Universal Studios to Launch iPhone Features for Blu-ray Discs [Archive]

MacRumors

Jul 20, 2009, 03:11 PM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/20/universal-studios-to-launch-iphone-features-for-blu-ray-discs/)

Universal Studios Home Entertainment today announced (http://news.prnewswire.com/ViewContent.aspx?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/07-20-2009/0005062513) (via iLounge (http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/news/comments/universal-to-offer-iphone-ipod-touch-features-on-blu-ray/)) that it will begin offering iPhone-enabled features on some of its future Blu-ray video releases. Universal's initial launch for the concept will take place with the release of a special Blu-ray edition of Fast & Furious on July 28th. Utilizing an Internet-connected Blu-ray player and a free companion iPhone application to be released to the App Store, viewers will be able to use their iPhone or iPod touch to view and interact with a "Virtual Car Garage" highlighting the cars used in the film.Powered by BD-Live, the 2-Disc Special Edition Blu-ray release of Fast & Furious will utilize this interactive technology tied to its "Virtual Car Garage" bonus feature. With iPhone or iPod touch in-hand, Blu-ray viewers can use their devices' touch screens to control 360-degree views of the movie's supercharged street-racers and instantly punch up exclusive technical specs for the film's high-tech cars.Universal also plans to extend the iPhone application concept in future releases, introducing additional iPhone-formatted content, "virtual remote" applications, and social networking features.Later this year on select Universal releases, consumers will also be able to access bonus content found on their Blu-ray disc and download it into their iPhone or iPod touch to watch features on-the-go; use the devices as a virtual remote to control their Blu-ray disc features; and/or access additional detailed information about the film, its cast and more while watching the movie. Releases will also integrate with social network applications or sites such as Facebook and Twitter to allow users to update their friends about movie-related activities.

Article Link: Universal Studios to Launch iPhone Features for Blu-ray Discs (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/20/universal-studios-to-launch-iphone-features-for-blu-ray-discs/)

Emulsion

Jul 20, 2009, 03:13 PM

mehhh.....

Doubt it will be all that big.

StuddedLeather

Jul 20, 2009, 03:14 PM

Sorta cool I guess. . .

Kilamite

Jul 20, 2009, 03:16 PM

A sly dig at Apple, to try and get them to adopt Blu-Ray on Macs..?

Eidorian

Jul 20, 2009, 03:17 PM

A sly dig at Apple, to try and get them to adopt Blu-Ray on Macs..?We can only hope.

MacFly123

Jul 20, 2009, 03:17 PM

I think this sounds very cool and love that the iPhone is being tied into another facet of entertainment therefore cementing its position further.

I wish Apple would update the Apple TV soon. I have held off buying a Blu-ray player because I am on the fence between HD discs and downloadable content. I have the Apple TV and LOVE it, but I want to start buying everything in 1080p. If I buy a Blu-ray player now Apple will probably announce a new Apple TV and 1080p soon after. What to do? :o

vipergts2207

Jul 20, 2009, 03:18 PM

iPhone + PS3 = win :)

t0mat0

Jul 20, 2009, 03:21 PM

Doesn't sound great - i'd say the F&F game was much better than this lackluster attempt.
A decent iPhone app to remote control Sony and other BR and more products? Would be good. Doesn't sound that innovative at the moment.

cube

Jul 20, 2009, 03:22 PM

This is terrible. I don't want to have to buy an iPhone to access BD content. :mad:

It's bad enough that the most restrictive technology was forced upon us.

andiwm2003

Jul 20, 2009, 03:22 PM

i don't get it.

why don't they put the content online and give away an iphone app to watch it. why do they do this complicated "connect your blue ray player to the internet" stuff?:confused:

look more like a marketing gimmick than something useful.

give us all movies on itunes (on time, not a year after the DVD) and all is good. then include your iphone crap with that.

sbrhwkp3

Jul 20, 2009, 03:25 PM

Please be compatible with PS3.... I JUST bought one.

cocamouthwash

Jul 20, 2009, 03:27 PM

I guess it has potential...I just wish their debut use of the iPhone wasn't something as lame as a car game...

Remote sounds cool though.

HiRez

Jul 20, 2009, 03:30 PM

DELLsFan

Jul 20, 2009, 03:35 PM

We can only hope that they don't

Fixed.

Blu-Ray is such a waste of time and money IMHO. The days of disk storage are about as antiquated as 8-track media entertainment (again, IMHO). I'll keep my flash memory and HD / SSDs, thanks. The picture quality on HD media is nice, but not worth the premium, IMHO.

Sky Blue

Jul 20, 2009, 03:36 PM

Cool! Can't wait to pop a Blu-Ray in my Mac and play with these Apps!

Oh, wait...

Eidorian

Jul 20, 2009, 03:37 PM

jtgotsjets

Jul 20, 2009, 03:37 PM

seems silly until i can play blu-ray on my computer

VanMac

Jul 20, 2009, 03:38 PM

I wish people would give up on this whole "interactive DVD" concept. They've been trying it for years, and it's always been lame. Everyone has a computer and a broadband connection now, why do we need to interact with the DVD?

Ya, I dont see the point in interacting either. If they just distributed content and games for the iPhone on the DVD as a bonus, then that would be fine.

skellener

Jul 20, 2009, 03:40 PM

Oh brother.... instead of adding lame gimmicks like this, why don't they just lower the prices of the discs? iPhone tie-ins with Blu-ray - what's next....iPhone tie-ins with mini-disc?

skellener

Jul 20, 2009, 03:41 PM

I have the Apple TV and LOVE it, but I want to start buying everything in 1080p. If I buy a Blu-ray player now Apple will probably announce a new Apple TV and 1080p soon after. What to do? :o1080p Netflix is coming to the XBOX 360 in the fall.

notnek

Jul 20, 2009, 03:46 PM

Please be compatible with PS3.... I JUST bought one.

why would it not be? it's an internet-connected blu-ray player.

SFStateStudent

Jul 20, 2009, 03:49 PM

OK, so what's the bottom-line $$$$; the say a free iPhone app, but what about the Internet-connected Blu-ray player? And what about the cost to download the Blu-ray 2-disc movie? :eek::eek::eek:

Michael CM1

Jul 20, 2009, 03:52 PM

Fixed.

Blu-Ray is such a waste of time and money IMHO. The days of disk storage are about as antiquated as 8-track media entertainment (again, IMHO). I'll keep my flash memory and HD / SSDs, thanks. The picture quality on HD media is nice, but not worth the premium, IMHO.

So you'll pay the premium for SSDs but not BDs?

These "I hate optical media!" posts never make sense. BD costs have consistently been dropping ever since the first player came out -- it was $1,000. You can now buy a standalone player for $200 if you're lucky, and the movies slowly keep dropping in price. If you keep your eye on Amazon.com, you will find TONS of movies for less than $20, often less than $15. I just got The Matrix 10th anniversary edition and Serenity for about $31 combined. I got Lost Season 2 for $30 when it was first announced.

