[Robo]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray How about Blu-ray?

I'm a big fan of Blu-ray, so Steve's recent "bag of hurt" comment sort of mystified me. A "bag of hurt" how, exactly? It's not like it's competing with HD-DVD any more...and if I'm not mistaken Apple doesn't even offer HD movie downloads right now (only rentals) so it's not like it'd be competing with iTunes (not that competing with iTunes would be a good enough reason for not including Blu-ray in the first place. Macs can play DVD movies, right?).

It's like, there's this sort of law that Apple can not be on the forefront of technology (and really, Blu-ray isn't even a "cutting edge" sort of thing any more). It's like, they want to be behind, just because they can (because they know people will buy their OS anyway).

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by Roboman I'm a big fan of Blu-ray, so Steve's recent "bag of hurt" comment sort of mystified me. A "bag of hurt" how, exactly? It's not like it's competing with HD-DVD any more...and if I'm not mistaken Apple doesn't even offer HD movie downloads right now (only rentals) so it's not like it'd be competing with iTunes (not that competing with iTunes would be a good enough reason for not including Blu-ray in the first place. Macs can play DVD movies, right?). It's like, there's this sort of law that Apple can not be on the forefront of technology (and really, Blu-ray isn't even a "cutting edge" sort of thing any more). It's like, they want to be behind, just because they can (because they know people will buy their OS anyway).

Jobs' mainly complained about the licensing but that's likely trivial as compared to negotiating with the studios for iTunes content. What it really comes down to is Apple not wanting any other HD technology that is superior to iTunes HD downloads which means the cries for Blu-ray enabled Apple TV will certainly go ignored and Blu-ray playback/recording will likely be confined to the Mac Pro initially.

[Dorian Gray]

Yeah, Apple's relationship with the sharp end of technology is strange. They do put some very nice CPUs in their computers (every time they update them, at least). They've even developed something of a tradition of getting Intel parts before anyone else. I guess this is because they must be one of Intel's biggest customers, at least by value; even without big server sales. I had expected the Intel honeymoon to be brief, but it's endured thus far.

They're also very quick to adopt stuff like new battery tech (lithium-polymer a while ago and now the 17-inch MBP's evolution of that), Wi-Fi (n), ports (DisplayPort), etc. With GPUs it's not so much that they don't spec decent GPUs for the money, but rather that they simply don't offer high-end GPUs where competitors do. This may be due to the effort required to develop drivers for each GPU, I suppose.

There's no real excuse about the RAM situation, and more RAM really improves the user experience. It doesn't matter to those of us who upgrade RAM on a new machine as a matter of course, but it's certainly detrimental to people who buy a computer with the (reasonable) expectation that it should work fine out of the box.

Blu-ray is now entrenched and obviously here for the long haul. Realistically it will be years before Apple can sell Full HD content on iTunes and expect users to universally have the bandwidth, storage space, processing power, and home network know-how to deal with it. Surely they realise they must offer Blu-ray at least in those intervening years? Might as well start sooner rather than later.

[Robo]

I mean, I would pay more for a Mac with a Blu-ray drive. Does Apple not want my money?

[psmith2.0]

When we talk about Blu-ray drives on Macs, are we talking about movie-viewing or more about storage/backup (burning)? Or a bit of both?



Because if it's the former, do people really sit in an office chair in front of their 17-22" (for the most part) computers to watch movies on any sort of frequent, regular basis (vs. a nice large TV, on a couch, etc.).

As for the storage/backup thing, I can maybe see that (in conjunction with regular hard drive backups, like with Time Machine or whatever). Burn a large, "everything I have" copy onto disk and store them in separate places in case of fire or theft in your home? That sort of thing?

Or am I completely missing the whole thing somehow? It certainly wouldn't be the first time I've failed to "get it" at the outset...



As someone genuinely curious (and who doesn't own any Blu-ray device or media), what's the draw here for it to be on the Mac? Sort of a "successor to the SuperDrive", I assume?

