Count me as one of those people. I would definitely have bought a 27" iMac last year if it had at least come with a BTO option for a Blu-ray drive.
Not, I THINK I am, or I THINK I should be, or even most of my friend think like I do - but ARE you?
This is where Apple targets - is that swell in the market, where price matters, but quality matters as well. Are your uses, perceived needs, wants and preferences completely in line with the average consumer (AC) or are your needs skewed into a more niche grouping in this case? That is the critical question, and one which Apple has obviously asked, and as indicated here, answered for themselves. Have they lost sales to you and your ilk, perhaps so. But the rationale for any design or equipment decision is based on the criteria that governs the saleability standards that a company sets for itself. Obviously Apple's market analysis has demonstrated that they do not need to do this. And it therefore doesn't reall y matter what you or I or our friends think, want or desire, if it doesn't align with the metrics that Apple is using to deliver its platforms.
It is perhaps an act of most arrant foolishness to assume that the correspondants in these threads represent anything close to an average consumer target in most cases. And objections of "I'm really average (in my own eyes)" are rather silly, yes? So your objections are of course valid from your needs set, but it is your needs set that are in question, not Apple's.
Be sure you're viewing these images at 100% on your 1920x1080 display to get the full effect: This is DVD, and this is Blu-Ray. If you saw the world the way DVD looks, the optometrist would give you corrective lenses. Regarding cost, the DVD will run you $19.99 and the Blu-Ray will run you...$19.99. You're flushing money down the toilet if you're still buying DVDs when you can get 6x the picture quality for usually the same price.
I looked at the DVD and Blu Ray images. The DVD image, a low vision person here, is sort of blurry, and the Blu Ray a little crisper. I suppose if my Mac was hooked up to a huge screen it would make a difference. If that is a good demonstration of Blu Ray versus DVD, count me out. The difference (for me) is marginal.
I do see the world in a constantly blurry state, with or without glasses. Guess I have DVD eyes.
Not, I THINK I am, or I THINK I should be, or even most of my friend think like I do - but ARE you?
This is where Apple targets - is that swell in the market, where price matters, but quality matters as well. Are your uses, perceived needs, wants and preferences completely in line with the average consumer (AC) or are your needs skewed into a more niche grouping in this case? That is the critical question, and one which Apple has obviously asked, and as indicated here, answered for themselves. Have they lost sales to you and your ilk, perhaps so. But the rationale for any design or equipment decision is based on the criteria that governs the saleability standards that a company sets for itself. Obviously Apple's market analysis has demonstrated that they do not need to do this. And it therefore doesn't reall y matter what you or I or our friends think, want or desire, if it doesn't align with the metrics that Apple is using to deliver its platforms.
It is perhaps an act of most arrant foolishness to assume that the correspondants in these threads represent anything close to an average consumer target in most cases. And objections of "I'm really average (in my own eyes)" are rather silly, yes? So your objections are of course valid from your needs set, but it is your needs set that are in question, not Apple's.
I never claimed or insisted that I was the core of Apple's market. If you read one of my earlier comments in this thread, you would know that. I also never claimed that the correspondents in these threads represented any thing close to the average consumer target. All I did was agree with another commenter's statement. No need for your dissertation. I'm well aware of what drives Apple and I'm not diluting myself thinking that they would cater to little ol' me. I've come to terms with the whole Apple blu-ray situation and it is what is. BTW, I don't recall ever claiming I was "average". My arguments in this thread became a bit off-topic perhaps as I was arguing more for the benefits of blu-ray in general and not to so much with respect to Apple and it's products.
Setting aside the usual arguments herein that involve the statements:
"For me..."
"I think..."
"Me and my friends think..."
"The average consumer is a blind deaf moron paying too much for content..."
and so forth.
Let's look at the reported numbers:
4th quarter last year (2009) according to Harris Interactive, only 7% of US households own and use Blu-ray players. Of those Sony's Playstation Blu-ray drive counts considerable into that existing uptake, but are not considered dedicated blu-ray devices and their count towards market penetration is mitigated by the primary purchase purpose for gaming not blu-ray use.
Digital downloads (sources Sony Playstation Store, XBox Live, iTunes, Netflix, Amazon, etc.) have grown to roughly $1 billion per year compared to $400 million for Blu-ray.
