Steve Jobs Taking Medical Leave of Absence Until June

[MikeTheC]

The more Apple becomes a consumer electronics company, the less interest I have in the answer to that question.

To be honest, I don't see Apple becoming that, at least not under Steve, simply because it serves as too much of a distraction to Apple's core purpose. Now, if Apple licensed Mac OS X (desktop, server, embedded) to other companies, I could perhaps see such a scenario as a possibility. However, the thing to realize is that every "non-Mac"-type product Apple's produced is designed to lead people to a Mac, not in lieu of one.

 

[xbjllb]

To be honest, I don't see Apple becoming that, at least not under Steve, simply because it serves as too much of a distraction to Apple's core purpose. Now, if Apple licensed Mac OS X (desktop, server, embedded) to other companies, I could perhaps see such a scenario as a possibility. However, the thing to realize is that every "non-Mac"-type product Apple's produced is designed to lead people to a Mac, not in lieu of one.

Apple became a consumer electronics company (a nice way of saying toy manufacturer) and an online hawker of downloadable entertainment a long time ago. These newest overpriced "refreshes" are utterly ineffective without Blu-ray implementation throughout the OS, and would be akin to have been releasing power macs without DVD players and burning capability and claiming "You don't need them; movies will be downloaded one day in the future."

Until Apple implements Blu-ray it will remain behind PC's and Windows technologically, and this should be every bit as unacceptable to the fanbois and stockholders as it is proving to be to the public at large. Wait until PC marketing starts pushing that point.

It will be at least a full decade before internet download speeds will be up to the task of downloading a Blu-ray quality movie in a reasonable amount of time universally (for the majority of most people worldwide.)

And there are only two kinds of folks in the anti Blu-ray camp; content pirates who hate DRM and those who've never seen a Blu-ray quality movie on a 65" plasma from five feet away (my setup; I highly recommend it.)

 

[kaldezar]

Apple became a consumer electronics company (a nice way of saying toy manufacturer) and an online hawker of downloadable entertainment a long time ago. These newest overpriced "refreshes" are utterly ineffective without Blu-ray implementation throughout the OS, and would be akin to have been releasing power macs without DVD players and burning capability and claiming "You don't need them; movies will be downloaded one day in the future."

Until Apple implements Blu-ray it will remain behind PC's and Windows technologically, and this should be every bit as unacceptable to the fanbois and stockholders as it is proving to be to the public at large. Wait until PC marketing starts pushing that point.

It will be at least a full decade before internet download speeds will be up to the task of downloading a Blu-ray quality movie in a reasonable amount of time universally (for the majority of most people worldwide.)

And there are only two kinds of folks in the anti Blu-ray camp; content pirates who hate DRM and those who've never seen a Blu-ray quality movie on a 65" plasma from five feet away (my setup; I highly recommend it.)

Blu-Ray is an irrelevance for most of the world outside the USA. This is because 65" inch and bigger televisions just wouldn't fit in the majority of peoples residences. 42" seems to be the standard and HD television at 720p is more than enough. Another reason is that Blu-Ray discs are so expensive compared to DVD's that demand is minimal. Quite frankly I have only used the DVD drive on my 3 macs only once in the last two years! By the time Blu-Ray becomes economically viable downloading HD content will be easier and cheaper. BTW haven't you noticed we are living through a recession soon to become a depression?

 

[WeegieMac]

Blu-Ray is an irrelevance for most of the world outside the USA. This is because 65" inch and bigger televisions just wouldn't fit in the majority of peoples residences. 42" seems to be the standard and HD television at 720p is more than enough. Another reason is that Blu-Ray discs are so expensive compared to DVD's that demand is minimal. Quite frankly I have only used the DVD drive on my 3 macs only once in the last two years! By the time Blu-Ray becomes economically viable downloading HD content will be easier and cheaper. BTW haven't you noticed we are living through a recession soon to become a depression?

Blu-Ray and HD is booming here in the UK, so your somewhat sweeping generalisation about Blu-Ray being irrelevant outside the USA is wide of the mark.

On the right size of screen, 42" and over, Blu-Ray looks immense in 1080p with the True Cinema 24fps technology in newer BD players. Of course the sticking point for Blu-Ray, as you rightly pointed out, is the price compared to DVD, especially with Toshiba's new upscaling range of DVD players and matching displays that take upscaling to a whole new level.