[kieran]

I don't really understand why a Blu-Ray drive would be important in most of the lineup, but in the case of something like the mini or AppleTV, it makes sense.

[thegeriatric]

Blu-Ray for back up only. No way I'd sit in front of my mac to watch a movie.

Armchair, big TV, Drink, Popcorn Etc.

[Luca]

It'd still be convenient for those who hook their computer up to their TV.

[Swox]

And for people who want to make HD videos on their MacPros. That would be sweet.

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by Swox And for people who want to make HD videos on their MacPros. That would be sweet.

That's just it ..you can make HD videos without Blu-ray. With flash drives being cheap it's easy to pick up an 8GB USB flash
drive and put your video on it and you don't have to worry about having Blu-ray on both sides of the chain.

Don't get me wrong..if you have a mid=level to high end home theater Blu-ray is THE way to watch pristine quality but for
a lot of consumer needs it's overkill. 720p looks damn good

[nikstar101]

I think that Blu-Ray is important as a future technology and it is a pain that Apple for some reason or another cannot get it onto their machines.

I agree that i usually would want to watch movie in front of the TV on my sofa. But if someone else is watching the TV and i ahve a Blu-Ray i am stuffed. So it would be nice to be able to watch it on the computer (with a 24" screen).

Also i would like as pscates mentioned to do a quaterly backup everything to a disc (as well as my weekly incremental backups) and using a billion DVDs is just a pain.

Its not a show stopper but it is just an oddity without it. Especially the Mac Pros.

[Chinney]

But was there not some justification for the idea - beyond Jobs' griping - that Blu-Ray is going to be in trouble? It is still something of a niche format, and with its relatively high price and given that more and more high-definition is going to be available via VOD, cable movie channels, Apple TV, is Blu-Ray going to succeed?

In any event, Apple's 'vision' for quite some time has been an 'online' one. They are nothing if not consistent in showing a lack of enthusiasm about a disk format.

[curiousuburb]

Baking your own Blu-Ray movies is probably still a niche market exclusive to pros who've likely got other mastering options already.
And while Blu-Ray at 50GB/dual layer disc (purely for backup) is tempting... at 400GB/20 layer disc it might be irresistibly sweet.

[hmurchison]

The problem is Blu-ray is a high end solution for a world that likes mid to low-end stuff.

Even if you buy a $150 the typical Blu-ray the movies on sale are $24.99 typically. I'm used to being
able to buy 2-3 DVD for that price.

Another shocker is the realworld benefits of 1080p over 720p. I have an HD-DVD player hooked up to a Sharp
Aquos 32". I watched Transformers and King King and other movies that are a cut above in quality visuals and
I was amazed because it dawned on me that I was only resolving 720p and it was being downscaled. If 720p looks
that good then it became clear to me why Apple standardized iTunes HD at 720p. I think most consumers will be
pleased with 720p content on monitors all the way up to 55" 1080p is really overkill unless you have a full blown 5.1
or 7.1 system that can output.

As for backup I think the train moved on past Blu-ray before it got to the station. The problem is price and speed
$35 for slow 50GB optical disc when a 320GB HDD is 15 bucks more. I see people backing up locally using native
tools like Time Machine and augmenting that with something like Dropbox which not only stores your files remotely but
synchronizes the changes.

Apple will eventually choose Blu-ray but I think overall the format was too late to the party and with faster cable speeds
rolling out with DOCSIS 3 and fibre to the premise the need for a spendy optical format is waning fast for many people.

I'm more excited about instant access and streaming files than I am with yet another optical format to manage.

[curiousuburb]

I'd vote for optilinear memory crystals... as long as that nimrod Wesley Crusher isn't around.

There's some research going on into holographic storage... and IIRC, they're already producing prototype 'drives'... but we're a few years away at least.

[Luca]

I think this is just one of those things where Apple's being pig-headed for no reason and will have to eventually cave. Just like USB 2.0, which was around for years before Apple adopted it, but they refused to include it on their machines because I think they saw it as competition for Firewire. And look where they are now. Oh, and CD-R drives too.

