40% of Avatar's physical media sales were on blu-ray. I didn't hear Apple crowing about how many copies they sold.
That is a bit disingenuous. Avatar on DVD cost $19.99. Avatar on DVD+BD cost $21.99. So, basically, they are charging $2 for Blu-Ray. And yet, even for $2 60% of consumers chose not to buy Blu-Ray.
I am actually really surprised that only 40% of Avatar were sold as Blu-ray. Avatar was techy-geek movie primarily made to show off incredible graphics. I would expect that most people who would buy Avatar, would have higher end audio-visual systems than the average American and thus would want Blu-Ray.
This also calls into question the original contention that Blu-Ray is selling as well now as DVD did. I never bought a DVD coupled with a VHS tape. About two-thirds of my Blu-Ray discs have been bought as a package with a DVD, with a minimal additional cost. Basically, I am paying around $2-5 for the Blu-Ray. DVDs still rarely sell for that little.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabbelen
I think it is more complicated than just swapping one drive out for another. Sure on my old Macs I used to swap a CD-ROM drive for a DVD-ROM or SuperDrive in 2 minutes, start to finish (whether IDE or SCSI).
But I think the "bag of hurt" is all to do with securing the computer's graphics/video system, isn't it? Don't MS and PC makers have to get some kind of DRM on to their graphics channel and ports, so that BlueRay content can't be recorded anywhere within or outside the computer -- BlueRay content is allowed to be watched on a supported monitor only?
If this is the case, then that tech has to go into ALL Macs, not just the ones for people who opt for the BlueRay drive. And that adds cost to all Macs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
People have already mentioned that if you attach a USB blu-ray drive and boot you Mac to Windows you can watch blu-ray movies, so all this technology must already exist in the Macs.
It is more complicated than that. Not only does the hardware have to be specialized for Blu-Ray playback, but so does the operating system. From my understanding, there is a performance hit on the system related to simply building Blu-Ray playback into a computer's OS.
Now, let's look at this from Apple's perspective. Apple sells the majority of its computers in the portable market. Over the last few years Apple has been going to great lengths to increase the life of the batteries that power their money making portables. In fact, many people theorize that the inclusion of the SD slot in the MacBook is the first step in removing the power hungry optical drive from Apple's laptops, and I agree. Not only would getting rid of the internal optical drive reduce power consumption, but would open up valuable real estate for more battery, and could lead to a thinner and lighter laptop.
But, here comes an optical format which is pretty much only useful for watching movies, which would require not only that Apple possibly abandon plans to ditch the optical drive, but would also eat up precious computational resources, which equate to heat and power draw.
So, here is the simple equation that I see Apple looking at.
Support Blu-Ray:
Minuses
*Additional cost which either equates to higher prices or lower margins.
*Decreased performance due to required DRM demands
*Decreased battery life due to required DRM demands, even on systems that might not have Blu-Ray
*Increased complexity of OS code due to required DRM
*More people having access to proprietary OS code during validation that DRM has been properly implemented
*Longer time between OS updates as another, outside source must vet the new code to determine that no DRM bypasses are possible
*Increased time to require optical drives to support payback of investment in Blu-Ray
Pluses
*Might sell some more computers (although this is highly unlikely as the people who really want Blu-Ray on a computer also likely want HDMI. Which means more cost and development moving in a direction counter to the move to DisplayPort).
You could add onto that the very minimal loss in sales of movies through iTunes, but nobody in the know thinks that iTunes profits are anywhere high enough to lead business decisions. Even independent analyst have said that iTunes profits are marginal at best.
To me the simple point is that Apple is a hardware company. They make the vast majority of their money from selling hardware. And more and more of their hardware is moving towards portables. Be that the iPhone, the iPod Touch, the iPad, or the MacBooks. The benefits to Apple as a company for supporting Blu-Ray just isn't there for the minimal possibility of their possible sales.
I can honestly believe that Steve Jobs said that the cost was too high for the probably life of the media. He may have been talking about the media itself, or he may have been talking about the fact that as Apple's profit generators move to smaller and more portable systems the feasibility and desirability for incorporating Blu-Ray into their lines becomes less and less real. Thus there is a very short window for Apple to profit from Blu-Ray. After all, you aren't going to fit a Blu-Ray player into an iPhone or iPad.
At least that is my take on it. Personally, I am glad that Apple isn't messing with Blu-Ray. That is why I have a PS3.
I think you're overestimating the average consumer. I have Blu-Ray and while it's better than the average DVD (especially with upsampling), it's not like watching Hi-Def compared to 1960s Black and White. It's a very subtle difference - and if the movie's any good, you'll be watching the movie rather than examining pixels.
If you find the difference between DVD and 1080p blu-ray to be "very subtle", then you're either doing something wrong or have poor eyesight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That's not to say that people won't buy BD, but that there's less built in pressure to do so. Classic case where price is going to have a huge impact. If Blu-Ray discs were the same price as DVD, I'd switch over. Since BD is twice as much some times, I don't buy as many.
Often times, blu-ray discs are the same price as DVD. And people are buying blu-ray players; the adoption rate is the same as DVD was at this point in it's life. Don't believe everything Steve Jobs tells you; if digital downloads were all the rave, they'd be busting out those sales and rentals figures every quarter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mknopp
That is a bit disingenuous. Avatar on DVD cost $19.99. Avatar on DVD+BD cost $21.99. So, basically, they are charging $2 for Blu-Ray. And yet, even for $2 60% of consumers chose not to buy Blu-Ray.
