Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Steve Jobs Suggests Blu-ray Not Coming to Mac Anytime Soon
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
I doubt it. There's plenty of forward thinking and innovation at Apple in the iPhone and Mac OS X (generally speaking).
Apple is no longer an underdog company, and as such, they don't need to listen to what a group of customers want. And we are a small group; most people don't care about Blu-ray in Macs. Supply chain economics is probably going to be what gets us Blu-ray (yay for DVD drives eventually not being produced anymore).
Apple is no longer an underdog company, and as such, they don't need to listen to what a group of customers want. And we are a small group; most people don't care about Blu-ray in Macs. Supply chain economics is probably going to be what gets us Blu-ray (yay for DVD drives eventually not being produced anymore).
heres a video to visualize the speed, its a CD stamped per second (assembly line fashion obviously)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZKD2aYLTWw
+1
In 2009 he predicted Apple would go under in two years (see post #5211). Hmmm, I guess they didn't open any more Apple stores between 2009 - 2011. ROFLMAO.
Looks like Apple is getting serious about business customers and it has nothing to do with BD.
http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-will-send-a-genius-to-your-business-2011-2
Oh and don't forget about Thunderbolt and Lion. Yep, all signs are pointing toward the company folding by 2015 due to lack of BD support.
Wow!!
Wow this thread is long
Ive replied a few times and feel I had to add this.
Im for BD since I work with it most of the time.
But, Ive had the pleasure of using a LaCie for 4 years now and never really harped at having it built in any of the workstations I use.
However after working with the last BD project, Ive come to realise that all optical (DVD worse) is just too slow now for day to day use as far as media workflow goes.
I mean moving files (huge ones) from BD/DVD to your desktop is just a pain too slow.
Now its not the same as BD as Movie distribution but if you add day to day workflow, I think BD/DVD is bunk.
Were now telling vendors to stop sending us BD/DVD as media deliverables.
We've put our foot down and told them we will accept USB Jump-drives, physical hard-drives and internet.
We can do that cause its part of our business structure.
Wow this thread is long
Ive replied a few times and feel I had to add this.
Im for BD since I work with it most of the time.
But, Ive had the pleasure of using a LaCie for 4 years now and never really harped at having it built in any of the workstations I use.
However after working with the last BD project, Ive come to realise that all optical (DVD worse) is just too slow now for day to day use as far as media workflow goes.
I mean moving files (huge ones) from BD/DVD to your desktop is just a pain too slow.
Now its not the same as BD as Movie distribution but if you add day to day workflow, I think BD/DVD is bunk.
Were now telling vendors to stop sending us BD/DVD as media deliverables.
We've put our foot down and told them we will accept USB Jump-drives, physical hard-drives and internet.
We can do that cause its part of our business structure.
I think there will always be a demand for physical media when it comes to movies, and for this reason alone:
People desire the simplest way of consuming films. Forget any MR member (who for the most part has a stronger knowledge of computers than most people). I'm talking about your average consumer. The people who don't frequent tech sites, who start to get frustrated when you attempt to explain how easy it is to rip a movie from a disc, or how to format a file so they can watch it on another of their devices. There will always be the person who wants the method to consume a film without needing to think beyond "okay so I pick this up, put it in here, and press 'play' ".
BDs will continue to grow in popularity for years to come for that reason alone. It's a model that people are already familiar with because of DVDs. I don't know how common BD drives are with Windows machines because I don't use them, but I'm curious what will happen with Mac users. If Jobs continues to refuse BD adoption with his hardware, then BD adopters using Macs will need to figure out how they want to proceed forward. Home use is mostly a non-issue as most of us BD owners/renters have consoles and/or stand alone players. But it gets tricky when you want to consume films in HD on the road. Especially if you have a Mac laptop or iPad. A simple but slightly annoying solution is to just rent from the iTunes store for your time on the road.
But I digress. I do think we will continue to see physical options for films even beyond BDs. I'm just not sure it will be a disc in itself. But we are a long time off until that day comes.
And with regards to streaming, yes it's solid option for watching movies, but it also has its downsides (consumes bandwidth towards your month cap, requires a wifi or cellular connection).
Last edited:
I know it's been said, but Steve is just protecting his own interests.
Apple is on the blu ray board so I don't think licensing is a problem.
The thing is, if anyone argues codecs will improve quality of films available on download, OMG you can use the same codecs on future hard media.
What needs to happen is the internet needs to get to a point where it is faster and more practical than physical media output. With internet companies choosing profits over investments in their network, Steve Jobs will never see market dominance. FIX THE BOTTLENECKS!
Oh and FYI, I hooked up the AppleTV to the huge HDTV, I cried foul seeing 720p downstairs (55" HDTV FYI). Immediately put it back upstairs (32" HDTV) and enjoyed it again. Nothing but blu-ray here.
I do like the idea of digital content on discs. It gets around the bandwidth issues and yes I do use the digital copies of the blu-rays I buy for travel and the upstairs TV (which just got a blu-ray player itself).
Apple is on the blu ray board so I don't think licensing is a problem.
