matter of time, the music labels are slowly starting to realize that drm-free downloads are the future. Movie studios will too, in time.



(3) The copyright licensing agreements are clear: you don't own the content, but you do own the physical media. In that sense, the physical media represents your tangible right to possess the material. With downloading services, now you own neither the content nor do you own any physical media. So you are at the mercy of the download service not to change the terms of your media license to make it more restrictive, or even to ban you from accessing your media if you are suspected of piracy. And you have no recourse if that occurs.


This is irrelevant. For disks DRM is always cracked.
Movie downloads will be DRM-free or have easily circumvented DRM (Similar to Itunes music, at the very least). This will take time but this is the future.

(4) You think the DRM on optical discs is bad? Have you seen the restrictions on the music download services? Some discover too late what it really means to purchase media online you used to own outright. (http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/34709834/m/972000020931) The content providers are anxious to move to a subscription model so they can charge you in perpetuity instead of just once for a physical disc you own for a lifetime.

Same as item 4

(5) QUALITY DOES MATTER. Until there are Internet connections which can stream 40mbps to every home on the planet, the quality of HDM on optical discs will remain superior to anything you can download legally. Given the advantages of optical media laid out in points (1)-(4), why would your intentionally choose lower quality and severe restrictions on the content that you have legally purchased? It just doesn't make sense.

Download 30 GB (more then sufficient as it seems with HDDVD spec) overnight (or over 2 nights), burn to BD-R/HDDVD-R, then watch.
No issue.

Even if you are the most diehard HD DVD supporter, or if you are an insider for HD DVD, surely you must see that download services are a step backwards for consumer rights and for quality of picture and sound. It's time to support HDM on optical discs. Only if there is a physical object that you purchase can you protect your legal rights to fair use of content. If you have any interest in fair use, then optical media is the only way to go, because with download services you have no rights whatsoever to the content you have paid for and your access can be shut off at any time.

Downloads ARE the future, whether you like it or not. It simply makes more economic sence, and the ONLY thing that is holding it FOR NOW is stubborn studios who are stuck and are trying to enforce their old and no longer functioning business model.

I could see myself doing some downloading, but the funniest thing about this whole debate is all the reds that flocked to downloads after Warner. Forget the fact that there are no extras. Those are no longer important to HDM. Not when it doesn't suit their argument of the day anyway.

:D

Back it up to disk? Back it up to BD-R / HDDVD-R? Only a question of time until these become as widespread as DVD-R today.



Not an issue if you get to keep your purchased download (again only a matter of time, the music labels are slowly starting to realize that drm-free downloads are the future. Movie studios will too, in time.



This is irrelevant. For disks DRM is always cracked.
Movie downloads will be DRM-free or have easily circumvented DRM (Similar to Itunes music, at the very least). This will take time but this is the future.

Same as item 4

Download 30 GB (more then sufficient as it seems with HDDVD spec) overnight (or over 2 nights), burn to BD-R/HDDVD-R, then watch.
No issue.

Downloads ARE the future, whether you like it or not. It simply makes more economic sence, and the ONLY thing that is holding it FOR NOW is stubborn studios who are stuck and are trying to enforce their old and no longer functioning business model.


Backing up to a disc completely takes away the point of having your movies on a hard drive in the first place.

Realize that DRM free is the future? No way will movies or music ever have the ability to just be freely copied and distributed like they were in the past. Your post just reeks of being a thief.

Downloading and burning to a disc once again takes away the point of having a hard drive in the first place.

Here's a question. When you have your 100 HD movies on your hard drive what are you going to watch them with/on? If you think that you'll just be able to plug them into anything and watch them think again.

Download 30 GB (more then sufficient as it seems with HDDVD spec) overnight (or over 2 nights), burn to BD-R/HDDVD-R, then watch.
No issue.


And there goes my download limit for the month. So I guess i will have to limit myself to watching one movie per month then.

Unlimited bandwith internet connection deal are going away. Where I live the 2 major player are capped and they charge a lot if you go over the limit.

There is one reason above all others that Direct Download is eventually going to win over all other content delivery mediums and that's cheap and thorough market penetration.All people will need to own to access the content is cable/satellite and a HiDef tv, finito.They won't need to own an expensive(BluRay at least)next gen disc format player and they won't need to spend $20-$30 per HD movie.They'll likely pay between $10-15 for a new release movie that they'll be able to cue up anytime (and unlimited times,since they "bought" the movie) they want via On Demand or whatever cable/satellite system they may have.The average consumer will view something like that as the most convenient and cost effective off any choices currently and/or soon to be available in the near future.Since bandwith is being expanded and new compresson schemes introduced, the limited bandwith most places have now, won't be a concern.

That's a lot of gymnastics. So, your options are:

1. Simply buy the HDVOD version / watch it at your DVR for $5 / day.

Or:

1. Buy the version of the movie for $27.95.
2. wait four days for its delivery.
3. Watch it, decide if you don't like it.
4. Sell it on eBay / AVS, getting back 2/3 of the money and spend 1/3.
(1/3 (27.95) = $ 9.31)
5. $9.31 is still not $5, but I'll give you ballpark.

If convenience is your target, then HD VOD is probably better, since just buying it temporarily you're just down $5 if you don't like it, as opposed to $9.31 by the longer, inconvenient buying it no matter what.
Keep in mind that I suspect it will be a keeper and I do not plan on selling it based on the first two movies. If I did download it first and did want it to get a copy I’d be out $27.95 + the original rental price.

Some of other downsides to HDVOD and downloads are
Lesser PQ on all current HDVOD or other download service
Lesser AQ on all current HDVOD or other download service
Release will likely NOT be a day and date with the DVD/HDM version (example Apple DL is delayed 30 days)
No special features – while not a big fan of extra features since PQ and AQ are far more important to me, I could easily live without things line the director’s commentary. I do however usually watch the deleted scenes and the blooper real if included. I also watch the “how they did it” on some movies. For example, Black Hawk Down had a lot of great extras that I would not have seen on a download/VOD version.

Not to say I don’t use HDVOD since I do get a small selection for FREE as part of the service each month and for that price it’s a good deal. I have never paid for one yet since I can rent the DVD with extras at REDBOX for $1.00 that look almost as good.

I agree that downloads to a hard disk drive need to be able to be backed up. I understand that it is possible to do so with a HD TiVo, but when using PC's, doing backups is a normal thing for those who worry about a hard disk crash. Another reason to stear away from unique point solutions that display & store. Being able to use the home network for downloaded movies gives less of an excuse for losing movies due to HDD crashes.

With external ½ terabyte USB 2.0 drives, that come with backup software, now at $130 it is hard to claim that doing backups is too expensive or too hard, IMHO.

HD TiVos don't allow backups.


Art

There is one reason above all others that Direct Download is eventually going to win over all other content delivery mediums and that's cheap and thorough market penetration.All people will need to own to access the content is cable/satellite and a HiDef tv, finito.They won't need to own an expensive(BluRay at least)next gen disc format player and they won't need to spend $20-$30 per HD movie.They'll likely pay between $10-15 for a new release movie that they'll be able to cue up anytime (and unlimited times,since they "bought" the movie) they want via On Demand or whatever cable/satellite system they may have.The average consumer will view something like that as the most convenient and cost effective off any choices currently and/or soon to be available in the near future.Since bandwith is being expanded and new compresson schemes introduced, the limited bandwith most places have now, won't be a concern.

Yep ,just like MP3s that don't offer the quality but are infinitely more convenient. Is that what we are about here ?

Art

One of my biggest gripes about downloads is loss of portability. I bring movies to other people's houses for viewing on occasion. Am I supposed to carry a computer/hard drive around whenever I want to do this? And forget about lending someone a movie.

I could see myself doing some downloading, but the funniest thing about this whole debate is all the reds that flocked to downloads after Warner. Forget the fact that there are no extras. Those are no longer important to HDM. Not when it doesn't suit their argument of the day anyway.

:D

Just to clarify a point. I don't really care for movie downloads (or even music downloads). I have been consistent on downloads and where I believe the market is heading though. I believe that this is the last generation of physical media, and the next transition is to some form of electronic distribution direct to the home.