I am actually really surprised that only 40% of Avatar were sold as Blu-ray. Avatar was techy-geek movie primarily made to show off incredible graphics. I would expect that most people who would buy Avatar, would have higher end audio-visual systems than the average American and thus would want Blu-Ray.
Now that's 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.
Where does SJ think Blu-Ray is going? Until Apple and broadband speeds can match BluRay quality movies, things like Netflix will make sure that BluRay doen't go anywhere.
I'm sure BluRay player sales will peak soon, but that doesn't mean it's dead. It means that the format has caught on. But, iTunes inferior HD quality, the rental price of $6 a movie (Netflix BluRay starts at $11 a month), and Broadband that can't support full streaming of true 1080p in most places will prevent BluRay from going anywhere in the future.
If you find the difference between DVD and 1080p blu-ray to be "very subtle", then you're either doing something wrong or have poor eyesight.
Compared to previous generation improvements, the differences ARE modest.
Compare TV to Radio.
Compare B/W TV to color TV
Compare Cable to over the air TV in rural areas
Compare DVD to VHS
All of those are huge, "hit you right between the eyes" improvements.
DVD (especially upsampled) to BD is just not that scale of improvement. Not even close.
I have average vision and a good quality system (not videophile, but well above average), so I'm not doing anything wrong. It's just not as huge a gain as the BD fans are pretending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer
Often times, blu-ray discs are the same price as DVD.
Really? Where?
Avatar is $30 on BD at Best Buy, DVD is $20. That's about the same ratio as almost everything I've seen there. I've bought dozens of movies at Best Buy since I got my Blu-Ray player and don't recall EVER seeing the price being the same. In fact, about 75% of the time, the price difference is high enough that I buy the DVD version.
Going back to the above, when DVD came out, even though it was more expensive than VHS, when I went into a store to buy a movie, I ALWAYS bought the DVD version (when available). The quality difference justified it. For BD, it doesn't justify a 50% (or more) premium for many people.
From my understanding, there is a performance hit on the system related to simply building Blu-Ray playback into a computer's OS.
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.
Quote:
Now, let's look at this from Apple's perspective. Apple sells the majority of its computers in the portable market. Over the last few years Apple has been going to great lengths to increase the life of the batteries that power their money making portables...
[portable-specific rationale snipped]
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.
Compared to previous generation improvements, the differences ARE modest.
Compare TV to Radio.
Compare B/W TV to color TV
Compare Cable to over the air TV in rural areas
Compare DVD to VHS
All of those are huge, "hit you right between the eyes" improvements.
There's no doubt that DVD raised the bar substantially. But the comparison between VHS and DVD is like one between a McDonalds cheeseburger and a good steak. You were going from 240 lines of horizontal resolution (on a good day) and analog mono or stereo sound to 480 lines and Dolby Digital or DTS 5.1. Blu-ray is like the filet mignon with the potential to be like a Kobe steak under the right circumstances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Avatar is $30 on BD at Best Buy, DVD is $20. That's about the same ratio as almost everything I've seen there. I've bought dozens of movies at Best Buy since I got my Blu-Ray player and don't recall EVER seeing the price being the same. In fact, about 75% of the time, the price difference is high enough that I buy the DVD version.
Going back to the above, when DVD came out, even though it was more expensive than VHS, when I went into a store to buy a movie, I ALWAYS bought the DVD version (when available). The quality difference justified it. For BD, it doesn't justify a 50% (or more) premium for many people.
Here's a bit of advice, don't buy Blu-ray movies from Best Buy (or Walmart or Target). Avatar sells for $21.99 on Amazon. I buy all my blu-rays from Amazon and I've never paid more than $25 for a new release. Truth is, in most instances, the Blu-ray version of a movie represents a 25%-30% price increase. I think it's a safe bet to say that blu-ray represents at least a 25%-30% increase in quality. So to me, the price is justified. Throw in the digital or DVD copies that frequently come with many blu-rays and the price is even more justifiable. Sorry if I sounded like an ad for Amazon, but I haven't found better prices for blu-ray movies anywhere. BTW, my copy of Saving Private Ryan on blu-ray was $19.99. Well worth it in my opinion. Oh, and one more thought, the price that really isn't justified is $20 for an HD-Lite copy of a movie from iTunes.
Not sure how you have reached that conclusion, but in my experience the difference in price between US and UK is far more than 17.5%.
A few examples:
iPad 16gb - $499 US / £429 UK ($648) US inc 17.5% $586
iMac 27" quad - $1999 US / £1634 UK ($2468) US inc 17.5% ($2348)
Mac Mini - $699 US / £649 UK ($980) US inc 17.5% ($821)
Some pretty healthy margins on those UK inflated prices. Apple are being far from fair, - they're simply ripping UK (and I can imagine all EU) customers off.
You can't just add 17.5% to the lower price, you have to instead take 17.5% from the larger UK price, which makes a difference. This is how I have calculated to reach the before tax price in both countries:
iPad:
USA: 499 US
UK : 648 US - 17.5% VAT = 551
52 dollars difference.
iMac:
USA: 1999 US
UK : 2468 US - 17.5% VAT = 2100
100 dollars difference.
Mac Mini:
USA: 699 US
UK : 980 US - 17.5% VAT = 834
Bigger difference, 135 US, don't know why. Reckon it should be 599 GBP and not 649.
