No, it is Apples lack of regard for a superior solution.
Blu-ray has had 100% year on year growth, and what greedy studios? New release Blu-Rays sell for under $20, the same price as the DVD in cases.
How are they charging too much? You can purchase the SD version of Harry Potter for example from Apple, US$14.99, I got the Blu-Ray from Amazon for the same price, and it included a blu-ray, DVD, and digital copy. Apart from TV shows alot of the new releases are around US$20
So what is this "reasonable level" of pricing that you want? After all, this is an Apple forum you are talking in.
No, Apple isn't supporting blu-ray because Jobs is pig headed, big difference.
Looked up what Inglorious Basterds would cost me and Blu-Ray comes in at around $30 in my market. That's too much even for a top-grade title. When Blu-Ray titles come in at around $20 for new releases, then we're getting somewhere.
Looked up what Inglorious Basterds would cost me and Blu-Ray comes in at around $30 in my market. That's too much even for a top-grade title. When Blu-Ray titles come in at around $20 for new releases, then we're getting somewhere.
It is US$21 at Amazon.com, or is $1 off your price too much? It is region free, just purchase from where you want.
It is US$21 at Amazon.com, or is $1 off your price too much? It is region free, just purchase from where you want.
It isn't about acquiring a copy of that particular movie at a particular price point. It's about the overall cost of comsuming movies if Blu-Ray is your media of choice. I've considered buying into Blu-Ray because hardware costs are very reasonable. Me, personally, I wouldn't be that averse to spending more to adapt early. When I bought my first DVD player, it set me back more than a grand and DVDs were costing around $40 Cdn. That machine, by the way, is sitting in a closet because it came out prior to recordable DVDs hitting the market, meaning it can't play anything but retail DVDs. Bought a $90 player to take its place.
In fact, having jumped on the HD-DVD band wagon early caused me to build up a decent library of hi-def titles at bargain prices. First I added HD-DVD to the XBox, paid $200 and got a couple of free movies. I did buy a few HD-DVD titles at premium prices but then HD-DVD collapsed and so I picked up a cheap player for $69 that also came with a few movies and spent around $170 for a Toshiba, that one likewise coming with a couple of movies. The best part was that then lots of HD-DVD titles appeared that were being sold off at $5 each. So now I have a good collection of HD-DVDs, three players, and in total spent significantly less than $1,000.
When I say that the cost of Blu-Ray discs is too high, it's not about what I personally am willing to pay. It's about what the average consumer is willing to pay and that consumer is used to getting his or her movie fix on the cheap. Legacy DVD titles are being sold in my part of the world for $5 a copy. You can rent a passable HD version of a recent release off of Apple for $6. You can subscribe to a premium movie service for less than $20 a month. Maybe upconverted DVDs are not really HD but they don't look bad viewed on a properly calibrated, decent grade monitor. Keep in mind that the vast, vast majority of consumers don't know and don't want to know about the subtle but real differences between Blu-Ray, cable, upconverted DVD, etc. They come home after a hard day at work, drop a movie in once the kids have been put to bed, and are not really focusing on the details. They're just watching a movie with their brains entering wind-down mode. I've come across more than a few people who thought DVDs (and not upconverted) fed to a hideously bad rear-projection big-screen constituted high definition. Others figured HD had arrived when DVDs started being upconverted.
Look at what happened in the audio space. While audiophiles debated the merits of SACD and DVD-A, the average consumer was running around downloading bootleg, badly encoded MP3s and later embracing files from Apple and the like. SACD and DVD-A are, as far as I know, are DOA. I went for a top-grade CD player instead and it's rather good at extracting quality out of a standard-issue CD.
Blu-Ray can do well but studios have to understand that it's time to dial down the greed.
Looked up what Inglorious Basterds would cost me and Blu-Ray comes in at around $30 in my market. That's too much even for a top-grade title. When Blu-Ray titles come in at around $20 for new releases, then we're getting somewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo
It isn't about acquiring a copy of that particular movie at a particular price point. It's about the overall cost of comsuming movies if Blu-Ray is your media of choice.
One minute you say Blu-Ray is too expensive, and you want the price lower, when I show you the lower price it suddenly becomes "it isn't about the price", I don't think you know what you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo
I've considered buying into Blu-Ray because hardware costs are very reasonable. Me, personally, I wouldn't be that averse to spending more to adapt early. When I bought my first DVD player, it set me back more than a grand and DVDs were costing around $40 Cdn. That machine, by the way, is sitting in a closet because it came out prior to recordable DVDs hitting the market, meaning it can't play anything but retail DVDs. Bought a $90 player to take its place.
Maybe you should have purchased a better brand, my original Pioneer still works and plays all discs. The Pioneer DV-LX50 I have now cost around NZ$500, lovely player, supports DVD-A, and SACD as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo
In fact, having jumped on the HD-DVD band wagon early caused me to build up a decent library of hi-def titles at bargain prices. First I added HD-DVD to the XBox, paid $200 and got a couple of free movies. I did buy a few HD-DVD titles at premium prices but then HD-DVD collapsed and so I picked up a cheap player for $69 that also came with a few movies and spent around $170 for a Toshiba, that one likewise coming with a couple of movies. The best part was that then lots of HD-DVD titles appeared that were being sold off at $5 each. So now I have a good collection of HD-DVDs, three players, and in total spent significantly less than $1,000.
So you purchased discs in a fire sale, and wish Blu-Rays were that price?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo
When I say that the cost of Blu-Ray discs is too high, it's not about what I personally am willing to pay. It's about what the average consumer is willing to pay and that consumer is used to getting his or her movie fix on the cheap. Legacy DVD titles are being sold in my part of the world for $5 a copy. You can rent a passable HD version of a recent release off of Apple for $6. You can subscribe to a premium movie service for less than $20 a month.
The magic word there is legacy, not new releases, but old ones. So you can purchase a five year old disc for $5, why should a new Blu-Ray be anywhere near the price of a five year old DVD? $6 to rent an HD movie from Apple? That is about NZ$8, I can walk to the video store and rent a new release Blu-Ray for NZ$4, no level of convenience is worth double the price to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo
Maybe upconverted DVDs are not really HD but they don't look bad viewed on a properly calibrated, decent grade monitor. Keep in mind that the vast, vast majority of consumers don't know and don't want to know about the subtle but real differences between Blu-Ray, cable, upconverted DVD, etc. They come home after a hard day at work, drop a movie in once the kids have been put to bed, and are not really focusing on the details. They're just watching a movie with their brains entering wind-down mode. I've come across more than a few people who thought DVDs (and not upconverted) fed to a hideously bad rear-projection big-screen constituted high definition. Others figured HD had arrived when DVDs started being upconverted.
