or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Blu-ray chairman disagrees with Apple chief's assessment of format
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Blu-ray chairman disagrees with Apple chief's assessment of format - Page 4

post #121 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post

Holy balls! You're not supended or banned yet?

He is one of the cadre of domesticated trolls that are pastured here to meet diversity requirements!

On subject, Blu-Ray is not a data format it is a content delivery format, and as such, carries higher than usual licensing fees, and other liabilities, etc. More importantly, given the rapidity of development in the storage media space, Apple was probably willing to take a pass on the optical format in lieu of a more forward-looking format yet to be publically announced and out where SJ is most comfortable with in terms of actually putting something in the case. The rest is easy - buy an external BR drive and be done with it. Yes, yes we know it isn't as fast on the connector buss either USB or Firewire, but at least you have it when you need it.

Remember the primary reason you have a new format is so the media chains can resell you content you already own, not because it is incrementally better (which it, of course, is) in terms of content delivery. Given that most movies are watched maybe a dozen times by the average consumer in the course of their media lifespan, and then end up simply taking up space either physical or digital and languishing there, this is rather silly. For example I have friends who still have laser discs and have bought multiple players in order to have replacement parts for their devices, there was a cutting edge technology that was revolutionary and well, didn't last very long. The thing BR has going for it in the consumer's perception is that it looks like a nicer DVD, with a better picture and sound which means it is enjoying better uptake than laser disc did. The question to ask would be not whether it is a better content delivery system, but whether it is a better data storage medium, and not just in terms of capacity.
post #122 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post

Holy balls! You're not supended or banned yet?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

Count me as one of those people. I would definitely have bought a 27" iMac last year if it had at least come with a BTO option for a Blu-ray drive.

Not, I THINK I am, or I THINK I should be, or even most of my friend think like I do - but ARE you?

This is where Apple targets - is that swell in the market, where price matters, but quality matters as well. Are your uses, perceived needs, wants and preferences completely in line with the average consumer (AC) or are your needs skewed into a more niche grouping in this case? That is the critical question, and one which Apple has obviously asked, and as indicated here, answered for themselves. Have they lost sales to you and your ilk, perhaps so. But the rationale for any design or equipment decision is based on the criteria that governs the saleability standards that a company sets for itself. Obviously Apple's market analysis has demonstrated that they do not need to do this. And it therefore doesn't reall y matter what you or I or our friends think, want or desire, if it doesn't align with the metrics that Apple is using to deliver its platforms.

It is perhaps an act of most arrant foolishness to assume that the correspondants in these threads represent anything close to an average consumer target in most cases. And objections of "I'm really average (in my own eyes)" are rather silly, yes? So your objections are of course valid from your needs set, but it is your needs set that are in question, not Apple's.
post #123 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

Be sure you're viewing these images at 100% on your 1920x1080 display to get the full effect: This is DVD, and this is Blu-Ray. If you saw the world the way DVD looks, the optometrist would give you corrective lenses. Regarding cost, the DVD will run you $19.99 and the Blu-Ray will run you...$19.99. You're flushing money down the toilet if you're still buying DVDs when you can get 6x the picture quality for usually the same price.

I looked at the DVD and Blu Ray images. The DVD image, a low vision person here, is sort of blurry, and the Blu Ray a little crisper. I suppose if my Mac was hooked up to a huge screen it would make a difference. If that is a good demonstration of Blu Ray versus DVD, count me out. The difference (for me) is marginal.

I do see the world in a constantly blurry state, with or without glasses. Guess I have DVD eyes.
post #124 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysBlackmore View Post

Not, I THINK I am, or I THINK I should be, or even most of my friend think like I do - but ARE you?

This is where Apple targets - is that swell in the market, where price matters, but quality matters as well. Are your uses, perceived needs, wants and preferences completely in line with the average consumer (AC) or are your needs skewed into a more niche grouping in this case? That is the critical question, and one which Apple has obviously asked, and as indicated here, answered for themselves. Have they lost sales to you and your ilk, perhaps so. But the rationale for any design or equipment decision is based on the criteria that governs the saleability standards that a company sets for itself. Obviously Apple's market analysis has demonstrated that they do not need to do this. And it therefore doesn't reall y matter what you or I or our friends think, want or desire, if it doesn't align with the metrics that Apple is using to deliver its platforms.