The iPad and iMac are well within the range I mentioned: you may save 100-150 on a 1000-dollar purchase. In fact when it comes to the iMac, the UK price is only 100 US (65 GBP) higher, on a 2000-dollar purchase. If they were simply padding their margin and raising UK prices across the board, I would expect the iMac to be more (in the same proportion, another 100 US); instead, it looks like the prices may reflect the normal US margins, with cost of business and currency fluctuations built in. You often see price differences larger than this between different stores that sell the same product within one country. I like being able to count on one price for Apple gear per country.
The Mac Mini is apparently more proportionally, and just outside the higher end of my range. That does disappoint me, but I hadn't been shopping for one of those. In the case of the Mac Mini, I would definitely look for the possibility of getting it elsewhere; but for the other two it is hardly worth the bother, and seems insignificant in the scheme of things, even for me who has little cash to spare.
I still don't think it is necessarily a case of Apple trying to pad or raise their margins unfairly -- as I said, I think the remaining differences in price are largely down to the higher cost of doing business in Europe -- and the need to have a built-in mechanism to deal with fluctuations in exchange rates (which change between manufacturing and shipping, and the time of purchase).
Now that's 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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
There's no doubt that DVD raised the bar substantially. But the comparison between VHS and DVD is like one between a McDonalds cheeseburger and a good steak. You were going from 240 lines of horizontal resolution (on a good day) and analog mono or stereo sound to 480 lines and Dolby Digital or DTS 5.1. Blu-ray is like the filet mignon with the potential to be like a Kobe steak under the right circumstances.
And that's the entire point. Blu-Ray is the first time that the quality improvement is not something that's going to hit people between the eyes. It's better than DVD, but, for the first time, it's not a no-brainer.
Well you can enjoy waiting a minute for the disc to load, I mean, for the disc to make sure you haven't "modified" your BD player, or update the firmware on your player to pointlessly patch the keys on it or be able to play the latest BS Java protection, or be forced to watch all the promos.
The rest of us will open up a file and be on our way
That's an absurd statement. Regardless of those checks, it's still far faster for the Blu-ray to load and start playing than it is to download a file. If the U.S. were on the verge of supplying low-cost high-speed internet access along the lines of what's available in South Korea, I might agree that Blu-ray is completely unnecessary. But until then, and for those who want the highest quality in both picture and multichannel sound, BR is the way to go.
Personally, I have a separate combo BR/CD Audio/SACD player plugged into my audio/home theatre system, but it would still be nice if Apple would support BR so I could use those same discs on my laptop from time to time.
The thing that bothers me the most about Apple's lack of support (hell..just support it in the OS and let third parties supply the hardware) is not so much the hardware choice, but Apple's arrogance in the matter. Apple was always supposed to represent the highest quality - that's one of the things we were paying the Apple premium for. 720p is not the highest quality and their library is not very large in any case. But this still looks to me not like a strategic technology decision, but more like Jobs' personal feelings and to protect Apple store revenue.
Considering all the background tasks, eye-candy, and other flourishes that Apple builds into the OS (which I'm not necessarily objecting to, mind you) I think having a mostly-dormant SATA-based optical drive attached to a desktop machine is hardly something to worry about. And again, I'm saying it should be an option. Don't want it? Don't get the upgrade.
(As for added hardware costs - I would happily trade the built-in iSight camera, for example, which I have never used, once for the added components needed to play BD discs, and even pay more to do so. But that simply is not an option.)
Compared to previous generation improvements, the differences ARE modest.
Compare TV to Radio.
Compare B/W TV to color TV
Compare Cable to over the air TV in rural areas
Compare DVD to VHS
All of those are huge, "hit you right between the eyes" improvements.
DVD (especially upsampled) to BD is just not that scale of improvement. Not even close.
It's actually more a resolution increase than DVD over VHS. DVD doubled the horizontal resolution of VHS, but blu-ray is 2.7 times the horizontal resolution of DVD and 2.25 times the vertical resolution as well. The difference being that VHS would degrade over time because it wasn't digital.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I have average vision and a good quality system (not videophile, but well above average), so I'm not doing anything wrong. It's just not as huge a gain as the BD fans are pretending.
No, you're doing something wrong. "Average vision" might be your problem. Or your screen might be too small to appreciate the extra resolution at the distance from which you sit from it (a common mistake).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Avatar is $30 on BD at Best Buy, DVD is $20. That's about the same ratio as almost everything I've seen there. I've bought dozens of movies at Best Buy since I got my Blu-Ray player and don't recall EVER seeing the price being the same. In fact, about 75% of the time, the price difference is high enough that I buy the DVD version.
Best Buy will have a good price on new releases the week are released, and after that you have to wait for a sale (they were selling the Avatar blu-ray for $19.99 the week it came out). Amazon's prices are always closer to the DVDs, if not the same or even cheaper at times. This isn't always the case mind you, and there are still titles to be found whose blu-ray prices are too high.
And that's the entire point. Blu-Ray is the first time that the quality improvement is not something that's going to hit people between the eyes. It's better than DVD, but, for the first time, it's not a no-brainer.
Probably true for the masses, but for me it was a no-brainer. At one point in mid 2006 when some new releases started coming out on HD-DVD and later Blu-ray, I decided not to buy any more standard def DVDs unless there was no HD disc option. To me, it was like "why should I buy the standard version when I can now get the high def version?". I wouldn't buy anymore cassettes either once I had a CD player. Price wasn't an issue for me cause I had been used to paying $30, $40 even $50 for movies on laserdisc. Paying $25-$30 (at the time) for "A" list movies in 1080p was a comparative bargain.