Strategic Analytics has predicted, based on current trends that digital downloads will reach the $3.8 billion mark in the next year, compared to predicted sales of $968 million for blu-ray.
Finally, stop and consider the environmental impact of the continued use of optical technologies. The US EPA estimated 5 years ago that over 100,000 lbs of optical media was hitting landfills every month in the US. Blu-ray continues to feed this impact, in spite of other more reuseable technologies like securable SD cards and of course that much maligned digital download.
It's OK to like the quality that Blu-ray delivers, but don't argue that because YOU like it and think it is better in every way, that it is clearly the winner and should instantly be adopted by every right-thinking human being, and that anyone who doesn't accept this position is a deaf, and blind moron who OBVIOUSLY can't perceive the difference and therefore is not entitled to express an opinion. Apparently, the uptake in the market is not what it should be, and until it is (or is replaced by another more environmentally-friendly format) it is sensible for a company like Apple to play wait-and-see on it.
I never claimed or insisted that I was the core of Apple's market. If you read one of my earlier comments in this thread, you would know that. I also never claimed that the correspondents in these threads represented any thing close to the average consumer target. All I did was agree with another commenter's statement. No need for your dissertation. I'm well aware of what drives Apple and I'm not diluting myself thinking that they would cater to little ol' me. I've come to terms with the whole Apple blu-ray situation and it is what is. BTW, I don't recall ever claiming I was "average". My arguments in this thread became a bit off-topic perhaps as I was arguing more for the benefits of blu-ray in general and not to so much with respect to Apple and it's products.
Rob55, I excerpted one small quote in the entire gamut of your postings (all of which I read incidentally) along with another so I am concerned that you react as if I have somehow singled you out for a wordy drubbing - which of course I have not. Your line was quoted as it exemplified the overall tone of the example I cited. I don't know you, and wouldn't be in a position to say definitively whether you believed that you are average, or whether you are deluding yourself. The only part of the "dissertation" as you so charitable put it that applies to you, is just that which (if any at all) in fact does.
I apologize if using that one solitary line from your comments has made you uncomfortable or made you feel defensive - that was not my intent.
Digital downloads (sources Sony Playstation Store, XBox Live, iTunes, Netflix, Amazon, etc.) have grown to roughly $1 billion per year compared to $400 million for Blu-ray.
Are you comparing digital downloads of music and movies to what primarily amounts to sales of just movies on blu-ray? Seems to me that Amazon and iTunes sell quite a bit of music via digital downloads.
I looked at the DVD and Blu Ray images. The DVD image, a low vision person here, is sort of blurry, and the Blu Ray a little crisper. I suppose if my Mac was hooked up to a huge screen it would make a difference. If that is a good demonstration of Blu Ray versus DVD, count me out. The difference (for me) is marginal.
I do see the world in a constantly blurry state, with or without glasses. Guess I have DVD eyes.
If you have poor eyesight, then yes blu-ray is pointless for you.
Are you comparing digital downloads of music and movies to what primarily amounts to sales of just movies on blu-ray? Seems to me that Amazon and iTunes sell quite a bit of music via digital downloads.
both Strategic Analytics and FutureSource cite specifically digital video downloads as compared to other content, so I imagine that they are being accurate in this case unless you have other evidence that effectively challenges their metrics analysis.
Rob55, I excerpted one small quote in the entire gamut of your postings (all of which I read incidentally) along with another so I am concerned that you react as if I have somehow singled you out for a wordy drubbing - which of course I have not. Your line was quoted as it exemplified the overall tone of the example I cited. I don't know you, and wouldn't be in a position to say definitively whether you believed that you are average, or whether you are deluding yourself. The only part of the "dissertation" as you so charitable put it that applies to you, is just that which (if any at all) in fact does.
I apologize if using that one solitary line from your comments has made you uncomfortable or made you feel defensive - that was not my intent.
Read post 100 again. I disagree that it exemplified the overall tone of the example. All Dlux said was that he knew of 5 people who held off on buying new Macs in the hopes of seeing a blu-ray offering from Apple. I agreed simply because I did not buy a new iMac last September when they we introduced. Nothing more, nothing less. That somehow turned into me having to examine my "needs set". So to say that my quote exemplified the things you described in your post was perhaps a bit less than accurate. My intention was not to sit there and whine about why Apple hasn't introduced a blu-ray equipped Mac yet (I stopped doing that last year ). If that's how you took it or understood it, then yes, I can understand where you were coming from, but now you know that was not the case. Peace.
