Originally Posted by kennyt
Not true, bandwidth, which transfers all those bit, does cost, and this is why Apple charges more for their HD downloads, it uses more bandwidth.
Ken, I respectfully disagree.
Apple pays the same price for their bandwidth no matter what they send over it.
I will concede it takes a bit more time to transmit a larger HD file than a smaller SD file, but I can assure you they are charging a premium for the HD download NOT because it takes a bit longer to transmit, but because they believe there is added value for their consumers who choose to spend the extra $$$ for the HD download.
And if consumers choose to download enough HD, then HD will become a significant part of Apple's offering.
And for those of you who have mentioned how expensive "big" bandwidth is, well, I just received an offer from Embarq (former Sprint/Earthlink carrier) today to upgrade from my current 5MB download speed to 10MB speed for only an extra $10/month.
Bandwidth costs, both now and in the future, are NOT going to be an impediment to the adaption of HD downloads to consumers who would rather buy their content this way than buy the physical media.
As always, YMMV, of course. But pleeease, don't keep constructing the idiotic argument that bandwidth speeds and bandwitch costs are going to limit the quick adaption of HD downloads in the major metro markets. It ain't gonna' happen with the Telco's and the Cable Companies competing to steal each others customers!
Now, for those who live in the sticks, like Bug Tussle, OK, or Beargrass, NC, well, high speed will not be visiting you anytime soon. So these out-of-the-way, backwoods markets will be Blue Ray's best hope for market success as Steve Jobs makes his millions on major metro market HD downloads.