So there you have it... my reasoning why blu-ray will never enjoy the monolithic success of VHS, DVD, and CDs. And keep in mind that this is coming from a blu-ray owning resolution junkie with a 1080p24 projector. Blu-ray offers excellent picture quality. But most of the time I find myself watching content delivered electronically. Physical media is just too inconvenient and expensive. My physical media collection stopped growing years ago, topping out at nearly 500 DVDs. To this date, i've only bought two blu-ray. Blu-ray via netflix is nice, but my days of going to the store to buy physical media are over.
I am in the same situation as you. I own an AppleTV, Blu-ray player and I do Netflix with my Wii so I do both physical media and streaming. No download purchase though, too expensive and I save my HD space for rips. My disc collection grows much slower now as most of my movies are Netflix rentals. Some of my kid DVD's are ripped for AppleTV or from Netflix streaming. I don't go to the store, Amazon will deliver just fine.
I am in the same situation as you. I own an AppleTV, Blu-ray player and I do Netflix with my Wii so I do both physical media and streaming. No download purchase though, too expensive and I save my HD space for rips. My disc collection grows much slower now as most of my movies are Netflix rentals. Some of my kid DVD's are ripped for AppleTV or from Netflix streaming. I don't go to the store, Amazon will deliver just fine.
That's a good point, even downloads seem too expensive. The need to permanently "own" movies is drastically decreased now that just about anything is instantly available without ever leaving the house.
This misses the influence of electronically delivered video. Back when DVD was battling VHS, you had to own a movie or choose from the 30 channels on cable. Either that or drive to a rental store.
The difference is that now there are many more channels on cable/satellite/fios, VOD is an option, torrents are an option, and every one and their cousin is offering streaming media.
VOD has been around for decades; satellite and cable providers were offering new releases as pay-per-view all throughout the rise of DVD, and yet the DVD soared. Yes, now there are streaming options, but the selection stinks, especially for HD; you'd be hard-pressed to find six movies you want to watch from Netflix' HD streaming selection, and that isn't going to get much better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
People are so satisfied with these options that the rental industry is nearly dead. Google for "Blockbuster bankrupcy". Blockbuster lost $65 million last quarter and the future looks even worse. People are so satisfied with the electronically delivered options that they are no longer willing to leave the house. There just is not sufficient motivation to do so.
You say this, and yet blu-ray outsells electronic HD media by a considerable margin; we know this to be true because no one will separate their digital HD sales from their SD sales, or even separate their sales from rentals for that matter. It seems very, very few people are actually buying movies electronically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
This isn't saying blu-ray is dead. But rather just that it will never enjoy the monolithic success of previous physical media formats.
It won't get as big as DVD no, but is that any reason for Apple to not at least offer the option for consumers who want it? It's not as though they waited until DVD outpaced VHS before offering it to customers; I had never even seen a DVD when Apple started offering it in their Macs, and only knew one person who owned any at all when Apple made DVD-ROMs standard in their iMacs.
VOD has been around for decades; satellite and cable providers were offering new releases as pay-per-view all throughout the rise of DVD, and yet the DVD soared. Yes, now there are streaming options, but the selection stinks, especially for HD; you'd be hard-pressed to find six movies you want to watch from Netflix' HD streaming selection, and that isn't going to get much better.
You say this, and yet blu-ray outsells electronic HD media by a considerable margin; we know this to be true because no one will separate their digital HD sales from their SD sales, or even separate their sales from rentals for that matter. It seems very, very few people are actually buying movies electronically.
It won't get as big as DVD no, but is that any reason for Apple to not at least offer the option for consumers who want it? It's not as though they waited until DVD outpaced VHS before offering it to customers; I had never even seen a DVD when Apple started offering it in their Macs, and only knew one person who owned any at all when Apple made DVD-ROMs standard in their iMacs.
Sure, VOD has been around for decades. But are you honestly claiming that the selection isn't massively bigger now? And I agree that netflix streaming selection isn't as good as it could be, but "hard-pressed to find six you want to watch"? You do have a valid point about selection, but it seems like that is overstating the case. And if we're going to talk about selection, netflix has tens of thousands of streaming movies I've never seen. Right now at home, I have zero blu-ray that I haven't watched yet.
It may surprise you to note that your point isn't really at odds with much of what I'm saying. It isn't that blu-ray doesn't have an appeal. But rather that the trade-off between buying physical media and available alternatives has changed drastically.
And in response to your second paragraph about "blu-ray outselling electronic HD media by a considerable margin". That seems like an arbitrarily and narrowly defined debate. Blu-ray isn't just competing against purchased HD digital downloads. All media offerings are competing against all other media offerings. If you really want to throw around dollar amounts and winners vs losers, cable TV is the winner. Nothing else even comes close. Nothing is even in the same ballpark. In my book, the real distinction is between physical and electronic delivery. Electronic delivery, including cable, has improved so drastically that it is actually changing the culture of movie collecting. It is no longer necessary to buy and hoard a massive collection of movies just to have options available on any given night.
It is harder to sell consumers phyical media when they now have 10 times the number of movies available on cable to watch each night, plus streaming, plus digital downloads, plus etc. And yes, we all know that only some of the options are in HD. But that's the whole point here. That many people are opting for the immediate, electronically delivered alternative, whether it is SD or HD.
Finally, I agree that Apple should offer blu-ray drives as a BTO option. I would have spec'd one for my 27 i7Mac.
This post isn't coming from an irrational person who refuses to watch blu-ray. I have a blu-ray player and watch blu-ray movies every week via netflix. Instead, the above is hopefully viewed as a level-headed analysis of the numerous options now available.
I predict that the next milestone in electronic vs physical delivery will Blockbuster going out of business in 2011. Because there are now so many electronic options, most people see no need to drive some place just so that they can watch a movie at home.
That's a good point, even downloads seem too expensive. The need to permanently "own" movies is drastically decreased now that just about anything is instantly available without ever leaving the house.
I had a couple of titles in my Netflix instant queue that I put there a month or two ago. The other day I wanted to watch them but they were no longer available for instant viewing. So, the whole streaming thing is cool and all, but it's an incorrect assumption to believe that anything you're going to want to watch when you want to watch it will be there (at least with Netflix anyway. I know I could just pick something else and I did on this occasion, but I really had my heart set on watch that certain movie (which I don't own for some reason). You also talk about cable's offerings (or satellite for that matter) but when on of the HD channels showed Die Hard the other night, they showed it in HD stretch-o-vision. Even though I wanted to watch it (hadn't seen it in a while), it was unwatchable. Obviously, this is just one example and there are certainly positive examples I can cite, but it's still such a mixed-bag of quality.
So, the whole streaming thing is cool and all, but it's an incorrect assumption to believe that anything you're going to want to watch when you want to watch it will be there.
I admit that I don't watch too many movies on demand, but recently it was a rainy Friday night and I thought it would be nice to just stay home, open a bottle of wine and watch a movie. However, because of the rain, both my satellite and internet (cable) were out. Thank goodness for the wine.
Sure, VOD has been around for decades. But are you honestly claiming that the selection isn't massively bigger now?
And I agree that netflix streaming selection isn't as good as it could be, but "hard-pressed to find six you want to watch"? You do have a valid point about selection, but it seems like that is overstating the case.