If you have poor eyesight, then yes blu-ray is pointless for you.
Cory, adding further to our collective distress over not being able to embrace the glorious loveliness that is Blu-ray a report from 2008 reported in Reuters:
Quote:
Half of all Americans have some sort of vision problem, most of them myopia or astigmatism, U.S. researchers reported on Monday.
This is far higher than previous estimates, the team at the National Eye Institute reported in the Archives of Ophthalmology.
"Clinically important refractive error affects half of the U.S. population 20 years or older," wrote Susan Vitale and colleagues at the institute, one of the U.S. government's National Institutes of Health.
More than 33 percent were nearsighted and 36 percent had astigmatism, which causes fuzzy vision, the team reported. Another 3.6 percent were farsighted, meaning they can see at a distance but not up close.
So fully one half of the potential US market has no chance to remark upon the evident quality of Blu-ray, or can in fact appreciate it (at least without some considerable correction).
"The average consumer is a blind deaf moron paying too much for content..."
For a person like myself, Blu Ray is pretty much useless. I can barely see a difference. I really don't care if Apple does or doesn't add Blu Ray drives to their computers. Steve is just now getting around to HDMI. If you just have to use all this HDTV technology, I suggest getting a PC. The OS supports it, and a growing number of hardware makers support it.
Digital downloads (sources Sony Playstation Store, XBox Live, iTunes, Netflix, Amazon, etc.) have grown to roughly $1 billion per year compared to $400 million for Blu-ray.
Where are you getting your figures? Blu-ray sales account for $331 million in Q1 of 2010 alone. And your digital downloads figure is likely a combination of rentals and sales, and possibly even game add-on content and music.
both Strategic Analytics and FutureSource cite specifically digital video downloads as compared to other content, so I imagine that they are being accurate in this case unless you have other evidence that effectively challenges their metrics analysis.
Listen, I have nothing against digital downloads and I'm all for doing my part to help the environment. What I do have issue with is the quality of digital video downloads. As I mentioned earlier, why would a want the iTunes HD-lite version of a film when, in many instances, I can get the blu-ray for the same price or slightly more and have better quality? As for your figures, I asked for clarification and you provided it.
Read post 100 again. I disagree that it exemplified the overall tone of the example. All Dlux said was that he knew of 5 people who held off on buying new Macs in the hopes of seeing a blu-ray offering from Apple. I agreed simply because I did not buy a new iMac last September when they we introduced. Nothing more, nothing less. That somehow turned into me having to examine my "needs set". So to say that my quote exemplified the things you described in your post was perhaps a bit less than accurate. My intention was not to sit there and whine about why Apple hasn't introduced a blu-ray equipped Mac yet (I stopped doing that last year ). If that's how you took it or understood it, then yes, I can understand where you were coming from, but now you know that was not the case. Peace.
Again, let me emphasize that my use of your line was NOT directed specifically at you with which misapprehension you seem to continue. It was an exemplar of a more pervasive and consistent meme that is carried well into many other threads herein. In fact it is consistently brought into the threads every time Blu-ray is mentioned. And that you took my "needs set" comment personally is as unfortunate as it was unintentional on my part. Again, this was only about "you" where it in fact applies - if indeed anywhere at all. I accept your "Peace" and return a friendly Namaste!
So fully one half of the potential US market has no chance to remark upon the evident quality of Blu-ray, or can in fact appreciate it (at least without some considerable correction).
Actually, that's misleading. In the U.S., vision care is common and a large percentage of people with below-average vision have it corrected with glasses or contacts (or Lasik, for that matter). The fact that half of Americans have below average vision (which, other than the difference between mode and mean, is a tautology) doesn't mean they can't benefit from better video.
I have well below average vision uncorrected, but it's actually slightly better than 20:20 corrected. So you can't blame my vision on the fact that I don't see an overwhelming difference between BD and DVD. Sure, there's a difference, but it's not that big a deal compared to previous technology leaps (radio -> tv, b/w TV -> color TV, over-the-air TV -> cable (at least in rural areas), VHS -> DVD). It's not that big a deal. Even something like Avatar isn't that big a deal. BD just doesn't change the overall enjoyment of the movie in any real way.
