I'll agree with you when I can stream Avatar and many thousands of other films with 45mbit 1080p video with lossless DTS Master audio, and 4-10 hours of behind the scenes extras on tap.
I think there needs to be a distinction about what content suits the distribution method. Blu-Ray is a good option for archival of movies you love and want to keep in the highest quality. The vast majority of content is disposable so there's no need to use 45mbit video with lossless audio. That's in the region of the bitrate used for intermediate video editing formats, although for HD that will be 150-200mbits. Distribution bitrates should be around 1/10th of an editing bitrate due to the inter-frame compression so the absolute upper bound for 1080p H.264 would be 15mbits but you will get away with 8mbits, especially using high-end encoders, not the junk they ship with Quicktime.
The widely accepted definition of broadband is 4mbits so we're in the region of 720p streaming and that's enough for all disposable content. For the odd movie here and there, people will go out and buy the disc but digital content still outsells it.
Blu-Ray is currently at 25 million units, DVD is at 340 million. Digital sales is harder to work out per year but it has risen exponentially and totals are 450 million TV episodes, 100 million movies. The iTunes store is only 7 years old so even if they sold the same amount every year, which isn't the case it's 14 million movie sales per year. Given that it is in fact increasing exponentially, it's pretty certain iTunes outsold Blu-Ray this year and that's just one store.
Apple have the statistics and know which technologies are right to bet on. Blu-Ray might be the strongest horse in the race for physical media distribution but this race ends soon and a new one is going and Apple are getting their head-start as usual.
Here's the problem with the Blu-ray step in that technology advancement chain: unlike the others in the chain, it offers NO increase in convenience relative to its predecessor (the DVD). Furthermore, with respect to quality, its predecessor (the DVD) is GOOD ENOUGH for the majority of users most of the time. That means that the value proposition for most people to try Blu-ray is really unclear, hence a slower penetration for Blu-ray than the technologies that preceded it. Then along comes downloads, which undeniably ratchet the convenience factor up to unprecedented levels. But the quality factor remains at DVD level for now, or perhaps even at SD level! But people are using it anyway and liking it. I rent shows or movies on demand via Comcast all of the time, and I never pay the extra buck for high definition. You may, but I would wager most people choose like I do.
Here's my take: most people will skip purchasing a Blu-ray player of any kind, unless it comes along for the ride with a game player. And many of those will never purchase or rent a Blu-ray disk.
...
Thompson
I don't buy Blu-Ray player or drive myself. Mine came with the PS3 which is good enough and have been highly praised in term of quality. Most importantly, I don't buy Blu-Ray disc either unless it is too good to watch it streaming like movies I don't mind watching again in the future like the Bourne collection or one or two Denzel's movie. I don't regard special features on disc appealing at all. The discs are dead to me, taking up spaces in my place and only used once. HDD is cheap nowadays and I could carry movies on a USB stick if I want to but I just watch them on my iPad on the move. Everything is on download regardless of legality.
Besides, just how many built PC came with the Blu-ray drives anyway. I know mine don't even when I build my PC myself.
Here are a few reasons I've heard about why BR isn't on Macs:
- SJ wants control
- SJ doesn't want to pay royalties for BR
- SJ wants to dip his fingers into the revenue pot.
- BR will cut into iTunes revenue.
Here's my response: It's business.
Apple is a business. Steve Jobs, as a CEO is trying to make money for Apple. If the royalties are going to adversely affect profits, then SJ shouldn't do it.
Consumers should vote with their wallets. If consumers vote in favor of BR, SJ will put it on the Mac. He may be a lot of things, but he isn't an idiot when it comes to business.
Movies on Television... Video Tape... DVD... Blu-Ray... Streaming and/or Downloads...