BD is evolving just like DVD did, and Apple will eventually have to deal with it. When PC makers can offer a BD drive in a sub-$1,000 notebook, Apple customers would love to know why the same can't even be added to a Mac Pro.

klittle32

Jul 20, 2009, 04:01 PM

I take this as a evidence of BD maturing, which is good. But I must say, I have played around a little bit in the extra features of my Blueray disks, and I just don't get the BD Live stuff. It looks awkward and I don't really have a desire to chat with someone else on my screen while my movie is playing.

jessica.

Jul 20, 2009, 04:03 PM

What I'd like is a way to stream my BR movie to my iPhone via a website they provide so long as I buy the physical BR movie.

Lone Deranger

Jul 20, 2009, 04:08 PM

Haha.. wow.. this sounds so tacky!
Blu-Ray is nervous.

Electrolytic

Jul 20, 2009, 04:13 PM

Watching a blu ray movie on the iphone or any phone = cool.

View and interact with a "Virtual Car Garage" highlighting the cars used in the film = LAME...

Tilpots

Jul 20, 2009, 04:13 PM

Ha! First Apple product to officially support Blu-Ray: iPhone. :rolleyes:

WTF!?! Something's seriously wrong with this picture. :eek:

Fixed.

Blu-Ray is such a waste of time and money IMHO. The days of disk storage are about as antiquated as 8-track media entertainment (again, IMHO). I'll keep my flash memory and HD / SSDs, thanks. The picture quality on HD media is nice, but not worth the premium, IMHO.

I think your HO is wrong on every level.:D

vipergts2207

Jul 20, 2009, 04:15 PM

Fixed.

Blu-Ray is such a waste of time and money IMHO. The days of disk storage are about as antiquated as 8-track media entertainment (again, IMHO). I'll keep my flash memory and HD / SSDs, thanks. The picture quality on HD media is nice, but not worth the premium, IMHO.

Yes, because adding functionality is a bad thing. :rolleyes:

So you'll pay the premium for SSDs but not BDs?

These "I hate optical media!" posts never make sense. BD costs have consistently been dropping ever since the first player came out -- it was $1,000. You can now buy a standalone player for $200 if you're lucky, and the movies slowly keep dropping in price. If you keep your eye on Amazon.com, you will find TONS of movies for less than $20, often less than $15. I just got The Matrix 10th anniversary edition and Serenity for about $31 combined. I got Lost Season 2 for $30 when it was first announced.

BD is evolving just like DVD did, and Apple will eventually have to deal with it. When PC makers can offer a BD drive in a sub-$1,000 notebook, Apple customers would love to know why the same can't even be added to a Mac Pro.

You don't even have to be lucky. You can find BD players for LESS than $200 at walmart. The wholesale cost of millions of BD drives to Apple, would not add much to the cost of a MBP. And if it's an option then people like dellsfan wouldn't even need to worry about it (of course if it's an option Apple would probably add their premium.)

happydude

Jul 20, 2009, 04:20 PM

Cool! Can't wait to pop a Blu-Ray in my Mac and play with these Apps!

Oh, wait...

*sigh* you'd think eventually apple will catch up to the competition on add in blu ray readers. even if physical media storage is going by the wayside, it'll be around for many many more years to come. it would seem to make sense to make some money off it now while it is the latest and greatest. not to mention, allow your consumer base to play with the latest and greatest. a mac mini and/or apple tv with blu ray 1080p options, even if just in BTO would be amazing and what i am waiting for in order to update our media center!

zombitronic

Jul 20, 2009, 04:23 PM

i don't get it. why do they do this complicated "connect your blue ray player to the internet" stuff?:confused:

A good Blu-ray player will already be connected to the internet. Many Blu-rays actually get updates (which are stored in the player's memory). This usually adds interactive content or menu updates.

Blu-Ray is such a waste of time and money IMHO. The days of disk storage are about as antiquated as 8-track media entertainment (again, IMHO). I'll keep my flash memory and HD / SSDs, thanks. The picture quality on HD media is nice, but not worth the premium, IMHO.

I agree that Blu-rays are a waste, especially from a storage point of view. At roughly 25GB per movie, you could fit about 40 movies on a 1TB hard drive. A 1TB hard drive is $80. 1TB of blank Blu-ray discs would cost about $800 to $1,000. No doubt, the studios get their media for less than this, but if the cost of the media is reflected in the consumer's retail price AT ALL, the consumer is getting screwed.

That being said, the price for a studio to distribute a digital copy of a movie is next to nothing, since there's no physical property being sold. If they can sell it directly from their own servers/sites, even at $10 per 25GB movie, 40 movies would only cost you $480, with the price of a 1TB hard drive included. This $10 is ALL profit minus the costs of server upkeep. Compare this to about $1,000 or up if you were to buy movies on Blu-ray disc format. For the studios, there's the cost of media and materials and the middleman. I'm surprised no one has figured this out yet, other than Apple with the iTunes store, but they are the middleman.

To the studio's credit, the iTunes store is a popular and convenient way to distribute video. But what's the hold up with 1080p content?

interlard

Jul 20, 2009, 04:33 PM

I find it fascinating that the first thing they do with an iPhone app is somehow "tie" the Blu-Ray DVD to some useless crap about the tech specs of cars, which you just download from the app store for free anyway. And then some people actually get excited about this.

Only after they've earned your derision and lost your attention do they think of something useful, like a remote control. (Exactly how they give you a remote that works on ANY Blu-Ray player is beyond me right now, but I'm open to new things.)

Funny how people who work in advertising get upset because they are derided as useless time-wasters, unable to make a useful contribution. Wasn't it in one of the Hitchhikers' Guide books, where the advertising exec hold up the square wheel and says, "OK, then: YOU tell us what color it should be."

AppleNewton

Jul 20, 2009, 04:33 PM

just make a companion website to the film; its such a waste to make interactive dvd/br stuff..I dont think ive known anyone that uses that.
oh well, cool plug for apple i suppose.

Instead of all the fancy garbage, they should include a BR Digital Copy Rip of films =D

rumplestiltskin

Jul 20, 2009, 04:34 PM

TheSlush

Jul 20, 2009, 04:41 PM

access additional detailed information about the film, its cast and more while watching the movie.

But I must say...I just don't get the BD Live stuff. It looks awkward and I don't really have a desire to chat with someone else on my screen while my movie is playing.

Exactly. The only reason this announcement may have the illusion of coolness is because a lot of people kind of fantasize about their iPhone eventually becoming their "universal life remote" that's connected to everything around them and can control everything seamlessly. So your iPhone as Blu-ray remote control -- yeah, kinda cool... Your iPhone being able to connect to the disc and manipulate three-dimensional objects -- yeah, kinda cool.

But I honestly cannot understand why the media companies and studios continue to attempt to merge the web-browsing experience with the entertainment-viewing experience. They are two different experiences: one active and one passive, one close-up and one across the room, one generally multitask-oriented and the other generally attention-oriented. Therefore, for the most part I think it's safe to say that most people simply don't want to do one intently while they're doing the other intently.

At least I don't. I don't want to chat with friends while I'm learning whodunnit. I don't want to look up production details in the middle of a car chase. I don't want to update my Facebook profile while the bad guy is dangling off the edge of the cliff.

