How well are Blue-Ray discs going in comparison to iTunes movies
Blu-ray releases sales figures; iTunes movie sales are so poor Apple won't release them. Needless to say, iTunes movie sales don't even come close to blu-ray sales, which is what makes Steve's comments all the more absurd. 40% of Avatar's physical media sales were on blu-ray. I didn't hear Apple crowing about how many copies they sold.
Did you buy into HD-DVD? Your rhetoric rings of the bitterness of a former HD-DVD supporter. Or not, whatever.
I still own my HD-DVD player and plenty of movies, and yes that was a rather unpleasant fight.
That said, Blu-ray is not going anywhere soon, in spite of what SJ may say. At the current time, and for the foreseeable future, the infrastructure is not there to support the streaming of BR quality films, and there is a market for the quality offered by BR. Besides, I do not want streaming movies, as I do not want to be at the mercy of my internet provider in determining whether I can watch a movie or not.
In addition, the stats do support the idea that BR is on a similar track as DVD.
I am not sure why one would want BR on a computer for movies, as the benefits on a smallish screen and headphones are minimal. I could certainly see it for storage, but that is a different issue.
The only reason Apple doesn't want to support blu-ray is so people will buy their shitty quality movies, music, et. from itunes. Apple is not supporting blu-ray because they want to make money, period! Also who's business is it how people want to use their computers? Seriously, if people want to watch blu-ray movies on their macbook, that makes them an idiot, really? And don't kid yourself into thinking that movies are all that blu-rays are good for either. Blu-rays can do everything a DVD can do better, If DVDs aren't going anywhere than you better believe blu-rays aren't either. It's funny how Apple likes to label themselves has making high end notebooks and yet think they can get away with crap like this. What's really pathetic is they are, thank you fanboys (sarcasm). Also, just because apple made a notebook (Macbook Air) without an optical drive does not mean it's a good idea to get rid of them all together. If they do I guarantee you they will lose not only my business but I'm sure millions of others as well! The idiots supporting this are probably the same people who bought crap like the iPad. While optical drives will be obsolete one day, the day is not now. Emphasis on now, I don't live in the future I live in the present. And in this present time myself and many other people would enjoy having blu-ray support.
I love many of Apples products, etc. but at the same time they are really starting to piss me off!
At this point, I don't care if Apple ever releases a Mac with Blu-Ray and Blu-Ray playback software, I just wished that they would publicly state that it will never happen so that companies (like Cyberlink who make PowerDVD/BD) could at least try to jump in and fill the gap for this niche. Instead, they hold back because they're afraid that Apple will suddenly pull an iTunes BD playing edition out of their ass at any moment...
This is what happens when your device manufacturer gets into the content distribution business; they start not supporting other methods of enjoying content and tell you they know best. Steve says we don't need blu-ray because we're all going to watch movies for free on Hulu and Netflix Streaming; apparently he hasn't browsed the HD steaming options on those sites; I challenge him to find six movies on either site he'd actually care to watch, or a single new release.
Bluray is good for one thing and one thing only: 1080p MKV rips. No DRM, no BS on cutting down the audio or bit rate or resolution, just h.264 HQ rips.
Long live Thepiratebay.org!
Glad legitimate buyers of bluray movies are subsidising this practice ...
P.S. Sorry for derailing the topic but the post rubbed me the wrong way.
Steve Jobs is correct and Andy Parsons is an idiot. They rushed an incomplete format (Blu-ray) to market and it shows. There is no similarity between the introduction of DVDs and of Blu-ray. DVD video was a unified format and everyone got behind it. The reason it took a while to grow was that they didn't have much manufacturing capacity for DVDs and the failure rate was high in the beginning. Blu-ray and HD-DVD fought it ought in the marketplace, but it wasn't a real fight. Sony paid off movie studios to drop the HD-DVD format. It's really more of a repeat of the introduction of SACD and DVD-Audio. Both formats fought it out and like a movie cliche, killed each other at the end of the duel. There wasn't much advantage to consumers either: Music that couldn't be burned to an iPod, somewhat better audio quality, and surround sound mixes that were often completely unnatural.
If there will be another physical media for video, it will probably be a storage medium with no moving parts, holographic or flash memory-based. There might be some use for an Apple Blu-ray drive, but I'm not sure what it would be. 50 GB of slow optical storage doesn't get you very far as a backup medium. Good bye Blu-ray and good riddance.
Well they had to because hd dvd was already released, most of the features hd dvd had blu ray was originally suppose to have when it first came out, but because of hd dvd coming out so soon they were forced to release blu ray incomplete or else they would have lost the format battle.
Which studios would those be? And Toshiba didn't try do the same thing either with attempting to bribe studios to release on hd dvd?
