-
Website
http://www.scobleizer.com/ -
Original page
http://scobleizer.com/2006/09/13/why-im-disappointed-with-zune-and-latest-ipods/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
I am shooting everything in HD, and formatting it that way. I format the videos for iTunes to 320 x180, effectively letterboxing it.
if you want to see widescreen video on a portable device, there's only one choice: the Sony Playstation Portable.
Besides its gaming core, it's the best portable device so far on which I have watched a movie. That screen is fantastic!
You really should get one and make your own mind. You will not put it out of your hands. Promised.
(Kidding!)
Set the model, work the licenses/rights, push the technology along.
Improvements will come.
- wait for the iTV to come out. Q1 of 2007, thats nearly half a year ... perhaps they'll get higher resolution or widescreen or both then. For now the movies are for iPods and perhaps some iMac users ... so: 4:3 and low res.
- I guess it sucks to download a full length movie in HDTV ... apple has to wait for even broader broadband to come ...
Most of the people bitching about HD are the same people who still claim Apple is stupid and failing for having 128K music (despite having sold more than a billion).
The adoption of HDTVs is still limited. Even as it does increase the average consumer doesn't care about the differences. And they do not want to undergo the task of downloading HGD content (people are complaining about the download time of this content).
Apple will set the market (by doing it well after early starters), make it a success, and improve the service when the technology and consumers are both there. Right now, neither the consumer or the technology is there.
2 years from now you will be still pointing to small anecdotal claims about how important and successful HDTV is, and the rest of the market will be unimpressed or take it for granted... meanwhile they'll still wonder what you were raving about with Tablets.
I am not sure that the small screen or other quality-related issues matter to customers at the start of a disruptive innovation. Most disruptive innovations suffer tremendous deficiencies early on which causes competitors to underestimate the disruptive product's strengths.
*Blackberry had no phone or SMS capabilities when it launched
*iPod was Mac only when it launched
*iPod had few record company agreements when it launched
*Mac had little software when it launched
*ING direct has no bank branches
*Swatch watches were made of cheap plastic
But in each case, the disruptor had some unique quality that was so highly valued it overcame the product limitations.
As the broadcast industry and device companies ponder their video strategy, they may consider what some of iPod/iTune's attributes are, in the eyes of consumers and in the business model:
* Simple: Single-function device; Not a PC/phone/swiss-army knife etc
* Easy to use
* Users pay for content
* Apple had nothing to lose and the most to gain by cannabilizing the music business.
More details:
http://www.ondisruption.com/my_weblog/2006/09/d...
TiVo announced their Series 3. 300 hours of SD. 32 hours of HD. Big difference.
HDTV is here today. The devices are going into homes (a side effect of the real estate boom over the last few years has been the upgrade of appliances including widescreen, HD ready TVs). Broadcast HDTV is available from the networks. The cable companies all have HD channels and the triple play packages are all HD. The content producers - particularly sports which are a huge business - are pushing HD content.
And, yes, as noted, the BitTorrent Channels seem to be the HD stuff as well.
The model of getting that distributed point to point, sized on handhelds, and for the right dollars still needs time.
Remember, yesterday was day 1.
What's ironic is that Steve Jobs own presentation yesterday is available in widescreen (albeit not HD) but you can't watch that widescreen video on your iPod in the aspect ratio it was filmed at.
It just gives Steve Jobs something to announce next year. Heheh.
What? I never said that HD is not widescreen. I said throwing around the two terms as if they are the same is not. What do you want: widescreen or HD? Which of the two qualities (high resolution or aspect ratio) are you whining about.
"Every" major show is a bit suspect. You only name three of the highest budgeted shows ever. As I said, I'm willing to allow about 10% of the content is available in HD.
"What’s ironic is that Steve Jobs own presentation yesterday is available in widescreen (albeit not HD) but you can’t watch that widescreen video on your iPod in the aspect ratio it was filmed at."