However, I suspect that I am at odds with the distracting, held-back-in-kindergarten idiots out there who insist on texting in the movie theater during a movie, all of whom I am in the process of hunting down and murdering, one... by... one.

deconstruct60

Jul 20, 2009, 04:52 PM

I agree that Blu-rays are a waste, especially from a storage point of view. At roughly 25GB per movie, you could fit about 40 movies on a 1TB hard drive. A 1TB hard drive is $80. 1TB of blank Blu-ray discs would cost about $800 to $1,000. No doubt, the studios get their media for less than this, but if the cost of the media is reflected in the consumer's retail price AT ALL, the consumer is getting screwed.

Studios sell RW disks or mastered read only disks? The technology of the disks are substantially different if comparing RW to RO media.

The blank blu-ray disk prices are high because the volume is still on blank DVD-RW. However, yes will probably being higher than spinning hard disks when gets to steady state. The upside on disks is that slightly easier to store in smaller numbers. (can take the disk and drop it in a safe deposit box with more room left over than if stuck a whole 1TB drive in there. ). Similarly if your incremental archives grow at a 25-50 GB clip you can store
just that incremental.

However, holding a library, back-ups, and media distribution/control are two different problems (grouping the first two into one group).

That being said, the price for a studio to distribute a digital copy of a movie is next to nothing, since there's no physical property being sold. If they can sell it directly from their own servers/sites, even at $10 per 25GB movie, 40 movies would only cost you $480, with the price of a 1TB hard drive included. This $10 is ALL profit minus the costs of server upkeep. Compare this to about $1,000 or up if you were to buy movies on Blu-ray disc format. For the studios, there's the cost of media and materials and the middleman.

Errr. there is the cost of the movie/content you seem to be blowing off here. Likewise the adversting/marketing costs. Distribution handlers etc. Is $10 a movie ticket cost or just a nice round number?

For every successful movie there are bombs too. The successful ones have to cover the costs of the bombs also. Then you have to pay for the pay for the 7 digit hollywood executive overhead on the projects.

But what's the hold up with 1080p content?

Perhaps increased distribution costs? You are talking about how quickly your going to fill up TB of disk. If all delivered over the internet that is TB of bandwidth. TBs of bandwidth costs more than GBs bandwidth. More server congestion means have to deploy more servers to offer same level of service ( response times , download times, etc. )

deconstruct60

Jul 20, 2009, 04:59 PM

But I honestly cannot understand why the media companies and studios continue to attempt to merge the web-browsing experience with the entertainment-viewing experience..

As a famous rap song goes .... It is all about the Benjamins baby... (i.e., follow the money).

Companies pay producers for product placement. In other words commercials embedded into your movie. Interactive features highlight these commercials. Since these commercials are more prominent they can charge more money for them. Hence, the feature.

You're thinking they are putting this in for the benefit of the consumer. It is there to make you more of a consumer.

There are a subset of folks though who do watch for the placement and/or specific actor. ( Some folks will go if the actor/actress is hot. Some folks will go if cool tech/cars/etc. will be in the movie. Plot? Composition? No, they are there for the stuff. These features highlight the stuff. )

TheSlush

Jul 20, 2009, 05:15 PM

As a famous rap song goes .... It is all about the Benjamins baby... (i.e., follow the money).

Companies pay producers for product placement. In other words commercials embedded into your movie. Interactive features highlight these commercials. Since these commercials are more prominent they can charge more money for them. Hence, the feature.

You're thinking they are putting this in for the benefit of the consumer. It is there to make you more of a consumer.

There are a subset of folks though who do watch for the placement and/or specific actor. ( Some folks will go if the actor/actress is hot. Some folks will go if cool tech/cars/etc. will be in the movie. Plot? Composition? No, they are there for the stuff. These features highlight the stuff. )

Right you are, right you are. But we consumers can be side-stepped for only so long, no? If only a small minority of consumers want/access these extraneous ill-conceived features, how long will the product placers be willing to pay for them? Surely these lame attempts to merge live web with movies can't survive Darwinian evolution for very long if no one wants those experiences to be merged.

deconstruct60

Jul 20, 2009, 05:35 PM

Only after they've earned your derision and lost your attention do they think of something useful, like a remote control. (Exactly how they give you a remote that works on ANY Blu-Ray player is beyond me right now, but I'm open to new things.)

1. With the iPhone/Touch tie-in you get to ride the hype wave of those products for your product.

2. Internet/WiFi players ( if you don't already have one) probably cost a bit more than the ones without. So you get to sell at a higher unit cost ( while providing some more value for disk set and/or player. For those customers on the edge... "What the heck does Internet on a player buy me if anything? ". This is a "for example ..." ) Will snare more gadget freaks this way.

3. What is likely downplayed is that yes.... your player's standard remote will probably have access to these exact feature too. However, the standard remote has no where need the hype factor as point #1 above. Since the iPhone/Touch doesn't have the IR link the remote does, you use the internet to loop the remote commands back into the player. Easier for the iPhone/Touch to play the virtual remote role than it would be for a computer to do it.

ULFoaf

Jul 20, 2009, 05:40 PM

All I can say to the BluRay fanboys is: The train has already left the station, fellas. You can show off your BluRay players like my brother-in-law shows off his LaserDisc player; an obsolete piece of junk.

Downloads are the future and Blu-Ray's not part of it.

Agreed that streaming movies in HD has replaced a lot of disk rental, if that is what you mean. It is very nice, but NOT the quality I've seen on BD in the stores (I don't have a Blu-Ray player).

Does anyone actually purchase movies by downloading, meaning DVDs? I've not heard of it being a regular practice.

It will certainly be a long time before it is practical to download 25 GB. At 20 Mb/s (2.5 MB/sec), that is about 166 minutes of download time.

I think Blu-Ray is safe for premium content for a while. My apologies for my previously posted bad math when I said 166 hours! 2hr and 46 minutes is not quite practical, either. When we can download in about 15 minutes it will become practical.

Doctor Q

Jul 20, 2009, 05:44 PM

Why would I want iPhone-enabled features on a Blu-ray disc? Just to impress my friends at how cool I am for using that combination of technologies.

After a minute or two I wouldn't use it again, since I'd probably have more fun playing a regular iPhone game or a web-based Flash game.

OddyOh

Jul 20, 2009, 05:45 PM

I've seen a few BD-Live features so far, but am far from impressed. The only kinda neat thing was on the "The Dark Knight" disc, where you could connect and take part in a chat with the director. But, that was a one-time thing, so what good does that do any of us now?

The rest of it is merely links to studio websites, which then tell you to visit the site on your computer...:rolleyes: Or download 'exclusive' video content that easily should have been fit on the Blu-Ray in the first place.

Nope, just put the movie and the special features on the disc, I require no more than that!

xIGmanIx

Jul 20, 2009, 05:57 PM

Fixed.

Blu-Ray is such a waste of time and money IMHO. The days of disk storage are about as antiquated as 8-track media entertainment (again, IMHO). I'll keep my flash memory and HD / SSDs, thanks. The picture quality on HD media is nice, but not worth the premium, IMHO.

you sir are out of your gord, and just because you fail to come to grips with a growing medium, thats fine. I bet there would be a substantial amount of users that would jump at the chance to have apple support Blu Ray. show me where i can buy a 50GB SSD or flash memory for under $30 and i believe you.

I've seen a few BD-Live features so far, but am far from impressed. The only kinda neat thing was on the Batman Begins disc, where you could connect and take part in a chat with the director. But, that was a one-time thing, so what good does that do any of us now?

