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

[Atlantico]

I'd also like to see Apple doing what MS is doing, i.e. support everything short of supplying the actual codec, so one could just buy a BD drive and get the codec with the drive.

It wouldn't cost them anything and would only make Steve Jobs eat half a crow. He's eaten crow before. Video iPods, e.g.?

Also it would be a seriously new strategy by MS to actively work against something - their strength is much like Google's, in that they make software that works with everything under the Sun.

And I don't think the on-line retail business is that strong (nor that it will ever be that strong) and if it will, then MS will do their thing - but not exclude physical media. That would then at least be offered in their "professional" or whatever version.

Apple, offers no such concession to professional users. In fact, I have my doubts that Apple even acknowledges their existence (looks an non-Thunderbolt Mac Pro)

 

[janstett]

I think it's stupid that BD isn't an option on Mac, but as has been said before, you shouldn't be watching BD on your computer anyways. What's the point? You're preaching about sound quality and all this, but unless you have a QUALITY sound system on your comp, which is a total waste of money, why not watch it on on your tv which is likely less than 50 feet away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_theater_pc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Cinema_Display

You keep saying why can't Apple admit they were wrong, well they might ask you why you need BD on your computer? Most people don't watch movies on their computer unless streaming from Netflix, so it's not cost effective for them.

Why did they include DVD playback, then? And how do you explain this?

 

[janstett]

Thanks for the correction, but no thanks for the "Zune software". If I can't download it through my browser, and play it with my preferred media player - no sale (or rental).

With an X-Box 360 it's an integrated experience... Very easy to rent movies. Poorly compressed, crappy movies.

Also, I thought we established that Apple does indeed have a DRM protected video path in iTunes, IIRC playing protected iTunes content through analog video outputs was prohibited or something like that.

 

[linux2mac]

With an X-Box 360 it's an integrated experience... Very easy to rent movies. Poorly compressed, crappy movies.

Also, I thought we established that Apple does indeed have a DRM protected video path in iTunes, IIRC playing protected iTunes content through analog video outputs was prohibited or something like that.

Its interesting Xbox never bought into BD either. Its funny people slam Apple and SJ for not having BD when in fact BD is also a bag of hurt for MS hence no BD on the 360.

 

[Atlantico]

Its interesting Xbox never bought into BD either. Its funny people slam Apple and SJ for not having BD when in fact BD is also a bag of hurt for MS hence no BD on the 360.

No, not really. It's not interesting, because it is evident why MS didn't put a BD in the 360, MS supports BD in their flagship OS and actually support HD-DVD in their console - which is in fact the reason MS didn't roll out a BD drive for it.

In other words, nothing you claimed is true, and in fact is just weird. Or ignorant.

 

[linux2mac]

No, not really. It's not interesting, because it is evident why MS didn't put a BD in the 360, MS supports BD in their flagship OS and actually support HD-DVD in their console - which is in fact the reason MS didn't roll out a BD drive for it.

In other words, nothing you claimed is true, and in fact is just weird. Or ignorant.

Be mindful of forum rules and choose your words wisely as to not insult other forum members. Not that I would report you because I am not a snitch and that's the way I was raised. But some are quick to run to the mods when in fact they commit the most serious forum infractions on a regular basis. Anyways back on topic.

This is from 2010.

"when it comes to selling computing hardware, Microsoft and Apple are on the same page. Blu-ray hardware licensing must be a "bag of hurt" for Microsoft, too."

Microsoft, Apple in sync on Blu-ray
http://blog.chron.com/techblog/2010/09/microsoft-apple-in-sync-on-blu-ray/

 

[Bishope1999]

No, not really. It's not interesting, because it is evident why MS didn't put a BD in the 360, MS supports BD in their flagship OS and actually support HD-DVD in their console - which is in fact the reason MS didn't roll out a BD drive for it.

In other words, nothing you claimed is true, and in fact is just weird. Or ignorant.