Blu-Ray needs to worry about DVD before it worries about Digital Distribution. Those behind Blu-Ray have become somewhat deluded by the defeat of HD-DVD, a format which in fairness was the superior brand until the major studios (like WB) signed multi million dollar deals to go Blu-Ray only. HD-DVD was defeated by political decisions based on money from the Blu-Ray group, not the quality of the technology on offer, but Blu-Ray will never be the next DVD in my opinion.

Although in terms of being "economically viable", here in the UK you can buy an entry level BD player with 24fps True Cinema, Ethernet port, and 5 top movies (Batman Begins and Iron-Man are two of them off the top of my head) in Blockbuster for just £179.99. Ok, it's not an Asda (Walmart) £15 DVD player, but it's still a massive drop in price for Blu-Ray compared to 18 months or so ago.

 

[john7jr]

...especially with Toshiba's new upscaling range of DVD players and matching displays that take upscaling to a whole new level.

That is exactly my problem. My DVD player does such a great job that the upscaled DVD looks fantastic. Sure, the Blu-ray version is sharper with less artifacts, but in an action movie where the picture is always moving it's hard to see a difference unless I pause and go frame-by-frame.

The big push for blu-ray in a marketing perspective is the copy protection. I'm sticking to DVDs for most of what I buy so I can still handbrake them.

=)

 

[kaldezar]

Top Movies

Blu-Ray and HD is booming here in the UK, so your somewhat sweeping generalisation about Blu-Ray being irrelevant outside the USA is wide of the mark.

On the right size of screen, 42" and over, Blu-Ray looks immense in 1080p with the True Cinema 24fps technology in newer BD players. Of course the sticking point for Blu-Ray, as you rightly pointed out, is the price compared to DVD, especially with Toshiba's new upscaling range of DVD players and matching displays that take upscaling to a whole new level.

Blu-Ray needs to worry about DVD before it worries about Digital Distribution. Those behind Blu-Ray have become somewhat deluded by the defeat of HD-DVD, a format which in fairness was the superior brand until the major studios (like WB) signed multi million dollar deals to go Blu-Ray only. HD-DVD was defeated by political decisions based on money from the Blu-Ray group, not the quality of the technology on offer, but Blu-Ray will never be the next DVD in my opinion.

Although in terms of being "economically viable", here in the UK you can buy an entry level BD player with 24fps True Cinema, Ethernet port, and 5 top movies (Batman Begins and Iron-Man are two of them off the top of my head) in Blockbuster for just £179.99. Ok, it's not an Asda (Walmart) £15 DVD player, but it's still a massive drop in price for Blu-Ray compared to 18 months or so ago.

Batman Begins and Iron-Man are top movies? Personally I saw Batman Begins at the Imax in London, distinctly underwhelmed and Iron-Man and pretty much all recent TOP movies are such crap I wouldn't even watch them for free let alone pay £17.99 for them. The problem is that you seem to watch the picture not the film! Pretty much every movie that I want to see is either not available as a Blu-Ray in the UK or has been transferred to Blu-Ray so poorly (Goodfella,s, BlackHawk Down etc.) it definitely is not worth purchasing. Even with the cheaper prices, still over £200 for good multi region player, I can only think of maybe two or three movies i would purchase, it doesn't really make economic sense.
Blu-Ray is dead and gone, the recession and faster broadband for downloading HD content will be the nails in Blu-Rays coffin.

 

[xbjllb]

Blu-Ray is an irrelevance for most of the world outside the USA. This is because 65" inch and bigger televisions just wouldn't fit in the majority of peoples residences. 42" seems to be the standard and HD television at 720p is more than enough. Another reason is that Blu-Ray discs are so expensive compared to DVD's that demand is minimal. Quite frankly I have only used the DVD drive on my 3 macs only once in the last two years! By the time Blu-Ray becomes economically viable downloading HD content will be easier and cheaper. BTW haven't you noticed we are living through a recession soon to become a depression?

Yes, exactly why people are staying at home, buying plasmas which are getting cheaper, and watching Blu-ray, which is getting cheaper, instead of going out to theaters.

But then, you probably haven't seen a movie in a theater in years either.

P.S. I heartily recommend 65" plasmas for small residences. My viewing room is 10' x 5'.

 

[xbjllb]

That is exactly my problem. My DVD player does such a great job that the upscaled DVD looks fantastic. Sure, the Blu-ray version is sharper with less artifacts, but in an action movie where the picture is always moving it's hard to see a difference unless I pause and go frame-by-frame.

The big push for blu-ray in a marketing perspective is the copy protection. I'm sticking to DVDs for most of what I buy so I can still handbrake them.

