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

[Lord Vader]

1) I do not wish to devote 6-15 GB of disk space for a 1080p movie, not permanently or even temporarily as in the case of cached content from future Apple "cloud."
2) I do not wish to wait for the movie to "buffer" nor do I wish to have the download compete with other activities going on elsewhere in the house that rely on bandwidth.
3) I do not wish to have to devote any space to BACK UP my 1080p content on top of the permanent or cached disk-space it takes to watch the movie -- the physical Blu-Ray doesn't occupy any disk-space, nor does it need backing up -- IT IS ALREADY a "permanent" medium.
4) I do use my Mac Mini as my "Home Media" server and it is perfect for storing lower-grade movies on disk and at 0.5 - 2 GB a pop it isn't that much space, but at 6-15 GB a pop, that would quickly go well beyond the multi-terabyte storage + backup solutionS (multiple) that I already have in place.

It would be a NATURAL fit to use the Mac Mini as a Blu-Ray player, since it's already hooked to my 1080p home theater and I already have tons of Blu-Ray discs.

HOWEVER, the Mac Mini isn't my #1 gripe w.r.t. lack of Blu-Ray.

What I truly need as a matter of productivity is for the new Mac Pro, when it comes out, to incorporate Blu-Ray playback capabilities, so that I can "proof" the the 1080p Blu-Ray movies that I make with Final Cut Studio / Compressor & Toast Titanium. It's a ROYAL PAIN to have have to use a separate player to proof. Since the Mac Pro is commonly used for video editing, it would be the MOST IMPORTANT place to have Blu-Ray playback capabilities.

The fact that Apple is deprioritizing Blu-Ray, in general, is YET ANOTHER indicator that they are abandoning the Pro user base. The first indicator has been the poor quality of the Final Cut Studio software, itself. The second indicator is how excruciatingly LATE the release of the new Mac Pro has been. Still waiting...cash in hand, for that gargantuan beast. Gimme gimme. ;-)

Iin the end, Apple is more than just a little TOO focused on the high-volume consumer handheld market to care about the low volume desktop market in general, let alone the even lower volume Pro market.

I'm just disappointed that the only thing I can count on from Apple is great consumer handhelds -- the iPhone is wonderful. I love it. But it's the MAC DESKTOP that I RELY ON for the REAL WORK.

It's high time Apple stopped neglecting the desktop. The lack of Blu-Ray is just ANOTHER example of the neglect.

But you have to agree that iTunes content is at least free of previews of other movies and FBI warnings. Avatar Bluray is awesome not only because I like the movie, but because it's free of all crap usually found on the Bluray disk. People buy damn things and get insulted everytime with those "Do not steal" warnings.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

I've never seen a blu-ray disc in person and would never use one personally... I'm getting by just fine without it (I realize some others won't feel the same way).

You don't know how you feel about it either, because you've never seen a blu-ray disc.

 

[Wreckem]

Well I live in San Francisco and there are many services that say unlimited. Well I went over 200 gb and got a one time only warning from comcast telling me the next time it happens they will turn off my service including cable for 6 months. Do some research and ask questions I doubt it's uncapped or unlimited. Those are just sales pitches. In order to get real unlimited you need a dedicated T1+ line. That costs a pretty penny indeed. Plus unless you are wired for one which means someone installed a T1 or better in the past at your service site you will be paying for a lot of labor. You may have to pay to bring it to your neighborhood even. I gave up and have DSL. Maybe it's changed but this is what every service provider told me after the Comcast drama ensued 5 months ago.

I've yet to get a letter and I've gone well over 200GB each month since upgrading(three people sharing the connection), going on 4 months now. I doubt my provider will be capping as they, unlike most, are heavily investing in upgrades. Whats the point of a 107/10 connection if it has a 200GB cap. They did cap/have capped in markets that haven't seen any upgrades, but as they upgrade those cities they uncap them.

 

[Mark Booth]

1) I do not wish to devote 6-15 GB of disk space for a 1080p movie, not permanently or even temporarily as in the case of cached content from future Apple "cloud."