That's fine, I don't care how people waste their money, I care how I waste mine. And if I am going purchase something, and if two versions are available, a lower quality and a high quality one for about the same price, I will purchase the high quality one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo
Look at what happened in the audio space. While audiophiles debated the merits of SACD and DVD-A, the average consumer was running around downloading bootleg, badly encoded MP3s and later embracing files from Apple and the like. SACD and DVD-A are, as far as I know, are DOA. I went for a top-grade CD player instead and it's rather good at extracting quality out of a standard-issue CD.
You can still purchase DVD-A, an SACD players, infact there is a number of new models of each available now, sure they don't sell in high volume, but neither does the AppleTV you need to rent those HD movies off Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo
Blu-Ray can do well but studios have to understand that it's time to dial down the greed.
Again, since new release Blu-Rays and DVDs are starting to be sold for the same price, where is this greed? Because if it is there, it is across all the media available (DVD, Blu-Ray, and downloads)
So of what use is a Blu-Ray drive on the mini server? sheesh
I can see the mini server as a great solution for small businesses. For hardware a second NIC would be great as then people could use the box for firewall/NAT applications. Not a must have, but would surely be welcome. In OS X server I'd like better GUI configuration options when dealing with DNS. Currently it is very spartan in its options. Also DHCP populating DNS would be nice for windows machines that don't play well with the .local thing.
I can only hope that there are a lot of sales of these servers minis so Apple can spend more resources working on their server software.
One minute you say Blu-Ray is too expensive, and you want the price lower, when I show you the lower price it suddenly becomes "it isn't about the price", I don't think you know what you want.
Maybe you should have purchased a better brand, my original Pioneer still works and plays all discs. The Pioneer DV-LX50 I have now cost around NZ$500, lovely player, supports DVD-A, and SACD as well.
So you purchased discs in a fire sale, and wish Blu-Rays were that price?
The magic word there is legacy, not new releases, but old ones. So you can purchase a five year old disc for $5, why should a new Blu-Ray be anywhere near the price of a five year old DVD? $6 to rent an HD movie from Apple? That is about NZ$8, I can walk to the video store and rent a new release Blu-Ray for NZ$4, no level of convenience is worth double the price to me.
That's fine, I don't care how people waste their money, I care how I waste mine. And if I am going purchase something, and if two versions are available, a lower quality and a high quality one for about the same price, I will purchase the high quality one.
You can still purchase DVD-A, an SACD players, infact there is a number of new models of each available now, sure they don't sell in high volume, but neither does the AppleTV you need to rent those HD movies off Apple.
Again, since new release Blu-Rays and DVDs are starting to be sold for the same price, where is this greed? Because if it is there, it is across all the media available (DVD, Blu-Ray, and downloads)
In Canada, Blu-Ray discs do not sell for the same price as DVDs. I guess you Americans do it another way.
Look, I haven't even come close to saying it isn't about the price so I have to conclude that you're not interested in what my views are. As such, I guess there's no basis for a discussion since whatever I post will be pretty much ignored in favour of something that bears no resemblance to the statements I'm making.
Besides, if you choose, for whatever reason, to deny the existence of a two-tier pricing system in which Blu-Ray discs cost more than DVDs, clearly we're dealing not with reality but some alternate construct, the logic of which is yours alone to decipher and by the way, you can rent movies directly via a computer without the need for additional hardware.
Besides, if you choose, for whatever reason, to deny the existence of a two-tier pricing system in which Blu-Ray discs cost more than DVDs, clearly we're dealing not with reality but some alternate construct, the logic of which is yours alone to decipher.
You are exactly correct. Blu-Ray discs generally do cost more than DVDs. There have been some very recent price reductions which, I suspect, are recognition of the truth of the matter by the manufacturers.
The home video market has grown enormously because of the price of players and media being priced that lots of people purchased them. Conventional DVDs played on an upconverting DVD player are pretty darn good, sufficiently so that many people have decided they are "good enough" and have not felt the need to move to Blu-Ray. The manufacturers are finally coming to terms with the reality that the demise of HD DVD did not mean that everyone was going to run out and purchase a Blu-Ray player and new discs. To succeed Blu-Ray must succeed on its own merits and there are several, but they are not, by themselves, to overcome market inertia because of pricing.
On its own, Blu-Ray may not show dramatic improvement over a conventional DVD played in an upconverting DVD player unless the source material is improved. There are many DVDs which are poor quality transfers that are very badly in need of a restoration, preferably a digital restoration such as that done by Lowry Digital ("Delivering the best moving images. Period.") which performed the restorations of the Star Wars, Indiana Jones, The Godfather and James Bond movies, among others. It is said that a sufficiently advanced technology will appear to be magic. Their restorations are certainly close to that.
I recently purchased a Blu-Ray player because the price of it and some of the discs have fallen to a point I considered within reason. (I got a basic Sony player for $110 at Costco.) I purchased a number of Blu-Ray discs which were of movies that are personal favorites and/or had a tolerable price. I have been reading reviews of Blu-Ray discs online and it is startling that many of the reviewers are only beginning to realize that a Blu-Ray transfer of a movie that is in poor condition is still a poor movie. The consumer needs to demand a better product along the way. The only way to do this is to "don't buy junk."
By the way, if you ever have the opportunity to see the restored Lawrence of Arabia in 70 mm on an IMAX screen you are in for a great treat. Until then, the restored DVD will have to suffice (a Blu-Ray transfer is pending).
You are exactly correct. Blu-Ray discs generally do cost more than DVDs. There have been some very recent price reductions which, I suspect, are recognition of the truth of the matter by the manufacturers.
The home video market has grown enormously because of the price of players and media being priced that lots of people purchased them. Conventional DVDs played on an upconverting DVD player are pretty darn good, sufficiently so that many people have decided they are "good enough" and have not felt the need to move to Blu-Ray. The manufacturers are finally coming to terms with the reality that the demise of HD DVD did not mean that everyone was going to run out and purchase a Blu-Ray player and new discs. To succeed Blu-Ray must succeed on its own merits and there are several, but they are not, by themselves, to overcome market inertia because of pricing.
On its own, Blu-Ray may not show dramatic improvement over a conventional DVD played in an upconverting DVD player unless the source material is improved. There are many DVDs which are poor quality transfers that are very badly in need of a restoration, preferably a digital restoration such as that done by Lowry Digital ("Delivering the best moving images. Period.") which performed the restorations of the Star Wars, Indiana Jones, The Godfather and James Bond movies, among others. It is said that a sufficiently advanced technology will appear to be magic. Their restorations are certainly close to that.
I recently purchased a Blu-Ray player because the price of it and some of the discs have fallen to a point I considered within reason. (I got a basic Sony player for $110 at Costco.) I purchased a number of Blu-Ray discs which were of movies that are personal favorites and/or had a tolerable price. I have been reading reviews of Blu-Ray discs online and it is startling that many of the reviewers are only beginning to realize that a Blu-Ray transfer of a movie that is in poor condition is still a poor movie. The consumer needs to demand a better product along the way. The only way to do this is to "don't buy junk."
