Reader Comments

No HDMI, but an HD-DVD?? I'm confused. How do they get around the HDCP requirement then?

" HDMI, but an HD-DVD?? I'm confused. How do they get around the HDCP requirement then?" because they are using the component output which is analog. I recently bought a 1080p tv so this is great news. I'm sure it is only a matter of time before an HDMI or dvi cable makes its way to the market given the capability was always there. all the sudden my reasons to buy a PS3 for it's HD movie playback support vanished. and given as a game console is not noticeable better than the 360....i'll wait a couple of years before getting a ps3. sorry sony. MS outfoxed you this time.

This fall will sure be interesting. In one corner, Sony is trying to push BluRay video into people's homes in the guise of a games console.... for $600+ USD. In another corner, Microsoft is trying to push HD-DVD video into people's homes in the guise of a games console. For the cost of a PS3. And the monthly Live fee, of course. Meanwhile Nintendo will be launching a console with actual next generation gaming in mind and no video format agenda. Not to mention tying all their past consoles together via the Virtual console and FREE online gaming, 24/7. And fo much less than the 360 or PS3.

No one will care. Absolutely no one wants anything from Mirosoft. If everyone would drink Cupertino Kool-Aid, the stylish, if often limited, options that Mad Dog Steve Jobs pushes on us would please us for eternity. Oops, I thought I was bonch for a minute... I like that Microsoft is offering a compelling consumer choice for HD media. This will undoubtedly have the industry move faster to reduce cost of HD hardware, making the technologies available to a much wider audience/market.

My point is that wouldn't they need a controller chip already in place to support HDCP for the HDMI add-on plug, or for DVI for that matter? HDCP is integrated into the HDMI standard so it's not a problem so long as there's something to encrypt the signal (usually a special chip), but its not in every device that supports only DVI. However, next-gen discs will require it over DVI.

Speaking for myself, I'm waiting to buy a Nintendo Wii and an Apple iTV.  I have no interest in HD-DVD, and my interest in Blu-Ray is only as a backup storage medium due to its larger disc size.  I don't believe the future of film media is in optical storage; it's in digital formats like iTunes.

"My point is that wouldn't they need a controller chip already in place to support HDCP for the HDMI add-on plug" For the foreseeable future the studios announced that they won't lock down the disks, meaning HD over true HD analog for many years to come. Another problem, almost everyone that has bought a 1080p TV... They only accept a 1080i signal and upconvert internally. Very, very few actually have the electronics for a true 1080p input. It's getting better, but there are only a small handful of models currently in stores (there were 2 models as of April, not sure if any more have come out since then, one was an HP). As for HDMI, the console uses a more advanced version of the ATI X1900 series, and supposedly that chipset *does* support HDMI in silicon. There was a little question of this awhile back since no vendors were releasing cards with those jacks, but as mentioned in the article, a "cable upgrade" could be all that's required. We'll need to wait and see on that point.

"Microsoft will be adding true 1080p support--the highest possible high definition format available today--to the Xbox 360 via a free software update." Hawt. Also, "HDCP is integrated into the HDMI standard" HDCP support is native to HDMI, but just b/c you have HDMI-out on a device does NOT mean you are HDCP compliant. Almost nothing right now is HDCP compliant.

"Speaking for myself, I'm waiting to buy a Nintendo Wii and an Apple iTV. " I hope your wii kills your iTV while you sleep. I honestly do. hehe.

HD-DVD and BluRay are interesting data storage technologies, but multi-gigabyte flash memory is going to be the way to go, especially with Internet-delivered content. Instead of putting hard disks and high-capacity storage discs in games consoles, they should use 4GB/8GB+ flash memory.

Flash has a limited read/write lifecycle that makes it more suited to portable devices, not archival storage.

"And the monthly Live fee, of course." MS offers both a free version and a pay version of the Live service. I agree to a point about the flash memory, since the speed advantages would be huge. However, the extremely high costs will be a problem. Since an 8 GB card is about the same capacity as a DL DVD, in order to get the benefits of more storage space (which equals a richer gaming experience), you would need much more than 8 GB. In either case, purchasing a HD DVD or Blu-ray device would be a serious gamble, and is purely meant for the early adopters who have cash to burn. "I don't believe the future of film media is in optical storage; it's in digital formats like iTunes." By iTunes, I assume you mean a standard format for HD content. I do believe the future is digital in this regard, however, that future is way, way off. Even compressed, the bandwidth required to download full HD content is huge. Until we can get high speed connections to everyone's house, that future will not be realized.

"By iTunes, I assume you mean a standard format for HD content." I don't think there's consumer demand for HD content. They're satisfied with DVD-quality through iTunes.

"I hope your wii kills your iTV while you sleep. I honestly do. hehe." :-)

"Instead of putting hard disks and high-capacity storage discs in games consoles, they should use 4GB/8GB+ flash memory." 8GB+ would cost around 100-200 for the media... which is more than the cost of the content... dvd's cost about 10cents. This is the ancient argument nintendo made with cartridge format, you're fighting a war that ended about 5 years ago.

