iTunes and Apple TV rentals and purchases: what you can (and can't) do
By Ryan Block 
posted January 16th 2008 12:06PM
posted January 16th 2008 12:06PM
- Green indicates goodness, or the general perception of awesomeness.
- Red indicates badness, or not-goodness (but not including inherent lameness due to DRM).
- The columns (iTunes / Apple TV) represent the point of purchase / rental. The Apple TV column assumes AFTER the Take 2 update.
- So to say Buy shows: SD / iTunes is the equivalent of asking "Can I Buy shows: SD through iTunes on my PC?)
- Nerdy: likewise, the circuitous logic of checking to see if an Apple TV can transfer a purchase from a computer to an Apple TV has a nixed answer.
| iTunes (desktop) | Apple TV (PC-free) | Comments / notes | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Buy show: in SD |
Yes - $1.99 |
Yes - $1.99 | |
| Buy shows: HD | No |
No |
|
| Rent show: in SD | No |
No |
|
| Rent show: in HD | No |
No |
|
| Buy movie: in SD |
Yes - up to $15 | Yes - up to $15 | |
| Buy movie: in HD | No |
No |
|
| Rent movie: in SD | Yes - $2.99 / 3.99 |
Yes - $2.99 / 3.99 | Library / new |
| Rent movie: in HD |
No |
Yes - $3.99 / 4.99 | Library / new |
| Play purchased: on previous-gen iPods | Yes |
Yes |
|
| Play rentals: on previous-gen iPods | No |
No |
|
| Play purchased: on current-gen iPods | Yes |
Yes |
|
| Play rentals: on current-gen iPods | Yes | No |
|
| Transfer anything: ATV to any iPod / iPhone (without PC) | -- | Hells no | |
| Transfer anything: to non-Apple devices | Um, no | Are you high? | |
| Transfer purchase: computer to ATV | Yes |
-- |
SD (shows, movies) only right now |
| Transfer purchase: to previous-gen iPod | Yes |
Yes |
Only video-enabled iPods (duh); for ATV - by way of sync to PC, only |
| Transfer purchase: to current-gen iPod / iPhone |
Yes |
Yes |
For ATV - by way of sync to PC, only |
| Transfer purchase: ATV to computer | -- |
Yes |
SD (shows, movies) only right now |
| Transfer rental: to ATV | -- |
Yes |
SD (shows, movies) only right now |
| Transfer rental: to previous-gen iPod | No |
No |
|
| Transfer rental: to current-gen iPod / iPhone | Yes |
No |
So, what'd we miss?
I really need some help. I am a parent and have a 13yr old son with a new ipod. I have about $200 of itunes bills in the last two weeks. My son is in trouble, but I'm not sure how much.
The billed songs are in the exact order on his ipod (date added) as on the bill. He says that he got the songs from a friend to his ipod, then transferred them to our PC. Our PC has an itunes account. He says that when he transferred the songs (right-clicking) he said yes to "transfer the purchase." He says that this action must have triggered our account being billed.
I don't think this is really possible. I am trying to figure out what happened; I really want to just set up the consequences for him and have both of us move on with our lives. Can anyone help?
thanks much.
David:
This is pretty confusing, but at first glance it seems that your son may have used illegal file sharing to transfer the songs to his iPod and then to your PC, or he made unauthorized purchases on your credit card using your PC and then transferred them to the iPod. Since corresponding charges are on your iTunes account, it seems to me that he made the purchases, either inadvertently or deliberately.
Either way, this would and should be considered theft (i.e. copyright infringement or unauthorized credit card purchases). Knowing teenagers, he could be trying to confuse the issue to escape scrutiny and punishment. If he transferred the songs illegally, they should be erased from the hard drive, along with any other illegally obtained songs (and any file sharing software he may have installed on your PC such as Limewire). If he deliberately made the $200 in purchases without your knowledge, let him pay for them by working off the bill, but maybe punish him by taking custody of the iPod until the bill is paid.