The thing is, if anyone argues codecs will improve quality of films available on download, OMG you can use the same codecs on future hard media.
What needs to happen is the internet needs to get to a point where it is faster and more practical than physical media output. With internet companies choosing profits over investments in their network, Steve Jobs will never see market dominance. FIX THE BOTTLENECKS!
Oh and FYI, I hooked up the AppleTV to the huge HDTV, I cried foul seeing 720p downstairs (55" HDTV FYI). Immediately put it back upstairs (32" HDTV) and enjoyed it again. Nothing but blu-ray here.
I do like the idea of digital content on discs. It gets around the bandwidth issues and yes I do use the digital copies of the blu-rays I buy for travel and the upstairs TV (which just got a blu-ray player itself).
Thanks for the link. Pretty awesome, isn't it? Even making the master die doesn't take too long.
I don't understand the bandwidth argument on why we can't have 1080p movies streaming. 720p @ 60 fps uses more bandwidth than 1080p @ 24 fps.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
It seems odd to me that Blu-Ray and Apple aren't in a marriage. They both show quality.
The main reason Blu-Ray is not on a Mac is because of iTunes and iTunes alone.
I don't understand how Apple can create such beautiful computers or even monitors that would display it wonderfully but they seem keen and happy to lock people to that of horrible iTunes quality.
Blu-Ray; at it's core is uncompressed audio and video. This is what Apple should be about.
It seems odd to me that Blu-Ray and Apple aren't in a marriage. They both show quality.
The main reason Blu-Ray is not on a Mac is because of iTunes and iTunes alone.
I don't understand how Apple can create such beautiful computers or even monitors that would display it wonderfully but they seem keen and happy to lock people to that of horrible iTunes quality.
Blu-Ray; at it's core is uncompressed audio and video. This is what Apple should be about.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Hmm. I'll have to research more into that. Is 4K then uncompressed or just less? It true uncompression real world "resolution"?
drjsway said:
Hmm. I'll have to research more into that. Is 4K then uncompressed or just less? It true uncompression real world "resolution"?
Another take on this ginormous thread
Stumbled upon this link recently and couldn't help thinking of this thread:
http://www.tested.com/news/why-dont-you-have-a-desktop-blu-ray-optical-drive-yet/593/
Stumbled upon this link recently and couldn't help thinking of this thread:
http://www.tested.com/news/why-dont-you-have-a-desktop-blu-ray-optical-drive-yet/593/
For most any lossy compression technology, as you increase the bandwidth you soon reach a point where the compressed and uncompressed images (or sound) are not discernible, even to critical eyes (and ears).
The huge majority of digital cameras put out compressed JPEGs, yet the "high quality" JPEG is considered "perfect". Even if the camera can put out uncompressed RAW images, most people choose the JPEG output anyway. (The people who shoot RAW usually aren't concerned about resolution, as much as they're concerned with having control over dynamic range and color balance. And in the end, most of the time the end result is a compressed JPEG.)
BD movies are compressed, but since the BD has about 5 times the capacity and bandwidth of a DVD, and since most BDs use VC-1 or h.264 codecs that typically are twice as efficient as the MPEG-2 used for DVD - so a BD has effectively about 10 times the bandwidth of a DVD.
That's why the BD movies seem perfect - they're sharp enough and close enough to the original that you don't notice the compression.
Also note that temporal (or motion) compression in video can be essentially lossless. If the camera is making a slow pan across a scene, the compression can be:
- cut off the leftmost 1% of the frame
- move the remaining 99% of the frame to the left edge
- add the new 1% on the right
Similarly, if the camera is fixed and subjects in the frame move, the delta is only the change in the subjects - the background doesn't need to repaint.
Removing (compressing) the frame-to-frame temporal redundancy doesn't cause a loss of quality - just space/bandwidth savings. The 1TB per movie figure wastes a lot of bandwidth, much of it without any perceptual benefit.
Last edited:
4k and even 8k is compressed, compared to the real world (assuming real world is as high as we can go). but when talking purely in the capture device side of things, a 4k will capture at its "highest res" then the 1080p BD will be "compressed" to fit onto a consumer BluRay. yada yada.
Another issue is that the 1TB per BD movie assumes that it's converted to 24-bit per pixel RGB.
In fact, though, images/videos are not stored in RGB, but in a color space which uses fewer bits per pixel. Cameras are also free to use lossless compression as well, so that even RAW formats can be shrunk.
For example, my Canon G11 compact generates RAW (.CR2) images that range from 9MB to 16MB (average 11.9) in size. These images are 9.98 Mpixel, with 42 bits per pixel (14 bits per subpixel). The uncompressed RGB would be 52.4 MB per image (59.9 if you used 48-bit pixels) - yet the raw files average about a quarter of that.
i was referring to formats/storage methods without the use of compression and optimised methods of storing data - size wasnt really the issue here, rather quality in general (excluding the size requirements).
It is almost like you ignore the entire history of ten giant US organ manufacturers who went out of business between 1975 and 1995 chasing cheap Japanese keyboards and the lowest common denominator exactly as Apple is doing under Jobs. While the only ones left standing have entry-level product that starts at five figures.