Here's the problem with the Blu-ray step in that technology advancement chain: unlike the others in the chain, it offers NO increase in convenience relative to its predecessor (the DVD). Furthermore, with respect to quality, its predecessor (the DVD) is GOOD ENOUGH for the majority of users most of the time. That means that the value proposition for most people to try Blu-ray is really unclear, hence a slower penetration for Blu-ray than the technologies that preceded it. Then along comes downloads, which undeniably ratchet the convenience factor up to unprecedented levels. But the quality factor remains at DVD level for now, or perhaps even at SD level! But people are using it anyway and liking it. I rent shows or movies on demand via Comcast all of the time, and I never pay the extra buck for high definition. You may, but I would wager most people choose like I do.
Here's my take: most people will skip purchasing a Blu-ray player of any kind, unless it comes along for the ride with a game player. And many of those will never purchase or rent a Blu-ray disk.
For those of you that do otherwise, I understand your motivation... but I don't think you will ever be in the majority.
Thompson
It is however reverse downgrade or backward in the quality of experience-but maybe that is a reflection and proof of de-evolution. Or maybe our brains are being fried by all this wireless crap and since we are on the go go go go and more go all the time we can't take a couple hours to really enjoy the artistry of a great movie-scratch that maybe it is a niche market since the biggest movies from Hollywood - well a bluray version probably - well most definitely don't even deserve a bluray transfer - nothing to gain- (there are exceptions though few-ex Avatar) - maybe this whole thing can just be attributed to people settling for bad taste - i mean look at the last decade - bad taste is the latest hot with everything from music, to movies, cars....
we should all think different.
Ya know I bet apple would have supported the bluray in their macs during that campain. They were quite higher end then.... God i miss those days when every moron on the planet had a windoze machine-now they all seem to have iphones and ipads just one thing has not changed they are still....
I've seen BlueRay and I really like it from a quality perspective, especially for visual feasts like "Avatar", "Lord of the Rings", "The Matrix", etc. But the lion's share of my movie watching is not concerned with movies like those, and most of them are rented not purchased. Put those two things together, and I find that convenience trumps quality the majority of the time. That is, I don't want to go to Blockbuster to rent movies anymore. I want to click a button from the comfort of my couch. If the downside is that for those few movies I want to actually purchase and download, I end up with 720p rather than 1080p, you know... I'm pretty much OK with that.
It sometimes seems like people who are videophiles and demand the highest quality tend to not even acknowledge or understand that when it comes to viewing your typical flick, the majority of folks value convenience over pixel density. I think it is fairly obvious that long before BlueRay technology hits the mainstream at the same scale that the DVD format did before it (i.e. "ubiquitous" as opposed to just "popular") the more convenient streaming methods will supersede it. Heck, it may only be a few years off before you can even stream the equivalent quality. In other words, I think that BlueRay never will hit the mainstream on THAT large a scale. Oh it will probably be popular enough to justify its existence, but I doubt that every middle class home in the USA will have a player, let alone 2 or 3.
I doubt that Apple makes its marketing decisions based on petulance, in spite of how it may feel to someone who really really wants a capability that they aren't providing. And I don't think it's necessarily all about the money either (certainly that is a factor). I think that they consider engineering trade-offs and all kinds of other things that never come to light. I'm not trying to be an Apple apologist here. I'm just saying that I think your perspective is influenced by our lack of insight into the Apple decision process as well as your strong desire for BlueRay.
Thompson
Well! Harumph! If you're going to make rational, considered posts -- it's off to the ignore list you go.
... I can't afford to waste time on posts like this!
once again, microsoft is showing how behind the times and out of touch they are with users these days ... especially those with portable gear and media consumption.
I don't buy Blu-Ray player or drive myself. Mine came with the PS3 which is good enough and have been highly praised in term of quality. Most importantly, I don't buy Blu-Ray disc either unless it is too good to watch it streaming like movies I don't mind watching again in the future like the Bourne collection or one or two Denzel's movie. I don't regard special features on disc appealing at all. The discs are dead to me, taking up spaces in my place and only used once. HDD is cheap nowadays and I could carry movies on a USB stick if I want to but I just watch them on my iPad on the move. Everything is on download regardless of legality.
Besides, just how many built PC came with the Blu-ray drives anyway. I know mine don't even when I build my PC myself.