Wrong! As I said, you don't know what you are talking about. I can watch widescreen video on my iPod in the aspect ratio it was filmed at. The screen is not in that aspect ratio. Just as any standard tv can also view widescreen/letterbox movies.
Again, you are wrong to proclaim this a major problem. And, two, you have little idea what you are talking about.
But in industry terms, HD is meant for Home Theatre and HD content is saved for BluRay and HD-DVD next gen. formats. Torrents are all about compressional formats, and that's not ever going to mainstream, not legally or economically.
Rocketbloom over LOST? Nuts? That's near clinically insane. ;) LOST Season 3, so so far away, sigh. But 4400 upped for a 4th, and Battlestar and Veronica Mars beating down on Oct. and a new Season of Rome and Kyle XY hitting, with Prison Break on fire, heading towards Utah. And much much more. :)
Goebbels: >Which of the two qualities (high resolution or aspect ratio) are you whining about.
In this post? Aspect ratio.
In other posts where I've complained about the resolution of Apple's screens on laptops (they can't display HD pixel-for-pixel like some of Dell's screens can, for instance)? HD.
>>Wrong! As I said, you don’t know what you are talking about. I can watch widescreen video on my iPod in the aspect ratio it was filmed at.
Obviously we have a failure to communicate here. My bad.
I want to watch a widescreen movie (like Steve Jobs' keynote) WITHOUT letterboxing! See the Archos or the Sony Play Station portable for an example (thanks Chris again).
Yeah, I was trying to make sense of that too...someone hand me the Scoble to English dictionary. ;)
The PSP has a beautiful 16:9 screen and it's also a great mobile web appliance. Unfortunately it's very picky about video formats (although the latest firmware improves that) and it won't play videos purchased in iTunes Music Store. Sony's new MYLO (is that what they call it?) looks like it's going to be interesting. It can play movies & do most of what a PSP does except play games plus it has a keyboard, which will make it even better for web browsing.
Then, you'd be accurate. Your point would still be stupid, but at least you'd have a modicum of accuracy and, hence, maybe some credibility would follow.
Of course, then the post would just be about those "black strips", and you'd find some that agree and plenty that disagree.
It's rather silly. My mom actually believes the same silly thing as you do. She will actually only rent panned-and-scanned movies because she thinks she can't and/or shouldn't watch widescreen on a standard TV, even if the TV screen is 42+ inches.
These concepts are all interlaced. I understand you're trying to be pedantic and perfect in your messaging. But, the point is there. And, if it's not, most of my readers read my comments and can see your correction.
something like $600/700 for a dirt cheap one. probably not highest resolution at that price.
So for a decent HDTV, it's a grand or more.
Yeah, HD is just going to FLOOD the non-geek homeland at that price point. Um..no, no it isn't.
But you just keep thinking that your geek bubble is indicative of most of the country.
Remember Robert, you are a "edge case" :p
(I am baffled by Microsoft's Zune though-you'd think they would realize they can't just match the iPod, they have to go several steps beyond it...and wifi and "bigger screen" isn't going to cause the buzz they need. Notice too how Jobs lowball priced the 30G iPod 2 days before the Zune launch-he must be paying SOME attention :P )
The only real lesson: Spend Microsoft's money like a richie vapidly-vain drunk on a Platinum Card Strip Club tour...
Get a blank check from Microsoft. Insert billions, buy way into the hip club, woo and strong-arm content developers with pictures of Ben Franklin, jazz up a small army of blue-eyed 'Village of the Damned' Evangelists and MVPs, hold Mobius-like junkets all the live long day, suck-face with bloggers that will spill gallons of text for free product, make smack talk the order of the day, 'iPod as Pong', spin doctor and pitch yourself as David, when you are really just a brain-dead Goliath, with no success in the CE space, that doesn't deal in serious debt. Tout the Wifi and Collaborationish features...hand them out like candy to A-List celebrities...more junkets, parties, viral marketing spurts (with creepy cartoon figures), more parties, start and fund some existing Web site fan-bases, hand out MVPs to others, and yet more parties. Lather, rinse, repeat. Did I mention, party?