Finally, stop and consider the environmental impact of the continued use of optical technologies. The US EPA estimated 5 years ago that over 100,000 lbs of optical media was hitting landfills every month in the US. Blu-ray continues to feed this impact, in spite of other more reuseable technologies like securable SD cards and of course that much maligned digital download.
The United States' Environmental Protection Agency issued a report to Congress in 2007 found that showed that U.S. Data Centers consumed 61 billion kilowatt-hours of energy, costing approximately $4.5 billion, which is the equivalent electricity consumption of about 5.8 million households. If the current trends continue, by 2011 U.S. Data Centers will consume 100 kilowatt-hours of energy and require the additional construction of 10 power plants. Worldwide, the increase of servers since 2000 has translated into 14 new power plants to meet the energy requirements.
Where are you getting your figures? Blu-ray sales account for $331 million in Q1 of 2010 alone. And your digital downloads figure is likely a combination of rentals and sales, and possibly even game add-on content and music.
but misplaced. The sources were cited in my post: Strategic Analytics and FutureSource among others. The video games and music dowloads were broken out as separate delivery populations wherever I checked.
I am personally fine with whatever format is your pleasure, but do not assume that because numbers do not meet your desires, or that reported numbers conflict depend on source that I have any skin in this game whatsoever. My only chief concern is that the head of the organization that has a vested interest in the success of Blu-ray reports numbers that do not completely jive with numbers reported by other sources. I am a jaded cynic, and whether I think blu-ray delivers a superior media experience has very little to do with whether I think that the statistics he reports are deliberately cast in the best possible light and do not maintain the highest possible data integrity.
As for your secondary post about power and data center impacts - is it your intent to say that the landfill issue is therefore unimportant because it sucks LESS? That is highly irresponsible and the numbers escalate rapidly as the dumping continues, yes? Power generation and it's impact can be mitigated, the generational half-life of the long-string hydrocarbons in the dump cannot.
We got a Blu-Ray player when we finally moved to HD TV. Now a year and a half later we've got, I think, a grand total of 3 Blu-Ray disks.
I'd far rather download a movie and the quality is more than satisfying. The doggone Blu-Ray player crapped out after 5 minutes and we had to go through an RMA, etc.. Searching online for troubleshooting of the player revealed an endless bog of firmware updating tricks and pitfalls with generally unsatisfying results. The player is "powered by Java!" Whoopee. The whole Blu-Ray ecosystem is rather half-baked if you ask me. Bottom line, there's no compelling reason to shop for physical disks and deal with balky players when you can simply get a movie online.
but misplaced. The sources were cited in my post: Strategic Analytics and FutureSource among others. The video games and music dowloads were broken out as separate delivery populations wherever I checked.
I am personally fine with whatever format is your pleasure, but do not assume that because numbers do not meet your desires, or that reported numbers conflict depend on source that I have any skin in this game whatsoever. My only chief concern is that the head of the organization that has a vested interest in the success of Blu-ray reports numbers that do not completely jive with numbers reported by other sources. I am a jaded cynic, and whether I think blu-ray delivers a superior media experience has very little to do with whether I think that the statistics he reports are deliberately cast in the best possible light and do not maintain the highest possible data integrity.
Your numbers and sources don't add up. Your Harris Interactive source was called out for reporting more HD DVD player sales than Toshiba themselves reported. Your Strategic Analytics source has a nifty chart that puts blu-ray sales at $3.1 Billion globally for 2009, so how blu-ray could only account for the $400 Million annual sales that you reported I do not understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysBlackmore
As for your secondary post about power and data center impacts - is it your intent to say that the landfill issue is therefore unimportant because it sucks LESS? That is highly irresponsible and the numbers escalate rapidly as the dumping continues, yes? Power generation and it's impact can be mitigated, the generational half-life of the long-string hydrocarbons in the dump cannot.
Just pointing out that digital distribution is by no means without environmental impact.
Digital downloads (sources Sony Playstation Store, XBox Live, iTunes, Netflix, Amazon, etc.) have grown to roughly $1 billion per year compared to $400 million for Blu-ray.