No, you're doing something wrong. "Average vision" might be your problem. Or your screen might be too small to appreciate the extra resolution at the distance from which you sit from it (a common mistake).
Without knowing the specifics of his system, we can only speculate as to why he only sees a moderate improvement over DVD. Heck, the 1st time a showed a 1080i broadcast to my brother-in-law on my Pioneer Elite PRO610HD 58" rear projection set (this was almost ten years ago), he insisted that he couldn't see a difference. I was so surprised and shocked, I wanted to club him. A couple of years later, when I got a 720p front projector, I finally saw what I was missing and understood my brother-in-law's reaction from a few years back. The interesting thing was that DVD's looked really good on the 720p projector until I upgraded and got a 1080p front projector. All of a sudden, DVD's didn't look that good anymore. I still stand by my earlier statement that I can clearly see the difference between a DVD and a blu-ray on my 46" 1080p LCD at 12'.
Maybe someone else mentioned this. There are so many posts now, I have to admit, I scanned them without reading every word. But, if Mac OSX ever grows past the size limits of DVD DL, then Steve will have to surrender to another format, now won't he? If BL was standard on all Macs, then only one BL DVD is needed for the restore media.
One thing that always gets me is the use of slot loading DVD drives. That means no option for 3 inch media. Some people do want that, and it can't be done. The Apple Store employee who sold me my iMac almost three years ago said I could use 3 inch media. Good thing I did my homework, as it is not an option.
Probably true for the masses, but for me it was a no-brainer.
Businesses rarely make product introduction decisions for any one individual. It's the masses that matter - and you're admitting that for the masses it's not a huge improvement - which is what I've been claiming all along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55
Without knowing the specifics of his system, we can only speculate as to why he only sees a moderate improvement over DVD. Heck, the 1st time a showed a 1080i broadcast to my brother-in-law on my Pioneer Elite PRO610HD 58" rear projection set (this was almost ten years ago), he insisted that he couldn't see a difference. I was so surprised and shocked, I wanted to club him. A couple of years later, when I got a 720p front projector, I finally saw what I was missing and understood my brother-in-law's reaction from a few years back. The interesting thing was that DVD's looked really good on the 720p projector until I upgraded and got a 1080p front projector. All of a sudden, DVD's didn't look that good anymore. I still stand by my earlier statement that I can clearly see the difference between a DVD and a blu-ray on my 46" 1080p LCD at 12'.
I'm glad you can see a difference. It just doesn't matter, though.
My system is a couple of years old, but it was a top of the line 55" LCD projection system with LED lighting (Samsung, I think, but I don't remember). Connected directly to a same-brand Blu-Ray/DVD player with HDMI cable. Audio is a Sony amp with Infinity speakers all around. So just what am I doing wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WPLJ42
Maybe someone else mentioned this. There are so many posts now, I have to admit, I scanned them without reading every word. But, if Mac OSX ever grows past the size limits of DVD DL, then Steve will have to surrender to another format, now won't he? If BL was standard on all Macs, then only one BL DVD is needed for the restore media.
Apple has used multiple disks for years. On floppies, they were up to at least 10 floppies at one point. They used multiple CDs at one point. Even today, I believe they use 2 DVDs. The inconvenience of throwing in another DVD isn't great enough to force them to use BD if they don't wish to.
Businesses rarely make product introduction decisions for any one individual. It's the masses that matter - and you're admitting that for the masses it's not a huge improvement - which is what I've been claiming all along.
What I'm admitting is that (in your words) it hasn't hit people between the eyes. Can't say I understand why, but it is what has been happening so far. I've seen reports that adoption is on the same or similar pace as DVD was at the same point after it's introduction but I was hoping it would have been more popular by now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I'm glad you can see a difference. It just doesn't matter, though.
Exactly which part doesn't matter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
My system is a couple of years old, but it was a top of the line 55" LCD projection system with LED lighting (Samsung, I think, but I don't remember). Connected directly to a same-brand Blu-Ray/DVD player with HDMI cable. Audio is a Sony amp with Infinity speakers all around. So just what am I doing wrong?
No, you're doing something wrong. "Average vision" might be your problem. Or your screen might be too small to appreciate the extra resolution at the distance from which you sit from it (a common mistake).
Maybe he really can't tell much difference between SD (DVD) and HD (Blu-ray). If so, he won't have to upgrade any equipment to go HD, he won't have to spend extra time downloading low bitrate HD movies (lucky guy). DVD is ok but I find Blu-ray movies stunning, definitely for me.
He is one of the cadre of domesticated trolls that are pastured here to meet diversity requirements!
On subject, Blu-Ray is not a data format it is a content delivery format, and as such, carries higher than usual licensing fees, and other liabilities, etc. More importantly, given the rapidity of development in the storage media space, Apple was probably willing to take a pass on the optical format in lieu of a more forward-looking format yet to be publically announced and out where SJ is most comfortable with in terms of actually putting something in the case. The rest is easy - buy an external BR drive and be done with it. Yes, yes we know it isn't as fast on the connector buss either USB or Firewire, but at least you have it when you need it.
