Blu-ray coming to the Mac? Steve says "Nope"

Sad Professor · 01-07-2010 12:34am #1

Excerpts from another of his late night emailing sessions:

Bluray is looking more and more like one of the high end audio formats that appeared as the successor to the CD - like it will be beaten by Internet downloadable formats.

[But what about the medium term benefits? Also, wasn't it the lack of DRM that made MP3 take off?]

No, free, instant gratification and convenience (likely in that order) is what made the downloadable formats take off. And the downloadable movie business is rapidly moving to free (Hulu) or rentals (iTunes) so storing purchased movies or TV shows is not an issue.

I think you may be wrong - we may see a fast broad move to streamed free and rental content at sufficient quality (at least 720p) to win almost everyone over.

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/06/30/steve-jobs-suggests-blu-ray-not-coming-to-mac-anytime-soon/

Thoughts on this? Is Apple right to not jump on the Blu-ray bandwagon? They are obviously protecting their iTunes business, but does Jobs have a point? Does Blu-ray/optical formats have any future?

Breezer · 01-07-2010 12:55am

It depends. Hulu, I believe, is great - if you live in the US. Similarly, how long did it take Apple to get iTunes movie rentals over here? And they cost an absolute fortune compared with buying a DVD from Tesco. Bear in mind that parts of this country still can't even get broadband. I'm aware that Ireland doesn't drive global tech, but neither does the US alone. There needs to be a global market, with everything running smoothly, and there's still a lot of hurdles to cross before that's achieved.

Also, the concept of "watching films through your computer" is alien to a lot of older people. I can see this happening a lot of people: booting up a computer, opening iTunes, clicking to cancel notifications telling you to update, looking for a film, not finding it, wondering why, ringing the son/daughter who knows about these things, finding out you need to update to a new version of iTunes, updating, accepting licence agreements, finding the film again, renting it, watching it in the swivel chair on the small screen because you don't know how to pipe it through to the TV, getting tired, deciding to finish it another time, finding it magically deleted when you go back to it because you've exceeded the rental period.

As opposed to Blu-Ray, where you buy/rent a "DVD in a blue box", put it in the box that looks exactly like a DVD player or VHS before that, sit back in the couch, watch it, and return it to Xtra Vision down in the village in a day or two. Or, indeed, as opposed to the DVD, which is exactly the same only cheaper again. A lot of people don't care about HD. Unless DVDs are deliberately killed off by the studios, they're not going anywhere for a while.

Regarding the here and now, and more tech-savvy people, I think not having a Blu-Ray player on a Mac is still going to hurt Mac sales, not boost iTunes ones. iTunes DRM is going to piss these people off - I know it annoys the heck out of me. People who want a Mac will buy a Mac. People considering it might well be swayed by the cheaper, more familiar PC that also plays Blu-Ray.

This is Jobs being stubborn and trying to paint it as a good thing, just like with Flash. "There's nothing wrong with our products. Users just have to change their habits to suit our way of doing things. It's not an issue. Don't hold your iPhone like that."

Talisman · 02-07-2010 3:55pm

Apple / Steve Jobs is right.

In terms of content delivery, DVD was a huge success because it was a massive improvement on VHS. The perceived improvement from DVD to Blu-ray isn't the same because people without HD capable screens will see little or no difference between the two. 720p/1080p content on a 480p screen is still only 480p content. By the time Blu-ray establishes itself as the mainstream format, the screen panels will support higher resolutions and a new format will be required to get the best experience from it. The Blu-ray specification only goes up to 1080p encoding so it will need to be upscaled to give a 2160p (3,840 x 2,160 pixels) experience.

Samsung and Toshiba have plans for mainstream 2160p screens by 2016, that will most certainly be the end of DVD as the optical format of choice. It may also prove to be the end of Blu-ray.

Higher speed internet access will make streaming HD content more accessible. Currently I can stream content from the likes of Hulu, BBC iPlayer and RTE Player to the TV through my Mac mini, the quality is fine. My internet connection is 8-12Mbps depending on the mood of the service provider. In the US, Netflix users require a 5Mbps connection to stream 720p movie content. Streaming best quality 1080p content currently requires 12Mbps. 2160p will simply require more bandwidth. In 2006, NHK had a live Super Hi-Vision broadcast over IP demonstration in Japan. Super Hi-Vision is a leap beyond 2160p - 7,680 × 4,320 pixels. Sky intend to broadcast the format in 2016-2020. NHK intend to broadcast the 2016 Olympics in the format in Japan.

