Sidebar Sidebar
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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Carniphage said:
Sony is by far the main force behind the BluRay consortium.

I am not arguing for one over the other, just pointing out there is a battle being waged here.

Apple and Sony are rivals in this space. So why should Apple support Sony's business model? Should Apple start making Apps for Android now?

C.
Click to expand...

There is no battle. iTunes is barely 10% of Apple's revenues. Of that, the movie/TV shows is a minuscule portion. Apple is very much a hardware company. No hardware they make competes with Blu-ray. In fact, Apple TV would sell much better if it was a Blu-ray player. Same with the new HDMI equipped Mac Mini.

Looking on iTunes right now, I can see they sell Sony Pictures movies on there... wait what ? Rivals, waging war, partners on iTunes ?

You make absolutely no sense.
 
aaaaaaron said:
C, you're obviously behind the times, who walks anymore? Try one of these, http://www.segway.com/ it will make getting of the couch a breeze and you don't even have to use your outdated limbs.

i can only dream of a day when the use of my legs will be completely obsolete.
Click to expand...

126305_1232315373195_500_281.jpg
 
leekohler said:
My prescription is current and I have a 1080 TV. The only movies that look vastly better are animation.

Keep your insults to yourself. The fact is that the difference is not enough for most people to care about.
Click to expand...

Sorry, then you have a crappy TV. If you seriously cant tell the difference between a blu-ray 1080p movie and a dvd upconverted to 1080p then you're blind or you have a very low end 1080 tv.

The difference between blu-ray 1080p and dvd upconverted 1080p is night and day different. Especially on new movies.
 
Carniphage said:
It's a great format for collectors. But those of us without Asperger's prefer our content in more accessible forms.

C.
Click to expand...

Again, your argument would hold more water if good internet access was available and affordable for everyone. It isn't. If I don't have access somewhere, your solution becomes infinitely more INaccessible compared to a very accessible disc that could simply be inserted and played.

And you do realize that your forum handle appears next to every post and that you can also set up a signature, right? You don't need to sign every post...
 
AbSoluTc said:
It baffles me as well. I guess all these people who say iTunes 720p and other down loadable media are somewhat blind (literally). The difference between download media and a blu-ray 1080p disc is mind melding. Where have you all been the past 5 years? HD is where it's at. 720p is not true HD despite what Apple wants you to think. 1080p is TRUE HD. You might want to try it sometime.

Some of you need to step out of that Apple bubble. There is a whole other world out there :D
Click to expand...

Well put. And isn't Steve Jobs the guy who was proclaiming that laughable, craptastic, iPod Boombox with Bose, *BOSE* (LOL) speakers as being "hi-fi?" And that he was ditching his home stereo for one of those boombox things? Steve Jobs wouldn't know audio/video quality if it came up and bit him in the ass.
 
KnightWRX said:
People buy those to game, not to watch movies. With 100$ blu-ray players on the market supporting the latest profile, why would someone go for a PS3 ? What was true 4 years ago isn't so much today. The PS3 is not the best and cheapest blu-ray player anymore.
Click to expand...

I bought a PS3 to play games AND watch DVD/BluRays. At the time the cheapest Blu-Ray players were around $300, so that certainly made an impact on my decision. Besides, I enjoy having one device for all my media consumption anyway. I don't think I'm alone, but I do think you'd have to be a little interessted in games to buy a PS3 though.
 
Carniphage said:
I have me a nice fat Drobo with a few hundred movies at 720p.
I know 1080p is supposed to be better. But when I sit at 12 feet from my TV I actually can't tell the difference.
Click to expand...

Why is your couch so far from your TV ? Heck, 8 feet away is too far.


Carniphage said:
To play a movie. I just press play.

I don't have to go to the shelf. I don't have to remove the cylinder/disk thing from a sleeve. I don't have to navigate those dumb menus. Or watch those dumb anti-piracy ads. I don't have to put it away again afterwards. And if a drive fails. I can just replace it.

