Let me get this straight: you want nothing but 1080p for every movie you watch regardless of where you watch it. To get that, you are willing to go obtain the Blu-ray disks and carry them with you to all these places? Man, you really are serious.
Thompson
I think many here don't realize that there are many people out there buying laptops today, who will never take them outside of there house. I know this because I spend my day selling laptops and desktops (both PC's and Mac's). Many people are looking for something that will be there sole computer and don't plan on taking them anywhere, but simply want to easily work throughout the house. What many people are also wanting to do is have the ability to connect this laptop up to their TV's. BR would be useful in this situation. For the person that is going to be taking a trip, they would most certainly rip a small selection of films they would like to see while away, and have them digitally on their laptop, but when they are at home and their laptop is hooked up to their HDTV, they would like to be able to get that BR of the latest movie, take it right home, and be able to slide it into their laptop. I encounter regular customers who are wanting to do this a lot more than many on this forum would have us believe. Also, in these situations, the whole "downside to optical" in general loses much of its steam. The power consumption becomes a non issue, the noise is irrelevant (would never hear it over the sound of the movie itself), and the speed is certainly fast enough to keep up with the watching of the movie.
Well then, it seems like you have a broken analogy, because there is very little about Blu-ray that is more convenient than streaming or just having digital copies of a movie.
Thompson
Popping in a BR disc is far more convient than dealing with an internet connection that craps out every five seconds. My simple point in the analogy was mentioning the aspect of the word need, that is why I emphasized it. I agree that BR is not a need, but it is something desired by enough people that I don't feel it should be marginalized. That is why the issue continues to come up.
...but when they are at home and their laptop is hooked up to their HDTV, they would like to be able to get that BR of the latest movie, take it right home, and be able to slide it into their laptop
If this is the primary use case, wouldn't it be a cheaper and more convenient solution to actually have a Blu-ray player hooked up to your TV? (And there we are with that "convenience" factor again.)
Popping in a BR disc is far more convient than dealing with an internet connection that craps out every five seconds. My simple point in the analogy was mentioning the aspect of the word need, that is why I emphasized it. I agree that BR is not a need, but it is something desired by enough people that I don't feel it should be marginalized. That is why the issue continues to come up.
No, I understood your point, and you used the word convenience as the trade-off. If it is true that your internet connection craps out every five seconds, then I'll grant you the point. Mine, however, does not. I successfully stream movies from beginning to end with nary a hitch from multiple sources: my own digital library, Netflix, iTunes, etc, to multiple end devices: AppleTV, iPhone, iPad, Computers, etc, even over the web. This is much more convenient than dealing with physical media, so your analogy is completely broken for me. The ONLY thing compelling about Blu-ray is the higher resolution and cinema quality sound... and lacking it just isn't a deal breaker for me.
see the man's post directly above for the difference. As for your Ghetto reference, get your head out of your ass, what did you do a year ago before the ipad existed dickhead?
Let me interject. Things were a bit different a year ago so the argument is moot. This MS ad is coming out now and you have to look at the direction that technology is moving towards at this moment, not a year ago.
Also, on a laptop, 1080 isn't going to matter so much. Watching movies on a laptop is a compromise in every way (except for portability). If you've got an HD flatscreen, then yeah, 720 won't cut it. Not so with a laptop.
Apple's problem is their insistence that 720p is 'good enough.' It ain't.
1080p, Steve. 1080p.
A quick google search will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the difference between 720p and 1080p is really only tangible on displays larger than 48".
Since there are no 50" iMacs, I'd say Apple made the right choice and stayed clear of the "bag of hurt" that is blu-ray.
The minority that chooses to buy 60" TV's can buy themselves a blu-ray player and spend retarded amounts on media.
For the rest of us, we'll continue to enjoy our content the convenient way... without the need for physical media that scratches, breaks, get's left at home, etc. To say nothing of cost.
So... how is that Blu-Ray support for Xbox coming along?
yes, the starting price for the arcade will only be $320, based of prices for laptops.
putting it at MORE then the PS3 slim, which has more memory.... and better graphics... and a stronger cpu...
maybe on the refresh of the 360.
but i don't think a "xbox 360 BDE" will come out
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcode
A quick google search will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the difference between 720p and 1080p is really only tangible on displays larger than 48".
Since there are no 50" iMacs, I'd say Apple made the right choice and stayed clear of the "bag of hurt" that is blu-ray.
The minority that chooses to buy 60" TV's can buy themselves a blu-ray player and spend retarded amounts on media.
For the rest of us, we'll continue to enjoy our content the convenient way... without the need for physical media that scratches, breaks, get's left at home, etc. To say nothing of cost.
have you tried using screen sized at 15.4-15.6 inchs, going from 720-1080p
i will say that, i can see a difference.
blu-ray still seems pointless in my opinion however, i would prefer flash drives.