Yeah, they supported HD DVD during the format war and not Blu-ray. One reason for this is that Microsoft developed the VC-1 codec as their proprietary video format. In those early years the codecs mostly used where mpeg-2 by Blu-ray and mpeg-2 and VC-1 by HD DVD, months later the AVC, and to a lesser extent, the VC-1 codec became more common on Blu-ray. So Microsoft had much more to gain by having HD DVD as the winner, the discs were cheaper to make and they could have likely further integrated the higher capacity HD DVD discs into Xbox, 15Gb SL and 30 GB DL, instead of paying royalties to Sony to use the more advanced Blu-ray discs in the future. Once Toshiba lost the format war, Microsoft stayed with DL DVD's and claimed BD's were not needed for gaming, doing so would be admitting that the competitors have a better product. Thankfully they allowed people who own their windows systems to play Blu-ray movies on their PC's.

VC-1 is getting far less use now and Warner and Universal studios, which were the big users of VC-1, are abandoning Microsoft's VC-1 codec and now mainly use AVC.

 

[Wolfpup]

Microsoft provides all of the OS framework support needed for BD decoding, high quality lossless multi-channel audio, and hardware acceleration of the decoding on a huge variety of video cards.

Microsoft simply doesn't ship the codecs needed to actually play the BDs. The codecs are bundled with the BD drives.

This avoids adding even a small amount of incremental royalty cost to systems without BD players.

Not only that, but Windows *XP* supports Blu Ray.

An OS from 2001, for free, got the ability to run Blu Rays with the appropriate software, and Apple can't do it FIVE YEARS LATE?

And Apple already does support content protection for iTunes rentals and whatnot, HDCP and whatnot. I'm sorry, but for a consumer OS, it's the responsibility of the OS maker to get this stuff working. There's no excuse that they didn't have this by 2007 or '08. Steve Jobs "it's hard!" thing is just ludicrous. Well great, yeah, so is writing an OS. That's why I don't write my own OS.

 

[cmaier]

Not only that, but Windows *XP* supports Blu Ray.

An OS from 2001, for free, got the ability to run Blu Rays with the appropriate software, and Apple can't do it FIVE YEARS LATE?

And Apple already does support content protection for iTunes rentals and whatnot, HDCP and whatnot. I'm sorry, but for a consumer OS, it's the responsibility of the OS maker to get this stuff working. There's no excuse that they didn't have this by 2007 or '08. Steve Jobs "it's hard!" thing is just ludicrous. Well great, yeah, so is writing an OS. That's why I don't write my own OS.

He never said "it's hard."

 

[Wolfpup]

Had HD DVD won the format war, I'm sure Microsoft would have been pushing physical media much stronger. As the next generation console systems come into play, I doubt Microsoft is going to want to pay loyalty's to Sony so they can have a BD rom on a future Xbox system. Yet I do think they'll have to opt for a Blu-ray optical drive.

Regarding that, Microsoft gets royalties from Blu Ray too...I assume not as much as HD-DVD, because HD-DVD used a Microsoft technology for the programmable aspect of it, and Blu Ray uses Java instead, but part of what they'd have to pay to include a license to playback Blu Ray they'd be paying to themselves.

Its interesting Xbox never bought into BD either. Its funny people slam Apple and SJ for not having BD when in fact BD is also a bag of hurt for MS hence no BD on the 360.

It's not very strange at all. A game console with static hardware isn't a PC. That a game console in 2005 didn't have Blu Ray, when Blu Ray wouldn't launch for another 6+ months, and cost $1000 for players when it did, is not exactly a shock.

And while yeah, it would be handy both for games, and just for convenience's sake for the Xbox to support Blu Ray, you can normally add a stand alone player or Playstation or whatever to the same TV setup that the Xbox is hooked to, whereas with a PC, you may be on the go with a notebook, or in a room without a monitor or whatever that would really work with a stand alone player, etc...plus the hardware's not static. Apple's released new hardware in 2011...the Xbox is still the Xbox from 2005.

He never said "it's hard."

Fine, "bag of hurt", whatever. Point being he's whining about how hard it is, when in fact that's his job, and every part of it is hard, and Microsoft not only added it to their then-current OS, but their then 5 year old OS too, all with no whining.

I mean it would be as silly as if somehow OS X didn't support word processors, and Jobs whined about how hard it is to do font rendering or something. Well yeah, great, but that's your job, so get to it.

 

[linux2mac]

Not only that, but Windows *XP* supports Blu Ray.

An OS from 2001, for free, got the ability to run Blu Rays with the appropriate software, and Apple can't do it FIVE YEARS LATE?