For me it's not about supporting downloads personally, it's about looking at the long term trends.

All people will need to own to access the content is cable/satellite and a HiDef tv, finito.

But they do need a recent PC or a setup box. Both are not free and cost about the same as a stand alone or PS3. You also need an internet connection (not free either) and one that isn't capped or restricted in bandwith per month.

And if it doesn't work via internet then you are limited to what your cable or satelite provider can license from the studio to make available on their service.

Also the choice will be limited to the blockbuster hollywood type movie just like vod is limited presently.

HD TiVos don't allow backups.Sorry Art, I guess I was thinking about a hardware hack to swap out or upgrade the HDD in a TiVo.

Yep ,just like MP3s that don't offer the quality but are infinitely more convenient. Is that what we are about here ?

Art
No, that belongs on the another site, "LoDefDigest." Maybe some of those types would be more suited to post over there.

I suppose 720p is considered "HD," but IMO, HD audio should also be a minimum requirement, even if it's DD+!

Of course that's still not good enough for the majority of us here at good ol' AVS!

HD TiVos don't allow backups.


Art

How about this.

Backing up HD Tivo content. And optionally burning to DVD (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12538204#post12538204)

Credit - bfdtv

Just to clarify a point. I don't really care for movie downloads (or even music downloads). I have been consistent on downloads and where I believe the market is heading though. I believe that this is the last generation of physical media, and the next transition is to some form of electronic distribution direct to the home.

For me it's not about supporting downloads personally, it's about looking at the long term trends.
I never said ALL reds, 2C. I said "all THE reds" as in a fairly small subset of reds that went that route. You're no zealot.

One of my biggest gripes about downloads is loss of portability. I bring movies to other people's houses for viewing on occasion. Am I supposed to carry a computer/hard drive around whenever I want to do this? And forget about lending someone a movie.

One of a big reasons this will not be adopted by J6P. No portability and nothing tangible. Music can pull it off because it's audio only but people still buy CD's even with the popularity of bad downloads at 128.

Backing up to a disc completely takes away the point of having your movies on a hard drive in the first place.


But you DO have the option. This is simply a counter argument to the whole "Backing Downloads is crazy" argument.


Realize that DRM free is the future? No way will movies or music ever have the ability to just be freely copied and distributed like they were in the past. Your post just reeks of being a thief.

I have to laugh at this one, first for you making ASSumptions, and second just look at the music labels - only just recently they would never consider DRM-free downloads. Now it seems that most of them are on the bandwagon because they are realizing that they will lost more money if they try to stick to the old business model.


Downloading and burning to a disc once again takes away the point of having a hard drive in the first place.

See number 1. The point of download is not to have a movie on your hard disk - its about having the most options for the least price. A download can be burned to disk for convinence if you enjoy watching on stand alone player, but you also have an option of keeping it on your HTPC that can be used as a media server.
Eliminating disk manufacturing and traditional distribution channels is a way to cut cost significantly. This cost reduction = increased profit. If they can sell DRM free HD movies at $5-10 a pop, they will make millions.


Here's a question. When you have your 100 HD movies on your hard drive what are you going to watch them with/on? If you think that you'll just be able to plug them into anything and watch them think again


This one is silly. You will watch them on whatever has your hard disk, be it HTPC, Console, or even Media-Center Supported TVs (Such as Pio Elite, you simply connect the HDD to its USB port and the TV will read the file structure and play the files in HD).

Think longer term my friend and try to have an open mind.

If your hard drive fails you get 1,2, maybe 3 downloads. If you buy a new computer that takes up one of your downloads. Once you meet your limit, your songs are gone forever. Expect the same from a video service.

The studios having more control isn't a positive for consumers. DRM is good for physical media, but digital downloads is the worst thing you can imagine. I "used" to be able to listen to my $800 in napster songs, that is untill I unsubscribed or ran out of redownloads. That doesn't sound very convienent to you does it?

The HD catalog is goign to have to have more than new releases to succeed. VOD only works to get a new release. Downloads will fail unless we see a library of thousands of movies.

I agree on your first point, as I've said the same thing about Blu-ray. But on your second point, why is DRM (especially multiple layers of it) good for physical media? (unless you're a studio)

As for your Napster example, I don't use those types of services, but why did you pay all of that money if you saw no value in it?

As for catalog releases, I expect that in the next 5 years there will be a greater library of HD catalog titles available via download than HD catalog titles available on BD. The problem with catalog releases is they are a low volume sales item. This makes them ideal for digital distribution. With digital distribution the only real cost to the studio is the encoding cost (specific to the title) and bandwidth/infrastructure costs (shared across all titles being distributed). There are no worries about production volume/cost or the distribution and shelf space requirements for low volume/low turnover catalog titles.

I hope I'm wrong on this point, as I'd rather have the option of owning some of these titles on disc (assuming they don't include BD+, disc watermarking or region coding).

How about this.

Backing up HD Tivo content. And optionally burning to DVD (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12538204#post12538204)

Credit - bfdtv

Works fine for my Moto cable DVR but not the Hughes 10-250.

Art

One of a big reasons this will not be adopted by J6P. No portability and nothing tangible. Music can pull it off because it's audio only but people still buy CD's even with the popularity of bad downloads at 128.

Ultimately I believe digital distribution will provide a much higher degree of portability than discs do.

Does anyone have a link to the content available on Xbox Live? Someone posted previously that there is a bigger selection than what is available on HDM.

I think the convenience side of the argument is valid and will ultimately be so to such an extent for all which saves cost that HDM will be short lived. In fact, I think it will never become mainstream before downloads take off.

Art

Ultimately I believe digital distribution will provide a much higher degree of portability than discs do.

Does anyone have a link to the content available on Xbox Live? Someone posted previously that there is a bigger selection than what is available on HDM.

In the loooooong run it may but I think people still like to have something in their hand after they shell out $$. There is still a certain appeal to a large consumer group when it comes to coming out of a store with something in hand and/or waiting for a package to show up at the door after an online order.

One of the reasons muisc has been so successful in the download world is because people are not obligated to purchase the whole album. You can buy the 3-4 good songs from the album for super cheap. If there was no choice but to purchase the whole album and it was still going for around $10-$14 I don't think people would be downloading over disc buying at the same level we are seeing. IMO of course.

In the loooooong run it may but I think people still like to have something in their hand after they shell out $$. There is still a certain appeal to a large consumer group when it comes to coming out of a store with something in hand and/or waiting for a package to show up at the door after an online order.

One of the reasons muisc has been so successful in the download world is because people are not obligated to purchase the whole album. You can buy the 3-4 good songs from the album for super cheap. If there was no choice but to purchase the whole album and it was still going for around $10-$14 I don't think people would be downloading over disc buying at the same level we are seeing. IMO of course.

And also, music file are small compared to movies. You have to download a whole lot of music file to bust your DL limit if you are capped.

The OPs last paragraph bugs me.

The one referencing HD DVD supporters. It convey that HD DVD owners want downloads,and the HD DVD die hards will be responsible for HDM staying a niche; which IMHO is as far from reality as possible. HD DVD IMHO is the only viable format for mass acceptance, because of many reason i will not reiterate here.

I don't know one Die Hard HD DVD supporter (Such as myself) that wants downloads to be the norm. Do many of us think its inevitable now, well yes, many of us do; and just because we will not willing embrace blu-ray (as most consumers are not) then we are supporting downloads???

As an HD DVD die hard (Which went purple for free) i strongly feel that blu-ray will ultimately be responsible for ushering in downloads as the norm. Even if Blu-ray won an all out victory, i cant see it ever appealing to the masses due to cost structure, and the fact its still not a finalized spec, adding more confusion to potential buyers. Blu-ray was premature, unfinished and had no business being launched, and hence screwed all of us over, and has helped HDM stay a niche market.

Ultimately I believe digital distribution will provide a much higher degree of portability than discs do.

Does anyone have a link to the content available on Xbox Live? Someone posted previously that there is a bigger selection than what is available on HDM.


Not in Canada. In Canada we have only a handful of HD movies on Xbox live, not sure about the states.

So far i have rented 3 movies on Xbox live and the picture quality seemed great(Not HD DVD quality, but acceptable for a rental), and overall it was a very easy and positive experience.