While I think BR quality is superior to most of the heavily compressed HD codecs, as it supports videophile features such as uncompressed multichannel HD audio and true 1080 24p video, I think Microsoft is kind of missing the point: that kind of quality is only truly beneficial when you're watching it on a big 50" HDTV and proper surround sound system. The MacBook user would simply download an HD copy from iTMS and still enjoy the movie in HD in flight. Apple has made it easy so that even grandma can do it. Even better: the ability to watch 720p or 1080p files on an iPad. Sure Windows can do BR, but if the point is to say: I can watch movies in HD on my laptop, the MacBook is no less capable.
Yes, but Jobs' point is valid. Blue Ray licensing requires a hardware manufacturer to lock down the hardware to a very extreme level. So much so that when a DVD isn't being played, D.R.M. is still having an effect on the performance of the hardware. For instance, if you plug in a third party external hard drive to a properly licensed Blue Ray PC if that third party drive doesn't also comply with Blue Ray licensing terms the PC will not let you use the third party device. Further, the OS itself is always using extra juice complying with the required DRM.
Adopting Blue Ray would require Apple to make the Macs much more locked down at the expense of performance. Not worth it. Buy a third party Blue Ray external drive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaramanga89
I think most laptops will last three hours ok. This is actually a good angle for MS, as there's no real reason or excuse for the lack of Blu-Ray support for Mac, other than "licensing issues" which means Jobs didn't get his own way and all the pie. His assertion that BR is a dead format is bollocks, as the sales grew way over 100% on last year, some half a billion in revenue.
Anyone who says that there's no difference with that and downloaded or streaming content is also misinformed, as I have Apple TV 2 and a PS3, and the difference is night and day, honestly. That's before you factor in the time it takes to download and getting throttled by your ISP for streaming 30GB films a month. (BT I am looking at you)
Also ironic being that Microsoft originally was in the competing format's corner.
If MS had shipped XBOX 360s with HD-DVD I think it could have won the war? but we?ll never know for sure. What we can be sure of is that the war between HD-DVD and Blu-ray kept people from adopting which kept production costs, all at a time when they needed to get in front of internet-based video which is the most dominate form of video playback on the planet.
So how does Microsoft downplay their refusal to put Blu-Ray on the XBox? It's a bit contradictory to tout Blu-Ray on one device yet say that streaming is the way to go on another. At least Apple is consistent with streaming as their go-to strategy.
Yeah. Consistency. That makes up for it nicely. It is a complete substitute.
If someone sat beside me on the plane and was thrilled that they could pop in a bluray I'd say "Great. By the way, have you seen my iPad? It holds 12 bluray movies and last 10 hours."
Your iPad cannot display HD content. Why do you load it? Can your iPad really handle the codec?
It must be a PC user that carries a lot of discs on a trip. A Mac user has it all on the HD. Steve Ballmer. What a joke! Haven't you learned anything? Still remember your comments about the MacBook Air without optical drive.
If you like the past, use Windows 7. A Mac is for the future.
Comments
Let me get this straight: you want nothing but 1080p for every movie you watch regardless of where you watch it. To get that, you are willing to go obtain the Blu-ray disks and carry them with you to all these places? Man, you really are serious.
Thompson
I think many here don't realize that there are many people out there buying laptops today, who will never take them outside of there house. I know this because I spend my day selling laptops and desktops (both PC's and Mac's). Many people are looking for something that will be there sole computer and don't plan on taking them anywhere, but simply want to easily work throughout the house. What many people are also wanting to do is have the ability to connect this laptop up to their TV's. BR would be useful in this situation. For the person that is going to be taking a trip, they would most certainly rip a small selection of films they would like to see while away, and have them digitally on their laptop, but when they are at home and their laptop is hooked up to their HDTV, they would like to be able to get that BR of the latest movie, take it right home, and be able to slide it into their laptop. I encounter regular customers who are wanting to do this a lot more than many on this forum would have us believe. Also, in these situations, the whole "downside to optical" in general loses much of its steam. The power consumption becomes a non issue, the noise is irrelevant (would never hear it over the sound of the movie itself), and the speed is certainly fast enough to keep up with the watching of the movie.
Well then, it seems like you have a broken analogy, because there is very little about Blu-ray that is more convenient than streaming or just having digital copies of a movie.
Thompson
Popping in a BR disc is far more convient than dealing with an internet connection that craps out every five seconds. My simple point in the analogy was mentioning the aspect of the word need, that is why I emphasized it. I agree that BR is not a need, but it is something desired by enough people that I don't feel it should be marginalized. That is why the issue continues to come up.
...but when they are at home and their laptop is hooked up to their HDTV, they would like to be able to get that BR of the latest movie, take it right home, and be able to slide it into their laptop
If this is the primary use case, wouldn't it be a cheaper and more convenient solution to actually have a Blu-ray player hooked up to your TV? (And there we are with that "convenience" factor again.)
Thompson
Popping in a BR disc is far more convient than dealing with an internet connection that craps out every five seconds. My simple point in the analogy was mentioning the aspect of the word need, that is why I emphasized it. I agree that BR is not a need, but it is something desired by enough people that I don't feel it should be marginalized. That is why the issue continues to come up.