And Apple already does support content protection for iTunes rentals and whatnot, HDCP and whatnot. I'm sorry, but for a consumer OS, it's the responsibility of the OS maker to get this stuff working. There's no excuse that they didn't have this by 2007 or '08. Steve Jobs "it's hard!" thing is just ludicrous. Well great, yeah, so is writing an OS. That's why I don't write my own OS.

See post #6906

"when it comes to selling computing hardware, Microsoft and Apple are on the same page. Blu-ray hardware licensing must be a "bag of hurt" for Microsoft, too."

 

[Bishope1999]

Regarding that, Microsoft gets royalties from Blu Ray too...I assume not as much as HD-DVD, because HD-DVD used a Microsoft technology for the programmable aspect of it, and Blu Ray uses Java instead,

Yes, that was also an even more important factor for Microsoft than just the codec. As you said, Blu-ray went with Java and HD DVD chose the Microsoft created program named HDI. Microsoft was heavily rooting for HD DVD to win, even going as far as having an HD DVD add on to the Xbox. On the other hand, once the format war was won, they didn't make a blu-ray add on for the Xbox. At this point it's irrelevant because of how cheap stand alone Blu-ray players are.

I really didn't know Microsoft was getting royalties from Blu-ray. I would assume it's very little as they have minimal involvement with it.

 

[AidenShaw]

Be mindful of forum rules and choose your words wisely as to not insult other forum members.

The word "ignorant" is perfectly valid to use and is not necessarily an insult. One main definition is "unaware or uninformed".

I made an ignorant comment about Microsoft video downloads, I was "unaware or uninformed" about the Zune marketplace because I don't have an Xbox or a Zune.

Note that the previous post said "In other words, nothing you claimed is true, and in fact is just weird. Or ignorant." She called your claim ignorant, she did not call you ignorant.

If the adjective is applied to a person, it's fairly likely that it was meant as an insult. If applied to a statement, not so much - being unaware of something doesn't mean that one is stupid.

 

[Wolfpup]

See post #6906

I checked it, but it didn't seem to have anything to do with my post.

 

[diamond.g]

Yes, that was also an even more important factor for Microsoft than just the codec. As you said, Blu-ray went with Java and HD DVD chose the Microsoft created program named HDI. Microsoft was heavily rooting for HD DVD to win, even going as far as having an HD DVD add on to the Xbox. On the other hand, once the format war was won, they didn't make a blu-ray add on for the Xbox. At this point it's irrelevant because of how cheap stand alone Blu-ray players are.

I really didn't know Microsoft was getting royalties from Blu-ray. I would assume it's very little as they have minimal involvement with it.

Very few Blu-rays use it, but VC-1 is apart of the spec. So yeah MS does get some money. Not as much as if they had gotten HDi adopted.

To be honest HDi was way more web like than BD-J.

 

[LethalWolfe]

This is from 2010.

"when it comes to selling computing hardware, Microsoft and Apple are on the same page. Blu-ray hardware licensing must be a "bag of hurt" for Microsoft, too."

Microsoft, Apple in sync on Blu-ray
http://blog.chron.com/techblog/2010/09/microsoft-apple-in-sync-on-blu-ray/

I already countered this same link a previous time you posted it and I'm not inclined to find my nor recreate my previous post so I'll just succinctly say that your interpretation of the link is bent to your preconceived notions of how things should be. Sony's competitors don't have glowing things to say about Sony's products. Shocker!

MS's HD-DVD format lost out to Sony's Blu-ray. Do you really think MS is going to trip over themselves complimenting Blu-ray? If HD-DVD had won out do you honestly think MS would say HD-DVD was a mistake and is being passed by as a format? Do you really expect an MS rep to say, "Yeah, we screwed up releasing the 360 w/a DVD drive and should've waited and released it with high def disc tech."


Lethal

 

[Bishope1999]

Very few Blu-rays use it, but VC-1 is apart of the spec. So yeah MS does get some money. Not as much as if they had gotten HDi adopted.

To be honest HDi was way more web like than BD-J.

Very simple detail I completely overlooked in regard to Microsoft getting money from blu-ray lol

 

[Wolfpup]

Very few Blu-rays use it, but VC-1 is apart of the spec. So yeah MS does get some money. Not as much as if they had gotten HDi adopted.

To be honest HDi was way more web like than BD-J.