Remember the primary reason you have a new format is so the media chains can resell you content you already own, not because it is incrementally better (which it, of course, is) in terms of content delivery. Given that most movies are watched maybe a dozen times by the average consumer in the course of their media lifespan, and then end up simply taking up space either physical or digital and languishing there, this is rather silly. For example I have friends who still have laser discs and have bought multiple players in order to have replacement parts for their devices, there was a cutting edge technology that was revolutionary and well, didn't last very long. The thing BR has going for it in the consumer's perception is that it looks like a nicer DVD, with a better picture and sound which means it is enjoying better uptake than laser disc did. The question to ask would be not whether it is a better content delivery system, but whether it is a better data storage medium, and not just in terms of capacity.
Comments
40% of Avatar's physical media sales were on blu-ray. I didn't hear Apple crowing about how many copies they sold.
That is a bit disingenuous. Avatar on DVD cost $19.99. Avatar on DVD+BD cost $21.99. So, basically, they are charging $2 for Blu-Ray. And yet, even for $2 60% of consumers chose not to buy Blu-Ray.
I am actually really surprised that only 40% of Avatar were sold as Blu-ray. Avatar was techy-geek movie primarily made to show off incredible graphics. I would expect that most people who would buy Avatar, would have higher end audio-visual systems than the average American and thus would want Blu-Ray.
This also calls into question the original contention that Blu-Ray is selling as well now as DVD did. I never bought a DVD coupled with a VHS tape. About two-thirds of my Blu-Ray discs have been bought as a package with a DVD, with a minimal additional cost. Basically, I am paying around $2-5 for the Blu-Ray. DVDs still rarely sell for that little.
I think it is more complicated than just swapping one drive out for another. Sure on my old Macs I used to swap a CD-ROM drive for a DVD-ROM or SuperDrive in 2 minutes, start to finish (whether IDE or SCSI).
But I think the "bag of hurt" is all to do with securing the computer's graphics/video system, isn't it? Don't MS and PC makers have to get some kind of DRM on to their graphics channel and ports, so that BlueRay content can't be recorded anywhere within or outside the computer -- BlueRay content is allowed to be watched on a supported monitor only?
If this is the case, then that tech has to go into ALL Macs, not just the ones for people who opt for the BlueRay drive. And that adds cost to all Macs.
People have already mentioned that if you attach a USB blu-ray drive and boot you Mac to Windows you can watch blu-ray movies, so all this technology must already exist in the Macs.
It is more complicated than that. Not only does the hardware have to be specialized for Blu-Ray playback, but so does the operating system. From my understanding, there is a performance hit on the system related to simply building Blu-Ray playback into a computer's OS.
Now, let's look at this from Apple's perspective. Apple sells the majority of its computers in the portable market. Over the last few years Apple has been going to great lengths to increase the life of the batteries that power their money making portables. In fact, many people theorize that the inclusion of the SD slot in the MacBook is the first step in removing the power hungry optical drive from Apple's laptops, and I agree. Not only would getting rid of the internal optical drive reduce power consumption, but would open up valuable real estate for more battery, and could lead to a thinner and lighter laptop.
But, here comes an optical format which is pretty much only useful for watching movies, which would require not only that Apple possibly abandon plans to ditch the optical drive, but would also eat up precious computational resources, which equate to heat and power draw.
So, here is the simple equation that I see Apple looking at.
Support Blu-Ray:
Minuses
*Additional cost which either equates to higher prices or lower margins.
*Decreased performance due to required DRM demands
*Decreased battery life due to required DRM demands, even on systems that might not have Blu-Ray
*Increased complexity of OS code due to required DRM
*More people having access to proprietary OS code during validation that DRM has been properly implemented
*Longer time between OS updates as another, outside source must vet the new code to determine that no DRM bypasses are possible
*Increased time to require optical drives to support payback of investment in Blu-Ray
Pluses
*Might sell some more computers (although this is highly unlikely as the people who really want Blu-Ray on a computer also likely want HDMI. Which means more cost and development moving in a direction counter to the move to DisplayPort).
You could add onto that the very minimal loss in sales of movies through iTunes, but nobody in the know thinks that iTunes profits are anywhere high enough to lead business decisions. Even independent analyst have said that iTunes profits are marginal at best.
To me the simple point is that Apple is a hardware company. They make the vast majority of their money from selling hardware. And more and more of their hardware is moving towards portables. Be that the iPhone, the iPod Touch, the iPad, or the MacBooks. The benefits to Apple as a company for supporting Blu-Ray just isn't there for the minimal possibility of their possible sales.
I can honestly believe that Steve Jobs said that the cost was too high for the probably life of the media. He may have been talking about the media itself, or he may have been talking about the fact that as Apple's profit generators move to smaller and more portable systems the feasibility and desirability for incorporating Blu-Ray into their lines becomes less and less real. Thus there is a very short window for Apple to profit from Blu-Ray. After all, you aren't going to fit a Blu-Ray player into an iPhone or iPad.
At least that is my take on it. Personally, I am glad that Apple isn't messing with Blu-Ray. That is why I have a PS3.
I think you're overestimating the average consumer. I have Blu-Ray and while it's better than the average DVD (especially with upsampling), it's not like watching Hi-Def compared to 1960s Black and White. It's a very subtle difference - and if the movie's any good, you'll be watching the movie rather than examining pixels.
If you find the difference between DVD and 1080p blu-ray to be "very subtle", then you're either doing something wrong or have poor eyesight.
That's not to say that people won't buy BD, but that there's less built in pressure to do so. Classic case where price is going to have a huge impact. If Blu-Ray discs were the same price as DVD, I'd switch over. Since BD is twice as much some times, I don't buy as many.