It's always the same prescription, no matter who the front-man is, Bozo the Clown could follow that recipe.
But, let's go over it again, shall we? My $4,000 TV comes out to about $120 a month. You think people actually buy these things? Nah, Best Buy signs you up for credit on the spot.
That comes to $120 a month.
So, let's say you have a family of four. And you go to a movie theater. In Montana movies cost $7. In New York, they are $10 to $12. So, that's $28 in tickets (actually $26 cause kids are $6). Add four hot dogs. $4x4=$16. Four Cokes. $4x4=$16. And two bags of popcorn: $3.50x2=$7. That's $65.
So, go to movies twice a month and you can have an HDTV too!
And as prices come down it pulls in a lot more people (not just geeks, either, Best Buy is seeing strong sales at its oldest stores that aren't in Silicon Valley).
Here's a quote from an article about Best Buy in Bloomberg at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103...
``Advanced TVs continue to grow triple digits and that's the third quarter in a row,'' said Mlynek. ``I think that'll be reassuring to investors.''
So, you're saying that it's a smart business move to wait until someone else does it first (Archos) and proves there's a market before acting?
Excellent! Now we can start the stories about "Apple is the new Microsoft." And they won't be complimentary, let me tell you.
Steve Jobs didn't get to where he was by waiting for the market to be ready. He got to where he is by catering to edge cases like, yes, me.
Apple needs only to add incremental improvements to iPod to continue to dominate the market for now.
Being five years late, Microsoft must disrupt the market to be successful.
Of all the attributes of Zune, the wireless song-sharing function is the only possible game-changer. If you watch what people do, they seem to like to share digital things: pictures, emails and songs.
How easily the Zune (and copyright restrictions) allow for sharing will determine whether it is a standout product or an iPod clone.
More:
http://www.ondisruption.com/my_weblog/2006/09/m...
It's also a pity those stupid memory stick pro duo cards are so proprietary and expensive. But, I still prefer to use a PSP for watching movies than any portable DVD player out there.
A more interesting unit is the Cowan A2. It only has a 30 GB 1.8" hard drive, but, it has a similar screen to the PSP. If only it could transfer images from my digital camera a lot faster and had a larger hard drive, it would be the perfect AVI playing and digital image display/storage device for me.
Has anyone else here actually bought a movie and tried it out?
Erik
>>How easily the Zune (and copyright restrictions) allow for sharing will determine whether it is a standout product or an iPod clone.
I agree there and with your other points.
Christopher,
Yeah, my hopes aren't very high for Microsoft getting much market share here. To tell the truth, I'm probably going to buy an iPod. Why? Because Apple has the best choice of podcasts of any of these things and because my son has spent about $400 on iTunes music and I wanna remain compatible with that investment.
Looks like this time around, Apple's content with being one of the crowd, instead of leading from out in front.
And Apple, Ebay and many more could have earned millions.
Anyway, the HDTV in Europe is not ready yet, although Germany had the world championships and flat screens were promoted like crazy, a lot people did not realize that there might be also a HDTV receiver nessary to receiver it's content. A lot are still plugging in there old VHS Recorders to the new screen.
It take another year or so to get HDTV to the masses. And again another year until those also by an Ipod.
You (and most of the guys here arround including me ;-)) are ahead schedule... hehehehe
Although I do not even have a TV because the content is so bad, I do prefer my selected shows from the Internet and a 19" TFT (widescreen). ;)
Seriously though, don't you already see that in Apple's other offerings? The entire switch to Intel used the same ID for every platform. The new Nano is actually a play on the old (very successful) Mini. Only the Shuffle is a completely new design. Apple may indeed be changing their approach.
When I lived in Seattle I had a large number of good channels on HD (ABC, CBS, NBC, even PBS was all in HD). But, I just moved down to Half Moon Bay and Comcast hasn't yet brought in HD, so I have to get satellite.
