What is UltraViolet™ and why should you care? (1 Viewer)

[Towergrove]

Originally Posted by mattCR Let's have one consolidated "All things Ultraviolet" thread. Because other things in the streaming area aren't popping up to the same extent.
Matt I do notice that you have posted many HULU threads and a few on Netflix here. Would the same not be applied to you as well? One thread for HULU one for Netflix?? Would you like me to leave and not post here at HTF any more? Actually I am going to do just that. I notice that fewer and fewer do post on HTF. Maybe they feel uninvited??


I would you recommend you have closure as well.

 

[JohnRice]

Originally Posted by Towergrove




Matt I do notice that you have posted many HULU threads and a few on Netflix here. Would the same not be applied to you as well? One thread for HULU one for Netflix?? Would you like me to leave and not post here at HTF any more? Actually I am going to do just that. I notice that fewer and fewer do post on HTF. Maybe they feel uninvited??


I would you recommend you have closure as well.

This comment got me curious, so I checked into it. I looked at all the threads Matt has started this year, and there are a LOT of them. There was one regarding NetFlix and one regarding Hulu. Sarah, you have started seven threads since joining the forum. Six are regarding UltraViolet, and the seventh was asking where the Streaming section is, presumably so you know where to start threads about UltraViolet. At least two of these threads were started simply by quoting an entire article without saying anything else. There may be more, but I didn't take the time to check every single one. And you wonder why people think you are a shill?

 

[mattCR]

Originally Posted by Towergrove

It's that you don't have a single hardware maker committed to it YET. Sony and Microsoft both plan integration into their NEXT systems (PS4, whatever proceeds the XBOX360), Windows8. Etc... but it is doubtful you'll see anything on the market this Christmas. Possible, but doubtful.

I like the concept of it, but until anything is out there with it, discussion of it is like beating a dead horse. Nobody can say anything "as a matter of fact" because there are no devices on the ground, no system up and running, and those who beta the concept cant comment straight on. So, where do we go?


I have zippo power here to do anything, I'm just telling you, if you are a super advocate of a non-existant system on your own time, good for you. But the rest of us generally follow a system where until it's released where anyone can use it, then it's hard to have a litter of threads about it. IF you are currently using the Sony PDK or the MS PDK, then I'd remind you there is still an NDA, and no matter how much you love that, you can't really get into it either because you're not supposed to (read your NDA).

You can go ahead and post multiple threads if you wish. I'm saying if you really believe in this, you'd make a lot more "friends' on the subject with one unified thread rather then a ton of different ones so that everyone can find the information quickly. It also would allow people to recognize changes, announcements, etc. more easily and see the changes in the platform better. People can see changes in Netflix, Vudu, iTunes, Hulu right now because they are a streaming service they can use right now. UltraViolet as a digital locker format is a different animal entirely.


I hope this makes sense.

 

[Towergrove]

Originally Posted by JohnRice




This comment got me curious, so I checked into it. I looked at all the threads Matt has started this year, and there are a LOT of them. There was one regarding NetFlix and one regarding Hulu. Sarah, you have started seven threads since joining the forum. Six are regarding UltraViolet, and the seventh was asking where the Streaming section is, presumably so you know where to start threads about UltraViolet. At least two of these threads were started simply by quoting an entire article without saying anything else. There may be more, but I didn't take the time to check every single one. And you wonder why people think you are a shill?

First of all I would like to thank everyone for their kind words. Those friends here who sent me a email about my leaving. I in fact will stay. It was stated that all I post are PR items when in fact the articles I am posting about are just articles from legit media outlets. I would like to also mention that the rules do allow me to post these items and start a discussion about them in the appropriate sections. If you do not like that, Im sorry but I will continue to discuss the home theater related items I enjoy beit Ultraviolet, 3DTV, Warner Archives (which I love!!) or other related HT items. Also please be aware that this is not a smackdown forum, I will not tolerate being called names (shill? etc.) and will report whoever does just that. It is my choice to post about topics I like, Its your choice to read them no one is forcing you to. Again I may be wrong but this is a Home Theater forum not a smackdown and this is a home theater forum not a wrestling ring.
I will not be discussing this any further.

 

[Towergrove]

Originally Posted by mattCR

It's that you don't have a single hardware maker committed to it YET. Sony and Microsoft both plan integration into their NEXT systems (PS4, whatever proceeds the XBOX360), Windows8. Etc... but it is doubtful you'll see anything on the market this Christmas. Possible, but doubtful.

I like the concept of it, but until anything is out there with it, discussion of it is like beating a dead horse. Nobody can say anything "as a matter of fact" because there are no devices on the ground, no system up and running, and those who beta the concept cant comment straight on. So, where do we go?