The selection of VOD from cable and satellite providers is better now than ever, sure, but it's still dwarfed even by blu-ray's library of titles. Netflix and the other streaming services' HD streaming options are comprised largely of titles the studios can't find any other buyer for, be it a premium movie channel, paid cable or network television. The movies they can find buyers for ? the ones people actually want to watch ? won't be available on streaming until the buyer's contract is up, and even then only if they can't find another buyer. There will never, ever be a VOD library that includes every movie you can imagine, because of how the studios endlessly resell exclusive rights to their titles until they can no longer find a buyer. For this reason, physical media will continue to be the only way to ensure you can watch the title you want, when you want it. It's not instant, but it's guaranteed that Netflix will have the DVD/Blu-ray you want for rent once the film has been released, and Amazon/Best Buy will have it available for purchase. All it takes is a little planning ahead to get the movie to arrive in the mail within a day of release.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
And if we're going to talk about selection, netflix has tens of thousands of streaming movies I've never seen. Right now at home, I have zero blu-ray that I haven't watched yet.
One could argue that we don't need Hollywood movies at all what with the millions upon millions of free YouTube videos that you haven't yet watched. In both cases, convenience means nothing if it's not what you're looking to watch. You won't find a single new release on Netflix streaming, probably ever. It's misleading to tout the convenience of instant streaming if the titles took six months (minimum) longer to become available than it would have taken for them to arrive by mail on disc. And you never know what titles will and will not become available for streaming, either. It's a complete crapshoot, and will remain that way probably forever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
It may surprise you to note that your point isn't really at odds with much of what I'm saying. It isn't that blu-ray doesn't have an appeal. But rather that the trade-off between buying physical media and available alternatives has changed drastically.
And in response to your second paragraph about "blu-ray outselling electronic HD media by a considerable margin". That seems like an arbitrarily and narrowly defined debate. Blu-ray isn't just competing against purchased HD digital downloads. All media offerings are competing against all other media offerings. If you really want to throw around dollar amounts and winners vs losers, cable TV is the winner. Nothing else even comes close. Nothing is even in the same ballpark. In my book, the real distinction is between physical and electronic delivery. Electronic delivery, including cable, has improved so drastically that it is actually changing the culture of movie collecting. It is no longer necessary to buy and hoard a massive collection of movies just to have options available on any given night.
This sounds more like a case against putting optical drives in computers at all than it does a case against blu-ray. Which is the same kind of case Steve Jobs makes, despite the continued inclusion of an optical drive in every Mac but the Air. I say, so long as optical drives are still being built into computers, why shouldn't they be able to read CD, DVD, and blu-ray? The format has reached mainstream status, its physically compatible with DVDs and CDs, and Apple has offered no technical reasons as to why blu-ray cannot be included in Macs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
It is harder to sell consumers phyical media when they now have 10 times the number of movies available on cable to watch each night, plus streaming, plus digital downloads, plus etc. And yes, we all know that only some of the options are in HD. But that's the whole point here. That many people are opting for the immediate, electronically delivered alternative, whether it is SD or HD.
Consumers don't need to be sold blu-ray; millions of them have already bought it, you and I included. So why would the existence of video-on-demand be justification for Apple to deny blu-ray buyers the ability to play their movies on their Macs? More people pirate films than buy movies from Apple; perhaps Apple should stop selling movies altogether since piracy is the more popular delivery method?
If Apple wants to give me a free HD digital copy of every blu-ray I've purchased, then great I don't need blu-ray playback in my Mac. Until then, its just downright embarrassing that my $1799 Mac can't read a disc format newer than 1997.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
I predict that the next milestone in electronic vs physical delivery will Blockbuster going out of business in 2011. Because there are now so many electronic options, most people see no need to drive some place just so that they can watch a movie at home.
Blockbuster has a by-mail program as well, and it's arguably better than Netflix in that they don't delay new releases by 30 days and they don't charge extra for blu-ray; if and when they go bankrupt, I hope this aspect of their business remains alive.
I admit that I don't watch too many movies on demand, but recently it was a rainy Friday night and I thought it would be nice to just stay home, open a bottle of wine and watch a movie. However, because of the rain, both my satellite and internet (cable) were out. Thank goodness for the wine.
Did you have any DVDs you would have been interested in watching? I know how you must have felt though. I had a similar thing happen a few months ago, but the culprit wasn't rain, it was a power outage. Good thing my iPhone was all charged up.
No, I think you missed the point: "Apple Online" *is* the Store.
Is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabbelen
The bulk of the stock is located in one place, Ireland. It either goes directly to your house, or directly to a physical shop front. Either way, the same security people watch the stock in Ireland, and the same packing people are employed to pack the stock up for delivery. The warehouse in Ireland costs the same all the time, whether they ship a Mac to your house or to your local physical incarnation of the Store.
That's funny, when I purchased a Mac in Ireland, it was shipped from China. When I purchased iPods in Ireland, they were shipped from China.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabbelen
At the same time, each physical store, a very small store, has employees in it and lights on in it all the time -- whether they stock 2 iMacs or 200 or 2000. They don't stock 2000, I doubt they stock 200, they probably stock 20.
I've been to the Regent St store, it isn't small.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabbelen
I highly doubt Apple is saving a whole lot of money, as you seem to assume, by shipping your order directly to you instead of handling it through a physical store. On the contrary, Apple is running their brick-and-mortar stores incredibly well. Apple has once again shown how to do something right -- how to have profitable physical stores. Apple has about the most profitable physical stores on the planet -- the revenue per square foot is phenomenal. People like to walk in and see Apple stuff and buy it on the spot.
ok, if you claim there isn't that much more expense in running a store. Then why do the Americans on this site list that as a reason the UK prices are higher than the US ones? Are you wrong, or are they wrong?
PS3 is a slot loading drive. Shouldn't be a mechanical issue with the drive. Could be that the HDCP spec would require incorporating stuff into the computer or OS that slows it down or adds cost (speculation on my part). BluRay is beautiful on my 50 inch Pioneer with DefTech speakers, but i doubt that it would make difference on my 24 inch iMac with its mediocre built in speakers or on the 13 inch Macbook. iTunes grade content (or Handbrake'd DVDs) are okay for those.
Macs have supported HDCP for ages now, it is missing AACS support
I had a couple of titles in my Netflix instant queue that I put there a month or two ago. The other day I wanted to watch them but they were no longer available for instant viewing. So, the whole streaming thing is cool and all, but it's an incorrect assumption to believe that anything you're going to want to watch when you want to watch it will be there (at least with Netflix anyway.
Nobody is making that assumption. I'm merely pointing out that the tradeoff has shifted.
Please note the difference between saying the motivation to buy physical media has lessened as a result of electronic distribution, and the obviously absurd assertion that the motivation has disappeared altogether. The truth is in the middle, not in a 100% either or false dichotomy.
The selection of VOD from cable and satellite providers is better now than ever, sure, but it's still dwarfed even by blu-ray's library of titles. Netflix and the other streaming services' HD streaming options are comprised largely of titles the studios can't find any other buyer for, be it a premium movie channel, paid cable or network television. The movies they can find buyers for ? the ones people actually want to watch ? won't be available on streaming until the buyer's contract is up, and even then only if they can't find another buyer. There will never, ever be a VOD library that includes every movie you can imagine, because of how the studios endlessly resell exclusive rights to their titles until they can no longer find a buyer. For this reason, physical media will continue to be the only way to ensure you can watch the title you want, when you want it. It's not instant, but it's guaranteed that Netflix will have the DVD/Blu-ray you want for rent once the film has been released, and Amazon/Best Buy will have it available for purchase. All it takes is a little planning ahead to get the movie to arrive in the mail within a day of release.