The rest of it is merely links to studio websites, which then tell you to visit the site on your computer...:rolleyes: Or download 'exclusive' video content that easily should have been fit on the Blu-Ray in the first place.

Nope, just put the movie and the special features on the disc, I require no more than that!

I agree, i to date have yet to check out BD-Live at all, and for that matter special features, just give me the best audio and video you can pack onto one disk with maybe alternate endings and i am set.

Porco

Jul 20, 2009, 05:59 PM

Good, makes it more of a farce that Apple still aren't providing Blu-ray support to those who want it, including me. I think Apple are looking increasingly silly to not even support it - the hardware does, and if licensing is a problem they could sell an enabler like they do for other things in such cases - MPEG-2, 802.11n enabler, iPod Touch 3.0 updates... those who don't want it don't have to stick their noses in and spoil it for those who do.

As for the gimmick itself, it sounds harmless enough but not really anything spectacular. To be honest I am not very enamoured with almost all the BD live stuff either, but DVD had just as many features that were touted as being the next big thing and were rarely ever used (multi-angles etc).

Cabbit

Jul 20, 2009, 06:00 PM

xIGmanIx

Jul 20, 2009, 06:03 PM

A good Blu-ray player will already be connected to the internet. Many Blu-rays actually get updates (which are stored in the player's memory). This usually adds interactive content or menu updates.

I agree that Blu-rays are a waste, especially from a storage point of view. At roughly 25GB per movie, you could fit about 40 movies on a 1TB hard drive. A 1TB hard drive is $80. 1TB of blank Blu-ray discs would cost about $800 to $1,000. No doubt, the studios get their media for less than this, but if the cost of the media is reflected in the consumer's retail price AT ALL, the consumer is getting screwed.

That being said, the price for a studio to distribute a digital copy of a movie is next to nothing, since there's no physical property being sold. If they can sell it directly from their own servers/sites, even at $10 per 25GB movie, 40 movies would only cost you $480, with the price of a 1TB hard drive included. This $10 is ALL profit minus the costs of server upkeep. Compare this to about $1,000 or up if you were to buy movies on Blu-ray disc format. For the studios, there's the cost of media and materials and the middleman. I'm surprised no one has figured this out yet, other than Apple with the iTunes store, but they are the middleman.

To the studio's credit, the iTunes store is a popular and convenient way to distribute video. But what's the hold up with 1080p content?

i guess your understanding of the cost of this infrastructure to support what your talking about isn't cheap, nor does any of the studios currently have in place now. Please leave the network engineering to those folks. No cost to digital distribute? Servers? server room, power, facilities, batteries, UPS? circuit costs? Are you kidding me? And lastly, please tell me where i can buy 1TB for $80 and be able to have it play through my stereo equipment and i am on board

AidenShaw

Jul 20, 2009, 06:04 PM

I agree that Blu-rays are a waste, especially from a storage point of view. At roughly 25GB per movie, you could fit about 40 movies on a 1TB hard drive.

Virtually all current BD releases are on 50 GB double-layer discs, so your 25 GB is probably on the low side - even for the main feature without extras.

You also didn't say that it would take you quite a bit of time to download that terabyte of movies:

56 Kbps dialup - 143,000,000 seconds - about 4.5 years
1 Mbps DSL - 8,000,000 seconds - about 95 days
10 Mbps cable - 800,000 seconds - about 10 days
100 Mbps fibre - 80,000 seconds - about 1 day

BD has a bright future for most of the population.

MacFly123

Jul 20, 2009, 06:14 PM

1080p Netflix is coming to the XBOX 360 in the fall.

I don't have an XBOX 360 and don't care to get one. I have a Wii, and if I got any other game system I would consider the PS because of the Blu-ray, but I am not really a gamer. I also want to BUY movies not just rent and pay subscriptions.

I think I really just want 1080p on Apple TV, or rip Blu-rays to my Apple TV. But that tech isn't quite around yet is it, to rip Blu-ray? :confused:

deconstruct60

Jul 20, 2009, 06:22 PM

What is more interesting here is that the iphone/ipod touch is becoming somewhat of a industry standard. It is not hard to imagine a future where every person has a iphone like device that has all there personal data, links to there blood pressure and other vitals(already apps and addons in development for iphone), your camera,.

There is litttle evidence that the blood pressure, cameras, etc. (stuff you can plug into USB and connect via TCP/IP ) is iPhone specific that the iPhone/Touch are required to run the device itself. More it is that the device communicates to the phone and the data is displayed by a program. For other platforms that program can be written for that platform too. Just like USB devices plug into Mac OS X and work ( when Windows is the dominate platform for computers. ).

That lots of eyeballs are looking at iPhone OS is a reason to use examples with it to generate buzz for the product. It is the device/combo that is illustrative of a new line of think.... not the iPhone by itself.

Once all phones have a standard connector and horsepower to run a app to display data... those kinds of combos is not going to be unique. Especially if the data display is rather straightforward to do with standard app building widgets provided. Dials/Numbers/Charts.

DELLsFan

Jul 20, 2009, 06:29 PM

So you'll pay the premium for SSDs but not BDs?

There's more utility for me to invest in HD/SSD storage than BD. The costs have lowered enough for my comfort and are continuing to lower. I would argue the rate at which flash/ssd/hd storage prices have dropped would rival BD media and equipment price rates.

I think your HO is wrong on every level.:D

Appreciate your candor, but in the final analysis, it's my money. I won't waste it on Sony or the allure of HD content.

you sir are out of your gord, and just because you fail to come to grips with a growing medium, thats fine. I bet there would be a substantial amount of users that would jump at the chance to have apple support Blu Ray. show me where i can buy a 50GB SSD or flash memory for under $30 and i believe you.

I don't require or desire your support or approval, thanks - though, yes - I am out of my gord. :D Look, I can understand why so many folks want Blu-Ray. More power to you. Go spend your cash, folks ... have fun with it.

Me, maybe I'm still pissed at having had to go through the format war in the first place, peeps. Competition this and competition that. Innovation this and innovation that. Yeah, that worked out, didn't it? :rolleyes: To the victors go the spoils of war, right? Well, Sony - you're not getting mine. Standard definition is fine with me. I won't pay for your BD players, your BD movies, and I won't option my PC or future Mac with a BD player so long as I have anything to say about it.

kernkraft

Jul 20, 2009, 06:40 PM

I can list several reasons, why BluRay is not as popular as it is supposed to be. Apple not adapting it is not a major issue, I think. After all, with around ten percent of the computer market, Mac users can claim more of a sentimental or prestige value, if you like, than real market force. With recent shambles about the FireWire, you might get the impression that even Apple is not giving a toss about its most dedicated core users, design and media professionals. I'm sure that some will see this point differently, but that's how I feel.

I remember, in between 2001 and 2004 I spent a large chunk of my money on DVD's. Now I think it was rather pathetic to spend an absolute fortune just to have a hardly watched collection. It was an obsession and now I see that it was at least as much about owning a particular format than appreciating the films themselves. It's too expensive to show off and it's a burden to have when it comes to moving, adapting new technology and so on. For me, with DVDs came small size and digital technology over the chunky, heavy, grainy and unsophisticated VHS. It was on a known format of some kind - CDs have been widely available from the mid-eighties - but with a new trick - they could play films, extras, trailers, with the ability to skip scenes and changing sound or subtitle configuration. At that time, in this context, DVD WAS the future as it was a huge improvement on the available mainstream technology of the time.