Absolutely. And optical will be around for at least a decade, and more in the business arena. DAT (Digital Audio Tape) as a format "died" "officially" in the 80's, and you won't find a single pro studio today WHO STILL DOESN'T HAVE A DAT RECORDER in their arsenal. Ditto a turntable.
I don't think it's fear of change. Rather, I think it's UNBRIDLED ARROGANCE that Apple, and ONLY Apple, DRIVES change.
I think they actually believe they can kill Blu-ray by ignoring it in perpetuity.
They can't, but they believe they can.
I guess they didn't open any more Apple stores between 2009 - 2011.
Oh and don't forget about Thunderbolt and Lion. Yep, all signs are pointing toward the company folding by 2015 due to lack of BD support.
What part of BUBBLE do you not understand? Some people just refuse to see a Bubble UNTIL it pops.
You go right ahead and be one of those people.
i was referring to formats/storage methods without the use of compression and optimised methods of storing data - size wasnt really the issue here, rather quality in general (excluding the size requirements).
Right. Point is Blu-ray is vastly superior to anything the iTunes store puts out, and WILL BE FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.
And Apple should be about creating the best product possible, not protecting crappy downloads. That in truth be told, they probably expect people to BUY AGAIN LATER once Blu-ray quality downloads are available.
Hoping to repeat the success of the music business in the 80's when everyone was duplicating their LP collections with CD's.
And letting their high end flagship product suffer. REALLY suffer.
Apple said:
i was referring to formats/storage methods without the use of compression and optimised methods of storing data - size wasnt really the issue here, rather quality in general (excluding the size requirements).
But, video is very rarely stored in RGB - it's extremely wasteful of space and bandwidth. Therefore, the exercise of calculating the size of a 24-bit/pixel RGB file for a BD movie is kind of pointless.
RGB is so bad that basically it is never used.
If that's their attitude, they'll eventually be replaced by a new underdog company that DOES listen.
oh without doubt a BD is FAR superior to iTunes, i cannot stand iTunes! it is abysmal...Right. Point is Blu-ray is vastly superior to anything the iTunes store puts out, and WILL BE FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.
And Apple should be about creating the best product possible, not protecting crappy downloads. That in truth be told, they probably expect people to BUY AGAIN LATER once Blu-ray quality downloads are available.
Hoping to repeat the success of the music business in the 80's when everyone was duplicating their LP collections with CD's.
And letting their high end flagship product suffer. REALLY suffer.
as for the "best product possible" - apple is now a consumer company, not prosumer. they provide the quickest and easiest way to get media that is "within" the requirements and standards of that target audience. thus, their "HD" movies of ~1gb-2gb in size. perfect quality for the end user, optimal download time for the MAJORITY of broadband users, and cheap enough to purchase so they can make a profit. we all know this, i dont see why there is any arguement.
colour space does make a big difference, but once again i am just referring directly to what the viewer perceives - not the behind the scenes stuff.
+1
In 2009 he predicted Apple would go under in two years (see post #5211). Hmmm, I guess they didn't open any more Apple stores between 2009 - 2011. ROFLMAO.
Looks like Apple is getting serious about business customers and it has nothing to do with BD.
http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-will-send-a-genius-to-your-business-2011-2
Oh and don't forget about Thunderbolt and Lion. Yep, all signs are pointing toward the company folding by 2015 due to lack of BD support.
Apple will probably never go down, but it will for sure lose some customers.
Those people that once enjoyed the Mac platform for its semplicity, and all they cared about was not the Mac Appstore/iTunes, nor even useless expensive speedbumps or the Facetime HD, will simply get bored and start look elsewhere for other options.
I don't know about you. But to me, it was a different thing paying $2500 for a "17 Macbook Pro back in 2007 then now. At least i knew that for 3 yrs or so, i had a performant machine that won't had become obsolete in a year.
Changing my Mac workstation every year, to have the ThunderBolt or the latest "Made in Cupertino" feature is not my cup of tea, sorry.
I think nobody's suggesting to use bd as production media.
It's good for back-ups and distribution, but not in normal in-production.
Used to be so, but not so much anymore and especially maybe not so in the future.
Old video formats recorded in component mode, but hdcamSR and many other formats record in rgb or can be converted to it (from raw).
Also DCI is cieXYZ, which is almost like rgb.
YUV was easy to compress in analog domain, but digital compression tech can compress rgb as efficiently also.
Problem with YCbCr is that it needs to be converted to rgb usually many times in production workflow and most of result values are "illegal" in next color space so after conversion 8-bit YCbCr has only fraction of 16M colors.
There is valid reason why still picure formats are all rgb and when it is economical to jump to rgb also in video it will be made.
Chroma subsampling is more apparent with modern pixel displays and modern displays and cameras will have many times more contrast than old ones, so there's need for deeper colors and wider color space anyway, so next step in "high quality distribution" might well be jump to rgb.
Incresing resolution beyond 4k will not sell much displays & receivers.
On the other hand, if we can finally get rid of interlaced picture, chroma subsampling would be far lesser problem.
- Status