I agree that it sucks when a show is in 4:3, by the way. I find it very hard to watch.
Why are you continuing to tell me to do silly things (that I've already done)? I know what you are saying, disagree with, and am trying to correct you. Yes, you are saying: viewing windows and screens should match the aspect ratio, and (more significantly), despite a variety of aspect ratios for our current media offerings, that aspect ratio should be 16:9. (Of course, since you think every viewing area should now be 16:9, you are not saying and/or contradicting that the point that the viewing area should match the content with respect to aspect ratio.
"These concepts are all interlaced."
Yes, and I disagree with you on most or believe you are wrong on most of the issues. Viewing area aspect ratio does not have to match content ratio. (I'd much more simply prefer higher pixel densities to match a broad range of resolutions no matter the aspect ratio.
Secondly, I believe 4:3 is still dominant over 16:9.
I believe HD is not mainstream enough yet and it's not worth pursuing in either a mainstream or a developing market. (And the markets we are talking about are best viewed as both, strategically.)
I believe other factors like portability, cost, internet connection speeds, storage capacities, and simple acceptance weigh heavily against the directions that you suggest.
Another concept interlaced in our dialogue is that you are misinformed, trying to pass yourself as the vanguard or possibly knowledgeable about the market, and I am demonstrating the concept that you should be mocked as a fraud who is wrong.
"But, the point is there."
Yes, I know. I was aware of it before you could clearly express it in your convoluted, misspoken, misinformed manner. I said I disagree with it, and I'm still saying it. I'm also saying you are wrong.
"I understand you’re trying to be pedantic and perfect in your messaging."
I thought I was trying to educate you to speak about these topics correctly so you could be comprehensible to your audience.
"And, if it’s not, most of my readers read my comments and can see your correction."
Again, you insist that you enjoy wallowing in your own ignorance and do not want to improve your knowledge. Fine. You don't have to keep telling me. I think it's pretty pathetic that you will criticize Apple for not jumping on your bad ideas at the same time you insist that you should remain ignorant and incoherent.
"but how did Apple get to this position (you too John)? By always waiting for the market to show up before trying something? Really? Was the market really ready for a GUI computer in 1984? A Laser Printer in 1985? A Newton in 2004?"
Are you suggesting that all of these are successes of just being first? Is that what you are reducing it too? There are numerous "interlaced" factors in each of those success as well, none of them concerned allowing you to be happy with your multi-thousand dollar tv and camera and nonexistent portable device.
"So, you’re saying that it’s a smart business move to wait until someone else does it first (Archos) and proves there’s a market before acting?"
No, we are saying your simplistic notion that jumping ahead with respect to one aspect (aspect ratio) and maybe another (HD) are critical and pivotal and timely right now for Apple (or any other company but for some reason (hmm... hit-whoring?) mostly Apple) to succeed and/or continue succeeding is wrong because there are more important issues.
Are you suggesting that being first is the only way to succeed, or that it guarantees success, or... what?
"Steve Jobs didn’t get to where he was by waiting for the market to be ready. He got to where he is by catering to edge cases like, yes, me."
Very little, if any, of Jobs success is due to catering to edge cases. He does things that are fun and creative and profitable... new things that become whole industries and lifestyles: personal computing, educational computing, creative computing with DTP and graphic arts, advanced digital effects and animation, sophisticated (Pixar), personal developments tools and hardware (NeXT), back to his roots, quality family entertainment/media (Pixar/Disney)... I don't think he ever said: there's an edge case geek that will spend thousands, I want to sell him stuff.
"Because Apple has the best choice of podcasts of any of these things and because my son has spent about $400 on iTunes music and I wanna remain compatible with that investment."
See: more insanity. Alleged blog/podcast guru buys iPod because he can't get content onto another device without the iTunes Store podcast aggregator despite the ability of most any device to consume the majority audio and video podcasts? Weirdness. Scoble you need neither an iPod or iTunes to access these podcasts. And why would you need to be compatible with your son's songs? Even when you make a good decision, it's for misinformed, ill-conceived, bad reasons.