On the other hand, you also could be at fault. In iTunes on your computer, the Preferences settings under the iTunes menu allow you to set Store preferences. Make sure you disable the default setting, "Buy and download using One-Click" and instead enable "Buy and download using a Shopping Cart. " This will help both of you avoid confusion about transactions. The first time I used iTunes, this default, One-click setting tripped me up on a purchase too. So, the One-Click" purchase option can cause confusion. If iTunes on your computer was set up this way, maybe he deserves a pass.
For what free advice is worth, I believe that when parents give iPods to children as gifts, they also should give minors a monthly allowance to buy music CDs or iTunes downloads (Apple allows you to fund the account with an iTunes allowance feature for kids. Just make sure he doesn't have the iTunes account password that would allow him to get into iTunes and change the allowance or Store settings). Discuss illegal file sharing too. Make it clear that peer-to-peer file sharing via online download networks is illegal. You do not want this software on your computer either. Some song files actually are not song files at all, but spyware. Also, the software can and will slow down your computer if you do not properly manage the default shareware settings. Copying their friend's CDs or allowing friends to copy your son's (or your) CDs should not be allowed either.
Know matter what your feelings are on the subject (or your son's), these actions are copyright infringements, and thus, forms of theft. Until the law or licensing contracts change, they should not be tolerated if you hope to teach a kid the difference between right and wrong.
If you didn't take these steps, didn't change that One-Click purchase setting for the iTunes account and didn't going over some ground rules, you may have abdicated your parenting responsibilities, and left him to figure out how to get music onto what otherwise would become a useless iPod. Given no other recourse, he did whatever was necessary to fill it with songs.
You now have a chance to start over.
HD:
Thanks tons; your thoughts are really, really helpful. It's particularly helpful hearing your guidance about file sharing and allowances.
Unfortunately, we have set clear limits (grounded for two weeks, buy back the ipod) and all are suffering in our household.
But this too shall pass, and I hope for a better weekend; the emotional weather of a teenager can be counted on to change.
thanks again.
drv
I think some is missing from this discussion.
1080i is 24 frame/second while 720p is 60 frame/second
This is a near equal amount of information.
Question: What is Apple calling HD these days? I'm talking the $3.99/$4.99 HD movie rentals over iTunes.
Hello? Any word on the resolution of their "HD" rentable movies?
Nevermind. It's only 720p. Why do people buy Apple TV's again?
The resolution is 720p.
Because 720p is a perfectly fine resolution? Yeah, in the midst of all this 1080p mania, people seem to forget that 720p still produces a damn good picture.
Yeah I found the other ATV article from yesterday and that had the answer. Thanks for your response though!
Is anyone getting the same eye-rolling reaction that I get when I hear Apple touting the ATV's HD support? 720p @ a 5Mbps max shitrate, 4 gig max file size will look like a bad DivX with upped resolution. No surround sound. People would be way better off spending their money on a Blu-Ray player and a Netflix subscription (Blu-Ray rentals for the same price as DVDs? Yes please).
Then again, I guess they did call the Time Capsule "Server Grade." I shot drink out of my nose when I read that.
Actually the Apple TV HD movie rentals are touting Dolby 5.1 surround sound.
Hey, ~5Mb 720p in H.264 would look pretty good actually, particularly if it's transcoded from the source material and not an optical disc. The difference between US DVD resolution and 720p is still pretty startling, unless you're blind of course.
Naturally, 1080p would be nice, but I guess the box would then be considerably more than $200ish, heh. Not to mention the download time!
I just don't see the point when you can get movies from OnDemand for less money at 1080i, or from Usenet at 1080p, or from Netflix on Blu-Ray...
Well, indeed. If you're serious about movies, you're still best investing in a subscription service. But instant gratification can be fun too ;-)
1080p would've been awesome, but there are way too many people that don't own a 1080p HDTV that it doesn't make sense currently. 1080i would be okay quality, but interlaced content is completely different than progressive in movies (TV shows not so much, but it's getting there) so quality would be an issue somewhere in the video pipeline. I'd rather have my movies in progressive than interlaced, since they tend to be shot in progressive anyway.