In the future, I predict all sensible people will prefer their content in this form.

C.
Click to expand...

Again with the bad faith. To play a blu-ray, I just press play.

I don't have to power on the PS3, check the network connection, make sure my uPNP server is started, connect to it, diagnose why it's not connecting, remember my DHCP server is dead, bring it back up, connect to the uPNP server again, browse the folders shared on it, remember I didn't share my Movies folder, go to my computer, launch Firefox, connect to the Web interface, add the movie folder, go back to the couch, connect to the uPNP server, browse the folders, find the movie, wait for it to buffer, wait for it to buffer, wait for it to buffer, god damn it this is 1 Gbps why the **** is it buffering, follow the cable, find the spot my dog chewed, run new Cat-5e to the PS3 from the patch, go back to the couch, connect to the uPNP server, browser folders, press play and as the movie starts, my GF tells me I have to mow the lawn...

Seriously, I can make up ridiculous scenarios too.

karlwig said:
I bought a PS3 to play games AND watch DVD/BluRays. At the time the cheapest Blu-Ray players were around $300, so that certainly made an impact on my decision. Besides, I enjoy having one device for all my media consumption anyway. I don't think I'm alone, but I do think you'd have to be a little interessted in games to buy a PS3 though.
Click to expand...

I did the same, back when the PS3 was the cheapest blu-ray player. It's not anymore. We agree, you aren't countering my point, you're making it for me.

Today people who want blu-ray don't buy PS3s, they buy stand-alone players. This is the same thing with the PS2, which used to be the cheapest DVD player around.

Lord Vader said:
Again, your argument would hold more water if bluray was available for everyone.
Click to expand...

Uh ? That makes no sense. There's about 3 Best Buys and 5 Futureshops in a 50 km radius of my house, all of which carry a big selection of Blu-ray titles/players at a very low cost.

Internet access here has download caps, and the fastest you can get, 50 mbps, has 100 GB download cap and costs 95$ per month.
 
cube said:
I stopped watching movies at home because I don't accept anything less than Blu-ray or HD DVD.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you're one of those audio/video snobs. ;)

If that is true than I would expect you would also what to watch it on a screen bigger than any Mac provides. If that is true why output from a Mac to a secondary screen and not just get an independent Bluray player that is much cheaper and has better features?
 
KnightWRX said:
There is no battle. iTunes is barely 10% of Apple's revenues. Of that, the movie/TV shows is a minuscule portion. Apple is very much a hardware company. No hardware they make competes with Blu-ray. In fact, Apple TV would sell much better if it was a Blu-ray player. Same with the new HDMI equipped Mac Mini.

Looking on iTunes right now, I can see they sell Sony Pictures movies on there... wait what ? Rivals, waging war, partners on iTunes ?

You make absolutely no sense.
Click to expand...

Apple is the number one company in the business of internet-based content. Currently Apple own music distribution, and it is no secret that the next stop is TV and movie distribution.

It makes no commercial sense for Apple to back Sony's wax-cylinder distribution method.

C.
 
Lord Vader said:
Again, your argument would hold more water if bluray was available for everyone.
Click to expand...

LOL what? That doesn't even make sense. If I don't have internet access, I can't access any streamed media. Blu-ray is available for anyone who wants to spend the money on it.
 
potaco said:
Again, your argument would hold more water if good internet access was available and affordable for everyone. It isn't. If I don't have access somewhere, your solution becomes infinitely more INaccessible compared to a very accessible disc that could simply be inserted and played.
Click to expand...

I am in a plane. I can watch my movies on an iPad. I can even watch 3 or 4 before the battery dies.

That's perfectly accessible as far as I am concerned.

C.
 
Lord Vader said:
A lot of money.
Click to expand...

Macs cost much more money. If you can't afford a Blu-ray in the first place, let alone a Mac, then there's no need to argue about not having Blu-ray available on that Mac.

