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.
Why is Apple trying to phase out physical media 10 years before the public is ready?
- Thread starter StephenCampbell
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My thoughts exactly. I'd also like to mention that sometimes physical media (new, not used!) can be cheaper than downloading audio files of lesser quality from iTunes. I might start thinking about abandoning my superdrive once Apple starts offering lossless files. Until then, it's CDs and Blu-Rays all the way.
That, and external hard drives don't look as good as a nice CD shelf.
Yeah... I'm going to put all my personal stuff in the iCloud and stream it down at DSL speeds. And of course, I'm going to ignore the fact that since I didn't actually sign a lease agreement with the Cloud that once it goes inot somebody else's terabyte drive that it no longer belongs to me.
Yeah, I'm going to wait for the stuff to come back to me at 150 kb/sec DSL speeds. heck I can't even DL Lion for less than about 14 hours.
And since all my stuff is in the cloud, now anyone including the Feds has access to everything I write and say and do.
Heck, as far as I'm concerned the iCloud is like a MacDefender. It only infects my machine if I let it.
Why can no one see these horrendous unsolved privacy issues even beyond the very idea that only 23% of the population in the US actually has enough bandwidth to get in and out of the cloud easily?
Yeah, I'm going to wait for the stuff to come back to me at 150 kb/sec DSL speeds. heck I can't even DL Lion for less than about 14 hours.
And since all my stuff is in the cloud, now anyone including the Feds has access to everything I write and say and do.
Heck, as far as I'm concerned the iCloud is like a MacDefender. It only infects my machine if I let it.
Why can no one see these horrendous unsolved privacy issues even beyond the very idea that only 23% of the population in the US actually has enough bandwidth to get in and out of the cloud easily?
Couldn't agree more. My download speeds tend to be decent (though uploads take friggin' ages), but I don't want to let my data go anywhere near the damn iCloud or any other type of cloud because it's my personal data and sticking it all on some server somewhere, which will certainly be a target for hackers, is a fundamentally stupid idea, especially since you don't even know how those servers are run - is data stored on Apple's iCloud servers encrypted, for example? And is anything actually deleted, or is it all archived?
At the end of the day, you don't have any control whatsoever over your own data, a multibillion dollar corporation does, but they're always trustworthy aren't they?
Not to mention that if someone gets your Apple ID password they have access to ALL of your data. And they don't even have two-step verification.
Couldn't agree more. My download speeds tend to be decent (though uploads take friggin' ages), but I don't want to let my data go anywhere near the damn iCloud or any other type of cloud because it's my personal data and sticking it all on some server somewhere, which will certainly be a target for hackers, is a fundamentally stupid idea, especially since you don't even know how those servers are run - is data stored on Apple's iCloud servers encrypted, for example? And is anything actually deleted, or is it all archived?
At the end of the day, you don't have any control whatsoever over your own data, a multibillion dollar corporation does, but they're always trustworthy aren't they?
Not to mention that if someone gets your Apple ID password they have access to ALL of your data. And they don't even have two-step verification.
I guess the solution to all of this will be making the Apple ID system more like a banking system, in terms of how its set up and the security. Except this is still harder because we're talking about actual digital data, not just digital data representing physical wealth.
At the end of the day, you don't have any control whatsoever over your own data, a multibillion dollar corporation does, but they're always trustworthy aren't they?
Yup, we've all seen in the past few months how secure our data can be. I don't want anyone getting hold of my files. There are work documents that are bound with NDA's and other such serious stuff, there are personal/family files and photos that I've scanned over the years that I can't risk losing.
Plus I don't want Apple anywhere near my files. I can just imagine some clauses in the T&C allowing them to browse through files for keywords that they can sell/use for personalised advertising.
Nah. My files are happy with me and on a mirror backup drive on the other side of the house.
One aspect (not sure if already covered) is heirs, transfer to someone else.
It's easy to pass on book, CD etc to someone else. Not sure if all the money we spend on our iTunes library will ever be possible to be legally transferred.
I know we don't own the music we buy and have only a license to use. But having it on CD would be easier.
It's easy to pass on book, CD etc to someone else. Not sure if all the money we spend on our iTunes library will ever be possible to be legally transferred.
I know we don't own the music we buy and have only a license to use. But having it on CD would be easier.
I still buy CDs every now and again, since buying the CD on amazon is often cheaper than downloading it on iTunes. As a result I probably use my superdrive a couple of times a month.
That said, I am all for the removal of optical drives from the MacBook line, as it takes up considerable internal space - space that could be used to double the size of the battery, or allow sufficient cooling for a quad core processor and decent discrete graphics in the 13" pro.
Apple is great when it comes to economising space; I don't think you will find a laptop with an optical drive that is thinner than the MBP. The optical drive is the limiting component that prevents MBPs in their current form from becoming any thinner.
I think the external superdrive is the answer. Yes, I do occasionally need to use my optical drive, but do I need it when I'm out and about? No, never. To me the optical drive is like a printer or scanner - you need one, but it lives at home, and you certainly wouldn't want to carry it around with you all the time.
For me, a computer lasts 2-3 years. My use of optical media is declining such that I currently wouldn't want to buy a new laptop with an optical drive, thus committing myself to years of lugging a thicker, heavier, less powerful computer around with me, since I may not be using discs at all in a year or so. I will be disappointed if the next round of 13" MBPs come with built-in optical drives.
TL;DR version: Remove optical drives from MacBooks but keep selling the external superdrive.
That said, I am all for the removal of optical drives from the MacBook line, as it takes up considerable internal space - space that could be used to double the size of the battery, or allow sufficient cooling for a quad core processor and decent discrete graphics in the 13" pro.
Apple is great when it comes to economising space; I don't think you will find a laptop with an optical drive that is thinner than the MBP. The optical drive is the limiting component that prevents MBPs in their current form from becoming any thinner.
I think the external superdrive is the answer. Yes, I do occasionally need to use my optical drive, but do I need it when I'm out and about? No, never. To me the optical drive is like a printer or scanner - you need one, but it lives at home, and you certainly wouldn't want to carry it around with you all the time.
For me, a computer lasts 2-3 years. My use of optical media is declining such that I currently wouldn't want to buy a new laptop with an optical drive, thus committing myself to years of lugging a thicker, heavier, less powerful computer around with me, since I may not be using discs at all in a year or so. I will be disappointed if the next round of 13" MBPs come with built-in optical drives.
TL;DR version: Remove optical drives from MacBooks but keep selling the external superdrive.
It makes sense for Apple to take out the "internal" drive. The MBP will be so much better using that physical space for other stuff. Much rather have a faster performing external drive for the iMac. They didn't want to do Blu-Ray anyways.
Physical media will still be a choice if you want it.
Physical media will still be a choice if you want it.
Looks like i'll be keeping my 2008 aluminum macbook for longer than i thought. I upgraded the ram to 4gb when i got it, put in a faster 320gb HDD, and now installed lion. I was going to upgrade for the next case redesign, but if that doesn't include an optical drive I'm not sure it's worth the downgrade from what i have.
Google accounts can be set up with two-step verification if the user requires it. This sends a code to your phone which you require, along with your password, to log into your account. So unless someone steals your phone and knows your password, they'll have a very hard time breaking into your Google account. Apple should at least implement a system like this if they insist on their users keeping their data on their Apple accounts.
Of course, this would be useless if hackers break into Apple's server farms, but it keeps users' individual accounts further protected against keyloggers, phishing, brute force attacks, etc.
Couldn't agree more.
I think apple is thinking users aren't too concerned about quality. You can get acceptable quality @ 500MB an hour if you use x264, 1024kb/s video and 128kb/s audio. Even better quality @ 1GB an hour with x264, 2132kb/s video and 128kb/s audio. The latter should approach DVD quality to the naked eye. A DVD is about 5000-6500kb/s video, and x264 is at least twice as efficient as MPEG-2, which is a fairly pathetic codec. Considering the low tastes consumers have, 1GB an hour is enough allotment that most users will never know the difference between DVD and computer downloaded video.
1GB of video can be downloaded in 22 minutes on a 6mbps connection, 15 minutes on a 10mbps connection, 30 minutes on a 5mbps connection, and 45min on a 3mbps connection. These are all fairly standard speeds and almost all USA consumers have at least 3mbps available to them, even if they're not subscribing to that tier. The vast majority also have at least 5mbps available to them, usually through cable, sometimes through ADSL, VDSL or even fixed wireless. Apple is probably wagering the benefits of new content will convince people to upgrade to the 3mbps or faster tiers, ideally 5, 6, 10 or 12 mbps.
Edit: I would also like to mention it doesn't have to be "10 minutes". In most places it takes you a minimum 20 minutes to go to a video store that has a decent selection, buy or rent a movie, and come back, and that's if you live within 8 minutes, and can get in & out quickly. A more realistic time is 35 minutes. Considering that you can't go to the video store "in the background" while you do something else, unless that something is driving/going somewhere else, anywhere up to 90 minutes or for some people even two hours per movie download is fine, especially since you can typically start streaming about 5-10minutes in if you want to watch "right now". With a 6mbps connection, you can batch download 20 hours of 1GB per hour movies per night while you sleep, or stream up to about a 4-5mbps movie "live".
1GB of video can be downloaded in 22 minutes on a 6mbps connection, 15 minutes on a 10mbps connection, 30 minutes on a 5mbps connection, and 45min on a 3mbps connection. These are all fairly standard speeds and almost all USA consumers have at least 3mbps available to them, even if they're not subscribing to that tier. The vast majority also have at least 5mbps available to them, usually through cable, sometimes through ADSL, VDSL or even fixed wireless. Apple is probably wagering the benefits of new content will convince people to upgrade to the 3mbps or faster tiers, ideally 5, 6, 10 or 12 mbps.
Edit: I would also like to mention it doesn't have to be "10 minutes". In most places it takes you a minimum 20 minutes to go to a video store that has a decent selection, buy or rent a movie, and come back, and that's if you live within 8 minutes, and can get in & out quickly. A more realistic time is 35 minutes. Considering that you can't go to the video store "in the background" while you do something else, unless that something is driving/going somewhere else, anywhere up to 90 minutes or for some people even two hours per movie download is fine, especially since you can typically start streaming about 5-10minutes in if you want to watch "right now". With a 6mbps connection, you can batch download 20 hours of 1GB per hour movies per night while you sleep, or stream up to about a 4-5mbps movie "live".
Last edited:
I think that I can accept that physical media is becoming less relevant for personal consumption, but still has a place for personal distribution and sharing.
For example, I've always been a believer that buying an album on CD is better than buying the online version (because you get a physical media backup, an album liner, etc.) However, looking back on the last year, I've noticed that I've actually started to buy more albums digitally from iTunes than physical discs. Also, since I purchased an Apple TV, I've started to use it more and more for watching streamed media, Netflix, and even iTunes movie rentals. My PS3 serves as my primary Blu-Ray disc player and I've noticed that I haven't even turned it on since that whole Sony security fiasco a few months ago. That's how little I use physical media these days.
I've started using Dropbox to sync files between my different devices and also between friends who need to use the same files. It's pretty seamless and great, and I can definitely see using cloud services to access important files from anywhere.
On the other hand, when I want to share media with friends -- for example, a vacation slideshow -- there is still a time and a place for burning DVDs full of slide shows and movie clips. Yes, you can put them on YouTube or Flickr but it's still not as easy to publish, and for someone non-computer-savvy like my mother, she can handle popping a disc into her DVD player but forget about asking her to do anything more complex!
In my particular case I also volunteer with a charity that sells DVD slideshows as part of its fundraising effort. It costs us about $2 to package up and mail a polished looking DVD (made in iDVD). I think it'll be a few years yet before people ask for something wholly different.
For example, I've always been a believer that buying an album on CD is better than buying the online version (because you get a physical media backup, an album liner, etc.) However, looking back on the last year, I've noticed that I've actually started to buy more albums digitally from iTunes than physical discs. Also, since I purchased an Apple TV, I've started to use it more and more for watching streamed media, Netflix, and even iTunes movie rentals. My PS3 serves as my primary Blu-Ray disc player and I've noticed that I haven't even turned it on since that whole Sony security fiasco a few months ago. That's how little I use physical media these days.
I've started using Dropbox to sync files between my different devices and also between friends who need to use the same files. It's pretty seamless and great, and I can definitely see using cloud services to access important files from anywhere.
On the other hand, when I want to share media with friends -- for example, a vacation slideshow -- there is still a time and a place for burning DVDs full of slide shows and movie clips. Yes, you can put them on YouTube or Flickr but it's still not as easy to publish, and for someone non-computer-savvy like my mother, she can handle popping a disc into her DVD player but forget about asking her to do anything more complex!
In my particular case I also volunteer with a charity that sells DVD slideshows as part of its fundraising effort. It costs us about $2 to package up and mail a polished looking DVD (made in iDVD). I think it'll be a few years yet before people ask for something wholly different.
Of course it'll work. Half a gigabyte is a very viable download. If you don't have a computer at home, you don't get the video. How many good parents send a kid to middle school without a computer anyway?
For you, perhaps. We're not interested in uploading half a gig of video to pay the bandwidth charges for everyone who downloads it.
Nice gift then, huh?
The schools in her district won't allow kids to bring a computer to school even if they have one. And many of them can't afford one. Many who are lucky enough to have a computer at home have one of the district's old hand-me-downs. Very few have broadband access.
I don't know what your background is, but not everybody comes from one like it.