On Demand movies may be 1080i, but they must be compressed as hell, cause they're nothing special. I've got a Samsung LCD (1080P, 15000:1 contrast), and certain HD channels look amazing on it. My bluray player, likewise, puts out a sick picture. VOD looks good, but doesn't compare to the top tier HD channels or Bluray. I guess it would probably look about the same as AppleTV. Most people will be perfectly happy with that quality. I'm a bit of an HD snob, so I'll pass. But apple is all about making things simple and clean, people like that, and I think the new iteration of AppleTV will be a success because of it.
Fair enough. Well I'll save my QQing for a year or so, by when many more people will have a 1080p TV and the Apple TV will still be hardware limited to 720p.
Yep, wouldn't be an HD article without your obligatory HD snob chiming in with his bullshit "only 1080p is HD" whining. :p
OnDemand: Digital Cable is expensive. Apple TV you're not paying a subscription fee on top of the rental fee.
UseNet: Most Americans aren't really interested in downloading, transcoding, finding codecs that work, and hooking up their computer to their TV. Apple's all about ease of use.
Netflix: If I order a movie on Netflix, I *might* get it tomorrow. If I order a movie on Apple TV, I get it in about five minutes or less. In HD. With No subscription fees. And no trip to the store. And no needing to buy "points" to make purchases (XBox Live Marketplace is nice, but their whole MS Points system is skewed to make it hard to know what you're spending, and I don't like it.)
Apple is about ease of use: Click here. Watch movie in HD. No monthly fee.
Who needs apple tv when you have the pirate bay? Seriously, the stuff you get there is full of features...
jimbo: I hear you. Channels like HDNet and HDMovies do often have a higher quality picture than some VOD's that I've rented. Then again I've had VOD's that look great. And yeah obviously Blu-Ray looks the best because it's the least-compressed format available to the consumer.
TheZeroCorpse: I agree the ATV is very convenient. It's a compromise. Some people don't have a Blu-Ray player, nor the technical know-how to uncompress RAR files, download non-iTunes media players, and set up a digital audio out in Vista for surround sound.
The fact is, though, if someone is interested in renting an HD movie, they have an HD television (maybe only 720p, but an HD TV none the less). If they own an HD Television, I'd venture to guess they have an HD Cable / Sattelite reciever... to take advantage of that expensive HD TV they bought. If they have Cable / Sattelite, they have On Demand. On Demand is cheaper than the Apple TV's HD content, and higher quality, in my area.
I don't know... it seems like there's this imaginary market out there of people who own HD Televisions, Apple TV's, don't have HD Cable, and don't know how to download movies and play them on a TV. If you're one of these people and you have fifty thousand friends like you then I guess I should buy some Apple stock today...
well it looks like apple just buried some of its competitor, why??? first you won't have to go out and get movies anymore 2nd you are not tight down to any subscription just watch what you want when you want on your nice full screen TV. apple tv its a must have for any for any home system my opinion
Ty,
"Fair enough. Well I'll save my QQing for a year or so, by when many more people will have a 1080p TV and the Apple TV will still be hardware limited to 720p."
Apple TV is not hardware limited to 720p at all. That's merely the resolution of downloadable content from the iTunes Store; you can put your 1080p content on there (though not by buying it on iTS) and it'll work just fine.
transfer contents to any other devices not made by Apple???? I guess not. First to fill a monopoly lawsuit
Good point, albeit almost too obvious to put in there. Still, I'll put it in anyway.
Apple is getting a little too "closed" for my tastes lately. I really love OS X, but this whole "Only our stuff works with our stuff, so if you don't like that then TS" thing was cute at first, but is getting way outta hand.
They're more proprietary now than MS ever thought about being. Lame.
Too closed? Gee, that sounds like Microsoft and its Internet Explorer browser and certain web pages and apps only working with IE in particular.
Oh and the Microsoft page itself only working with PCs.
I'm not sure what you've been smoking but Apples have always been a closed market.