Say what you will about how popular Blu-ray is or will eventually be, I don't doubt that in a couple years you'll be able to get a BD/DVD combo burner for the same price as a DVD burner now. Every computer will have one because there will be no reason not to. When DVDs first came out, people probably thought the same thing about them - why would a computer need a DVD drive?

Just think of how more useful DVDs were than CDs for backing things up. BDs are the same order of magnitude better than DVDs. With 1 TB hard drives and greater, being able to fit 23 GB (vs. 4.3 GB) on a single disc would be very useful.

[Satchmo]

I think Blu-ray is dead or will serve only the pro-market. In fact, all disc-media will succumb to solid state drives.

Apple has always been thinking ahead (despite the critics of why the iMac had no floppy drive or why the MBA has no optical drive). No moving parts is just quieter and faster. Once capacities and prices come down, Blu-ray movies will be relegated to the discount bins. Online delivery of HD movies will become mainstream.
And yes, 1080p is completely over-rated...at this point and time given everything is compressed down to 720p.

[Taskiss]

640K is more memory than anyone will ever need
On-line material will be the end of books
The internet is a passing fad

I think if someone always bet on technologies that provide "more", all in all, they'll come out way ahead. VHS beat betamax 'cause it stored 6 hrs v. 2...and I can't remember where "less" was viewed as better.

I guess there are folks wanting the iPhone that holds 8 GB instead of 16GB...or the drive that holds 80 GB instead of a freaking terabyte... but I don't see manufactures catering to them in any big way.

[copland]

Originally Posted by Luca Just like USB 2.0, which was around for years before Apple adopted it, but they refused to include it on their machines because I think they saw it as competition for Firewire. And look where they are now. Oh, and CD-R drives too.

I think too Apple is going to make the same mistake again. How many people have real broadband, fast enough to support streaming HD and possibly doing some stuff on the intarweb (thats what people can do while one is watching HD via BD and the other one surfing the net, possibly downloading some legally bought (i)tunes).
I think it is single digit %, if it is that many. To my mind it will take another 3 to 5 years until you reach >70% of US people with real broadband.
Until then no real HD for you if we believe Apple (I have no HD experience from iTunes as Apple doesn't offer any HD here in Europe, but the reported quality was low due to small size of the files).

[Luca]

Also, streaming services, devices, and standards are all over the map. Even if the infrastructure was in place, there's no consensus as to how you should be able to stream movies. Do you get an AppleTV and go through iTunes? That's fine unless you decide that Apple doesn't have everything you want and you'd like to switch to a different provider, like Netflix. At that point your AppleTV is worthless and you'll have to buy one of those Netflix set-top boxes. But what if you're disappointed with Netflix? Then you have to sell the Netflix box and buy something else. You can surpass all these by setting up a computer in your living room instead, but how many people have the know-how to get everything working properly like that? Not to mention it's expensive. Oh, or you could just buy all the set-top boxes, but that's at least as expensive and setting up a computer AND it requires a TV with lots and lots of inputs (or an HDMI switch, which is also expensive).

Blu-ray is so simple because all you do is buy a Blu-ray player and connect it to your TV, just like a DVD player. If you don't like Netflix, switch to Blockbuster. If you don't like Blockbuster, switch to something else. Rent movies in physical stores if you want. Buy them if you prefer that. It is an established standard. Everyone plays by the same rules.

Until there is a universal Internet-streaming set-top box available that can handle all the major services and allows you to switch between them at will (something that is not likely to ever happen), I doubt streaming movies will be popular. Instead, companies that offer streaming will have little feuds over hardware, each offering their own device to access their content library alone, and they'll drive customers away.

[psmith2.0]

I agree. To me, that side of things is the real "bag of hurt" Jobs should've aimed that comment toward. Sounds like a mess.

[curiousuburb]

Originally Posted by Taskiss 640K is more memory than anyone will ever need On-line material will be the end of books The internet is a passing fad I think if someone always bet on technologies that provide "more", all in all, they'll come out way ahead. VHS beat betamax 'cause it stored 6 hrs v. 2...and I can't remember where "less" was viewed as better. I guess there are folks wanting the iPhone that holds 8 GB instead of 16GB...or the drive that holds 80 GB instead of a freaking terabyte... but I don't see manufactures catering to them in any big way.