I know you're on the side of Blu-ray fans but, 6-15 GB? If that's a 2-hour movie, that would look pretty crappy. Granted, Avatar is longer than 2 hours but it uses the entirety of a 50GB Blu-ray disc. There are no extras... Just the movie. And it looks absolutely ***** phenomenal on Blu-ray. BETTER than I experienced it in the theater.

It's all about the bit rate!!

And, BTW to all of you streaming fans.... with cable and DSL providers wanting to move to tiered/metered service (all of them want to eliminate unlimited data), good luck not going broke streaming your movies. On AT&T's 2GB iPad plan, it would cost $250 to download one 50GB movie. Granted, nobody is going to download a 50GB movie to an iPad. But that's also the point! Once ISPs implement tiered bandwidth service, your movie habit is going to cost you more than the Netflix charges!

Mark

 

[sasebastian]

bluray is the new HD digital standard but until DVD is no longer the digital standard for movies and storage, there is no need to waist money on bluray drives. That would just make Macs cost even more. And who can afford 5-10 dollars per disc for a 50gig bluray disc. In 3-5 years bluray will replace DVD and HD will replace Standard Def and apple will take in bluray. Be patient. Until then you can still buy an external BD drive and it will work with apples BD drivers.

 

[imacdaddy]

Physical media is on the way out. Sure, right now you can't get the highest quality video from streamed sources, but I think within the next 5 years with faster access and better streaming technology, we'll be there. I don't even buy physical media anymore. iPad for books/audiobooks, magazines, Netflix, Hulu, iTunes. For me, I have zero need for Blu-Ray. On top of that, unless you have a large screen to playback the content, it's really pointless on a laptop.

Forget Blu-Ray Steve, and put your efforts into better technologies.

That's what frustrates me at times with Apple. They don't really cover short-term or medium term tech and they lead us to believe that this is the future, and this is where we should be heading but they refresh products every year. When they do, they use old hardware (ie Mac Pro video cards, CPU in Macs etc.) vs current tech available. It's all contradicting. I agree with Flash vs HTML5 but on the hardware front...they miss the boat almost 90% of the time. Apple should include/support bluray in all Macs today although the future may be streaming or downloadable.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

Be patient. Until then you can still buy an external BD drive and it will work with apples BD drivers.

But here's the kicker - it doesn't playback on the mac, does it?

I know you're on the side of Blu-ray fans but, 6-15 GB? If that's a 2-hour movie, that would look pretty crappy. Granted, Avatar is longer than 2 hours but it uses the entirety of a 50GB Blu-ray disc. There are no extras... Just the movie. And it looks absolutely ***** phenomenal on Blu-ray. BETTER than I experienced it in the theater.

Even more fun - even if you are a sadist and download tons of HD films legally, it isn't going to store well on Apple's line of products with only one hard drive. Except for the 1.5 year old overpriced mac pro, of course.

 

[notabadname]

I have over 200 blu-ray. The only thing I like for downloading is episodic. Battlestar Galactica, South Park etc. Things that are good to watch on my iPad. Not to mention, blu-rays frequently come with a Digital Downloads now. Do I get the ultimate Hi-Def version, as well as an Apple TV or iPad compatible version or some digital download that does large screens poorly? Plus I have the physical media to archive and loan to friends. No swapping downloads (easily). Are you going to send your Apple TV over to the neighbors house with the kids so they can watch your copy of Twilight with friends? Or do you want to register your friend's computers as part of your authorized 5? New degree of friendship: First it was calling plan circles, now it is iTunes authorized friends so you can go have a movie and dinner at their place.

Downloads work for music. But too many limitations with films. And if you lose your hard drive. What a pain. Gotta keep all 5 of your authorized computers synced up too. That's fun.

 

[Lord Vader]

I know you're on the side of Blu-ray fans but, 6-15 GB? If that's a 2-hour movie, that would look pretty crappy. Granted, Avatar is longer than 2 hours but it uses the entirety of a 50GB Blu-ray disc. There are no extras... Just the movie. And it looks absolutely ***** phenomenal on Blu-ray. BETTER than I experienced it in the theater.

