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

[pr5owner]

Note that the optical link uses a blinking red LED (think Morse code), not a modulated laser beam like network/SAN fibre links. The bandwidth limitation is real - TOSlink can't support the better BD sound bitstreams.

well........ wiki says TOSLINK supports 125mbit/s (the first iteration of TOSLINK was 3mbit/s and yes this will not cut it)

BD is no more than 50mbit/s
DTS Master audio is no more than 25mbit/s

125mbit > 50mbit ???

im pretty sure optical can handle both the video and audio stream

 

[Hal Itosis]

Being a (most likely) fascist ****** fostering inferior crap on a clueless public is nothing to be proud of...

Why speaking of bulling statements. Since I'm not 100% sure if you're insulting me, I've saved you from the 'Report' button...for now.

Of course xbjllb is clearly insulting & namecalling someone

Steve Jobs, presumably.

and the important question is Why?

Perhaps MacRumors has become a haven for former Apple employees (i.e., of the "disgruntled" species). That, and/or he's yet another Flash developer/ActionScript programmer who takes the whole issue (and Steve Jobs in particular) way too personally.

Much ado about nothing, IMO.

 

[cube]

Component will carry 1080i and 720p, so it is definitely HD.

Component can carry 1080i but players won't OUTPUT 1080 through component.

 

[pr5owner]

Component can carry 1080i but players won't OUTPUT 1080 through component.

technically component is capable of much higher resolution than just 1080p, component uses the same signals as VGA, and standard VGA cables can output 2048x1536x32

its just companies are too greedy and dont want movies to be "stolen" through the cable connection so HDCP was invented and only implemented in HDMI

didnt stop much since movies are ripped right from the source, i guess they dont want the avg joe to be able to plug a cable in and split it off to another source (or something simple)

 

[Crunch]

All I did is price out the computer you have in your signature, which is 3,200 at bare minimum. I know that you won't be able to understand this, but others might. No one wants Bluray to be required in every mac, however some people want it as an option if they want to pay more for it. I know people at my office would love to watch a 1920x1080p Hi-def Blu Ray on their macs vs a 720x480 sd dvd.








I never said anything about the "apple tax", even though we all know what it is. I do agree with you though that most likely Apple would charge an obscene amount for a Blu ray dive.



No one is saying that every mac is required to have a Blu ray drive, but people should be given the option. I know that it must seem like rocket science but it is not.

Never mind. You do come off as quite condescending but whatever. My point was that if Apple were to offer Bluray at all, it would probably be standard in the highest-end iMac's and MacBook Pro's and an option in the less expensive models.

As for being part of Steve's cattle with a deer in the headlights look blindly defending Apple's prices and procedures, I can assure you that if anyone is screwing anyone in this equation, it's the other way around. I paid nowhere nearly as much for my various equipment as your calculations would have you believe. In fact, you'd be calling me a liar if I told you, so let's just leave it at that.

 

[Hal Itosis]

technically component is capable of much higher resolution than just 1080p, component uses the same signals as VGA, and standard VGA cables can output 2048x1536x32

its just companies are too greedy and dont want movies to be "stolen" through the cable connection so HDCP was invented and only implemented in HDMI

Thanks for clarifying (read: "correcting") AidenShaw's comment with those edifying details. He was probably already aware of that info... but chose not to reveal it, in order to maintain appearances. [Seems it's always about "winning" around here (and "sharing" seldom even appears on the list).]

 

[AidenShaw]

well........ wiki says TOSLINK supports 125mbit/s (the first iteration of TOSLINK was 3mbit/s and yes this will not cut it)

BD is no more than 50mbit/s
DTS Master audio is no more than 25mbit/s

125mbit > 50mbit ???

im pretty sure optical can handle both the video and audio stream

HDMI 1.3 is 10.2 Gbps.... TOSLINK couldn't handle the decoded video stream - just the source BD VC1/AVC/MPEG-2 stream.

