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

[Sjhonny]

About what precisely are you still discussing?? the last 30'ish post are about semantics and mac pro updates. Don't we all agree it sucks a little bit that Apple doesn't support blu-ray from a consumers perspective, although it'll probably be a "transition" technology (like: first there were tapes, then there were floppies, then there were cd's (and other optical media) then there were HD's and the next step is the cloud or flash based storage - I know the HD dates even back before the PC era, but it took them years to have a larger capacity then CD's). This doesn't mean it I'll be obsolete within 5-10 years, but I'd wouldn't be the preferred choice of consumers.

Apple has there own reasons for not including blu-ray's in there Mac's, and I, just like 80% of the mac userbase - don't really care! - (This is just my way of getting this thread one post closer to the 6000 post milestone ^^)

 

[Porco]

...like most of the non-participants in this forum, I honestly don't care about Blue Ray and for me it's absolutely fine that Apple doesn't put any BR device in it's machine

Apple has there own reasons for not including blu-ray's in there Mac's, and I, just like 80% of the mac userbase - don't really care!

Well, I think more people should care about Apple's policies on satisfying customers and trying to manipulate their market, even if one doesn't care about Blu-ray specifically.

This time it's Blu-ray, next time it might be something you'd like, or need. Maybe next time you'll be annoyed that Apple don't give you an option for something because they think it's not in their narrow interests for a perceived slight edge on a certain part of computing or technology. And then you can look forward to others telling you to go and buy a Windows machine instead.

 

[Crunch]

I can say the same for the lack of proper HDMI support in Snow Leopard (specially with latest 10.6.6-10.6.7 updates).
On my Windows/Linux machine I can drive 3 monitors via HDMI (yes, i prefer HDMI, as it gives me a nice cystal-clear picture, and i don't have to buy a separate DVI/VGA adapter to use my monitors), whether on OS X it's just "a matter of luck".
Sometimes it works and it recognizes the display correctly (proper refresh rates, color scheme and Pixel Format (RGB/Ybcr), whether sometimes OS X refuses to "communicate" with the monitor. Tried with Windows 7 via Bootcamp, and it worked out-of-the-box.
I won't tell you every single detail about my "frustrations" with OS X (specially with Snow Leopard. Working with Tiger/Leopard was a total different story). But suffice to say that when in 2011 an OS still can't handle an HDMI connection with an external monitor is not "advanced", but "retarded". And HDMI has been around since 2007 or something.
What was Apple support answer to this "problem"?
"Sorry, but we do ONLY support HDMI connections with our AppleTV/MacMini products!".
Yeah, as soon as possible i run to the first AppleStore in town and shell out another few $$$ for a "crappy" locked-down AppleTV only to get my photography/video work done. These guys @ Apple really should just quit messing around with computers, and just give out OS X "for the masses". That way they will probably make more $$$ than by selling ovepriced "locked-down" old hardware. And people will finally have the choice to use OSX without wasting more $$$ than they would.

Now now. Let's relax on the "old hardware". You don't mean Intel's LightPeak technology (10Gbps BI-directional and it includes HDMI as well) won't hit PC's until 2012. Oh, and by the way, USB 3 is already old before it even sees widespread adoption. And we got Sandy Bridge in every iMac, in every MacBook Pro and ThunderBolt and Sandy Bridge is coming to MacBook Air in an Apple store near you next month.

Do you guys not understand that this BS is all about money? Apple and Microsoft both try to make their proprietary standards ubiquitous so as to sell...cables!! There is money in adapters and cables and everyone is equally as guilty. It has nothing to do with one OS being more or less advanced than the next one. And if you're worried about too many ports and Apple being a pain in the butt about supporting certain standards, just grab a chair and enjoy the show, because Apple, with the help of Intel, is about to do away with USB 2/3, 1394a/b (FireWire), DisplayPort, HDMI, and all the others that I'm not thinking of at the moment.

 

[linux2mac]

Clicking on the first image of the 130" screen... it really, really looks photoshopped. The edges of the screen look blatantly inserted, and there seems to be a massive difference in noise everywhere except the screen. I don't think the image is legit.

Below are the links that show the construction of his screen and theater. Looks legit to me.

