News, info, and opinion by Mac users, for Mac users.

January 18, 2008

itunes

MW08: iTunes HD is here…if you have $230

Posted Jan. 18, ’08, 3:29 PM PT by Aaron Freedman
Category | iTunes

Overview Hd20080114 When Randy Newman stepped off stage and the Steve Jobs keynote ended on Tuesday, I went through three stages. The first was puzzlement at the missing of a “One More Thing…” The next was anger at Apple for not giving me the traditional cherry on top of the Stevenote. The third was me trying to think of what I most wanted to spend my money on from the series of product announcements. My answer was not the MacBook Air, as it was for many, nor was it the new Apple TV. Instead, it was the seemingly minor ability to rent movies from iTunes. Why was this my favorite Macworld announcement? A great deal was because I could finally rent movies online and transfer them to my iPod, but a lot was also due to the ability to rent movies in HD. But, later that day, I discovered that the HD rentals were only on the new Apple TV.

What? Why on Earth would Apple put a highly desired and customer-attracting feature on a $200+ device? But seriously, this was a huge disappointment for me, and I imagine countless others. Even though it doesn’t seem like a big deal, HD on iTunes is a very important feature. Every Apple display, from the MacBook and MacBook Air’s 13.3” to the massive 30” Cinema Display, can fit 720p content. Watching 480p video (which is currently what’s available from iTunes) in fullscreen on any one of these displays looks significantly worse than HD. And, with the ability to hook up Macs to huge HDTVs, higher video quality makes even more of a difference. There’s also the benefit of surround sound, which is great for users that have a complete home theater set-up for their Mac.

In addition, HD on iTunes offers an alternative for people who don’t want to pay for an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player, but still want to get the latest movies in HD quality. But, making potential users pay for an Apple TV defeats the purpose. Why pay $230 for a box that can only play DRM content from iTunes when I can get an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player for the same price or less?

The point is, Apple is not only pissing off existing iTunes users, but also cutting out a whole market of potential iTunes users. If Apple only just put HD rentals in iTunes in addition to the Apple TV, everyone, whether it be videophiles or spendthrifts, could be just a little happier.


22 Comments

Paul said:

I think the reason for this is because Macs don't support HDCP (High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection) so HDCP "protected" content can't even be played on Macs - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDCP#Uses

January 18, 2008 3:45 PM
Geoff Green said:

Something tells me that this restriction was not Apple's call.

As to your question "Why pay $230 for a box that can only play DRM content from iTunes when I can get an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player for the same price or less?" Umm, maybe people who also want to be able to play their music, recent TV shows, photos, YouTube, and other content -- much of which does NOT have DRM -- from their computer on their TV. You might ask why people would get an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player when it can't do all that Apple TV can. They are different products, aimed at different markets.

January 18, 2008 4:04 PM
jsk said:

One reason and one reason only: the only device that Apple makes that has content controller compatible hardware copy protection (for the video signal) is the AppleTV.

Time to welcome your new masters, the MPAA.

Kinda sad considering my 2003 era 15" Al PowerBook G4 can play 720p movies (without stuttering if it's the only thing happening) just fine.

January 18, 2008 4:11 PM
Dave-O said:

You really don't know haw the game is played. The digital out on the Apple TV is HDMI, it has copy protection built in. The DVI output on any Mac is not so encumbered. That may sound good to you and me, but movie studios don't see it that way.

Didn't anyone ever tell you not to buy those Blu-ray players that fell off a truck?

January 18, 2008 4:24 PM
fletcher Author Profile Page said:

I've seen a disconnect between the perception of monitor resolution and the reality.

Most home users have been experiencing HD size screens on the desktop for well over a decade. 1080p screens are only moderately wider than the 1024x768 monitors that were popular a few years back.

And, of course, in the last couple years both desktop and laptop monitors have far exceeded the necessary resolution for HD playback.

It does seem ridiculous that Apple is touting HD movie trailers at their QuickTime web site, but not making similar quality content available for pay.

January 18, 2008 4:50 PM
Dom said:

Has MacUser become the Apple fanboy whining site? First, there's the uninformed whining over having to actually pay for software on your computing device (i.e. iPod touch).

And now there's this whining over Apple actually expecting you buy their new device.

"Yes, and I want Steve Jobs to personally make my espresso every morning!" *stamps foot*

"What? Why on Earth would Apple put a highly desired and customer-attracting feature on a $200+ device?"

Perhaps so they can sell lots and lots of those $200 devices.

January 18, 2008 6:26 PM
MacJavaFan said:

Hey Aaron,

Did you do any research or query any Apple reps to ask about the HD content via iTunes? Maybe it was limited to the AppleTV because the studios required a bit of DRM. I'm not sure if any of the Apple Computer support HDCP - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDCP.

Just maybe...

January 18, 2008 6:49 PM
Charles said:

See http://daringfireball.net/2008/01/itunes_movie_rental_tos for a pretty good guess as to why Apple can't provide HD-quality content on a device without an HDMI cable.

January 18, 2008 7:03 PM
Anonymous said:

I think that everyone here has covered the technical reasons why but another question would be, why would you want to watch a movie on your Mac? I can understand watching the movie on your iPod and for which the SD rental would be fine but if I want to watch TV or movies then I'm going to do it on my television. I confess that I did use my PC monitor as a TV when I got one at university with a DVD drive but that was only because that was the cheapest way to get a DVD player. Do we think there is much of a market for watching TV on a Mac?

January 19, 2008 12:25 AM
David said:

"Why pay $230 for a box that can only play DRM content from iTunes when I can get an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player for the same price or less?"