One could argue that we don't need Hollywood movies at all what with the millions upon millions of free YouTube videos that you haven't yet watched. In both cases, convenience means nothing if it's not what you're looking to watch. You won't find a single new release on Netflix streaming, probably ever. It's misleading to tout the convenience of instant streaming if the titles took six months (minimum) longer to become available than it would have taken for them to arrive by mail on disc. And you never know what titles will and will not become available for streaming, either. It's a complete crapshoot, and will remain that way probably forever.
This sounds more like a case against putting optical drives in computers at all than it does a case against blu-ray. Which is the same kind of case Steve Jobs makes, despite the continued inclusion of an optical drive in every Mac but the Air. I say, so long as optical drives are still being built into computers, why shouldn't they be able to read CD, DVD, and blu-ray? The format has reached mainstream status, its physically compatible with DVDs and CDs, and Apple has offered no technical reasons as to why blu-ray cannot be included in Macs.
Consumers don't need to be sold blu-ray; millions of them have already bought it, you and I included. So why would the existence of video-on-demand be justification for Apple to deny blu-ray buyers the ability to play their movies on their Macs? More people pirate films than buy movies from Apple; perhaps Apple should stop selling movies altogether since piracy is the more popular delivery method?
If Apple wants to give me a free HD digital copy of every blu-ray I've purchased, then great I don't need blu-ray playback in my Mac. Until then, its just downright embarrassing that my $1799 Mac can't read a disc format newer than 1997.
Blockbuster has a by-mail program as well, and it's arguably better than Netflix in that they don't delay new releases by 30 days and they don't charge extra for blu-ray; if and when they go bankrupt, I hope this aspect of their business remains alive.
Wow. I hope not all that was directed at me even though each paragraph was written specifically as a response to something I posted.
It seems you are misinterpreting my comments on the rise of electronic distribution, and reading them as an all-out rejection of physical media. Isn't there something in the commentary you agree with? Anything at all?
Couldn't there be at least a little truth in a less extreme viewpoint? I mean really, you're tearing apart the post of an early blu-ray adopter, an early adopter who still watches blu-ray on a regular basis. And yet you seem to disagree with absolutely every word I've posted. I'm not personally insulted. Rather just commenting on the apparent complete rejection of every word.
That's a good point, even downloads seem too expensive. The need to permanently "own" movies is drastically decreased now that just about anything is instantly available without ever leaving the house.
I don't think I ever had a "need" to own a movie but there are movies I really want to own. I bought Avatar from Amazon for about $20 which came with Blu-ray and DVD versions. My whole family watched it when it was convenient and the DVD out on loan. All this without really having to leave the house. All things considered, a huge bargain. I sure wish there was an easy and legal way to share my movie downloads.
Wow. I hope not all that was directed at me even though each paragraph was written specifically as a response to something I posted.
It seems you are misinterpreting my comments on the rise of electronic distribution, and reading them as an all-out rejection of physical media. Isn't there something in the commentary you agree with? Anything at all?
Couldn't there be at least a little truth in a less extreme viewpoint? I mean really, you're tearing apart the post of an early blu-ray adopter, an early adopter who still watches blu-ray on a regular basis. And yet you seem to disagree with absolutely every word I've posted. I'm not personally insulted. Rather just commenting on the apparent complete rejection of every word.
No no, I don't disagree with every word. I'm sorry my response came across that way. I by no means disagree that VOD has come a long way, and that instant streaming is very convenient. And I understand that you're a supporter of both blu-ray and VOD, which I am too honestly. I was aware you weren't rejecting physical media in its entirety; I was just pointing out that if one's going to use digital distribution growth as a reason to exclude blu-ray playback, then why is the optical drive there at all? After all, digital distribution is dominantly SD, not HD, so if anything, we need blu-ray playback more than we need DVD playback in our Macs! I'm just following that train of logic to its inevitable end is all. Due to bandwidth limits and licensing restrictions from the studios, digital distribution better replaces DVD than it does blu-ray, which it can't even shake a stick at in terms of quality and features.
The resolution boost from DVD to blu-ray is actually greater than VHS to DVD, that is like you said though before VHS decays. But It'd be hard to appreciate the difference between VHS and DVD on a tiny screen across the room, as well, and yet people made the move.
Resolution wasn't the only difference between VHS and DVD. Given that HDTVs are still rather small given the seating distance the resolution advantage of BR and DVD is significantly reduced.
Like dfiler I have front projection HT...so at 100" I can see the difference between BR and DVD...and between BR and Cable HD.
Quote:
Like the HDTV, consumer adoption of blu-ray will eventually reach those who wouldn't otherwise pay for the improvement by way of backwards compatibility. You can't walk out of a retail store with a television that isn't high definition anymore, whether you intend to use it or not, and eventually you won't be able to buy a DVD player that doesn't also happen to play blu-rays. So when Joe consumer's dvd player breaks down and he goes to buy a new one, he'll find all they have is blu-ray players that also play his DVDs, and bring it home.
A small HDTV isn't HD because you aren't getting the real high def effect...and it's probably 720p anyway.
I got a BR player for the bedroom for $85 on sale at Costco (the cheapo sony) but we still haven't really consistently reached that sub $99 price point for BR to replace DVD sales.
Quote:
And when blu-ray player adoption reaches that level, studios can start to phase out DVD prints in the same way they did VHS. And when that happens, ol' Joe consumer will start coming home with blu-ray versions of movies whether he appreciates the additional quality or not.
Depends on whether BR hits the same price points as current Walmart DVDs. I get pretty cheap BRs but it's spotty.
Quote:
Netflix streaming is not an alternative to blu-ray; you'd be hard pressed to find six HD movies from there selection that you'd actually want to watch. And that's not changing for any streaming service so long as the studios continue their highly lucrative business practice of limited distribution windows.
HD is not a requirement for casual viewing on a smaller HDTV. Again, artificially limiting digital download to HD is like disallowing MP3/AAC in comparisons against SACD/DVDA.
And premium VOD often gets titles before the DVD/BR release although the window is shorter these days.
I buy quite a few BR titles but these are either really cheap or provide a Digital Copy or DVD (that I'll rip). Those two are more than fine for my MBP, iPhone, etc.
Do I need a BR player in my MBP? Not really. The only reason I want the DVD drive in there is some games require me to have the original disk loaded...although mostly I just do steam or some other service now. Personally, it could go away for more battery space and I'd be pretty happy to have an external most of the time. I'd gladly trade it for a eSATA port...
I was just at Best Buy wistfully checking out a Mac Mini and Apple TV, wishing one of them had Blu-Ray. Probably wouldn't have bought my current Blu Ray player if they did!
I think Blu-Ray will catch on for the same reason I bought one. I wanted a better DVD player and a home theater system. Going to Blu-Ray was only a little bit more over the DVD system so I got Blu-Ray. I think other consumers will go that way too.
As for content. That's getting better too. I notice that the Blu-Ray sections at my video store have gotten bigger. And usually when I have the option I always rent Blu-Ray. I figure that's probably the same for anybody who has a PS3.