I also believe, that the popularity of the DVD format explains the current struggle behind the popularity of BluRay. Choosing the CD size disc was a mistake. Suddenly, people do not see it as a major development on the standard DVD. The term of 'HD-DVD' hardly helped, at least Sony recognised the power of naming devices. No wonder that Toshiba is not associated with any brand that come close to Walkman, PlayStation, Vaio or even BluRay.

Furthermore, BluRay and HD quality only makes sense if you have at least an HD-ready TV set. Even then, the sound system should be upgraded to have full benefit of the technology. Perhaps those, who kept in pace with the 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, etc. game, got tired or are again, not a major driving force. Ordinary people do not want to spend an absolute fortune for the full HD sound experience. I can imagine that most of them do not even use their home cinema sound systems some of the times. VHS could not do DTS, DD 5.1, but DVDs can. And it seems, that is enough for most of us.

What I think is a generally understated reason behind the failure of BluRay is the players' ability to upscale DVDs. Here, in the UK BluRay players start at around £150. For £50, you can get a very good upscaling DVD player from the same manufacturer. Suddenly, the biggest practical and widely needed benefit of a dedicated BR player can be had for third of the price? Of course, it devalues the whole BR institution. I never wanted a BR player. But I really wanted an upscaling DVD player and I would just wait to see, whether broadband internet becomes a reality for most of us.

Another important but regularly overlooked reason is the lack of high speed internet and the pricing of storage devices. Frankly, Sony's biggest hope is that Telecom providers stick to the good old and dead telephone cables, rather than upgrading to optical technology. At the moment, 25GB is an awful lot to download. Our monthly allowance would not be enough for two films. That is pathetic. Add the average price of 100 USD for a TB external drive that can store 40 films and it is obvious that HD download is not for the masses. Not even in the US, letting alone emerging markets.

So my conclusion would be that neither BluRay or HD digital download is worth worrying about at the moment. In a few years' time, you might regret that you caught up with a new technology that is actually not that groundbreaking at all. If you take my advice, you stick to the DVD-ish quality and enjoy the films for their artistic value rather than getting lost in an expensive format struggle.

Yes, I can imagine that in a few years time BR will be more popular and still around. But it will be a lot cheaper too. It is annoying, that Apple is arrogant enough not even to offer the possibility of a BR drive on its computers. Having said that, I remember that I hardly used the optional DVD writer on my white MacBook. It seems, Apple made it a tradition to lag behind the competition, when it comes to optical drives.

Don't worry, though! Nobody expects high specs from a computer that is not overpriced at all, not crippled by an Apple-tax and comparable to any PC product in price! If they offered a BR drive in an Apple portable, than apart from the fancy case and trackpad, what would distinguish the hardware from a PC?

So, nice try Sony, I get the logic. If Apple did not put BR on its Macs, Sony put Apple on its BR. But at the moment it only highlights the desperation of Sony and the confusion and arrogance of Apple.

Marx55

Jul 20, 2009, 06:45 PM

Apple should support Blu-ray on Macs.

Rot'nApple

Jul 20, 2009, 06:56 PM

Hooray for Hollywood.... how's the rest of that song go? :D

AidenShaw

Jul 20, 2009, 07:09 PM

BluRay BluRay BluRay BluRay BluRay BluRay BR BR BR BluRay BR BR BR

Please, it's "Blu-ray" and "BD".

kernkraft

Jul 20, 2009, 07:18 PM

Please, it's "Blu-ray" and "BD".

Is that all, you can reply about that post?! At least you could say that you agree or disagree about certain things.

From now on, I shall call it Green Wing! So we will know, what I'm making pulp from my hands for.

kornyboy

Jul 20, 2009, 07:40 PM

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7A341 Safari/528.16)

This sounds like it will be neat. Maybe it will get me to start using Blu-Ray Live.

chaosconan

Jul 20, 2009, 07:47 PM

cute... :)

Doctor Q

Jul 20, 2009, 07:54 PM

With an iPhone shuffle you shouldn't have to pick the app at all, or pick who to phone. It should pick those for you. And people will be annoyed if it is truly random, since it might call the same person twice in a row.

iMaggot

Jul 20, 2009, 08:04 PM

Cool! Can't wait to pop a Blu-Ray in my Mac and play with these Apps!

Oh, wait...

LOL that's what i was thinking :p

Roy Hobbs

Jul 20, 2009, 08:06 PM

HiRez

Jul 20, 2009, 08:12 PM

It is worth every bit of the premium you mention. On my 65 inch DLP a 720p iTunes rental looks like complete garbage next to a full 1080p blu-rayI don't doubt that at all. But from Apple's perspective you probably represent about .01% of consumers (remember, Apple is heading to the mainstream), therefore it is not a priority for them.Anecdotally, I have a lot of very tech-savvy friends with the money to buy gadgets. They all have big screen televisions, but I only know I think 3 to 4 of them who have a Blu-Ray player, and in each of those cases it's only because they happen to have a PS3, which they bought primarily for the games. I don't know a single person who owns a standalone Blu-Ray player.

TalkAboutApple

Jul 20, 2009, 08:24 PM

Yawn for interactive features.

Wake me up when the 4K discs arrive...

Tallest Skil

Jul 20, 2009, 08:27 PM

Yawn for interactive features.

Wake me up when the 4K discs arrive...

Wake me up in 2013 when the 1TB Blu-ray disks exist and contain Super Hi-Vision programming.

Mr. Gates

Jul 20, 2009, 08:30 PM

Jeez,,,, I really hate pixel pushers.
Now integrate my iPhone with something useful like a microchip implanted into a monkey brain controlled by my iPhone and some kind of point system for number of 7/11's robbed with a cyborg monkey.........:) :) :)

........And then say : "yeah, there's an APP for that!"

...........hey when do I get to be a member and have my picture up?

xIGmanIx

Jul 20, 2009, 08:31 PM

Wake me up in 2013 when the 1TB Blu-ray disks exist and contain Super Hi-Vision programming.

i will stay awake with my 1080p 7.1 stereo 50GB BR discs now.

I don't doubt that at all. But from Apple's perspective you probably represent about .01% of consumers (remember, Apple is heading to the mainstream), therefore it is not a priority for them.Anecdotally, I have a lot of very tech-savvy friends with the money to buy gadgets. They all have big screen televisions, but I only know I think 3 to 4 of them who have a Blu-Ray player, and in each of those cases it's only because they happen to have a PS3, which they bought primarily for the games. I don't know a single person who owns a standalone Blu-Ray player.

i dobut he is the 1% of the population, anyone with a HD TV above 40" would be insulted by the garbage that apple calls HD

DELLsFan

Jul 20, 2009, 08:33 PM

It is worth every bit of the premium you mention. On my 65 inch DLP a 720p iTunes rental looks like complete garbage next to a full 1080p blu-ray

Granted. However, I'm not terribly surprised. Now you WOULD surprise me if you could name 5 other people you know who own a 65" television and Blu-Ray player. :cool:

Bubba Satori

Jul 20, 2009, 08:58 PM

A sly dig at Apple, to try and get them to adopt Blu-Ray on Macs..?