Does this include SD and HD? If it includes SD, DVD's would have to be included into comparison. Oh yeah, the great thing about Blu-ray is not only do I get fantastic picture quality, all my current DVD's play on it too.
Comments
Holy balls! You're not supended or banned yet?
Count me as one of those people. I would definitely have bought a 27" iMac last year if it had at least come with a BTO option for a Blu-ray drive.
Not, I THINK I am, or I THINK I should be, or even most of my friend think like I do - but ARE you?
This is where Apple targets - is that swell in the market, where price matters, but quality matters as well. Are your uses, perceived needs, wants and preferences completely in line with the average consumer (AC) or are your needs skewed into a more niche grouping in this case? That is the critical question, and one which Apple has obviously asked, and as indicated here, answered for themselves. Have they lost sales to you and your ilk, perhaps so. But the rationale for any design or equipment decision is based on the criteria that governs the saleability standards that a company sets for itself. Obviously Apple's market analysis has demonstrated that they do not need to do this. And it therefore doesn't reall y matter what you or I or our friends think, want or desire, if it doesn't align with the metrics that Apple is using to deliver its platforms.
It is perhaps an act of most arrant foolishness to assume that the correspondants in these threads represent anything close to an average consumer target in most cases. And objections of "I'm really average (in my own eyes)" are rather silly, yes? So your objections are of course valid from your needs set, but it is your needs set that are in question, not Apple's.
Be sure you're viewing these images at 100% on your 1920x1080 display to get the full effect: This is DVD, and this is Blu-Ray. If you saw the world the way DVD looks, the optometrist would give you corrective lenses. Regarding cost, the DVD will run you $19.99 and the Blu-Ray will run you...$19.99. You're flushing money down the toilet if you're still buying DVDs when you can get 6x the picture quality for usually the same price.
I looked at the DVD and Blu Ray images. The DVD image, a low vision person here, is sort of blurry, and the Blu Ray a little crisper. I suppose if my Mac was hooked up to a huge screen it would make a difference. If that is a good demonstration of Blu Ray versus DVD, count me out. The difference (for me) is marginal.
I do see the world in a constantly blurry state, with or without glasses. Guess I have DVD eyes.
Not, I THINK I am, or I THINK I should be, or even most of my friend think like I do - but ARE you?
This is where Apple targets - is that swell in the market, where price matters, but quality matters as well. Are your uses, perceived needs, wants and preferences completely in line with the average consumer (AC) or are your needs skewed into a more niche grouping in this case? That is the critical question, and one which Apple has obviously asked, and as indicated here, answered for themselves. Have they lost sales to you and your ilk, perhaps so. But the rationale for any design or equipment decision is based on the criteria that governs the saleability standards that a company sets for itself. Obviously Apple's market analysis has demonstrated that they do not need to do this. And it therefore doesn't reall y matter what you or I or our friends think, want or desire, if it doesn't align with the metrics that Apple is using to deliver its platforms.
It is perhaps an act of most arrant foolishness to assume that the correspondants in these threads represent anything close to an average consumer target in most cases. And objections of "I'm really average (in my own eyes)" are rather silly, yes? So your objections are of course valid from your needs set, but it is your needs set that are in question, not Apple's.
I never claimed or insisted that I was the core of Apple's market. If you read one of my earlier comments in this thread, you would know that. I also never claimed that the correspondents in these threads represented any thing close to the average consumer target. All I did was agree with another commenter's statement. No need for your dissertation. I'm well aware of what drives Apple and I'm not diluting myself thinking that they would cater to little ol' me. I've come to terms with the whole Apple blu-ray situation and it is what is. BTW, I don't recall ever claiming I was "average". My arguments in this thread became a bit off-topic perhaps as I was arguing more for the benefits of blu-ray in general and not to so much with respect to Apple and it's products.
"For me..."
"I think..."
"Me and my friends think..."
"The average consumer is a blind deaf moron paying too much for content..."
and so forth.
Let's look at the reported numbers:
4th quarter last year (2009) according to Harris Interactive, only 7% of US households own and use Blu-ray players. Of those Sony's Playstation Blu-ray drive counts considerable into that existing uptake, but are not considered dedicated blu-ray devices and their count towards market penetration is mitigated by the primary purchase purpose for gaming not blu-ray use.