A small HDTV isn't HD because you aren't getting the real high def effect...and it's probably 720p anyway.
I got a BR player for the bedroom for $85 on sale at Costco (the cheapo sony) but we still haven't really consistently reached that sub $99 price point for BR to replace DVD sales.
Depends on whether BR hits the same price points as current Walmart DVDs. I get pretty cheap BRs but it's spotty.
Of course prices aren't there yet, but they will reach a point where it's no longer worth CE manufacturer's time and money to produce DVD-only players. And when enough people have DVD players that also happen to play blu-rays, the studios will start phasing out DVDs and lowering blu-ray disc prices. It's inevitable, but no it's not going to happen this year or the next.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
HD is not a requirement for casual viewing on a smaller HDTV. Again, artificially limiting digital download to HD is like disallowing MP3/AAC in comparisons against SACD/DVDA.
It makes absolutely zero sense to compare blu-ray adoption to all digital sales, rentals, SD and HD, because SD streaming and rentals are not competitors with blu-ray. Blu-ray exists as a means of getting the best picture and sound possible at home; SD streaming does nothing of the sort, so to suggest that one negates the need to have the other is completely illogical. I'm not saying you are doing that, but Steve Jobs is. Analysts and number crunchers should be comparing digital SD sales and rentals to DVD, and digital HD rentals and sales to blu-ray; that's the only comparison that makes sense. And unlike SACD/DVDA, which never took off, blu-ray is already mainstream. Even if another blu-ray player never sold after today, there's already enough of a user base to keep it alive for a decade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
And premium VOD often gets titles before the DVD/BR release although the window is shorter these days.
That's only in hotels and commercial airlines, to my knowledge, with a handful of exceptions here and there (like when you could rent Cloudy with a Chance of Meaballs on your newly-bought Sony-brand HDTV last year for $24.99 per viewing).
Is Apple Online *the Apple Store*? Yes, pretty sure. There has always been an "Apple Store", online, for as long as I remember. I have been using Macs since '84. The physical Apple Stores are a comparatively recent thing, and new ones open every quarter; I don't believe each physical store is autonomous. The physical stores are the face of Apple (more about the branding aspect below); they add points of contact to The Apple Store. If you walk into a physical Apple Store and ask a question about availability or to buy something, they are interacting with the unified Apple Store Online with its branches in different regions. For Europe, I think this is based in Ireland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
That's funny, when I purchased a Mac in Ireland, it was shipped from China. When I purchased iPods in Ireland, they were shipped from China.
As I said, Apple keeps tight inventory channels and doesn't stock pile them anywhere. The discussion about Ireland started because that is the base of the online store (and Apple warranty services) for the whole of Europe. IF there is ANY stock piling at all, it's probably there.
Of course the tracking is going to show China -- because, as you know, with popular products there is sometimes a lead time of three weeks or more. However, I wonder if your orders went from the factory in China directly to your door; they may well have, or they may have been picked up by a local courier in Ireland, I don't know. Actually, this supports my point all the more: that there is no difference to Apple in sending a product directly to you, or to a physical store. If there is one less stop along the way, well, then what I said is even more true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
I've been to the Regent St store, it isn't small.
Me too. For an Apple Store, it's large. Of all the stores on Regent Street, it's fair to middlin'. For a single brand electronics boutique, it is large. But most of the store is taken up with Genius bar, Seminar Theatre, etc. Not racks and racks of merchandise. It is not "competing" with the Apple Store, "Apple Online" as you put it; it does not simply represent an alternative to the Apple Online. Whatever the case, it is an expensive store to operate. However, I believe it has a wider mandate than simply selling merchandise, and I believe the physical stores perform a key function within Apple's strategy.
Again, I was trying to illustrate the fact that one of the functions of a physical Apple store is to act as a local face of The Apple Store. Apple hasn't suddenly decided to move its selling business from a high street model to an online model, and by doing so, they are saving all this money by not needing shops anymore, so they should pass the savings on to me when I order online. More about that below...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
ok, if you claim there isn't that much more expense in running a store. Then why do the Americans on this site list that as a reason the UK prices are higher than the US ones? Are you wrong, or are they wrong?
No, I agree -- I was going to post more last time, and didn't. Of course there is a substantial cost to Apple for opening and maintaining stores, there must be. And of course, this would be one of the costs of doing business anywhere.
And who knows, maintaining physical stores may well directly contribute to the higher costs we may be facing when we buy Apple products in Europe; there may be some convoluted formula at work that factors store operating costs for that region into product prices for that region (but I don't know, and neither do you nor anyone else).
I tend to think that the maintenance of physical Apple Stores may come under another part of the Apple operating budget or expense sheet, though I'm not sure. I have a hard time believing that the cost of real estate and wages and electricity in, lets say, the Champs Elysee or the Louvre or Regent Street, should directly make my iMac X-percent more expensive to a European than it would be if there were no physical Apple Stores in these highly expensive locations.
This is what I am at pains to try and get at. I am not sure that the Apple product that you order online would be, or could be, any cheaper vs buying it in a physical store location. I am not sure that we should expect or feel entitled to a discount on one particular iMac, simply because we ordered it online and it made one less stop on its journey; as opposed to us wandering into a physical store with its attendant operating costs, and buying one of the few they stock.
True, your iMac didn't sit on a shelf somewhere, in a location for which Apple is paying electricity and wages over and above what they may pay already at some unknown warehouse facility (whether in Ireland or not). But my point is that Apple is not in the process of attempting to "streamline its business" by trying to go more modern and close its physical stores in order to save money. My point is that the physical stores are part of Apple's marketing strategy and global branding efforts, and they are doing very well for Apple. I don't think Apple needs to raise prices on products sold online simply to cover the operating costs of physical shops, therefore I believe you can not reasonably expect a discount for shopping online.
A good test of my theory is to watch the prices in the Apple Store. They don't go up with all these new stores being opened. Apple opens new, and extremely expensive, stores all the time... do the prices go up? No. Rather, the more relevant "costs of doing business" that might well be directly reflected in Regional Apple Store prices are things that directly pertain to the selling and distribution of the products, like VATs, and licenses, and business taxes, and registration, and delivery costs, allowances for currency fluctuations, etc.
That's it, that's my position. Unless any of us is privvy to internal Apple strategy documentation, I don't know what else there is to say on the matter.
It makes absolutely zero sense to compare blu-ray adoption to all digital sales, rentals, SD and HD, because SD streaming and rentals are not competitors with blu-ray. Blu-ray exists as a means of getting the best picture and sound possible at home; SD streaming does nothing of the sort, so to suggest that one negates the need to have the other is completely illogical. I'm not saying you are doing that, but Steve Jobs is. Analysts and number crunchers should be comparing digital SD sales and rentals to DVD, and digital HD rentals and sales to blu-ray; that's the only comparison that makes sense.
Perhaps this is at the heart of our difference of opinion.
I see blu-ray as competing against all other methods for delivering movies to our televisions.
It is important to note that some people actively look for HD contenet while other people simply look for movies that they like. There are enough people in the latter category to make SD video a competitor to blu-ray. Maybe not for you and other videophiles, but for enough people to make them competing products/services.