I had two of my Mac customers buy 16" Sony Vaios with Blu-ray players last week. $799. Which, coincidently, is the price of the first Blu-ray player I sold three years ago. :D

FinalDragoon06

Jul 20, 2009, 08:59 PM

Granted. However, I'm not terribly surprised. Now you WOULD surprise me if you could name 5 other people you know who own a 65" television and Blu-Ray player. :cool:

I have 5 other people who would *like* to have a 65" TV and Blu-Ray Player :D

And for all the "Apple should support Blu-Ray" folks. I think next refresh might be the time, at least on the condition that they are stuck using Core 2's for one reason or another. That will at least soften the Media and MacRumors Forum backlash ;)

bug67

Jul 20, 2009, 09:24 PM

Everybody's on board with Blu-Ray...except Apple. :rolleyes:

vipergts2207

Jul 20, 2009, 09:57 PM

Everybody's on board with Blu-Ray...except Apple. :rolleyes:

And Toshiba lol. ;) Hopefully by the time I need to buy another laptop Apple will have caught up.

badNameErr

Jul 20, 2009, 10:22 PM

And Toshiba lol. ;) Hopefully by the time I need to buy another laptop Apple will have caught up.

Just saw this yesterday. Toshiba's Blu-ray player is rumored to ship by years end...

http://www.pcworld.com/article/168670/

So it's just Apple now!

Darkroom

Jul 20, 2009, 10:26 PM

lame + yawn = a lame yawn

xIGmanIx

Jul 20, 2009, 10:36 PM

lame + yawn = a lame yawn

other than your lack of apparent knowledge on the subject, what exactly does your post have to do with the thread?

Everybody's on board with Blu-Ray...except Apple. :rolleyes:

Exactly, especially when they are on the board of directors for Blu Ray

Rocketman

Jul 20, 2009, 10:44 PM

Mr. Gates

Jul 20, 2009, 11:03 PM

Here's a "feature" that could be done far better on a website or on iTunes download, being deployed through a weird combination of disc, and device, and software, specific labrynth of BS.

How about an alternative method. Log in, buy the content on iTunes for an insignificant additional fee, and bypass the BS.

Rocketman

" insignificant additional fee " /////////// ????????????? huh?

am I the only one that finds that offensive on 3 different levels?

I'll give you a free iPhone mirror for an "insignificant additional fee "....(number 1 free app:D)

and don't get all hissy, I agree with the rest of your JIBB

joeshell383

Jul 20, 2009, 11:09 PM

Everybody's on board with Blu-Ray...except Apple. :rolleyes:

Yet Apple is on the Board of Directors for the Blu-ray Disc Association.

The former HD-DVD camp is all aboard (Universal, Toshiba, Panasonic)...

arnette

Jul 20, 2009, 11:19 PM

Why don't they include an iPhone-compatible version of the movie to upload to your computer so we can download it to our iPhones and Touches? Didn't Die Hard 4 have something like this? The second disc wouldn't be Blu-Ray but at least it would be portable.

Makes WAY more sense than rotating 3D models of cars on-screen.

WickedRabbit

Jul 20, 2009, 11:25 PM

Yet Apple is on the Board of Directors for the Blu-ray Disc Association.

The former HD-DVD camp is all aboard (Universal, Toshiba, Panasonic)...

Yea, Apple may be on the board, but they've proven with lack of adopt-ability they are just there to save face and not look like the retarded kid in the corner not supporting it (oh wait... guess it's too late for that) and to keep an eye on things. They aren't there for any other reason than to police (possibly even ruin?) Blu-Ray so they can continue to push their overly compressed, poor quality, 16 movie HD selection via iTunes.

Makes little to no sense to be on the Board and none of your products support it several years later. The "Blu-Ray is a big bag of hurt" thing from Jobs was pretty hilarious coming from a company who's notoriously known for restricting and locking users down to what they can do on any Apple product ever made. Irony?

princigalli

Jul 20, 2009, 11:44 PM

Using the iphone as an enhanced remote is a good idea. A great improvement is commands are custom made for each film. It reminds me of the Atari joystick masks in the 80s for some games. Of course this technology is better.

What disturbs me is that some people still believe people are interested in virtual garages and bonus video in DVD and Bluray disks. Experience shows that a film is a film and people don't care about bonus features that would never sell anyway if it was not packaged as bonus feature.

skinnylegs

Jul 20, 2009, 11:53 PM

The picture quality on HD media is nice, but not worth the premium, IMHO.Are you 'freakin kidding me? Have you even seen and heard Blu-Ray? LMFAO There is *no* comparison between standard DVD and Blu-Ray.

JAT

Jul 21, 2009, 12:06 AM

Why?

Scenario:
Friends are over watching the latest flick on BD on the 90", lounging on leather chairs and couches. Then we all huddle around the 3" iPod to check out some (probably) crap extras?

Why? There's just no reason.

spillproof

Jul 21, 2009, 12:38 AM

I could care less about this "feature," even it came on standard DVDs. But hey, if others like it, all power to them.

MorphingDragon

Jul 21, 2009, 12:48 AM

mdntcallr

Jul 21, 2009, 12:52 AM

well, i just don't get it, but maybe this is a good thing for Apple to do.

I really want FULL Apple Mac support, not stopgaps which dont allow you to playback a BD movie on Mac's. I dont need digital copy as much cause it take up storage on my laptop, or tower.

Apple ought to fully embrace Blu-Ray. not do minor things. but at least companies like Universal are going to push the issue and bring more BD to macs

mdntcallr

Jul 21, 2009, 12:54 AM

Yet Apple is on the Board of Directors for the Blu-ray Disc Association.

The former HD-DVD camp is all aboard (Universal, Toshiba, Panasonic)...

apple has alot to do to earn that position, so far most of Apple's progress has been stalled except to advance itunes agenda. sorry Apple needs to adopt BD fully. not stalling this BS.

djellison

Jul 21, 2009, 01:29 AM

Fixed.

Blu-Ray is such a waste of time and money IMHO.

That's fine. You don't want Blu-Ray.

I do.

If Apple dragged it's overcharging ass into the 21st century and OFFERED BR drives - we could BOTH have what we want.

MorphingDragon

Jul 21, 2009, 02:19 AM

That's fine. You don't want Blu-Ray.

I do.

If Apple dragged it's overcharging ass into the 21st century and OFFERED BR drives - we could BOTH have what we want.

What do we have to rub to get BD on macs!?

mdesbiens

Jul 21, 2009, 03:08 AM

I think I speak for everyone on the Blu-ray fence when I say this... All we were waiting for was a cumbersome and DRM riddled way to check the stats on some cars in a horrible movie. Googling Toyota Supra or Mitsubishi Evo (I'm just taking a shot in the dark here... I have no idea what cars are in this movie) is way too easy and convenient for every living, breathing human being who has an internet connected blu-ray player and an iPhone.

But really, I'm not on the blu-ray fence. I am into it. The quality of some blu-ray movies is astonishingly better from dvds on a 109" screen. The color depth over dvd alone is worth it. It works for me. That is why I'll be a sad old man on the day I realize I sound like the laserdisc fanatics of the 90's.