Optical media will not be able to compete with the next generation of high definition. The content providers know that there is a future in streaming content - The movie studios are already streaming content to cinemas. Sony, Microsoft and Apple all have their own online content stores where you can purchase/rent content. Game consoles such as the PS3 and Xbox360 can stream content. Connecting a computer/console to a TV is no longer a requirement because the TV manufactures are in on the act too. LG, Samsung, Sony and Vizio have TVs that are capable of streaming content directly from content providers.

When the content providers and internet service providers find a way to make revenue sharing work for each of them, the days of going to the likes of Chartbusters or Xtravision stores to rent a movie are numbered.

It doesn't make sense for Apple to join the Blu-ray club now. If they were going to do it then adopting it at launch or when the format war with HD-DVD ended (2008) was when it would have happened. The iPhone, iPad and iPod devices don't have Blu-ray and they generate the most revenue for the company. Even with the reduction in licensing costs, Apple are not going to hand over $10-15 per computer unit manufactured to the Blu-ray Disc Association for the foreseeable future.

If somebody wants to use a Blu-ray drive with their Mac then there's nothing to stop them from connecting an external one, or installing one in the case of a Mac Pro.

Breezer · 02-07-2010 5:07pm

Talisman wrote: »

Samsung and Toshiba have plans for mainstream 2160p screens by 2016, that will most certainly be the end of DVD as the optical format of choice. It may also prove to be the end of Blu-ray.

But this is 2010. What about the next 6 years?

Currently I can stream content from the likes of Hulu, BBC iPlayer and RTE Player to the TV through my Mac mini

You can, but not without violating terms and conditions and hooking up a proxy or VPN or something. Joe Average doesn't know how/doesn't want to do that.

My internet connection is 8-12Mbps depending on the mood of the service provider.

Meanwhile, there are places where broadband still doesn't exist, and many places where that kind of connection speed isn't possible.

LG, Samsung, Sony and Vizio have TVs that are capable of streaming content directly from content providers.

But these are still very much the exception, and expensive.

When the content providers and internet service providers find a way to make revenue sharing work for each of them, the days of going to the likes of Chartbusters or Xtravision stores to rent a movie are numbered.

Not arguing with you, but again, this is the future. What about the here and now?

The iPhone, iPad and iPod devices don't have Blu-ray and they generate the most revenue for the company.

They don't have "DVD" either, they require most common formats to be converted in order to play them. I don't see why converting from a Blu-Ray disc to these formats should pose any more of a problem than exists already.

If somebody wants to use a Blu-ray drive with their Mac then there's nothing to stop them from connecting an external one, or installing one in the case of a Mac Pro.

There is if they want to use it to play a movie on OS X.

Your points are mostly valid - if you're a techie who knows what he's doing, lives in an urban area and has plenty of money to splash around. I'd be fairly sure the majority of people would prefer to bang a disc into a drive though. Just like the majority of people would like Flash to work on their devices, and would prefer to hold their phones in whatever way is most comfortable for them.

Talisman · 02-07-2010 7:18pm

Breezer wrote: »

But this is 2010. What about the next 6 years?

Blu-ray has been in the mainstream for 6 years. It hasn't established itself over the DVD format which became mainstream in 1997.

You can, but not without violating terms and conditions and hooking up a proxy or VPN or something. Joe Average doesn't know how/doesn't want to do that.

But it's still possible.

Meanwhile, there are places where broadband still doesn't exist, and many places where that kind of connection speed isn't possible.

Because some people have no access to broadband is not a valid reason for Apple to install Blu-ray players in computers. There are places where computers and Blu-ray players are considered a luxury item, but don't let that stop you.

But these are still very much the exception, and expensive.

Yet cheaper than any Apple computer and becoming standard.

Not arguing with you, but again, this is the future. What about the here and now?

