Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I hate to get into the middle of this, but here goes: Apple will NOT include BR if it means in any way that the laptops be so much as 1mm thicker; also, they won't include one if it's a tray-load because that will not be in keeping with the æsthetic they are aiming for.
 
I hate to get into the middle of this, but here goes: Apple will NOT include BR if it means in any way that the laptops be so much as 1mm thicker; also, they won't include one if it's a tray-load because that will not be in keeping with the æsthetic they are aiming for.

Exactly. No one has ever shown a 9.5mm slot loading Bluray on the market yet. Why get mad at Apple for not including something that does not exist?

Bluray options: tray loading 9.5mm or a 12.7mm slot load.
 
I personally dislike slot-loading drives. They are difficult to clean, and to remove media that gets stuck. They fail more readily. And to top it off, they're more expensive.
 
I personally dislike slot-loading drives. They are difficult to clean, and to remove media that gets stuck. They fail more readily. And to top it off, they're more expensive.

Because trays are ugly.
 
Because trays are ugly.

So hmmm... subjective aesthetics (and tray-loading drives look fine to me) win out over four major cons, eh? While this is Apple we're talking about, there's got to be something bigger than looks at work here. ;)
 
Are companys selling external slim blu-Ray players ... To be used on the MacBooks and iMacs?

And if they are , can the MacBook be able to handle it ?
 
I in no way have any idea what will be in future macbook pros, but IMO apple should just get rid of the cd-rom and include an external blue ray player/burner. They could also do something aesthetic like make a "dock" with the blueray player and extra battery or some junk for use when traveling. Most people do not need the cd-rom. Mine broke and I didn't miss it for a year, then I remembered that it was broken and had applecare take care of it. w/o a cdrom the computer is lighter and uses "less power" there would also be more room to add other things or to just move stuff around to dissipate heat better. The cd-rom's use is dieing out, except on rare occasions/situations. They could at least make it an option, w/ some benefits of not having it; they would prolly save money on applecare w/o the crappy cd-rom.
 
So hmmm... subjective aesthetics (and tray-loading drives look fine to me) win out over four major cons, eh? While this is Apple we're talking about, there's got to be something bigger than looks at work here. ;)

$400 option another con? A PS3 is cheaper. Instead of paying $400 for the ability to play Bluray on your laptop, you can buy a PS3 or a dedicated Bluray player. Also, Apple is trying to sell HD movies over iTunes. Offering Bluray would be not be good for this digital movie market.

Lets go over the cons of including it:
1. Macbooks would either be thicker to accommodate the 12.7mm slot loading drive, or change the unibody design to use a 9.7mm tray (ugly).
2. Pricing would be high, writing drivers to support the drives.
3. Competes with iTunes.
 
So hmmm... subjective aesthetics (and tray-loading drives look fine to me) win out over four major cons, eh? While this is Apple we're talking about, there's got to be something bigger than looks at work here. ;)


do you all even use CD media all that much anymore?
i think i have used my cd drive on my mbp once or twice at most in the last year.. and i only see my usage of it going down in the future..

my guess is that apple will ride the superdrive another couple years and then make a cd/br drive as an bto option. [in the laptops]


M
 
Will the 2010 17" MBP look like this?

2010MBP15.jpg


- Core i5/i7 Arrandale
- NO superdrive or Bluray
- huge 10 hour battery
- 4 DIMM memory slots
- High performance ATI discrete graphics
 
Lets go over the cons of including it:
1. Macbooks would either be thicker to accommodate the 12.7mm slot loading drive, or change the unibody design to use a 9.7mm tray (ugly).
2. Pricing would be high, writing drivers to support the drives.
3. Competes with iTunes.

Their iTunes offering is complete crap. DVD/Blu-ray prices for a movie loaded with DRM that you have to download over a few hours. Not to mention the quality isn't there compared to Blu-ray...

Crippling their most profitable product (the Macbook line/Macs in general) to push one of their least profitable product (iTunes movies) sounds like a deathwish to me.

Drivers to support the drives are already there. You can plug in a Blu-ray drive in a Mac today and access data on it with no problems. What is missing is the movie playback features. It's a license issue, not a software issue. Adding BR support to DVD Player is a quick job once they have the proper license (what Steve refers to as a "bag of hurt").

As for thicker... well, either make it thicker or find a supplier that will give you the part you need. It's 2010 already, Apple needs to get with the game. We're 3 years into Blu-ray, it's getting a much better adoption rate then DVD.
 
$400 option another con? A PS3 is cheaper. Instead of paying $400 for the ability to play Bluray on your laptop, you can buy a PS3 or a dedicated Bluray player. Also, Apple is trying to sell HD movies over iTunes. Offering Bluray would be not be good for this digital movie market.

