Caution: Streaming video will chew through your 4G iPad data
Your first order of business with Apple's third-generation iPad: fill up that stunning Retina Display with plenty of video. But hang on; if you're getting the 4G model, better watch that over-the-air video consumption. Lightning-fast as it is, over LTE, you'll be tempted to burn through your data plan in less time than you might think.Here's a breakdown of what a 5GB data plan will get you on the 4G LTE iPad, for moments when you're not on Wi-Fi.AT&T and Verizon both offer $50 5GB monthly data plans for LTE tablets like the iPad--the only plan in which they overlap, so let's start there. AT&T versus Verizon data rates for Apple's new iPad.Screenshot by Jessica Dolcourt/CNETData calculatorsDays ahead of the new iPad launch, it's hard to pinpoint exact numbers. Apple is famously secretive about these kinds of claims, but Verizon and AT&T offer online data calculators that give ballpark figures for data use. The results are far from gospel, since the carriers include caveats: devices handle data differently; all numbers are averages and guidelines. AT&T's calculator doesn't attempt to break out 4G or LTE data allotments, and Verizon's offers mobile broadband estimates for computers only. (Note: A Verizon spokesperson pointed me to the mobile broadband setting as the most similar to the tablet scenario.)Click to enlarge the image. If you do nothing but stream HD video, you'll hit 2GB in a single hour, according to Verizon's tool.Screenshot by Jessica Dolcourt/CNETWhat the two calculators can agree on is that streaming video consumes the most data by far, with streaming music as its hungry sidekick. Verizon's online tool calculates that 1 hour of 4G HD video streaming use--and nothing else--will cost you 2GB; so, 2.5 hours of streaming HD video will use up 5GB of 4G data.AT&T's online calculator presents wildly different results, suggesting 1,000 minutes (or 16.6 hours) of HD video streaming--as your sole activity--to reach your 5GB cap. However, since AT&T never promises to isolate its 4G numbers in this tool, 3G speeds are likely lumped in as well. Since LTE and 3G networks use different technology to deliver data, I caution against using it to predict your iPad data usage. As a general rule, since LTE delivers data much faster than 3G, it's easier to blow through your cap in a shorter period of time.Click image to enlarge. AT&T's monthly data use calculator doesn't break out '4G' or LTE.Screenshot by Jessica Dolcourt/CNETOf course, you can tweak the calculator to simulate more of a real-world scenario. For example, using Verizon's calculator, 4.75GB per month could net you the following: 25 e-mails; 25 Web site visits; 15 minutes of streaming music; an hour of HD video streaming plus 2 minutes of standard video streaming; 5 minutes of HD VoIP video chats; and 2 hours of online gaming.Video is everythingStreaming video will rocket you toward your data limit, and the new iPad gains support for 1080p HD video. The more detailed picture will take a little longer to download than the 720p version, and will therefore drain more of your data allowance over LTE.To that point, Ars Technica tested the video quality of both 720p and 1080p HD video on the third-generation Apple TV (also announced last week), and discovered that although the file size of the download was larger with 1080p, some compression tricks and new support for the H.264 standard help keep the actual download time from doubling.Similarly, current iPad users can expect a heavier data load for 1080p video than the 720p video would demand. Streaming video, say from iTunes or Netflix, instead of downloading it, will also affect data consumption.Click to enlarge the image. Verizon's monthly data calculator takes 4G into account.Screenshot by Jessica Dolcourt/CNETWhat about hot spots and overage charges?There's also your hot-spot use to consider. Verizon won't charge you extra to use your LTE iPad as a hot spot for up to five devices (AT&T won't offer the hot-spotting capability at launch, but will add it later), but any data you use will be deducted from your monthly plan. As for overages, both AT&T and Verizon ding you $10 per GB anytime you so much as inch over your plan threshold, though neither one threatens punitive throttling. Those who opt in to AT&T's 250MB plan will see an extra $15 overage fee for every additional 250MB they use. So, how much data is enough?The surest way to avoid data insecurity? Stick to Wi-Fi for the big things, like downloading video to watch later. Think of LTE as your lifeline when you're out and about, so use it sparingly. That said, it's fairly safe to go nuts with Web searches and sending e-mail. Verizon's calculator reckons you can visit 3,000 Web sites and send 7,500 e-mails in a single month and use just 3GB of data.Go ahead and pay up for that 4G iPad if you frequently need mission-critical access to the Web in places rife with cellular coverage but dry on Wi-Fi.However, if you expect to stream movies, music, and video 24-7 over 4G, then save yourself the $130 extra for the device, the monthly data charge, and the potential overage fees and stick to Wi-Fi--or drastically adjust your expectations. Even with Verizon's 10GB plan for $80, wanton data use will have you busting through your limit in just a couple of days.