=)

Thank you for the pirates' perspective.

 

[Sehnsucht]

Glad you're not my doctor, or my dad's doctor, then. My father is a 9+ year survivor of pancreatic cancer.

I believe he was pointing out how deadly pancreatic cancer is. Yes there are some survivors just like with most other diseases, but the vast majority die very quickly. I have had 4 friends and family members die of this cancer, and in all their cases, they had been feeling poor, they went to the doctor, doctor found the cancer, they died less than three months later. Just like that. If this is what Steve Jobs has, then he's lucky to have lasted as long as he has.

 

[OllyW]

Thank you for the pirates' perspective.

Wanting to watch your legally purchased DVDs on your iPod or TV doesn't make you a pirate.

 

[michael.lauden]

baaack on topic here..

Steve Jobs return will be epic!

 

[Bye Bye Baby]

Let's hope and pray that he is back in June.

 

[Eric S.]

I believe he was pointing out how deadly pancreatic cancer is. Yes there are some survivors just like with most other diseases, but the vast majority die very quickly. I have had 4 friends and family members die of this cancer, and in all their cases, they had been feeling poor, they went to the doctor, doctor found the cancer, they died less than three months later. Just like that. If this is what Steve Jobs has, then he's lucky to have lasted as long as he has.

Not necessarily; Jobs had a form of pancreatic cancer that is less deadly than the usual form. From his Wikipedia entry:

The prognosis for pancreatic cancer is usually very grim; Jobs, however, stated that he had a rare, far less aggressive type known as islet cell neuroendocrine tumor. After initially resisting the idea of conventional medical intervention and embarking on a special diet to thwart the disease, Jobs underwent a pancreaticoduodenectomy (or "Whipple procedure") in July 2004 that successfully removed the tumor. Jobs apparently did not require nor receive chemotherapy or radiation therapy.

 

[techfreak85]

the reason WWDC is in early June is cause he dosn't HAVE to make an appearance then.
stating the obvious i guess. someone has to.

 

[archipellago]

Wanting to watch your legally purchased DVDs on your iPod or TV doesn't make you a pirate.

Actually over here in the UK it does!

Circumventing the macrovision (needed to HB it) is illegal.

Bizarrely over here in the Uk, it is still illegal to make a backup copy of a legally bought disc.

Don't get me wrong from reading the other post of yours I agree with your sentiments but factually handbraking it does make you a pirate!

go figure...!!

 

[archipellago]

Blu-Ray is an irrelevance for most of the world outside the USA. This is because 65" inch and bigger televisions just wouldn't fit in the majority of peoples residences. 42" seems to be the standard and HD television at 720p is more than enough. Another reason is that Blu-Ray discs are so expensive compared to DVD's that demand is minimal. Quite frankly I have only used the DVD drive on my 3 macs only once in the last two years! By the time Blu-Ray becomes economically viable downloading HD content will be easier and cheaper. BTW haven't you noticed we are living through a recession soon to become a depression?

agree 100%!

 

[archipellago]

Blu-Ray and HD is booming here in the UK, so your somewhat sweeping generalisation about Blu-Ray being irrelevant outside the USA is wide of the mark.

On the right size of screen, 42" and over, Blu-Ray looks immense in 1080p with the True Cinema 24fps technology in newer BD players. Of course the sticking point for Blu-Ray, as you rightly pointed out, is the price compared to DVD, especially with Toshiba's new upscaling range of DVD players and matching displays that take upscaling to a whole new level.

Blu-Ray needs to worry about DVD before it worries about Digital Distribution. Those behind Blu-Ray have become somewhat deluded by the defeat of HD-DVD, a format which in fairness was the superior brand until the major studios (like WB) signed multi million dollar deals to go Blu-Ray only. HD-DVD was defeated by political decisions based on money from the Blu-Ray group, not the quality of the technology on offer, but Blu-Ray will never be the next DVD in my opinion.

Although in terms of being "economically viable", here in the UK you can buy an entry level BD player with 24fps True Cinema, Ethernet port, and 5 top movies (Batman Begins and Iron-Man are two of them off the top of my head) in Blockbuster for just £179.99. Ok, it's not an Asda (Walmart) £15 DVD player, but it's still a massive drop in price for Blu-Ray compared to 18 months or so ago.

Blu-Ray and HD booming over here..??

really?

I must have missed that memo..

HD is growing due to the recent Sky deal. A good friend is an installer and he said that Sky HD demand is insane!

but BluRay? not anywhere round here. Go to any high street shop and ask them what demand is like. They only sell on specials and deals.