Lets go over the cons of including it:
1. Macbooks would either be thicker to accommodate the 12.7mm slot loading drive, or change the unibody design to use a 9.7mm tray (ugly).
2. Pricing would be high, writing drivers to support the drives.
3. Competes with iTunes.

It's funny that people are finally realizing the thickness issue. I've posted this issue in every Blu-ray thread and the issue was completely ignore as people argued the merits. Completely pointless to argue the merits of something which is impossible (Apple=thin and non-existant 9.5mm slot load). An external option would be just fine.

Where do you get $400? I have 3 BR Combo drives and they all cost under $100 including the cheapo usb enclosure I put them in. I'm sure Apple could charge $150 for an external option and be just fine. I use mine all the time while traveling. Works great in Windows 7 under bootcamp.

Cheers,
 
I would be fine with them removing the optical drive if they use all of that space to squeeze in an extra hard drive, a kickass graphics card, more ports (hdmi etc), a better processor etc. As long as they update the OSX software to atleast decode blu ray video so that I could get an external blu ray drive

What I don't want to see is them leaving in the optical drive, but continueing to use dvd tech in it when everyone else has already started to move on to blu ray.
 
No Blu Ray, no USB 3.0, no huge difference between competitors and Apple - they have almost all features they are in Mac laptop. I do not believe that Apple will show us revolutionary laptops with OLED or SDD.
 
Drivers to support the drives are already there. You can plug in a Blu-ray drive in a Mac today and access data on it with no problems. What is missing is the movie playback features. It's a license issue, not a software issue. Adding BR support to DVD Player is a quick job once they have the proper license (what Steve refers to as a "bag of hurt").

It is not simply a matter of adding BR support to the DVD player;you must make kernel changes, which have to run in ring 0, which is a good way to make the system unstable. The specs for BR playback require you to run code where it can't be interrupted, which means the DVD player can't do it alone.
 
wow.. what a bitter thread over something so trivial as blu ray..

as someone who studied film and somewhat works in the field plus avid collector of dvd and bluray I would like to have bluray in mbp.. not a big deal but hell if i'm paying 2k for a laptop I EXPECT it to be there. plz don't say garbage like switch sony or dell.. i use mac for a reason

oh yea and there IS a bandwidth cap.. up in Canada, I use Rogers and my plan gives me 25gb per month so if i d/l two hd movies i'm done for the month. by the way where u guys all d/l these movies?? I hope its legit because if not it's called stealing. yes ur a thief.

either put the damn bluray in as a standard in near future or get rid of the optical drive all together and provide some other useful solution.

I'm not a techy so I just want a solid machine that can justify its price
 
It is not simply a matter of adding BR support to the DVD player;you must make kernel changes, which have to run in ring 0, which is a good way to make the system unstable. The specs for BR playback require you to run code where it can't be interrupted, which means the DVD player can't do it alone.

Please. MakeMKV decodes Blu-ray video and plays it back through a streaming server today without any kernel changes. Stop spreading nonsense.
 
I haven't read the whole thread (forgive me), but there is a major point most of you are ignoring: even IF we accept that digital downloads are the future (they probably are) and even IF we overlook their terrible quality compared to Blu-Ray, there's still the issue of, you know, being able to GET these digital downloads. It smacks of arrogance that some posters here - Americans, I assume - rave about their awesome internet connections and about how digital distribution is the future. Guess what, I have a 25Mb-connection that I would probably use to legally download movies IF they were even available in my country! As of today, the iTunes store does not offer movies or TV shows in Europe, or at least not in my country. We also don't have Hulu or Netflix. So, even if I had a 1Gbps-connection, I'd still want Blu-Ray, because where the hell am I supposed to download all these movies legally? This reduced availability, coupled with low-speed internet connections in many parts of the world and of course the atrocious quality of iTunes-downloads (or are they offering 1080p now?) just goes to show that digital distribution still has a looooong way to go. Now, it's probably going to come into its own in the next few years. But what are we - especially Apple's European customers - going to do until then? Continue to buy DVDs, a dead medium? Illegally download titles in 1080p-quality? Not watch any movies at all? Pay thousands for a big home entertainment system even though we'd like to watch movies on our laptops?
And one other point: how is the selection in the iTunes store? Can you only get the mainstream titles or are there also niche movies? That could be another advantage of the physical medium.

And boy, of course it makes sense to watch BR-movies on a laptop screen, provided that screen has a resolution of at least 1920x1080. I would expect Apple to offer such screens across the whole MBP-lineup (yes, even the 13-incher - have you seen the new Vaio Z?). In fact, I do all of my movie-watching on my MBP, and so do most people I know. It might come as a surprise to some of you, but many people, mainly students like myself, don't have big living rooms with huge HDTVs and surround systems. Our laptops are usually our main media hubs, our movie players and audio players rolled into one cool device. I would be absolutely delighted if I could finally watch movies in adequate quality on my laptop - why shell out thousands for a good TV+BR-player+surround system when I have neither the money nor the space for this stuff and would be satisfied with BR+FullHD on my laptop?