Digital downloads (sources Sony Playstation Store, XBox Live, iTunes, Netflix, Amazon, etc.) have grown to roughly $1 billion per year compared to $400 million for Blu-ray.
Strategic Analytics has predicted, based on current trends that digital downloads will reach the $3.8 billion mark in the next year, compared to predicted sales of $968 million for blu-ray.
Finally, stop and consider the environmental impact of the continued use of optical technologies. The US EPA estimated 5 years ago that over 100,000 lbs of optical media was hitting landfills every month in the US. Blu-ray continues to feed this impact, in spite of other more reuseable technologies like securable SD cards and of course that much maligned digital download.
It's OK to like the quality that Blu-ray delivers, but don't argue that because YOU like it and think it is better in every way, that it is clearly the winner and should instantly be adopted by every right-thinking human being, and that anyone who doesn't accept this position is a deaf, and blind moron who OBVIOUSLY can't perceive the difference and therefore is not entitled to express an opinion. Apparently, the uptake in the market is not what it should be, and until it is (or is replaced by another more environmentally-friendly format) it is sensible for a company like Apple to play wait-and-see on it.
I never claimed or insisted that I was the core of Apple's market. If you read one of my earlier comments in this thread, you would know that. I also never claimed that the correspondents in these threads represented any thing close to the average consumer target. All I did was agree with another commenter's statement. No need for your dissertation. I'm well aware of what drives Apple and I'm not diluting myself thinking that they would cater to little ol' me. I've come to terms with the whole Apple blu-ray situation and it is what is. BTW, I don't recall ever claiming I was "average". My arguments in this thread became a bit off-topic perhaps as I was arguing more for the benefits of blu-ray in general and not to so much with respect to Apple and it's products.
Rob55, I excerpted one small quote in the entire gamut of your postings (all of which I read incidentally) along with another so I am concerned that you react as if I have somehow singled you out for a wordy drubbing - which of course I have not. Your line was quoted as it exemplified the overall tone of the example I cited. I don't know you, and wouldn't be in a position to say definitively whether you believed that you are average, or whether you are deluding yourself. The only part of the "dissertation" as you so charitable put it that applies to you, is just that which (if any at all) in fact does.
I apologize if using that one solitary line from your comments has made you uncomfortable or made you feel defensive - that was not my intent.
Digital downloads (sources Sony Playstation Store, XBox Live, iTunes, Netflix, Amazon, etc.) have grown to roughly $1 billion per year compared to $400 million for Blu-ray.
Are you comparing digital downloads of music and movies to what primarily amounts to sales of just movies on blu-ray? Seems to me that Amazon and iTunes sell quite a bit of music via digital downloads.
I looked at the DVD and Blu Ray images. The DVD image, a low vision person here, is sort of blurry, and the Blu Ray a little crisper. I suppose if my Mac was hooked up to a huge screen it would make a difference. If that is a good demonstration of Blu Ray versus DVD, count me out. The difference (for me) is marginal.
I do see the world in a constantly blurry state, with or without glasses. Guess I have DVD eyes.
If you have poor eyesight, then yes blu-ray is pointless for you.
Are you comparing digital downloads of music and movies to what primarily amounts to sales of just movies on blu-ray? Seems to me that Amazon and iTunes sell quite a bit of music via digital downloads.
both Strategic Analytics and FutureSource cite specifically digital video downloads as compared to other content, so I imagine that they are being accurate in this case unless you have other evidence that effectively challenges their metrics analysis.
Rob55, I excerpted one small quote in the entire gamut of your postings (all of which I read incidentally) along with another so I am concerned that you react as if I have somehow singled you out for a wordy drubbing - which of course I have not. Your line was quoted as it exemplified the overall tone of the example I cited. I don't know you, and wouldn't be in a position to say definitively whether you believed that you are average, or whether you are deluding yourself. The only part of the "dissertation" as you so charitable put it that applies to you, is just that which (if any at all) in fact does.
I apologize if using that one solitary line from your comments has made you uncomfortable or made you feel defensive - that was not my intent.