Personally I don't like the idea of digital downloads. I never pay for VOD, I only watch the "free" movies on demand. As far as DRM, j6p doesn't really care or even knows it exists. I don't mid DRM because just as fast as a new DRM is released it is beginning to get cracked. If anyone wants to rip dvd now they can rip or copy anyone they wish, even the new ones like the new family guy, Blu Harvest. It had a newer DRM and I still made a copy, took more effort but whatever. I really don't know why everyone is so concerned with DRM. Just let a format get mainstream enough and some bored 14 year olds will make a program that cracks it, and all will be good again.

But more concerning news, what is the deal with the new Time Warner pay as you use bandwidth plans being tested in some parts of the U.S.? That won't be helping any digital media now will it.

I agree that for the buy-to-own downloads, a consumer friendly model would need to be implemented to protect from loss. In the event of theft or a hardware failure, customers should be able to re-acquire their content without having to pay full price for it again. I could even see some nominal charge to restore your material being reasonable. Backup plans are a non-issue for the rental market.

The DRM on downloads will be interesting as well. If they try and make it so burdensome people don't want to hassle with it, they'll have a hard time pushing it. But on the other hand, look at Blu-ray and HD DVD right now. There are DRM issues and compatibility problems on many standalones, particularly with the God-forsaken BD+ discs. PC playback? That's an even bigger DRM mess. Not that it's right or fair to the customers, but it would seem some customers, albeit most early adopters, are willing to put up with DRM related issues.

Saying downloads will never have the quality of Blu-ray or HD DVD is a naive (at best) statement to make. The key variable is how much infrastructure the content providers want to upgrade or dedicate to distribution and over what period of time. Right now, today, Verizon FiOS TV is available to 3.1 Million households. Verizon is projecting 16 million FiOS subscribers within 2 years - that's 16 million people that have the ability to stream 30Mbps unbuffered. Throw in a small buffer, which everyone would do, and you could easily have a 1080p + HD audio movie playing in your home theater within 10 minutes of selecting the movie you want. DOCSIS 3.0 is coming soon, Service Providers of all types are doing a lot in the US right now to enhance their capabilities. Every home in the US does not need FiOS or DOCSIS 3.0 speeds for downloads to be successful, assuming they do is just not accurate.

A poster that claimed to be a senior engineer for a cableco posted recently in one of the download threads clarifying that they do not deliver their VOD over the Internet. It comes over the same physical cable, but via different protocols. Satellite providers don't deliver via the Internet, they have their closed loop delivery systems. Some of these arguments that Internet speeds aren't fast enough to support high quality downloads aren't even relevant considering some providers don't even use the Internet.

Downloads won't kill off discs, that won't happen for a long, long time, if ever. But downloads are definitely doing to provide competition to physical media. The better the download service model - the more competition. But to say people are stupid for considering it or at the very least entertaining the idea of using or trying it is akin to name calling on the playground because other kids want to play a different game than you. You don't like it? No problem, don't use it.

Me too, but when the discs failed, I lost one old movie or an album...when the hardrive failed I lost years of stuff that was devestating.

I would never risk my movie collection to a hard drive.

Putting years worth of irreplaceable data on a single HDD without a backup plan in place was, to put it gently, "unwise". I'm sure you learned your lesson, albeit a very difficult one. I know people that do this same thing right now. They put 4 years of personal digital videos or photos on their machine with no backup plan in place. I cringe when I think of all the people that do this. :(
I could see myself doing some downloading, but the funniest thing about this whole debate is all the reds that flocked to downloads after Warner. Forget the fact that there are no extras. Those are no longer important to HDM. Not when it doesn't suit their argument of the day anyway.

:D

That was truly insightful and definitely provided added value.

which IMHO is as far from reality as possible.


Not as much a your nielsen prediction of 60:40 huhuhu

HD DVD IMHO is the only viable format for mass acceptance, because of many reason i will not reiterate here.

Too bad reality doesn't seem to agree with you and points to HD DVD being the least viable format. Damn reality, it can be such a b... ! :mad:

I won't bother discussing the other points of your post as there is no point arguing beliefs..

The OPs last paragraph bugs me.

The one referencing HD DVD supporters. It convey that HD DVD owners want downloads,and the HD DVD die hards will be responsible for HDM staying a niche; which IMHO is as far from reality as possible. HD DVD IMHO is the only viable format for mass acceptance, because of many reason i will not reiterate here.

I don't know one Die Hard HD DVD supporter (Such as myself) that wants downloads to be the norm. Do many of us think its inevitable now, well yes, many of us do; and just because we will not willing embrace blu-ray (as most consumers are not) then we are supporting downloads???

As an HD DVD die hard (Which went purple for free) i strongly feel that blu-ray will ultimately be responsible for ushering in downloads as the norm. Even if Blu-ray won an all out victory, i cant see it ever appealing to the masses due to cost structure, and the fact its still not a finalized spec, adding more confusion to potential buyers. Blu-ray was premature, unfinished and had no business being launched, and hence screwed all of us over, and has helped HDM stay a niche market.

Nam,

Blu-Ray won't be ultimately responsible for ushering in downloads as the norm. MP3's and the IPOD is the norm. I think many folks forget that the very same people who buy IPODs are getting more comfortable with every music download of moving to all downloads.

Further, many of the arguments about AQ were made by audiophiles in defending against MP3. They stated that SACD and DVD-A were the holy grail why would one drink water from a clay pot again (CD quality or less)?
To noneone's surprise, their arguments fell on deaf ears. And the download generation bought IPODs by the millions and downloaded at less than stellar quality.

Here, we have a corollary scenario, but only in part. Above, we discussed the beginnings of the transformation to the music industry. In addition, almost all music is purchased for collection rather than rented. IT is in many ways the opposite of what occurred with video. Video was much more likely to have been purchased until Blockbuster and others than rented. In any event, we are seeing the same tranformation of sales models within the industry, but it is on a much more stratified playing field. We are literally seeing a multi-tiered and fractured system evolve before us. In renting terms, we are likely to see BBuster, NFlix, and RBox continue. They will rent discs until TVs with media center applications become ubiquitoius in which case, they'll rent flash drives which will become cheaper, smaller and are inherently more durable. Others such as Apple, Vudu, etc. will attempto join this pack and unsuccessfully set new trends. On the other hand, folks will seek to own and here Walmart, BestB, and Amazon will continue to hock mostly DVDs to be watched on upstream DVD players. The mass consumer will not spend money on a new box when they see what a regular DVD looks like on an HDTV. To them, the improvement will have taken place. Further, J6P doesn't really care about the AQ. Oh, but no, you say what about True HD and DTS MA-HD.....remember that MP3 thingy and being just good enough. J6P will buy into HDM when it is so cheap its price premiums for the players and media rival DVDs or when MediaCenterTVs can take a direct CAT5 plug or a 50Gb jump drive with their (get this!!!) HD movie priced competitively with DVD movie on it.

You see my friends, when my buddies came over to the house last night to watch the Super Bowl in HD listening to Martin Logans in 7.1 channel surround through the ONkyo all connected by HDMI 1.3a.....they were impressed by the picture, bedazzled by the surround sound, and wouldn't mind having such a system....but beyond the TV and a cheap HTiB (and these are attorneys like myself that have big money jobs at large law firms), it just never translated into action. And for that reason HDM is a niche....and so will any other format that comes along that challenges DVD but does not provide added convenience, more durability and does not provide a reduced cost. The thing to understand is that DVDs may have been too successful. It commoditized movie and TV shows. It is essentially what MP3 did to music. Everybody owns a DVD player. And with region free players, I've taken some with me to Europe, Asia...all over the world.

Blu-Ray won't pull off that trick. HD-DVD, even if it was successful, it was never going to do this either. Downloads....lack of ubiquitous pipelines (although, some would be correct to point out the advances of compression CODECS, faster pipelines, Wi-Fi and Wi-MAx systems, etc). None of these new formats will ever recommoditize movies like DVDs. This could very well be the format that is here to linger for quite some time.

