Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
By high street I mean a road with shops on it :)

Ah, well as least part of my post about the rich people I will apologize for misquoting you but WE (in the U.S.) don't use the terminology "High Street" as a street with shops on it. ;). At any rate, I've been at Macworld all this week and until you see the 17" MBP as I did you won't see the benefit of the price charged for it. It's truly an incredible computer over the 15". The screen bezel is even thinner.
And for anyone else that cares Macworld was not displaying the "anti glare" version. I don't think it's going to be "matte", I think it's just a coating over the glossy LCD to prevent glare.
 
Yes and no...the whitebook is still selling for $999. You can easily find a Windows laptop with similar or superior specs for A LOT less than $999. But the reason people still get the Apple is for the simplicity of the OS, virus security/peace-of-mind, and innovative designs.

$2099 for a 17" laptop made out of aluminum, an Intel Core 2 Duo processor, a first-of-its kind battery, dedicated graphics and Leopard OS...you're dreaming.

Still, theres no reason whats so ever it needs to cost that much.

This is coming from one of the rare people who actually like both windows & mac. I don't "dream" of computers. Also I dont go out and buying one everytime they announce one
 
Still, theres no reason whats so ever it needs to cost that much.

This is coming from one of the rare people who actually like both windows & mac. I don't "dream" of computers. Also I dont go out and buying one everytime they announce one

Well, can you explain why MS Office costs $500? IMO there's no reason for it to cost that much especially when Apple has iWork for $79 and any Windows/Mac user can download Open Office for free. But MS KNOWS that people will pay for it because of the name and some people are tied to using Office.
Apple KNOWS that people will pay for a Mac, under most cases the OS is all it takes for customers to dish out the money. It's not like everyone can just go back to a Windows PC (or if they wanted to :rolleyes:) as they generally have money tied up in Mac software.
 
Well, can you explain why MS Office costs $500? IMO there's no reason for it to cost that much especially when Apple has iWork for $79 and you can download Open Office for free. But MS KNOWS that people will pay for it because of the name and some people are tied to using Office.
Apple KNOWS that people will pay for a Mac, under most cases the OS is all it takes for customers to dish out the money. It's not like everyone can just go back to a Windows PC (or if they wanted to :rolleyes:) as they generally have money tied up in Mac software.

$500 for the pro version and thats just the full price, not the upgrade.

Rest can be found here

Personally, I think microsoft should just do one version, but they dont want blamler to go crazzy again

With the mac, I understand the material and a bit of the battery. but is 2800 really necessary? I can see your point about "dreaming" if I said "price it bellow 500" but I didnt, in fact, I still priced it above two grand.

So tell me, you mean to say the new battery costs anywhere from $799-$999 alone?
 
...and video-out! And USB! And...aah, what the hell, that MagSafe jack is just taking up space, anyway...

video-out would have to stay, but the usb standard is going wireless, no? and wireless power isn't far behind. all you'd need is a wall wart and your machine! :D
 
He truly is, but the sad truth is that it's a complete nightmare that Apple would charge that much for a laptop that would get circles run around it by 15" laptops with more ports and a not $2800 price tag.

Indeed.

But perhaps there is hope that this so-called 'revision b' might include the features that we ask for?

Can you imagine a 'Pro' using this 'Pro' machine haha?

"Can you just save down the entire video edit onto your desktop?"
"Sorry, the HDD is only 320GB and it's almost full"

"Can you just rotate that model so I can see behind it?"
"Sorry, this will take some time because the GPU isn't very powerful, and is not certified with this program"

"Oh well then, would you mind rendering the scene instead then so I can see the materials?"
Er, sorry, it's going to take a while because it's only a dual-core CPU. My Quad-core desktop can usually handle this okay. Shall I make you a cup of coffee while we wait?"

just a bit of fun... :)
 
video-out would have to stay, but the usb standard is going wireless, no? and wireless power isn't far behind. all you'd need is a wall wart and your machine! :D

Not for a while....... so please keep dreaming. just because something is "comming" doesnt mean it will be here tomorow and they must use it. a lot of internal testing at apple must be done before they can go ahead and place them in the macs
 
So tell me, you mean to say the new battery costs anywhere from $799-$999 alone?