By the way, if you ever have the opportunity to see the restored Lawrence of Arabia in 70 mm on an IMAX screen you are in for a great treat. Until then, the restored DVD will have to suffice (a Blu-Ray transfer is pending).
Regards
I don't doubt that the studios are slowly coming around to the reality that they have been overpricing Blu-Ray discs and in so doing, slowed adoption. It's embarrassing, really, that first we had a useless format war and a then a reluctance to price the product appropriately. Meanwhile, as you point out, upconverted DVD is, for many consumers, good enough. Add in the fact that for others, downloads and/or cable/satellite feeds are also good enough, and you get what we have, i.e. a sluggish Blu-Ray adoption.
I don't understand why people who earn a living in this field are being so obviously obtuse.
I guarantee you that had the price of Blu-Rays begun significantly declining more than a year ago, there would be a lot more Blu-Ray players in people's homes, more Blu-Ray discs sold, more money made by the industry as a whole. Less is more. Were it not for all those Blu-Ray players included with the PS3, Blu-Ray adoption would be looking rather horrible at this time.
I think many consumers are fed up. They don't want to be charged exoribant prices to avail themselves of the latest and greatest technology. They want HD content to be in essence the norm, not an exuse to milk more cash out of consumers who, considering the significant economic downturn we've experienced in the past year, is too much. That people are settling for good enough is no surprise. That content providers are taking so long to figure this out is a real knock on their competence.
There are times when I think to myself that a savvy company like Apple isn't really all that brilliant, just doing a good job when the competition is downright incompetent. In other words, Apple looks brilliant by comparison. Getting it wrong is the norm. Why that is, God only knows.
By the way, Lawrence of Arabia was the first movie I saw at a movie theatre. An unforgettable experience that I believe helped to spur a life-long passion for cinema.
I guarantee you that had the price of Blu-Rays begun significantly declining more than a year ago, there would be a lot more Blu-Ray players in people's homes, more Blu-Ray discs sold, more money made by the industry as a whole. Less is more. Were it not for all those Blu-Ray players included with the PS3, Blu-Ray adoption would be looking rather horrible at this time.
It?s what made the PS3 viable, for sure, and then won the blue laser format war. I believe that if MS included the HD-DVD player with each XBOX 360 that it would have lead to the HD-DVD beating Blu-ray.
Now, MS needs Blu-ray to further their console sales and will surely have Blu-ray on their next device, but I wonder if they may offer a special redesigned 360 with a Blu-ray player included specifically to compete against the PS3 as a home entertainment media player.
In Canada, Blu-Ray discs do not sell for the same price as DVDs. I guess you Americans do it another way.
I'm not an American, and I don't live there, that would be you since you live in North America.
You are in the same region for Blu-Ray as the USA, you can purchase from Amazon.com the same as I can, it is a good site, give it a go sometime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo
Look, I haven't even come close to saying it isn't about the price so I have to conclude that you're not interested in what my views are. As such, I guess there's no basis for a discussion since whatever I post will be pretty much ignored in favour of something that bears no resemblance to the statements I'm making.
No, I wouldn't ignore you, but would you like me to quote the messages where you say it is about the price?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo
Besides, if you choose, for whatever reason, to deny the existence of a two-tier pricing system in which Blu-Ray discs cost more than DVDs, clearly we're dealing not with reality but some alternate construct, the logic of which is yours alone to decipher and by the way, you can rent movies directly via a computer without the need for additional hardware.
Why would I deny it, can you show me any instance of a higher quality product costing less than a lower quality one? Go to Amazon.com and look at the prices, sure you can sit there and quote local pricing to me, but if the local places are willing to sell at a realistic price, it is your right to purchase from where you want to, you are not force to purchase items anywhere (excluding the app store). Actually try amazon.co.uk as well, they have some good bargins...
And how can you rent movies from a store without additional hardware, does that internet connection magic itself out of no where. And like I say, why would I rent a movie from Apple at $7 for SD, when I can walk for 5 minutes to a video store and rent the same movie on Blu-Ray for $4 (or DVD for that matter since the video store charges the same for both)?
And like I say, why would I rent a movie from Apple at $7 for SD, when I can walk for 5 minutes to a video store and rent the same movie on Blu-Ray for $4 (or DVD for that matter since the vdieo store charges the same for both)?
It?s great how it?s all about you all the time. If your 5 minutes from a video store then everyone should be. If you don?t want SD video then no one should be fine with it. I don?t come across guys raised like princesses. Perhaps you can use some of your princess power to get a higher data cap from your ISP.
It?s great how it?s all about you all the time. If your 5 minutes from a video store then everyone should be. If you don?t want SD video then no one should be fine with it. I don?t come across guys raised like princesses. Perhaps you can use some of your princess power to get a higher data cap from your ISP.
What's that Mr Apple Shareholder? You want me to rent movies from Apple when they are lower quality and higher cost than a Blu-Ray? Yes that's right, it is all about you isn't it? Maybe you can use some of that magic power of yours to make us all as great as you.
I'm not an American, and I don't live there, that would be you since you live in North America.
You are in the same region for Blu-Ray as the USA, you can purchase from Amazon.com the same as I can, it is a good site, give it a go sometime.
No, I wouldn't ignore you, but would you like me to quote the messages where you say it is about the price?
Why would I deny it, can you show me any instance of a higher quality product costing less than a lower quality one? Go to Amazon.com and look at the prices, sure you can sit there and quote local pricing to me, but if the local places are willing to sell at a realistic price, it is your right to purchase from where you want to, you are not force to purchase items anywhere (excluding the app store). Actually try amazon.co.uk as well, they have some good bargins...
And how can you rent movies from a store without additional hardware, does that internet connection magic itself out of no where. And like I say, why would I rent a movie from Apple at $7 for SD, when I can walk for 5 minutes to a video store and rent the same movie on Blu-Ray for $4 (or DVD for that matter since the video store charges the same for both)?
It costs $6 to rent a movie via iTunes in HD and closer to $10 to rent off of cable. As for how do you rent without an Apple TV, well you connect your computer to your TV directly, as I have done. I'm using a Sony XBR 32-incher as my computer monitor and TV. I'm planning to buy a 24-inch Apple monitor soon to have seperate set-ups but even then, watching a movie on that 24-ioncher is probably not going to be a bad experience, at least that's what I hear.
As for charging more for a better product, by all means do that but I think the answer would have been to lower the price of DVDs and make Blu-Ray only a little more expensive. They should have done this right from the beginning.
It costs $6 to rent a movie via iTunes in HD and closer to $10 to rent off of cable. As for how do you rent without an Apple TV, well you connect your computer to your TV directly, as I have done. I'm using a Sony XBR 32-incher as my computer monitor and TV. I'm planning to buy a 24-inch Apple monitor soon to have seperate set-ups but even then, watching a movie on that 24-ioncher is probably not going to be a bad experience, at least that's what I hear.
