Steve Jobs Suggests Blu-ray Not Coming to Mac Anytime Soon

[xbjllb]

If nothing else, the discussion board new user registrations illustrate why this is a slam-dunk that doesn't make even odds appropriate: looking at my 7-2001 MacRumors Member registration number (#1,937) versus thread participant DMann's 1-2002 (#3,566), it illustrates a historical user growth rate of roughly +271 new registers per month back then, whereas your 1-2008 registration (#149,276) and versus a fresh Sept 2010 one (#491,0xx) yields a contemporary growth rate of +356 per day (+10,679 per month). Golly, MR is so stagnant that its demise is obvious.

...simply decide for yourself how you want to parse the statistics; another way to do so is to observe that the total membership at MR from nearly a decade ago now gets that many new members every 2 months.



-hh

You poor ignorant dear. You think politicians are the only entities with organizations with boiler rooms filled with shill fanbois manipulating public opinion by creating support on the internet and in the mainstream media where little actually exists in the real world?

If anything, chart your uptick in membership alongside of Apple's most highly publicized faux pax, and even you'd see the obvious. Every single time Apple blows it they put another 500 whores online working double-time and weekend shifts.

But thanks for at least attempting another "proof" of popularity besides bottom line bubbles.

 

[iEdd]

Step 1: State a ridiculous conspiracy theory as fact.

Every single time Apple blows it they put another 500 whores online working double-time and weekend shifts.

Step 2: Hypocritically accuse your opponent of not using facts.

But thanks for at least attempting another "proof" of popularity besides bottom line bubbles.

Nice.

 

[toke lahti]

There would have to be secure path in the system itself and it is the user space applications then use the API's to implement the secure path which they need. The secure path is very much dependent on a whole chain of requirements; drivers, video card the lot - the whole purpose is to stop people from being able to intervene somewhere in the process of decoding and getting to the video/audio card as to rip the content off the BluRay and save it into a file to then share.

If the decoding is done in hardware in hdcp compliant GPU and then passed on as still hdcp encrypted hdmi signal to the screen, why the video stream would need any secure path inside kernel?
Isn't that secure path only needed if the decoding is done in software which works in user space?

With that being said they can support BluRay but it wouldn't be at the full resolution if they don't implement secure path - so that is the big question, are you happy with lower resolution BluRay without having to implement SecurePath or do you want the full resolution?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_Constraint_Token
:"Note that ICT in conjunction with HDCP is used to protect the display path over which the video data travels, not the actual data on the disc itself."
& "Discs with ICT enabled will (theoretically) have it marked on the outside of package, allowing consumers to see if the specific disc has the flag enabled."
Have you seen any ICT marks in bd-movie covers?

 

[KnightWRX]

There would have to be secure path in the system itself and it is the user space applications then use the API's to implement the secure path which they need. The secure path is very much dependent on a whole chain of requirements; drivers, video card the lot - the whole purpose is to stop people from being able to intervene somewhere in the process of decoding and getting to the video/audio card as to rip the content off the BluRay and save it into a file to then share.

With that being said they can support BluRay but it wouldn't be at the full resolution if they don't implement secure path - so that is the big question, are you happy with lower resolution BluRay without having to implement SecurePath or do you want the full resolution?

This is wrong. AACS is an encryption mecanism. The best way to get to the data is not to inject yourself between a player like WinDVD and the display drivers, it's to crack the encryption itself. And AACS got cracked. How exactly ? Because AACS is implemented in userspace on Windows and players like WinDVD had the keys plainly loaded into memory when executing.

This is what led to ripping software for Blu-ray. Yet these were 100% licensed of the technology.

All this "kernel space yaddi yadda" is bullcrap. That's not how it works on Windows and Apple already supports the parts (HDCP) that do. The Ars article is from 2007. I suspect that it might have had a tad of ignorance in it since the format was new.

Too bad some are already too convinced that Steve is right and is not trying to blind side them.

 

[janstett]

Sort of like comparing an Ipad v3 with an Ipad V4.2?

I thought so.

Not really, it would be more like the iPhone v1 or 1st gen iPod touch. Eventually support for it withers away in favor of features only available on newer models.

Blu-Ray 1.1 profile players will still play movies, for now... But won't support many of the features that are considered "standard" now.

Rather than wait for all the pie-in-the-sky stuff, they launched with a profile that was stripped down, just to play movies and nothing else. The players on the market today are 2.0 profile, which requires networking and permanent storage, as well as more processor. The 3D profile jumps the requirements once again.