"I don't think there's consumer demand for HD content. They're satisfied with DVD-quality through iTunes." Movies available through iTunes are rendered at 640x480. DVD is 720x480. The iTunes moves would be classified as "near-DVD" quality. Those that have invested in high end HD sets will not see the benefit. By comparison, HD DVD can render at up to 1920x1080. Let alone that iTunes will not let you burn to DVD. In either case, a pure nonstarter for me.

"Movies available through iTunes are rendered at 640x480. DVD is 720x480. The iTunes moves would be classified as "near-DVD" quality. Those that have invested in high end HD sets will not see the benefit. By comparison, HD DVD can render at up to 1920x1080. Let alone that iTunes will not let you burn to DVD. In either case, a pure nonstarter for me." 640x480 is good enough for the majority of the public who won't see a difference of a mere 80 horizontal pixels on their monitors or televisions. The iTV negates the need to burn to DVD by streaming content wirelessly, and burning to DVD would lower picture quality by transcoding already compressed H.264 footage to MPEG-2.

"I don't think there's consumer demand for HD content. They're satisfied with DVD-quality through iTunes." I don't see any evidence to support this. Do I think that in the future people will be satisfied with some digital format from Apple or MS in the future? Yes. But not today. The majority of people who have made the move from VHS to DVD are happy where they are right now. Also, many made that move recently and will be reluctant to move to another format any time soon. I want to get to a point soon where I don't need DVD's or any other media that would require me to leave the house to purchase it, or leave my couch to turn it on. But I'm a geek. The majority of the populus is just not there (and won't be for a very long time). --- Refreshes: 4

"640x480 is good enough for the majority of the public who won't see a difference of a mere 80 horizontal pixels on their monitors or televisions." Heh perfect Apple hipocracy. "Windows is crap, people won't stand for it. Thats why OSX is gaining." "Standard definition is good enough, people will accept it." If apple doesn't go above-and-beyond, then people should deal with it. If they do, then people should switch. Screws to that, 640x480 is unacceptable =P.

"Heh perfect Apple hipocracy." Huh? ""Windows is crap, people won't stand for it. Thats why OSX is gaining." "Standard definition is good enough, people will accept it." If apple doesn't go above-and-beyond, then people should deal with it. If they do, then people should switch." If Apple offered HD content, it would be at least a 25GB download, and you would be criticizing them for that. "Screws to that, 640x480 is unacceptable =P." Of course it's acceptable. The $1 million Disney made in one week is testament to that. People said the same about 128kpbs music, and now iTunes is #1.

Unless Apple attracts the other studios iTV and movies through iTunes store is going to fail. There is only so much content from Disney available. I think the interest in this has peaked and will soon fall away.

"I think the interest in this has peaked and will soon fall away." You may be right, but probably not. Paul had similar comments when the iTunes store went "live". After he initially gushed over the service, he created all kinds of charts and graphs showing an initial big spike in sales, then decreasing sales, and said (or strongly hinted) that this gimmick wouldn't last (Links: http://tinyurl.com/hnrd7 and http://tinyurl.com/ec73j). My favorite quotes: "iTunes sales are actually falling through the floor" "Anyone want to take bets on when Buymusic.com surpasses iTunes' sales?" "That means Apple is selling far fewer than that per day right now, dropping the service perilously close to statistical irrelevency." ------ More than anything, though, your post sounded like the rumblings of a curmudgeonly old man sitting in a corner, grumbling "That Internet thing will never catch on".

"If Apple offered HD content, it would be at least a 25GB download" Of course it would be a huge download. However, we were discussing that 1080p was coming to the Xbox. If we want DVD quality now, well, we have it right now. I can go to Amazon or a ton of other places and get DVDs for cheap. And cheaper than the iTunes movies in many cases, in full DVD quality, not "near". "The iTV negates the need to burn to DVD by streaming content wirelessly" And explain to the average person that is completely content with their DVDs why they should fork over $200+ to get lesser quality and negate all of their current equipment. When they already have a DVD player. And they have a library of DVDs. True, a paradigm shift can and will happen, but near-DVD quality IS unacceptable, especially at a higher price point. And lest we forget that the big media labels (and others) are pushing next generation DVD formats. "Of course it's acceptable. The $1 million Disney made in one week is testament to that." See this for a chuckle: http://www.aboyandhiscomputer.com/show.php?ItemID=2204

I hope Microsoft make a new XBox360 with HDMI out put and internal HD-DVD drive. I would NEVER paid $99 for HDMI cable option on XBox360...

"The iTV negates the need to burn to DVD by streaming content wirelessly" I use old 802.11G for 3 computer's internet access. If I had a device streaming DVD content I'm fairly sure it would kill my bandwidth. So screws to that, I'll stick w/ HD-DVD from microsoft. That is to say if the EU allows microsoft to make their own HD-DVD player. You see, its not really fair that MS only includes first party support for the X360 when it comes to HD-DVD. There are many 3rd party players out there that are getting screwed like poor Adobe and Symantec are over in the Vista realm.