Carniphage said:
I am in a plane. I can watch my movies on an iPad. I can even watch 3 or 4 before the battery dies.

That's perfectly accessible as far as I am concerned.

C.
Click to expand...

You can stream Netflix or watch your daughter's wedding rip on YouTube while flying on a plane? Or do you just mean a plane parked next to a free WiFi hotspot where you wait 5 minutes for something to buffer before being able to watch it?
 
aaaaaaron said:
if you have a computer and the time to post on macrumors, you probably have access to blu ray.
Click to expand...

I have a bluray player connected to my TV and I use it maybe 6-7 times a year for a really good movie like UP, Avatar or next on my list Toy Story 3. Most of the time I buy on Amazon or iTunes. because 27" imac screen for me is just fine to watch some TV Shows.
 
Carniphage said:
Apple is the number one company in the business of internet-based content. Currently Apple own music distribution, and it is no secret that the next stop is TV and movie distribution.

It makes no commercial sense for Apple to back Sony's wax-cylinder distribution method.

C.
Click to expand...

The number one company which uses its position to sell hardware. It makes sense to Apple to push Blu-ray as a way to sell more hardware.

You know, what brings in cash to Apple. Not the content on iTunes, which is not even a blip on the revenue radar.

And Netflix and Hulu are much better positionned than Apple in the movies/TV segment. Apple may own music, but they suck at movies/tv shows.

Again, Internet service isn't there, offer isn't there, reliability isn't there. There is no logical reason for Apple not to get on the Blu-ray train. This is just like you, Steve argued himself into a corner, and he'd have to admit he's wrong to get out of it, so instead he just spurts out nonsense.

Again, exactly like you're doing here. Just admit you're wrong and this goes away.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
KnightWRX said:
The number one company which uses its position to sell hardware. It makes sense to Apple to push Blu-ray as a way to sell more hardware.

You know, what brings in cash to Apple. Not the content on iTunes, which is not even a blip on the revenue radar.

And Netflix and Hulu are much better positionned than Apple in the movies/TV segment. Apple may own music, but they suck at movies/tv shows.

Again, Internet service isn't there, offer isn't there, reliability isn't there. There is no logical reason for Apple not to get on the Blu-ray train. This is just like you, Steve argued himself into a corner, and he'd have to admit he's wrong to get out of it, so instead he just spurts out nonsense.

Again, exactly like you're doing here. Just admit you're wrong and this goes away.
Click to expand...

Unless.... Carniphage... is.... Steve? :eek:
 
iTunes vs Blu-Ray

The thing that gets me with digital vs physical movie media is price.

In the Canada store, iTunes sells "HD" movies for $19.99.

Yet you can buy Blu-Rays for the same price or cheaper (many blu-ray titles go on sale for $9.99 here).

One advantage of music on iTunes is that instead of having to spend $10 - $20 on a CD, users can just download the 1 track they actually like for $1.

Movies and TV shows on iTunes aren't doing favours to consumers' wallets. Being a value driven person, I am not interested in the video side of iTunes.
 
Lord Vader said:
A lot of money.
Click to expand...

Look, another kool-aid drinker that argued himself in a corner and would rather look foolish than admit he's wrong.

Blu-ray is cheaper than streaming. Players are cheaper than Apple TV. Heck, blu-ray players now include streaming options, because other companies understand the value of supporting every CURRENT standard out there.

Sell products for the present, not some distant future that might or might not come to past.
 
Carniphage said:
This is why professional video production companies store always store video on optical drives.

Oh - actually they don't.

C.
Click to expand...

I work in the film industry and have to say, that's not really true. Yes, hard drives are used, but hard drives are far from useful for archival purposes. Read this article http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/b...ae3346782&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss optical media will on average outlive a hard drive.

The last film I worked on was shot digitally, transferred through hard drives etc. I still managed to end up with eight different discs on my desk (that's just the ones I personally dealt with, no idea how many discs there were for everyone else.) Optical media is still well in use in production companies.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back