You should really put your currency in there, you Americans need to understand there are other countries other than Canada, and the USA that use the dollar as their currency.
So how do I rent HD movies from Apple without an Apple TV? iTunes only gives me the option to rent SD movies from my iMac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo
As for charging more for a better product, by all means do that but I think the answer would have been to lower the price of DVDs and make Blu-Ray only a little more expensive. They should have done this right from the beginning.
So, in comparision, why doesn't Apple sell their products at a lower price? They could have done this from the beginning.
You should really put your currency in there, you Americans need to understand there are other countries other than Canada, and the USA that use the dollar as their currency.
So how do I rent HD movies from Apple without an Apple TV? iTunes only gives me the option to rent SD movies from my iMac.
So, in comparision, why doesn't Apple sell their products at a lower price? They could have done this from the beginning.
What business is it of mine whether or not you have the ability to rent HD movies via your iMac. I can and have rented HD movies using only my Mac Mini.
In regards to Apple charging a premium for some of their products, there are no firm rules about this sort of thing. There are times when it makes sense to charge less and then there are times when you can and should charge more. When DVDs came to market, it did make sense to set the price of players and the DVDs themselves as was done. What isn't rational, however, is the manner in which the studios handled the Blu-Ray rollout. A very different environment for quite a few reasons. First is that the format was crippled to begin with because of a rival format in HD-DVD. This slowed adoption as consumers sat on the sidelines more than they might have had Blu-Ray been marketed as the only game in town for HD content. Another difference is that there has evolved more competition for HD delivery, with downloads and broadcasts offering consumers some additional options. Keep in mind that in the early days of DVD, premium movie offerings via cable and satellite were not nearly as evolved and entrenched as they are today. And there are many consumers, myself included, who were burned by jumping on the DVD bandwagon in the early days. I spent more than $1,000 on my first DVD player and the thing now sits in a closet because it can't play versions of the DVD format that didn't exist when the machine was developed. Once bitten, as they say.
It's a very dumb industry that can't adapt to changing market conditions and sadly that's what we have here. Instead of considering the needs and desires of consumers, electronics manufacturers and the studios churning out content were blinded by pure, uncomplicated, greed. They thought that what worked with DVD could just turn around and work again with Blu-Ray. Wrong. And now a further error is being made considering the push that's on to hook consumers on 3D. Not going to happen. The average person is simply not going to be interested in spending evenings watching TV with a pair of special glasses. Nor are weary consumers who are just now embracing the switch to HD in their TVs inclined, I suspect, to dump their recently purchased sets in favour of ones geared towards the delivery of 3D. We are, basically, accustomed to extracting roughly a decade out of our sets. Some of today's LCDs and plasmas can hold up well past 10 years. If the electronics industry believes they can entice more than a foolhardy few to abandon their recently purchased sets for 3D, they are mistaken.
To succeed in business you need to come up with products that make sense to consumers, that are, in essence, perceived to have a lot of value. Getting people to abandon clunky VHS tapes in favour of DVD was easy because of how blatantly superior DVD is. Ditto going from SD TV to HDTV. The lines blur, however, when along comes Blu-Ray which is not the only game in town when it comes to delivering content that looks decent enough displayed on our recently purchased HD sets. If the industry was smart about this, it would set 3D aside for now and lower the cost of Blu-rays even quicker than it has been doing on account of consumers right now are in no mood to push the envelope so quickly. By trying to force 3D upon us and cash in too aggressively on Blu-Ray, they're simply going to ensure the failure of both. Give people what they want, even if the people themselves don't even know they want something until it's offered to them. Don't try to pressure them into embracing something that they really don't want or need because you think you could make a lot of money if you could convince the public to buy in. They won't and you'll have just wasted a ton of development money on something that was doomed from the start.
Perhaps Blu-Ray isn't doomed. However, I could easily imagine it not being the success many had hoped for not because it's bad technology but rather its rollout couldn't have been handled more incompetently. Apple is right to have stayed clear of it to this point. That changes, perhaps, down the road but so far Apple hasn't suffered in the slightest for having shunned Blu-Ray. The embarrassing mistakes made with Blu-Ray run counter to Apple's exceedingly successful approach. Apple doesn't try to force low-value product on people. It gives 'em what they want and more. Apple's products are well thought out and enhance the lives of customers. It's all about customer satisfaction, about not having them regret buying in. Apple does that better than any other company in the electronics and content delivery industries. It's not hard to figure out why.
What business is it of mine whether or not you have the ability to rent HD movies via your iMac. I can and have rented HD movies using only my Mac Mini.
Well you were claiming I didn't need any other hardware to rent them... Which, with Apple being so inconsistant around the world, not true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo
In regards to Apple charging a premium for some of their products, there are no firm rules about this sort of thing. There are times when it makes sense to charge less and then there are times when you can and should charge more. When DVDs came to market, it did make sense to set the price of players and the DVDs themselves as was done. What isn't rational, however, is the manner in which the studios handled the Blu-Ray rollout. A very different environment for quite a few reasons. First is that the format was crippled to begin with because of a rival format in HD-DVD. This slowed adoption as consumers sat on the sidelines more than they might have had Blu-Ray been marketed as the only game in town for HD content. Another difference is that there has evolved more competition for HD delivery, with downloads and broadcasts offering consumers some additional options. Keep in mind that in the early days of DVD, premium movie offerings via cable and satellite were not nearly as evolved and entrenched as they are today. And there are many consumers, myself included, who were burned by jumping on the DVD bandwagon in the early days. I spent more than $1,000 on my first DVD player and the thing now sits in a closet because it can't play versions of the DVD format that didn't exist when the machine was developed. Once bitten, as they say.
So, it is ok for Apple to charge more for a premium product, but not for other companies? Yes you have mentioned your DVD player a number of times now, I am still sorry you wasted so much on a poor model, my Pioneer I purchased in 2000 still works fine (and is still in use), and plays all discs.
And your so called "slowdown" adoption of blu-ray, there were a number of reasons why this hasn't risen as quickly as you would have liked. One may have been the slight finanical issue that has hit some countries over the last little while, another could have been the fact you purchased into the losing side, and have a little negativity about it.
You seem to have a very narrow North American view of the world. Everything you have said is almost like you have never seen outside your little area of the world.
Blu-Ray sales in the US are accounting for up to 13% of the packaged media sales, that is a bigger share that Apple has of their computer market, does this mean Apple is doomed? And trying to say Apple doesn't force low-value on people, Apple forces everything on people, they sell what they want to sell. If it was the other way around I would be able to purchase full HD movies (with HD sound) from Apple now.
You are welcome to purchase anything you want, I don't care, I don't care what anyone purchases, just don't try and push your untruths on everyone else.