Often times, blu-ray discs are the same price as DVD. And people are buying blu-ray players; the adoption rate is the same as DVD was at this point in it's life. Don't believe everything Steve Jobs tells you; if digital downloads were all the rave, they'd be busting out those sales and rentals figures every quarter.
That is a bit disingenuous. Avatar on DVD cost $19.99. Avatar on DVD+BD cost $21.99. So, basically, they are charging $2 for Blu-Ray. And yet, even for $2 60% of consumers chose not to buy Blu-Ray.
I am actually really surprised that only 40% of Avatar were sold as Blu-ray. Avatar was techy-geek movie primarily made to show off incredible graphics. I would expect that most people who would buy Avatar, would have higher end audio-visual systems than the average American and thus would want Blu-Ray.
Now that's 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'm sure BluRay player sales will peak soon, but that doesn't mean it's dead. It means that the format has caught on. But, iTunes inferior HD quality, the rental price of $6 a movie (Netflix BluRay starts at $11 a month), and Broadband that can't support full streaming of true 1080p in most places will prevent BluRay from going anywhere in the future.
If you find the difference between DVD and 1080p blu-ray to be "very subtle", then you're either doing something wrong or have poor eyesight.
Compared to previous generation improvements, the differences ARE modest.
Compare TV to Radio.
Compare B/W TV to color TV
Compare Cable to over the air TV in rural areas
Compare DVD to VHS
All of those are huge, "hit you right between the eyes" improvements.
DVD (especially upsampled) to BD is just not that scale of improvement. Not even close.
I have average vision and a good quality system (not videophile, but well above average), so I'm not doing anything wrong. It's just not as huge a gain as the BD fans are pretending.
Often times, blu-ray discs are the same price as DVD.
Really? Where?
Avatar is $30 on BD at Best Buy, DVD is $20. That's about the same ratio as almost everything I've seen there. I've bought dozens of movies at Best Buy since I got my Blu-Ray player and don't recall EVER seeing the price being the same. In fact, about 75% of the time, the price difference is high enough that I buy the DVD version.
Going back to the above, when DVD came out, even though it was more expensive than VHS, when I went into a store to buy a movie, I ALWAYS bought the DVD version (when available). The quality difference justified it. For BD, it doesn't justify a 50% (or more) premium for many people.
From my understanding, there is a performance hit on the system related to simply building Blu-Ray playback into a computer's OS.
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.
Now, let's look at this from Apple's perspective. Apple sells the majority of its computers in the portable market. Over the last few years Apple has been going to great lengths to increase the life of the batteries that power their money making portables...
[portable-specific rationale snipped]
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.
Compared to previous generation improvements, the differences ARE modest.
Compare TV to Radio.
Compare B/W TV to color TV
Compare Cable to over the air TV in rural areas
Compare DVD to VHS
All of those are huge, "hit you right between the eyes" improvements.
There's no doubt that DVD raised the bar substantially. But the comparison between VHS and DVD is like one between a McDonalds cheeseburger and a good steak. You were going from 240 lines of horizontal resolution (on a good day) and analog mono or stereo sound to 480 lines and Dolby Digital or DTS 5.1. Blu-ray is like the filet mignon with the potential to be like a Kobe steak under the right circumstances.
Avatar is $30 on BD at Best Buy, DVD is $20. That's about the same ratio as almost everything I've seen there. I've bought dozens of movies at Best Buy since I got my Blu-Ray player and don't recall EVER seeing the price being the same. In fact, about 75% of the time, the price difference is high enough that I buy the DVD version.
Going back to the above, when DVD came out, even though it was more expensive than VHS, when I went into a store to buy a movie, I ALWAYS bought the DVD version (when available). The quality difference justified it. For BD, it doesn't justify a 50% (or more) premium for many people.
Here's a bit of advice, don't buy Blu-ray movies from Best Buy (or Walmart or Target). Avatar sells for $21.99 on Amazon. I buy all my blu-rays from Amazon and I've never paid more than $25 for a new release. Truth is, in most instances, the Blu-ray version of a movie represents a 25%-30% price increase. I think it's a safe bet to say that blu-ray represents at least a 25%-30% increase in quality. So to me, the price is justified. Throw in the digital or DVD copies that frequently come with many blu-rays and the price is even more justifiable. Sorry if I sounded like an ad for Amazon, but I haven't found better prices for blu-ray movies anywhere. BTW, my copy of Saving Private Ryan on blu-ray was $19.99. Well worth it in my opinion. Oh, and one more thought, the price that really isn't justified is $20 for an HD-Lite copy of a movie from iTunes.
Not sure how you have reached that conclusion, but in my experience the difference in price between US and UK is far more than 17.5%.
A few examples:
iPad 16gb - $499 US / £429 UK ($648) US inc 17.5% $586
iMac 27" quad - $1999 US / £1634 UK ($2468) US inc 17.5% ($2348)
Mac Mini - $699 US / £649 UK ($980) US inc 17.5% ($821)
Some pretty healthy margins on those UK inflated prices. Apple are being far from fair, - they're simply ripping UK (and I can imagine all EU) customers off.
You can't just add 17.5% to the lower price, you have to instead take 17.5% from the larger UK price, which makes a difference. This is how I have calculated to reach the before tax price in both countries:
iPad:
USA: 499 US
UK : 648 US - 17.5% VAT = 551
52 dollars difference.
iMac:
USA: 1999 US
UK : 2468 US - 17.5% VAT = 2100
100 dollars difference.