Anyway, my original point is that, aside from the PS3, I'm not aware of any Blu-Ray player that can upgrade along with the profiles as they are released. If anybody knows of one, please point it out.

 

[Cave Man]

That's bullcrap. Apple already supports HDCP on its hardware and monitors. AACS is usually implemented in user space in the players themselves. What other kernel space component is missing ? Or are you just repeating some kind of non-sense you've heard ?

Have a read here about protected processes inside the kernel of Windows.

 

[AidenShaw]

Anyway, my original point is that, aside from the PS3, I'm not aware of any Blu-Ray player that can upgrade along with the profiles as they are released. If anybody knows of one, please point it out.

You can download the firmware upgrade from 1.1 to 2.0 for the Sony BDP-S350 here.

http://esupport.sony.com/US/perl/swu-list.pl?mdl=BDPS350​

The Insignia NS-2BRDVD also had a firmware update to 2.0.

Of course, many lower end BD players did not have the Ethernet and USB ports needed for BD-Live, so an upgrade would be impossible. Many of these players have received upgrades with new features, but not to Profile 2.0.

Have a read here about protected processes inside the kernel of Windows.

Protected processes can be in userland - the kernel only implements the protection, the protected processes are not part of the kernel and do not run "inside" the kernel.

 

[KnightWRX]

Have a read here about protected processes inside the kernel of Windows.

Link to blu-ray implementations ?

Seriously, stop posting just about anything. Qualify your responses and show why they are meaningful.

You're all over the place, do you really know what is required for a blu-ray implementation, which technologies need to be implemented or are you just trying to not be wrong because you posted something about a subject you didn't know much about ?

Seriously, people keep spouting stuff about kernel space this and that, but no one ever goes into much details. I bet the only reason for that is none of you actually know what you're talking about. You're just repeating Steve crap to justify Apple's choices.

 

[DMann]

We all know that windows implementations work in user space,
so this requirement can't be valid anymore.
Correct?

Presumptuous, at best.

The kernel is involved, albeit to a small degree.

That Ars' article is badly outdated and all some of its claims are knocked down in the update2 of the same article.

Fixed it for you.

"[George] Ou's analysis largely agrees with mine at points where we meet, but he also entertained some of Gutmann's more ridiculous claims, showing further why all of this focus on Microsoft is missing the point."

A further point of contention:

Paul Smith, Microsoft MVP.

"Microsoft is not to blame for these measures. The company has been forced to do this by the movie studios."

In other words, it's yet another Royal PITA.

Since BD licensing terms, nevertheless, do require access to the OS kernel to implement protection, regardless as 'to what degree,' then it would seem reasonable for Apple to make the call as to whether or not they feel the kernel ought to be accessed, or not.

What remains distressing, yet somewhat hopeful, is that iMac, now, is conspicuously equipped for Blu-Ray: 16:9 ratio screen, LED back-lit display, better resolution, and better sound.

If Apple would work out their BD-Java Xlet capabilities, and come to agreeable terms of OS requirements, hell might actually freeze over, before long.

 

[alent1234]

This whole thread is about Blu-Ray disc playback on Macs. Playback on computers is much more strict because of the potential to copy discs. That's why Blu-Ray decryption is don in the protected part of the kernel, and why it's a "bag of hurt" for Apple.

blu ray has been on PC's since Windows XP days. before Vista.

buy a drive
make sure your video card supports decoding
upgrade your video drivers to the minimum required for decoding
buy a player or get one free with a movie disk
watch movie

these days it's a lot easier since the cheapest Intel HD graphics chip can decode blu ray movies

 

[AidenShaw]

The kernel is involved, albeit to a small degree.

That's debatable - the protected processes support in the kernel really has nothing to do with BD support per se - it simply implements a barrier to prevent processes from spying on each other (a route that has been used to grab the decrypted frame buffer contents before).

Since BD licensing terms, nevertheless, do require access to the OS kernel to implement protection,

Very big load of BS here.

The licensing terms require a protected video path, not "access to the OS kernel". Microsoft did not give the BD association "access to the OS kernel" - they merely implemented a way to mark a process so that it could not be spied upon by other processes.

Apple's only issue is that BD sales might lower Itunes not-quite-HD movie sales - so the turtlenecked overlord invents the "bag of hurt" story. The sheeple keep bleating the same line - even though Windows systems with BD support are everywhere. What "bag of hurt"?

 

[DMann]

That's debatable - the protected processes support in the kernel really has nothing to do with BD support per se - it simply implements a barrier to prevent processes from spying on each other (a route that has been used to grab the decrypted frame buffer contents before).