I see that some are suggesting you could just burn a disc for a standalone player, but burned discs are generally not as reliable as pressed discs. Then, all you have is a copy that looks like a bootleg. It will certainly have to be cheaper if they expect me to print the disc, use up ink and paper for the cover art, and buy a case.

Well, one positive there is that having custom cover art wouldn't cost any more than the official art.

Digital audio downloads, while being spoken about a lot, doesn't amount to much compared to CD sales.

Knowing that, why do you think is would become so popular for video ?

Downloads services are an effective way of renting movies, especially when movies are streamed and you can begin to watch it immediatly. Here in France it became a strong trend for ISP to provide VoD services. It works beautifully and is popular among consumers.

It's fine ... for rental.

But when people acquire something most of them prefer to obtain some physical item they own, something they can lend to their family and friends, something they can resell. And downloads aren't satisfying in this regarde.

And even if HDM were to fail, would it mean a success for download services ?

I mean, some of the reasons not to support download services are obvious.

(1) If you keep your movies on a hard drive, and the hard drive dies, you are hosed and have fun downloading all your movies again from nothing. On an optical disc, if the drive dies, you just buy a new one and put the disc in the new drive.

(2) With the exception of iTunes and the various cable company services such as Comcast On-Demand, no download service has ever given the impression that you can trust it to be around forever. If the service shuts down, everything you've bought or rented is gone unless someone writes a decryption program.

(3) The copyright licensing agreements are clear: you don't own the content, but you do own the physical media. In that sense, the physical media represents your tangible right to possess the material. With downloading services, now you own neither the content nor do you own any physical media. So you are at the mercy of the download service not to change the terms of your media license to make it more restrictive, or even to ban you from accessing your media if you are suspected of piracy. And you have no recourse if that occurs.

(4) You think the DRM on optical discs is bad? Have you seen the restrictions on the music download services? Some discover too late what it really means to purchase media online you used to own outright. (http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/34709834/m/972000020931) The content providers are anxious to move to a subscription model so they can charge you in perpetuity instead of just once for a physical disc you own for a lifetime.

(5) QUALITY DOES MATTER. Until there are Internet connections which can stream 40mbps to every home on the planet, the quality of HDM on optical discs will remain superior to anything you can download legally. Given the advantages of optical media laid out in points (1)-(4), why would your intentionally choose lower quality and severe restrictions on the content that you have legally purchased? It just doesn't make sense.

Even if you are the most diehard HD DVD supporter, or if you are an insider for HD DVD, surely you must see that download services are a step backwards for consumer rights and for quality of picture and sound. It's time to support HDM on optical discs. Only if there is a physical object that you purchase can you protect your legal rights to fair use of content. If you have any interest in fair use, then optical media is the only way to go, because with download services you have no rights whatsoever to the content you have paid for and your access can be shut off at any time.

Yet another HDDVD insult thread. This is just another version of ye olden "when did you stop beating your wife" question.
If you were really for consumers s and their rights, you'd support the format with less onerous protection, more features, open recording, and can actually be backed up.

In the loooooong run it may but I think people still like to have something in their hand after they shell out $$. There is still a certain appeal to a large consumer group when it comes to coming out of a store with something in hand and/or waiting for a package to show up at the door after an online order.

One of the reasons muisc has been so successful in the download world is because people are not obligated to purchase the whole album. You can buy the 3-4 good songs from the album for super cheap. If there was no choice but to purchase the whole album and it was still going for around $10-$14 I don't think people would be downloading over disc buying at the same level we are seeing. IMO of course.

Let's not forget that people are already using the Video iPod, iPod Touch and iPhone to buy and view SD content. I don't think we're so far off from HD content and docks with HDMI output.

I could also see a mechanism where you have logon access to content you own that is centrally stored. If you visit a friend that has a game console with download access, you could use your account to access the content you own.

These aren't pie in the sky, some day we'll all be driving flying cars type visions. These are readily within reach.

This is a real problem for me. I agree with the OP on this point for sure.


Hard Drives give that false sense of security but anyone in IT/MIS will tell you the first thing about hard drives is back ups and lots of them if it's important data.

The goal of most of the content owners pushing downloads is to get rid of the concept of ownership, if not Fair Use in general, and it will always be defeated by the hackers, if not the pirates.

If MMC ever gets out of the gate, downloads might have a shot to move into a niche "ownership" status, but noone from iTunes to XBL ever yet given any measure to ownership of High Def movies.

If HD downloads start becoming more common place and sales of HD on optical media is not overtaking DVDs (in the next few years) you might see some of these studios drop HDM all together and just do downloads. Anything is possible. Look at all the people on this forum who are renting HD instead of buying.

I strongly believe that in the absence of studio exclusivity HD DVD would have won this war by consumer demand--cheaper complete-profile players.

Unfortunately machinations on both sides led to studio exclusivity and a war fought and now apparently won by BD in corporate back rooms instead of in the free market.

While I've been purple for over a year and a half I do admit to a preference for the more complete, less expensive, and more feature rich HD DVD format.

While I am disappointed by the apparent victory of BD I thoroughly enjoy my HDM discs on both formats and have no desire to mess with downloads.

I vehemently resent the portrayal of all HD DVD advocates as somehow being spoilers who now advocate downloads with their crappy pq and aq and no special features.

I have an HD Tivo and don't see any download service exceeding it's PQ for HD movies. That being said the HD movies I've recorded on it only pique my appetite for a full bandwidth HD disc version with lossless audio and a decent assortment of special features, regardless of format.

Fortunately I own a PS3 as my BD player and it is almost certain to be fully compliant with any of the moving target "profiles" the BDA is likely to come up with in the next 5 or 10 years.

If your hard drive fails you get 1,2, maybe 3 downloads. If you buy a new computer that takes up one of your downloads. Once you meet your limit, your songs are gone forever. Expect the same from a video service.
No, at least with the Xbox Live Marketplace, the service is designed assuming users will delete a show they've bought and want to download it again later on. The purchase is tied to your XBox Live account, not to the machine, so you can replace your system and re-download all your purchased shows, for example.

The HD catalog is goign to have to have more than new releases to succeed. VOD only works to get a new release. Downloads will fail unless we see a library of thousands of movies.
That's certainly not a technical issue.

I could see myself doing some downloading, but the funniest thing about this whole debate is all the reds that flocked to downloads after Warner. Forget the fact that there are no extras. Those are no longer important to HDM. Not when it doesn't suit their argument of the day anyway.
Nothing at all hard about having extras as part of downloadable content. Easy to make them on demand as well, so you can download the commentary track or documentaries after the fact, or while you're watching the main movie.

No, that belongs on the another site, "LoDefDigest." Maybe some of those types would be more suited to post over there.

I suppose 720p is considered "HD," but IMO, HD audio should also be a minimum requirement, even if it's DD+!

Of course that's still not good enough for the majority of us here at good ol' AVS!
Again, there's nothing intrinsically 720p about downloads. That makes sense for early 2008, but as codecs get more efficient and bandwidth gets faster, I'm sure we'll get a seamless transition to 1080p.

Hi Benwaggoner. Do you know if there's a list of the titles available on Xbox Live posted somewhere? Also, do you know if there's any plan to expand Xbox Live access to PC's?

Hi Benwaggoner. Do you know if there's a list of the titles available on Xbox Live posted somewhere? Also, do you know if there's any plan to expand Xbox Live access to PC's?
http://kplusb.org/xboxlivehd/

I strongly believe that in the absence of studio exclusivity HD DVD would have won this war by consumer demand--cheaper complete-profile players.

Unfortunately machinations on both sides led to studio exclusivity and a war fought and now apparently won by BD in corporate back rooms instead of in the free market.

While I've been purple for over a year and a half I do admit to a preference for the more complete, less expensive, and more feature rich HD DVD format.

While I am disappointed by the apparent victory of BD I thoroughly enjoy my HDM discs on both formats and have no desire to mess with downloads.

I vehemently resent the portrayal of all HD DVD advocates as somehow being spoilers who now advocate downloads with their crappy pq and aq and no special features.

I have an HD Tivo and don't see any download service exceeding it's PQ for HD movies. That being said the HD movies I've recorded on it only pique my appetite for a full bandwidth HD disc version with lossless audio and a decent assortment of special features, regardless of format.