It isn't that SD-to-SD and HD-to-HD comparisons are completely invalid. Just that this comparison provides an incomplete picture of the market as a whole. If considered in isolation, it would actually hamper our understanding of consumer behavior in regard to choosing what movie to watch on any given night.
Comments
So there you have it... my reasoning why blu-ray will never enjoy the monolithic success of VHS, DVD, and CDs. And keep in mind that this is coming from a blu-ray owning resolution junkie with a 1080p24 projector. Blu-ray offers excellent picture quality. But most of the time I find myself watching content delivered electronically. Physical media is just too inconvenient and expensive. My physical media collection stopped growing years ago, topping out at nearly 500 DVDs. To this date, i've only bought two blu-ray. Blu-ray via netflix is nice, but my days of going to the store to buy physical media are over.
I am in the same situation as you. I own an AppleTV, Blu-ray player and I do Netflix with my Wii so I do both physical media and streaming. No download purchase though, too expensive and I save my HD space for rips. My disc collection grows much slower now as most of my movies are Netflix rentals. Some of my kid DVD's are ripped for AppleTV or from Netflix streaming. I don't go to the store, Amazon will deliver just fine.
I am in the same situation as you. I own an AppleTV, Blu-ray player and I do Netflix with my Wii so I do both physical media and streaming. No download purchase though, too expensive and I save my HD space for rips. My disc collection grows much slower now as most of my movies are Netflix rentals. Some of my kid DVD's are ripped for AppleTV or from Netflix streaming. I don't go to the store, Amazon will deliver just fine.
That's a good point, even downloads seem too expensive. The need to permanently "own" movies is drastically decreased now that just about anything is instantly available without ever leaving the house.
This misses the influence of electronically delivered video. Back when DVD was battling VHS, you had to own a movie or choose from the 30 channels on cable. Either that or drive to a rental store.
The difference is that now there are many more channels on cable/satellite/fios, VOD is an option, torrents are an option, and every one and their cousin is offering streaming media.
VOD has been around for decades; satellite and cable providers were offering new releases as pay-per-view all throughout the rise of DVD, and yet the DVD soared. Yes, now there are streaming options, but the selection stinks, especially for HD; you'd be hard-pressed to find six movies you want to watch from Netflix' HD streaming selection, and that isn't going to get much better.
People are so satisfied with these options that the rental industry is nearly dead. Google for "Blockbuster bankrupcy". Blockbuster lost $65 million last quarter and the future looks even worse. People are so satisfied with the electronically delivered options that they are no longer willing to leave the house. There just is not sufficient motivation to do so.
You say this, and yet blu-ray outsells electronic HD media by a considerable margin; we know this to be true because no one will separate their digital HD sales from their SD sales, or even separate their sales from rentals for that matter. It seems very, very few people are actually buying movies electronically.
This isn't saying blu-ray is dead. But rather just that it will never enjoy the monolithic success of previous physical media formats.
It won't get as big as DVD no, but is that any reason for Apple to not at least offer the option for consumers who want it? It's not as though they waited until DVD outpaced VHS before offering it to customers; I had never even seen a DVD when Apple started offering it in their Macs, and only knew one person who owned any at all when Apple made DVD-ROMs standard in their iMacs.
VOD has been around for decades; satellite and cable providers were offering new releases as pay-per-view all throughout the rise of DVD, and yet the DVD soared. Yes, now there are streaming options, but the selection stinks, especially for HD; you'd be hard-pressed to find six movies you want to watch from Netflix' HD streaming selection, and that isn't going to get much better.
You say this, and yet blu-ray outsells electronic HD media by a considerable margin; we know this to be true because no one will separate their digital HD sales from their SD sales, or even separate their sales from rentals for that matter. It seems very, very few people are actually buying movies electronically.
It won't get as big as DVD no, but is that any reason for Apple to not at least offer the option for consumers who want it? It's not as though they waited until DVD outpaced VHS before offering it to customers; I had never even seen a DVD when Apple started offering it in their Macs, and only knew one person who owned any at all when Apple made DVD-ROMs standard in their iMacs.
Sure, VOD has been around for decades. But are you honestly claiming that the selection isn't massively bigger now? And I agree that netflix streaming selection isn't as good as it could be, but "hard-pressed to find six you want to watch"? You do have a valid point about selection, but it seems like that is overstating the case. And if we're going to talk about selection, netflix has tens of thousands of streaming movies I've never seen. Right now at home, I have zero blu-ray that I haven't watched yet.
It may surprise you to note that your point isn't really at odds with much of what I'm saying. It isn't that blu-ray doesn't have an appeal. But rather that the trade-off between buying physical media and available alternatives has changed drastically.
And in response to your second paragraph about "blu-ray outselling electronic HD media by a considerable margin". That seems like an arbitrarily and narrowly defined debate. Blu-ray isn't just competing against purchased HD digital downloads. All media offerings are competing against all other media offerings. If you really want to throw around dollar amounts and winners vs losers, cable TV is the winner. Nothing else even comes close. Nothing is even in the same ballpark. In my book, the real distinction is between physical and electronic delivery. Electronic delivery, including cable, has improved so drastically that it is actually changing the culture of movie collecting. It is no longer necessary to buy and hoard a massive collection of movies just to have options available on any given night.
It is harder to sell consumers phyical media when they now have 10 times the number of movies available on cable to watch each night, plus streaming, plus digital downloads, plus etc. And yes, we all know that only some of the options are in HD. But that's the whole point here. That many people are opting for the immediate, electronically delivered alternative, whether it is SD or HD.
Finally, I agree that Apple should offer blu-ray drives as a BTO option. I would have spec'd one for my 27 i7Mac.
This post isn't coming from an irrational person who refuses to watch blu-ray. I have a blu-ray player and watch blu-ray movies every week via netflix. Instead, the above is hopefully viewed as a level-headed analysis of the numerous options now available.
I predict that the next milestone in electronic vs physical delivery will Blockbuster going out of business in 2011. Because there are now so many electronic options, most people see no need to drive some place just so that they can watch a movie at home.
That's a good point, even downloads seem too expensive. The need to permanently "own" movies is drastically decreased now that just about anything is instantly available without ever leaving the house.
I had a couple of titles in my Netflix instant queue that I put there a month or two ago. The other day I wanted to watch them but they were no longer available for instant viewing. So, the whole streaming thing is cool and all, but it's an incorrect assumption to believe that anything you're going to want to watch when you want to watch it will be there (at least with Netflix anyway. I know I could just pick something else and I did on this occasion, but I really had my heart set on watch that certain movie (which I don't own for some reason). You also talk about cable's offerings (or satellite for that matter) but when on of the HD channels showed Die Hard the other night, they showed it in HD stretch-o-vision. Even though I wanted to watch it (hadn't seen it in a while), it was unwatchable. Obviously, this is just one example and there are certainly positive examples I can cite, but it's still such a mixed-bag of quality.
So, the whole streaming thing is cool and all, but it's an incorrect assumption to believe that anything you're going to want to watch when you want to watch it will be there.
I admit that I don't watch too many movies on demand, but recently it was a rainy Friday night and I thought it would be nice to just stay home, open a bottle of wine and watch a movie. However, because of the rain, both my satellite and internet (cable) were out.
Sure, VOD has been around for decades. But are you honestly claiming that the selection isn't massively bigger now?
And I agree that netflix streaming selection isn't as good as it could be, but "hard-pressed to find six you want to watch"? You do have a valid point about selection, but it seems like that is overstating the case.
