Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
'2010 Mac Pro: Speculation and whisperings, it's gonna be magical'
- Thread starter fearoftigers
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree to an extent, in that I tend to use Kingston RAM and Hitachi hard drives, where I think the variable speed is a nice feature. However replacing the DVD/CD drive, which is a pretty vital part of the Mac and has to be tied in with the BIOS, so that you can boot off it, with a Blu-Ray burner, sounds like a potential recipe for disaster. Especially with a Power PC machine, on which you would wonder how much effort was put into getting the BIOS boot correct, given that they are obsolescent. It might be OK on a Mac-Pro, where you could put it in as a second non-boot drive.
Wilson
as professor farnsworth put it, its a finglonger...
I just hope they can increase specs for mac pro users and also make a new model... give me a mac pro chassis but make it black and give it good enough specs to be an upgradable mac gaming computer... call it the Mac ENT (for entertainment).. they need something that can handle all of STEAMS offerings and do so well... unfortunately they are going to use the appleTV as their gaming platform in the future which sucks.
Apple has nothing to gain with BR. Blue ray is already dead. Video is going the same way music has gone: everything will be on harddrives. BR is perhaps the best way to distribute HD content for now, however this window is quickly closing with multimedia harddrives getting better faster and computer to TV solutions getting better even faster (pay close attention to the new AppleTV that might be announced June 7).
The main problem with BR: it is a licensing nightmare.
Your argument has a major flaw though. ISP bandwidth isn't adequate for 1080p signals, and may not be ubiquitous enough for some time.
I see it more as both a licensing and control issue (Sony owns the IP). Paying money to use something they have little to no control over, nah... I don't see Steve Jobs responding favorably to that at all.
I totally agree. As someone who has a rural house, I suspect I shall be pushing up the daises before my broadband speeds go more than 100% to 200% above what I have at the moment (2mbps). An HD 120 minute movie in 1080P coded say in H264 is around 22 GB. Assuming a real download speed of say 0.5 GB/hour, that is 44 hours per movie. Even a 200% improvement only brings that down to 15 hours. I think I will be buying Blu-Rays for some time.
I think it is time for Jobs to swallow his pride/ego and pay the licence price to Sony and the other consortia members for Blu-Ray. If Acer et al can do it on a £400 laptop, surely Apple can do it on £1,000 plus ones. There will be people out there, who will just not buy Mac's because they don't have Blu-Ray. It really does make commercial sense. As an Apple shareholder, I think it is high time the Apple board over-ruled Jobs or is the board just a rubber stamp for a one man dictatorship.
Wilson
Or understands Blu-Ray all too well. It competes with his online store. Blu-Ray as a data only device doesn't have huge blockers to deployment. Apple (Jobs) just doesn't want to. Usually, the primary motivation behind them blocking something is that it puts more money in their pocket. The is followed in second place by giving Apple more control.
That is a BR reader only or a R/W drive? The reader drives have dropped below a $100 but the writers are still a substantial multiple over the DVD burners. ( Apple can be cheap. If it is too expensive of a component they won't touch it unless they are going to get a bigger mark up. Don't think BR drives will enable that.)
Even more to the point if 3rd parties are currently selling them at $189 (e.g., http://eshop.macsales.com/item/LG/WH10LS30KMP/) and they plug into a MacPro and work .... what is the big licensing blocker for those companies? There isn't one.
There are two points in the Blu-ray spectrum. One as a higher capacity portable media writing media. The other as a HD movie delivery media.
The latter is where is a bit of a licensing and data rights management issue.
The former isn't a problem.
Internet ( "Could" ) based FTP sites obviate shipping clients data on a disk, but in many cases still cheaper to do it with optical media + snail mail than electronic or "give away" flash drives. If BR-ROM + DVD-read/write drives can drop low enough to become standard issue on WinPCs then Apple may have to cave on this. Until then though, I expect they will remain obstructionists on this front.
Not necessarily. Remember Apple laptops will require the more rare, minimum height alternatives. Component costs will play a factor.