Fortunately I own a PS3 as my BD player and it is almost certain to be fully compliant with any of the moving target "profiles" the BDA is likely to come up with in the next 5 or 10 years.
Nice post.

I feel the same way about piquing interest. I want the best I can get! And why the Hell not!

FWIW, I certainly believe that it's only a small minority of zealots that have chosen to become "spoilers." Obviously you are not one of those. There are always shades of grey.

Cheers

I strongly believe that in the absence of studio exclusivity HD DVD would have won this war by consumer demand--cheaper complete-profile players.


I strongly believe that in the absence of Eli Manning, the Patriots would have won the Super Bowl. Sadly, we live in the real world not an imaginary one. We can't pick and choose the factors we like and ignore the ones we don't.

I strongly believe that in the absence of Eli Manning, the Patriots would have won the Super Bowl. Sadly, we live in the real world not an imaginary one. We can't pick and choose the factors we like and ignore the ones we don't.

Ahh, but therein lies a cautionary tale for all of us. The studios could just as easily decide that HDM is a good vehicle for big grossing titles, but reserve much of their catalog depth for HD download instead. Time will tell how all of this plays out. My strategy is to cover as many avenues of media access as possible.

No, at least with the Xbox Live Marketplace, the service is designed assuming users will delete a show they've bought and want to download it again later on. The purchase is tied to your XBox Live account, not to the machine, so you can replace your system and re-download all your purchased shows, for example.

Why is it that you only can get your very first instance of a download tied to your specific console? My launch 360 RRoD'ed, so I took it back to Best Buy and got another one but kept my hard drive, and now I have to login to Live! all the time or all the content on my HDD (which I kept from the RRoD console) is locked when I'm offline.

Is there something I can do to fix this problem?

Downloading sounds fine to replace the rental model, but the retail model? Not a chance.

This is the best and most succinct post in the whole download argument/justification. The methods of 'rental' have changed over the years (from getting records in your library to receiving videos over the internet) but the buyer has always had the option of paying more money to have a funny little disc/tape/holocube in his hand in perpetuity.

This is the best and most succinct post in the whole download argument/justification. The methods of 'rental' have changed over the years (from getting records in your library to receiving videos over the internet) but the buyer has always had the option of paying more money to have a funny little disc/tape/holocube in his hand in perpetuity.
But it's not really perpetuity. Would you be happy with a 20-year old VHS tape? 15-year old laserdisc?

There are movies like Blade Runner and albums like London Calling I've got around a half-dozen versions of on different media, and different remasterings on the same media.

The tragedy is that if something is worth watching over and over again, someone is going to find a way to make it better for you :).

great movies are meant to be watched over again and again thats why physical media
such as the disc will be around for a long time and renting or view once only will be
embraced by downloading.

Everyone is so focused on the current technology when we discuss this.

I think storage is something thats gonna be moved out of hour homes in terms of media. Lets say bandwith increases and moving large amount of data around the net isnt a problem at all.

So you purchase a movie, and download it to your harddrive. So you want to have a backup, no problem, send the movie to an international datastorage facility. Since 5000 other users has done that aswell you basicly have uploaded the same movie. So the storage facility only needs to have one file stored and a registry of users that have access to the file. Since the cost gets splitted across thousands of users its almost cost nothing for the lone user to pay for the storage. He basicly can store huge amount of movies and music there for backup.

along with a gain in popularity comes the fact there are individuals out there that
probably would find away to encode a bug or script to wreck havock with the downloads
some hackers love giving the computing world grief.

In the history of all the media I've owned, I've had more discs fail (bad sectors, scratches, etc) than hard drives fail...

Out of over 500 discs, I have had only one go bad only to be repaired by disc doctor. I have never had to buy a replacement disk. On the other hand, in 10 years I have had three hard drives go bad. Two desktops and one laptop.

Out of over 500 discs, I have had only one go bad only to be repaired by disc doctor. I have never had to buy a replacement disk. On the other hand, in 10 years I have had three hard drives go bad. Two desktops and one laptop.

i agree 2 disks out of 300 and 3 computers and 1 hard drive all in a 10year time frame.

Hmnmmmm.

Rush Hour 3, a movie I am not even sure I'm going to like:

Blu-ray: $34.99. (39.99 at FYE)
XBLVM: 480 points (roughly 4 bucks).

Count me in for downloading more than purchasing. Hell, even if I wanted to watch the movie multiple times it would take over 6 viewings to equal the purchase price.

Let's redo your math to make it more accurate to what us AVSers face:

Blu-ray: $27.95 Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/Rush-Hour-Blu-ray-Chris-Tucker/dp/B000WGYMT2******pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1202311777&sr=8-3

XBLVM: 480 points = $6.36 (480 * .0125 * 1.06)
Note: I assume 6% sales tax for the point purchase, and no sales tax for Amazon. I did not confirm the 480 point cost, I just took your word for it.

Your point is still valid, however your margin is too large. You example is for one of the pricier discs. Many Blu-ray discs (through Amazon) are a bit closer to $20 in cost (and even lower with special deals). $23.95 seems to be a common price for a non-special deal blu-ray from Amazon. This $23.95 price would make watching a movie 3.76 times (not 6 times) your break-even proposition.

Personally, I use Blockbuster online and buy Blu-rays when there are good deals on discs I like. Even though I have all the hardware I need (Xbox 360, Tivo Series 3, etc.) I just can't bring myself to spending those large per-transaction costs for rentals. To me, $6.36 for a downloaded rental (on the 360) that will expire 24 hours after I start watching it is too exorbitant a price to pay for 720p content. YMMV.

agreed with OP 100%.

As far as hard drive failing...let's wait for solid state drives to be cheaper and mainstream. That's gonna be a beautiful day. Moving parts suck.

Everyone is so focused on the current technology when we discuss this.

I think storage is something thats gonna be moved out of hour homes in terms of media. Lets say bandwith increases and moving large amount of data around the net isnt a problem at all.

So you purchase a movie, and download it to your harddrive. So you want to have a backup, no problem, send the movie to an international datastorage facility. Since 5000 other users has done that aswell you basicly have uploaded the same movie. So the storage facility only needs to have one file stored and a registry of users that have access to the file. Since the cost gets splitted across thousands of users its almost cost nothing for the lone user to pay for the storage. He basicly can store huge amount of movies and music there for backup.

Yeah, that would be great. However, it doesn't matter where you store your movies if they can only play on devices that are a particular brand.

If you subscribe to VUDU, then change next year to comcast all your movies are now useless. With this type of service you're stuck with a single provider for 10-15 years.

I have DVD's that I bought 10 years ago that still play just fine on my BD player. The 800 napster tracks I bought just 4 years ago will NOT play on any devices now!

along with a gain in popularity comes the fact there are individuals out there that
probably would find away to encode a bug or script to wreck havock with the downloads
some hackers love giving the computing world grief.

Is there an example of this in the realm of paid music download services? I do recall a certain company putting things on their music CDs that would count as wrecking havoc, but that's a different story. It seems unlikely they'd repeat those past behaviors for their movie content. :rolleyes:

Yeah, that would be great. However, it doesn't matter where you store your movies if they can only play on devices that are a particular brand.

snip.......


iTunes ---> iPod, iPhone...... etc.

To all you people bitching about downloads. I get them all the time on my 360 and on-demand and I absolutely love them. There's only about 20 movies ever made I find myself watching more than once or twice that I need physical media for. Why the hell would I buy Miami Vice for $30 on HD-DVD or Casino Royale on Blu-Ray for $25 bucks only to never play them after their initial playing.

People complain that On-Demand is "HD-Lite" and the 360 is "Only 720p" but you know what?.... They serve their purpose and actually look pretty darn good. Sure, they aren't reference material, but they aren't costing me $25-$35 either.

My only real problem is that they are still overpriced. HD or not, downloaded content shouldn't cost any more than it does to get an SD DVD from the local B&M rental. Let's get these prices down to about $4 each and you will see a big increase in download volumes. I think that $6-$7 bite is still pushing many consumers away. For the general population to make a transition to any HD format weather it be downloaded or physical, you have to make it competitive with SD-DVD because most people are still fine with that quality. It's up to the industry to get the avarage joe to buy in to HDM, and so far "the industry" has done a piss poor job of it.