The combination of a quality projector and screen will yield an amazing image. Don't expect the same results with a cheap trade show projector and pop up screen or using a white wall as a screen. This is how BD movies should be watched - on a large screen, not on my 27" iMac or a 15" laptop.


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15186244#post15186244

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16508390#post16508390

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=989861

 

[MacNewsFix]

I can say the same for the lack of proper HDMI support in Snow Leopard (specially with latest 10.6.6-10.6.7 updates).
On my Windows/Linux machine I can drive 3 monitors via HDMI (yes, i prefer HDMI, as it gives me a nice cystal-clear picture, and i don't have to buy a separate DVI/VGA adapter to use my monitors), whether on OS X it's just "a matter of luck".
Sometimes it works and it recognizes the display correctly (proper refresh rates, color scheme and Pixel Format (RGB/Ybcr), whether sometimes OS X refuses to "communicate" with the monitor. Tried with Windows 7 via Bootcamp, and it worked out-of-the-box.

I have had the same experience on my Mac and digital cable television box. Frequent refusals to "communicate." The culprit ended up being the cheap HDMI cables I bought online. I went up one price tier (nowhere near the Monster Cables tier - LOL) and no longer have the problem, and I am running 10.6.7. Hopefully, that may help. I know you said previous experience with Mac users proved fruitless when seeking advice.

I won't tell you every single detail about my "frustrations" with OS X (specially with Snow Leopard. Working with Tiger/Leopard was a total different story). But suffice to say that when in 2011 an OS still can't handle an HDMI connection with an external monitor is not "advanced", but "retarded". And HDMI has been around since 2007 or something.
What was Apple support answer to this "problem"?
"Sorry, but we do ONLY support HDMI connections with our AppleTV/MacMini products!".
Yeah, as soon as possible i run to the first AppleStore in town and shell out another few $$$ for a "crappy" locked-down AppleTV only to get my photography/video work done. These guys @ Apple really should just quit messing around with computers, and just give out OS X "for the masses". That way they will probably make more $$$ than by selling ovepriced "locked-down" old hardware. And people will finally have the choice to use OSX without wasting more $$$ than they would.

Here is what Bruce Montag on the Senior Technical Staff at Dell has to say about HDMI and DisplayPorts. Dell even refers to DisplayPorts as "The Next-Generation Display Interface."

HDMI is intended as an external consumer electronics connection for HDTVs. It is rapidly replacing S-Video and component video as the primary connection to TV sets. HDMI appears on consumer monitors so that they can be connected to Blu-ray Disc players, game consoles, and other consumer electronics. This allows the monitor to be used as an entertainment display. HDMI is also found on PCs to enable connectivity to HDTVs.

In contrast, DisplayPort is the digital interface for connecting flat-panel displays to computer systems. It will eventually replace VGA, DVI, and LVDS in IT equipment such as home and office PCs, projectors, monitors, and data center consoles. HDMI is not designed to meet these internal and external IT connectivity requirements...it is an external consumer electronics interface.

HDMI is based on legacy CRT raster-scan architecture. DisplayPort is designed for modern flat-panel displays and PC chipsets. DisplayPort has a micro-packet architecture with low voltage signaling that more easily enables networked displays.

 

[wonderspark]

Below are the links that show the construction of his screen and theater. Looks legit to me.

The combination of a quality projector and screen will yield an amazing image. Don't expect the same results with a cheap trade show projector and pop up screen or using a white wall as a screen. This is how BD movies should be watched - on a large screen, not on my 27" iMac or a 15" laptop.


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15186244#post15186244

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16508390#post16508390

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=989861

Oh, I believe the theater is legit. It's that photo you posted that looks fake. The screen edges should not be obviously chopped in. The image on the screen was added to a photo of the theater, probably to show a nice image rather than a blown-out reflection of one due to the screen material.

I've bought several projectors in my time (for work with work money), so I know projectors can be wonderful. Christie makes nice ones.

 

[linux2mac]

Oh, I believe the theater is legit. It's that photo you posted that looks fake. The screen edges should not be obviously chopped in. The image on the screen was added to a photo of the theater, probably to show a nice image rather than a blown-out reflection of one due to the screen material.