When I first bought my first CD player there were only 40 CDs out on the market. Back then I was telling everyone that they should get rid of their record collections and buy CDs too. They eventually did. Just like if we come back in 10 years everything will be widescreen. No biggie. So I have to wait another year to get a widescreen iPod. In the meantime I'll whine about it. And you'll poke me for whining.
> I think it’s pretty pathetic that you will criticize Apple for not jumping on your bad ideas at the same time you insist that you should remain ignorant and incoherent.
I love how you put words in my mouth. But, whatever. I just am not so freaking pedantic as you are.
>Are you suggesting that all of these are successes of just being first?
No. But they were evidence that Steve Jobs would buck conventional wisdom and try something new, even though there didn't seem to be a market there.
You seem to be wanting Apple to become Microsoft. Boring. Wait until the market is ready for 16:9. I'd rather be more aggressive. Get out ahead of the wave one more time and try something new.
>Very little, if any, of Jobs success is due to catering to edge cases.
That's bullshit. Apple's whole business model is based on catering to edge cases. Remember 1977 when Apple started? How many people needed a personal computer back then. Only some weirdo edge cases in Silicon Valley.
You would have been making fun of them back then, that's how edge case they were.
>And why would you need to be compatible with your son’s songs?
Maybe I want to listen to his music? In the old days I could have let him borrow my CD's. But today his music is locked up in his iTunes (cause he buys a lot of music off of iTunes) thanks to Apple's DRM.
Yes, the transition took ten years, and yes, this one will take just as long, if not longer. So why is your point that wr should be disappointed today because it's not ten years from now?
"I love how you put words in my mouth. But, whatever. I just am not so freaking pedantic as you are."
You won't acknowledge the numerous corrections: you are wallowing in your own ignorance.
And I'm not being pedantic, I'm being accurate. I "understand" your argument however badly you express it, and you can continue to express it poorly if you like. I'll choose accuracy and intelligence over vague, misinformed arguments.
"No. But they were evidence that Steve Jobs would buck conventional wisdom and try something new, even though there didn’t seem to be a market there."
Part of my point is this is YOUR perspective. You think it was unconventional wisdom, you think there wasn't a market. Jobs and others didn't. You think there is a need NOW for this. I don't. Vaguely extrapolating your perspective on Jobs' past does nothing to convince me of your perspective.
"You seem to be wanting Apple to become Microsoft. Boring. Wait until the market is ready for 16:9. I’d rather be more aggressive. Get out ahead of the wave one more time and try something new."
Not in the least. Agrressive isn't necessarily interesting, often it's obvious. Often it's what Microsoft does: throw everything in the XBox, make Tablets everyone wants one, make Origamis, everyone wants one, make phones, everyone wants one, make an iPod ripoff and throw everything at it, everyone wants one. That's boring, unimaginative, and uninteresting. It's "Bigger is better" writ large. It's stupid. I want Apple to be smart, considered, focused on the consumer, the competition, its core... I want a lot of things. None of which has to do with them delivering a large aspect ratio in a portable device NOW.
I also have full confidence that Apple is ahead of the wave right now, but the marketplace isn't ready.
"That’s bullshit. Apple’s whole business model is based on catering to edge cases. Remember 1977 when Apple started? How many people needed a personal computer back then. Only some weirdo edge cases in Silicon Valley. "
So? Again, your perspective. Woz and Jobs thought: enough people want this to make us happy. It makes us happy.
Nothing in their motivation said to them: whatever edge cases want to do, we want to do.
"You would have been making fun of them back then, that’s how edge case they were."
No, Scoble. You really don't get me. I wwould respect a guy to no end that could convince a company he could build a game in a weekend and get his friend to do it for him while he slacked off, build a multi-million dollar company that revolutionized how employees behave in the workplace/space from a garage with a few circuits strapped to plywood.