That is... I don't think the price of movies is that big an issue right now. Some releases came about from considerable efforts to clean original sources, adding value. It isn't for a lack of BD players. There is likely a huge amount of PS3 owners who haven't bought a single blu-ray. It's not the economy. Blu-ray was around long before this little blip in numbers. It's not because discs and lasers are as antiquated as 8-trac tapes (how old are hard drives now? Magnetic storage is new?). It has nothing to do with format. Who doesn't wan't to store 50gbs on a disc that costs a buck?

It's just that... well no one really sells blu-ray movies. I mean, I'm sure I can find fast and furiest without any trouble, but what about movies that people want to watch? Where do you buy those? Am I the only person who has for two years frequently spent considerable time staring at the BD section at Target only to realize there's nothing worth watching that I don't already own?

GarySky

Jul 21, 2009, 04:38 AM

Brilliant! Universal Studios on the iPhone! :)

DELLsFan

Jul 21, 2009, 06:16 AM

Are you 'freakin kidding me? Have you even seen and heard Blu-Ray? LMFAO There is *no* comparison between standard DVD and Blu-Ray.

I had a PS3 console which had the Blu-Ray player built in. The player came with the Blu-Ray version of Peter Jackson's King Kong. It looked ok, but hardly a night and day comparison on my 37" HD television. I will concede that a larger, higher quality display might showcase the differences between HD and standard definition, but I am not about to replace my existing collection of movies and the display if standard definition is sufficient. Although it sounds like heresy to all you home theater enthusiasts, there are quite a few people with the same mindset.

I sold the PS3 a few months after getting it (won it as a door prize). Still have my XBOX 360 though. I love running Netflix through it. :D

That's fine. You don't want Blu-Ray.

I do.

If Apple dragged it's overcharging ass into the 21st century and OFFERED BR drives - we could BOTH have what we want.

I'm surprised Apple hasn't jumped into the Blu-Ray club. I should think anything that shores up the profit margins further in this economy would have been embraced by Cupertino long ago. Perhaps they can't make or buy these drives cheaply enough to make it worth their while? Perhaps they feel the same antipathy towards Sony as I?

When it's time to upgrade my television, we'll see where the technology rests and I'll revisit my opinions on HD entertainment. Maybe by then, the Mini will have a BR drive in it. There's a potential change / upgrade in Home Theater right there. :cool:

forgetaboutpro

Jul 21, 2009, 07:33 AM

page 2 pls

WickedRabbit

Jul 21, 2009, 07:48 AM

I had a PS3 console which had the Blu-Ray player built in. The player came with the Blu-Ray version of Peter Jackson's King Kong. It looked ok, but hardly a night and day comparison on my 37" HD television.

This is where HD education is really failing on consumers because no one understands it.

I will point this out: If you have a TV less than say 40-46" then HD is pretty much useless for you. You will not really see a big difference in picture quality on a screen that small. Things will look at a big smoother and sharper, but the majority of movies the overall effect will be lost.

Second and most important, it depends on "what" you're watching. Just because it's a Blu-Ray disk does not mean the film was recorded using HD cameras. Blu-Ray disk will help a little with deinterlacing and small artifacts, but if the film wasn't shot in HD then you're not really watching HD. You're merely just watching SD being upconverted.

Try watching something more recent, say Quantum of Solace on a TV larger than yours. Majority of the film was shot in HD and it shows pretty well. Just finished watching The Watchmen on Blu-Ray and that's also a pretty great looking title and there are countless other "more recent" films. Taking movies from years ago and putting them on Blu-Ray doesn't really do much. Pirates of the Caribbean 3 looks ****ing fantastic if you want to see something that's pretty great.

nwassault

Jul 21, 2009, 08:28 AM

You do realize that Apple has a vested interest in not including BD players on Macs. They've invested heavily in the digital downloads route, and the MacBook Air is a definite indication of Apple's desired direction.

Also, BD has bigger problems than I've seen most people acknowledge. Most users aren't like us, they aren't terribly familiar with the latest technology. This is, curiously, the mainstream market that Apple is trying to appeal to. In order to sell tech to this demographic, you have to provide a significant advance over the incumbent technology, not a sustaining advance. DVD offered more space for movie content (it became practical to include Director's Commentary, etc.), offered significant visual improvements over VHS, the ability to skip between chapters, and, perhaps the most important, the seemingly permanence and durability of a disk compared to magnetic tape.

Let's look at BD. More space, but mostly wasted on BD-Live content, not on movie content. Visual improvements that only become available with the purchase of a 50" TV, and then, nowhere nearly as drastic as the clarity difference between DVD and VHS. All the other benefits that DVD had over VHS were a result of a medium change.

I can also think of some more reasons why Apple is less inclined to add BD. For one, from what I can tell, most OS X users rarely use multiple monitors, the exception being content (movie, photo, etc.) professionals, let alone connect their Macs to a large screen TV. Therefore, they remain using the screen size of their included or built-in monitor, all of which are sub-optimal for HD content.

Also, I strongly suspect that most people don't have the space for a 50" TV, let alone a 60" or 70"+ TV. TVs of that size have always been, more or less, novelty products. Also, there's the fact that BD doesn't supply a significant improvement over upconverted DVD for the masses, simply because most people aren't audiophiles or videophiles. It's very easy for people to ascribe their own values to others. What you like, what you look for in a product, aren't necessarily the values others look for in that product. That's why most people are fine with the default EQ settings in iTunes and on their iPods, and why most people are fine with MP3 or AAC compared to FLAC, for instance.

I, for one, hope Apple doesn't add BD, simply because it would not add value for the majority of their customers or potential customers.

AidenShaw

Jul 21, 2009, 09:32 AM

This is where HD education is really failing on consumers because no one understands it.

I will point this out: If you have a TV less than say 40-46" then HD is pretty much useless for you. You will not really see a big difference in picture quality

Visual improvements that only become available with the purchase of a 50" TV...

Therefore, they remain using the screen size of their included or built-in monitor, all of which are sub-optimal for HD content.

Are you two really trying to claim that you need a 40" to 50" screen to see the difference between 480i and 1080p ??? That's funny.

The 480i screen is 307Kpixel. A 13" MBP screen is 1024Kpixel. Do you really believe that the 2074Kpixel 1080p image won't look better scaled down to 1024Kpixel, better than the 307Kpixel video upscaled to 1024Kpixel?

Not optimal, but better than 480i !

I can almost understand someone saying "I'll choose not to get the Blu-ray BTO option", but to say "I, for one, hope Apple doesn't add BD..." doesn't make sense for the platform.

DELLsFan

Jul 21, 2009, 09:32 AM

This is where HD education is really failing on consumers because no one understands it.

I will point this out: If you have a TV less than say 40-46" then HD is pretty much useless for you. You will not really see a big difference in picture quality on a screen that small. Things will look at a big smoother and sharper, but the majority of movies the overall effect will be lost.

Second and most important, it depends on "what" you're watching. Just because it's a Blu-Ray disk does not mean the film was recorded using HD cameras. Blu-Ray disk will help a little with deinterlacing and small artifacts, but if the film wasn't shot in HD then you're not really watching HD. You're merely just watching SD being upconverted.