Comments
No, it is Apples lack of regard for a superior solution.
Blu-ray has had 100% year on year growth, and what greedy studios? New release Blu-Rays sell for under $20, the same price as the DVD in cases.
How are they charging too much? You can purchase the SD version of Harry Potter for example from Apple, US$14.99, I got the Blu-Ray from Amazon for the same price, and it included a blu-ray, DVD, and digital copy. Apart from TV shows alot of the new releases are around US$20
So what is this "reasonable level" of pricing that you want? After all, this is an Apple forum you are talking in.
No, Apple isn't supporting blu-ray because Jobs is pig headed, big difference.
Looked up what Inglorious Basterds would cost me and Blu-Ray comes in at around $30 in my market. That's too much even for a top-grade title. When Blu-Ray titles come in at around $20 for new releases, then we're getting somewhere.
Looked up what Inglorious Basterds would cost me and Blu-Ray comes in at around $30 in my market. That's too much even for a top-grade title. When Blu-Ray titles come in at around $20 for new releases, then we're getting somewhere.
It is US$21 at Amazon.com, or is $1 off your price too much? It is region free, just purchase from where you want.
It is US$21 at Amazon.com, or is $1 off your price too much? It is region free, just purchase from where you want.
It isn't about acquiring a copy of that particular movie at a particular price point. It's about the overall cost of comsuming movies if Blu-Ray is your media of choice. I've considered buying into Blu-Ray because hardware costs are very reasonable. Me, personally, I wouldn't be that averse to spending more to adapt early. When I bought my first DVD player, it set me back more than a grand and DVDs were costing around $40 Cdn. That machine, by the way, is sitting in a closet because it came out prior to recordable DVDs hitting the market, meaning it can't play anything but retail DVDs. Bought a $90 player to take its place.
In fact, having jumped on the HD-DVD band wagon early caused me to build up a decent library of hi-def titles at bargain prices. First I added HD-DVD to the XBox, paid $200 and got a couple of free movies. I did buy a few HD-DVD titles at premium prices but then HD-DVD collapsed and so I picked up a cheap player for $69 that also came with a few movies and spent around $170 for a Toshiba, that one likewise coming with a couple of movies. The best part was that then lots of HD-DVD titles appeared that were being sold off at $5 each. So now I have a good collection of HD-DVDs, three players, and in total spent significantly less than $1,000.
When I say that the cost of Blu-Ray discs is too high, it's not about what I personally am willing to pay. It's about what the average consumer is willing to pay and that consumer is used to getting his or her movie fix on the cheap. Legacy DVD titles are being sold in my part of the world for $5 a copy. You can rent a passable HD version of a recent release off of Apple for $6. You can subscribe to a premium movie service for less than $20 a month. Maybe upconverted DVDs are not really HD but they don't look bad viewed on a properly calibrated, decent grade monitor. Keep in mind that the vast, vast majority of consumers don't know and don't want to know about the subtle but real differences between Blu-Ray, cable, upconverted DVD, etc. They come home after a hard day at work, drop a movie in once the kids have been put to bed, and are not really focusing on the details. They're just watching a movie with their brains entering wind-down mode. I've come across more than a few people who thought DVDs (and not upconverted) fed to a hideously bad rear-projection big-screen constituted high definition. Others figured HD had arrived when DVDs started being upconverted.
Look at what happened in the audio space. While audiophiles debated the merits of SACD and DVD-A, the average consumer was running around downloading bootleg, badly encoded MP3s and later embracing files from Apple and the like. SACD and DVD-A are, as far as I know, are DOA. I went for a top-grade CD player instead and it's rather good at extracting quality out of a standard-issue CD.
Blu-Ray can do well but studios have to understand that it's time to dial down the greed.
Looked up what Inglorious Basterds would cost me and Blu-Ray comes in at around $30 in my market. That's too much even for a top-grade title. When Blu-Ray titles come in at around $20 for new releases, then we're getting somewhere.
It isn't about acquiring a copy of that particular movie at a particular price point. It's about the overall cost of comsuming movies if Blu-Ray is your media of choice.
One minute you say Blu-Ray is too expensive, and you want the price lower, when I show you the lower price it suddenly becomes "it isn't about the price", I don't think you know what you want.
I've considered buying into Blu-Ray because hardware costs are very reasonable. Me, personally, I wouldn't be that averse to spending more to adapt early. When I bought my first DVD player, it set me back more than a grand and DVDs were costing around $40 Cdn. That machine, by the way, is sitting in a closet because it came out prior to recordable DVDs hitting the market, meaning it can't play anything but retail DVDs. Bought a $90 player to take its place.
Maybe you should have purchased a better brand, my original Pioneer still works and plays all discs. The Pioneer DV-LX50 I have now cost around NZ$500, lovely player, supports DVD-A, and SACD as well.
In fact, having jumped on the HD-DVD band wagon early caused me to build up a decent library of hi-def titles at bargain prices. First I added HD-DVD to the XBox, paid $200 and got a couple of free movies. I did buy a few HD-DVD titles at premium prices but then HD-DVD collapsed and so I picked up a cheap player for $69 that also came with a few movies and spent around $170 for a Toshiba, that one likewise coming with a couple of movies. The best part was that then lots of HD-DVD titles appeared that were being sold off at $5 each. So now I have a good collection of HD-DVDs, three players, and in total spent significantly less than $1,000.
So you purchased discs in a fire sale, and wish Blu-Rays were that price?
When I say that the cost of Blu-Ray discs is too high, it's not about what I personally am willing to pay. It's about what the average consumer is willing to pay and that consumer is used to getting his or her movie fix on the cheap. Legacy DVD titles are being sold in my part of the world for $5 a copy. You can rent a passable HD version of a recent release off of Apple for $6. You can subscribe to a premium movie service for less than $20 a month.
The magic word there is legacy, not new releases, but old ones. So you can purchase a five year old disc for $5, why should a new Blu-Ray be anywhere near the price of a five year old DVD? $6 to rent an HD movie from Apple? That is about NZ$8, I can walk to the video store and rent a new release Blu-Ray for NZ$4, no level of convenience is worth double the price to me.
Maybe upconverted DVDs are not really HD but they don't look bad viewed on a properly calibrated, decent grade monitor. Keep in mind that the vast, vast majority of consumers don't know and don't want to know about the subtle but real differences between Blu-Ray, cable, upconverted DVD, etc. They come home after a hard day at work, drop a movie in once the kids have been put to bed, and are not really focusing on the details. They're just watching a movie with their brains entering wind-down mode. I've come across more than a few people who thought DVDs (and not upconverted) fed to a hideously bad rear-projection big-screen constituted high definition. Others figured HD had arrived when DVDs started being upconverted.
That's fine, I don't care how people waste their money, I care how I waste mine. And if I am going purchase something, and if two versions are available, a lower quality and a high quality one for about the same price, I will purchase the high quality one.