If you want Blu-ray then don't consider Apple it's that simple. As I said previously Blu-ray has a short life expectancy. Apple aren't in the habit of chasing markets particularly a declining one. In the recent past they have created markets for themselves - iTunes, iPod, iPhone and iPad. Those markets are thriving, whether you like it or not that's the reality. 6 years is not a long time and in that time there will be significant innovation in broadband network development and Flash memory modules.

They don't have "DVD" either, they require most common formats to be converted in order to play them. I don't see why converting from a Blu-Ray disc to these formats should pose any more of a problem than exists already.

violating terms and conditions? Is Joe Average up to the task?

There is if they want to use it to play a movie on OS X.

Blu-ray playback is not the be all and end all of everything. It's a piece of marketing fluff.

Your points are mostly valid - if you're a techie who knows what he's doing, lives in an urban area and has plenty of money to splash around. I'd be fairly sure the majority of people would prefer to bang a disc into a drive though. Just like the majority of people would like Flash to work on their devices, and would prefer to hold their phones in whatever way is most comfortable for them.

I assume that if somebody didn't have the money then they wouldn't be buying Apple hardware in the first place. Apple products are horribly over priced for what you get. For example the cheapest Apple computer is the Mac mini which costs €799, the iPad will retail for similar money. By comparison an internet ready Sony 32" TV costs €512 and a PS3 costs less than €300. If you simply want Blu-ray playback then there's your solution with some future proofing. If you can afford to buy an Apple computer then a Blu-ray drive is not going to break the bank.

Apple's stance on Flash has nothing to do with Blu-ray.

conor.hogan.2 · 02-07-2010 11:40pm

Apple sell through itunes - that is there model and the quality is ''good eneough''.

They might in the future include a blueray player but I wont buy it much like the reason I dont buy ram from Apple....

Breezer · 03-07-2010 12:05pm

Talisman wrote: »

Blu-ray has been in the mainstream for 6 years. It hasn't established itself over the DVD format which became mainstream in 1997.

No it hasn't. It's been around for 4 years, and has had the backing of all major industry players for 2 years.

But it's still possible.

Yes, but most people don't know/care how to do this. It's possible to install Linux on a MacBook and use it to control your central heating, but most people will just flip a switch on the wall.

Because some people have no access to broadband is not a valid reason for Apple to install Blu-ray players in computers. There are places where computers and Blu-ray players are considered a luxury item, but don't let that stop you.

Providing a better level of service to more customers isn't a valid reason for a business to do something?

Yet cheaper than any Apple computer and becoming standard.

They are not becoming standard. They may in the future, but they are not yet. The fact that they are cheaper than any Apple computer, and come with these bells and whistles, yet Apple don't even offer a Blu-Ray player as an option speaks volumes.

As I said previously Blu-ray has a short life expectancy.

You said it's been around for 6 years and that the alternatives won't be mainstream for another 6. That's 12 years. I wouldn't call that short.

violating terms and conditions? Is Joe Average up to the task?

Your point was that Apple shouldn't offer Blu-Ray playback because iPods don't offer it. By that logic, Apple should drop DVD playback as well.

I assume that if somebody didn't have the money then they wouldn't be buying Apple hardware in the first place. Apple products are horribly over priced for what you get. For example the cheapest Apple computer is the Mac mini which costs €799, the iPad will retail for similar money. By comparison an internet ready Sony 32" TV costs €512 and a PS3 costs less than €300. If you simply want Blu-ray playback then there's your solution with some future proofing. If you can afford to buy an Apple computer then a Blu-ray drive is not going to break the bank.

This is my point. Customers have already coughed up a fortune, and they then have to cough up a fortune on extra hardware because the expensive hardware is missing features.

Apple's stance on Flash has nothing to do with Blu-ray.

Yes it does. It's symptomatic of Apple's "We're right, you're wrong" attitude. Apple does not respond to consumers' wishes, it dictates them. No other company could get away with this. Somehow Apple does, and I admire its marketing team, including Steve Jobs, for being able to pull this off. But it doesn't mean I like the end result.

Look, this is my opinion. You don't have to agree with it, and clearly Apple doesn't agree with it. But I do feel that when you're paying through the nose for something, it would be nice to get features that you can take for granted on much cheaper platforms. The iPhone is another example of this, which is why I won't buy one. Looking at the whole picture, I think a Mac is worth the money, but like I said, it would be nice to be able to pay that bit extra for extra features without having to give up the standard stuff.

conor.hogan.2 · 03-07-2010 3:06pm

I wish physical media would die.