RealNetworks surrenders in RealDVD case
RealNetworks surrenders in RealDVD case
Real and the Motion Picture Association of America reached a settlement, according to statements issued by both companies, that called for Real to stop selling RealDVD or any similar products and to pay $4.5 million to reimburse the studios for legal fees. "We are gratified by the successful conclusion of this important matter," said Daniel Mandil, the MPAA's general counsel. "Judge Patel's rulings and this settlement affirm what we have said from the very start of this litigation: it is illegal to bypass the copyright protections built into DVDs designed to protect movies against theft." It appears that Real, the maker of the RealPlayer and other media software, has suffered total defeat in the court battle with the MPAA, the trade group representing the six largest Hollywood film studios, which began in 2008. The MPAA filed suit to stop the sale of RealDVD, a software that hands users the ability to copy and store films to a hard drive.From the outset of Real's struggle, the company appeared to be on shaky ground. Real argued that consumers possessed the right to backup their DVDs, just as they have a right to make a copy of their songs for personal use. Real told the court the company was just trying to offer consumers the means to do that and that they had a fair use right to do that. "The message this sends is if you get into the business of enabling consumers to do with DVDs what they've long done with CDs, you'll get sued out of the business."--Fred von Lohmann, EFF attorney But after hearing initial arguments from Real and the studios, Patel quickly slapped a preliminary injunction that prevented sales of RealDVD. Things went down hill from there.Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group that advocates for tech companies and Internet users, defended Real's pursuit of the case. He said Real could have provided real benefit to consumers, if not with RealDVD, then eventually with a DVD player that would have incorporated some of the software's copying abilities. Real was working on a player, codenamed Facet, which would have created copies of DVDs and stored more than 70 films on its hard drive. "(Real's testimony) made it clear that Real was out to deliver to consumers a product that people wanted to see," von Lohmann said. "I think the message this sends is if you get into the business of enabling consumers to do with DVDs what they've long done with CDs, you'll get sued out of the business. I think that's bad news for consumers. What that means is that if you want to create a digital back-up of your movies, you have to pay for that a second time on iTunes." Judging from statements made by Real previously, pursuing the case will end up costing it well over $10 million. This is part of Rob Glaser's legacy. Glaser founded the company and oversaw operations as CEO for a decade before being eased out by Real's board last year. He remains at the company as chairman. He led Real to a huge court victory against Microsoft after accusing the company of illegally using its Windows monopoly to hurt digital media rivals. Since then, critics have accused Glaser of being too focused on trying to litigate Real into becoming a successful company. While interest in streaming media skyrocketed, an area that Real should have dominated, the company under Glaser's leadership sat on the sidelines.
Real and the Motion Picture Association of America reached a settlement, according to statements issued by both companies, that called for Real to stop selling RealDVD or any similar products and to pay $4.5 million to reimburse the studios for legal fees. "We are gratified by the successful conclusion of this important matter," said Daniel Mandil, the MPAA's general counsel. "Judge Patel's rulings and this settlement affirm what we have said from the very start of this litigation: it is illegal to bypass the copyright protections built into DVDs designed to protect movies against theft." It appears that Real, the maker of the RealPlayer and other media software, has suffered total defeat in the court battle with the MPAA, the trade group representing the six largest Hollywood film studios, which began in 2008. The MPAA filed suit to stop the sale of RealDVD, a software that hands users the ability to copy and store films to a hard drive.From the outset of Real's struggle, the company appeared to be on shaky ground. Real argued that consumers possessed the right to backup their DVDs, just as they have a right to make a copy of their songs for personal use. Real told the court the company was just trying to offer consumers the means to do that and that they had a fair use right to do that. "The message this sends is if you get into the business of enabling consumers to do with DVDs what they've long done with CDs, you'll get sued out of the business."--Fred von Lohmann, EFF attorney But after hearing initial arguments from Real and the studios, Patel quickly slapped a preliminary injunction that prevented sales of RealDVD. Things went down hill from there.Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group that advocates for tech companies and Internet users, defended Real's pursuit of the case. He said Real could have provided real benefit to consumers, if not with RealDVD, then eventually with a DVD player that would have incorporated some of the software's copying abilities. Real was working on a player, codenamed Facet, which would have created copies of DVDs and stored more than 70 films on its hard drive. "(Real's testimony) made it clear that Real was out to deliver to consumers a product that people wanted to see," von Lohmann said. "I think the message this sends is if you get into the business of enabling consumers to do with DVDs what they've long done with CDs, you'll get sued out of the business. I think that's bad news for consumers. What that means is that if you want to create a digital back-up of your movies, you have to pay for that a second time on iTunes." Judging from statements made by Real previously, pursuing the case will end up costing it well over $10 million. This is part of Rob Glaser's legacy. Glaser founded the company and oversaw operations as CEO for a decade before being eased out by Real's board last year. He remains at the company as chairman. He led Real to a huge court victory against Microsoft after accusing the company of illegally using its Windows monopoly to hurt digital media rivals. Since then, critics have accused Glaser of being too focused on trying to litigate Real into becoming a successful company. While interest in streaming media skyrocketed, an area that Real should have dominated, the company under Glaser's leadership sat on the sidelines.