It is however reverse downgrade or backward in the quality of experience-but maybe that is a reflection and proof of de-evolution... *SNIP*
All of which I agree with, but that's what I've been trying to say. When it comes to taking in a quick rented flick, which is usually watched to take in a (hopefully!) good story, convenience trumps quality MOST of the time. (I didn't say ALL of the time.)
For instance, I get a really really huge kick out of the movie "Forrest Gump", and I am quite sure that my enjoyment of it would not have been significantly enhanced by HD or fancy surround sound... the story transcended the pixels and soundtrack. For some specific movies, that is not the case. But most are that way.
once again, microsoft is showing how behind the times and out of touch they are with users these days ... especially those with portable gear and media consumption.
which is the downfall of todays civilization. everyone in such a hurry - no time to do anything yet get nothing done and rude, demanding and obnoxious - what we all need to do is take some time - put down our dammed iphones, ipads, twitting (does anyone recall what a twit use to mean?), stop texting, key-padding, emailing, sexting, suing, driving, eating fast food, road raging, etc... and sit our fat asses down with friends and family in front of a big screen hdtv with a great long movie and a nice dinner. At least on an occasion. Hell - that is what we all effin need. Some down time, relaxation and good times with those we love-too bad apple can't box that up for us... but i don't guess we would or will ever buy that... and with the apple tax... whew...
All of which I agree with, but that's what I've been trying to say. When it comes to taking in a quick rented flick, which is usually watched to take in a (hopefully!) good story, convenience trumps quality MOST of the time. (I didn't say ALL of the time.)
For instance, I get a really really huge kick out of the movie "Forrest Gump", and I am quite sure that my enjoyment of it would not have been significantly enhanced by HD or fancy surround sound... the story transcended the pixels and soundtrack. For some specific movies, that is not the case. But most are that way.
That's just the reality, mate! ;-)
Thompson
i hear ya - but hope ya get to do it on occasion - if not at home at least with a friend... but it is the sad sad facts of today...
Movies on Television... Video Tape... DVD... Blu-Ray... Streaming and/or Downloads...
I just want to very quickly expand upon what Thompson was saying.
The changes in media and convenience was a major reason why adoption occurred. From VHS to DVD, it was very clear: No more rewinding, better quality, better durability (anyone who has worked in a movie rental store before knows this), and a smaller package.
Now, you make the next logical jump up, and that is DVD to Blu-Ray. Realistically, you only have a couple of benefits: better video experience if you have a higher quality TV, and a better audio experience if you have a higher-end audio setup. It is those ifs that get in the way. Now, is it being adopted, yes it is. There are people who firmly believe it is the future of watching movies. The problem is that it doesn't solve a problem with the prior format, so they started adding features (internet connected devices, live chat, watching it from different angles while in the movie, etc) to try to sway people to buy.
Now, you look at Downloading content. It does solve a problem: the actual media. You can back that up (i.e. Time Machine) perfectly legally, as well as have it installed on multiple portable devices. That is something that the movie industry doesn't want, which is why they are pouring millions of dollars into getting Blu-Ray to be heavily adopted.
Now, does Downloadable Content feature the same quality of video or audio? No, but that isn't the point. Will Blu-Ray be around for many more years? Probably, and yes I think probably around 10 years. Will Apple adopt it into its computers: Maybe, depending on licensing and other factors that us mere mortals will not know about. I just know that for me, DVD is just fine for renting and what not, and when I can buy movies and store them in a separate place, like a NAS, then I will go to Downloading Content. That is me, and only me though.
Last thing, then I will stop. ;-) If history is any measure of what happens, then DVDs/Blu-Ray will go the way of the Dodo, in favor of Downloadable Content; just like it was for the CD.
Go ahead! Watch that blu-ray with your special eyes!
Lol.
Can I notice the difference? Yes.
Do I really care about the difference? Not really.
Am I willing to give up the difference, to gain all the advantage of using digital files instead of physical media? You bet!!