It is perhaps an act of most arrant foolishness to assume that the correspondants in these threads represent anything close to an average consumer target in most cases. And objections of "I'm really average (in my own eyes)" are rather silly, yes? So your objections are of course valid from your needs set, but it is your needs set that are in question, not Apple's.

I never claimed or insisted that I was the core of Apple's market. If you read one of my earlier comments in this thread, you would know that. I also never claimed that the correspondents in these threads represented any thing close to the average consumer target. All I did was agree with another commenter's statement. No need for your dissertation. I'm well aware of what drives Apple and I'm not diluting myself thinking that they would cater to little ol' me. I've come to terms with the whole Apple blu-ray situation and it is what is. BTW, I don't recall ever claiming I was "average". My arguments in this thread became a bit off-topic perhaps as I was arguing more for the benefits of blu-ray in general and not to so much with respect to Apple and it's products.
post #125 of 219
Setting aside the usual arguments herein that involve the statements:

"For me..."
"I think..."
"Me and my friends think..."
"The average consumer is a blind deaf moron paying too much for content..."

and so forth.

Let's look at the reported numbers:

4th quarter last year (2009) according to Harris Interactive, only 7% of US households own and use Blu-ray players. Of those Sony's Playstation Blu-ray drive counts considerable into that existing uptake, but are not considered dedicated blu-ray devices and their count towards market penetration is mitigated by the primary purchase purpose for gaming not blu-ray use.

Digital downloads (sources Sony Playstation Store, XBox Live, iTunes, Netflix, Amazon, etc.) have grown to roughly $1 billion per year compared to $400 million for Blu-ray.

Strategic Analytics has predicted, based on current trends that digital downloads will reach the $3.8 billion mark in the next year, compared to predicted sales of $968 million for blu-ray.

Finally, stop and consider the environmental impact of the continued use of optical technologies. The US EPA estimated 5 years ago that over 100,000 lbs of optical media was hitting landfills every month in the US. Blu-ray continues to feed this impact, in spite of other more reuseable technologies like securable SD cards and of course that much maligned digital download.

It's OK to like the quality that Blu-ray delivers, but don't argue that because YOU like it and think it is better in every way, that it is clearly the winner and should instantly be adopted by every right-thinking human being, and that anyone who doesn't accept this position is a deaf, and blind moron who OBVIOUSLY can't perceive the difference and therefore is not entitled to express an opinion. Apparently, the uptake in the market is not what it should be, and until it is (or is replaced by another more environmentally-friendly format) it is sensible for a company like Apple to play wait-and-see on it.
post #126 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

I never claimed or insisted that I was the core of Apple's market. If you read one of my earlier comments in this thread, you would know that. I also never claimed that the correspondents in these threads represented any thing close to the average consumer target. All I did was agree with another commenter's statement. No need for your dissertation. I'm well aware of what drives Apple and I'm not diluting myself thinking that they would cater to little ol' me. I've come to terms with the whole Apple blu-ray situation and it is what is. BTW, I don't recall ever claiming I was "average". My arguments in this thread became a bit off-topic perhaps as I was arguing more for the benefits of blu-ray in general and not to so much with respect to Apple and it's products.


Rob55, I excerpted one small quote in the entire gamut of your postings (all of which I read incidentally) along with another so I am concerned that you react as if I have somehow singled you out for a wordy drubbing - which of course I have not. Your line was quoted as it exemplified the overall tone of the example I cited. I don't know you, and wouldn't be in a position to say definitively whether you believed that you are average, or whether you are deluding yourself. The only part of the "dissertation" as you so charitable put it that applies to you, is just that which (if any at all) in fact does.

I apologize if using that one solitary line from your comments has made you uncomfortable or made you feel defensive - that was not my intent.
post #127 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysBlackmore View Post

Digital downloads (sources Sony Playstation Store, XBox Live, iTunes, Netflix, Amazon, etc.) have grown to roughly $1 billion per year compared to $400 million for Blu-ray.