[I'm enjoying this debate, thanks]
Keep in mind that Apple wants us to buy their stuff. Why would they help someone else, like Sony, create a market in a sector they want to dominate? Why should they make BR work well when there are a lot of people who'll just buy a Mac Mini or a multimedia HD to make the problem go away?
Best advise: don't throw too much money at a Blue Ray collection. It's an easy guess that there are many smart engineers working on a better solution to the HD delivery and storage problem. Everyone needs this so there is a LOT of money to be made.
Because Mac Pros are supposed to be professional multi-media machines. Professionals need Blu-Ray.
People who buy Mac Pros have more uses for high definition beyond watching movies downloaded from Itunes.
I disagree [in good humor].
The MP is a professional workstation to generate pro work (I agree with you). What I'm saying is that Blue Ray will quickly not appeal to professional videographers who are looking to distribute their work OR for general entertainment purposes. Blue Ray--and and the idea of media housed on a disc--is dead. Apple would be crazy to bring BR to the MP.
Take a look at the current rumors. Apple is expected to come out with an iphone sized AppleTV that connects with a time machine or the cloud. This is a check-mate move to BR. If you can easily manage you video files through a computer or cloud and have an easy/compact/cheap devise to make it happen than APPLE WILL KILL BLUE RAY LIKE IT ALREADY HAS KILLED MUSIC CDS. This goes for entertainment purposes AND PROFESSIONAL DISTRIBUTION.
Sorry to make all you guys mad who have spent a lot of money on BR systems, but it seems kinda obvious at this point (and will most likely seem a lot more obvious on June 7).
Apple has NEVER been on board with BR. If they were even a little bit then they would have included it in FCP Studio 2 (and FCPS2 Compressor has a cheat that does it, but that's not real commitment--it's included so that Apple can advertise BR support but note that DVD studio does not support it and Compressor's hack is so limited that it's a joke for pro distribution).
1080P uncompressed streaming would require 40Mb/s at a bare minimum. Granted, what we'd see will almost certainly be compressed to reduce the bandwidth requirement (but it has to be balanced with what the hardware can uncompress without generating artifacts that weren't in the original material pre-compression).
Assuming that can allow a realistic speed of 30MB/s (safely), it's going to be awhile, as I'm only aware of Cable based ISP's (Comcast offering that speed, and given the tech, it's not a guarantee it will actually run that quickly, as there will be other users sharing the pipe).
DSL is typically only offered in a max band of 6.0Mb/s for some users. WiMax is an alternative, but it's a ways off as well to be widely available.
And no matter the ISP source, it has to be cheap enough that the vast majority of users will subscribe to that much band (or better).
This will require time, as the infrastructure's aren't adequate in the US as they currently exist. Some countries, such as Japan, are ahead of us as far as what service can be obtained (though it's a tad pricey yet).
This was my point. It's not technical issues, but the fact that Apple doesn't want to pay licensing fees on a technology they don't have full control over.
A valid point in the MP, but with netbooks, a reader is all that's needed (consumer product) to give users what they want.
It's not the hardware, but the software licensing that has Apple in an uproar. That drive will play native BRD's under Windows, but not OS X, as Apple's not negotiated for licensing, and can't add in the necessary code to make it work legally without it.
Remember, BRD's include copy protection, unless the user actually owns the content, such as personally recorded material or that they paid for, like a wedding video.
If the user is doing their own, then Yes, it will work without a problem so long as they've an application like Toast that can read or burn the disks (data or non-copy protected video).
Economics are always the key.
Bandwidth would be highly desired by those downloading, to shorten the time needed to obtain the material. If MP3's took a day to download a single file, downloads wouldn't have overtaken CD sales (physical media).
So the bandwidth has to be cheap enough, as would be the system (latter isn't a problem). But sufficient bandwidth isn't readily available yet (let alone inexpensive).
Not yet it isn't.
Media can (and is) sent via HDD between large production houses according to some members that work for such companies (I've no reason to doubt this, and it actually makes sense, as the data un-edited footage,... = extremely large amount of data).
For consumers, there's not an alternative available that's cheaper. Ideally, the idea is to distribute over the Internet just as MP3's or compressed SD video (some 720P).