The only thing I would want blu-ray for would be to be able to rip blu-ray content into my digital library. And I wouldn't be saving it as 1080p! Fortunately, this is rarely necessary.
When we first got HD, we tacked on a blu-ray player so we could get "the full experience". Whatever. I think we have 3 blu-ray disks now. Whoopee.
When it comes to renting movies, or even purchasing them, the majority of people value convenience over quality most of the time (with specific exceptions for the occasional visual feast that you may watch more than once to revel in its visual glory). But as for the folks that don't fall in that category, i.e. they want ALL of their movies, purchased or rented, to be 1080p ALL the time...
why is it they can't see that most folks aren't like that?
Thompson
People don't care about high quality all the time. They just want their purchased media to play wherever they're used to consuming it. Today it plays on a 60" screen. Tomorrow it plays on a laptop.
While most points made here for and against Blu-Ray make a lot of sense, I think the main issue for this thread is Blu-Ray on a laptop, because that is the context of the ad. I'm not aware of any laptop under 17" that has a resolution 1920x1080 or higher. Anything less makes Blu-Ray overkill on a laptop?and the Windows 7 ad is specifically talking about Blu-Ray on a laptop. If you watch a Blu-Ray movie on a laptop with less than 1080p capable resolution, you're just wasting battery juice, and Apple's 720p HD downloads don't look so bad.
Now, if the ad featured an anthropomorphic iMac chillin' with a Windows 7 desktop and talking about the iMac's lack of Blu-Ray, that would be a valid argument, and something worthy of a discussion on the merits of Blu-Ray vs. not Blu-Ray.
BTW. That ad was totally unbelievable?a badminton shuttlecock glued to a couple of soup cans is not a feasible means of air travel. And power supply cooling fans have nowhere near enough power to get that all off the ground. Totally fake. Geez.
Comments
Yes, but if you have the disc you can watch it on EITHER your laptop or your big tv, or your mates, tv, or your aunties tv...........
Yes, but if you have a digital image and an inexpensive app ServeToMe you can watch it on:
your laptop, desktopS, HDTVS, iPhoneS, iPadS, at your mates TV, your Auntie's TV, at any WiFi HotSpot, or over 3G in the middle of a park.
See, that's the magic of streamed digital contentment, you can take it with you -- without taking it with you!
.
I'll agree with you when I can stream Avatar and many thousands of other films with 45mbit 1080p video with lossless DTS Master audio, and 4-10 hours of behind the scenes extras on tap.
I think there needs to be a distinction about what content suits the distribution method. Blu-Ray is a good option for archival of movies you love and want to keep in the highest quality. The vast majority of content is disposable so there's no need to use 45mbit video with lossless audio. That's in the region of the bitrate used for intermediate video editing formats, although for HD that will be 150-200mbits. Distribution bitrates should be around 1/10th of an editing bitrate due to the inter-frame compression so the absolute upper bound for 1080p H.264 would be 15mbits but you will get away with 8mbits, especially using high-end encoders, not the junk they ship with Quicktime.
The widely accepted definition of broadband is 4mbits so we're in the region of 720p streaming and that's enough for all disposable content. For the odd movie here and there, people will go out and buy the disc but digital content still outsells it.
Blu-Ray is currently at 25 million units, DVD is at 340 million. Digital sales is harder to work out per year but it has risen exponentially and totals are 450 million TV episodes, 100 million movies. The iTunes store is only 7 years old so even if they sold the same amount every year, which isn't the case it's 14 million movie sales per year. Given that it is in fact increasing exponentially, it's pretty certain iTunes outsold Blu-Ray this year and that's just one store.
Apple have the statistics and know which technologies are right to bet on. Blu-Ray might be the strongest horse in the race for physical media distribution but this race ends soon and a new one is going and Apple are getting their head-start as usual.
...