Any idea which was better? I've always thought Java was flaky, even if the idea was neat, but then this might be a real clean implementation.

Actually while the idea of that much programmability is neat, I suppose, in practice I've been annoyed by it, since it seems like discs that use it (or use it heavily?) take longer to load, the player can't remember playback positions, just annoying stuff like that...all for the ability to replace the timeline indicators with some movie-specific one.

(Actually I don't know...maybe it's using Java for ANY programability? Like even menus? It is technically sort of handy that Blu Ray can do menus that slide in from the top or side without having to switch out to them like a DVD would...although not really THAT handy. For me, the much better picture (and even audio) is the main thing, and then I suppose stuff like picture in picture is occasionally handy for extras.

 

[Atlantico]

Regarding that, Microsoft gets royalties from Blu Ray too...I assume not as much as HD-DVD, because HD-DVD used a Microsoft technology for the programmable aspect of it, and Blu Ray uses Java instead, but part of what they'd have to pay to include a license to playback Blu Ray they'd be paying to themselves.



It's not very strange at all. A game console with static hardware isn't a PC. That a game console in 2005 didn't have Blu Ray, when Blu Ray wouldn't launch for another 6+ months, and cost $1000 for players when it did, is not exactly a shock.

And while yeah, it would be handy both for games, and just for convenience's sake for the Xbox to support Blu Ray, you can normally add a stand alone player or Playstation or whatever to the same TV setup that the Xbox is hooked to, whereas with a PC, you may be on the go with a notebook, or in a room without a monitor or whatever that would really work with a stand alone player, etc...plus the hardware's not static. Apple's released new hardware in 2011...the Xbox is still the Xbox from 2005.



Fine, "bag of hurt", whatever. Point being he's whining about how hard it is, when in fact that's his job, and every part of it is hard, and Microsoft not only added it to their then-current OS, but their then 5 year old OS too, all with no whining.

I mean it would be as silly as if somehow OS X didn't support word processors, and Jobs whined about how hard it is to do font rendering or something. Well yeah, great, but that's your job, so get to it.

Love that post, excellent points, not the least the last paragraph (but all good)!!

 

[linux2mac]

The word "ignorant" is perfectly valid to use and is not necessarily an insult. One main definition is "unaware or uninformed".

I made an ignorant comment about Microsoft video downloads, I was "unaware or uninformed" about the Zune marketplace because I don't have an Xbox or a Zune.

Note that the previous post said "In other words, nothing you claimed is true, and in fact is just weird. Or ignorant." She called your claim ignorant, she did not call you ignorant.

If the adjective is applied to a person, it's fairly likely that it was meant as an insult. If applied to a statement, not so much - being unaware of something doesn't mean that one is stupid.

You don't find reading your post strange? Especially since you are notorious for posting "anything to rag on Apple or Apple product owners."

Now I know how Walt Mossberg felt when the Adobe CEO tried to tell Walt to his face that Flash works great on Android.

 

[Porco]

http://blog.chron.com/techblog/2010/09/microsoft-apple-in-sync-on-blu-ray/

Silverman is no fool, though I disagree with some of what he says (as well certain things being plain wrong, such as the usual 'Sony's format' thing), the best part of that article is not the quote from the Microsoft man (MS would prefer people to download videos from them if at all so they make more money out of it, well 'duh'), it's Silverman's own closing comments:

But there’s an obstacle looming in the distance on this parth: data caps on tiered broadband services. Online video requires lots of bandwidth, and Internet service providers are moving away from the all-you-can-eat broadband model.

For now, online delivery of movies represents lots of convenience and a decent value. But if it suddenly becomes very expensive to feed your HD movie habit, physical formats like Blu-ray may find new life.

And the thing is, almost a year after that article Blu-ray is still growing, and the availability of HD video is still poor-to-very-poor depending where in the world you live, BD prices are often cheaper than the likes of MS, Sony and Apple's online 'alternatives' that are only accessible to a sub-set of home video consumers, and the bandwidth problem that Silverman identified is exactly what is happening.

One of the main problems is the infrastructure is not ready for everyone to exclusively get their content online, even if we all wanted to. MP3 music downloads / (technically AAC for iTunes of course) were a revolution whose time had come - because even on a 56k modem it was possible, if unpleasant, to download a track or even an album - and around the same time there was a heavy increase in people getting what would now be considered basic broadband speeds. And yet CDs are still with us. And there's a significant minority who don't have much better internet speeds than they had five years ago.