The truth of the matter is that more blu ray movies/discs were being sold then hd dvd movies/discs. That is the primary reason why warner bros went blu ray exclusive.
Blu ray basically won fair and square when you factor in that it was selling more movies then hd dvd equivalents and most of the blu ray players, excluding the ps3, were sold at a profit unlike hd dvd players which were sold at a loss.
Blu-ray releases sales figures; iTunes movie sales are so poor Apple won't release them. Needless to say, iTunes movie sales don't even come close to blu-ray sales, which is what makes Steve's comments all the more absurd. 40% of Avatar's physical media sales were on blu-ray. I didn't hear Apple crowing about how many copies they sold.
And, like I've said before, why would I want to buy a crap iTunes copy (of Avatar for example) for $14.99 when I could get the Blu-ray/DVD combo pack for $19.99. More often than not, the Blu-ray version offers a better buy than the iTunes digital copy.
Back on topic. Having purchased several movies off of iTunes, I am dismayed by the quality of "HD" movies. (The Playstation Store rents out true HD movies.) I am not alone in saying that Apple has the gaul to charge at a premium for movies that are substandard encodes and without extra features.
And, like I've said before, why would I want to buy a crap iTunes copy (of Avatar for example) for $14.99 when I could get the Blu-ray/DVD combo pack for $19.99. More often than not, the Blu-ray version offers a better buy than the iTunes digital copy.
This is what happens when your device manufacturer gets into the content distribution business; they start not supporting other methods of enjoying content and tell you they know best.
You mean it is time to split Apple up? I think so! SJ claims Apple has three independent profit centers. Time to unbundle the "triple-play" company. The only "i" product I have ever owned, and plan to keep it that way, is the iMac. The rest of this iCrap is getting on my nerves.
And, like I've said before, why would I want to buy a crap iTunes copy (of Avatar for example) for $14.99 when I could get the Blu-ray/DVD combo pack for $19.99. More often than not, the Blu-ray version offers a better buy than the iTunes digital copy.
Exactly. And often times the blu-ray also includes an SD digital copy for your iPhone/iPad. Some people just love to feel like they're living in the future by paying the same price for a version that's a fraction of the quality and only plays on Apple hardware.
Well they had to because hd dvd was already released, most of the features hd dvd had blu ray was originally suppose to have when it first came out, but because of hd dvd coming out so soon they were forced to release blu ray incomplete or else they would have lost the format battle.
Which studios would those be? And Toshiba didn't try do the same thing either with attempting to bribe studios to release on hd dvd?
The truth of the matter is that more blu ray movies/discs were being sold then hd dvd movies/discs. That is the primary reason why warner bros went blu ray exclusive.
Blu ray basically won fair and square when you factor in that it was selling more movies then hd dvd equivalents and most of the blu ray players, excluding the ps3, were sold at a profit unlike hd dvd players which were sold at a loss.
With all due respect, we do not need to dredge up that history. It was nasty and unpleasant, and far worse that what gets posted here. BR won, for whatever reasons, and we should leave it at that.
I still own my HD-DVD player and plenty of movies, and yes that was a rather unpleasant fight.
That said, Blu-ray is not going anywhere soon, in spite of what SJ may say. At the current time, and for the foreseeable future, the infrastructure is not there to support the streaming of BR quality films, and there is a market for the quality offered by BR. Besides, I do not want streaming movies, as I do not want to be at the mercy of my internet provider in determining whether I can watch a movie or not.
In addition, the stats do support the idea that BR is on a similar track as DVD.
Agreed. I'm a big movie buff and have been enjoying 1080p movies at home on both Blu-ray and HD-DVD since late 2006. SJ is just bitter because very few want to buy Apple's HD-Lite movies. You know the selection must stink when the HD movies area of iTunes is featuring "Wanted", "The Proposal", "Zoolander", "Good Luck Chuck" etc...
With all due respect, we do not need to dredge up that history. It was nasty and unpleasant, and far worse that what gets posted here. BR won, for whatever reasons, and we should leave it at that.
Yes, it was downright ugly on the BR and HD-DVD forums over at AVS, and wherever else it was debated. But to get back on topic, I'd buy a blu-ray equipped Mac in a second, but I'm not holding my breath. And on that note, good night to all.
I only use my optical drive to install new versions of OS X. That's precisely one time on my current Mac. I may never use it again. I'm sure there are many others like me.
You mean it is time to split Apple up? I think so! SJ claims Apple has three independent profit centers. Time to unbundle the "triple-play" company. The only "i" product I have ever owned, and plan to keep it that way, is the iMac. The rest of this iCrap is getting on my nerves.
As an AAPL shareholder, I see no constructive benefit to splitting up the company. As a matter of fact, the vertical integration (hardware, software, services) would be greatly damaged by dividing up the company into different pieces.