Look at what happened in the audio space. While audiophiles debated the merits of SACD and DVD-A, the average consumer was running around downloading bootleg, badly encoded MP3s and later embracing files from Apple and the like. SACD and DVD-A are, as far as I know, are DOA. I went for a top-grade CD player instead and it's rather good at extracting quality out of a standard-issue CD.
You can still purchase DVD-A, an SACD players, infact there is a number of new models of each available now, sure they don't sell in high volume, but neither does the AppleTV you need to rent those HD movies off Apple.
Blu-Ray can do well but studios have to understand that it's time to dial down the greed.
Again, since new release Blu-Rays and DVDs are starting to be sold for the same price, where is this greed? Because if it is there, it is across all the media available (DVD, Blu-Ray, and downloads)
I can see the mini server as a great solution for small businesses. For hardware a second NIC would be great as then people could use the box for firewall/NAT applications. Not a must have, but would surely be welcome. In OS X server I'd like better GUI configuration options when dealing with DNS. Currently it is very spartan in its options. Also DHCP populating DNS would be nice for windows machines that don't play well with the .local thing.
I can only hope that there are a lot of sales of these servers minis so Apple can spend more resources working on their server software.
One minute you say Blu-Ray is too expensive, and you want the price lower, when I show you the lower price it suddenly becomes "it isn't about the price", I don't think you know what you want.
Maybe you should have purchased a better brand, my original Pioneer still works and plays all discs. The Pioneer DV-LX50 I have now cost around NZ$500, lovely player, supports DVD-A, and SACD as well.
So you purchased discs in a fire sale, and wish Blu-Rays were that price?
The magic word there is legacy, not new releases, but old ones. So you can purchase a five year old disc for $5, why should a new Blu-Ray be anywhere near the price of a five year old DVD? $6 to rent an HD movie from Apple? That is about NZ$8, I can walk to the video store and rent a new release Blu-Ray for NZ$4, no level of convenience is worth double the price to me.
That's fine, I don't care how people waste their money, I care how I waste mine. And if I am going purchase something, and if two versions are available, a lower quality and a high quality one for about the same price, I will purchase the high quality one.
You can still purchase DVD-A, an SACD players, infact there is a number of new models of each available now, sure they don't sell in high volume, but neither does the AppleTV you need to rent those HD movies off Apple.
Again, since new release Blu-Rays and DVDs are starting to be sold for the same price, where is this greed? Because if it is there, it is across all the media available (DVD, Blu-Ray, and downloads)
In Canada, Blu-Ray discs do not sell for the same price as DVDs. I guess you Americans do it another way.
Look, I haven't even come close to saying it isn't about the price so I have to conclude that you're not interested in what my views are. As such, I guess there's no basis for a discussion since whatever I post will be pretty much ignored in favour of something that bears no resemblance to the statements I'm making.
Besides, if you choose, for whatever reason, to deny the existence of a two-tier pricing system in which Blu-Ray discs cost more than DVDs, clearly we're dealing not with reality but some alternate construct, the logic of which is yours alone to decipher and by the way, you can rent movies directly via a computer without the need for additional hardware.
<snip>
Besides, if you choose, for whatever reason, to deny the existence of a two-tier pricing system in which Blu-Ray discs cost more than DVDs, clearly we're dealing not with reality but some alternate construct, the logic of which is yours alone to decipher.
You are exactly correct. Blu-Ray discs generally do cost more than DVDs. There have been some very recent price reductions which, I suspect, are recognition of the truth of the matter by the manufacturers.
The home video market has grown enormously because of the price of players and media being priced that lots of people purchased them. Conventional DVDs played on an upconverting DVD player are pretty darn good, sufficiently so that many people have decided they are "good enough" and have not felt the need to move to Blu-Ray. The manufacturers are finally coming to terms with the reality that the demise of HD DVD did not mean that everyone was going to run out and purchase a Blu-Ray player and new discs. To succeed Blu-Ray must succeed on its own merits and there are several, but they are not, by themselves, to overcome market inertia because of pricing.
On its own, Blu-Ray may not show dramatic improvement over a conventional DVD played in an upconverting DVD player unless the source material is improved. There are many DVDs which are poor quality transfers that are very badly in need of a restoration, preferably a digital restoration such as that done by Lowry Digital ("Delivering the best moving images. Period.") which performed the restorations of the Star Wars, Indiana Jones, The Godfather and James Bond movies, among others. It is said that a sufficiently advanced technology will appear to be magic. Their restorations are certainly close to that.
I recently purchased a Blu-Ray player because the price of it and some of the discs have fallen to a point I considered within reason. (I got a basic Sony player for $110 at Costco.) I purchased a number of Blu-Ray discs which were of movies that are personal favorites and/or had a tolerable price. I have been reading reviews of Blu-Ray discs online and it is startling that many of the reviewers are only beginning to realize that a Blu-Ray transfer of a movie that is in poor condition is still a poor movie. The consumer needs to demand a better product along the way. The only way to do this is to "don't buy junk."
By the way, if you ever have the opportunity to see the restored Lawrence of Arabia in 70 mm on an IMAX screen you are in for a great treat. Until then, the restored DVD will have to suffice (a Blu-Ray transfer is pending).
Regards
You are exactly correct. Blu-Ray discs generally do cost more than DVDs. There have been some very recent price reductions which, I suspect, are recognition of the truth of the matter by the manufacturers.
The home video market has grown enormously because of the price of players and media being priced that lots of people purchased them. Conventional DVDs played on an upconverting DVD player are pretty darn good, sufficiently so that many people have decided they are "good enough" and have not felt the need to move to Blu-Ray. The manufacturers are finally coming to terms with the reality that the demise of HD DVD did not mean that everyone was going to run out and purchase a Blu-Ray player and new discs. To succeed Blu-Ray must succeed on its own merits and there are several, but they are not, by themselves, to overcome market inertia because of pricing.
On its own, Blu-Ray may not show dramatic improvement over a conventional DVD played in an upconverting DVD player unless the source material is improved. There are many DVDs which are poor quality transfers that are very badly in need of a restoration, preferably a digital restoration such as that done by Lowry Digital ("Delivering the best moving images. Period.") which performed the restorations of the Star Wars, Indiana Jones, The Godfather and James Bond movies, among others. It is said that a sufficiently advanced technology will appear to be magic. Their restorations are certainly close to that.
I recently purchased a Blu-Ray player because the price of it and some of the discs have fallen to a point I considered within reason. (I got a basic Sony player for $110 at Costco.) I purchased a number of Blu-Ray discs which were of movies that are personal favorites and/or had a tolerable price. I have been reading reviews of Blu-Ray discs online and it is startling that many of the reviewers are only beginning to realize that a Blu-Ray transfer of a movie that is in poor condition is still a poor movie. The consumer needs to demand a better product along the way. The only way to do this is to "don't buy junk."