The selection of VOD from cable and satellite providers is better now than ever, sure, but it's still dwarfed even by blu-ray's library of titles. Netflix and the other streaming services' HD streaming options are comprised largely of titles the studios can't find any other buyer for, be it a premium movie channel, paid cable or network television. The movies they can find buyers for ? the ones people actually want to watch ? won't be available on streaming until the buyer's contract is up, and even then only if they can't find another buyer. There will never, ever be a VOD library that includes every movie you can imagine, because of how the studios endlessly resell exclusive rights to their titles until they can no longer find a buyer. For this reason, physical media will continue to be the only way to ensure you can watch the title you want, when you want it. It's not instant, but it's guaranteed that Netflix will have the DVD/Blu-ray you want for rent once the film has been released, and Amazon/Best Buy will have it available for purchase. All it takes is a little planning ahead to get the movie to arrive in the mail within a day of release.
And if we're going to talk about selection, netflix has tens of thousands of streaming movies I've never seen. Right now at home, I have zero blu-ray that I haven't watched yet.
One could argue that we don't need Hollywood movies at all what with the millions upon millions of free YouTube videos that you haven't yet watched. In both cases, convenience means nothing if it's not what you're looking to watch. You won't find a single new release on Netflix streaming, probably ever. It's misleading to tout the convenience of instant streaming if the titles took six months (minimum) longer to become available than it would have taken for them to arrive by mail on disc. And you never know what titles will and will not become available for streaming, either. It's a complete crapshoot, and will remain that way probably forever.
It may surprise you to note that your point isn't really at odds with much of what I'm saying. It isn't that blu-ray doesn't have an appeal. But rather that the trade-off between buying physical media and available alternatives has changed drastically.
And in response to your second paragraph about "blu-ray outselling electronic HD media by a considerable margin". That seems like an arbitrarily and narrowly defined debate. Blu-ray isn't just competing against purchased HD digital downloads. All media offerings are competing against all other media offerings. If you really want to throw around dollar amounts and winners vs losers, cable TV is the winner. Nothing else even comes close. Nothing is even in the same ballpark. In my book, the real distinction is between physical and electronic delivery. Electronic delivery, including cable, has improved so drastically that it is actually changing the culture of movie collecting. It is no longer necessary to buy and hoard a massive collection of movies just to have options available on any given night.
This sounds more like a case against putting optical drives in computers at all than it does a case against blu-ray. Which is the same kind of case Steve Jobs makes, despite the continued inclusion of an optical drive in every Mac but the Air. I say, so long as optical drives are still being built into computers, why shouldn't they be able to read CD, DVD, and blu-ray? The format has reached mainstream status, its physically compatible with DVDs and CDs, and Apple has offered no technical reasons as to why blu-ray cannot be included in Macs.
It is harder to sell consumers phyical media when they now have 10 times the number of movies available on cable to watch each night, plus streaming, plus digital downloads, plus etc. And yes, we all know that only some of the options are in HD. But that's the whole point here. That many people are opting for the immediate, electronically delivered alternative, whether it is SD or HD.
Consumers don't need to be sold blu-ray; millions of them have already bought it, you and I included. So why would the existence of video-on-demand be justification for Apple to deny blu-ray buyers the ability to play their movies on their Macs? More people pirate films than buy movies from Apple; perhaps Apple should stop selling movies altogether since piracy is the more popular delivery method?
If Apple wants to give me a free HD digital copy of every blu-ray I've purchased, then great I don't need blu-ray playback in my Mac. Until then, its just downright embarrassing that my $1799 Mac can't read a disc format newer than 1997.
I predict that the next milestone in electronic vs physical delivery will Blockbuster going out of business in 2011. Because there are now so many electronic options, most people see no need to drive some place just so that they can watch a movie at home.
Blockbuster has a by-mail program as well, and it's arguably better than Netflix in that they don't delay new releases by 30 days and they don't charge extra for blu-ray; if and when they go bankrupt, I hope this aspect of their business remains alive.
I admit that I don't watch too many movies on demand, but recently it was a rainy Friday night and I thought it would be nice to just stay home, open a bottle of wine and watch a movie. However, because of the rain, both my satellite and internet (cable) were out.
Did you have any DVDs you would have been interested in watching? I know how you must have felt though. I had a similar thing happen a few months ago, but the culprit wasn't rain, it was a power outage. Good thing my iPhone was all charged up.
No, I think you missed the point: "Apple Online" *is* the Store.
Is it?
The bulk of the stock is located in one place, Ireland. It either goes directly to your house, or directly to a physical shop front. Either way, the same security people watch the stock in Ireland, and the same packing people are employed to pack the stock up for delivery. The warehouse in Ireland costs the same all the time, whether they ship a Mac to your house or to your local physical incarnation of the Store.
That's funny, when I purchased a Mac in Ireland, it was shipped from China. When I purchased iPods in Ireland, they were shipped from China.
At the same time, each physical store, a very small store, has employees in it and lights on in it all the time -- whether they stock 2 iMacs or 200 or 2000. They don't stock 2000, I doubt they stock 200, they probably stock 20.
I've been to the Regent St store, it isn't small.
I highly doubt Apple is saving a whole lot of money, as you seem to assume, by shipping your order directly to you instead of handling it through a physical store. On the contrary, Apple is running their brick-and-mortar stores incredibly well. Apple has once again shown how to do something right -- how to have profitable physical stores. Apple has about the most profitable physical stores on the planet -- the revenue per square foot is phenomenal. People like to walk in and see Apple stuff and buy it on the spot.
ok, if you claim there isn't that much more expense in running a store. Then why do the Americans on this site list that as a reason the UK prices are higher than the US ones? Are you wrong, or are they wrong?
PS3 is a slot loading drive. Shouldn't be a mechanical issue with the drive. Could be that the HDCP spec would require incorporating stuff into the computer or OS that slows it down or adds cost (speculation on my part). BluRay is beautiful on my 50 inch Pioneer with DefTech speakers, but i doubt that it would make difference on my 24 inch iMac with its mediocre built in speakers or on the 13 inch Macbook. iTunes grade content (or Handbrake'd DVDs) are okay for those.
Macs have supported HDCP for ages now, it is missing AACS support
I had a couple of titles in my Netflix instant queue that I put there a month or two ago. The other day I wanted to watch them but they were no longer available for instant viewing. So, the whole streaming thing is cool and all, but it's an incorrect assumption to believe that anything you're going to want to watch when you want to watch it will be there (at least with Netflix anyway.
Nobody is making that assumption. I'm merely pointing out that the tradeoff has shifted.
Please note the difference between saying the motivation to buy physical media has lessened as a result of electronic distribution, and the obviously absurd assertion that the motivation has disappeared altogether. The truth is in the middle, not in a 100% either or false dichotomy.
The selection of VOD from cable and satellite providers is better now than ever, sure, but it's still dwarfed even by blu-ray's library of titles. Netflix and the other streaming services' HD streaming options are comprised largely of titles the studios can't find any other buyer for, be it a premium movie channel, paid cable or network television. The movies they can find buyers for ? the ones people actually want to watch ? won't be available on streaming until the buyer's contract is up, and even then only if they can't find another buyer. There will never, ever be a VOD library that includes every movie you can imagine, because of how the studios endlessly resell exclusive rights to their titles until they can no longer find a buyer. For this reason, physical media will continue to be the only way to ensure you can watch the title you want, when you want it. It's not instant, but it's guaranteed that Netflix will have the DVD/Blu-ray you want for rent once the film has been released, and Amazon/Best Buy will have it available for purchase. All it takes is a little planning ahead to get the movie to arrive in the mail within a day of release.