Expect Apple to charge for music cloud
Expect Apple to charge for music cloud
Music industry insiders told me that Apple has indicated it could offer the service free of charge initially but that company will eventually require a fee. Google is also expected to charge for a similar service. Billboard writer Ed Christman reported last September that Google was considering a plan to charge $25 a yearfor a subscription for its cloud service. Last month, the blog Wayne's World reported that Apple would charge $20 annually, but nobody I spoke with seems to know for sure what Apple may ask. An Apple spokesman did not respond to an interview request. Both Apple and Google began discussing plans more than a year ago with the largest four recording companies about enabling users to upload their songs to the companies' servers. Music could then be streamed to users' songs via Internet-connected devices. This kind of third-party computing is known as the cloud.It's going to be interesting to see how online music stores make their cloud-music offerings sweet enough to get consumers to pay--especially the early adopters (and if you're reading CNET that means you). Subscription services have yet to attract any significant market share in digital music. It's generally accepted that consumers prefer to own their tunes rather than renting them and there are some who suspect that the cloud is a way for the Web stores and the labels to charge consumers to access songs they already own. What the music industry is banking on is that consumers will see the sense in paying a relatively small monthly fee for access an endless supply of songs. Right now, to obtain music legally, people have to pay $1 or more for each song. Decision makers in the industry hope people will conclude that ownership doesn't provide the best bang for the buck, just as they have concluded with movies. DVD sales have fallen the past couple of years just as consumers have begun flocking to Netflix, a subscription service that charges $8 a month for all-you-can-eat viewing of films and TV shows. Meanwhile, Apple and Google continue to seek licenses for their services. So far, Apple has a deal with Warner Music Group, But Google's negotiations with the four top labels have stalled. Amazon got off the ground with a cloud music service last month and charges based on the amount of data a user stores. Update 11:00 a.m. PT: Billboard reporter Glenn Peoples has postedan interesting opinion piece today about why the music sector should adopt Netflix's business model. You can read it here.
Music industry insiders told me that Apple has indicated it could offer the service free of charge initially but that company will eventually require a fee. Google is also expected to charge for a similar service. Billboard writer Ed Christman reported last September that Google was considering a plan to charge $25 a yearfor a subscription for its cloud service. Last month, the blog Wayne's World reported that Apple would charge $20 annually, but nobody I spoke with seems to know for sure what Apple may ask. An Apple spokesman did not respond to an interview request. Both Apple and Google began discussing plans more than a year ago with the largest four recording companies about enabling users to upload their songs to the companies' servers. Music could then be streamed to users' songs via Internet-connected devices. This kind of third-party computing is known as the cloud.It's going to be interesting to see how online music stores make their cloud-music offerings sweet enough to get consumers to pay--especially the early adopters (and if you're reading CNET that means you). Subscription services have yet to attract any significant market share in digital music. It's generally accepted that consumers prefer to own their tunes rather than renting them and there are some who suspect that the cloud is a way for the Web stores and the labels to charge consumers to access songs they already own. What the music industry is banking on is that consumers will see the sense in paying a relatively small monthly fee for access an endless supply of songs. Right now, to obtain music legally, people have to pay $1 or more for each song. Decision makers in the industry hope people will conclude that ownership doesn't provide the best bang for the buck, just as they have concluded with movies. DVD sales have fallen the past couple of years just as consumers have begun flocking to Netflix, a subscription service that charges $8 a month for all-you-can-eat viewing of films and TV shows. Meanwhile, Apple and Google continue to seek licenses for their services. So far, Apple has a deal with Warner Music Group, But Google's negotiations with the four top labels have stalled. Amazon got off the ground with a cloud music service last month and charges based on the amount of data a user stores. Update 11:00 a.m. PT: Billboard reporter Glenn Peoples has postedan interesting opinion piece today about why the music sector should adopt Netflix's business model. You can read it here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)