Are you comparing digital downloads of music and movies to what primarily amounts to sales of just movies on blu-ray? Seems to me that Amazon and iTunes sell quite a bit of music via digital downloads.
post #128 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by WPLJ42 View Post

I looked at the DVD and Blu Ray images. The DVD image, a low vision person here, is sort of blurry, and the Blu Ray a little crisper. I suppose if my Mac was hooked up to a huge screen it would make a difference. If that is a good demonstration of Blu Ray versus DVD, count me out. The difference (for me) is marginal.

I do see the world in a constantly blurry state, with or without glasses. Guess I have DVD eyes.

If you have poor eyesight, then yes blu-ray is pointless for you.
post #129 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

Are you comparing digital downloads of music and movies to what primarily amounts to sales of just movies on blu-ray? Seems to me that Amazon and iTunes sell quite a bit of music via digital downloads.

both Strategic Analytics and FutureSource cite specifically digital video downloads as compared to other content, so I imagine that they are being accurate in this case unless you have other evidence that effectively challenges their metrics analysis.
post #130 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysBlackmore View Post

Rob55, I excerpted one small quote in the entire gamut of your postings (all of which I read incidentally) along with another so I am concerned that you react as if I have somehow singled you out for a wordy drubbing - which of course I have not. Your line was quoted as it exemplified the overall tone of the example I cited. I don't know you, and wouldn't be in a position to say definitively whether you believed that you are average, or whether you are deluding yourself. The only part of the "dissertation" as you so charitable put it that applies to you, is just that which (if any at all) in fact does.

I apologize if using that one solitary line from your comments has made you uncomfortable or made you feel defensive - that was not my intent.

Read post 100 again. I disagree that it exemplified the overall tone of the example. All Dlux said was that he knew of 5 people who held off on buying new Macs in the hopes of seeing a blu-ray offering from Apple. I agreed simply because I did not buy a new iMac last September when they we introduced. Nothing more, nothing less. That somehow turned into me having to examine my "needs set". So to say that my quote exemplified the things you described in your post was perhaps a bit less than accurate. My intention was not to sit there and whine about why Apple hasn't introduced a blu-ray equipped Mac yet (I stopped doing that last year ). If that's how you took it or understood it, then yes, I can understand where you were coming from, but now you know that was not the case. Peace.
post #131 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

If you have poor eyesight, then yes blu-ray is pointless for you.

Cory, adding further to our collective distress over not being able to embrace the glorious loveliness that is Blu-ray a report from 2008 reported in Reuters:

Quote:
Half of all Americans have some sort of vision problem, most of them myopia or astigmatism, U.S. researchers reported on Monday.

This is far higher than previous estimates, the team at the National Eye Institute reported in the Archives of Ophthalmology.

"Clinically important refractive error affects half of the U.S. population 20 years or older," wrote Susan Vitale and colleagues at the institute, one of the U.S. government's National Institutes of Health.

More than 33 percent were nearsighted and 36 percent had astigmatism, which causes fuzzy vision, the team reported. Another 3.6 percent were farsighted, meaning they can see at a distance but not up close.

So fully one half of the potential US market has no chance to remark upon the evident quality of Blu-ray, or can in fact appreciate it (at least without some considerable correction).
post #132 of 219
I cannot help but find this comment offensive:
"The average consumer is a blind deaf moron paying too much for content..."
For a person like myself, Blu Ray is pretty much useless. I can barely see a difference. I really don't care if Apple does or doesn't add Blu Ray drives to their computers. Steve is just now getting around to HDMI. If you just have to use all this HDTV technology, I suggest getting a PC. The OS supports it, and a growing number of hardware makers support it.
post #133 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysBlackmore View Post

Digital downloads (sources Sony Playstation Store, XBox Live, iTunes, Netflix, Amazon, etc.) have grown to roughly $1 billion per year compared to $400 million for Blu-ray.

Where are you getting your figures? Blu-ray sales account for $331 million in Q1 of 2010 alone. And your digital downloads figure is likely a combination of rentals and sales, and possibly even game add-on content and music.
post #134 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysBlackmore View Post

both Strategic Analytics and FutureSource cite specifically digital video downloads as compared to other content, so I imagine that they are being accurate in this case unless you have other evidence that effectively challenges their metrics analysis.

Listen, I have nothing against digital downloads and I'm all for doing my part to help the environment. What I do have issue with is the quality of digital video downloads. As I mentioned earlier, why would a want the iTunes HD-lite version of a film when, in many instances, I can get the blu-ray for the same price or slightly more and have better quality? As for your figures, I asked for clarification and you provided it.
post #135 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

Read post 100 again. I disagree that it exemplified the overall tone of the example. All Dlux said was that he knew of 5 people who held off on buying new Macs in the hopes of seeing a blu-ray offering from Apple. I agreed simply because I did not buy a new iMac last September when they we introduced. Nothing more, nothing less. That somehow turned into me having to examine my "needs set". So to say that my quote exemplified the things you described in your post was perhaps a bit less than accurate. My intention was not to sit there and whine about why Apple hasn't introduced a blu-ray equipped Mac yet (I stopped doing that last year ). If that's how you took it or understood it, then yes, I can understand where you were coming from, but now you know that was not the case. Peace.

Again, let me emphasize that my use of your line was NOT directed specifically at you with which misapprehension you seem to continue. It was an exemplar of a more pervasive and consistent meme that is carried well into many other threads herein. In fact it is consistently brought into the threads every time Blu-ray is mentioned. And that you took my "needs set" comment personally is as unfortunate as it was unintentional on my part. Again, this was only about "you" where it in fact applies - if indeed anywhere at all. I accept your "Peace" and return a friendly Namaste!
post #136 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysBlackmore View Post

So fully one half of the potential US market has no chance to remark upon the evident quality of Blu-ray, or can in fact appreciate it (at least without some considerable correction).

Actually, that's misleading. In the U.S., vision care is common and a large percentage of people with below-average vision have it corrected with glasses or contacts (or Lasik, for that matter). The fact that half of Americans have below average vision (which, other than the difference between mode and mean, is a tautology) doesn't mean they can't benefit from better video.

I have well below average vision uncorrected, but it's actually slightly better than 20:20 corrected. So you can't blame my vision on the fact that I don't see an overwhelming difference between BD and DVD. Sure, there's a difference, but it's not that big a deal compared to previous technology leaps (radio -> tv, b/w TV -> color TV, over-the-air TV -> cable (at least in rural areas), VHS -> DVD). It's not that big a deal. Even something like Avatar isn't that big a deal. BD just doesn't change the overall enjoyment of the movie in any real way.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #137 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysBlackmore View Post

Finally, stop and consider the environmental impact of the continued use of optical technologies. The US EPA estimated 5 years ago that over 100,000 lbs of optical media was hitting landfills every month in the US. Blu-ray continues to feed this impact, in spite of other more reuseable technologies like securable SD cards and of course that much maligned digital download.

Environmental Impacts of Data Centers.

Quote:
The United States' Environmental Protection Agency issued a report to Congress in 2007 found that showed that U.S. Data Centers consumed 61 billion kilowatt-hours of energy, costing approximately $4.5 billion, which is the equivalent electricity consumption of about 5.8 million households. If the current trends continue, by 2011 U.S. Data Centers will consume 100 kilowatt-hours of energy and require the additional construction of 10 power plants. Worldwide, the increase of servers since 2000 has translated into 14 new power plants to meet the energy requirements.
post #138 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

Where are you getting your figures? Blu-ray sales account for $331 million in Q1 of 2010 alone. And your digital downloads figure is likely a combination of rentals and sales, and possibly even game add-on content and music.

but misplaced. The sources were cited in my post: Strategic Analytics and FutureSource among others. The video games and music dowloads were broken out as separate delivery populations wherever I checked.

I am personally fine with whatever format is your pleasure, but do not assume that because numbers do not meet your desires, or that reported numbers conflict depend on source that I have any skin in this game whatsoever. My only chief concern is that the head of the organization that has a vested interest in the success of Blu-ray reports numbers that do not completely jive with numbers reported by other sources. I am a jaded cynic, and whether I think blu-ray delivers a superior media experience has very little to do with whether I think that the statistics he reports are deliberately cast in the best possible light and do not maintain the highest possible data integrity.