By the way, if you ever have the opportunity to see the restored Lawrence of Arabia in 70 mm on an IMAX screen you are in for a great treat. Until then, the restored DVD will have to suffice (a Blu-Ray transfer is pending).
Regards
I don't doubt that the studios are slowly coming around to the reality that they have been overpricing Blu-Ray discs and in so doing, slowed adoption. It's embarrassing, really, that first we had a useless format war and a then a reluctance to price the product appropriately. Meanwhile, as you point out, upconverted DVD is, for many consumers, good enough. Add in the fact that for others, downloads and/or cable/satellite feeds are also good enough, and you get what we have, i.e. a sluggish Blu-Ray adoption.
I don't understand why people who earn a living in this field are being so obviously obtuse.
I guarantee you that had the price of Blu-Rays begun significantly declining more than a year ago, there would be a lot more Blu-Ray players in people's homes, more Blu-Ray discs sold, more money made by the industry as a whole. Less is more. Were it not for all those Blu-Ray players included with the PS3, Blu-Ray adoption would be looking rather horrible at this time.
I think many consumers are fed up. They don't want to be charged exoribant prices to avail themselves of the latest and greatest technology. They want HD content to be in essence the norm, not an exuse to milk more cash out of consumers who, considering the significant economic downturn we've experienced in the past year, is too much. That people are settling for good enough is no surprise. That content providers are taking so long to figure this out is a real knock on their competence.
There are times when I think to myself that a savvy company like Apple isn't really all that brilliant, just doing a good job when the competition is downright incompetent. In other words, Apple looks brilliant by comparison. Getting it wrong is the norm. Why that is, God only knows.
By the way, Lawrence of Arabia was the first movie I saw at a movie theatre. An unforgettable experience that I believe helped to spur a life-long passion for cinema.
I guarantee you that had the price of Blu-Rays begun significantly declining more than a year ago, there would be a lot more Blu-Ray players in people's homes, more Blu-Ray discs sold, more money made by the industry as a whole. Less is more. Were it not for all those Blu-Ray players included with the PS3, Blu-Ray adoption would be looking rather horrible at this time.
It?s what made the PS3 viable, for sure, and then won the blue laser format war. I believe that if MS included the HD-DVD player with each XBOX 360 that it would have lead to the HD-DVD beating Blu-ray.
Now, MS needs Blu-ray to further their console sales and will surely have Blu-ray on their next device, but I wonder if they may offer a special redesigned 360 with a Blu-ray player included specifically to compete against the PS3 as a home entertainment media player.
In Canada, Blu-Ray discs do not sell for the same price as DVDs. I guess you Americans do it another way.
I'm not an American, and I don't live there, that would be you since you live in North America.
You are in the same region for Blu-Ray as the USA, you can purchase from Amazon.com the same as I can, it is a good site, give it a go sometime.
Look, I haven't even come close to saying it isn't about the price so I have to conclude that you're not interested in what my views are. As such, I guess there's no basis for a discussion since whatever I post will be pretty much ignored in favour of something that bears no resemblance to the statements I'm making.
No, I wouldn't ignore you, but would you like me to quote the messages where you say it is about the price?
Besides, if you choose, for whatever reason, to deny the existence of a two-tier pricing system in which Blu-Ray discs cost more than DVDs, clearly we're dealing not with reality but some alternate construct, the logic of which is yours alone to decipher and by the way, you can rent movies directly via a computer without the need for additional hardware.
Why would I deny it, can you show me any instance of a higher quality product costing less than a lower quality one? Go to Amazon.com and look at the prices, sure you can sit there and quote local pricing to me, but if the local places are willing to sell at a realistic price, it is your right to purchase from where you want to, you are not force to purchase items anywhere (excluding the app store). Actually try amazon.co.uk as well, they have some good bargins...
And how can you rent movies from a store without additional hardware, does that internet connection magic itself out of no where. And like I say, why would I rent a movie from Apple at $7 for SD, when I can walk for 5 minutes to a video store and rent the same movie on Blu-Ray for $4 (or DVD for that matter since the video store charges the same for both)?
And like I say, why would I rent a movie from Apple at $7 for SD, when I can walk for 5 minutes to a video store and rent the same movie on Blu-Ray for $4 (or DVD for that matter since the vdieo store charges the same for both)?
It?s great how it?s all about you all the time. If your 5 minutes from a video store then everyone should be. If you don?t want SD video then no one should be fine with it. I don?t come across guys raised like princesses. Perhaps you can use some of your princess power to get a higher data cap from your ISP.
It?s great how it?s all about you all the time. If your 5 minutes from a video store then everyone should be. If you don?t want SD video then no one should be fine with it. I don?t come across guys raised like princesses. Perhaps you can use some of your princess power to get a higher data cap from your ISP.
What's that Mr Apple Shareholder? You want me to rent movies from Apple when they are lower quality and higher cost than a Blu-Ray? Yes that's right, it is all about you isn't it? Maybe you can use some of that magic power of yours to make us all as great as you.
I'm not an American, and I don't live there, that would be you since you live in North America.
You are in the same region for Blu-Ray as the USA, you can purchase from Amazon.com the same as I can, it is a good site, give it a go sometime.
No, I wouldn't ignore you, but would you like me to quote the messages where you say it is about the price?
Why would I deny it, can you show me any instance of a higher quality product costing less than a lower quality one? Go to Amazon.com and look at the prices, sure you can sit there and quote local pricing to me, but if the local places are willing to sell at a realistic price, it is your right to purchase from where you want to, you are not force to purchase items anywhere (excluding the app store). Actually try amazon.co.uk as well, they have some good bargins...
And how can you rent movies from a store without additional hardware, does that internet connection magic itself out of no where. And like I say, why would I rent a movie from Apple at $7 for SD, when I can walk for 5 minutes to a video store and rent the same movie on Blu-Ray for $4 (or DVD for that matter since the video store charges the same for both)?
It costs $6 to rent a movie via iTunes in HD and closer to $10 to rent off of cable. As for how do you rent without an Apple TV, well you connect your computer to your TV directly, as I have done. I'm using a Sony XBR 32-incher as my computer monitor and TV. I'm planning to buy a 24-inch Apple monitor soon to have seperate set-ups but even then, watching a movie on that 24-ioncher is probably not going to be a bad experience, at least that's what I hear.
As for charging more for a better product, by all means do that but I think the answer would have been to lower the price of DVDs and make Blu-Ray only a little more expensive. They should have done this right from the beginning.
It costs $6 to rent a movie via iTunes in HD and closer to $10 to rent off of cable. As for how do you rent without an Apple TV, well you connect your computer to your TV directly, as I have done. I'm using a Sony XBR 32-incher as my computer monitor and TV. I'm planning to buy a 24-inch Apple monitor soon to have seperate set-ups but even then, watching a movie on that 24-ioncher is probably not going to be a bad experience, at least that's what I hear.