It's people like you who think they are edge cases because they whine at the fringes about things they have no clue about... their knowledge is limited to what they are able to buy, and they buy the silly toys so they can feel ahead of people. Those are the people I make fun of.
"Maybe I want to listen to his music? In the old days I could have let him borrow my CD’s. But today his music is locked up in his iTunes (cause he buys a lot of music off of iTunes) thanks to Apple’s DRM."
And you can share over the network, burn disks, or simply circumvent the DRM... but that wasn't my major point: whether or not you want to sample your son's music with him (once or twice or when you are with him), can't he use the iPod or lone it to you? Moreover, I was questioning how much of an investment this truly was: do you really want to listen to his music repeatedly as if it was your own? If so, how much of it? And how does a hundred bucks or so rate to someone who has a several thousand dollar camera, a several thousand dollar TV, a new house in Half Moon Bay, and wants a luxury nonexistent HD-enable widescreen personal media device as a major investment pinning him down? I mean, come on, seriously... is it the DRM or your silly notions that "lock" you into the iPod.
I also note you completely avoided my point about the podcasts: are you acknowledging you need iTunes to help you get podcasts on your iPod? Sad.
No, again, you are being pedantic with my words. I said iTunes handled Podcasts a lot better than any other service I've used. We'll see tomorrow if Zune makes that better.
>I wwould respect a guy to no end that could convince a company he could build a game in a weekend and get his friend to do it for him while he slacked off, build a multi-million dollar company that revolutionized how employees behave in the workplace/space from a garage with a few circuits strapped to plywood.
Steve Jobs did all that in 1977? Really? Damn, now you're rewritting Silicon Valley history.
My point was that they were edge cases. You just proved that you would have treated them as such until they got rich. Fine. I understand. You really don't care about new ideas, you just care about kissing the feet of people who made a big business. Got it.
I was being sarcastic, not pedantic. Being pedantic would be saying: "No, you didn't say it handled Podcasts best, you said it had the best choice of podcasts suggesting that you were referring to the quanity and quality of content and the inability to get it otherwise.
"Steve Jobs did all that in 1977? Really? Damn, now you’re rewritting Silicon Valley history."
Now, you are being pedantic: I can't bring a brief and hperbolistic overview of some of Jobs' successes and exploits because you specifically referred to 1977? Get a life. You can whip out the lame "pedantic" card all you want, but try not to be a hypocrite about it.
"My point was that they were edge cases."
No, your point was that serving edge cases was a way to succeed. I have no qualms with the notion that edge cases can be successful, I do have a problem with the notion that not appealling to edge cases is a problem for a business.
"You just proved that you would have treated them as such until they got rich."
Again, you don't get me. I'm quite certain I would have liked them much better before they were rich. Woz is a tool in his own world and Jobs is unapproachable. I treat people in many different ways, but money is not a factor: I treat both rich and poor people well and like shit.
"You really don’t care about new ideas, you just care about kissing the feet of people who made a big business. Got it."
"Your" idea is NOT new. That's part of my point. It's not significant is another part of my point. Another part is that there are many more significant and interesting factors than aspect ratio.
Get it? Doubt it.
So, please, give us examples of "normal people" you visit when you travel.
But more importantly, demanding HD quality is a classic case of jumping AHEAD of the technology curve. You forget, Robert, that you're not a typical family in the US, let alone worldwide. When you say "Do you have any clue how bad that looks on a good 60-inch 16:9 widescreen HDTV?" you're betraying that - what do you think the market penetration of 60in HDTV's actually is?
As for HD content, yes it's the new thing, and yes I have an HD tv, but we're not going to see a large amount of content for it until the market is much more penetrated than it is right now.
True, things are tipping to HD for new TVs. But not everybody is buying new TVs this year.
I recently visited some friends and their neigbors in North Hollywood. They work in the film & TV business. They have old, old TVs. And upgrading the TV is not very high on their priorities. Shocking. Statistically useless sample, but I was, nevertheless, surprised to see it.