As far as 125 Mbps TOSLINK devices, please find some. According to one comment:

According to Toshiba, the inventor of Toslink (Toshiba Link), the maximum bandwith of an enhanced Toslink cable is around 6Mbs. LPCM, Dolby TrueHD, and DTS HD MA require more than that. HDMI's bandwidth is around 37Mbs. In addition, Toslink has a length limitation.

The bandwidth of 125Mbps that you are referring to does not apply to Digital Home Audio. That kind of speed is for Ethernet and other applications. Single mode glass fiber, used for networking, can support bandwidth far greater than any electrical transmission standard.

For Digital Audio, the best we can hope for is 6Mbps. The newer Toslink modules can go a little higher (up to 8 or 10Mbps), but the majority of Home Audio equipment, particularly the older ones have the older TOTX176 and TORX176 Toslink transmitter and receiver Modules and are limited in their speed performance.

This is from High Def Digest:

Quote:
Toslink or Coaxial SPDIF - SPDIF does not have enough bandwidth to carry a full 5.1 PCM signal, so the audio track will be downgraded to 2 channels only. This is generally an undesirable result.

http://forum.blu-ray.com/audio-theo...n-i-get-optical-so-confussed.html#post2284814

So, saying that TOSLINK can do 125 Mbps is like saying that Ethernet is 10 Gbps - when your Apple only has a 10/100 port.

Component can carry 1080i but players won't OUTPUT 1080 through component.

My Sony BDP-S550 will output 1080i through component (see attachment).

technically component is capable of much higher resolution than just 1080p, component uses the same signals as VGA, and standard VGA cables can output 2048x1536x32

But, in the context of BD playback, that's not really important - BD players won't send the signal.

Thanks for clarifying (read: "correcting") AidenShaw's comment with those edifying details. He was probably already aware of that info... but chose not to reveal it, in order to maintain appearances. [Seems it's always about "winning" around here (and "sharing" seldom even appears on the list).]

Thanks for the snarky comment about "correcting" me, when in fact pr5owner was replying to a comment by cube.
__________________

Sony BDP-S550 owner's manual, page 14:

 

[Hal Itosis]

My Sony BDP-S550 will output 1080i through component (see attachment).

Does it send protected content to that component output... or just your home movies?

 

[AidenShaw]

Does it send protected content to that component output... or just your home movies?

It sends the downconverted content, which does not need to be protected.

Although in my case, if I had an old TV without HDMI (a basic FUD that keeps coming up here - HDMI is almost ubiquitous in even low end TVs today, you have to pretend to care about old sets) I'd send the protected content over HDMI to my AV receiver and let the Faroudja chip in the receiver downconvert and send it over component to the TV.

So much FUD, so few facts. It's mind-boggling how some here build elaborate rationalizations for why Apple shouldn't offer its customers the option of full native BD support.

 

[Hal Itosis]

Well i do agree with your views on HDMI with regard to its proliferation on TV screens (so i'll skim past all those "FUD" references), but i just want to review one particular exchange which occurred earlier:

• Because you can't use a BD player without an HDMI port

This is simply wrong - look below at the back panel of my Sony BD player - HDMI, Component, S-Video and Composite outputs.

I can see where —initially —hh didn't phrase it perfectly perhaps (and that post has since been edited to specify "at 1080p" now). But i think what he meant was clear. [i now realize you took his words more literally when responding, but given the nature of this topic, the whole exchange was probably perceived differently by most readers... myself included.]


But anyway... as you just now indicated:

It sends the downconverted content, which does not need to be protected.

Okay... so, it's not "BD HD" coming out those analog ports. Therefore, don't simply post a picture of your Sony's back panel without mentioning that little down-conversion detail (else casual readers will likely infer otherwise... especially given your assertive tone).

Conclusion: hh was basically right... no HDMI connector, no BD signal.

It's mind-boggling how some here build elaborate rationalizations for why Apple shouldn't offer its customers the option of full native BD support.