Here's the problem with the Blu-ray step in that technology advancement chain: unlike the others in the chain, it offers NO increase in convenience relative to its predecessor (the DVD). Furthermore, with respect to quality, its predecessor (the DVD) is GOOD ENOUGH for the majority of users most of the time. That means that the value proposition for most people to try Blu-ray is really unclear, hence a slower penetration for Blu-ray than the technologies that preceded it. Then along comes downloads, which undeniably ratchet the convenience factor up to unprecedented levels. But the quality factor remains at DVD level for now, or perhaps even at SD level! But people are using it anyway and liking it. I rent shows or movies on demand via Comcast all of the time, and I never pay the extra buck for high definition. You may, but I would wager most people choose like I do.
Here's my take: most people will skip purchasing a Blu-ray player of any kind, unless it comes along for the ride with a game player. And many of those will never purchase or rent a Blu-ray disk.
...
Thompson
I don't buy Blu-Ray player or drive myself. Mine came with the PS3 which is good enough and have been highly praised in term of quality. Most importantly, I don't buy Blu-Ray disc either unless it is too good to watch it streaming like movies I don't mind watching again in the future like the Bourne collection or one or two Denzel's movie. I don't regard special features on disc appealing at all. The discs are dead to me, taking up spaces in my place and only used once. HDD is cheap nowadays and I could carry movies on a USB stick if I want to but I just watch them on my iPad on the move. Everything is on download regardless of legality.
Besides, just how many built PC came with the Blu-ray drives anyway. I know mine don't even when I build my PC myself.
- SJ wants control
- SJ doesn't want to pay royalties for BR
- SJ wants to dip his fingers into the revenue pot.
- BR will cut into iTunes revenue.
Here's my response: It's business.
Apple is a business. Steve Jobs, as a CEO is trying to make money for Apple. If the royalties are going to adversely affect profits, then SJ shouldn't do it.
Consumers should vote with their wallets. If consumers vote in favor of BR, SJ will put it on the Mac. He may be a lot of things, but he isn't an idiot when it comes to business.
Movies on Television... Video Tape... DVD... Blu-Ray... Streaming and/or Downloads...
Here's the problem with the Blu-ray step in that technology advancement chain: unlike the others in the chain, it offers NO increase in convenience relative to its predecessor (the DVD). Furthermore, with respect to quality, its predecessor (the DVD) is GOOD ENOUGH for the majority of users most of the time. That means that the value proposition for most people to try Blu-ray is really unclear, hence a slower penetration for Blu-ray than the technologies that preceded it. Then along comes downloads, which undeniably ratchet the convenience factor up to unprecedented levels. But the quality factor remains at DVD level for now, or perhaps even at SD level! But people are using it anyway and liking it. I rent shows or movies on demand via Comcast all of the time, and I never pay the extra buck for high definition. You may, but I would wager most people choose like I do.
Here's my take: most people will skip purchasing a Blu-ray player of any kind, unless it comes along for the ride with a game player. And many of those will never purchase or rent a Blu-ray disk.
For those of you that do otherwise, I understand your motivation... but I don't think you will ever be in the majority.
Thompson
It is however reverse downgrade or backward in the quality of experience-but maybe that is a reflection and proof of de-evolution. Or maybe our brains are being fried by all this wireless crap and since we are on the go go go go and more go all the time we can't take a couple hours to really enjoy the artistry of a great movie-scratch that maybe it is a niche market since the biggest movies from Hollywood - well a bluray version probably - well most definitely don't even deserve a bluray transfer - nothing to gain- (there are exceptions though few-ex Avatar) - maybe this whole thing can just be attributed to people settling for bad taste - i mean look at the last decade - bad taste is the latest hot with everything from music, to movies, cars....
we should all think different.
Ya know I bet apple would have supported the bluray in their macs during that campain. They were quite higher end then.... God i miss those days when every moron on the planet had a windoze machine-now they all seem to have iphones and ipads just one thing has not changed they are still....