I have zippo power here to do anything, I'm just telling you, if you are a super advocate of a non-existant system on your own time, good for you. But the rest of us generally follow a system where until it's released where anyone can use it, then it's hard to have a litter of threads about it. IF you are currently using the Sony PDK or the MS PDK, then I'd remind you there is still an NDA, and no matter how much you love that, you can't really get into it either because you're not supposed to (read your NDA).

You can go ahead and post multiple threads if you wish. I'm saying if you really believe in this, you'd make a lot more "friends' on the subject with one unified thread rather then a ton of different ones so that everyone can find the information quickly. It also would allow people to recognize changes, announcements, etc. more easily and see the changes in the platform better. People can see changes in Netflix, Vudu, iTunes, Hulu right now because they are a streaming service they can use right now. UltraViolet as a digital locker format is a different animal entirely.


I hope this makes sense.

It does Matt. Thanks. Good post and thanks for taking the time to respond.

 

[JohnRice]

"I would like to also mention that the rules do allow me to post these items and start a discussion about them in the appropriate sections."


No, they don't.


From HTF Rules...


12. No quoting entire articles. We do not allow the copying and pasting of entire articles from other sites or publications, even if proper credit is given, unless you have express permission from the copyright holder. Please quote only relevant excerpts, and provide a link back to the original in its entirety.



Anyway, at this point it is up to HTF Admin.

 

[Towergrove]

Originally Posted by JohnRice

"I would like to also mention that the rules do allow me to post these items and start a discussion about them in the appropriate sections."


No, they don't.


From HTF Rules...


12. No quoting entire articles. We do not allow the copying and pasting of entire articles from other sites or publications, even if proper credit is given, unless you have express permission from the copyright holder. Please quote only relevant excerpts, and provide a link back to the original in its entirety.



Anyway, at this point it is up to HTF Admin.

Well I stand corrected. I will make sure not to paste entire articles in the future.

 

[Towergrove]

Originally Posted by Sam Posten

Failed from the start IMO. No Apple support, no Disney support, dead in the water.

Yes support by Apple and Disney are key. Hopefully things get worked out and everyone can come to some sort of agreement.

 

[Sam Posten]

The zen master says "We'll see!"

 

[mattCR]

Apple has zero incentive to ever support UltraViolet. If Ultraviolet prevails, it's a benefit for other market leaders like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Studios.. but it's a big kick in Apple's pants, as right now they have about 70% of the digital purchase market. By joining Ultraviolet they would have to say "your standard is as good as ours, and we'll accept a universal CODEC and checkout method"... there is no way I can ever see them doing that. It'd be terrible business for them. I completely understand why everyone else wants it. I can't think of any reason Apple would.

 

[Sam Posten]

Andddddd, even less reason now that they have officially launched iCloud.

 

[Towergrove]

Originally Posted by Sam Posten

Andddddd, even less reason now that they have officially launched iCloud.

Overall a great press conference at WWDC. A great day for those of us who love our audio on apple devices (I love my 3 ipads)!


I found it interesting that its more of a storage than a streaming system. The word Download was used quite a lot.

 

[mattCR]

Originally Posted by Sam Posten

Andddddd, even less reason now that they have officially launched iCloud.

I don't know Sam.. I don't see iCloud and Ultraviolet as at all even competing. iCloud is storage of your own stuff to 5GB. Ultraviolet is a download-to-local service to match what you already own. You don't really "store" anything with Ultraviolet except your SKU's so you can redownload titles. iCloud is a storage facility; Ultraviolet is a download service. Very different concepts.

 

[Sam Posten]

Perhaps today. They didn't even mention movies wrt iCloud. But you'd be a dang fool to think it's not step #2 or #3... Remember Apple starts simple then crushes on with brilliant must have upgrades.

 

[mattCR]

Originally Posted by Sam Posten

Perhaps today. They didn't even mention movies wrt iCloud. But you'd be a dang fool to think it's not step #2 or #3... Remember Apple starts simple then crushes on with brilliant must have upgrades.

I don't think ever. I think iCloud is designed to take on Google net storage and Amazon Cloud services. It's not meant to compete with a download per registration service like Ultraviolet. The reason why I say this is because the philosophy of what Ultraviolet is trying to do is so contrary to Apple's basic philosophy that I don't think there is ever a point where they would allow this to happen.


Realize, the UltraViolet consortium is: buy once, own IN MULTIPLE FORMATS for MULTIPLE DISTRIBUTION DEVICES. It's whole point encourages you to shop in multiple places, register up codes... more then that, some of it's biggest proponents (think Microsoft, Sony.. and I"ll throw one out there in Walmart) see it as a way to sell physical media.