From a software development standpoint, it makes zero sense. iOS and Mac OS X share common code and are deeply intertwined.
Nay, the massive increase in shareholder value is heavily tied to Apple's well-focused business plan. Things like the iPhone and iPad never would have enjoyed the same success if they had been products from other companies.
Yes, Steve Jobs, BluRay licensing costs are "too high" for you, but you're more than happy to raise prices for everyone else.
Blimey hypocrite.
Excuse me but you seem to be the idiot. You apparently know nothing about Apple or else you wouldn't have made such a stupid statement. Apple is famous for NOT raising prices while at the same time improving the features and functions of the newest model (faster processors, more memory, speedier graphics, higher resolution screens) WITHOUT raising the price = providing even greater value! The other key factor about blu-ray is that the movies sold on these disks are ridiculously expensive! A ripoff by the studios. The benefit of watching blu-ray content on a smaller computer screen is minimal and not even worth arguing about. Its a large screen format.
Comments
How well are Blue-Ray discs going in comparison to iTunes movies
Blu-ray releases sales figures; iTunes movie sales are so poor Apple won't release them. Needless to say, iTunes movie sales don't even come close to blu-ray sales, which is what makes Steve's comments all the more absurd. 40% of Avatar's physical media sales were on blu-ray. I didn't hear Apple crowing about how many copies they sold.
Did you buy into HD-DVD? Your rhetoric rings of the bitterness of a former HD-DVD supporter. Or not, whatever.
I still own my HD-DVD player and plenty of movies, and yes that was a rather unpleasant fight.
That said, Blu-ray is not going anywhere soon, in spite of what SJ may say. At the current time, and for the foreseeable future, the infrastructure is not there to support the streaming of BR quality films, and there is a market for the quality offered by BR. Besides, I do not want streaming movies, as I do not want to be at the mercy of my internet provider in determining whether I can watch a movie or not.
In addition, the stats do support the idea that BR is on a similar track as DVD.
I am not sure why one would want BR on a computer for movies, as the benefits on a smallish screen and headphones are minimal. I could certainly see it for storage, but that is a different issue.
I love many of Apples products, etc. but at the same time they are really starting to piss me off!
er... fascinating.
Why aren't you reporting on this though?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...-replace-fault
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...r-supplies.ars
Check AI front page first. It was the first story today.
Bluray is good for one thing and one thing only: 1080p MKV rips. No DRM, no BS on cutting down the audio or bit rate or resolution, just h.264 HQ rips.
Long live Thepiratebay.org!
Glad legitimate buyers of bluray movies are subsidising this practice ...
P.S. Sorry for derailing the topic but the post rubbed me the wrong way.
Steve Jobs is correct and Andy Parsons is an idiot. They rushed an incomplete format (Blu-ray) to market and it shows. There is no similarity between the introduction of DVDs and of Blu-ray. DVD video was a unified format and everyone got behind it. The reason it took a while to grow was that they didn't have much manufacturing capacity for DVDs and the failure rate was high in the beginning. Blu-ray and HD-DVD fought it ought in the marketplace, but it wasn't a real fight. Sony paid off movie studios to drop the HD-DVD format. It's really more of a repeat of the introduction of SACD and DVD-Audio. Both formats fought it out and like a movie cliche, killed each other at the end of the duel. There wasn't much advantage to consumers either: Music that couldn't be burned to an iPod, somewhat better audio quality, and surround sound mixes that were often completely unnatural.
If there will be another physical media for video, it will probably be a storage medium with no moving parts, holographic or flash memory-based. There might be some use for an Apple Blu-ray drive, but I'm not sure what it would be. 50 GB of slow optical storage doesn't get you very far as a backup medium. Good bye Blu-ray and good riddance.
Well they had to because hd dvd was already released, most of the features hd dvd had blu ray was originally suppose to have when it first came out, but because of hd dvd coming out so soon they were forced to release blu ray incomplete or else they would have lost the format battle.
Which studios would those be? And Toshiba didn't try do the same thing either with attempting to bribe studios to release on hd dvd?
The truth of the matter is that more blu ray movies/discs were being sold then hd dvd movies/discs. That is the primary reason why warner bros went blu ray exclusive.
Blu ray basically won fair and square when you factor in that it was selling more movies then hd dvd equivalents and most of the blu ray players, excluding the ps3, were sold at a profit unlike hd dvd players which were sold at a loss.
Blu-ray releases sales figures; iTunes movie sales are so poor Apple won't release them. Needless to say, iTunes movie sales don't even come close to blu-ray sales, which is what makes Steve's comments all the more absurd. 40% of Avatar's physical media sales were on blu-ray. I didn't hear Apple crowing about how many copies they sold.