I've seen BlueRay and I really like it from a quality perspective, especially for visual feasts like "Avatar", "Lord of the Rings", "The Matrix", etc. But the lion's share of my movie watching is not concerned with movies like those, and most of them are rented not purchased. Put those two things together, and I find that convenience trumps quality the majority of the time. That is, I don't want to go to Blockbuster to rent movies anymore. I want to click a button from the comfort of my couch. If the downside is that for those few movies I want to actually purchase and download, I end up with 720p rather than 1080p, you know... I'm pretty much OK with that.
It sometimes seems like people who are videophiles and demand the highest quality tend to not even acknowledge or understand that when it comes to viewing your typical flick, the majority of folks value convenience over pixel density. I think it is fairly obvious that long before BlueRay technology hits the mainstream at the same scale that the DVD format did before it (i.e. "ubiquitous" as opposed to just "popular") the more convenient streaming methods will supersede it. Heck, it may only be a few years off before you can even stream the equivalent quality. In other words, I think that BlueRay never will hit the mainstream on THAT large a scale. Oh it will probably be popular enough to justify its existence, but I doubt that every middle class home in the USA will have a player, let alone 2 or 3.
I doubt that Apple makes its marketing decisions based on petulance, in spite of how it may feel to someone who really really wants a capability that they aren't providing. And I don't think it's necessarily all about the money either (certainly that is a factor). I think that they consider engineering trade-offs and all kinds of other things that never come to light. I'm not trying to be an Apple apologist here. I'm just saying that I think your perspective is influenced by our lack of insight into the Apple decision process as well as your strong desire for BlueRay.
Thompson
Well! Harumph! If you're going to make rational, considered posts -- it's off to the ignore list you go.
... I can't afford to waste time on posts like this!
.
What movie?
Crank 2.
Microsloth is no longer a factor, anyway. The REAL competition of this new era of the merging of mobile with desktop will be between Apple and Google.
you might want to inform netflix and blockbuster. they haven't heard that news yet.
Blockbuster filed for bankrupcy a couple months ago.
The reference is the previous year's sales, as part of total DVD sales. If it netted half a billion in revenue, I think it's got some legs mate.
Well, post the absolute sales numbers so we can see, otherwise, for all we know, a 100% increase means it went from 1 to 2
I don't buy Blu-Ray player or drive myself. Mine came with the PS3 which is good enough and have been highly praised in term of quality. Most importantly, I don't buy Blu-Ray disc either unless it is too good to watch it streaming like movies I don't mind watching again in the future like the Bourne collection or one or two Denzel's movie. I don't regard special features on disc appealing at all. The discs are dead to me, taking up spaces in my place and only used once. HDD is cheap nowadays and I could carry movies on a USB stick if I want to but I just watch them on my iPad on the move. Everything is on download regardless of legality.
Besides, just how many built PC came with the Blu-ray drives anyway. I know mine don't even when I build my PC myself.
So you are agreeing with me, right?
Thompson
It is however reverse downgrade or backward in the quality of experience-but maybe that is a reflection and proof of de-evolution... *SNIP*
All of which I agree with, but that's what I've been trying to say. When it comes to taking in a quick rented flick, which is usually watched to take in a (hopefully!) good story, convenience trumps quality MOST of the time. (I didn't say ALL of the time.)
For instance, I get a really really huge kick out of the movie "Forrest Gump", and I am quite sure that my enjoyment of it would not have been significantly enhanced by HD or fancy surround sound... the story transcended the pixels and soundtrack. For some specific movies, that is not the case. But most are that way.
That's just the reality, mate! ;-)
Thompson
once again, microsoft is showing how behind the times and out of touch they are with users these days ... especially those with portable gear and media consumption.
which is the downfall of todays civilization. everyone in such a hurry - no time to do anything yet get nothing done and rude, demanding and obnoxious - what we all need to do is take some time - put down our dammed iphones, ipads, twitting (does anyone recall what a twit use to mean?), stop texting, key-padding, emailing, sexting, suing, driving, eating fast food, road raging, etc... and sit our fat asses down with friends and family in front of a big screen hdtv with a great long movie and a nice dinner. At least on an occasion. Hell - that is what we all effin need. Some down time, relaxation and good times with those we love-too bad apple can't box that up for us... but i don't guess we would or will ever buy that... and with the apple tax... whew...