Fundamentally people are getting more used to disposable media.

Steve Jobs had it right when he said that most people watch most movies only once. Thats true..unless its a classic. Thats why it makes more sense to rent, especially given the ridiculously high price of BRD.

HD can now be had via download and streaming from places like Sky, Freesat, BTVision, Xbox Live and even PSN. Apple TV and iTunes also offer some content.

Having BRD is just having another box and paying ridiculous prices. With more and more content providers trying to go the download route its obselescence is surely just a matter of time.?

PS3 sales and BRD sales tell their own story, despite the increasingly desperate spin Sony try to put on it.

HDDVD would have been a better bet for consumers and the providers but SONY's money and the publishers greed got in the way.

They wanted the maximum DRM and region locking and the cash from SONY obviously didn't hurt.

HDDVD at mass adoption rates would now be at £50 a player with media prices comparable to DVD.

The industry has forced this on themselves and all they have done is speeded up the march to digital downloads.

 

[emp1re]

There hasn't been any news as of late - I hope Steve is doing better.

 

[kaldezar]

Yes, exactly why people are staying at home, buying plasmas which are getting cheaper, and watching Blu-ray, which is getting cheaper, instead of going out to theaters.

But then, you probably haven't seen a movie in a theater in years either.

P.S. I heartily recommend 65" plasmas for small residences. My viewing room is 10' x 5'.

Plasma sales are down, Bu-Ray sales are minimal even including PS3's (which BTW mostly are bought as gaming machines). By contrast cinema attendances are booming, echoing the thirties depression era. I see a movie at the theatre about 2-3 times a month.
I recommend that people who think that 65" plasmas in 10x5 rooms are a good idea visit their opticians for an eye test pdq!http://images.macrumors.com/vb/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Pioneer DV575A
Panasonic TH- PZ4685B
Yamaha AX 750SE
Ruark Talisman and Dialog speakers
Boston Acoustics rear speakers
REL Q-100E
Humax Foxsat HDR

 

[xbjllb]

By contrast cinema attendances are booming, echoing the thirties depression era. I see a movie at the theatre about 2-3 times a month.
I recommend that people who think that 65" plasmas in 10x5 rooms are a good idea visit their opticians for an eye test pdq!

I get a far better viewing experience than I would at a theater, with babies crying, people answering their cellphones in Spanish multiple times during the performance and talking at least five minutes per call, and $40 snacks.

I imagine "cinema" attendance is booming outside of the US; if I had to live in those oppressive ancient flats I'd do everything I could to stay out of them as much as possible. Your 10x5 room is NOT my 10x5 acoustically optimized room with my 22' ceiling, I assure you.

But arguing the benefits of home theater with one who has never experienced it is like trying to explain the difference between baked alaska and a fudgesicle.

 

[JD92]

---

 

[kaldezar]

I get a far better viewing experience than I would at a theater, with babies crying, people answering their cellphones in Spanish multiple times during the performance and talking at least five minutes per call, and $40 snacks.

I imagine "cinema" attendance is booming outside of the US; if I had to live in those oppressive ancient flats I'd do everything I could to stay out of them as much as possible. Your 10x5 room is NOT my 10x5 acoustically optimized room with my 22' ceiling, I assure you.

But arguing the benefits of home theater with one who has never experienced it is like trying to explain the difference between baked alaska and a fudgesicle.

Total american arrogance and ignorance. Cinema attendance in the USA is booming more than in any other western nation and is at it's highest since the 1930's. (Source Variety and NY Times). A 10x5 room is probably the worst shape for a HT installation. Anyone who thinks there is any merit in knowing the difference between a baked alaska and a fudgesicle obviously has serious deficiencies in the ability to make meaningful judgements!
Fortunately here in the civilized UK, babies are not permitted in cinemas unless it is a U rated movie. Also we still have independent cinemas where intelligent people turn off their cellphones before the performance, I do agree about the overpriced snacks though that does seem to be a pretty universal thing. And if you had bothered to look at my post i do have a pretty damn fine HT system in my 12x15 room which BTW is almost the perfect dimenson for home theatre.
http://images.macrumors.com/vb/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

 

[jmpage2]

Total american arrogance and ignorance. Cinema attendance in the USA is booming more than in any other western nation and is at it's highest since the 1930's. (Source Variety and NY Times). A 10x5 room is probably the worst shape for a HT installation. Anyone who thinks there is any merit in knowing the difference between a baked alaska and a fudgesicle obviously has serious deficiencies in the ability to make meaningful judgements!
Fortunately here in the civilized UK, babies are not permitted in cinemas unless it is a U rated movie. Also we still have independent cinemas where intelligent people turn off their cellphones before the performance, I do agree about the overpriced snacks though that does seem to be a pretty universal thing. And if you had bothered to look at my post i do have a pretty damn fine HT system in my 12x15 room which BTW is almost the perfect dimenson for home theatre.
http://images.macrumors.com/vb/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

You yourself are also making incorrect statements.