It's all about the bit rate!!

And, BTW to all of you streaming fans.... with cable and DSL providers wanting to move to tiered/metered service (all of them want to eliminate unlimited data), good luck not going broke streaming your movies. On AT&T's 2GB iPad plan, it would cost $250 to download one 50GB movie. Granted, nobody is going to download a 50GB movie to an iPad. But that's also the point! Once ISPs implement tiered bandwidth service, your movie habit is going to cost you more than the Netflix charges!

Mark

USA ISPs suck hard and you should do something about that. Do you really want caps on everything?

 

[Wreckem]

I know you're on the side of Blu-ray fans but, 6-15 GB? If that's a 2-hour movie, that would look pretty crappy. Granted, Avatar is longer than 2 hours but it uses the entirety of a 50GB Blu-ray disc. There are no extras... Just the movie. And it looks absolutely ***** phenomenal on Blu-ray. BETTER than I experienced it in the theater.

It's all about the bit rate!!

And, BTW to all of you streaming fans.... with cable and DSL providers wanting to move to tiered/metered service (all of them want to eliminate unlimited data), good luck not going broke streaming your movies. On AT&T's 2GB iPad plan, it would cost $250 to download one 50GB movie. Granted, nobody is going to download a 50GB movie to an iPad. But that's also the point! Once ISPs implement tiered bandwidth service, your movie habit is going to cost you more than the Netflix charges!

Mark

Broadband doesn't face the same constraints as wireless broadband. Broadband is only limited by infrastructure. Wireless is limited by the physical airwaves which are getting more and more crowded. Where as some cable/phone co are overhauling their entire back end and rolling out billions worth of new fiber.

 

[Wreckem]

USA ISPs suck hard and you should do something about that. Do you really want caps on everything?

Apparently, most of the rest of the world has caps.

 

[rumplestiltskin]

While I sometimes disagree with Steve's decisions (like the banning of intermediate app development IDEs for the iPad), I am in total agreement with him regarding BluRay. It's an answer to a question no one has asked. Let it die.

 

[Wreckem]

But here's the kicker - it doesn't playback on the mac, does it?



Even more fun - even if you are a sadist and download tons of HD films legally, it isn't going to store well on Apple's line of products with only one hard drive. Except for the 1.5 year old overpriced mac pro, of course.

Heres a hint. The movie industry doesn't want you to own anything. And they are the ones pushing for streaming/video on demand. More so Video on Demand, because the can exert pressure on Cable Co's easier than companies like Apple.The sooner they can get people off physical media, the sooner they get even richer.

 

[dmcclin]

So the Great Prophet Jobs comes from on high and proclaims that downloads are the future.

Guess what, Steve? No one can predict the future. The speed at which technology is changing will complicate your vision of things to come.

In five to ten years, I seriously doubt 1080p will be the standard. It will probably be more like 2K or 4K movies -- three times the resolution of today's Blu-rays.

Unless there's some breakthrough in compression... I can only imagine what the download times of such movies will be. Meanwhile, the Blu-Ray Association has just finalized standards for their four-layer DBXL media. Hmmm... discs that size - 128GB - could handle such large movies.

Storage in five or ten years may have also changed. The way flash technology is changing, 1080p movies will easily be able to play from a thumb drive, CF card or SD card. Imagine... a movie player with no moving parts that can produce HD video from a device that can fit in the palm of your hand.

My mother always told me to be wary of prognosticators. They will always be wrong. What is clear is that the Great Prophet Jobs is only concerned about one thing -- cutting into the profits of iTunes.

The thing is, Steve... you can't force people to buy what they don't want. Those Mac owners who want the video quality of Blu-ray still won't rent or buy from iTunes no matter how much you try to force them.

 

[JAT]

Meh.

Bluray players are starting to stream Netflix and Hulu themselves. Two of the 4 players at Costco today are under $100. SJ loses a sale since I won't need to upgrade my 1G Intel Mini, I'll stick with it for streaming some things, and players for other things. For $99 you can just about replace all the media playback you might want, download or disc. Screw computers at all.