To all you people bitching about downloads. I get them all the time on my 360 and on-demand and I absolutely love them. There's only about 20 movies ever made I find myself watching more than once or twice that I need physical media for. Why the hell would I buy Miami Vice for $30 on HD-DVD or Casino Royale on Blu-Ray for $25 bucks only to never play them after their initial playing.



.uuuuuhhh..... maybe to you. I have about 500 that I consider watching multiple times. I can count 100 of them that I've watched more than 5 or 6 times (some up to 20-30 times). Just because you don't like watching movies more than once or collecting doesn't meant the rest of us have to like cheap bit rate starved rental models.

I only buy movies that I'm going to watch more than once. The only movies I don't really like are the ones with an awesome plot twist at the end. Once you know the ending some movies aren't woth watching more than once.

.uuuuuhhh..... maybe to you. I have about 500 that I consider watching multiple times. I can count 100 of them that I've watched more than 5 or 6 times (some up to 20-30 times). Just because you don't like watching movies more than once or collecting doesn't meant the rest of us have to like cheap bit rate starved rental models.
i think you can take your own advice too.... outside of avs and a very small section of the marketplace there arent very many "true" collectors (although they do likely account for alot of $ to the studios). especially now that services like netflix are around.

i still think the model that wins out is going to be a digital downloads version of netflix where you get the benefits of both types of services. you get the huge library aspect for the collector types, the speed/lack of stock issue that plagues netflix, and even the movie studios would be happy because at the end of the day you dont own any of the content which technically exists now. and i say bring it on. the first service that gives me a subscription model with a huge library thats on demand and im done with physical media (provided the monthly price is right).

im a big fan of netflix but its just too unreliable getting new movies these days and not fast enough for "the digital age". im personally hoping xbox live gets the subscription model first because i already have a 360 but if vudu or some other box can manage it im there.

i think you can take your own advice too.... outside of avs and a very small section of the marketplace there arent very many "true" collectors (although they do likely account for alot of $ to the studios). especially now that services like netflix are around.

i still think the model that wins out is going to be a digital downloads version of netflix where you get the benefits of both types of services. you get the huge library aspect for the collector types, the speed/lack of stock issue that plagues netflix, and even the movie studios would be happy because at the end of the day you dont own any of the content which technically exists now. and i say bring it on. the first service that gives me a subscription model with a huge library thats on demand and im done with physical media (provided the monthly price is right).

im a big fan of netflix but its just too unreliable getting new movies these days and not fast enough for "the digital age". im personally hoping xbox live gets the subscription model first because i already have a 360 but if vudu or some other box can manage it im there.

Well, I'm one one end of two extremes here (yes I admit it ;) ). I am on the collectors only extreme. Renting is for my wife and the occasional flick I wanna "taste test". the other end is the renter only. He hates owning a movie because he watches a movie once mayyyyyyybe twice and wants to only pay a fraction of the cost to own the movie in a one time rental fee. Then there's all the shades of variation in between. However those 2 extremes are the most vocal around here. We get the people who are advocating digital media only and are sooooo happy to see physical media die. then we have the other side screaming how they will never ever touch digital media etc.... However each side has a weakness in their arguments. The studios need to "EXPAND" their revenue and market shares not decrease it. The rental only crowd needs to realize that physical media dying would be a bad thing. Digital distribution and physical media have to co-exist, otherwise the studios have alienated part of their market. Why do you think renting and owning have co-existed for so many years. There are different types of people and the studios have to cater to both. It's just that renting is taking a different form than the standard "go-to-your-local-Blockbuster-and-pick-out-a-copy" scenario we're all familiar with. The owners need to realize that digital media is not bad in it's own niche. We need the expansion.

However many of the renters don't realize that the destruction of physical media "WOULD" very rapidly increase piracy. I've asked many people in the last few months about this scenario of digital media only. I've even pitched it to them as exciting with this large library of movies that you never could scratch etc... Some people shrug and say "no diff than what I've been doing anyways with renting", some are interested, but a majority say the same thing. "Why would I do that? If I can't have the disc itself and it's not mine I can do the same thing off of b.i.t.t.o.r.r.e.n.t. for free". Basically once they no longer can OWN the disc (people are real big about saying that the property is in hand and theirs to own) there is no reason to pay for it. The big thing is that coexistance needs to happen and a balance struck otherwise the studios have traded one bad scenario (in their minds :rolleyes: , for another)

Everyone is so focused on the current technology when we discuss this.

I think storage is something thats gonna be moved out of hour homes in terms of media. Lets say bandwith increases and moving large amount of data around the net isnt a problem at all.

So you purchase a movie, and download it to your harddrive. So you want to have a backup, no problem, send the movie to an international datastorage facility. Since 5000 other users has done that aswell you basicly have uploaded the same movie. So the storage facility only needs to have one file stored and a registry of users that have access to the file. Since the cost gets splitted across thousands of users its almost cost nothing for the lone user to pay for the storage. He basicly can store huge amount of movies and music there for backup.

That's not backing up; that's accessing a secondary server (which they should have anyway). It's not as if you're going to actually upload the movie if it's the same file as others. They'll just have it already there and you'll get a license to access that server.

I think the whole point of backing up is to have something to access in case the internet connection goes down. This would still require that connection.

I strongly believe that in the absence of studio exclusivity HD DVD would have won this war by consumer demand--cheaper complete-profile players..

I am AMAZED that this "complete profile" crap keeps coming up. Go out and ask J6P if the lack of profile 2.0 players bothers him, and he'll say "profile what?"


J6P doesn't know or care about Profile 2.0. As long as it plays movies, J6P is cool. J6p doesn't want to hook his DVD player up to the internet because J6P wants to watch a movie. J6P doesn't want to run an ethernet cable from his TV to his cable router two rooms away.


And as to there being no complete players, there are: The PS3. J6P has no elitist problems about watching movies on a video game console. See the success of the PS2 as a dvd player.



There are plenty of reasons for each system, but this "no profile 2.0 players" is about as relevant to J6P and most consumers as the PS3's inability to deal with DTS-HD MA: Totally irrelevant.

However many of the renters don't realize that the destruction of physical media "WOULD" very rapidly increase piracy. I've asked many people in the last few months about this scenario of digital media only. I've even pitched it to them as exciting with this large library of movies that you never could scratch etc... Some people shrug and say "no diff than what I've been doing anyways with renting", some are interested, but a majority say the same thing. "Why would I do that? If I can't have the disc itself and it's not mine I can do the same thing off of b.i.t.t.o.r.r.e.n.t. for free". Basically once they no longer can OWN the disc (people are real big about saying that the property is in hand and theirs to own) there is no reason to pay for it. The big thing is that coexistance needs to happen and a balance struck otherwise the studios have traded one bad scenario (in their minds :rolleyes: , for another)WRONG!!! People pirate material when it is overpriced. Nobody is downloading 5 gigs of material that they can pick up for $5 in the bargain bin at Walmart. It seems plenty of honest consumers have no problem paying 99 cents a song for an I-pod download. What people have a problem with is paying $15 for a freakin CD with two good songs and 13 junk fillers or $30 for "School for Scoundrels". Once the studios stop ripping people off, people will stop ripping.

BTW... I find it really hard to believe you have 500 titles that you watch 5 and 6 times. I bet if I saw a list of your collection I could pick out a ton of titles to call BS on.

I am AMAZED that this "complete profile" crap keeps coming up. Go out and ask J6P if the lack of profile 2.0 players bothers him, and he'll say "profile what?"


J6P doesn't know or care about Profile 2.0. As long as it plays movies, J6P is cool. J6p doesn't want to hook his DVD player up to the internet because J6P wants to watch a movie. J6P doesn't want to run an ethernet cable from his TV to his cable router two rooms away.


And as to there being no complete players, there are: The PS3. J6P has no elitist problems about watching movies on a video game console. See the success of the PS2 as a dvd player.



There are plenty of reasons for each system, but this "no profile 2.0 players" is about as relevant to J6P and most consumers as the PS3's inability to deal with DTS-HD MA: Totally irrelevant.