Yeah well... i'm not sure i've ever seen anyone other than SJ saying Apple "shouldn't" offer that option (got a quote or link?). Perhaps it's just that some are simply tired of the same 6 or 7 people generating 500+post threads every time a headline with the word 'Blu-ray' hits the News Discussion forum. [i.e., it's not Blu-ray itself folks object to, but rather its over-zealous (to put it mildly) proponents.]

I for one would welcome BD, and will do so if the day ever comes.
Meanwhile, i still don't see the sky falling... as some here propose.

 

[R94N]

People are still discussing this?!

 

[janstett]

Reality check for all the "physical media is dead" people.

NPD: Connected-Device Use Still a Novelty

Despite a surge in consumer electronics products enabling access to entertainment and related content from the Internet, consumer adoption remains in its infancy, according to a new report.

The NPD Group found that 75% of U.S. consumers (age 13 and older) did not connect or download content in the previous three months, while 15% connected and downloaded content via PC or Mac computer; 6% connected with a video-game player; 4% connected via smartphone; and 2% connected via a Blu-ray Disc player or a digital video player, like Apple TV or Roku.

“What we learned in our research is that while some people already experience the world in a connected way, most do not,” said Russ Crupnick, VP and senior entertainment analyst for NPD.

 

[diamond.g]

I can see where —initially —hh didn't phrase it perfectly perhaps (and that post has since been edited to specify "at 1080p" now). But i think what he meant was clear. [i now realize you took his words more literally when responding, but given the nature of this topic, the whole exchange was probably perceived differently by most readers... myself included.]


But anyway... as you just now indicated:

Okay... so, it's not "BD HD" coming out those analog ports. Therefore, don't simply post a picture of your Sony's back panel without mentioning that little down-conversion detail (else casual readers will likely infer otherwise... especially given your assertive tone).

Conclusion: hh was basically right... no HDMI connector, no BD signal.

I think that there were players that would send 1080p over component. You had to have a tv that accepted it though (which was far harder to find). ICT flag hasn't been set yet, so if you are using component 720p/1080i is the highest resolution you will get(unless you had a tv/player that did 1080p). You also lose DTS-MA/DD TrueHD when using the optical/coax digital out. When/If the ICT flag ever gets turned on, the highest rez you would get out of analog inputs would be 540p (IIRC).

 

[linux2mac]

Perhaps it's just that some are simply tired of the same 6 or 7 people generating 500+post threads every time a headline with the word 'Blu-ray' hits the News Discussion forum.

I was actually pondering that the other day - what if the only people in the world that oppose Apple not putting BD in the Macs are in this thread? Every time I go by an Apple store its packed with people. I see people walking out with MBP's, iMac's, mini's, etc. Since this thread I wondered if they care that BD is not in their new purchase. It doesn't appear so from the smiles on their faces.

[i.e., it's not Blu-ray itself folks object to, but rather its over-zealous (to put it mildly) proponents.]

Well said.

I have two BD players ( a stand alone Sony BD player and my PS3) to watch BD movies when the need arises. I never said BD shouldn't be an option either and agree with some of those that might need it (i.e. video production pros). But what is really annoying are those that say Apple sucks for not putting BD players in Macs and that is going to be the reason why Apple will fail.

Well here goes a couple more kicks to the dead horse.

 

[mrqasimi]

Apple still wants users to download movies through iTunes. Maybe someday apple will offer high def movie 1080p through iTunes. So no need to put Blue-ray on mac.

Latest 27inch iMac has a huge screen resolution but no blueray drive.

 

[samcraig]

I was actually pondering that the other day - what if the only people in the world that oppose Apple not putting BD in the Macs are in this thread? Every time I go by an Apple store its packed with people. I see people walking out with MBP's, iMac's, mini's, etc. Since this thread I wondered if they care that BD is not in their new purchase. It doesn't appear so from the smiles on their faces.