Mac Mini:
USA: 699 US
UK : 980 US - 17.5% VAT = 834
Bigger difference, 135 US, don't know why. Reckon it should be 599 GBP and not 649.
The iPad and iMac are well within the range I mentioned: you may save 100-150 on a 1000-dollar purchase. In fact when it comes to the iMac, the UK price is only 100 US (65 GBP) higher, on a 2000-dollar purchase. If they were simply padding their margin and raising UK prices across the board, I would expect the iMac to be more (in the same proportion, another 100 US); instead, it looks like the prices may reflect the normal US margins, with cost of business and currency fluctuations built in. You often see price differences larger than this between different stores that sell the same product within one country. I like being able to count on one price for Apple gear per country.
The Mac Mini is apparently more proportionally, and just outside the higher end of my range. That does disappoint me, but I hadn't been shopping for one of those. In the case of the Mac Mini, I would definitely look for the possibility of getting it elsewhere; but for the other two it is hardly worth the bother, and seems insignificant in the scheme of things, even for me who has little cash to spare.
I still don't think it is necessarily a case of Apple trying to pad or raise their margins unfairly -- as I said, I think the remaining differences in price are largely down to the higher cost of doing business in Europe -- and the need to have a built-in mechanism to deal with fluctuations in exchange rates (which change between manufacturing and shipping, and the time of purchase).
Now that's 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.
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.
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.
There's no doubt that DVD raised the bar substantially. But the comparison between VHS and DVD is like one between a McDonalds cheeseburger and a good steak. You were going from 240 lines of horizontal resolution (on a good day) and analog mono or stereo sound to 480 lines and Dolby Digital or DTS 5.1. Blu-ray is like the filet mignon with the potential to be like a Kobe steak under the right circumstances.
And that's the entire point. Blu-Ray is the first time that the quality improvement is not something that's going to hit people between the eyes. It's better than DVD, but, for the first time, it's not a no-brainer.
Well you can enjoy waiting a minute for the disc to load, I mean, for the disc to make sure you haven't "modified" your BD player, or update the firmware on your player to pointlessly patch the keys on it or be able to play the latest BS Java protection, or be forced to watch all the promos.
The rest of us will open up a file and be on our way
That's an absurd statement. Regardless of those checks, it's still far faster for the Blu-ray to load and start playing than it is to download a file. If the U.S. were on the verge of supplying low-cost high-speed internet access along the lines of what's available in South Korea, I might agree that Blu-ray is completely unnecessary. But until then, and for those who want the highest quality in both picture and multichannel sound, BR is the way to go.
Personally, I have a separate combo BR/CD Audio/SACD player plugged into my audio/home theatre system, but it would still be nice if Apple would support BR so I could use those same discs on my laptop from time to time.
The thing that bothers me the most about Apple's lack of support (hell..just support it in the OS and let third parties supply the hardware) is not so much the hardware choice, but Apple's arrogance in the matter. Apple was always supposed to represent the highest quality - that's one of the things we were paying the Apple premium for. 720p is not the highest quality and their library is not very large in any case. But this still looks to me not like a strategic technology decision, but more like Jobs' personal feelings and to protect Apple store revenue.
[stuff]
TL,DR.
Considering all the background tasks, eye-candy, and other flourishes that Apple builds into the OS (which I'm not necessarily objecting to, mind you) I think having a mostly-dormant SATA-based optical drive attached to a desktop machine is hardly something to worry about. And again, I'm saying it should be an option. Don't want it? Don't get the upgrade.
(As for added hardware costs - I would happily trade the built-in iSight camera, for example, which I have never used, once for the added components needed to play BD discs, and even pay more to do so. But that simply is not an option.)
Compared to previous generation improvements, the differences ARE modest.
Compare TV to Radio.
Compare B/W TV to color TV
Compare Cable to over the air TV in rural areas
Compare DVD to VHS
All of those are huge, "hit you right between the eyes" improvements.
DVD (especially upsampled) to BD is just not that scale of improvement. Not even close.
It's actually more a resolution increase than DVD over VHS. DVD doubled the horizontal resolution of VHS, but blu-ray is 2.7 times the horizontal resolution of DVD and 2.25 times the vertical resolution as well. The difference being that VHS would degrade over time because it wasn't digital.
I have average vision and a good quality system (not videophile, but well above average), so I'm not doing anything wrong. It's just not as huge a gain as the BD fans are pretending.
No, you're doing something wrong. "Average vision" might be your problem. Or your screen might be too small to appreciate the extra resolution at the distance from which you sit from it (a common mistake).
Avatar is $30 on BD at Best Buy, DVD is $20. That's about the same ratio as almost everything I've seen there. I've bought dozens of movies at Best Buy since I got my Blu-Ray player and don't recall EVER seeing the price being the same. In fact, about 75% of the time, the price difference is high enough that I buy the DVD version.
Best Buy will have a good price on new releases the week are released, and after that you have to wait for a sale (they were selling the Avatar blu-ray for $19.99 the week it came out). Amazon's prices are always closer to the DVDs, if not the same or even cheaper at times. This isn't always the case mind you, and there are still titles to be found whose blu-ray prices are too high.
And that's the entire point. Blu-Ray is the first time that the quality improvement is not something that's going to hit people between the eyes. It's better than DVD, but, for the first time, it's not a no-brainer.