I've bought several projectors in my time (for work with work money), so I know projectors can be wonderful. Christie makes nice ones.

Could be. I can't speak for mtbdudex. Regardless, I'd love his home theater room and setup.

Have you owned a Christie? If so, which one? They do look nice.

 

[Atlantico]

Every single Mac should be able to connect to an HDTV, though one might have to buy an adaptor, though the Mac mini is the only one with an actual HDMI connector. I don't know how reliable that is, but using an HDTV as an external monitor should be within spec.

Real pity no Mac can play BD movies though. They do look great too on a large HDTV and it would save people the bother of a separate player, so instead of a BD player, Apple TV (or a cable box/Tivo) and an external hard drive, there could be just one Mac mini doing everything.

Makes sense to me. Instead Apple expects its users to have a very cluttered living room. Not to mention those who simply don't own a TV and use the huge 27" iMac as a video.

 

[wonderspark]

Could be. I can't speak for mtbdudex. Regardless, I'd love his home theater room and setup.

Have you owned a Christie? If so, which one? They do look nice.

They let us buy four cheap-o $15,000 ones, but I really wanted one of them to be a Roadster HD12K. They said no. Cheap bastards. You can find them now for about half price! (~$50,000)

 

[janstett]

so what did the first update add besides a different processor? (1,1 and 2,1)

I think it went from PCIe 1.0 to 2.0 as well.

PS3 and basic $100 stand alone BD player takes care of my BD playback needs. I don't need BD in my Macs. Watching a movie on my 27" iMac is not what I call the theater experience, let alone a laptop.

Nice to know a $300 toy can do something a $3000 Mac cannot.

Also nice to know that on Apple's high-end 2560x1600 cinema displays you are limited to 720x480 DVDs.

Finally, curious why Apple thinks the Mac Mini should be used as a home theater PC when it doesn't support Blu-Ray.

I fully agree that "Blu-ray seems to be stagnating and not reaching critical %."

Well, you'd be wrong, then, because it is exceeding DVD's performance at the same point in its life span, and it currently makes up roughly 1/4-1/3 of disc sales, most notably accounting for 1/3 of new blockbuster titles.

Unless "reaching critical %" means "instant domination and usurpation of any and all prior formats", which nothing, not even DVD, had done. If you're looking to judge Blu-Ray against DVD, judge it against DVD in 2001.

 

[MacNewsFix]

Finally, curious why Apple thinks the Mac Mini should be used as a home theater PC when it doesn't support Blu-Ray.

I think they are targeting the approximately 80% not using Blu-Ray. The photo you posted is how I use my Mac mini. My movies are ripped to external drives or I rent them (mainly online). Plex fills in all the movie and music details, and I use the iPad as my remote. Kylo is excellent as an onscreen web browser that also allows me to watch Hulu, NBC, ABC, etc, online unlike GoogleTV (which is currently being blocked).

Well, you'd be wrong, then, because it is exceeding DVD's performance at the same point in its life span, and it currently makes up roughly 1/4-1/3 of disc sales, most notably accounting for 1/3 of new blockbuster titles.

With the exception of the prior three weeks, when several major blockbusters were released simultaneously (exs. Tron, Harry Potter 7), I'm not seeing 1/4 (let alone 1/3). See chart below.

Unless "reaching critical %" means "instant domination and usurpation of any and all prior formats", which nothing, not even DVD, had done. If you're looking to judge Blu-Ray against DVD, judge it against DVD in 2001.

Any links to the data? The only one I could find was this one examining 2002 versus projected 2010 (when both formats had experienced five years on the market).

Happy Mother's Day to any moms in the thread.

 

[linux2mac]

I think it went from PCIe 1.0 to 2.0 as well.



Nice to know a $300 toy can do something a $3000 Mac cannot.

Also nice to know that on Apple's high-end 2560x1600 cinema displays you are limited to 720x480 DVDs.

Finally, curious why Apple thinks the Mac Mini should be used as a home theater PC when it doesn't support Blu-Ray.

Well, you'd be wrong, then, because it is exceeding DVD's performance at the same point in its life span, and it currently makes up roughly 1/4-1/3 of disc sales, most notably accounting for 1/3 of new blockbuster titles.