I can relate to other things you've posted and even in your latest comment. But the above statement is just ludicrous. Yes - clearly because people walk out of the Apple store and are smiling is proof that Blu-Ray isn't wanted, needed, requested, etc. How empirical! Keep the discussion based in REALITY.

 

[-hh]

Well i do agree with your views on HDMI with regard to its proliferation on TV screens (so i'll skim past all those "FUD" references), but i just want to review one particular exchange which occurred earlier:

I can see where —initially —hh didn't phrase it perfectly perhaps (and that post has since been edited to specify "at 1080p" now). But i think what he meant was clear. [i now realize you took his words more literally when responding, but given the nature of this topic, the whole exchange was probably perceived differently by most readers... myself included.]


But anyway... as you just now indicated:

Okay... so, it's not "BD HD" coming out those analog ports. Therefore, don't simply post a picture of your Sony's back panel without mentioning that little down-conversion detail (else casual readers will likely infer otherwise... especially given your assertive tone).

Conclusion: hh was basically right... no HDMI connector, no BD signal.

Thanks for that, even though this is merely YA distraction.

Unfortunately, there are a few MR killfile residents who hold a petty grudge for being put in a killfile, so they try to lash out with half truths to try to throw conversations off track. Ultimately, all they end up doing is embarrassing themselves again, damage their reputation further, and reinforce/revalidate why they deserved to be killfiled.

Moving on, there is another underlying premise present that may be worth clarifying, in addition to the "nothing less than 1080p" criteria. Namely that we've been predominantly interested in just what is pragmatically the contemporary use case for the general consumer.

Thus, we can accept this contribution...

I think that there were players that would send 1080p over component. You had to have a tv that accepted it though (which was far harder to find). ICT flag hasn't been set yet, so if you are using component 720p/1080i is the highest resolution you will get(unless you had a tv/player that did 1080p). You also lose DTS-MA/DD TrueHD when using the optical/coax digital out. When/If the ICT flag ever gets turned on, the highest rez you would get out of analog inputs would be 540p (IIRC).

...as a technically interesting tangential augmentation to the basic discussion, even though it isn't particularly germane to that general use case. There will invariably be minor exceptions within the realms of the technically possible for the technogeek hacker, as well as what products were available a decade ago for an über-early adopter...neither changes the generalized consumer use case.

The generalized use case is that the (non-early adopter) Joe Sixpack who wants to watch 1080p and commercial BD movie disks is going to go down to his local Best Buy store, and with a helpful salesman, pick a big TV that does 1080p and has an HDMI port , then walk over to the BD players section and pick one that also has an HDMI port (plug and play paradigm) ... and of course, the cliché is that his oh-so-helpful saleman will seek an add-on sale in the form of a $50 HDMI cable.

Yeah well... i'm not sure i've ever seen anyone other than SJ saying Apple "shouldn't" offer that option (got a quote or link?). Perhaps it's just that some are simply tired of the same 6 or 7 people generating 500+post threads every time a headline with the word 'Blu-ray' hits the News Discussion forum. [i.e., it's not Blu-ray itself folks object to, but rather its over-zealous (to put it mildly) proponents.]

I for one would welcome BD, and will do so if the day ever comes.
Meanwhile, i still don't see the sky falling... as some here propose.

Well said. What really remains the question is the convergent integration of the conventional television media with the personal computer, and what's been interestingly revealing in these Blu-Ray threads is the absence of tons of posts from existing customers of this convergence (such as current Apple TV owners) who are saying that the only thing missing is 1080p.

Yes, we get BD advocates who frequently mentioning how they're ripping their BD disks. But that's not convergent integration ... its effectively little more than a one-way, one-time (and often clunky) "porting". And as I mentioned a few days ago, with the Studios now promoting a 3-formats pack that includes a "Digital Content" (DC) variant to BD & DVD, this "convergent integration" consumer market segment is starting to now be addressed...although not with 1080p resolution.


-hh

 

[MorphingDragon]

(a basic FUD that keeps coming up here - HDMI is almost ubiquitous in even low end TVs today, you have to pretend to care about old sets)

Except how many of those $500 TVs are full 1080P?