Probably true for the masses, but for me it was a no-brainer. At one point in mid 2006 when some new releases started coming out on HD-DVD and later Blu-ray, I decided not to buy any more standard def DVDs unless there was no HD disc option. To me, it was like "why should I buy the standard version when I can now get the high def version?". I wouldn't buy anymore cassettes either once I had a CD player. Price wasn't an issue for me cause I had been used to paying $30, $40 even $50 for movies on laserdisc. Paying $25-$30 (at the time) for "A" list movies in 1080p was a comparative bargain.
No, you're doing something wrong. "Average vision" might be your problem. Or your screen might be too small to appreciate the extra resolution at the distance from which you sit from it (a common mistake).
Without knowing the specifics of his system, we can only speculate as to why he only sees a moderate improvement over DVD. Heck, the 1st time a showed a 1080i broadcast to my brother-in-law on my Pioneer Elite PRO610HD 58" rear projection set (this was almost ten years ago), he insisted that he couldn't see a difference. I was so surprised and shocked, I wanted to club him.
One thing that always gets me is the use of slot loading DVD drives. That means no option for 3 inch media. Some people do want that, and it can't be done. The Apple Store employee who sold me my iMac almost three years ago said I could use 3 inch media. Good thing I did my homework, as it is not an option.
...if Mac OSX ever grows past the size limits of DVD DL, then Steve will have to surrender to another format, now won't he?
Couldn't they just put the OS on two DVDs? I remember installing operating systems from several floppies. Not convenient, but doable.
Probably true for the masses, but for me it was a no-brainer.
Businesses rarely make product introduction decisions for any one individual. It's the masses that matter - and you're admitting that for the masses it's not a huge improvement - which is what I've been claiming all along.
Without knowing the specifics of his system, we can only speculate as to why he only sees a moderate improvement over DVD. Heck, the 1st time a showed a 1080i broadcast to my brother-in-law on my Pioneer Elite PRO610HD 58" rear projection set (this was almost ten years ago), he insisted that he couldn't see a difference. I was so surprised and shocked, I wanted to club him.
I'm glad you can see a difference. It just doesn't matter, though.
My system is a couple of years old, but it was a top of the line 55" LCD projection system with LED lighting (Samsung, I think, but I don't remember). Connected directly to a same-brand Blu-Ray/DVD player with HDMI cable. Audio is a Sony amp with Infinity speakers all around. So just what am I doing wrong?
Maybe someone else mentioned this. There are so many posts now, I have to admit, I scanned them without reading every word. But, if Mac OSX ever grows past the size limits of DVD DL, then Steve will have to surrender to another format, now won't he? If BL was standard on all Macs, then only one BL DVD is needed for the restore media.
Apple has used multiple disks for years. On floppies, they were up to at least 10 floppies at one point. They used multiple CDs at one point. Even today, I believe they use 2 DVDs. The inconvenience of throwing in another DVD isn't great enough to force them to use BD if they don't wish to.
Businesses rarely make product introduction decisions for any one individual. It's the masses that matter - and you're admitting that for the masses it's not a huge improvement - which is what I've been claiming all along.
What I'm admitting is that (in your words) it hasn't hit people between the eyes. Can't say I understand why, but it is what has been happening so far. I've seen reports that adoption is on the same or similar pace as DVD was at the same point after it's introduction but I was hoping it would have been more popular by now.
I'm glad you can see a difference. It just doesn't matter, though.
Exactly which part doesn't matter?
My system is a couple of years old, but it was a top of the line 55" LCD projection system with LED lighting (Samsung, I think, but I don't remember). Connected directly to a same-brand Blu-Ray/DVD player with HDMI cable. Audio is a Sony amp with Infinity speakers all around. So just what am I doing wrong?
I can't see it from here. Difficult to say.
No, you're doing something wrong. "Average vision" might be your problem. Or your screen might be too small to appreciate the extra resolution at the distance from which you sit from it (a common mistake).
Maybe he really can't tell much difference between SD (DVD) and HD (Blu-ray). If so, he won't have to upgrade any equipment to go HD, he won't have to spend extra time downloading low bitrate HD movies (lucky guy). DVD is ok but I find Blu-ray movies stunning, definitely for me.
Holy balls! You're not supended or banned yet?
He is one of the cadre of domesticated trolls that are pastured here to meet diversity requirements!
On subject, Blu-Ray is not a data format it is a content delivery format, and as such, carries higher than usual licensing fees, and other liabilities, etc. More importantly, given the rapidity of development in the storage media space, Apple was probably willing to take a pass on the optical format in lieu of a more forward-looking format yet to be publically announced and out where SJ is most comfortable with in terms of actually putting something in the case. The rest is easy - buy an external BR drive and be done with it. Yes, yes we know it isn't as fast on the connector buss either USB or Firewire, but at least you have it when you need it.
Remember the primary reason you have a new format is so the media chains can resell you content you already own, not because it is incrementally better (which it, of course, is) in terms of content delivery. Given that most movies are watched maybe a dozen times by the average consumer in the course of their media lifespan, and then end up simply taking up space either physical or digital and languishing there, this is rather silly. For example I have friends who still have laser discs and have bought multiple players in order to have replacement parts for their devices, there was a cutting edge technology that was revolutionary and well, didn't last very long. The thing BR has going for it in the consumer's perception is that it looks like a nicer DVD, with a better picture and sound which means it is enjoying better uptake than laser disc did. The question to ask would be not whether it is a better content delivery system, but whether it is a better data storage medium, and not just in terms of capacity.