Read post 100 again. I disagree that it exemplified the overall tone of the example. All Dlux said was that he knew of 5 people who held off on buying new Macs in the hopes of seeing a blu-ray offering from Apple. I agreed simply because I did not buy a new iMac last September when they we introduced. Nothing more, nothing less. That somehow turned into me having to examine my "needs set". So to say that my quote exemplified the things you described in your post was perhaps a bit less than accurate. My intention was not to sit there and whine about why Apple hasn't introduced a blu-ray equipped Mac yet (I stopped doing that last year
If you have poor eyesight, then yes blu-ray is pointless for you.
Cory, adding further to our collective distress over not being able to embrace the glorious loveliness that is Blu-ray a report from 2008 reported in Reuters:
Half of all Americans have some sort of vision problem, most of them myopia or astigmatism, U.S. researchers reported on Monday.
This is far higher than previous estimates, the team at the National Eye Institute reported in the Archives of Ophthalmology.
"Clinically important refractive error affects half of the U.S. population 20 years or older," wrote Susan Vitale and colleagues at the institute, one of the U.S. government's National Institutes of Health.
More than 33 percent were nearsighted and 36 percent had astigmatism, which causes fuzzy vision, the team reported. Another 3.6 percent were farsighted, meaning they can see at a distance but not up close.
So fully one half of the potential US market has no chance to remark upon the evident quality of Blu-ray, or can in fact appreciate it (at least without some considerable correction).
"The average consumer is a blind deaf moron paying too much for content..."
For a person like myself, Blu Ray is pretty much useless. I can barely see a difference. I really don't care if Apple does or doesn't add Blu Ray drives to their computers. Steve is just now getting around to HDMI. If you just have to use all this HDTV technology, I suggest getting a PC. The OS supports it, and a growing number of hardware makers support it.
Digital downloads (sources Sony Playstation Store, XBox Live, iTunes, Netflix, Amazon, etc.) have grown to roughly $1 billion per year compared to $400 million for Blu-ray.
Where are you getting your figures? Blu-ray sales account for $331 million in Q1 of 2010 alone. And your digital downloads figure is likely a combination of rentals and sales, and possibly even game add-on content and music.
both Strategic Analytics and FutureSource cite specifically digital video downloads as compared to other content, so I imagine that they are being accurate in this case unless you have other evidence that effectively challenges their metrics analysis.
Listen, I have nothing against digital downloads and I'm all for doing my part to help the environment. What I do have issue with is the quality of digital video downloads. As I mentioned earlier, why would a want the iTunes HD-lite version of a film when, in many instances, I can get the blu-ray for the same price or slightly more and have better quality? As for your figures, I asked for clarification and you provided it.
Read post 100 again. I disagree that it exemplified the overall tone of the example. All Dlux said was that he knew of 5 people who held off on buying new Macs in the hopes of seeing a blu-ray offering from Apple. I agreed simply because I did not buy a new iMac last September when they we introduced. Nothing more, nothing less. That somehow turned into me having to examine my "needs set". So to say that my quote exemplified the things you described in your post was perhaps a bit less than accurate. My intention was not to sit there and whine about why Apple hasn't introduced a blu-ray equipped Mac yet (I stopped doing that last year
Again, let me emphasize that my use of your line was NOT directed specifically at you with which misapprehension you seem to continue. It was an exemplar of a more pervasive and consistent meme that is carried well into many other threads herein. In fact it is consistently brought into the threads every time Blu-ray is mentioned. And that you took my "needs set" comment personally is as unfortunate as it was unintentional on my part. Again, this was only about "you" where it in fact applies - if indeed anywhere at all. I accept your "Peace" and return a friendly Namaste!
So fully one half of the potential US market has no chance to remark upon the evident quality of Blu-ray, or can in fact appreciate it (at least without some considerable correction).
Actually, that's misleading. In the U.S., vision care is common and a large percentage of people with below-average vision have it corrected with glasses or contacts (or Lasik, for that matter). The fact that half of Americans have below average vision (which, other than the difference between mode and mean, is a tautology) doesn't mean they can't benefit from better video.
I have well below average vision uncorrected, but it's actually slightly better than 20:20 corrected. So you can't blame my vision on the fact that I don't see an overwhelming difference between BD and DVD. Sure, there's a difference, but it's not that big a deal compared to previous technology leaps (radio -> tv, b/w TV -> color TV, over-the-air TV -> cable (at least in rural areas), VHS -> DVD). It's not that big a deal. Even something like Avatar isn't that big a deal. BD just doesn't change the overall enjoyment of the movie in any real way.