 

[diamond.g]

snip

-hh

I was just pointing out the no HDMI connector no BD signal as not being entirely true. There were edge cases where you could get the full hd video signal, and normal cases where you got hd video signal out of non HDMI connections.

In the case of Apple and the inclusion of BD, they will add it when they feel it makes sense for them to. No amount of whining (in forums) will change that.

 

[AidenShaw]

Conclusion: hh was basically right... no HDMI connector, no BD signal.

No - I'd say the conclusion is that you and -hh are both wrong.

There is no "BD signal" defined anywhere - you are trying to invent a new term that means whatever you want it to.

The video signal format from a BD player can be any of (at least) {1080/24p, 1080p, 1080i, 720p, 480p, 480i} on any of (at least) {DVI, DisplayPort, UDI, GVIF, HDMI, Component Y/Pb/Pr, S-Video, Composite}. Of course, not all signal formats are possible on all connectors - and only the first 5 connectors are available with HDCP to allow 1080p.

A true statment would be "no HDCP connection, no 1080p signal from the BD player".

While a quick search uncovered no standalone BD players with DVI/HDCP or DP/HDCP connections, these are fairly common on computers - you can play your BD at 1080p (with Windows) on your computer without an HDMI connection. This proves that even the claim "no HDMI connection, no 1080p BD video" is wrong.

You are making ambiguous statements using undefined terms and claiming that we should know what you meant "in context" of a thread with 3300+ replies. Wouldn't it be simpler to add a few modifiers and say precisely what you mean?

Except how many of those $500 TVs are full 1080P?

First - that's a red herring. A high bitrate BD video downconverted to 720p will look much better than a low bitrate 720p download (or typical satellite/cable signals). So, connecting a BD player to a 720p TV over HDMI has an advantage over most 720p sources (only OTA would come close).

Second, Best Buy has 56 TVs in the $250-$499 bracket - 11 of these are 1080p. They have two 1080p TVs (22" and 24") for $249. That's 13 1080p TVs under $500. In the $500-$749 bracket, 29 are 1080p and 7 are 720p (5 of the 7 are plasmas, the 2 LCD 720p TVs are $550 and $600).

It's easy to find cheap TVs with HDMI (even 1080p ones), and by the time you get to the $500 price point the number of 720p offferings rapidly dwindles.

 

[-hh]

I was just pointing out the no HDMI connector no BD signal as not being entirely true. There were edge cases where you could get the full hd video signal, and normal cases where you got hd video signal out of non HDMI connections.

Understood, and I accept your edge case ... as an edge case...

It has since been clarified (and discussed) that the simple statement was from the context of providing nothing less than a "Full HD" (1080p) product. If we wish to clarify futher, the fine print would include that it was being assumed that this was coming from a legal IP owner's DRM'ed source, and specifically in the form of a legal BD movie disk purchased from a retail source, and with a legal credit card, and shipped to a legal street address, and by a legal resident, and of legal age, ... etc, etc, etc ... yawn

In the case of Apple and the inclusion of BD, they will add it when they feel it makes sense for them to. No amount of whining (in forums) will change that.

Agreed...although if we insist on being pendantic, we do have to recognize that even this statement is also a euphamistic generalization (insert the appropriate indicator for 'humor intended' here).

-hh

 

[xbjllb]

Here is my reality: in the last fifteen years, my internet connection speeds have improved from 28 kbit/s to 30 Mbit/s. In other words, the internet is 1000 times faster for me now than it was 15 years ago. And the race goes on. In the next years, connection speeds > 100 Mbit/s will be a common thing, and HD streaming a normality.

In a year from now I will be laughing harder at you than I'm laughing now. And that will be some trick.

well you'd have to - that's the current situation. What people are suggesting here is that there should be an option. That the same company that touts it's leading edge editing software which boasts blu-ray authoring should at least offer the OPTION to get an internal blu-ray recorder.