Unless "reaching critical %" means "instant domination and usurpation of any and all prior formats", which nothing, not even DVD, had done. If you're looking to judge Blu-Ray against DVD, judge it against DVD in 2001.

My version of Mini lacks an optical drive. I would still need separates.

 

[AidenShaw]

My version of Mini lacks an optical drive. I would still need separates.

Why wouldn't you have purchased the ODD version of the MiniMac if the intended use was for an HTPC?

 

[MorphingDragon]

Why wouldn't you have purchased the ODD version of the MiniMac if the intended use was for an HTPC?

Because the internet is a far more popular medium than BluRay, and I mean that in every possible sense legal or otherwise.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Why wouldn't you have purchased the ODD version of the MiniMac if the intended use was for an HTPC?

Since it lacks Blu-ray you don't gain much having a Mini w/an ODD because you'll still need another device for Blu-ray playback.

To bring up a more general point, obviously a computer can do much more than play back DVDs/Blu-rays so I think it's disingenuous to point at Mac computer sales and say, "Sales are up, Macs don't support Blu-ray, so Blu-ray must be DOA." Comparing a Blu-ray player to an TV is a more apples-to-apples comparison and Blu-ray player sales are absolutly killing TV sales. If Apple added Blu-ray support I think TV and Mac Mini would become *the* HTPC devices to own.


Lethal

 

[Atlantico]

Because the internet is a far more popular medium than BluRay, and I mean that in every possible sense.

Oh sure, we'll just take your word for it. A guy on the internet making a big claim.

Actually, to be fair if you include illegal downloads and P2P you might have a point. But since that's just stealing, we're not going to include that. Or is that what you're advocating?

In legal distribution of video, downloading doesn't touch physical media in any way shape or form. Not for buying nor renting.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=6222

The NPD group released data which indicates that 78% of all home video spending goes towards DVD and Blu-ray while non-traditional methods of video delivery such as PPV and VoD only accounted for 8% of spending while rental services made up 15% which includes their online streaming offering. Overall spending for the year was down by 2% which is relatively stable and it could be that the larger falls seen in recent years have been stabilised by the huge growth that Blu-ray has shown since 2008.

For games, downloads will be more popular than discs, but that's games - most of which are rather tiny and don't need a 50 GB disc.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Oh sure, we'll just take your word for it. A guy on the internet making a big claim.

Actually, to be fair if you include illegal downloads and P2P you might have a point. But since that's just stealing, we're not going to include that. Or is that what you're advocating?

In legal distribution of video, downloading doesn't touch physical media in any way shape or form. Not for buying nor renting.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=6222



For games, downloads will be more popular than discs, but that's games - most of which are rather tiny and don't need a 50 GB disc.

Yep, just hint at anything and people think you're an advocate. Yep, great reasoning.

 

[Atlantico]

Yep, just hint at anything and people think you're an advocate. Yep, great reasoning.

That was a question, not reasoning. Your outlandish claim makes little sense, i.e. that "the internet is a far more popular medium than BluRay, in every possible sense".

I don't think a claim like that which you made deserves much respect, if any - so by asking you to elaborate, I am actually being far more respectable to that silly statement than it deserves.

So how is the "internet a far more popular medium than Blu-ray, in every possible sense" in the context of this thread? It isn't. Thus your claim is utter garbage.

 

[Porco]

Because the internet is a far more popular medium than BluRay, and I mean that in every possible sense legal or otherwise.

HD downloads are dead, Animated GIFs are the future!

 

[AidenShaw]

I see a 1080p future!

HD downloads are dead, Animated GIFs are the future!

Think of all the bandwidth that can be saved by only using 256 color video - Itunes 1080p is coming!

 

[linux2mac]

Why wouldn't you have purchased the ODD version of the MiniMac if the intended use was for an HTPC?

I am not too bullish on physical media. Apparently, I am not alone.

Samsung predicts Blu-ray to dry up in five years
http://www.techspot.com/news/31502-samsung-predicts-bluray-to-dry-up-in-five-years.html

"Not Samsung, they have a much gloomier picture of Blu-ray. They are also members of the Blu-ray disc association along with Sony, and concur that it's the last optical technology around. Where they differ from Sony is in how long Blu-ray will last. They claim it may have as little as five years. Even if it does manage to survive five years, Samsung thinks that it “definitely” doesn't have 10 left in it.