You didn't read carefully enough. I didn't say "no profile 2.0 players" I said "cheaper 2.0 profile players".

As it happens I do own a profile 2.0 BD player, my beloved PS3. I only regret that studio exclusivity forced me to buy it.

WRONG!!! People pirate material when it is overpriced. Nobody is downloading 5 gigs of material that they can pick up for $5 in the bargain bin at Walmart. It seems plenty of honest consumers have no problem paying 99 cents a song for an I-pod download. What people have a problem with is paying $15 for a freakin CD with two good songs and 13 junk fillers or $30 for "School for Scoundrels". Once the studios stop ripping people off, people will stop ripping.

BTW... I find it really hard to believe you have 500 titles that you watch 5 and 6 times. I bet if I saw a list of your collection I could pick out a ton of titles to call BS on.

Wrong, people pirate (cool word for robbery, stealing, purloin, lift, rip off, etc.) because they're lawless thieves who have an immoral conscience that would try to justify stealing with excuses such as "overpriced" or "OMG only two goods songs, I must steal now!" Please stop defending criminals to further your own agenda.

WRONG!!! People pirate material when it is overpriced. Nobody is downloading 5 gigs of material that they can pick up for $5 in the bargain bin at Walmart. It seems plenty of honest consumers have no problem paying 99 cents a song for an I-pod download. What people have a problem with is paying $15 for a freakin CD with two good songs and 13 junk fillers or $30 for "School for Scoundrels". Once the studios stop ripping people off, people will stop ripping.

BTW... I find it really hard to believe you have 500 titles that you watch 5 and 6 times. I bet if I saw a list of your collection I could pick out a ton of titles to call BS on.

really??? on both accounts??? you know what people have said???

and wtf!!??? how do you know that I haven't watched that many titles that many times. I like movies. It's been 10 freakin years of DVD, that's a long time. I have many movies I've watched 2-3 a year consistantly since they came out. Hell I remember last year I watched Star wars with my friends and family about 6-7 times in one year.

However on one point I do agree with you. Price does kinda push the edge for a lot of people. the walmart bargain bin stuff (which actually has some great stuff in it if you know where to look..I picked up Escape from new york ultimate edition in there a while ago) isn't being pirated as much, not when you can get it for $5 or less.

Wow - I must be getting old and resistant to change.

About once a year I run a ~$1 experiment to see if its time to switch over to buying my music in a downloaded format. Apart from being trendy, I can see the advantage of buying each song instead of entire disks with only a few good songs. I research all the latest providers, "deals" offered, rules, regulations, and give it a try with a few songs. So far, every test has been a disaster! The file I download might work on my PC, but it won't work on my smartphone. Or my fancy audio server. I can't play it in my gf's car that has the cool capability to play mp3s from CD or SD cards. My work swapped out my laptop and of course the few experimental songs I downloaded stopped working! hahaha Why are people spending so much good money on collections with such terrible limitations?

And the quality is mediocre at best. Given the cost of my audio gear, and the amazing data density available on digital media today (DVDs, HDs, etc) it doesn't make any sense to over-compress music like all the distributors do. I guess it makes sense for them since it lessens the load on their servers!

So it seems to me that the only good for this junk is for ipod people. I've always been more independent than that, demanding portability from one hardware maker to another. And I can't be locked down to forever depend on the good will and business success of a single company like Apple to sell me widgets or do me the favor of allowing me to listen to my music that I purchased.

Seriously, I can't stand the exasperation and I hate getting screwed!

Hence I continue to buy all my music on good old-fashion CD. I burn my own barely-compressed MP3s for use in various devices but I have control over the master. Nobody gets to tell me what to do after Amazon gets my $12. I can move my music to ANY device without getting permission over the net, using up a finite counter, etc.

I feel the same way about my movie collection. Although I would be willing to rent a downloaded movie occasionally if the terms were convenient and cheap with HD quality. But I almost never do this because I have ~200 channels on the satellite service and it keeps me off the street.

The studios will have to pry my hardcopy music and movies out of my cold dead hands, just like my guns! That being said, I fully believe they will continue to try. They want nothing more than to end the ability of consumers to buy and own high quality masters. Have no doubt! We must be vigilant and refuse to go along with their schemes to charge more for less. Divx was a great defeat and hopefully keeps them from trying again for a few more years.

As it happens I do own a profile 2.0 BD player, my beloved PS3. I only regret that studio exclusivity forced me to buy it.No, you actually don't own a "Profile 2.0" player until Sony releases a BD Live software upgrade. :)

I personally can't wait for downloads to take over. Disks are silly.

You didn't read carefully enough. I didn't say "no profile 2.0 players" I said "cheaper 2.0 profile players".

As it happens I do own a profile 2.0 BD player, my beloved PS3. I only regret that studio exclusivity forced me to buy it.

No, I did. It doesn't change my point at all. J6P doesn't care if his video player can connect to the internet (as long as it can play movies.) If 1.1 players are $150 and 2.0 are $250, hes buying a 1.1 player.

Look how well the crippled HD-A3 sold. Its not even 1080p. People don't care.

No, I did. It doesn't change my point at all. J6P doesn't care if his video player can connect to the internet (as long as it can play movies.) If 1.1 players are $150 and 2.0 are $250, hes buying a 1.1 player.

Look how well the crippled HD-A3 sold. Its not even 1080p. People don't care.
you are assuming 2.0 stuff wont be "forced" down the road.... i dont think it will but i do think there will need to be updates released all the time as movies try to do things differently (in relation to the bd live stuff) and break current firmwares.

most people consider hd-dvd pretty far ahead of bluray in the spec arena and even they are releasing firmware updates that fix discs (ive had 4 or 5 on my xbox360 player and a few dics didnt work properly until a update). so its likely to be much worse when you have 3 or 4 spec levels of players out there.

No, I did. It doesn't change my point at all. J6P doesn't care if his video player can connect to the internet (as long as it can play movies.) If 1.1 players are $150 and 2.0 are $250, hes buying a 1.1 player.

Look how well the crippled HD-A3 sold. Its not even 1080p. People don't care.

you are so right people will leap at bargain even if in the end its not quite
the bargain it seems.if people took the time to study electronics like they
do a home or automobile a lot smarter decisions would be made.

I'd be happy with download if it were the same quality. I rent 90% of what I watch. They are pushing for higher rates all the time with 45-100Mbit being mentioned to the home. So eventually it will be pretty doable.

I'd be happy with download if it were the same quality. I rent 90% of what I watch. They are pushing for higher rates all the time with 45-100Mbit being mentioned to the home. So eventually it will be pretty doable.

my biggest question on this at what cost.

my biggest question on this at what cost.

I already get 30mbs down and 5 mbs up for $55 a month with FIOS.

Download/BD/HDDVD/Interaktivity; this might be of interest:
HD DVD vs. Blu-ray: It’s the Interactivity, Stupid! (http://www.cepro.com/article/hd_dvd_vs_blu_ray_its_the_interactivity_stupid/K294)

I would love to be able to download whatever I want to see, provided it’s as high quality or better than today’s HD formats as a sort of rental.
Then I wouldn't need to think about 1-2-3 optical disc formats.
But only if I could store the movies I want to own on a physical moveable media, preferably on something like a memory card.

Please let us move away from spinning optical discs, lasereaders and mechanical devises with moving parts, and what disc system is better than the other, when it is obvious that the difference is minuscule compare to the similarities.:(

There is always somebody out there willing to build a converter :D

Anyways I look to the music industry and what downloads have done to CD sales as proof people dont really care about owning a piece of plastic.

Think of the late 00's for movies as the late 1990s was for music. The bandwidths are going to start being delivered that will make getting a movie feasible. Just like in the late 1990s bandwidths were being delivered that made getting MP3s feasible.

I already get 30mbs down and 5 mbs up for $55 a month with FIOS.

i wish houston had that option we are stuck with comcast all over
dsl and u-verse in certain areas and none at the speed you mention.

I already get 30mbs down and 5 mbs up for $55 a month with FIOS.