Microsoft's website is going to their flash alternative silverlight which will work in other browsers so all in all they might even get slightly more open than now. Heck, maybe one day we'll even be able to use the update site in firefox ;)
you cant file a monopoly on a business model that everyone is failing at,lets face the facts, if you rent a movie you do one of 3 things, you go to a local store and browse around which i still love to do when i go back home to visit my younger sis(family time experience)if you have cable which i think everyone does these days(im a cable guy) you use VOD to order a movie which slaps apple across the face with quality and pricing and finaly you use a service like net flicks just because its so darn cheap to rent movies with them with no late fees. so lets face it this is nothing but another failed attempt to rent movies over the internet and is not going to catch on anytime soon.
If you want to talk about closed devices, why not mention Sony Playstation, Microsoft Xbox, or anything Nintendo. People complain about Apple being "closed", but few people complain about the many other equally "closed" systems.
Apple has always been annoyingly proprietary. No one cared 10 years ago, because most people didn't even know anyone with a Mac back then, and Apple was nearly dead. It wasn't until 5 years ago that they started making decent products that normal people might want.
In the past five years, Apple has given regular, non-Mac people a reason to take notice, with some pretty appealing design and a decent OS. Unfortunately, when you're not totally RDF'ed, you tend to look at Apple products and see the artificial limitations that Apple tries to trap it's users in.
By not working with anything 3rd party, Apple tries to get you totally locked into their ecosystem. iPod + AppleTV + iTunes + Quicktime + Mac. It's not the worst box to be trapped in, but you are trapped.
Historically, people have liked having choice when it comes to hardware and software. That's why Apple's never really had significant PC market share, even in the '80s when they were ahead of the game. They've had a bit of success recently, but if they continue to insist on a totally closed system, they will find that the majority of people will keep opting out as they always have.
I honestly don't think that Steve even cares. He's fine with taking whatever market share he can get, and squeezing as much money out of them as possible.
@ Mike Cerm:
Yes, you're "trapped" in the Apple ecosystem.
The key point that everyone forgets to discuss, though, is that in that ecosystem, everything works for everyone.
The "trapping" is intentional...it is the only way to guarantee user experience is the same for everyone whether they are technically savvy or not.
You can choose not to be in the Apple ecosystem, sure. But when you are, you're left wondering: what does this mean? Can I do this with that? Will my widget work with that gadget? Will this product work with that one? If so, how, what do I have to do to make it happen, and how much money do I have to spend on extra stuff? I happen to use both Apple and Microsoft products, but I wish I didn't have to. For example, I bought a Windows-based laptop for a family member and I've done nothing but provide free support for the past year because they aren't technically savvy. If I had gotten them a Macbook, I wouldn't have had to do that.
Contrary to popular belief, Microsoft is getting closed, too. With Vista, they're locking everything down into one ecosystem just like Apple. DRM is everywhere in Vista. They're just not telling you that's what they're doing. Sure, you can maybe choose between 10 different graphics cards instead of getting the one included with a Mac mini or iMac, but all ten of those graphics cards choices have to meet Microsoft's restrictions or they won't work, or at least won't work as promised. When Microsoft is telling you whether your hardware choice will work or not, is that really choice?
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
And this, in turn, raises costs for everyone. So much for Microsoft being "good" by being "open" and Apple being "bad" for being "closed", I guess. The point: at least in the Apple ecosystem, everything works and people get an opportunity to enjoy things and be immediately productive and creative without worrying about mechanicals.
transferring to non-apple products is due to DRM lameness... so why is it in red?
At this point, isn't it a given anyway? Why is this still such a shocker to people? DRM sucks.. we get it... it's not going anywhere anytime soon!
I don't think proprietary = monopoly. Unlike with the Microsoft deal, Apple isn't FORCING you to use their rental service when you buy a Mac, and if you hate iTunes that much, you can just drag it to the trash and click Empty Trash. The whole MS antitrust thing was much more complicated than simply IE's non-compatibility.