"Unless Apple attracts the other studios iTV and movies through iTunes store is going to fail. There is only so much content from Disney available. I think the interest in this has peaked and will soon fall away." Disney made $1 million in the first week. Remember that iTunes started with only four TV shows. There hasn't been any indication that interest has peaked. "And explain to the average person that is completely content with their DVDs why they should fork over $200+ to get lesser quality and negate all of their current equipment. When they already have a DVD player. And they have a library of DVDs. True, a paradigm shift can and will happen, but near-DVD quality IS unacceptable, especially at a higher price point." I don't have to explain to the average person; the average person already wants it! Arstechnica is reporting that according to the following recent study by Accenture, 47% of users surveyed in the U.S. said they wanted to stream digital content to their TVs, and 54% worldwide said they wanted the technology to do it. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060920-7785.html Apple announced the iTV just in time.

I'd never buy a movie/music from DRM infested itunes. For one thing, quality is NOT dvd not even close. Also I want to watch it in my living room, not my computer. Also i want to take the movie to a friend's place or watch it

"Apple announced the iTV just in time." Yep, just in time to screw people out of another 200 bucks. Apple R/D boardroom: *Laughter* "Hey guys, I have an idea! Lets take a MCE PC, take out all the inputs--" "Wait, it'll have no input??" *Laughter explodes* "Yeah yeah, hehe hehe... ok, wait, its better, take all the digital media, stream it through, get this WIRELESS! LOLOL!! Then, send it to a TV." "OK, I think we could get people to buy that... we can make it really really small since it has no inputs other than a cheap wireless card... only thing is, how are we going to fit HD content on a tiny wireless stream, even microsoft hasn't been able to do that yet!?" "Oh thats simple, we won't offer it. We'll say HD just isn't COOL enough, you don't NEED it." "Man, we sure have been riding that cool card hard... I mean I feel kinda dirty selling people the same PCs they can get from dell for half the price." *Slap is heard* "You can never ride the cool card hard enough! People will buy it because they would spend 200 bucks on anything! They don't care about 200 bucks! Once you hit that price mark you could sell a pack of gum if you marketed it right!" --- And now for your enjoyment, a MacBook getting pwned by a kitty :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9YNhs-RSs4 Go kitty go!

Gee Lotsa, I'm sure having fun rocking in my chair!! Seriously, when Jobs launched iTunes he had most if not all of the music studios on board. He had a vast range on content for people to choose from. This is not the case for the TV/Films. He only has Disney. Without more content its going to fail. Plus, why would I go spend $200 on a piece of hardware to stream me something at a lower resolution than my current DVD player? There is just no incentive to do this right now. Whilst 640x480 may look good on a 3" iPod screen, it looks crap scaled up onto a decent sized TV. Why would I bother? I may well be proved wrong, but lets see in 6 months. Without other studios on board I think its going to have a hard time maintaining hte current sales levels.

I think the most important thing to get out of alnm999s comments is that if it is only going to be Disney, then it will not have a long shelf life. As mentioned, Disney only has so much content. And consider this. On the one hand, you have Apple users, who have been known to buy almost anything that Steve Jobs puts out there. And on the other hand, you have Disney lovers, who will also buy *anything* Disney. It doesn't matter if they have 5 copies of Snow White already. They'll buy another copy just because.

Now they'll have 4-5 dvds of "Finding Nemo" and one for their iTV. iTV looks like it's going to be successful simply because it's been made by Apple. By the way, will84 your comment was very funny. You should probably start a blog (if you haven't already done so). :-)

Paul of course forgets to mention that adding the cost of the extras on the xbox 360 takes it up to the price of the PS3 with the extras included. So comparably equipped, the xbox 360 and PS3 are the same price.

cesjr And your point is? There is nothing to choose between the 360 and PS3, and this shown by Sony's panic'd price reduction. They are in a 10million head start hole and faced also with the excellent looking Wii. Their domination of the gaming console market is going to be somewhat reduced, especially with such short supplies of console over the crucial holiday period in Japan and the US, and the non-existant sales in Europe.

"I don't have to explain to the average person; the average person already wants it!" Yes, and the average person is going to ruin the potential of quality goods for the rest of us. The average consumer loves downloading over compressed music. Try playing songs from your favorite online music store over a true high-end amplifier and speakers. All downloaded content sounds terrible with a dynamically compressed audio range and considerably less clarity. There are no exceptions to this rule. Likewise, 640x480 video looks terrible on any large HD screen and/or projector. It isn't even a 16x9 resolution, which is now the standard aspect ratio of a new TV. Frankly I don't care what the average consumer likes/spends money on, providing: a.) It doesn't diminish the market for true HD and high quality audio beyond the point where content providers decide to produce it. -or- b.) The price for said HD/HQ content doesn't become prohibitive because it gets amortized over such a small install base. If downloaded music were lossless, and downloaded movies were 1920x1080 then I really wouldn't have a problem. However this digital "I want it now" mentality has the potential to turn digital content into the quality equivalent of Geo Metros. It's unfortunate and a step in the wrong direction... The providers should have held-off until they could do legitimately better quality, rather than foist upon us the continual quality/convenience trade-off.