Finally, stop and consider the environmental impact of the continued use of optical technologies. The US EPA estimated 5 years ago that over 100,000 lbs of optical media was hitting landfills every month in the US. Blu-ray continues to feed this impact, in spite of other more reuseable technologies like securable SD cards and of course that much maligned digital download.
Environmental Impacts of Data Centers.
The United States' Environmental Protection Agency issued a report to Congress in 2007 found that showed that U.S. Data Centers consumed 61 billion kilowatt-hours of energy, costing approximately $4.5 billion, which is the equivalent electricity consumption of about 5.8 million households. If the current trends continue, by 2011 U.S. Data Centers will consume 100 kilowatt-hours of energy and require the additional construction of 10 power plants. Worldwide, the increase of servers since 2000 has translated into 14 new power plants to meet the energy requirements.
Where are you getting your figures? Blu-ray sales account for $331 million in Q1 of 2010 alone. And your digital downloads figure is likely a combination of rentals and sales, and possibly even game add-on content and music.
but misplaced. The sources were cited in my post: Strategic Analytics and FutureSource among others. The video games and music dowloads were broken out as separate delivery populations wherever I checked.
I am personally fine with whatever format is your pleasure, but do not assume that because numbers do not meet your desires, or that reported numbers conflict depend on source that I have any skin in this game whatsoever. My only chief concern is that the head of the organization that has a vested interest in the success of Blu-ray reports numbers that do not completely jive with numbers reported by other sources. I am a jaded cynic, and whether I think blu-ray delivers a superior media experience has very little to do with whether I think that the statistics he reports are deliberately cast in the best possible light and do not maintain the highest possible data integrity.
As for your secondary post about power and data center impacts - is it your intent to say that the landfill issue is therefore unimportant because it sucks LESS? That is highly irresponsible and the numbers escalate rapidly as the dumping continues, yes? Power generation and it's impact can be mitigated, the generational half-life of the long-string hydrocarbons in the dump cannot.
I'd far rather download a movie and the quality is more than satisfying. The doggone Blu-Ray player crapped out after 5 minutes and we had to go through an RMA, etc.. Searching online for troubleshooting of the player revealed an endless bog of firmware updating tricks and pitfalls with generally unsatisfying results. The player is "powered by Java!" Whoopee. The whole Blu-Ray ecosystem is rather half-baked if you ask me. Bottom line, there's no compelling reason to shop for physical disks and deal with balky players when you can simply get a movie online.
but misplaced. The sources were cited in my post: Strategic Analytics and FutureSource among others. The video games and music dowloads were broken out as separate delivery populations wherever I checked.
I am personally fine with whatever format is your pleasure, but do not assume that because numbers do not meet your desires, or that reported numbers conflict depend on source that I have any skin in this game whatsoever. My only chief concern is that the head of the organization that has a vested interest in the success of Blu-ray reports numbers that do not completely jive with numbers reported by other sources. I am a jaded cynic, and whether I think blu-ray delivers a superior media experience has very little to do with whether I think that the statistics he reports are deliberately cast in the best possible light and do not maintain the highest possible data integrity.
Your numbers and sources don't add up. Your Harris Interactive source was called out for reporting more HD DVD player sales than Toshiba themselves reported. Your Strategic Analytics source has a nifty chart that puts blu-ray sales at $3.1 Billion globally for 2009, so how blu-ray could only account for the $400 Million annual sales that you reported I do not understand.
As for your secondary post about power and data center impacts - is it your intent to say that the landfill issue is therefore unimportant because it sucks LESS? That is highly irresponsible and the numbers escalate rapidly as the dumping continues, yes? Power generation and it's impact can be mitigated, the generational half-life of the long-string hydrocarbons in the dump cannot.
Just pointing out that digital distribution is by no means without environmental impact.
Digital downloads (sources Sony Playstation Store, XBox Live, iTunes, Netflix, Amazon, etc.) have grown to roughly $1 billion per year compared to $400 million for Blu-ray.
Does this include SD and HD? If it includes SD, DVD's would have to be included into comparison. Oh yeah, the great thing about Blu-ray is not only do I get fantastic picture quality, all my current DVD's play on it too.