But for 1080P, the currently available bandwidth isn't sufficient. Once that infrastructure is in place however, it will take over and displace physical media.
It still depends on the bandwidth (speed) that data can be delivered, especially for streamed content, such as movies.
WiMax (and similar services) for example, aren't ubiquitous yet, and some users that do have access may consider it too expensive just to use for entertainment purposes (email for example doesn't require that much).
Somehow, if there wasn't any licensing requirements (open spec), we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Apple will never release hardware with BlueRay... Why should they when they have a iTunes store for downloading of movies and mp3s. They would be loosing money by releasing BlueRay drives on their hardware.
Now what I hate about downloadable content is drive failure. I have lost a ton of songs I purchased from iTunes because of that library consolidation bug. I wish iTunes did what steam does with games. If I purchase with steam, I have those purchases for life. Apple needs to do the same exact thing, but allow me to play anything I purchase on what ever I wish.
Now what I hate about downloadable content is drive failure. I have lost a ton of songs I purchased from iTunes because of that library consolidation bug. I wish iTunes did what steam does with games. If I purchase with steam, I have those purchases for life. Apple needs to do the same exact thing, but allow me to play anything I purchase on what ever I wish.
BRD movies are larger than OS .iso images (typically 4 - 5GB).
The original BD spec is 25GB per disk, and 50GB disks have surfaced as well.
Granted, the movie may not fill the disk, but it's still quite large. Since most people won't want to spend a day or longer to download it, that's not really a viable distribution method just yet.In time, yes. But the ISP infrastructure will have to be improved for sufficient bandwidth first. And that takes both time and money (from companies that want to wait for the US government to pay for it via Public Works projects, such as highway upgrades, extensions,... as much as possible = delays).
Optical media will be here until a suitable replacement is available, and that won't be anytime soon.
You can already play your songs on any device that supports AAC, provided those songs are of the post-protected era. With videos the issue is with the studios, not Apple.
BRD movies are larger than OS .iso images (typically 4 - 5GB).
The original BD spec is 25GB per disk, and 50GB disks have surfaced as well.
Dual Layer BDs have actually been around for a very long time, and been used to deliver many, many movies (in fact, most BD movies take up way more than the 23.5 GB you can fit on a single layer, with extras and the various audio tracks, etc.) and games (I can think of at least three high-profile games that ran well into the second layer and sold millions). And when you start considering, say, the Lord of the Rings films in their extended versions, it quickly becomes easy to run over the 47 GB you'll get out of a DL BD.
Since then, they've managed to boost single layers to 33.4 GB and they've figured out how to cram something like 4-8 extra layers on a disc, readable by existing hardware with just firmware updates.
Somehow, I'm willing to bet that there won't be a competing optical media format for some time, and when it arrives it'll have an uphill battle against Blu-ray, which is already entrenched.
Aside from shipping hard drives or SD cards with the media on them, there's no replacement for high resolution video (Don't forget, 3D will require more space and there will be more resolution boosts upcoming) for consumer delivery.
The bandwidth just isn't there yet, especially in America. I envy Hong Kong's 100 Mbps symmetrical connections for $15/mo, because I'm paying $60/mo for 15/5 on FiOS. I feel ripped off.
This is because we continue lining up like cattle to the ISPs. They spend little to nothing upgrading their networks to match current standards...why? Because it makes them obscene profits, and that matters more than progress.
The only ways to escape the provider trap are through governmental force (like the FCC forcing network upgrades for telecoms), or the introduction of a radical ISP to show Americans what they should be getting.
Google's broadband promises to be a real cup of coffee to the industry.
The same bandwidth argument applies (for me anyway). Let us say I want to send a client 200 images. Now my 16 bit TIFF's are 108MB each. That is 21.6 GB. My upload speeds are 375 kbps from our UK base and 290 kpbs from France. That would mean an upload time of around 120+ hours to an FTP site (I do have a YouSendIt account). Not really practical. Now at the moment I do use stick drives and ask for them to be returned, as a good quality 32GB stick drive does not come cheap. They rarely do get returned and there is then a row when I charge for them. A Blu-Ray writer would make life a lot easier for me.