While the proprietary-ness of the setup sucks, it's not grounds for a lawsuit as I understand the law (but IANAL). Of course, I'm sure some idiot will class-action this in a heartbeat. I'm sure the paperwork is being filled as I type...
Apple is not increasingly proprietary. The only proprietary thing here is DRM, and yes: DRM sucks. But they've already ported it to a different platform (while MS still keeps OS X users away from WMV DRM'd content). However "open" and "DRM" are to opposite sides of the spectrum, and there is *no way* to rent a digital file without DRM.
Other than that they're pretty open and interoperable. AAC is an open format, official successor to MP3. Quicktime format has been basis of MPEG-4 standard and Apple supports MPEG4+H.264 as a first-class citizen. They've dropped their "not invented here" complex long time ago.
@Ghen:
http://www.windizupdate.com/
@Evan: The difference between game consoles and a PC is huge. You bought the game console to play games (and maybe other media), but PCs are much more multi-purposed than that.
Proprietary as MS? Check your facts. WMV, WMA, Windows media player, Office formats, DRM lockdown on the OS, Direct X the list goes on & on. With MS's ecosystem you get the illusion of choice. If the software sucks the hardware really doesn't matter. Then there of course is the Zune & Zune marketplace that are even more closed than theiPod & iTunes (NOT CROSSPLATFORM). Then of course there is MS's Play-for-sure DRM initiative which came before The Zune. If you bought music with plays-for-sure DRM attached they will not play on MS's own Zune. Talk about screwing not only customers but, also screwing your hardware partners. There seem to be a lot of PC centric people here who have no clue about anything on the other side of the fence. They also seem to have no clue as to the history of events (in digital music & tech). Jobs has said from the start that DRM's music makes no sense. The only reason Amazon has DRM Free music is because the Music moguls are trying to leverage there power againts Apple. Apple was one of the first companies to sign a major music label to DRM free music (EMI). MS makes money from licensing there DRM schemes. Apple does not own the content it sells. AAC is a standard that anyone can license (MPeg4). Apple does not own it. It is a better quality standard than MP3. Why isn't Amazone selling it? Because most of the devices that are MS based don't support Mpeg4. That will probably change in the future. Stick a fork in it WMA is done. We will all be better off in the future if this is the case.
If you transfer a rental to your curr-gen iPod/iPhone, can you start your 24 hour period at different times on your computer and on your iPod?
To explain via example: I rent Die Hard. I transfer the rental onto my iPhone. But rather than watching it on my iPhone I watch it on my computer. 24 hours pass, the rental disappears off of my computer. Do I still have 30 days to watch it on my iPhone (assuming I don't sync back to my computer?)
Or, once it's transfered does it immediately disappear off of my computer and the copy solely exists on my iPhone?
I think when you transfer the rental to your iPhone, it gets removed from your iTunes rentals list... effectively making it impossible to have your movie in two different places.
yeah this part is confusing to me the most. I still don't really get how this works and seems like something that might piss me off. But I'm sticking with my Netflix and not even going to both with a movie rental from iTunes.
yeah this part is confusing to me the most. I still don't really get how this works and seems like something that might piss me off. But I'm sticking with my Netflix and not even going to bother with a movie rental from iTunes.
Is the 5G iPod considered "current-gen"? I know that the hardware is basically the same as the Classic, but given Apple's trend lately (like the iPod Touch screw-job), it seems pretty likely that Apple would leave it's 5G owners out in the cold.
It's so confusing he posted twice.
I'm still confused. The chart helps, but (through no fault of your own) there's so many categories it's just mind boggling.
Good work sorting this out. Lots of confusion (and subsequent disappointment by Mac Mini-owners like me) early on about "iTunes HD rentals" - which, as seems to be the case, isn't happening at least for now.
it's called file sharing,anybody who wants tv shows or movies can just download from there.
When will Canada get it?
We'll get it when/if Canada's proposed draconian U.S.-style copyright law reforms pass.
Actually, all the items in red are a result of onerous and inherently lame DRM issues.
Remove the DRM, and all of those limitations go away.