And by 'implements,' you are merely affirming that the kernel is involved, to a small degree.

Double-speak much?

Very big load of BS here.

Oh?

The licensing terms require a protected video path, not "access to the OS kernel". Microsoft did not give the BD association "access to the OS kernel" - they merely implemented a way to mark a process so that it could not be spied upon by other processes.

So, in other words, in order to comply with PVP, MS provided access to the kernel for the purpose of implementing protection - that is, unless you are implying that kernel access might have been rendered unnecessary, by some other, more creative means?

Previously stated:

the kernel only implements the protection, the protected processes are not part of the kernel and do not run "inside" the kernel.

Back pedal, away.

Apple's only issue is that BD sales might lower Itunes not-quite-HD movie sales - so the turtlenecked overlord invents the "bag of hurt" story. The sheeple keep bleating the same line - even though Windows systems with BD support are everywhere. What "bag of hurt"?

Hopefully, after H.264 royalty payments 'kick-in,' in 2011, this conflict of interest will become less of an issue.

However, claiming that it's the "only issue," as a matter of fact, while referring to users of Apple products as "sheeple," is highly revealing, to say the least.

Just because MS is foolish enough to bend-over for PVP, doesn't mean that all companies need to comply - because that would make them sheeple, now wouldn't it?

 

[xbjllb]

Step 1: State a ridiculous conspiracy theory as fact.

Step 2: Hypocritically accuse your opponent of not using facts.

Nice.

How not to argue a point:

1. Declare the other person's valid argument a "conspiracy" "theory".

2. Self-righteously accuse your opponent of not using facts.

All success is bought. That is a fact. Of course, to buy success takes cash, and cash sometimes represents prior success; not often, but sometimes. More people would be aware of these corporate boiler rooms if they'd hadn't been outsourced. Back in the 90's I knew many people who worked in them. I refused.

Today the only boiler rooms that exist in the US are political because the US political process cannot be effectively outsourced without raising eyebrows.

But only the woefully ignorant or those who work in them call PR boiler rooms conspiracy theories. For much of corporate America they are the difference between success and failure.

Particularly the ones who have devolved to making crap.

Apple's only issue is that BD sales might lower Itunes not-quite-HD movie sales - so the turtlenecked overlord invents the "bag of hurt" story. The sheeple keep bleating the same line - even though Windows systems with BD support are everywhere. What "bag of hurt"?

It's the story about how a number one cutting edge computer manufacturer became a third-rate quality video distributor. To the point where they castrated their computers to not compete with their media distribution outlet.

Sad, when they could have had both. SO WHAT if there's internal competition? Competition just makes everything better.

Jobs and Apple have become way too protectionist, and as the quality of their product suffers, circle the wagons even tighter.

It's an old story, and it always ends the same, no matter how much gold they've got in the strongboxes and how bravely the drivers whistle "Dixie" as the arrows whistle to their targets.

When you start circling the wagons, it's over. Only a matter of time.

 

[iEdd]

2. Self-righteously accuse your opponent of not using facts.

As you did. And please, provide some evidence of your theory about the online Apple employees.

 

[toke lahti]

Presumptuous, at best.
The kernel is involved, albeit to a small degree.

If PVP is required, how can PowerDVD show bd-movie in XP, when PVP is only in Vista & 7?
And if PVP exist because of unencrypted video stream is streamed through pci bus, where do you need PVP when decoding is done in GPU and there's no unencrypted video stream going through pci bus?

Fixed it for you.

Did you even read the Ou's article?
If you did, can you please list all Gutmann's claims it did not knock down?

Since BD licensing terms, nevertheless, do require access to the OS kernel to implement protection, regardless as 'to what degree,' then it would seem reasonable for Apple to make the call as to whether or not they feel the kernel ought to be accessed, or not.

AFAIK, these requirements are over 3 years old and made for different generation of computers. Today, GPU can do all things needed in hardware level, just like stand-alone bd-players. Or do you think stand-alone bd-players have PVP in their kernel?

 

[AidenShaw]

And by 'implements,' you are merely affirming that the kernel is involved, to a small degree.

The kernel is involved in just about everything that happens on the computer - that's why it's debatable to say that there is any special involvement by the kernel in BD playback.

Nobody was "given access" to the kernel - and the new feature is mainly to provide the ability to disable the use of debugging APIs to spy on the protected process.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

The sheeple keep bleating the same line - even though Windows systems with BD support are everywhere. What "bag of hurt"?