BTW, Robert... what's the path in your house to get HD video from a computer drive to your big Sony? Are you seeing any QoS issues? audio or video glitches?
As a result, I would never buy a device at the moment that didn't offer widescreen. It's just not future-proof. For me it'd be like buying a VCR.
Record album - I paid $7
Tape - I paid $9
CD - I paid $15
MP3 - $1 per song
Why do we have to pay over and over for the exact same content? I'm sure they want us to do the same thing with movies. You pay for the theather, the VHS, the DVD, the MP4, and whatever else they can come up with.
I'm sure they love all the money, but sorry, I'm not playing.
As for how it will play out in the future, would you rather own iTunes with a crappy 640x480 platform with crappy little ipod screens or the Xbox Live platform with high definition devices that can play high definition movies, a broadband infrastructure, and a possible portable device coming later?"
I'd take Xbox Live.
Widescreen TV is in a 16:9 format, rather than the old 4:3. However, it still uses the same number of "lines" as the old system, 500 for NTSC and 600 for PAL iirc.
Films are usually filmed in super-widescreen (2.35:1); any major US tv show is filmed in 16:9. In Europe, 16:9 is now standard for broadcast (and there are very few 4:3 TVs left, either for sale or in people's homes).
HDTV refers to upping the number of "lines", either to 720 or, in the highest standard, 1080. Very little is broadcast in this format, a few satellite and cable channles I believe (either side of the pond). You'll be able to buy HD content on Blu Ray or HD-DVD soon, but afaik there's few players and fewer discs available at the moment.
DVDs are 720x480. If the content on the DVD is widescreen, e.g. a film, the 720 remains the same but the 480 gets cut down to whatever is required. It still looks just fine on a large screen though, as you've all no doubt witnessed.
Job's 640x480 looks good on TVs. It will remain 640 in width but will get cut down in height for widescreen content, which all their content on iTunes 7 will be delivered in (I think someone above worked out to be 640x275). You'd be hard-pressed to tell this apart from a DVD.
Finally, I expect the iTV will be fully capable of supporting HDTV (i.e. 720+ lines), but as stated HDTV content has monster storage requirements. You won't be able to stream it wirelessly whatever the standard used (MCEs struggle unless their practically in line-of-sight with the wireless router; Apple's kit will be no different). If they're wired via Ethernet though, it won't be a problem. It'll take a night to download the movies though ;-).
Make no mistake though, HDTV will become standard, just as colour did over BW, and 16:9 and digital have replaced analouge 4:3 transmission in Europe.
Things progress!
did I miss something? I didn't see anywhere a mention that the Zune will allow you to subscribe to podcasts (audio or video).
Consuming podcasts is all I use my iPod for.
DV camcorders generally offer the same option: you can set the camera to 16:9 or 4:3... different cameras deliver the video in different ways, but what goes on tape is always 720x480 NTSC.
Obviously, one you have digital screens at lower resolutions, it's not such a great idea to have non-square pixels on-screen; the resizing can be pretty obvious. Apple's new videos go all the way to 640 pixels, which of course is an easy bilinear scaling to deliver 320 pixels across (well, sure, it it's widescreen, in this case you'd resize in both dimensions). A larger screen will need more pixels, and a better resizing algorithm.
My iPod was stolen last July, and I haven't replaced it yet. I am absolutely waiting for a player that can handle widescreen. I may wait to see an Apple offering; if not, there are numerous others out there. Nothing quite as slick as the online mockups of the "screen-only" iPod. Then again, Apple doesn't make anything that slick, either... yet.
I would like to see the ipod catch up to some of their competitors by releasing a "true video" player, but their are much better options out right now than the ipod. The ipod is a great MP3 player but it has a long way to go before it dominates the market in anything else.
I would like to see the ipod catch up to some of their competitors by releasing a "true video" player, but their are much better options out right now than the ipod. The ipod is a great MP3 player but it has a long way to go before it dominates the market in anything else.