Apple might allow you to redownload your movies purchased through Itunes, I get that.. but they won't adopt a "let's scan your hard drive and see what movies you have.." You want to talk about a quick way to get your software wiped off people's computers.. just threaten to scan their hard drives and ask the MPAA if you own copies of those discs Heck, you've already got some people stewed up about the idea of scanning your library and finding illegally downloaded MP3s.. and whether or not you'll get instant amnesty for the $25 a year, or you'll get busted.


But I don't think Apple has any intent to ever compete with UltraViolet. I think they just hope it dies

 

[Sam Posten]

It's a different philosophy to be sure, but I like Apple's way of thinking: Buy it (a song in this case, but more to follow) and you are qualified to get it off the cloud in our superior quality format. And movies are a bigger win for storage this way than songs are. The servers only have to have the bits stored on a few servers and the users never have to keep 4gb per movie on their home machines unless they really really really want to. And when you are ready for it we will let you download it if you really want to, or hey we can stream it to you with no discernable quality loss to anyone but Ron Epstein! =p

 

[Jeffery_H]

One thing to keep in mind too when everyone talks about all this "streaming" and the future of possible HD video and audio like Blu-Ray is the fact many ISP providers have put caps on how much bandwidth you can use. Most all of them do it and some quite drastically so. If you have internet though a cable provider such as Comcast, Time Warner, etc. then you are either going to pay a big premium if you go over or in some cases they just send a notice and cut you off totally. Of course, this is due to those cable companies not wanting and competition from other sources or having companies that can direct market to you. There is no reason my someone like HBO can't just give you an app to stream content to you any time, any place at HD quality, but someone has to give you that bandwidth and pipeline for providing it. Since most cable companies have many users in large cities on their service, they want you spending all that money with them and not on places like Netflix, Apple, or some other direct market service. That is why I do not see how, even in the next 10 years or so you will see anything close to Blu-Ray streaming due to all the politics and those demanding the largest piece of the pie.

 

[mattCR]

Originally Posted by Sam Posten

It's a different philosophy to be sure, but I like Apple's way of thinking: Buy it (a song in this case, but more to follow) and you are qualified to get it off the cloud in our superior quality format. And movies are a bigger win for storage this way than songs are. The servers only have to have the bits stored on a few servers and the users never have to keep 4gb per movie on their home machines unless they really really really want to. And when you are ready for it we will let you download it if you really want to, or hey we can stream it to you with no discernable quality loss to anyone but Ron Epstein! =p

Yeah I don't buy this. There is considerable quality difference between say, an iTunes 1080P and a Bluray. I mean, CONSIDERABLE. I guess maybe if your TV or audio configuration can't take advantage of it, sorry for you, but there is a huge, monumental difference between say a Bluray and a 4GB file. I understand for people watching on tiny screens close to them (say, an iPad It may not be as noticable. But watching on a 60"+ 1080P in my livingroom on a nice HT, the difference is big.

 

[Sam Posten]

Again, I have to relate that my experience is two fold:

-Most people simply don't care regardless of the content, and if you give them a reasonable substitute they couldn't tell the difference between ultra high quality and good enough.

-Even someone like me who DOES care, a lot, is very willing to sacrifice quality for convenience and cost when it comes to 90% of the content I'm interested in.


New release blockbuster films? Bluray hell yeah.

TV shows, documentaries, B movies, and dramas? Streaming is just fine for me and quality is improving all the time.

 

[mattCR]

I'm not denying that this is true.. except for the fact that.. it isn't.


Let me give you an example:


I can get "Green Hornet" (Terrible movie, FYI) on Amazon for $17.99. http://www.amazon.com/Green-Hornet-Blu-ray-Seth-Rogen/dp/B004MYH08U/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1307990405&sr=8-1


It's $19.99 on iTunes


So here's the differences:


1080P

HD Audio
Plays on infinite devices

Cheaper


720P

Compressed Audio

Plays on Apple Devices (iPhone/Ipod/Ipad/AppleTV.. nothing else)

More expense


The "Plays only on X" is the killer. Between that and the fact that I can often buy a title at Walmart in Bluray for many times 20% less on a new release, I still can't figure out how there is any value in ever buying a movie on iTunes. Inferior quality at higher cost + limited places I can use that file.. I think people just buy into that because *boggle* really, I don't know. I haven't figured that out. I can kind of understand paying more for music on iTunes because now that it's no DRM it plays on anything. But buying a DRM'd movie that you can't transport to anything but apple devices or a PC sucks.

Originally Posted by Sam Posten

Again, I have to relate that my experience is two fold:

-Most people simply don't care regardless of the content, and if you give them a reasonable substitute they couldn't tell the difference between ultra high quality and good enough.

-Even someone like me who DOES care, a lot, is very willing to sacrifice quality for convenience and cost when it comes to 90% of the content I'm interested in.


New release blockbuster films? Bluray hell yeah.

TV shows, documentaries, B movies, and dramas? Streaming is just fine for me and quality is improving all the time.