You can say that you don't need it. That's fine. But the OPTION hurts no one.

Here's where we have to disagree. Obviously putting Blu-ray in hurts something in Steve Job's fragile psyche and mental state, or he wouldn't be destroying Apple COMPUTERS otherwise.

And make no mistake about it, he is ABSOLUTELY DESTROYING THEM, and time will prove me correct.

Here's the link to the article by the way (whose opening line is weasel worded; instead of "stepping away" which some would connote as "moving on" - and the author knows it - it should say "branching out from":

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/200198/bluray_goes_beyond_movie_distribution_with_new_format.html

I can relate to other things you've posted and even in your latest comment. But the above statement is just ludicrous. Yes - clearly because people walk out of the Apple store and are smiling is proof that Blu-Ray isn't wanted, needed, requested, etc. How empirical! Keep the discussion based in REALITY.

They're either paid to TRY to change reality, or they're giving it away for free. It doesn't work and THEY don't matter, but it's much better than letting us prophets run free.

As for now, Apple has profits, as well as prophets, to burn.

For now.

 

[mBox]

Wow!

Ive added my input into this thread months ago.
I'm surprised that this topic is still ongoing
Anyone at Apple reading in on these?

 

[AidenShaw]

Unfortunately, there are a few MR killfile residents who hold a petty grudge for being put in a killfile, so they try to lash out with half truths to try to throw conversations off track.

It has since been clarified (and discussed) that the simple statement was from the context of providing nothing less than a "Full HD" (1080p) product. If we wish to clarify futher, the fine print would include that it was being assumed that this was coming from a legal IP owner's DRM'ed source, and specifically in the form of a legal BD movie disk purchased from a retail source, and with a legal credit card, and shipped to a legal street address, and by a legal resident, and of legal age, ... etc, etc, etc ... yawn

So, when I make a statement without a full EULA-worthy description of all edge conditions and one-off exceptions, it's "lashing out with half truths". When you type something that's ambiguous to the point of being wrong, it's making a "simple statement".

Now I understand.

 

[cube]

No - I'd say the conclusion is that you and -hh are both wrong.

There is no "BD signal" defined anywhere - you are trying to invent a new term that means whatever you want it to.

The video signal format from a BD player can be any of (at least) {1080/24p, 1080p, 1080i, 720p, 480p, 480i} on any of (at least) {DVI, DisplayPort, UDI, GVIF, HDMI, Component Y/Pb/Pr, S-Video, Composite}. Of course, not all signal formats are possible on all connectors - and only the first 5 connectors are available with HDCP to allow 1080p.

A true statment would be "no HDCP connection, no 1080p signal from the BD player".

While a quick search uncovered no standalone BD players with DVI/HDCP or DP/HDCP connections, these are fairly common on computers - you can play your BD at 1080p (with Windows) on your computer without an HDMI connection. This proves that even the claim "no HDMI connection, no 1080p BD video" is wrong.

You are making ambiguous statements using undefined terms and claiming that we should know what you meant "in context" of a thread with 3300+ replies. Wouldn't it be simpler to add a few modifiers and say precisely what you mean?




First - that's a red herring. A high bitrate BD video downconverted to 720p will look much better than a low bitrate 720p download (or typical satellite/cable signals). So, connecting a BD player to a 720p TV over HDMI has an advantage over most 720p sources (only OTA would come close).

Second, Best Buy has 56 TVs in the $250-$499 bracket - 11 of these are 1080p. They have two 1080p TVs (22" and 24") for $249. That's 13 1080p TVs under $500. In the $500-$749 bracket, 29 are 1080p and 7 are 720p (5 of the 7 are plasmas, the 2 LCD 720p TVs are $550 and $600).

It's easy to find cheap TVs with HDMI (even 1080p ones), and by the time you get to the $500 price point the number of 720p offferings rapidly dwindles.

I doubt that it downconverts protected content to 1080i. I would expect it to go even lower. I even have a hard time believing that it will output 720p.