Yes there are parts in the north part of the state where the infrastructure is all fiber and they offer VDSL with speeds 40-45Mbit/s for not much more than normal DSL. Eventually more places will get the option, massive amounts of fiber are getting layed.

Eric

i wish houston had that option we are stuck with comcast all over
dsl and u-verse in certain areas and none at the speed you mention.

I don't know the specifics but I hear Canyon Gate has fiber to all the houses ;)

I already get 30mbs down and 5 mbs up for $55 a month with FIOS.

Good for you. I pay over $30 for approximately 700k DSL, and that's the best I can get in my area. It will be a long while until that type of tech comes to my neck of the woods and your average person's house.

Bring on the rentals! I just picked up my 160Gb Apple TV.

Good for you. I pay over $30 for approximately 700k DSL, and that's the best I can get in my area. It will be a long while until that type of tech comes to my neck of the woods and your average person's house.

Wow,you think you have it bad. 384k SDSL over here. The cable company doesn't run down my road due to low volume of houses. The cable does run down the nearest crossroad. They told me it would cost $6500 to get cable to my house. So, basically I'm hosed. :)

Wow, I thought I had it bad. 384k SDSL over here. The cable company doesn't run down my road due to low volume of houses. The cable does run down the nearest crossroad. They told me it would cost $6500 to get cable to my house. So, basically I'm hosed. :)

and this is why i say digital download has the toughest battle to overcome
when most can not get 3mbs making 10 to 20mbs a pipe dream.

and this is why i say digital download has the toughest battle to overcome
when most can not get 3mbs making 10 to 20mbs a pipe dream.

Don't forget the quotas also. I'm at 7mb download and 1mb up for $40.00 but I have a 20g/10g limit. It's 0.07 cents the meg after that. Last month it cost me $80.00... I'm not planing to be downloading 30 to 50 gig movie soon :(

Wow, I thought I had it bad. 384k SDSL over here. The cable company doesn't run down my road due to low volume of houses. The cable does run down the nearest crossroad. They told me it would cost $6500 to get cable to my house. So, basically I'm hosed. :)

Not necessarily. Verizon FIOS is not following usual deployment as far as I can see. I have had it for about a year now, some of the areas that have gotten it are rural, others are pretty urban, there doesn't seem to be a pattern. The only rule I can see is that you need to have (or can have) analog phone lines from Verizon.

I talked to my installer, asking him about how the fiber is deployed, since I thought it was fragile; he said it is actually pretty sturdy, and that it is usually deployed by a sleeve that wraps the fiber cable around existing analog phone lines. This is pulled along the cable, wrapping it around the existing cable.

So don't give up on this, a friend of mine just got service in an area that he can only get DSL, no cable. BTW - I have 20/5 for 42.99.

6/1 for 40.00

I already get 30mbs down and 5 mbs up for $55 a month with FIOS.

You and a couple hundred thousand other people in a country of 280 million people.

Works fine for my Moto cable DVR but not the Hughes 10-250.

Art

I believe the operative word is TiVo. The Hughes model is not a TiVo it just uses TiVo software.

And if you are into hacking you can make the Hughes model such that it will communicate with your computer and you can transfer files to the computer from the Hughes unit.

I have no problem downloading content from my Series 3 TiVos with the latest software, or from my DirecTiVos (SD) with hacks installed.

Don't forget the quotas also. I'm at 7mb download and 1mb up for $40.00 but I have a 20g/10g limit. It's 0.07 cents the meg after that. Last month it cost me $80.00... I'm not planing to be downloading 30 to 50 gig movie soon :(:eek:

Wow I use that much in a day.

Good for you. I pay over $30 for approximately 700k DSL, and that's the best I can get in my area. It will be a long while until that type of tech comes to my neck of the woods and your average person's house.

The fast speeds are common in my area. 11 years ago I had 5mbs down/1mbs ups for $16 amonth. Although I was really ahead of the curve back then. I had been online for two years in 1997 and most people had no idea what you meant when you said Internet, and those that did mostly connected with dialup. While I had my fast cable connection for that time period.

I mean, some of the reasons not to support download services are obvious.

Let's assume that Gen 3 of Xbox comes with a service that lets people download games and movies for rental or owning. Then let's further assume that Gen 4 Playstation comes with a service that lets people download games, movies and music for both rental and owning rights. This would certainly make Microsoft's console look bad and customers would flock around the PS4 rather than the Xbox III console. Now what if at the same time, Nintendo comes out with Gen 2 Wii that not only delivers a games-movies-music download service but on top of that, the Wii 2.0 isn't even a console its a component (e.g. graphics card) within a computer such as an HP laptop, Dell desktop or iMac :eek:. The Wii 2.0 would thus not only look better than any other console, but it would also reach many more customers than Microsoft and Sony, since more people have a need for laptops and desktops than do for consoles.

So you see that it's irrelevant what customers think about download quality today since neither Microsoft, Sony nor Nintendo want to look bad compared to each other, and they don't want to risk losing customers because their products and services are incomplete in the eyes of the customer. These three console makers will push for downloadable games, movies and music, since if they don't they might get pushed out of the loop.



(5) QUALITY DOES MATTER. Until there are Internet connections which can stream 40mbps to every home on the planet, the quality of HDM on optical discs will remain superior to anything you can download legally. Given the advantages of optical media laid out in points (1)-(4), why would your intentionally choose lower quality and severe restrictions on the content that you have legally purchased? It just doesn't make sense.

Would I rather pay $1 for "Meet the Spartans" in 480x320 and 2.0 audio, than pay $4 for the same movie in 1920x1080 and 7.1 audio :rolleyes: ?

The fast speeds are common in my area. 11 years ago I had 5mbs down/1mbs ups for $16 amonth. Although I was really ahead of the curve back then. I had been online for two years in 1997 and most people had no idea what you meant when you said Internet, and those that did mostly connected with dialup. While I had my fast cable connection for that time period.

I was certainly aware and had been on the internet since 1993. Drive on over to the Isle of Kent across the wonderful Bay Bridge and see what cable internet costs. And it just got up and running in my neighborhood less than two years ago.

The fast speeds are common in my area. 11 years ago I had 5mbs down/1mbs ups for $16 amonth. Although I was really ahead of the curve back then. I had been online for two years in 1997 and most people had no idea what you meant when you said Internet, and those that did mostly connected with dialup. While I had my fast cable connection for that time period.

Well unfortunately we can't fit 280 million Americans all in your area. You are not the world. So your experiences are in no way representative of the other 280 million people in this country.

For the record, I'm connected to a university network from a student apartment which can saturate the 100mbps Ethernet connection if I try hard enough, as it's a part of the Internet2 project. 100mbps up/100mbps down. :rolleyes:

i guess if someone wanted to know what the average speed people have a poll could
be started .but i bet without doing that a lot are already to slow to make use of downloading a movie in hd.

Cost for a download service.

$480 a year for reliable high speed internet.
$300 for the box.
$3-4 per rental, $10 to buy.

Cost for Blu-ray
Blu-ray
$300 for a player
$3-4 per rental, $15-20 to buy.

I guess I'll choose the cheaper, higher quality option.

Cost for a download service.

$480 a year for reliable high speed internet.
$300 for the box.
$3-4 per rental, $10 to buy.

Cost for Blu-ray
Blu-ray
$300 for a player
$3-4 per rental, $15-20 to buy.

I guess I'll choose the cheaper, higher quality option.

Hey now, be fair. I like physical media too, but you get a lot more for that money you spend on internet access. Just try doing without it for a month; you'll come crawling back. :)

(Unless you meant you wouldn't pay for high speed access if not to download movies.)

I already have internet access, so nothing extra there. I already have an Apple TV for Itunes, photos and home movie streaming -- so that is nothing extra for me. I already have NetFlix so I'll have fresh rental material most of the time. I also own over 500 movies, about 100 in HDM -- so I'l still have stuff to watch while waiting for Netflix deliverables. However, I just know there there will be friends over and we get talking about movies and we wanna watch something in HD from the iTunes Store. Maybe I download an HD download once a month. I don't think that is going to break the bank.

I don't understand why people compare the cost to rent versus buy as if people only do one of the other based on which is cheaper. The real factors are cost, convenience, flexibility and quality.

thank you