Watching a BD right now. 90", 7.1 lossless audio. There is no comparable computer/download source.

Oh, and the children in this thread should at least look up stuff on Wiki before mouthing off with completely incorrect comments about bluray, LD, DVD, LP, etc. It's clear just how little you people know.

 

[meli]

I want the ability to easily burn Blu-ray discs integrated into iMovie, FCE, and iDVD.

Ah, well then you're dreaming. Apple hasn't updated iDVD in three years...

My mom says that being a dreamer is one of my best qualities.

 

[Anuba]

Where are these people who say that they have uncapped 100mbit+ connections?

Here's one. I have two actually (only using one, though). One is a fiberLAN connection, an ethernet port in the hallway... that one has 100 Mbit up- and downstream, I can push it to about 80-85 Mbit. I pay $33/month for that one. The other is cable w/ 100 Mbit downstream, 10 Mbit upstream. Costs slightly more and has slower upload speed so I opted for the other one.

The catch? I live in Sweden. Most Swedes who live in apartments/condos have either one or both of those connections, and those who don't can get 60 Mbit DSL. So why do we have this? Well, one of the benefits of living in a quasi-socialist country is that when the government feels something is worth investing in, they'll throw in a few billion and just do it. So we had this nationwide rollout of fiber infrastructure in 1999-2000. They then allow privately owned carriers to hook up with that network, so they take it from there (i.e. the city limits).

I'm not sure how this stuff works in the US but I'm guessing it's a slow process with no government interference/assistance, probably involving negotiations with grumpy land owners who don't want no stinkin' infrastructure on their properties... too many cooks etc.

 

[WiiDSmoker]

So the Great Prophet Jobs comes from on high and proclaims that downloads are the future.

Guess what, Steve? No one can predict the future. The speed at which technology is changing will complicate your vision of things to come.

In five to ten years, I seriously doubt 1080p will be the standard. It will probably be more like 2K or 4K movies -- three times the resolution of today's Blu-rays.

Unless there's some breakthrough in compression... I can only imagine what the download times of such movies will be. Meanwhile, the Blu-Ray Association has just finalized standards for their four-layer DBXL media. Hmmm... discs that size - 128GB - could handle such large movies.

Storage in five or ten years may have also changed. The way flash technology is changing, 1080p movies will easily be able to play from a thumb drive, CF card or SD card. Imagine... a movie player with no moving parts that can produce HD video from a device that can fit in the palm of your hand.

My mother always told me to be wary of prognosticators. They will always be wrong. What is clear is that the Great Prophet Jobs is only concerned about one thing -- cutting into the profits of iTunes.

The thing is, Steve... you can't force people to buy what they don't want. Those Mac owners who want the video quality of Blu-ray still won't rent or buy from iTunes no matter how much you try to force them.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Digital downloads may be the future, but physical media will be here for a very long time.

 

[yg17]

bluray is the new HD digital standard but until DVD is no longer the digital standard for movies and storage, there is no need to waist money on bluray drives. That would just make Macs cost even more. And who can afford 5-10 dollars per disc for a 50gig bluray disc. In 3-5 years bluray will replace DVD and HD will replace Standard Def and apple will take in bluray. Be patient. Until then you can still buy an external BD drive and it will work with apples BD drivers.

The same arguments were made 10 years ago about DVD and Apple was putting DVD drives in computers long before they fully replaced VHS as a standard for movies.

 

[lilo777]

The future is pretty much going to be mobile devices and tablets so this makes sense. People like to have their entertainment with them at all times not some useless optical disc.

If you want Blu-Ray don't buy a mac.

Mobile devices? Where do you work? I sit at least 8 hours a day in front of a desktop monitor and so are tens millions of people in this country and all over the world. Mobile devices are used mostly by UPS delivery truckers and workers of similar occupations. I am not sure that Apple caters to them.

 

[Wreckem]

Where are these people who say that they have uncapped 100mbit+ connections?

Tyler, TX
Whitehouse, TX
Georgetown, TX
Austin, TX
Amarillio, TX
Tulia, TX

Soon to be Lubbock, Midland, and alot more places in Texas. 100+down/6+up for $100/month(bundled).