Try watching something more recent, say Quantum of Solace on a TV larger than yours. Majority of the film was shot in HD and it shows pretty well. Just finished watching The Watchmen on Blu-Ray and that's also a pretty great looking title and there are countless other "more recent" films. Taking movies from years ago and putting them on Blu-Ray doesn't really do much. Pirates of the Caribbean 3 looks ****ing fantastic if you want to see something that's pretty great.

Hey thanks for the explanation. It makes sense to me. But I do beg to differ on the utility of HD on my 37". I get HD channels via my cable provider and shows / broadcasts on these channels are far superior in resolution and quality over normal, standard-definition broadcast channels.

For now, I find no compelling reason to upgrade the current setup - until the display gives up the ghost. :cool:

jdechko

Jul 21, 2009, 09:47 AM

I can almost understand someone saying "I'll choose not to get the Blu-ray BTO option", but to say "I, for one, hope Apple doesn't add BD..." doesn't make sense for the platform.

I was going to say the exact same thing. If it's an option (and it almost certainly would be optional at first), then what's the big deal? You don't want it, don't get it.

But from my perspective, it's another way for Apple to differentiate it's product line. I'm wondering if they're holding out for the BD-R and BD-RE drives to come down in price, not wanting to put only a player in their computers.

AidenShaw

Jul 21, 2009, 10:01 AM

I'm wondering if they're holding out for the BD-R and BD-RE drives to come down in price, not wanting to put only a player in their computers.

Almost all of the BD-ROM drives used in computers are DVD/CD burners - so BD-ROM doesn't imply no optical burner....

jpine

Jul 21, 2009, 12:04 PM

I wish people would give up on this whole "interactive DVD" concept. They've been trying it for years, and it's always been lame. Everyone has a computer and a broadband connection now, why do we need to interact with the DVD?

Not everyone has broadband. Go outside any metro area (and not very far at that) in the US and the percentage of people who have access to high speed internet drops very quickly. Even in small towns, 3Mbs is considered really fast.

mdesbiens

Jul 21, 2009, 12:13 PM

It seems Apple is holding out for something from blu-ray. My completely uneducated and uninformed guess is that it is Apple TV related. Of course, Apple will never take over the movie watching world if no one has an Apple TV. No one wants an AppleTV because it doesn't do anything new... and it doesn't do anything well. They need to sell this thing on the level of the iPod for their HD download service to show numbers like iTunes music does. BD players will be $50 in six months, and most people already know someone who owns one. Ubiquity is much closer to BD than anyone in the HD market. Frankly, very few people, it seems, want to pay a couple hundred dollars for the privilege of renting and buying movies from Apple.

Apple can't possibly believe that they have gained significant market saturation to go head to head with blu-ray, but there is a way to get an Apple TV to the masses. If it needs to sell like iPod, it needs to act like iPod. iPod let you take your existing libraries and collections and transfer them in as high a quality as you wanted, lossless even, to the device seamlessly. These were the selling points, long before ITMS existed: Portability, Fast upload (compared to the USB 1 players of the time), and ease of use. Apple TV probably doesn't need to be portable, but it does need to TRANSFER EXISTING LIBRARIES, and it needs to do that transparently. No one would have bought an iPod if all content had to be purchased from ITMS, and nothing could be transferred from CD (or, frankly, Napster... the real Napster that is).

Everyone's mom knows that blu-ray won't let this happen. The day will never come where you can pop a blu-ray into your mac, and transfer its contents to an Apple TV. Everyone knows Apple can be insufferable when they don't get their way. Hence, a stand off.

This will end like the USB2 standoff, or the DVI standoff, or the DVD DL standoff, or the PCI standoff, or the 30 years intel standoff, the 30-year multi-button mouse standoff, the 2.5 volt ram standoff, the full-sized keyboard standoff, the audio line in standoff (which has resurfaced), the ATA standoff, the DDR standoff... I can go on and on (I've been using Apples for a while now). Apple will try to shove it down our throats 2 years later, acting like they were the first to have it. We Will be so privileged to have it; others will stare with envy.

And when they lose this one, maybe the first place you will see a blu-ray drive is in an Apple TV, along with a HD DVR and cable card slot. That is, if they ever plan on selling these things.

vipergts2207

Jul 21, 2009, 01:16 PM

I will point this out: If you have a TV less than say 40-46" then HD is pretty much useless for you. You will not really see a big difference in picture quality on a screen that small. Things will look at a big smoother and sharper, but the majority of movies the overall effect will be lost.

Let's look at BD. More space, but mostly wasted on BD-Live content, not on movie content. Visual improvements that only become available with the purchase of a 50" TV, and then, nowhere nearly as drastic as the clarity difference between DVD and VHS. All the other benefits that DVD had over VHS were a result of a medium change.

Also, I strongly suspect that most people don't have the space for a 50" TV, let alone a 60" or 70"+ TV. TVs of that size have always been, more or less, novelty products. Also, there's the fact that BD doesn't supply a significant improvement over upconverted DVD for the masses, simply because most people aren't audiophiles or videophiles. It's very easy for people to ascribe their own values to others. What you like, what you look for in a product, aren't necessarily the values others look for in that product. That's why most people are fine with the default EQ settings in iTunes and on their iPods, and why most people are fine with MP3 or AAC compared to FLAC, for instance.

I, for one, hope Apple doesn't add BD, simply because it would not add value for the majority of their customers or potential customers.

My guess is that neither of you have even watched a bluray on a tv less than 40". I have a ps3 so I can choose to output 480, 720, or 1080 on my 37" 1080p tv. I can GUARANTEE that in a blind test I can see the diffence between 480p and 1080p. Maybe you guys are old so your vision has worsened or something. I'm only 20 and have near perfect vision. You guys seem somewhat like Luddites, which is weird since were on a tech forum.

Not everyone has broadband. Go outside any metro area (and not very far at that) in the US and the percentage of people who have access to high speed internet drops very quickly. Even in small towns, 3Mbs is considered really fast.

That's exacty the case where I live.

JAT

Jul 21, 2009, 03:30 PM

You guys need to stop with the misinformation.

A couple corrections:
BD-Live is online content, so it is not found on a BD taking up space. Other extras are actually on the discs, taking up space. However, most movie enthusiasts have been very pleased that many extras (deleted scenes, documentaries, etc) have been stored in HD resolution, whereas DVDs were often plagued with lower resolution extras than the feature film itself. We don’t care about it taking extra space, quality is more important, that is why BD was made with 50GB as more or less the planned “normal” size. If the movie is too long for both, they have traditionally added discs.

HD cameras are not necessary for high quality 1080 resolution video. Film is much higher resolution than 1080, so any movie shot on 35mm or larger film can look spectacular, depending on what shape the master is in when they create a digital master. Noted examples of great picture on BD are films like Casablanca that certainly predate any HD cameras. And I do not recall hearing of ANY movies that were SD upconverts on BD. (BTW, QoS was not shot on HD video, either) Although, I just saw that the show Scrubs is on BD. That was filmed on 16mm, which would barely be enough to match HD video. And that’s why it was never broadcast in HD in the first place. (except for one episode, once) But film is not SD, even 16mm.