And, like I've said before, why would I want to buy a crap iTunes copy (of Avatar for example) for $14.99 when I could get the Blu-ray/DVD combo pack for $19.99. More often than not, the Blu-ray version offers a better buy than the iTunes digital copy.
And, like I've said before, why would I want to buy a crap iTunes copy (of Avatar for example) for $14.99 when I could get the Blu-ray/DVD combo pack for $19.99. More often than not, the Blu-ray version offers a better buy than the iTunes digital copy.
This.
This is what happens when your device manufacturer gets into the content distribution business; they start not supporting other methods of enjoying content and tell you they know best.
You mean it is time to split Apple up? I think so! SJ claims Apple has three independent profit centers. Time to unbundle the "triple-play" company. The only "i" product I have ever owned, and plan to keep it that way, is the iMac. The rest of this iCrap is getting on my nerves.
And, like I've said before, why would I want to buy a crap iTunes copy (of Avatar for example) for $14.99 when I could get the Blu-ray/DVD combo pack for $19.99. More often than not, the Blu-ray version offers a better buy than the iTunes digital copy.
Exactly. And often times the blu-ray also includes an SD digital copy for your iPhone/iPad. Some people just love to feel like they're living in the future by paying the same price for a version that's a fraction of the quality and only plays on Apple hardware.
Well they had to because hd dvd was already released, most of the features hd dvd had blu ray was originally suppose to have when it first came out, but because of hd dvd coming out so soon they were forced to release blu ray incomplete or else they would have lost the format battle.
Which studios would those be? And Toshiba didn't try do the same thing either with attempting to bribe studios to release on hd dvd?
The truth of the matter is that more blu ray movies/discs were being sold then hd dvd movies/discs. That is the primary reason why warner bros went blu ray exclusive.
Blu ray basically won fair and square when you factor in that it was selling more movies then hd dvd equivalents and most of the blu ray players, excluding the ps3, were sold at a profit unlike hd dvd players which were sold at a loss.
With all due respect, we do not need to dredge up that history. It was nasty and unpleasant, and far worse that what gets posted here. BR won, for whatever reasons, and we should leave it at that.
I still own my HD-DVD player and plenty of movies, and yes that was a rather unpleasant fight.
That said, Blu-ray is not going anywhere soon, in spite of what SJ may say. At the current time, and for the foreseeable future, the infrastructure is not there to support the streaming of BR quality films, and there is a market for the quality offered by BR. Besides, I do not want streaming movies, as I do not want to be at the mercy of my internet provider in determining whether I can watch a movie or not.
In addition, the stats do support the idea that BR is on a similar track as DVD.
Agreed. I'm a big movie buff and have been enjoying 1080p movies at home on both Blu-ray and HD-DVD since late 2006. SJ is just bitter because very few want to buy Apple's HD-Lite movies. You know the selection must stink when the HD movies area of iTunes is featuring "Wanted", "The Proposal", "Zoolander", "Good Luck Chuck" etc...
This.
Did I miss something?
With all due respect, we do not need to dredge up that history. It was nasty and unpleasant, and far worse that what gets posted here. BR won, for whatever reasons, and we should leave it at that.
Yes, it was downright ugly on the BR and HD-DVD forums over at AVS, and wherever else it was debated. But to get back on topic, I'd buy a blu-ray equipped Mac in a second, but I'm not holding my breath. And on that note, good night to all.
You mean it is time to split Apple up? I think so! SJ claims Apple has three independent profit centers. Time to unbundle the "triple-play" company. The only "i" product I have ever owned, and plan to keep it that way, is the iMac. The rest of this iCrap is getting on my nerves.
As an AAPL shareholder, I see no constructive benefit to splitting up the company. As a matter of fact, the vertical integration (hardware, software, services) would be greatly damaged by dividing up the company into different pieces.
From a software development standpoint, it makes zero sense. iOS and Mac OS X share common code and are deeply intertwined.
Nay, the massive increase in shareholder value is heavily tied to Apple's well-focused business plan. Things like the iPhone and iPad never would have enjoyed the same success if they had been products from other companies.
Yes, Steve Jobs, BluRay licensing costs are "too high" for you, but you're more than happy to raise prices for everyone else.
Blimey hypocrite.
Excuse me but you seem to be the idiot. You apparently know nothing about Apple or else you wouldn't have made such a stupid statement. Apple is famous for NOT raising prices while at the same time improving the features and functions of the newest model (faster processors, more memory, speedier graphics, higher resolution screens) WITHOUT raising the price = providing even greater value! The other key factor about blu-ray is that the movies sold on these disks are ridiculously expensive! A ripoff by the studios. The benefit of watching blu-ray content on a smaller computer screen is minimal and not even worth arguing about. Its a large screen format.