One could argue that we don't need Hollywood movies at all what with the millions upon millions of free YouTube videos that you haven't yet watched. In both cases, convenience means nothing if it's not what you're looking to watch. You won't find a single new release on Netflix streaming, probably ever. It's misleading to tout the convenience of instant streaming if the titles took six months (minimum) longer to become available than it would have taken for them to arrive by mail on disc. And you never know what titles will and will not become available for streaming, either. It's a complete crapshoot, and will remain that way probably forever.
This sounds more like a case against putting optical drives in computers at all than it does a case against blu-ray. Which is the same kind of case Steve Jobs makes, despite the continued inclusion of an optical drive in every Mac but the Air. I say, so long as optical drives are still being built into computers, why shouldn't they be able to read CD, DVD, and blu-ray? The format has reached mainstream status, its physically compatible with DVDs and CDs, and Apple has offered no technical reasons as to why blu-ray cannot be included in Macs.
Consumers don't need to be sold blu-ray; millions of them have already bought it, you and I included. So why would the existence of video-on-demand be justification for Apple to deny blu-ray buyers the ability to play their movies on their Macs? More people pirate films than buy movies from Apple; perhaps Apple should stop selling movies altogether since piracy is the more popular delivery method?
If Apple wants to give me a free HD digital copy of every blu-ray I've purchased, then great I don't need blu-ray playback in my Mac. Until then, its just downright embarrassing that my $1799 Mac can't read a disc format newer than 1997.
Blockbuster has a by-mail program as well, and it's arguably better than Netflix in that they don't delay new releases by 30 days and they don't charge extra for blu-ray; if and when they go bankrupt, I hope this aspect of their business remains alive.
Wow. I hope not all that was directed at me even though each paragraph was written specifically as a response to something I posted.
It seems you are misinterpreting my comments on the rise of electronic distribution, and reading them as an all-out rejection of physical media. Isn't there something in the commentary you agree with? Anything at all?
Couldn't there be at least a little truth in a less extreme viewpoint? I mean really, you're tearing apart the post of an early blu-ray adopter, an early adopter who still watches blu-ray on a regular basis. And yet you seem to disagree with absolutely every word I've posted. I'm not personally insulted. Rather just commenting on the apparent complete rejection of every word.
That's a good point, even downloads seem too expensive. The need to permanently "own" movies is drastically decreased now that just about anything is instantly available without ever leaving the house.
I don't think I ever had a "need" to own a movie but there are movies I really want to own. I bought Avatar from Amazon for about $20 which came with Blu-ray and DVD versions. My whole family watched it when it was convenient and the DVD out on loan. All this without really having to leave the house. All things considered, a huge bargain. I sure wish there was an easy and legal way to share my movie downloads.
Wow. I hope not all that was directed at me even though each paragraph was written specifically as a response to something I posted.
It seems you are misinterpreting my comments on the rise of electronic distribution, and reading them as an all-out rejection of physical media. Isn't there something in the commentary you agree with? Anything at all?
Couldn't there be at least a little truth in a less extreme viewpoint? I mean really, you're tearing apart the post of an early blu-ray adopter, an early adopter who still watches blu-ray on a regular basis. And yet you seem to disagree with absolutely every word I've posted. I'm not personally insulted. Rather just commenting on the apparent complete rejection of every word.
No no, I don't disagree with every word. I'm sorry my response came across that way. I by no means disagree that VOD has come a long way, and that instant streaming is very convenient. And I understand that you're a supporter of both blu-ray and VOD, which I am too honestly. I was aware you weren't rejecting physical media in its entirety; I was just pointing out that if one's going to use digital distribution growth as a reason to exclude blu-ray playback, then why is the optical drive there at all? After all, digital distribution is dominantly SD, not HD, so if anything, we need blu-ray playback more than we need DVD playback in our Macs! I'm just following that train of logic to its inevitable end is all. Due to bandwidth limits and licensing restrictions from the studios, digital distribution better replaces DVD than it does blu-ray, which it can't even shake a stick at in terms of quality and features.
The resolution boost from DVD to blu-ray is actually greater than VHS to DVD, that is like you said though before VHS decays. But It'd be hard to appreciate the difference between VHS and DVD on a tiny screen across the room, as well, and yet people made the move.
Resolution wasn't the only difference between VHS and DVD. Given that HDTVs are still rather small given the seating distance the resolution advantage of BR and DVD is significantly reduced.
Like dfiler I have front projection HT...so at 100" I can see the difference between BR and DVD...and between BR and Cable HD.
Like the HDTV, consumer adoption of blu-ray will eventually reach those who wouldn't otherwise pay for the improvement by way of backwards compatibility. You can't walk out of a retail store with a television that isn't high definition anymore, whether you intend to use it or not, and eventually you won't be able to buy a DVD player that doesn't also happen to play blu-rays. So when Joe consumer's dvd player breaks down and he goes to buy a new one, he'll find all they have is blu-ray players that also play his DVDs, and bring it home.
A small HDTV isn't HD because you aren't getting the real high def effect...and it's probably 720p anyway.
I got a BR player for the bedroom for $85 on sale at Costco (the cheapo sony) but we still haven't really consistently reached that sub $99 price point for BR to replace DVD sales.
And when blu-ray player adoption reaches that level, studios can start to phase out DVD prints in the same way they did VHS. And when that happens, ol' Joe consumer will start coming home with blu-ray versions of movies whether he appreciates the additional quality or not.
Depends on whether BR hits the same price points as current Walmart DVDs. I get pretty cheap BRs but it's spotty.
Netflix streaming is not an alternative to blu-ray; you'd be hard pressed to find six HD movies from there selection that you'd actually want to watch. And that's not changing for any streaming service so long as the studios continue their highly lucrative business practice of limited distribution windows.
HD is not a requirement for casual viewing on a smaller HDTV. Again, artificially limiting digital download to HD is like disallowing MP3/AAC in comparisons against SACD/DVDA.
And premium VOD often gets titles before the DVD/BR release although the window is shorter these days.
I buy quite a few BR titles but these are either really cheap or provide a Digital Copy or DVD (that I'll rip). Those two are more than fine for my MBP, iPhone, etc.
Do I need a BR player in my MBP? Not really. The only reason I want the DVD drive in there is some games require me to have the original disk loaded...although mostly I just do steam or some other service now. Personally, it could go away for more battery space and I'd be pretty happy to have an external most of the time. I'd gladly trade it for a eSATA port...
I think Blu-Ray will catch on for the same reason I bought one. I wanted a better DVD player and a home theater system. Going to Blu-Ray was only a little bit more over the DVD system so I got Blu-Ray. I think other consumers will go that way too.
As for content. That's getting better too. I notice that the Blu-Ray sections at my video store have gotten bigger. And usually when I have the option I always rent Blu-Ray. I figure that's probably the same for anybody who has a PS3.
A small HDTV isn't HD because you aren't getting the real high def effect...and it's probably 720p anyway.