Online video is being pushed prematurely compared to how online music was. The infrastructure is not as ready, the user experience is not as ready (seriously - the AppleTV is not the instant hit the iPod was is it? That should tell you something).

Also, I think the whole paradigm of obtaining music online and obtaining video online are more different than the likes of Apple have given credit. Just as part of that, I think quality matters more for video (and for more people) than Steve Jobs thinks it does, especially when you're talking about HD, which really is an issue that gets ignored too much in this debate - because HD's selling point is about quality. And if you care about quality, why make do? It's why people who care about music quality still bought/buy CDs over 128/256/even 320kbps MP3/AAC files.

Sure, lots of people will buy/rent/stream standard def video they don't care about much. I've done that myself sometimes (legitimately, I must add). But if I love a movie or TV show enough that I care about quality, which is quite often for me, I want the best quality available. And whilst I'm happy to admit that I can't really tell the difference between a 320kbps AAC file and a lossless CD-ripped WAV or AIFF file on most of my audio gear, I can certainly tell the difference between a 720p iTunes movie and the equivalent Blu-ray disc.

 

[AidenShaw]

Silverman is no fool, though I disagree with some of what he says (as well certain things being plain wrong, such as the usual 'Sony's format' thing), the best part of that article is not the quote from the Microsoft man (MS would prefer people to download videos from them if at all so they make more money out of it, well 'duh'), it's Silverman's own closing comments:



And the thing is, almost a year after that article Blu-ray is still growing, and the availability of HD video is still poor-to-very-poor depending where in the world you live, BD prices are often cheaper than the likes of MS, Sony and Apple's online 'alternatives' that are only accessible to a sub-set of home video consumers, and the bandwidth problem that Silverman identified is exactly what is happening.

One of the main problems is the infrastructure is not ready for everyone to exclusively get their content online, even if we all wanted to. MP3 music downloads / (technically AAC for iTunes of course) were a revolution whose time had come - because even on a 56k modem it was possible, if unpleasant, to download a track or even an album - and around the same time there was a heavy increase in people getting what would now be considered basic broadband speeds. And yet CDs are still with us. And there's a significant minority who don't have much better internet speeds than they had five years ago.

Online video is being pushed prematurely compared to how online music was. The infrastructure is not as ready, the user experience is not as ready (seriously - the AppleTV is not the instant hit the iPod was is it? That should tell you something).

Also, I think the whole paradigm of obtaining music online and obtaining video online are more different than the likes of Apple have given credit. Just as part of that, I think quality matters more for video (and for more people) than Steve Jobs thinks it does, especially when you're talking about HD, which really is an issue that gets ignored too much in this debate - because HD's selling point is about quality. And if you care about quality, why make do? It's why people who care about music quality still bought/buy CDs over 128/256/even 320kbps MP3/AAC files.

Sure, lots of people will buy/rent/stream standard def video they don't care about much. I've done that myself sometimes (legitimately, I must add). But if I love a movie or TV show enough that I care about quality, which is quite often for me, I want the best quality available. And whilst I'm happy to admit that I can't really tell the difference between a 320kbps AAC file and a lossless CD-ripped WAV or AIFF file on most of my audio gear, I can certainly tell the difference between a 720p iTunes movie and the equivalent Blu-ray disc.

Aren't you worried that someone will report you to the moderators for posting a well-reasoned, well-supported argument?

 

[linux2mac]

Aren't you worried that someone will report you to the moderators for posting a well-reasoned, well-supported argument?

You mean like this person?

No, I've reported you for insulting demeanor....

When you know that you are losing on the basis of your arguments, then personal attacks will at least confuse the clueles.

 

[wonderspark]

We should all get together and have some donuts. I love donuts. I wish we had a Tim Horton's in Denver.

 

[toke lahti]

You say "protected media path" as if it's real name isn't "performance-sapping evil mechanism from hell"

Utter FUD,
why don't you share us accurate and detailed test of windows xp machine before and after installed "protected media path"?

If Apple doesn't support physical media - it doesn't matter how small you make it. They won't support it.

Is there an Apple Definition for what's physical and what's not?
Like particles that make electricity and magnetism work in hdd's and ssd's are not physical ie. don't exist?