Nah... Capacity was only part of it... you could get 6 hours on a tape, if you sacrificed quality.

VHS also beat Betamax because you could get pr0n on VHS (and the home rental market had a pent-up demand from anybody who didn't want to go to seedy adult cinemas). Cue an explosion in adult video... almost all on VHS.

Beta was/is superior quality, and is still in common use in broadcasting due to this (where they generally won't sacrifice quality for more recording space).

The transport mechanisms differ, however, and VHS generates far less wear on heads than Beta, so for lots of FF or RWD (more common in home use than broadcast), VHS machines lasted longer. Broadcast Beta machines often need weekly service.

So part of it was capacity (where VHS wins at the cost of quality),
part was quality (where Beta wins at the cost of capacity),
part was durability (where VHS wins and becomes better value-for-money/repairs),
and part was selection of content (where VHS wins regardless of which shelf your tape is on).

At least that's my recollection.

HD-DVD could in principle hold 75GB on a dual layer disc... but at slightly lower quality. Blu-Ray shipped more machines (PS3 helped). Limited shelf space for multiple formats means stores started to make choices based on installed base and lessons from the VHS-Beta wars.

Déjà Vu.

[Luca]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 I agree. To me, that side of things is the real "bag of hurt" Jobs should've aimed that comment toward. Sounds like a mess.

I think what Apple is/was hoping is that the popularity of the iPod and iTunes would spill over to the AppleTV, making it the de facto standard for online video streaming and downloads just like how the iPod is the de facto standard for portable music players.

Note that the portable music player market is pretty simple and orderly - you've got iPods and you've got everything else. Apple wants lightning to strike twice with the AppleTV and iTunes. Unfortunately, they don't seem to realize that the opportunity for that to happen came and went a long time ago. I'd say at this point, the online video market consists of Netflix and everyone else. And Apple's not used to being part of the "everyone else" category.

[Satchmo]

Originally Posted by Luca Blu-ray is so simple because all you do is buy a Blu-ray player and connect it to your TV, just like a DVD player. If you don't like Netflix, switch to Blockbuster. If you don't like Blockbuster, switch to something else. Rent movies in physical stores if you want. Buy them if you prefer that. It is an established standard. Everyone plays by the same rules.

Sticking a USB Flash drive into the side of your Plasma/LCD TV is even easier.

The fact that no one standard presently rules gives me hope that Apple still has a window of opportunity. True, infrastructure and greater broadband is necessary for mass adoption of online delivery...but didn't Obama make this as one of his top priorities?

[psmith2.0]

Yeah. And they'd probably choose to beat this dead horse some more than ever give in and update the Mac mini.



They're bad at that whole "pick your battles" thing.



I don't think Apple's going to win this one, and come out on top. You're right...this was decided earlier on, for the most part, and Apple doesn't seem to have a serious place in it. I don't think lightning is going to strike twice, making Apple and iTunes as synonymous with movie-watching as they are with music. At this point it seems like a bit of an uphill climb on their hands.

If I was going to lay down money for this sort of thing, I'd go with Netflix. And that's from a diehard Apple fan/supporter...so what do you think the average schmo on the street is going to do?

Second only to the iPod HiFi, I can't think of an Apple product that holds as little interest for me as tv. So much so that I can't even adequately explain why because the interest simply isn't there to give enough of a damn to try and find out.



Please bear in mind this has no reflection on all the people who do have these devices, and use/love them. For them and their needs/viewing patterns, it makes sense, and I can appreciate that. I'm not one to harp on anyone's personal choices for buying something (within reason ). It's just something that's never appealed to me, that's all. YMMV and all that...

[Luca]

My TV doesn't have a USB port. I doubt many people have that feature.

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 They're bad at that whole "pick your battles" thing.

Well they certainly pick their battles. They only seem to win about half of them though.