I am 100% sure there is no financial argument over fitting a Blu-Ray writer in a Mac-Pro (they just charge for them like any other extra) and given the progress in broadband speeds (nil in 8 years for me), Blu-Rays are going to be around for I would guess 10 years or so. The most likely replacement for B-R is a flash memory chip rather than a downloading solution. The only reason for not fitting them is Mr. Job's ego (not invented here) and nothing logical.
Wilson
I work for an ISP in the UK (Don't even ask who) and I can tell you they make peanuts on the BB they sell. the market is so competitive that you have to almost sell it at a loss to get subscribers.
But my ISP also is spending millions yearly upgrading the network and installing it's own equipment into exchanges.
The back bone of our network also has NO bandwidth problems, in fact the bandwidth available is huge and won't be at capacity for a very long time.
The trouble with BB is the users and the telephone lines. Users tend to use ext sockets of telephone extension cables which kill your bandwidth. I've seen it so many times.
And as for BT is the age old 'golden mile' that piece of copper or, in the worst case, aluminium cable that runs from the exchange to your house that potentially has been there for 60 years.
But in the UK BT are at least installing optic to the CAB and in some areas to the door step so you will get between 50 to 100mbps speeds. My ISP is already testing it.
So I would expect in the UK for these products to be on sale within I guess 2 or 3 years? Maybe less. I guess it depends on how much coverage has been done with optic.
Anyway on a side note, I have up to 8mbps ADSL BB. With the package I'm on then I get free unlimited downloading between 12 AM and 8AM with as much bandwith as I can get, the network is totally unrestricted.
Now with this I have used the Playstation PS3 I have to download off Sony's PSN a 9 GB HD film in 3 to 4 hours.
So IMO the bandwith problem is not specific to everyone or every country.
I have no doubt we are going to be a download only planet and 'the cloud' will rule all. Its just going to take time to get there
Another example of changing tech is USB keys and memory cards, when was the last time you burnt a CD or DVD?
EDIT: The reason why some country's have 100 and even 1000mbps networks is because they started the entire infrastructure from scrap and there government paid a lot for it...
And as for a post relevant to this thread I think a new case design is a certain? Mind you I thought that last year haha.
But it is aged now and is the odd one out in the range. Plus isn't it a few years old now? And what about the 32" LCD people thought would get released?
I think a new case design is a certain? Mind you I thought that last year haha.But it is aged now and is the odd one out in the range. Plus isn't it a few years old now? And what about the 32" LCD people thought would get released?
Good points, quite interesting discussion. To me it seems that the upgraded networks and the uptake of 1080p streaming will take so long that by then Blu-Ray will either be at a much higher than 1080p capacity (as stated by another poster) or another format will come along that will beat it. It is much faster to make a new format, be it optical or flash than it is to put down the cables for delivering more bandwidth worldwide.
Also, compressed sound and video are not as good as uncompressed. This is the reason I no longer purchase music from iTunes. FLAC/Apple Lossless are better.
Also, compressed sound and video are not as good as uncompressed. This is the reason I no longer purchase music from iTunes. FLAC/Apple Lossless are better.
I have fiber optic service, though. I feel ripped off because Verizon already said they could do 100 symmetrical to all their existing FiOS customers. They of course, as stated, just want to make as much money as possible.
And yes, I do think the federal government can and should address this. But given the political climate here, any changes will be slow and they still won't get to the most rural customers.
So we're stuck with optical media for the time being.
In Apple tradition...
Increased core CPU W/ or W/O a CPU tray change. Same "low" price.
Upgraded video card. ATI 59XX or 58XX
No Nvidia Firmi. Too loud for a MacPro.
So much for magic..
Intel Lightspeed tech? Probably too soon.
Increased core CPU W/ or W/O a CPU tray change. Same "low" price.
Upgraded video card. ATI 59XX or 58XX
No Nvidia Firmi. Too loud for a MacPro.
So much for magic..
Intel Lightspeed tech? Probably too soon.