No, I understood your point, and you used the word convenience as the trade-off. If it is true that your internet connection craps out every five seconds, then I'll grant you the point. Mine, however, does not. I successfully stream movies from beginning to end with nary a hitch from multiple sources: my own digital library, Netflix, iTunes, etc, to multiple end devices: AppleTV, iPhone, iPad, Computers, etc, even over the web. This is much more convenient than dealing with physical media, so your analogy is completely broken for me. The ONLY thing compelling about Blu-ray is the higher resolution and cinema quality sound... and lacking it just isn't a deal breaker for me.
Thompson
So... how is that Blu-Ray support for Xbox coming along?
see the man's post directly above for the difference. As for your Ghetto reference, get your head out of your ass, what did you do a year ago before the ipad existed dickhead?
Let me interject. Things were a bit different a year ago so the argument is moot. This MS ad is coming out now and you have to look at the direction that technology is moving towards at this moment, not a year ago.
Also, on a laptop, 1080 isn't going to matter so much. Watching movies on a laptop is a compromise in every way (except for portability). If you've got an HD flatscreen, then yeah, 720 won't cut it. Not so with a laptop.
Apple's problem is their insistence that 720p is 'good enough.' It ain't.
1080p, Steve. 1080p.
A quick google search will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the difference between 720p and 1080p is really only tangible on displays larger than 48".
Since there are no 50" iMacs, I'd say Apple made the right choice and stayed clear of the "bag of hurt" that is blu-ray.
The minority that chooses to buy 60" TV's can buy themselves a blu-ray player and spend retarded amounts on media.
For the rest of us, we'll continue to enjoy our content the convenient way... without the need for physical media that scratches, breaks, get's left at home, etc. To say nothing of cost.
Oh no you di'nt!
So... how is that Blu-Ray support for Xbox coming along?
yes, the starting price for the arcade will only be $320, based of prices for laptops.
putting it at MORE then the PS3 slim, which has more memory.... and better graphics... and a stronger cpu...
maybe on the refresh of the 360.
but i don't think a "xbox 360 BDE" will come out
A quick google search will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the difference between 720p and 1080p is really only tangible on displays larger than 48".
Since there are no 50" iMacs, I'd say Apple made the right choice and stayed clear of the "bag of hurt" that is blu-ray.
The minority that chooses to buy 60" TV's can buy themselves a blu-ray player and spend retarded amounts on media.
For the rest of us, we'll continue to enjoy our content the convenient way... without the need for physical media that scratches, breaks, get's left at home, etc. To say nothing of cost.
have you tried using screen sized at 15.4-15.6 inchs, going from 720-1080p
i will say that, i can see a difference.
blu-ray still seems pointless in my opinion however, i would prefer flash drives.
Adopting Blue Ray would require Apple to make the Macs much more locked down at the expense of performance. Not worth it. Buy a third party Blue Ray external drive.
I think most laptops will last three hours ok. This is actually a good angle for MS, as there's no real reason or excuse for the lack of Blu-Ray support for Mac, other than "licensing issues" which means Jobs didn't get his own way and all the pie. His assertion that BR is a dead format is bollocks, as the sales grew way over 100% on last year, some half a billion in revenue.
Anyone who says that there's no difference with that and downloaded or streaming content is also misinformed, as I have Apple TV 2 and a PS3, and the difference is night and day, honestly. That's before you factor in the time it takes to download and getting throttled by your ISP for streaming 30GB films a month. (BT I am looking at you)
Also ironic being that Microsoft originally was in the competing format's corner.
If MS had shipped XBOX 360s with HD-DVD I think it could have won the war? but we?ll never know for sure. What we can be sure of is that the war between HD-DVD and Blu-ray kept people from adopting which kept production costs, all at a time when they needed to get in front of internet-based video which is the most dominate form of video playback on the planet.
Who needs mega resolution and bitrate on a shitty little 13"-17" laptop display anyways??
That resolution is sour anyways. You don't want it.
(It is not true that HD looks spectacular on my 1080p 15" screen).
So how does Microsoft downplay their refusal to put Blu-Ray on the XBox? It's a bit contradictory to tout Blu-Ray on one device yet say that streaming is the way to go on another. At least Apple is consistent with streaming as their go-to strategy.
Yeah. Consistency. That makes up for it nicely. It is a complete substitute.
Fact: DVD/Blu Ray battery life averages 1.5 hours on a modern Sony laptop. 2 hours at best.
But Sony stuff sucks. Try a Dell with a 9 cell battery.
If someone sat beside me on the plane and was thrilled that they could pop in a bluray I'd say "Great. By the way, have you seen my iPad? It holds 12 bluray movies and last 10 hours."
Your iPad cannot display HD content. Why do you load it? Can your iPad really handle the codec?
so why not give us the CHOICE?
Asked and answered. It is a bag of hurt.
If you like the past, use Windows 7. A Mac is for the future.