Movie downloads dead before they start!

[toolman46and2]

I knew this was comming http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/to...rnet-fees.aspx

I am not happy with this, if these HD download movies had not come about this would have not been an issue. I spend a lot of time on the net, I am sure that I consume 5-7 gb of usage a month, so even though I WILL not be downloading movies, I still may fall under this.

[ryoohki]

Originally Posted by toolman46and2

I knew this was comming http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/to...rnet-fees.aspx

I am not happy with this, if these HD download movies had not come about this would have not been an issue. I spend a lot of time on the net, I am sure that I consume 5-7 gb of usage a month, so even though I WILL not be downloading movies, I still may fall under this.

Both Videotron and Sympatico, the 2 biggest Internet Provider in QC did the exact same thing last year.

We pay 59.99$ per month, before last year, we had Unlimited Bandwitdh. Now we are a 100gig TOTAL MAX per month.

We are 3 people who use the internet here, nobody download Movies on torrent... i have a DENON 3808 with Internet Radio.. From Jan 6 to Jan 18 (i'am metering my consomption of bandwitdh) i used 7gig up/down ALONE now it's 2 week.. so it will be about 18 gigs. I don't do anything awful, my internet Radio isn't calculated on that and my 2 other people are getting crap load of Email with Video .. so.. 100gig is pretty tight for 'NORMAL OP'. I don't have a console so i don't play online right now..

[JToddler]

ZDNet: HD Downloads Not Really HD

http://www.tvpredictions.com/zdnet011808.htm

[ranma]

And follow ups:
Here’s what fake HD video looks like
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=962

[toolman46and2]

This movie downloading thing just does not make sense. I cant imagine the storage space it would take to keep 300-400 movies. Then figure double that for backup, not backing stuff up is playing with fire! Quick math suggests 18 Terrabytes to store and backup a 350 movie collection.

[Prometheus59650]

On top of that, you get the selection THEY decide you get. Even if you solve the bandwidth and the storage issues (petabytes, anyone?) It's not going to work until someone can get almost anything they want on the fly.

Until I can go immediately from Citizen Kane to CSI: season 4, ep 3, to MASH, S9, ep 15 and COMPLETELY own it for a flat rate, it'll be a nische market. Period.

[matthewrounds]

Originally Posted by ryoohki

From Jan 6 to Jan 18 (i'am metering my consomption of bandwitdh) i used 7gig up/down ALONE now it's 2 week.. so it will be about 18 gigs. I don't do anything awful, my internet Radio isn't ca.

Question: How do you monitor your up/down load? I have the same restriction with Comcast <90GB a month. I download a lot of stuff from the PSN and many times I do it on two consoles so if I ever downloaded movies (I probably never will) I will for sure go over this limit. Nice post OP.

[Carmien]

My concern with HD downloads - the quality of audio. You'll (hopefully) get 1080p but I bet audio will be compromised hardcore. Blu will get me HDMA or TrueHD for lossless AQ.

In the end, demand will win the day. You've got ALOT of people out there without the bandwidth. Even with 4G technology (WiMax or whatever format wins) you'll see a potential of 5 years before the carriers can roll out the network and a few more years before adoption hits. Until then, fibre to the home is only an option for major metropolis centres. And even then, the higher bandwidth users will still be paying a premium, since the fibre from the local node to the data centre, and consumption of backbone will still take network resources. In short, if you want to take up pipe you'll pay for it. And that's assuming you're in an area that a telco has chosen to lay Fibre to the Home down for. If not, you're at cat5 or coax from the node to the house. And from a phone line perspective, the Telco still needs to make a significant investment to go from ADSL 2+ upward. I suspect Telcos running an ADSL type roadmap will be contemplating fibre to the home as the next big jump. That'll cap at 100Mbps but will be something that evolves on a region by region basis, assuming you're in a market that shows promise. And don't forget, those same telcos will be slicing that 100Mbps up - 20MB for each HDTV channel, phone, and then Internet.

And as has been pointed out, data storage for a half-decent collection will be heinous. Sure, storage is getting cheaper, but the idea that the average home will make the investment in storage + have the bandwidth to download is low odds. The idea of an on-line library only compounds the odds since that'll cost bandwidth just to access your library. And it's not just HDD size to contend with - what about corruption of data, and backup costs. Any organization in technology knows that the cost of HDD is insignificant against costs to support and manage that data. Move into TBs and you're talking much more than the $/GB HDD costs you pay for at the counter.