All of which I agree with, but that's what I've been trying to say. When it comes to taking in a quick rented flick, which is usually watched to take in a (hopefully!) good story, convenience trumps quality MOST of the time. (I didn't say ALL of the time.)
For instance, I get a really really huge kick out of the movie "Forrest Gump", and I am quite sure that my enjoyment of it would not have been significantly enhanced by HD or fancy surround sound... the story transcended the pixels and soundtrack. For some specific movies, that is not the case. But most are that way.
That's just the reality, mate! ;-)
Thompson
i hear ya - but hope ya get to do it on occasion - if not at home at least with a friend... but it is the sad sad facts of today...
:-(
cheers
Movies on Television... Video Tape... DVD... Blu-Ray... Streaming and/or Downloads...
I just want to very quickly expand upon what Thompson was saying.
The changes in media and convenience was a major reason why adoption occurred. From VHS to DVD, it was very clear: No more rewinding, better quality, better durability (anyone who has worked in a movie rental store before knows this), and a smaller package.
Now, you make the next logical jump up, and that is DVD to Blu-Ray. Realistically, you only have a couple of benefits: better video experience if you have a higher quality TV, and a better audio experience if you have a higher-end audio setup. It is those ifs that get in the way. Now, is it being adopted, yes it is. There are people who firmly believe it is the future of watching movies. The problem is that it doesn't solve a problem with the prior format, so they started adding features (internet connected devices, live chat, watching it from different angles while in the movie, etc) to try to sway people to buy.
Now, you look at Downloading content. It does solve a problem: the actual media. You can back that up (i.e. Time Machine) perfectly legally, as well as have it installed on multiple portable devices. That is something that the movie industry doesn't want, which is why they are pouring millions of dollars into getting Blu-Ray to be heavily adopted.
Now, does Downloadable Content feature the same quality of video or audio? No, but that isn't the point. Will Blu-Ray be around for many more years? Probably, and yes I think probably around 10 years. Will Apple adopt it into its computers: Maybe, depending on licensing and other factors that us mere mortals will not know about. I just know that for me, DVD is just fine for renting and what not, and when I can buy movies and store them in a separate place, like a NAS, then I will go to Downloading Content. That is me, and only me though.
Last thing, then I will stop. ;-) If history is any measure of what happens, then DVDs/Blu-Ray will go the way of the Dodo, in favor of Downloadable Content; just like it was for the CD.
Lol.
Can I notice the difference? Yes.
Do I really care about the difference? Not really.
Am I willing to give up the difference, to gain all the advantage of using digital files instead of physical media? You bet!!
The only thing I would want blu-ray for would be to be able to rip blu-ray content into my digital library. And I wouldn't be saving it as 1080p!
When we first got HD, we tacked on a blu-ray player so we could get "the full experience". Whatever. I think we have 3 blu-ray disks now. Whoopee.
When it comes to renting movies, or even purchasing them, the majority of people value convenience over quality most of the time (with specific exceptions for the occasional visual feast that you may watch more than once to revel in its visual glory). But as for the folks that don't fall in that category, i.e. they want ALL of their movies, purchased or rented, to be 1080p ALL the time...
why is it they can't see that most folks aren't like that?
Thompson
People don't care about high quality all the time. They just want their purchased media to play wherever they're used to consuming it. Today it plays on a 60" screen. Tomorrow it plays on a laptop.
Now, if the ad featured an anthropomorphic iMac chillin' with a Windows 7 desktop and talking about the iMac's lack of Blu-Ray, that would be a valid argument, and something worthy of a discussion on the merits of Blu-Ray vs. not Blu-Ray.
BTW. That ad was totally unbelievable?a badminton shuttlecock glued to a couple of soup cans is not a feasible means of air travel. And power supply cooling fans have nowhere near enough power to get that all off the ground. Totally fake. Geez.