Now, I know not everyone is interested in this. Some of you actually have kick-ass TVs and don't want to watch movies on a laptop. That's fine. Just understand that different people require different things of their laptops, and there is a difference between extravagant and reasonable requirements. It would be extravagant for me to assume that Apple should ship out all future MBPs with SSDs only, because this technology is still a bit too expensive to come as a standard option (in a few years' time it will be very reasonable to assume SSDs as standard!). However, it is not extravagant at all to expect a BR-player and a FullHD-screen in a laptop that costs 2'000-2'500 dollars or euros or whatever when the competition puts this stuff in machines that cost half the price. It's arrogant to assume that everyone's requirements of a computer are the same, just like it's arrogant to smugly point out that digital downloads are the future when they're not even available in most parts of the world yet. Apple is free to skip BR, you know, but then they had better provide ALL OF THEIR CUSTOMERS, not just the American ones, with a viable alternative: i. e. an extensive selection of DRM-free movies and TV-shows in 1080p on every iTunes store in the world.

BTW, I'd be fine with BR remaining a BTO-option for the moment. Here's what I'd like to see:
- cheap configurations with superdrives
- standard configurations with no optical drives at all and a choice of having the optical drive replaced by either an extended battery at no premium or an 80GB SSD that complements the main HDD at a small premium
- BR option at a very small premium
 
And boy, of course it makes sense to watch BR-movies on a laptop screen, provided that screen has a resolution of at least 1920x1080. I would expect Apple to offer such screens across the whole MBP-lineup (yes, even the 13-incher - have you seen the new Vaio Z?).

This won't work or happen because OSX, unlike Windows Vista/7, doesn't properly support resolution independent scaling. This allows you to scale the user interface so despite the high resolution vs small display text and UI elements won't require a magnifier to see. Just check the 17" MBP. At 1920x1200 I find that everything is harder to read because everything is so small due to the small (for the res) screen size.

For movies 1920x1080 makes little sense in a laptop. It's hard to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on a smaller than 40" HDTV so it would be even harder on a small laptop display. 1080p is great and desirable when you have that big HDTV.
 
It's hard to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on a smaller than 40" HDTV so it would be even harder on a small laptop display.

That statement right there is proof that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

It's not the size of the tv that matters. It's how far you're sitting from the tv relative to it's size.

For a 40 inch tv, you have to sit eight feet away from it before you can not tell the difference between 1080p and 720p. Sit any closer and yes, you will note a difference. The closer you sit, the more significant the resolution downgrade from 1080p to 720p appears, even if the screen size shrinks.

At the distance most people sit from a laptop, ie. less than a foot, you can absolutely see a significant difference between 1080p and 720p on a 13 inch screen. If you have a computer with a screen capable of 1080p resolutions, just google 1080p vs. 720p images. Assuming your computer does have a 1080p capable screen, you will absolutely notice the difference.

But all that is irrelevent. DVDs play at 480p, NOT 720p. And you would have to be an absolute idiot to not realize that the jump from 480p to 720p is huge even on a 6 inch screen.

So even if you have to settle for blu rays playing at 720p. It would still be a HUGE upgrade in quality over a dvd of the same movie.
 
This won't work or happen because OSX, unlike Windows Vista/7, doesn't properly support resolution independent scaling. This allows you to scale the user interface so despite the high resolution vs small display text and UI elements won't require a magnifier to see. Just check the 17" MBP. At 1920x1200 I find that everything is harder to read because everything is so small due to the small (for the res) screen size.

To you resolution independance is some kind of auto-font zoom ? Seriously, OS X's fonts are huge by default compared to Windows and very much more on a 1280x800 display. And that's not resolution independance. That's just some accessibility feature for blind people.

Bring on 1920x1200 (not 1920x1080, 16:9 is evil) on the 13".
 
This won't work or happen because OSX, unlike Windows Vista/7, doesn't properly support resolution independent scaling. This allows you to scale the user interface so despite the high resolution vs small display text and UI elements won't require a magnifier to see. Just check the 17" MBP. At 1920x1200 I find that everything is harder to read because everything is so small due to the small (for the res) screen size.

For movies 1920x1080 makes little sense in a laptop. It's hard to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on a smaller than 40" HDTV so it would be even harder on a small laptop display. 1080p is great and desirable when you have that big HDTV.

Wait, so OS X is still not resolution independent? I'll be damned. I thought they finally implemented it with 10.6, but apparently this is yet another missing feature. Thanks for the heads up. Well, it doesn't excuse the absence of FullHD and BR on all models.

And hell, the difference betwen DVDs and BRs was apparent even in the tiny comparison screenshots posted here. How can anyone claim that it would not be noticeable on a good laptop screen with FullHD?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.