BD is actually outperforming DVD at the same point in each products life cycle. BD adoption is picking up in UK, Germany and France, countries that didn't even catch on to DVD for almost five years from incept date of that format.

On a good screen BD actually offers a superior picture to what you get in the theater, seeing as you get an essentially perfect "print" of the movie, without scratches, hairs, focus problems, dim projector bulb, etc.

The sooner Apple gets off their high horse and launches BD support in an OS X version the better.

I can assure you that the MS people aren't stupid. If Win7 ships with native Blu-Ray support and OS X does not have it, they will play that up all of holiday shopping season '09, since there are still quite a few people that watch their movies on one of their PCs or laptops.

 

[kaldezar]

You yourself are also making incorrect statements.

BD is actually outperforming DVD at the same point in each products life cycle. BD adoption is picking up in UK, Germany and France, countries that didn't even catch on to DVD for almost five years from incept date of that format.

On a good screen BD actually offers a superior picture to what you get in the theater, seeing as you get an essentially perfect "print" of the movie, without scratches, hairs, focus problems, dim projector bulb, etc.

The sooner Apple gets off their high horse and launches BD support in an OS X version the better.

I can assure you that the MS people aren't stupid. If Win7 ships with native Blu-Ray support and OS X does not have it, they will play that up all of holiday shopping season '09, since there are still quite a few people that watch their movies on one of their PCs or laptops.

BD is failing miserably, your figures include the PS3 which makes up 2/3 of BD sales. The PS3 is heavily subsidized by Sony who turned in a $2.9 billion dollar loss last year, successful I think not.
On a good screen BD provides a superior picture to a badly maintained film projector system, yeah I don't disagree. My local cinema has had digital projection for several years now, markedly superior to BD, plus it is capable of showing the new 3D movies such as Bolt etc. BTW my local cinema is located in one of the most socially deprived areas of the UK not some privileged area which gets cool new technology earlier than most.
MS not stupid? Is this not the company that thought VISTA was a great idea? That Brown Zunes were cool? and whose CEO laughed long and hearty when shown the first iphone?
If you watch movies on a laptop why pay 4 times the cost of a BD over dvd when there would be little visual difference on 13/15" laptop? I have owned PC's since before the internet and have yet to watch a movie all the way through on a PC or Laptop.

 

[xbjllb]

BD is actually outperforming DVD at the same point in each products life cycle. BD adoption is picking up in UK, Germany and France, countries that didn't even catch on to DVD for almost five years from incept date of that format.

On a good screen BD actually offers a superior picture to what you get in the theater, seeing as you get an essentially perfect "print" of the movie, without scratches, hairs, focus problems, dim projector bulb, etc.

The sooner Apple gets off their high horse and launches BD support in an OS X version the better.

I can assure you that the MS people aren't stupid. If Win7 ships with native Blu-Ray support and OS X does not have it, they will play that up all of holiday shopping season '09, since there are still quite a few people that watch their movies on one of their PCs or laptops.

Amen! Thanks, I forgot about bad focus (can't tell you the number of films in theaters ruined by it), bad positioning (little or no care whatsoever given to the size of the image and whether or not it falls off the screen) and at home you can completely control the volume to your own liking. So many theaters in the US have automated graduated volume systems that start out the film barely able to hear the quiet parts and gradually increasing the volume to ear shattering levels. Not to mention the one time there was no center channel whatsoever in a political documentary (Moore's "Fahrenheit 9-11") and I barely convinced everyone to leave the theater and demand their money back within the first ten minutes because there was no narrative whatsoever and the management could not or would not fix it.

And I'll admit it, spending so much time close to a computer screen has greatly diminished my distance vision, and the amount of time I must spend on the computer won't be changing. I prefer sitting five feet away from my plasma, and at that distance, the resolution and experience is better than anyone could get in any theater.

Apple might have already missed the Blu-ray boat to the point of no return. Everything done from here on in will be catchup. Only Apple and the market will determine whether it will be a pathetic attempt or not.