No...that's not what I'm saying...because it's selling for EXACTLY the same price as the last 17" offered by Apple was selling at. So to us, the consumers, the new battery (AND the new, lighter, unibody design, 4 GB 1066 MHz DDR3 RAM, NVidia dedicated graphics, new trackpad, etc) really costs nothing, because it's the same price we would have paid for one, without all these things.

What I AM saying is that, yes, you'll be able to find cheaper laptops out there that are similar in specs, but not in design/quality. And they'll have Vista installed. Then you have to get a version of MS Office, and your choice of antivirus software.

To many people, as soon as you throw the word "Vista" into the equation, they're willing to pay the difference for the Apple.
 
Get back to me in 5 years and let's see if rotating disks of any type are still the preferred option.
What does 5 years into the future have to do with right now? That's a silly argument.

Can somebody answer why Apple apologists are so against Blu-Ray? Every other manufacturer offers it as an option.

Apple should have no problem making it an option just like RAM, HDD size, etc. If you don't want it, then don't buy it.
Sony offers a Blu-Ray drive for less than $140. So it's not like it's outrageously expensive. There's already a regular
drive taking up space on the computer so it's not like it's taking away space. So what's the issue?
 
You are not buying 8gb of RAM, you are buying 4gb. Granted it seems that 2x2 only costs ~$100

for some reason crucial only charges 499 for a single 4gb chip
http://www.crucial.com/store/partspecs.aspx?IMODULE=CT51264BC1067
but 1179 for the set.

You're increasing the amount of RAM by 4 GB, but that requires getting rid of the existing 4 GB and buying 8GB of RAM. So you are, in essence, buying 8 GB of RAM.

The quality of the itunes HD can't even come close to a blu ray disk. iTunes isn't giving you 25-50gb movie files that a bu ray gives.

iTunes isn't giving you the special features, just the movie itself. An HD movie doesn't take up 25-50 GB, the special features do.
 
Well, can you explain why MS Office costs $500? IMO there's no reason for it to cost that much especially when Apple has iWork for $79 and any Windows/Mac user can download Open Office for free. But MS KNOWS that people will pay for it because of the name and some people are tied to using Office.

The home, office, student version is $149 and you can put it on 3 computers. It's on sale now for $70 when you buy a computer.
 
Not for a while....... so please keep dreaming. just because something is "comming" doesnt mean it will be here tomorow and they must use it. a lot of internal testing at apple must be done before they can go ahead and place them in the macs

Very reasonable thinking.

Now apply the same reasoning to the lack of Quadcore processors, dual HDD/SSD and Blu-ray drives that people are so upset over.
 
MAcWorld hands on Anti-Glare 17"

They had one anti-glare 17" at MacWorld today and I checked it out.

The anti-glare looks like all the older matte screens Apple used in their Pro laptops before. Looks very nice and almost no reflection of lights and faces when looking at it. If you're looking at the extreme angle (almost edge on to the screen, then there are some reflections to be seen.

In short, it's night and day between the glossy and this new anti-glare option. Sucks that it's a $50 option, but at least it's now an option.

The Apple employees there said that it's he exact same lcd panel in both the glossy and anti-glare. The glass piece is not there at all and a silver bezel for the border is put on instead. There is a thin, black rubber strip around the edge to act as a cushion when closed. That looks a bit odd, but not horrible.

There is a little ridge between the bezel and screen surface (like all the older MacBooks). I never saw the logic behind putting a unneeded piece of heavy glass on the MacBooks anyway. So the anti-glare should be slightly lighter than the glossy version.

Overall, as soon as they offer this anti-glare option on the 15", I'll probably order one. :) I really don't need the extra 2".
 
What does 5 years into the future have to do with right now? That's a silly argument.

Can somebody answer why Apple apologists are so against Blu-Ray? Every other manufacturer offers it as an option.

Apple should have no problem making it an option just like RAM, HDD size, etc. If you don't want it, then don't buy it.
Sony offers a Blu-Ray drive for less than $140. So it's not like it's outrageously expensive. There's already a regular
drive taking up space on the computer so it's not like it's taking away space. So what's the issue?

They are against it for a few reasons:

1. They think iTunes will take over the world, because, well their mac fans.
2. They think since apple got rid of the floppy drive, they will do the same with EVERY DISC, also meaning movies, whitch comes back to #1
3. they spend all their money on macs and apple products, they cant afford blu-ray, so they are pissed...

I dont get it eirther, but they are crazzy for thinking it
 
Indeed.

But perhaps there is hope that this so-called 'revision b' might include the features that we ask for?

Can you imagine a 'Pro' using this 'Pro' machine haha?

"Can you just save down the entire video edit onto your desktop?"
"Sorry, the HDD is only 320GB and it's almost full"

"Can you just rotate that model so I can see behind it?"
"Sorry, this will take some time because the GPU isn't very powerful, and is not certified with this program"

"Oh well then, would you mind rendering the scene instead then so I can see the materials?"
Er, sorry, it's going to take a while because it's only a dual-core CPU. My Quad-core desktop can usually handle this okay. Shall I make you a cup of coffee while we wait?"

just a bit of fun... :)

The first one is something I can actually deal with. The new RAID 2.5" external enclosures handle a lot of the off loading I plan on doing. Probably why they are always out of stock, I bet every Mac using video pro is trying to pick one up.

The last one is the story of my life. There are drastic limitations to cutting video and toning images on a laptop, but when you have no choice you make do and get the best gear you can afford. But I wouldn't mind having a quad core system to run my core aware FCP so I can get 7 minute render times instead of 20 minutes while i am away from my tower.

I am getting over the pissiness that I felt yesterday, so I guess the update isn't that bad, but I know that I will be using a lot of Express Card 34 adaptors.
 
Why not? Is there any reason you can come up with besides the need for greater bandwith? (which is only a matter of time) Steam, the App store, netflix download service, itunes, amazon mp3 store, etc etc these are the future.



Poor you. Good thing Dell would be happy, even desperate, to sell you a computer.

Why do you think that a company like Apple can literally sell its products as fast as they can produce them, at a hefty mark up, while Dell scrimps by with ~4% net profit? Maybe more choice isnt always the answer?

The only thing i have ever purchased from dell is one of their high end monitors. I have never purchased a computer of any type from them. You expect servers and bandwidth to be able to provide not only you, but everyone else 50gb's of info in a two hour time that usual movies are. Good luck with that.
 
The only thing i have ever purchased from dell is one of their high end monitors. I have never purchased a computer of any type from them. You expect servers and bandwidth to be able to provide not only you, but everyone else 50gb's of info in a two hour time that usual movies are. Good luck with that.

that 50 GB is not just the movie, but the special features
 
that 50 GB is not just the movie, but the special features

Yes I totally hear you and agree with your other points but the majority of it is towards the movies and the special features usually have additional compression applied to them. According to this link:
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=3338
Most blu ray movies have a bitrate between 20-30 mb/s although some are higher.
So (7200 (seconds - two hours) * 25 mb/s) / 8 bits = 22500 megabytes

So at an average bit rate a two hour movie requires 22.5 GB of storage. FiOS (which I have) may be able to get bitrates like this, but servers with the movies and the bandwidth would not be able to handle enough people to be simultaneously viewing the content for it to replace blu ray.
 
3. I really dont see any problem with blu-ray at the moment. Its still new. and no, its not a waste on computers. People said the same when DVD drives started to show up on computers, Watching videos on the computer? thats what the tv is for" but look at them now. Like I said, it will get better as time goes on, not only for the TV, but for the computer. We will start to see more blu-ray burners. And guess what? The ones complaning will be the ones getting it. Its always end up like that. They will also say "nope, that won't happen" but just watch...

So explain something. Those screaming :"blu-ray will die soon!" are you saying it will die as a whole or just on computers? because if you are saying as a whole, then look back at what you said about DVDs, VHS, etc.. Those took almost 10, 15 years to end up "dieing" and VHS, just died not to long ago, after more then 30 years. DVD is still in its mid years...

Yes, it will die, but not anytime soon... I think blu-ray may be the longest living formatt, with small improvements here and there..... HD is the thing now, weather you like it or not


Hi Chris,

I think BR is going to die as a whole...very soon unless prices drop incredibily. I will attempt to write a short column so here goes:


Personally, I think if BR doesn't take off by mid 2009, it will die a death similar to Sony's MiniDisc in the 90's.

I bought a PS3 in Jan 2008 mainly because it had a BR drive built in. It came with 4 free movies which was nice.

I feel the following problems are huge and need to be rectified:

1)Movie prices too high: The BR movie titles are like $18-24 since about June 2008. Prior to that date, I was able to buy them all over the place for about $14 as they tried to lure people into choosing BR over HDDVD. So now that BR has won, they jack the prices up?

2)Only movies created after 1999 AND THAT ARE ACTION PACKED are really necessary on BR format. Think about it...are you gonna plunk down $24 for a BR version of When Harry Met Sally when your $8.99 DVD on your $89 up-converting DVD player is already as good as it will ever get? If the films weren't recorded in high def, then essentially there is no reason to buy high def (better than dvd quality) versions of the film. It just doesn't make sense.

3)The players are still too expensive. Let's see, $299 for the bottom of the barrel player. BR has been out for years yet Sony (and essentially their patents) and friends are charging way too much to simply play a movie. Oh, and likely they do not include HDMI cables in the box (which many stores rape you $100 or more for an HDMI cable that you can buy for $20 online)...without HDMI, what's the point? So the up front cost is quite high when you factor in the unit and the cable. Then consider that you will need/want to update your movies which are all very expensive (again, compare an old 80s or 90s movie on dvd format vs. BR...not the latest release blockbusters where the dvd and BR will be closer).


I think Sony's in a heap of trouble as they won "the war" a year ago almost to this date and yet I know nobody (I mean that quite literally) that owns a BR player. Prices are too high for both movies and a player (especially considering the movies were cheaper during the BR HDDVD war AND that a year has passed), there is a recession, and generally I think people feel that this is just another format scam like the music biz has been doing for the past 80 years (vinyl, 8-track, cassette, cd, minidisc, hi-def audio)...as you point out about upgrading from VHS to DVD...think of all the reasons to upgrade back then from vhs to dvd...no more tape, thinner, no accidental erasings, more durable, etc...just like cd over cassette. So you have all these people who converted from cassette to cd and the same benefits exist if they upgrade from vhs to dvd. Now you are asking the consumer base to upgrade from dvd to bluray...on the surface, there are far FEWER reasons to upgrade. Quality of the picture is the only reason. Now factor in all the pricing, the expensive tv that must be there to show the new quality, the $100 HDMI cable that they will need to buy, etc. Oh, and throw in a world recesssion and the fact that 368 days after "the hi def war" was won, Sony still has the same players at the same expensive prices with $25+ movie pricetags. Take all of these points into consideration.

I believe the picture quality combined with the simplicity of HDMI are huge wins for BR...but time is ticking...it's only a matter of 2-3 years before movies will somehow stream to your television (which brings up an interesting topic of how well that will take off since people like to "own" physical things). Netflix has joined forces with some company that offers a $99 set-top-box that will stream high def movies to your tv. I may look into that...I didn't like Netflix because 60% of the movies I rented looked like an adult skated on them down a 50 foot driveway. But hey, if I can stream them at a great price, cya later BR.


-Eric
 
Hi Chris,

I think BR is going to die as a whole...very soon unless prices drop incredibily. I will attempt to write a short column so here goes:


Personally, I think if BR doesn't take off by mid 2009, it will die a death similar to Sony's MiniDisc in the 90's.

I bought a PS3 in Jan 2008 mainly because it had a BR drive built in. It came with 4 free movies which was nice.

I feel the following problems are huge and need to be rectified:

1)Movie prices too high: The BR movie titles are like $18-24 since about June 2008. Prior to that date, I was able to buy them all over the place for about $14 as they tried to lure people into choosing BR over HDDVD. So now that BR has won, they jack the prices up?

2)Only movies created after 1999 AND THAT ARE ACTION PACKED are really necessary on BR format. Think about it...are you gonna plunk down $24 for a BR version of When Harry Met Sally when your $8.99 DVD on your $89 up-converting DVD player is already as good as it will ever get? If the films weren't recorded in high def, then essentially there is no reason to buy high def (better than dvd quality) versions of the film. It just doesn't make sense.

3)The players are still too expensive. Let's see, $299 for the bottom of the barrel player. BR has been out for years yet Sony (and essentially their patents) and friends are charging way too much to simply play a movie. Oh, and likely they do not include HDMI cables in the box (which many stores rape you $100 or more for an HDMI cable that you can buy for $20 online)...without HDMI, what's the point? So the up front cost is quite high when you factor in the unit and the cable. Then consider that you will need/want to update your movies which are all very expensive (again, compare an old 80s or 90s movie on dvd format vs. BR...not the latest release blockbusters where the dvd and BR will be closer).


I think Sony's in a heap of trouble as they won "the war" a year ago almost to this date and yet I know nobody (I mean that quite literally) that owns a BR player. Prices are too high for both movies and a player (especially considering the movies were cheaper during the BR HDDVD war AND that a year has passed), there is a recession, and generally I think people feel that this is just another format scam like the music biz has been doing for the past 80 years (vinyl, 8-track, cassette, cd, minidisc, hi-def audio)...as you point out about upgrading from VHS to DVD...think of all the reasons to upgrade back then from vhs to dvd...no more tape, thinner, no accidental erasings, more durable, etc...just like cd over cassette. So you have all these people who converted from cassette to cd and the same benefits exist if they upgrade from vhs to dvd. Now you are asking the consumer base to upgrade from dvd to bluray...on the surface, there are far FEWER reasons to upgrade. Quality of the picture is the only reason. Now factor in all the pricing, the expensive tv that must be there to show the new quality, the $100 HDMI cable that they will need to buy, etc. Oh, and throw in a world recesssion and the fact that 368 days after "the hi def war" was won, Sony still has the same players at the same expensive prices with $25+ movie pricetags. Take all of these points into consideration.

I believe the picture quality combined with the simplicity of HDMI are huge wins for BR...but time is ticking...it's only a matter of 2-3 years before movies will somehow stream to your television (which brings up an interesting topic of how well that will take off since people like to "own" physical things). Netflix has joined forces with some company that offers a $99 set-top-box that will stream high def movies to your tv. I may look into that...I didn't like Netflix because 60% of the movies I rented looked like an adult skated on them down a 50 foot driveway. But hey, if I can stream them at a great price, cya later BR.


-Eric

Your point about 1999 is very wrong. Movies when converted to blu ray are converted from the actual film roll. Not the dvd. Go watch a high definition channel that plays older films. Even the films from the 60's and 70's are in full 1080i/720p. The amount of detail on the films they show in theathers would require a lot more digital information than 1080p. Also they're are very few people compared to the people that rent/buy movies still. I work at a store that has an electronics/movie section and people are definitely buying into blu ray.
 
Once you've bought a Blu-ray player/titles, it is very difficult to go back to DVDs. I'm certain BD is here to stay. :cool:
 
Very reasonable thinking.

Now apply the same reasoning to the lack of Quadcore processors, dual HDD/SSD and Blu-ray drives that people are so upset over.

Really? So tell me why they are doing well on PCs such as HP and sony? Enough iof your apple fan rubbish

Once you've bought a Blu-ray player/titles, it is very difficult to go back to DVDs. I'm certain BD is here to stay. :cool:

Exactly, I believe it may be the longest living formatt surpassing VHS's lifetime. These people spend all their money on macs, they cant afford blu-ray so they complain and say it will end because they are mad
 
Your point about 1999 is very wrong. Movies when converted to blu ray are converted from the actual film roll. Not the dvd. Go watch a high definition channel that plays older films. Even the films from the 60's and 70's are in full 1080i/720p. The amount of detail on the films they show in theathers would require a lot more digital information than 1080p. Also they're are very few people compared to the people that rent/buy movies still. I work at a store that has an electronics/movie section and people are definitely buying into blu ray.

I rescind my 1999 comment...it's hard to explain what I am saying...yes, I know the conversions are from film...but you probably know as well as I that movie companies usually take the cheap road in converting (transferring) a film. I have tons of 80s movies on dvd that just look fair on my 56" HD tv. But if I pop in a movie that was created when the times were much closer to dvd (say something from 2004), the films look a lot better...because less "conversion" and care is needed to convert the film in my opinion...because the studios have already recorded/prepared the film to be transferred to dvd format...and hence are doing it right.

I agree...blu ray is spectacular...IF you have the right movie with a nice tv. But I also have plenty of movies on dvd format that look fantastic on my same nice tv. :) I want blu ray...but as a consumer, I fear I will end up paying $19-$25 for (a poor selection of) movies and a year from now the format will die because the masses (for one reason or another) have chosen to go with internet streaming. On the optimistic side, consumers like to own things...physical things. But that doesn't mean BR is going to live. Look at minidisc and laserdisc and hi-def audio cds that were just another format hoping to take off...dead. There are more people than you think that are aware of the entertainment industry's wishes to swap formats every 10-20 years. DVD is barely 10 years old.

There were just so many reasons to switch from vhs to dvd (and people who experienced the advantages of going from audio cassette to cd were excited to try dvd)...right now quality is the only reason to go from dvd to blu ray. That's the reason. But there are so many obstacles (pricing, # of titles, quality of "transfers" of some movies to blu ray (or dvd for that matter), etc.) that make me, and the rest of world, nervous to plunk down money.
 
Hey eric. heres what I have to say on your comments

1)Movie prices too high: The BR movie titles are like $18-24 since about June 2008. Prior to that date, I was able to buy them all over the place for about $14 as they tried to lure people into choosing BR over HDDVD. So now that BR has won, they jack the prices up?

Well, we are in a recession, and you can blame bush for that. Keep in mind, DVD movies faced the same thing when they first came out.

2)Only movies created after 1999 AND THAT ARE ACTION PACKED are really necessary on BR format. Think about it...are you gonna plunk down $24 for a BR version of When Harry Met Sally when your $8.99 DVD on your $89 up-converting DVD player is already as good as it will ever get? If the films weren't recorded in high def, then essentially there is no reason to buy high def (better than dvd quality) versions of the film. It just doesn't make sense
.

Not true, You know how they take old music from the 50s and "digitaly remaster" them, well, this is the same thing. They take the original flim and enhance it. They have high end equipment, a lot better then some $200 converter from wal-mart
3)The players are still too expensive. Let's see, $299 for the bottom of the barrel player. BR has been out for years yet Sony (and essentially their patents) and friends are charging way too much to simply play a movie. Oh, and likely they do not include HDMI cables in the box (which many stores rape you $100 or more for an HDMI cable that you can buy for $20 online)...without HDMI, what's the point? So the up front cost is quite high when you factor in the unit and the cable. Then consider that you will need/want to update your movies which are all very expensive (again, compare an old 80s or 90s movie on dvd format vs. BR...not the latest release blockbusters where the dvd and BR will be closer).

again, DVDs faced the same thing when they were new.

I also don;t get the cable deal. My grandfather bought out blu-ray player from the sony style store in the mall, and he wanted to get the HDMI cable whitch was close to $100 so we ended up spending close to 1500 for just two things. (yes, hes the type that must have the "very best" )

But we do have the highest end player, waste or money? may be, but then again, theres people who spend their money on apple products ;)

I believe the picture quality combined with the simplicity of HDMI are huge wins for BR...but time is ticking...it's only a matter of 2-3 years before movies will somehow stream to your television (which brings up an interesting topic of how well that will take off since people like to "own" physical things). Netflix has joined forces with some company that offers a $99 set-top-box that will stream high def movies to your tv. I may look into that...I didn't like Netflix because 60% of the movies I rented looked like an adult skated on them down a 50 foot driveway. But hey, if I can stream them at a great price, cya later BR.

Physical media will still be around, and it will go down in price. Just give it. time..
 
I agree...blu ray is spectacular...IF you have the right movie with a nice tv. But I also have plenty of movies on dvd format that look fantastic on my same nice tv. :) I want blu ray...but as a consumer, I fear I will end up paying $19-$25 for (a poor selection of) movies and a year from now the format will die because the masses (for one reason or another) have chosen to go with internet streaming. On the optimistic side, consumers like to own things...physical things. But that doesn't mean BR is going to live. Look at minidisc and laserdisc and hi-def audio cds that were just another format hoping to take off...dead. There are more people than you think that are aware of the entertainment industry's wishes to swap formats every 10-20 years. DVD is barely 10 years old.p/quote]

Byt blu-ray is doing quite well now, of course you'd have to have a HD set to take avantage of blu-ray, thats just how it is, but since TV is going all digital, why not get a new set?

I actully think blu-ray will be here for around 30, may be a bit longer. It will have many advancements along the way, who knows, it may have some sort of internet deal, you'll never know.

There were just so many reasons to switch from vhs to dvd (and people who experienced the advantages of going from audio cassette to cd were excited to try dvd)...right now quality is the only reason to go from dvd to blu ray. That's the reason. But there are so many obstacles (pricing, # of titles, quality of "transfers" of some movies to blu ray (or dvd for that matter), etc.) that make me, and the rest of world, nervous to plunk down money.

DVD's were a lot better because there was no ribbon, no tape, no large black plastic cases, yoiu got a lot better quality, as well as specialty features that were once only for movie channels between movies

people said the same thing about DVD's and trust me, it will go away....
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.