Of course, a HD-DVD or Blu-ray player can only play content on a HD-DVD or Blu-ray disc. And if one format (oh, let's say HD-DVD) falls by the wayside, then there's no alternative other than to buy a different player. The Apple TV, being digital based, allows for updates to change functionality, e.g. purchasing movies on your computer and transferring them to your Apple TV - not so hot. Let's try renting movies straight from the Apple TV

January 19, 2008 12:34 AM
Dood said:

how school-boy

January 19, 2008 1:14 AM
TekSavvy said:

I honestly think that there was no mention of "One More Thing" from El Jobso because it was supposed to be the MacBook Air and that surprise was leaked hours before the event. What a shame!!! He was surely disappointed.

January 19, 2008 1:28 AM
Anton said:

You are jumping into needless conclusions by blaming Apple for this decision. Have you considered the most likely reason: Apple is not allowed to distribute DRM-protected HD content to computers and iPods (through computers) since the DRM might be easily cracked? Apple TV is a controlled environment and as such perfect in the eyes of the evil movie corporations.

January 19, 2008 5:40 AM
Goobimama said:

Yup. A very poorly researched post, that too days after the announcement. It's all over the net that HDCP is the reason why AppleTV is the only one to play HD content.

Still, Apple does get a little blame for this. Why oh why aren't they making their macs HDCP enabled? It should not even cost much to implement it. They obviously knew about this way back so they could have made their latest iMac and Mac Pro HD enabled to say the least.

January 19, 2008 6:41 AM
Anonymous said:

Where can you get a blue Ray player for less than $200? No such thing! The cheapest player now is the Sony Playstation at $500.00! HD IS DEAD, so don't even bother unless you want a useless museum piece in your house.

January 19, 2008 7:21 AM
Tony said:

Another reason HD rentals don't make much sense in iTunes at the moment is because people are expecting to put these things on their iPhones & iPods, which do not support HD video. The devices can't handle it, so people would get confused when they rent HD and it won't transfer. Apple's just trying to keep it simple... I'm surprised Apple TV even got HD. That was a pleasant surprise.

January 19, 2008 7:33 AM
Adam said:

In my opinion. There is NO need to put HD content on little screens, I doubt very much that anyone without a trained eye would even see a difference. Higher resoultion is needed to make a big screen look good so the Apple TV works great for me.

January 19, 2008 8:41 AM
PT said:

I don't think it's the $230 that the consumer is most concerned with. It's the format. It's HD-DVD, Blu-ray or iTunes because whichever one we get won't work with any other.

January 19, 2008 11:08 AM
A;gr said:

Adam, Don't assume that your position is everyones. My 24" screen is bigger then my TV, so naturally it is my preferred screen for watching movies. Because my seat is placed for using the computer, the difference between HD and iTunes' 360p is obvious. (iTunes is only 480p for 4:3 programs - check the get info box.)

While it is true that some people won't see a difference between 360p and 720p, that applies just as well to any screen. So taken to it's logical conclusion, your position would mean that there would never be any need for HDTV.

January 20, 2008 11:55 AM
bigphaty said:

I'm with Aaron (and apparently i'm the only one).

I've got my iMac going through my receiver into a 46" Sony LCD tv. I like it that way, and i don't want Apple TV, because then i couldn't do half the things i can do now. I have access to all my iTunes content (like i would with Apple TV), but i also have access to everything else on my Mac. In fact, this setup is now our primary home computer, and i've been very happy with it.

All in all, i went from an excited "Finally!!" response to "well, $#!t." The rest of the keynote was quite underwhelming, and this part was a downright disappointment. Hopefully, someone will come out with a USB to HDMI cable or something to give us Mac users an option.

This is just my ignorant opinion, but i can't see the Apple TV business model being based on selling Apple TV's. At the Apple TV price point, they must have pretty slim margins. When you consider that they have a computer, harddrive, wi-fi, high def TV and surround sound components, consider the support costs, returns, managing a separate manufacturing line, they must be losing money. I don't think they have the economies of scale working for them. (Otherwise, Steve would have started the keynote with a graph of how many millions of them were sold)

On top of that, people replace their home entertainment components much less frequently than they do something like an iPod. I've had 4 iPods in the time i've had one dvd player. And each iPod was more expensive than the dvd player! In my humble opinion, they needed to stick a dvd player in the Apple TV from the beginning, and stop trying to force the consumer to do it their way. Let the consumer have what is convenient and useful to them, and if downloading movies to the Apple TV is really easier and better, then people would naturally adopt it. I believe they would have sold a lot more Apple TV's that way, and had a much higher market penetration at the time of the rental announcement, which in turn would have given them a big snowball effect in the adoption of their rental store.

I'd be curious to see the numbers on what percentage of Mac owners own an Apple TV. It can't be many of them. Either way, it would be in Apple's interest to get more people to rent the higher priced HD movies. I disagree with the point that their efforts are only to sell more Apple TV's. That would be short-sighted on their part; the recurring revenue of the rentals outweighs anything they would make on the hardware.

On a tangental note, is there a site or blog of people who are hooking their Macs directly to their TV's? I've had a hard time finding any really knowledgeable input on things like resolution downgrading in receivers, etc.

January 20, 2008 12:48 PM
Moloch said:

I was going to rent some iTunes movies today, until I found out I could not get HD movies on my Mac.

January 21, 2008 1:41 PM
Eric said:

People still rent movies? I didn't know that.

February 11, 2008 10:59 PM

Leave a comment

 



Visit other IDG sites: