Originally Posted by Cory Bauer
disingenuous. It's not packaged as "DVD + Blu-ray". The disc is packaged with a big-ass blu-ray logo on it; people without a blu-ray player aren't going to look at it long enough to realize it also includes a DVD. Instead, they're going to reach for the one labeled "DVD". And the only way the sales figures could be higher than 40% were if more people had blu-ray players. It's not just the higher end audio-visual consumers who buy movies you know.
I didn't mean to be.
You are correct that not just higher end audio-visual consumers buy movies, but the specific example given was the movie Avatar. Can you honestly tell me that this particular movie doesn't appeal to the techy-type more than the average Joe? Can you honestly tell me that the techy-type is less likely to have a high end HD setup than the average Joe?
A more accurate movie to give numbers for would be perhaps The Hurt Locker
. This movie is sold as DVD or Blu-Ray only, there is no combination pack that I have seen. Also, this movie would appeal to a much more diverse audience then Avatar.
And you might very well be correct that the 40% is a hard limit due to the availability of Blu-Ray players. I don't know. I am just saying that Avatar is not a very good example to use for several reasons.
Originally Posted by Dlux
Even if that were the case (and I really doubt today's machines couldn't handle it) it would only be true while playing a BD disc.
Meanwhile, Flash is a known resource hog on the Mac yet we manage to shut it off (Click-to-Flash) when not desired.
From everything that I have seen, that is the case. Even Bill Gates commented about the cost of the DRM on Blu-Ray.
As for not being able to handle it. That isn't the point. Of course, they can handle it. However, each processor cycle isn't free. It takes power for each process ran. That power draw has to come from somewhere. On a desktop it equates to a very minimal extra electric cost, not enough to even mention. On a portable it equates to shorter battery life. Something that is very noticeable.
As for the computational cost only occurring while the Blu-Ray is playing. Are you sure about that? Because it seems to me that there has to at least be a check at numerous, numerous levels regarding whether a Blu-Ray disc is playing or not.
The conditional statements do not go away just because you aren't playing a movie. So, I am having a hard time seeing how it would only have an impact when a movie is playing. I can see that the impact could be higher when a movie is playing, but nothing is free.
What does disabling a browser plug-in have to do with disabling something that would have to be built into several layers of the OS? That isn't even close to being the same thing.
Originally Posted by Dlux
Fine. Don't include it in laptops. But offer it as BTO in the desktop machines, at an added cost (in case that wasn't obvious) for those who are willing to pay for it.
It's not a technological challenge - it's a an artificial marketing decision to not do so.
That would mean that Apple would have to have two separate OSes. One for laptops and one for desktops. That means two sets of code to maintain and debug. That means engineering resources that are spent.
You are right that it really isn't a technological challenge. You are completely wrong that it is a marketing decision. It is a business decision. It is called return on investment.
Supporting Blu-Ray will cost Apple something.
Playing devil's advocate, let's assume for a second your contention that there is no technology drawbacks to incorporating Blu-Ray. It would still cost money to implement. You contend that Apple could then pass that cost on to the final user.
So, here is the situation. Apple has to weigh the return on this investment.
It has to do a major rework on its OS, that cost money. Support this separate OS, that cost money. Buy the Blu-Ray players, that cost money.
Then it has to weigh how much a consumer would be be willing to pay for Blu-Ray?
Would they expect it to only cost as much as Dell or HP charged, despite the fact that these companies do not have to pay for the software side of the Blu-Ray deal? Would they REALLY be more likely to buy an iMac with an "overpriced" Blu-Ray player or would they still buy the PC with the Blu-Ray player and come to this site and complain about how greedy Apple is for charging such exorbitant prices for Blu-Ray?
So, they can't even expect to grab all of the very small group clamoring for Blu-Ray players in a computer. How big is that market? Let's say that Blu-Ray has a ten year life span before the next big thing comes along and displaces it. Could Apple concievably make back the money that they spent on Blu-Ray? Could they in twenty? Will Blu-Ray still be around by that point?
How long until the majority of customers at that time have 1Gbps fiber to the home and be capable of downloading an entire HD movie in under seven minutes?
My point is that it is not as simple as many on this forum are making it out to be. There is a lot more to consider here than some simplistic marketing scheme. There are technological and real cost associated with implementing Blu-Ray and it isn't as cut and dry as simply saying pass it on to the customer. You might be willing to pay that premium, but how many others wouldn't? Would there be enough people like you to justify the expenditure?
Given the fact that Apple still isn't offering Blu-Ray. I would say that the answer is no. Likely, it isn't even a close call. The number of customers who fit into the category of Blu-Ray watchers, who want to watch on a computer, and are willing to pay a premium to watch on a Mac, likely isn't very big.