I think the noise around HD downloads is a fairly white right now. It's a new channel and the buzz-masters would love to drive news about it. None of the press I've seen is considering some of the realities. But that's hardly surprising. The majority of consumers are not really aware of many of the realities, which I believe will translate into the majority of consumers willing to take HD downloads as something that is significantly inferior in quality.

What I think is happening - potential HD download channels (such as Apple) would love to continue the distraction of a perceived format (vector) war. With blu taking the win sooner than expected the HD download camp has to move sooner than they would have liked. Funny how the timing of the upgrade to apple TV came a week after the Warner jump. MacWorld was slated but the cynic in me is not convinced that item HAD to be on the agenda before the shift in momentum for Blu.

If I were a cynic - I'd say they've accelerated their roadmap and are trying to continue confusion in the market. The thing is, this move is TOO aggressive. You won't get any realistic results for a minimum of 3-5 years. Studios may buy into it because they've got nothing to lose. They produce the file for the physical media and now have Apple downloads to acquire additional revenue (a new channel that can only get profit from that's unlikely to cannibalize their existing media channels). But this is not the same model as downloading a music track. The scales are hugely different.

I put this down to spin-masters trying to force a position. Ignore the hype.

Me, I think I'm going to be with physical media for some time. AND, I 'll likely have the fibre to the home before long too.

[bb::bd]

Those with a vested interest in HD downloading via the internet overestimated HD-DVDs ability to hold off the Blu-ray format. They (MS, Apple, and I don't know who else) needed this badly because the infrastructure is not in place for their chosen delivery method. They absolutely do NOT want HD to become synonymous with blu-ray! They do NOT want HD defined as high bit rate 1080P video and lossless audio.

And they will now take a page from the MS playbook and announce vaporware (vaporvideo) to freeze blu-ray in its tracks in an attempt to muddy the format playing field. Then they can buy time and offer low resolution, low bit rate, youtube movies. And believe me, they will play fast and loose with what High Definition is. J6P doesn't think about this stuff.

And you won't be collecting or archiving these movies either, because you will own nothing. After all the fun I've seen them having with respect to downloaded music and DRM, I hope their heads explode trying to protect this content, which I believe they value much more than music.

I can already get crappy looking HD content over my craptastic cable. And the more people that see Blu-ray content on a native 1080P output device, the less likely they will be to buy low res BS that will expire itself.

Thats my take. And I think they are too late. Most enthusiasts are laughing about this whole internet download idea.

[Blubaru]

Thankfully I get my internet via 3G. It may not be as fast as other services but at least I have unlimited usage.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by bb::bd

Those with a vested interest in HD downloading via the internet overestimated HD-DVDs ability to hold off the Blu-ray format. They (MS, Apple, and I don't know who else) needed this badly because the infrastructure is not in place for their chosen delivery method. They absolutely do NOT want HD to become synonymous with blu-ray! They do NOT want HD defined as high bit rate 1080P video and lossless audio.

And they will now take a page from the MS playbook and announce vaporware (vaporvideo) to freeze blu-ray in its tracks in an attempt to muddy the format playing field. Then they can buy time and offer low resolution, low bit rate, youtube movies. And believe me, they will play fast and loose with what High Definition is. J6P doesn't think about this stuff.

And you won't be collecting or archiving these movies either, because you will own nothing. After all the fun I've seen them having with respect to downloaded music and DRM, I hope their heads explode trying to protect this content, which I believe they value much more than music.

I can already get crappy looking HD content over my craptastic cable. And the more people that see Blu-ray content on a native 1080P output device, the less likely they will be to buy low res BS that will expire itself.

Thats my take. And I think they are too late. Most enthusiasts are laughing about this whole internet download idea.

Excellently put. Those are my exact feelings as to this situation - the whole concept of HD downloads seems doomed to fail from the start given all these restrictions.

[LynxFX]

Originally Posted by ranma

And follow ups:
Here’s what fake HD video looks like
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=962

I'm really impressed that zdnet is actually making an effort to expose digital 'HD' downloads for what they really are.

[Blu-Ray Buckeye]

Originally Posted by JToddler

ZDNet: HD Downloads Not Really HD

http://www.tvpredictions.com/zdnet011808.htm

It's funny. Didn't all of us, who got into blu-ray because we demand the best quality, already know this? It's warms my heart to see the spin and lies debunked before it even begins.