As for your secondary post about power and data center impacts - is it your intent to say that the landfill issue is therefore unimportant because it sucks LESS? That is highly irresponsible and the numbers escalate rapidly as the dumping continues, yes? Power generation and it's impact can be mitigated, the generational half-life of the long-string hydrocarbons in the dump cannot.
post #139 of 219
We got a Blu-Ray player when we finally moved to HD TV. Now a year and a half later we've got, I think, a grand total of 3 Blu-Ray disks.

I'd far rather download a movie and the quality is more than satisfying. The doggone Blu-Ray player crapped out after 5 minutes and we had to go through an RMA, etc.. Searching online for troubleshooting of the player revealed an endless bog of firmware updating tricks and pitfalls with generally unsatisfying results. The player is "powered by Java!" Whoopee. The whole Blu-Ray ecosystem is rather half-baked if you ask me. Bottom line, there's no compelling reason to shop for physical disks and deal with balky players when you can simply get a movie online.
post #140 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysBlackmore View Post

but misplaced. The sources were cited in my post: Strategic Analytics and FutureSource among others. The video games and music dowloads were broken out as separate delivery populations wherever I checked.

I am personally fine with whatever format is your pleasure, but do not assume that because numbers do not meet your desires, or that reported numbers conflict depend on source that I have any skin in this game whatsoever. My only chief concern is that the head of the organization that has a vested interest in the success of Blu-ray reports numbers that do not completely jive with numbers reported by other sources. I am a jaded cynic, and whether I think blu-ray delivers a superior media experience has very little to do with whether I think that the statistics he reports are deliberately cast in the best possible light and do not maintain the highest possible data integrity.

Your numbers and sources don't add up. Your Harris Interactive source was called out for reporting more HD DVD player sales than Toshiba themselves reported. Your Strategic Analytics source has a nifty chart that puts blu-ray sales at $3.1 Billion globally for 2009, so how blu-ray could only account for the $400 Million annual sales that you reported I do not understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysBlackmore View Post

As for your secondary post about power and data center impacts - is it your intent to say that the landfill issue is therefore unimportant because it sucks LESS? That is highly irresponsible and the numbers escalate rapidly as the dumping continues, yes? Power generation and it's impact can be mitigated, the generational half-life of the long-string hydrocarbons in the dump cannot.

Just pointing out that digital distribution is by no means without environmental impact.
post #141 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysBlackmore View Post

Digital downloads (sources Sony Playstation Store, XBox Live, iTunes, Netflix, Amazon, etc.) have grown to roughly $1 billion per year compared to $400 million for Blu-ray.

Does this include SD and HD? If it includes SD, DVD's would have to be included into comparison. Oh yeah, the great thing about Blu-ray is not only do I get fantastic picture quality, all my current DVD's play on it too.
post #142 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysBlackmore View Post

but misplaced. The sources were cited in my post: Strategic Analytics and FutureSource among others. The video games and music dowloads were broken out as separate delivery populations wherever I checked.

I am personally fine with whatever format is your pleasure, but do not assume that because numbers do not meet your desires, or that reported numbers conflict depend on source that I have any skin in this game whatsoever. My only chief concern is that the head of the organization that has a vested interest in the success of Blu-ray reports numbers that do not completely jive with numbers reported by other sources. I am a jaded cynic, and whether I think blu-ray delivers a superior media experience has very little to do with whether I think that the statistics he reports are deliberately cast in the best possible light and do not maintain the highest possible data integrity.

As for your secondary post about power and data center impacts - is it your intent to say that the landfill issue is therefore unimportant because it sucks LESS? That is highly irresponsible and the numbers escalate rapidly as the dumping continues, yes? Power generation and it's impact can be mitigated, the generational half-life of the long-string hydrocarbons in the dump cannot.

So basically what your saying is that you like to be very aggressive/jackass/asshole against people with your posts and at the same time you don't want to admit that your sales figures are wrong making your main point in terms of sales moot and at the same time that your environment point is also essentially moot.
post #143 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt123 View Post

Does this include SD and HD? If it includes SD, DVD's would have to be included into comparison.

Bingo. Every digital distribution figure I've ever seen was a combination of SD and HD, rentals and sales, and yet that all-encompassing figure is what's always compared to Blu-Ray. This makes absolutely zero sense. Let's see how the digital HD sales figures compare to blu-ray's $331M from Q1 2010 alone. Oh wait, we can't because the figures are so low that no one will release them.
post #144 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I think you're overestimating the average consumer. I have Blu-Ray and while it's better than the average DVD (especially with upsampling), it's not like watching Hi-Def compared to 1960s Black and White. It's a very subtle difference - and if the movie's any good, you'll be watching the movie rather than examining pixels.

Considering your constant Apple praise, even when they have done something terrible means I can't really believe what you say in relation to other products.

There is a massive difference between blu-ray and DVD, and a large difference between blu-ray and upscaled DVD

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Second, it's all about compatibility. When I buy a movie, I'd like to be able to watch it on my TV, but also load it onto my iPad, my daughter's iPod, or play it on a portable DVD player or computer. Because of the cost and licensing restrictions of BD, that's not going to happen any time soon.

Compatibility? You have tried to play the compatibility card with blu-ray, and iTunes videos?

Let's see, I have purchased a video from iTunes, I would like to play it on non Apple hardware. What do you mean I can't? I have to purchase a computer, or Apple hardware to view it? Is Apple that greedy that they want to restrict the advancement of digital downloads by placing greedy, backward restrictions on the playback?

I can purchase a blu-ray player from a number of difference companies, I can purchase portable blu-ray players, I can purchase blu-ray drives for computers. The only one with restrictions is Apple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Bottom line is that the Blu-Ray consortium was greedy. Instead of pushing for rapid adoption and wide-spread sales, they decided to add onerous DRM and to set extremely high pricing - both of which slow adoption. The result is that BD doesn't drive the market they way they should at this stage in the cycle.

DRM? What are you talking about, the iTunes videos are full of DRM as well, more restrictive DRM than in Blu-ray.
post #145 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The problem, though, is that you're assuming that the cost of doing business is the same in the UK as in the US. You have very different laws and rules and it costs more to do business there. The prices reflect that.

Why does it cost the same to purchase a Mac from an Apple store in the UK as it does to purchase the same Mac purchased through the Apple Online store, you know the one, the one that is sold in Ireland and shipped from China to the UK.
post #146 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

Bingo. Every digital distribution figure I've ever seen was a combination of SD and HD, rentals and sales, and yet that all-encompassing figure is what's always compared to Blu-Ray. This makes absolutely zero sense. Let's see how the digital HD sales figures compare to blu-ray's $331M from Q1 2010 alone. Oh wait, we can't because the figures are so low that no one will release them.

I think what it comes down to is SJ doesn't think there is a payoff since the experience would be lackluster on Apple platforms and to some extent I agree with that. Viewing Blu-ray video on laptops and desktops are not my first choice and the audio experience is a disappointment to say the least. I'm lost on the licensing arguments since that's all wrapped up in the player. Content owners can choose not to use BD+ and region coding.

To those that don't see or hear the difference on your HT, the only thing I can recommend is make sure your listening to lossless and get your display calibrated. Detail due to better codecs and bandwidth, color-depth, and 6x the pixels over DVD and the content is non-interlaced on the disc. All goodness.

-Chris
post #147 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

My system is a couple of years old, but it was a top of the line 55" LCD projection system with LED lighting (Samsung, I think, but I don't remember). Connected directly to a same-brand Blu-Ray/DVD player with HDMI cable. Audio is a Sony amp with Infinity speakers all around. So just what am I doing wrong?

I would say it is your vision, go get your eyes checked.
post #148 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Really? Where?

Amazon.com, maybe you have heard of them?
post #149 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

Bingo. Every digital distribution figure I've ever seen was a combination of SD and HD, rentals and sales, and yet that all-encompassing figure is what's always compared to Blu-Ray. This makes absolutely zero sense. Let's see how the digital HD sales figures compare to blu-ray's $331M from Q1 2010 alone. Oh wait, we can't because the figures are so low that no one will release them.

You know, no matter which way we slice it, I think there will always (unfortunately) be a stigma attached to the blu-ray format. Those who were against it from day one will always feel that it undeservedly won the format war and those who were for it will always wonder how much more success it may have enjoyed had the whole format war never happened. Would we even be debating about whether Macs will ever get blu-ray drives or how soon digital downloads will be become the norm? The truth is, we'll never know. Back in reality, I'll continue to enjoy my movies on blu-ray until it's replaced by the next big thing, whatever that may be.
post #150 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post


I can purchase a blu-ray player from a number of difference companies, I can purchase portable blu-ray players, I can purchase blu-ray drives for computers. The only one with restrictions is Apple.

And I can loan my blu-rays to parents, siblings, cousins, uncles, friends, etc, who own players by Sony (not just the PS3), Pioneer, Samsung, Oppo, Panasonic and so on. I'm not such a fan of handing my iPod around for people to view.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post


DRM? What are you talking about, the iTunes videos are full of DRM as well, more restrictive DRM than in Blu-ray.

The DRM issue is an odd one. It's the content owners that want DRM. This is one item that kept content owners away from HD DVD. Small owners like FOX and Disney. . .

-Chris
post #151 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by mknopp View Post

It is more complicated than that. Not only does the hardware have to be specialized for Blu-Ray playback, but so does the operating system. From my understanding, there is a performance hit on the system related to simply building Blu-Ray playback into a computer's OS.

Yes this a known fact as for the OS support, but performance hit it purely guesswork, and until they release an OS with support for AACS then any ideas placed forward don't really count for anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mknopp View Post

Now, let's look at this from Apple's perspective.

If we are looking at it from Apple's perspective then the answer is much simpler. Apple is pushing for digital downloads, and Blu-ray is superior to digital downloads.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mknopp View Post

Support Blu-Ray:
Minuses
*Additional cost which either equates to higher prices or lower margins.
*Decreased performance due to required DRM demands
*Decreased battery life due to required DRM demands, even on systems that might not have Blu-Ray
*Increased complexity of OS code due to required DRM
*More people having access to proprietary OS code during validation that DRM has been properly implemented
*Longer time between OS updates as another, outside source must vet the new code to determine that no DRM bypasses are possible
*Increased time to require optical drives to support payback of investment in Blu-Ray
Pluses
*Might sell some more computers (although this is highly unlikely as the people who really want Blu-Ray on a computer also likely want HDMI. Which means more cost and development moving in a direction counter to the move to DisplayPort).

What proof do you have to any of these points you raise? None? You are pushing them to backup you points. For example, why would you have an increased performance hit on a machine without a blu-ray drive in it? How would this be any different to when Apple didn't install any DVD tools when there wasn't an Apple supplied DVD player in the machine?

Apple could bury the cost within their already high margins, or charge slightly more for blu-ray support (other companies do, why would it be bad for Apple to do this?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mknopp View Post

You could add onto that the very minimal loss in sales of movies through iTunes, but nobody in the know thinks that iTunes profits are anywhere high enough to lead business decisions. Even independent analyst have said that iTunes profits are marginal at best.

The loss of sales would be minor, for the likes of me, I have purchased next to nothing when it comes to iTunes movies, and since they sell SD movies for more than blu-ray prices I can't see this changing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mknopp View Post

At least that is my take on it. Personally, I am glad that Apple isn't messing with Blu-Ray. That is why I have a PS3.

Apples lack of blu-ray support is why I have two ps3's, I would have purchased a Mac with blu-ray, but Apple decided I should give my money to Sony instead.
post #152 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post

The DRM issue is an odd one. It's the content owners that want DRM. This is one item that kept content owners away from HD DVD. Small owners like FOX and Disney. . .

But iTunes videos have DRM in them, they are more restrictive as Apple only allows their hardware and iTunes for windows to play them
post #153 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by akhomerun View Post

Lack of Blu-ray hasn't stopped anyone from buying a Mac or any other computer.

It stopped me from getting a Mac, I would have purchased a Mini with blu-ray, but since Apple didn't want to sell me one I purchased a second PS3 instead.
post #154 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysBlackmore View Post

Digital downloads (sources Sony Playstation Store, XBox Live, iTunes, Netflix, Amazon, etc.) have grown to roughly $1 billion per year compared to $400 million for Blu-ray.

That was an old statistic, and an incorrect one. The majority of those download figures were actually VOD. Movie downloads are still a fraction of Blu-ray.
post #155 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysBlackmore View Post

So fully one half of the potential US market has no chance to remark upon the evident quality of Blu-ray, or can in fact appreciate it (at least without some considerable correction).

I have these vision issues you talk about, what I did was get glasses, it meant I could see properly while wearing them
post #156 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post

And I can loan my blu-rays to parents, siblings, cousins, uncles, friends, etc, who own players by Sony (not just the PS3), Pioneer, Samsung, Oppo, Panasonic and so on. I'm not such a fan of handing my iPod around for people to view.

Yes, also with Blu-ray you get the movie and the storage. For downloads you pay for the movie, then you pay for the hard drive storage, then you pay for another hard drive to back up the movies, then you get another hard drive and juggle between them when the drive is full. And on top of that, many movie download are more expensive than Blu-ray on Amazon. Thanks but no thanks.
post #157 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

But iTunes videos have DRM in them, they are more restrictive as Apple only allows their hardware and iTunes for windows to play them

Aye, i meant to sound like I was agreeing. I don't get bashing Blu-ray as a format when it was based in the needs of the studios who own the content and seek to protect it from misuse. I think people forget that DVD has encryption and region encoding but it's so easily cracked and software for (illegally) ripping is commonplace.

Is there the belief that those same studios are going to drop protections just because it's downloaded?
post #158 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

Bingo. Every digital distribution figure I've ever seen was a combination of SD and HD, rentals and sales, and yet that all-encompassing figure is what's always compared to Blu-Ray. This makes absolutely zero sense. Let's see how the digital HD sales figures compare to blu-ray's $331M from Q1 2010 alone. Oh wait, we can't because the figures are so low that no one will release them.

Because both are emergent technology that compete to replace DVD as the primary medium. As such both SD and HD digital downloads are considered together.

Arguing otherwise would be like saying that only high-fidelity lossless audio digitial downloads (essentially zero) should have been considered against DVD-A and SACD and not lossy 96 kbit MP3/AAC downloads. Digital downloads may not have totally replaced CDs but it sure did kill DVD-A and SACD as mainstream media.

The Q1 numbers from DEG are:

"The DEG also announced that Blu-ray Disc hardware sales experienced remarkable growth, with set-tops up an astounding 125 percent versus first quarter 2009. Additionally, digital distribution, which includes electronic sell-through (EST) and video-on-demand (VOD), grew a combined 27 percent to $617 million in the first quarter compared to the same period last year."

http://www.degonline.org/

(go to the press releases...the relevant one is dated 4/15/10)

Personally, I only buy either cheap BR discs or ones with Digital Copy included (largely the Disney ones). MOST of the time, viewing is done on a iPhone/iPod Touch and only occasionally on the BR on the big screen (100" FP). On the smaller LCD TV uprezed DVD or even the crappier SD digitial copy works fine for non-critical viewing.

I don't think the BR will go the way of DVDA/SACD but I do think that digital downloads will significantly limit BR to ultimately have less than half of the market.
post #159 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

That's hilarious. Have you ever seen a Blu-Ray movie? A minute (perhaps on older players, not on a PS3) wait for the menu to pop up is a small, small price to pay for 45mbit 1080p video with lossless audio.

Compare to a 5mbit 720p DD5.1 iTunes download. See the difference? I know I do.

Who said I used itunes vs 1080p who knows what mbit ps cause we all encode via CRF not a target bit rate.

Btw, I doubt you hear any diff with DD vs. lossless audio. No one ever complained about artifacts in it before.
post #160 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckh1272 View Post

Nice to see the advocacy of theft. Can we get that in writing?? The MPAA might be interested in your statements. BTW, I am joking but not.

Don't give a shit.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Blu-ray chairman disagrees with Apple chief's assessment of format