 

[Wreckem]

Here's one. I have two actually (only using one, though). One is a fiberLAN connection, an ethernet port in the hallway... that one has 100 Mbit up- and downstream, I can push it to about 80-85 Mbit. I pay $33/month for that one. The other is cable w/ 100 Mbit downstream, 10 Mbit upstream. Costs slightly more and has slower upload speed so I opted for the other one.

The catch? I live in Sweden. Most Swedes who live in apartments/condos have either one or both of those connections, and those who don't can get 60 Mbit DSL. So why do we have this? Well, one of the benefits of living in a quasi-socialist country is that when the government feels something is worth investing in, they'll throw in a few billion and just do it. So we had this nationwide rollout of fiber infrastructure in 1999-2000. They then allow privately owned carriers to hook up with that network, so they take it from there (i.e. the city limits).

I'm not sure how this stuff works in the US but I'm guessing it's a slow process with no government interference/assistance, probably involving negotiations with grumpy land owners who don't want no stinkin' infrastructure on their properties... too many cooks etc.

Actually the Cable and Telephone Co's ripped off the US and its taxpayers. The US Govt gave tons of money and they took it and never followed through with what the legislation outlined for them.

 

[ageis]

Here's one. I have two actually (only using one, though). One is a fiberLAN connection, an ethernet port in the hallway... that one has 100 Mbit up- and downstream, I can push it to about 80-85 Mbit. I pay $33/month for that one. The other is cable w/ 100 Mbit downstream, 10 Mbit upstream. Costs slightly more and has slower upload speed so I opted for the other one.

The catch? I live in Sweden. Most Swedes who live in apartments/condos have either one or both of those connections, and those who don't can get 60 Mbit DSL. So why do we have this? Well, one of the benefits of living in a quasi-socialist country is that when the government feels something is worth investing in, they'll throw in a few billion and just do it. So we had this nationwide rollout of fiber infrastructure in 1999-2000. They then allow privately owned carriers to hook up with that network, so they take it from there (i.e. the city limits).

I'm not sure how this stuff works in the US but I'm guessing it's a slow process with no government interference/assistance, probably involving negotiations with grumpy land owners who don't want no stinkin' infrastructure on their properties... too many cooks etc.

100mbit up - 33/month? Maybe it's time for me to move... 70 up is costing me 200 a month in NY.

 

[JAT]

The catch? I live in Sweden. Most Swedes who live in apartments/condos have either one or both of those connections, and those who don't can get 60 Mbit DSL. So why do we have this? Well, one of the benefits of living in a quasi-socialist country is that when the government feels something is worth investing in, they'll throw in a few billion and just do it. So we had this nationwide rollout of fiber infrastructure in 1999-2000. They then allow privately owned carriers to hook up with that network, so they take it from there (i.e. the city limits).

I hate you.

 

[lilo777]

Here's one. I have two actually (only using one, though). One is a fiberLAN connection, an ethernet port in the hallway... that one has 100 Mbit up- and downstream, I can push it to about 80-85 Mbit. I pay $33/month for that one. The other is cable w/ 100 Mbit downstream, 10 Mbit upstream. Costs slightly more and has slower upload speed so I opted for the other one.

The catch? I live in Sweden. Most Swedes who live in apartments/condos have either one or both of those connections, and those who don't can get 60 Mbit DSL. So why do we have this? Well, one of the benefits of living in a quasi-socialist country is that when the government feels something is worth investing in, they'll throw in a few billion and just do it. So we had this nationwide rollout of fiber infrastructure in 1999-2000. They then allow privately owned carriers to hook up with that network, so they take it from there (i.e. the city limits).

I'm not sure how this stuff works in the US but I'm guessing it's a slow process with no government interference/assistance, probably involving negotiations with grumpy land owners who don't want no stinkin' infrastructure on their properties... too many cooks etc.

It's more complicated than that but we have more choices I can chose from Verison, Comcast and Quest - all three companies have their own fiber networks that reach my house. Too bad they all are below 20Mbps