You should really put your currency in there, you Americans need to understand there are other countries other than Canada, and the USA that use the dollar as their currency.
So how do I rent HD movies from Apple without an Apple TV? iTunes only gives me the option to rent SD movies from my iMac.
As for charging more for a better product, by all means do that but I think the answer would have been to lower the price of DVDs and make Blu-Ray only a little more expensive. They should have done this right from the beginning.
So, in comparision, why doesn't Apple sell their products at a lower price? They could have done this from the beginning.
You should really put your currency in there, you Americans need to understand there are other countries other than Canada, and the USA that use the dollar as their currency.
So how do I rent HD movies from Apple without an Apple TV? iTunes only gives me the option to rent SD movies from my iMac.
So, in comparision, why doesn't Apple sell their products at a lower price? They could have done this from the beginning.
What business is it of mine whether or not you have the ability to rent HD movies via your iMac. I can and have rented HD movies using only my Mac Mini.
In regards to Apple charging a premium for some of their products, there are no firm rules about this sort of thing. There are times when it makes sense to charge less and then there are times when you can and should charge more. When DVDs came to market, it did make sense to set the price of players and the DVDs themselves as was done. What isn't rational, however, is the manner in which the studios handled the Blu-Ray rollout. A very different environment for quite a few reasons. First is that the format was crippled to begin with because of a rival format in HD-DVD. This slowed adoption as consumers sat on the sidelines more than they might have had Blu-Ray been marketed as the only game in town for HD content. Another difference is that there has evolved more competition for HD delivery, with downloads and broadcasts offering consumers some additional options. Keep in mind that in the early days of DVD, premium movie offerings via cable and satellite were not nearly as evolved and entrenched as they are today. And there are many consumers, myself included, who were burned by jumping on the DVD bandwagon in the early days. I spent more than $1,000 on my first DVD player and the thing now sits in a closet because it can't play versions of the DVD format that didn't exist when the machine was developed. Once bitten, as they say.
It's a very dumb industry that can't adapt to changing market conditions and sadly that's what we have here. Instead of considering the needs and desires of consumers, electronics manufacturers and the studios churning out content were blinded by pure, uncomplicated, greed. They thought that what worked with DVD could just turn around and work again with Blu-Ray. Wrong. And now a further error is being made considering the push that's on to hook consumers on 3D. Not going to happen. The average person is simply not going to be interested in spending evenings watching TV with a pair of special glasses. Nor are weary consumers who are just now embracing the switch to HD in their TVs inclined, I suspect, to dump their recently purchased sets in favour of ones geared towards the delivery of 3D. We are, basically, accustomed to extracting roughly a decade out of our sets. Some of today's LCDs and plasmas can hold up well past 10 years. If the electronics industry believes they can entice more than a foolhardy few to abandon their recently purchased sets for 3D, they are mistaken.
To succeed in business you need to come up with products that make sense to consumers, that are, in essence, perceived to have a lot of value. Getting people to abandon clunky VHS tapes in favour of DVD was easy because of how blatantly superior DVD is. Ditto going from SD TV to HDTV. The lines blur, however, when along comes Blu-Ray which is not the only game in town when it comes to delivering content that looks decent enough displayed on our recently purchased HD sets. If the industry was smart about this, it would set 3D aside for now and lower the cost of Blu-rays even quicker than it has been doing on account of consumers right now are in no mood to push the envelope so quickly. By trying to force 3D upon us and cash in too aggressively on Blu-Ray, they're simply going to ensure the failure of both. Give people what they want, even if the people themselves don't even know they want something until it's offered to them. Don't try to pressure them into embracing something that they really don't want or need because you think you could make a lot of money if you could convince the public to buy in. They won't and you'll have just wasted a ton of development money on something that was doomed from the start.
Perhaps Blu-Ray isn't doomed. However, I could easily imagine it not being the success many had hoped for not because it's bad technology but rather its rollout couldn't have been handled more incompetently. Apple is right to have stayed clear of it to this point. That changes, perhaps, down the road but so far Apple hasn't suffered in the slightest for having shunned Blu-Ray. The embarrassing mistakes made with Blu-Ray run counter to Apple's exceedingly successful approach. Apple doesn't try to force low-value product on people. It gives 'em what they want and more. Apple's products are well thought out and enhance the lives of customers. It's all about customer satisfaction, about not having them regret buying in. Apple does that better than any other company in the electronics and content delivery industries. It's not hard to figure out why.
What business is it of mine whether or not you have the ability to rent HD movies via your iMac. I can and have rented HD movies using only my Mac Mini.
Well you were claiming I didn't need any other hardware to rent them... Which, with Apple being so inconsistant around the world, not true.
In regards to Apple charging a premium for some of their products, there are no firm rules about this sort of thing. There are times when it makes sense to charge less and then there are times when you can and should charge more. When DVDs came to market, it did make sense to set the price of players and the DVDs themselves as was done. What isn't rational, however, is the manner in which the studios handled the Blu-Ray rollout. A very different environment for quite a few reasons. First is that the format was crippled to begin with because of a rival format in HD-DVD. This slowed adoption as consumers sat on the sidelines more than they might have had Blu-Ray been marketed as the only game in town for HD content. Another difference is that there has evolved more competition for HD delivery, with downloads and broadcasts offering consumers some additional options. Keep in mind that in the early days of DVD, premium movie offerings via cable and satellite were not nearly as evolved and entrenched as they are today. And there are many consumers, myself included, who were burned by jumping on the DVD bandwagon in the early days. I spent more than $1,000 on my first DVD player and the thing now sits in a closet because it can't play versions of the DVD format that didn't exist when the machine was developed. Once bitten, as they say.
So, it is ok for Apple to charge more for a premium product, but not for other companies? Yes you have mentioned your DVD player a number of times now, I am still sorry you wasted so much on a poor model, my Pioneer I purchased in 2000 still works fine (and is still in use), and plays all discs.
And your so called "slowdown" adoption of blu-ray, there were a number of reasons why this hasn't risen as quickly as you would have liked. One may have been the slight finanical issue that has hit some countries over the last little while, another could have been the fact you purchased into the losing side, and have a little negativity about it.
You seem to have a very narrow North American view of the world. Everything you have said is almost like you have never seen outside your little area of the world.
Blu-Ray sales in the US are accounting for up to 13% of the packaged media sales, that is a bigger share that Apple has of their computer market, does this mean Apple is doomed? And trying to say Apple doesn't force low-value on people, Apple forces everything on people, they sell what they want to sell. If it was the other way around I would be able to purchase full HD movies (with HD sound) from Apple now.
You are welcome to purchase anything you want, I don't care, I don't care what anyone purchases, just don't try and push your untruths on everyone else.