I got a BR player for the bedroom for $85 on sale at Costco (the cheapo sony) but we still haven't really consistently reached that sub $99 price point for BR to replace DVD sales.
Depends on whether BR hits the same price points as current Walmart DVDs. I get pretty cheap BRs but it's spotty.
Of course prices aren't there yet, but they will reach a point where it's no longer worth CE manufacturer's time and money to produce DVD-only players. And when enough people have DVD players that also happen to play blu-rays, the studios will start phasing out DVDs and lowering blu-ray disc prices. It's inevitable, but no it's not going to happen this year or the next.
HD is not a requirement for casual viewing on a smaller HDTV. Again, artificially limiting digital download to HD is like disallowing MP3/AAC in comparisons against SACD/DVDA.
It makes absolutely zero sense to compare blu-ray adoption to all digital sales, rentals, SD and HD, because SD streaming and rentals are not competitors with blu-ray. Blu-ray exists as a means of getting the best picture and sound possible at home; SD streaming does nothing of the sort, so to suggest that one negates the need to have the other is completely illogical. I'm not saying you are doing that, but Steve Jobs is. Analysts and number crunchers should be comparing digital SD sales and rentals to DVD, and digital HD rentals and sales to blu-ray; that's the only comparison that makes sense. And unlike SACD/DVDA, which never took off, blu-ray is already mainstream. Even if another blu-ray player never sold after today, there's already enough of a user base to keep it alive for a decade.
And premium VOD often gets titles before the DVD/BR release although the window is shorter these days.
That's only in hotels and commercial airlines, to my knowledge, with a handful of exceptions here and there (like when you could rent Cloudy with a Chance of Meaballs on your newly-bought Sony-brand HDTV last year for $24.99 per viewing).
Is it?
Is Apple Online *the Apple Store*? Yes, pretty sure. There has always been an "Apple Store", online, for as long as I remember. I have been using Macs since '84. The physical Apple Stores are a comparatively recent thing, and new ones open every quarter; I don't believe each physical store is autonomous. The physical stores are the face of Apple (more about the branding aspect below); they add points of contact to The Apple Store. If you walk into a physical Apple Store and ask a question about availability or to buy something, they are interacting with the unified Apple Store Online with its branches in different regions. For Europe, I think this is based in Ireland.
That's funny, when I purchased a Mac in Ireland, it was shipped from China. When I purchased iPods in Ireland, they were shipped from China.
As I said, Apple keeps tight inventory channels and doesn't stock pile them anywhere. The discussion about Ireland started because that is the base of the online store (and Apple warranty services) for the whole of Europe. IF there is ANY stock piling at all, it's probably there.
Of course the tracking is going to show China -- because, as you know, with popular products there is sometimes a lead time of three weeks or more. However, I wonder if your orders went from the factory in China directly to your door; they may well have, or they may have been picked up by a local courier in Ireland, I don't know. Actually, this supports my point all the more: that there is no difference to Apple in sending a product directly to you, or to a physical store. If there is one less stop along the way, well, then what I said is even more true.
I've been to the Regent St store, it isn't small.
Me too. For an Apple Store, it's large. Of all the stores on Regent Street, it's fair to middlin'. For a single brand electronics boutique, it is large. But most of the store is taken up with Genius bar, Seminar Theatre, etc. Not racks and racks of merchandise. It is not "competing" with the Apple Store, "Apple Online" as you put it; it does not simply represent an alternative to the Apple Online. Whatever the case, it is an expensive store to operate. However, I believe it has a wider mandate than simply selling merchandise, and I believe the physical stores perform a key function within Apple's strategy.
Again, I was trying to illustrate the fact that one of the functions of a physical Apple store is to act as a local face of The Apple Store. Apple hasn't suddenly decided to move its selling business from a high street model to an online model, and by doing so, they are saving all this money by not needing shops anymore, so they should pass the savings on to me when I order online. More about that below...
ok, if you claim there isn't that much more expense in running a store. Then why do the Americans on this site list that as a reason the UK prices are higher than the US ones? Are you wrong, or are they wrong?
No, I agree -- I was going to post more last time, and didn't. Of course there is a substantial cost to Apple for opening and maintaining stores, there must be. And of course, this would be one of the costs of doing business anywhere.
And who knows, maintaining physical stores may well directly contribute to the higher costs we may be facing when we buy Apple products in Europe; there may be some convoluted formula at work that factors store operating costs for that region into product prices for that region (but I don't know, and neither do you nor anyone else).
I tend to think that the maintenance of physical Apple Stores may come under another part of the Apple operating budget or expense sheet, though I'm not sure. I have a hard time believing that the cost of real estate and wages and electricity in, lets say, the Champs Elysee or the Louvre or Regent Street, should directly make my iMac X-percent more expensive to a European than it would be if there were no physical Apple Stores in these highly expensive locations.
This is what I am at pains to try and get at. I am not sure that the Apple product that you order online would be, or could be, any cheaper vs buying it in a physical store location. I am not sure that we should expect or feel entitled to a discount on one particular iMac, simply because we ordered it online and it made one less stop on its journey; as opposed to us wandering into a physical store with its attendant operating costs, and buying one of the few they stock.
True, your iMac didn't sit on a shelf somewhere, in a location for which Apple is paying electricity and wages over and above what they may pay already at some unknown warehouse facility (whether in Ireland or not). But my point is that Apple is not in the process of attempting to "streamline its business" by trying to go more modern and close its physical stores in order to save money. My point is that the physical stores are part of Apple's marketing strategy and global branding efforts, and they are doing very well for Apple. I don't think Apple needs to raise prices on products sold online simply to cover the operating costs of physical shops, therefore I believe you can not reasonably expect a discount for shopping online.
A good test of my theory is to watch the prices in the Apple Store. They don't go up with all these new stores being opened. Apple opens new, and extremely expensive, stores all the time... do the prices go up? No. Rather, the more relevant "costs of doing business" that might well be directly reflected in Regional Apple Store prices are things that directly pertain to the selling and distribution of the products, like VATs, and licenses, and business taxes, and registration, and delivery costs, allowances for currency fluctuations, etc.
That's it, that's my position. Unless any of us is privvy to internal Apple strategy documentation, I don't know what else there is to say on the matter.
It makes absolutely zero sense to compare blu-ray adoption to all digital sales, rentals, SD and HD, because SD streaming and rentals are not competitors with blu-ray. Blu-ray exists as a means of getting the best picture and sound possible at home; SD streaming does nothing of the sort, so to suggest that one negates the need to have the other is completely illogical. I'm not saying you are doing that, but Steve Jobs is. Analysts and number crunchers should be comparing digital SD sales and rentals to DVD, and digital HD rentals and sales to blu-ray; that's the only comparison that makes sense.
Perhaps this is at the heart of our difference of opinion.
I see blu-ray as competing against all other methods for delivering movies to our televisions.
It is important to note that some people actively look for HD contenet while other people simply look for movies that they like. There are enough people in the latter category to make SD video a competitor to blu-ray. Maybe not for you and other videophiles, but for enough people to make them competing products/services.
It isn't that SD-to-SD and HD-to-HD comparisons are completely invalid. Just that this comparison provides an incomplete picture of the market as a whole. If considered in isolation, it would actually hamper our understanding of consumer behavior in regard to choosing what movie to watch on any given night.