I think h264 and Blu-ray are similar bags of hurt. It's clear which bag apple chose to put over their users' heads, though.

 

[GamecockMac]

I agree. Apple achieves the "it just works" status by eliminating anything complicated. What's left does work (for the most part) but does not amount for much.

Once again, a dedicated Apple hater offers up an uninformed personal opinion as though it was a fact. There are millions of consumers (and thousands of businesses) worldwide who would totally disagree with you that Mac OS and the computers it runs on "don't amount to much". But of course, you aren't going to educate yourself to that reality, because it doesn't fit your myopic point of view.

 

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by lilo777
I agree. Apple achieves the "it just works" status by eliminating anything complicated.

What's left does work (for the most part) but does not amount for much.

Once again, a dedicated Apple hater offers up an uninformed personal opinion as though it was a fact.

You do admit, though, that the (some would say "over-")simplification of the product offerings is a factor in the fact that Apples do "just work" for most people.

(But then, Windows 7 "just works" for most people too.)

 

[MorphingDragon]

You do admit, though, that the (some would say "over-")simplification of the product offerings is a factor in the fact that Apples do "just work" for most people.

(But then, Windows 7 "just works" for most people too.)

There is a difference between vocalizing something and keeping your mouth shut.

 

[AidenShaw]

There is a difference between vocalizing something and keeping your mouth shut.

So, why did you vocalize?

lilo's comment consisted of three sentences. One a simple declaration, one a reasonble description of the state of Apple, and one an opinion that was not flattering to Apple.

GamecockMac dismissed the post as "uninformed personal opinion" - when the first sentence was not subject to debate, the second sentence was something that most fanbois and most haters would agree with, and the third was an opinion (perhaps "uninformed" in GamecockMac's world view, but reasonable to other people). My post addressed the validity of the second sentence. Do you not think that Apple's simplified product support matrix is a part of the overused "just works" marketing line?

This is a forum to discuss opinions, right?

 

[lilo777]

Back to the topic... Regardless of the underlying technical issues with BluRay playback, I think we all can agree that Apple is capable of implementing such playback if they wanted to (or is someone going to argue that it requires Microsoft technical prowess?). It is also out of question that Apple has resources to do this. Hence it is quite obvious that this is a political/business decision. It's impossible to quantify whether Apple suffers from this decision financially or not. However it is clear that Apple users are missing on the best available video playback. Whilst most Apple customers are probably fine because they have access to it in one form or another, I am afraid some die-hard Apple fans do take Steve Jobs "bag of hurt" words too literally and do not use BD disk on principle. It is those people that I feel for.

 

[DMann]

I agree. Apple achieves the "it just works" status by eliminating anything complicated. What's left does work (for the most part) but does not amount for much.

Perhaps, Apple achieves that status by making complicated processes more streamlined, facile, and easier to access, and to deal with.

What's left, is the powerful, UNIX OS, which performs quite splendidly, while holding its own.

With AUTO CAD soon to be available, there will be fewer things missing on OS X to gripe about.

As far as: "...but does not amount to much" is concerned, many would tend to disagree.

Back to the topic... Regardless of the underlying technical issues with BluRay playback, I think we all can agree that Apple is capable of implementing such playback if they wanted to (or is someone going to argue that it requires Microsoft technical prowess?). It is also out of question that Apple has resources to do this. Hence it is quite obvious that this is a political/business decision. It's impossible to quantify whether Apple suffers from this decision financially or not. However it is clear that Apple users are missing on the best available video playback. Whilst most Apple customers are probably fine because they have access to it in one form or another, I am afraid some die-hard Apple fans do take Steve Jobs "bag of hurt" words too literally and do not use BD disk on principle. It is those people that I feel for.

Surely, if, and when BD emerges on OS X, many users will rejoice, while others will continue using a dedicated BD player, large HD screen, and suitable sound system for BD entertainment - no one's missing out on anything, within such an optimal environment, designed to reap the full benefits of BD.

Doing so neither makes anyone a die-hard Steve Jobs follower, nor does it raise concerns for one's well being.

 

[MorphingDragon]

So, why did you vocalize?

To tell you there's a difference between vocalizing and keeping your mouth shut.

Not everything I say has a second meaning.

 

[AidenShaw]

To tell you there's a difference between vocalizing and keeping your mouth shut.

It is my privilege to "vocalize" if I feel like making a comment. If you don't agree, either respond to my comment or follow your own advice.

Your are out-of-line to tell any forum member to "keep your mouth shut".