EDIT: I think I'm going to split this thread into a new one for discussing Blu-ray vs. streaming.

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by Luca Blu-ray is so simple because all you do is buy a Blu-ray player and connect it to your TV, just like a DVD player. If you don't like Netflix, switch to Blockbuster. If you don't like Blockbuster, switch to something else. Rent movies in physical stores if you want. Buy them if you prefer that. It is an established standard. Everyone plays by the same rules. Until there is a universal Internet-streaming set-top box available that can handle all the major services and allows you to switch between them at will (something that is not likely to ever happen), I doubt streaming movies will be popular. Instead, companies that offer streaming will have little feuds over hardware, each offering their own device to access their content library alone, and they'll drive customers away.

Blu-ray is the antithesis of easy and simple. Look at the players and then decide.
"What do I get with Profile 1.1?"
"Should I spend more for Profile 2.0?"

The only people that will struggle with streaming services are companies like Apple that have tried to sandbox their content. But even then you have XBMC and Boxee aggregating multiple services into highly functional devices. You have HDTV coming that stream Netflix directly as well as Blu-ray players. I doubt that access will be a problem.

Originally Posted by Luca I think what Apple is/was hoping is that the popularity of the iPod and iTunes would spill over to the AppleTV, making it the de facto standard for online video streaming and downloads just like how the iPod is the de facto standard for portable music players. Note that the portable music player market is pretty simple and orderly - you've got iPods and you've got everything else. Apple wants lightning to strike twice with the AppleTV and iTunes. Unfortunately, they don't seem to realize that the opportunity for that to happen came and went a long time ago. I'd say at this point, the online video market consists of Netflix and everyone else. And Apple's not used to being part of the "everyone else" category.

Apple simply will not be able to attain the same level of influence. They just don't have an iPod "magic bullet" and the movie industry is making sure that they don't create an 800lb gorilla like the music industry has.

[Luca]

Originally Posted by hmurchison Blu-ray is the antithesis of easy and simple. Look at the players and then decide. "What do I get with Profile 1.1?" "Should I spend more for Profile 2.0?"

I've never even heard of those things. I suspect most people haven't. When they decide they want a Blu-ray player, they go out, buy a PS3 (or whatever is on sale at Best Buy), and that's it. Simple as that.

[hmurchison]

I'm just reading the tea leaves a bit here.

I view Blu-ray and to a lesser extent the defunct HD-DVD as swan song formats. The movie industry along with
CE vendors basically were "pigs at a trough" and Jobs' refrenced this with his "bag of hurt" comment. If you're a
small indie studio Blu-ray is tantalizing but distressing with the annual fee and title licensing costs. Frankly I want
a second HD format to hit without the DRM and license machinations they incur.

As for iTunes. I remember when you needed an accelerator card to handle MPEG2. Even more recently I remember reading that MPEG2 Long GOP would remain difficult to edit. Today the avg consumer machine can rip through editing MPEG2 like it's editing 320x240 video. MPEG2 can look great at 10Mbps data rates which was nigh impossible 6 years ago.

I expect that h.264 will follow that same trajectory. While 720p 5Mbps HD video looks good now but not Blu-ray quality in another 3 years we're going to find that this bandwidth is more than adequate to deliver HD quality that can be transported to portable devices easily. I don't see 1080p hitting iTunes for a long time and I see consumers happy with what they're getting.

I see Blu-ray becoming the next Laserdisc. If the avg flick on iTunes is 3-5GB and looks good why do I need 25-50GB unless I have the ancillary items to take advantage of lossless sound and 30Mbps video?

[Luca]

That's actually a good point. VHS was popular for some 20 years. DVDs are still way more popular than Blu-ray discs and it's entirely possible that they will outlast them despite being comparatively old technology. Unlike DVDs, which provided not only a quality improvement but also a huge increase in convenience from VHS tapes, BDs don't really give you anything extra other than better picture and sound quality.

Still, at the moment, streaming hasn't even gotten on its feet yet and it will be years before it does. For the moment, BD dominates the HD movie world.