Some of the cited reasons include increased distribution of high-def content over the Internet, hardware pricing and more. It's interesting when even two big supporters of Blu-ray predict its downfall in the near future."

 

[AidenShaw]

All technologies have lifetimes

I am not too bullish on physical media. Apparently, I am not alone.

Samsung predicts Blu-ray to dry up in five years

http://www.samsung.com/us/video/blu-ray-dvd

However, Samsung is satisfying customer demands for BD today - not taking the soup-Nazi approach of "no 1080p for you (for 5 to 10 years)" that the turtlenecked overlord prescribes for Apple.

Do you not buy a gasoline-powered automobile today, because the predictions are that other power sources are in the pipeline? ...and therefore you stay at home or walk for years until those power sources are practical?

 

[LethalWolfe]

I am not too bullish on physical media. Apparently, I am not alone.

Samsung predicts Blu-ray to dry up in five years
http://www.techspot.com/news/31502-samsung-predicts-bluray-to-dry-up-in-five-years.html

"Not Samsung, they have a much gloomier picture of Blu-ray. They are also members of the Blu-ray disc association along with Sony, and concur that it's the last optical technology around. Where they differ from Sony is in how long Blu-ray will last. They claim it may have as little as five years. Even if it does manage to survive five years, Samsung thinks that it “definitely” doesn't have 10 left in it.

Some of the cited reasons include increased distribution of high-def content over the Internet, hardware pricing and more. It's interesting when even two big supporters of Blu-ray predict its downfall in the near future."

Considering how things have gone in the past 2.5 years since Samsung made that prediction I'd venture to say they were excessively pessimistic. While I do agree that Blu-ray will be the last line of spinning disc optical media I don't think it is going to dry up and die sometime in 2013.


Lethal

 

[-hh]

So how is the "internet a far more popular medium than Blu-ray, in every possible sense" in the context of this thread? It isn't. Thus your claim is utter garbage.

My apologies...I trust that I've simply overlooked the post(s) that substantiated all of the glossed-over substantiating details while I was visiting my Mom this weekend. Perhaps someone could be so kind as to provide a pointer to the relevant post (or a quick refresher), please?

If I understand the disagreement correctly, in terms of general popularity of "A vs B", it would be my impression that for the Internet side, something the number of views of YouTube clips would be one way to start to baseline how popular the Internet has been for generalized viewing of the moving image.

Of course, to go count how many views YouTube has had of all of their catalog combined is a bit of a challenge...but one use case of low hanging fruit in data collection are their most popular catalog, namely what's known as their 100 Million View clips , which as of this 2009 report numbered 25, and summed to over 4.1 billion views.

To try to compare this to physical media, there is the unknown of how many times an individual BD disk will get replayed on average, but I'd venture to guess <10. At that assumption (YMMV), it would mean that we would need to have BD disk sales in the ballpark of 4.1B/10 = 410 million units to suggest parity.

As per Wiki (which lacks 2010 data), it looks like BD is probably in the 400-450 million units sold ballpark....so it sounds reasonable to suggest that we're in the right ballpark for "Parity". But this is parity in 2011 to data from 2009 and even then, it was from only one streaming media website and only a small (albeit most popular) percentage of their total catalog.

Since we've already counted 100% on the physical media side and we know that the other side isn't a 100% accounting, I'd personally conclude that the claim of "...internet a far more popular medium than Blu-ray..." does indeed appears to have a reasonable basis.

But what do I know? I'm just some guy on the internet without a dog in the hunt on either side.


-hh

 

[InuNacho]

Didn't want to shuffle through nearly 6,000 posts to see if anyone said this, so if anyone did I apologize in advanced.

One of the reasons why Apple hasn't implemented Blu ray drives into Macs is because nobody (at least as far as I know) requires Blu ray for installing any applications. DVDs still work great and that's why Apple doesn't want to put them in.
If a person really wanted Blu Ray support on their Mac couldn't they buy a $100 external drive and play the discs through VLC?