I wish old media would die - like the new Hulu is still crippled because they want you to still have to pay for regular tv.

Dman001 · 03-07-2010 5:35pm

I would gladly pay a tenner for Hulu Plus. Every episode of your favourite Show in the current series, and lots of library content all for a tenner. And in HD and on multiple devices. This is definitely the future.

Blu Ray is definitely here to stay for another while. It offers the better quality (1080p vs 720p), more content (extras on the disc) and for a cheaper price in most cases in comparison to the iTunes Movie Store. Until bandwidth improves and the content iTunes offers improves Blu Ray isnt going anywhere.

But price is a major factor. There are many who don't buy BRs to get their HD content, but simply use Torrents to get their HD fix. It may not be as good of quality, but free is free. The only way I think a Movie Download service will succeed over Blu Ray is if Apple offer a subscription service, say unlimited viewing for $20 a month. This is similar to what Netflix offers and it works a treat.

banquo · 03-07-2010 5:49pm

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

I wish physical media would die.

I wish old media would die - like the new Hulu is still crippled because they want you to still have to pay for regular tv.

I completely agree. If there was an internet only tv I'd buy it. One that streamed wirelessly from local media or else had built in app repositories (basically a Boxee TV). Old media is lingering on far too long for my liking.

As for VPNing it up to get Hulu, etc, it is annoyingly hard for the typical person at the moment, but the point is that it shouldn't be. And it's not Hulu's fault or Apple's fault or Netflix's fault, it's the unbelievably lazy and arrogant rights-holders' who are dragging their feet.

Also, there's the release watershed - a film out now in the states comes out here weeks and months later. There's a mindset in the industry that needs to be completely disenthralled from if and large steps in progress are to be made.

If I had to start a company in this sector, I think I'd build a Wifi ONLY tv, with no local storage and the ability to treat channels as 'apps', a la boxee. This would force content providers to provide more this way, and on-demand would become the norm. It would also drive our bb infrastructure.

Sad Professor · 03-07-2010 7:15pm

I'm still undecided about to where I stand in this debate. There's no doubt that digital downloads is the future, but I agree with Breezer that there's still a place for optical media in the meantime. I'm not sure if I really want to waste my time with it though. I haven't bought a DVD in about two years as I consider it a dead format. I've flirted with getting a Blu-ray player but still haven't made the jump. Mostly because I'm not really sure I want to be filling my shelves with any more sh*t. Maybe I'm just disorganised, but the thought of taking a case from the shelf and putting a disc in just seems like so antiquated to me now. I love having access to movies/tv shows on my computer and being able to quickly jump to a certain scene.

The Irish iTunes Film Store is such a disappointment. I'm not buying compressed standard def movies at any price, and I'm not renting one of the hand-full of high def movies that can only be played on an iPad or AppleTV. The studios really need to wake the f**k up and join the 21st century, but I'm not hopeful this will happen anytime soon. So I reckon I'll probably end up going Blu-ray eventually but will rent more and only buy films I really love. Then down the road I'll rip them.

Talisman · 03-07-2010 10:20pm

Breezer wrote: »

No it hasn't. It's been around for 4 years, and has had the backing of all major industry players for 2 years.

Dell and HP announced support for Blu-ray in January 2004. HP were shipping computers with Blu-ray drives before the end of the year.

They are not becoming standard. They may in the future, but they are not yet. The fact that they are cheaper than any Apple computer, and come with these bells and whistles, yet Apple don't even offer a Blu-Ray player as an option speaks volumes.

There were a few models in 2009 with IPTV. More 2010 models were created with IPTV. It is becoming standard, i.e. eventually all models will have it.

You said it's been around for 6 years and that the alternatives won't be mainstream for another 6. That's 12 years. I wouldn't call that short.

I also said that if Apple were going to support it they would have done so when it launched.

Your point was that Apple shouldn't offer Blu-Ray playback because iPods don't offer it. By that logic, Apple should drop DVD playback as well.

No it wasn't. My point was that Apple make most of their money from the iPhone, iPad and iPod devices.

This is my point. Customers have already coughed up a fortune, and they then have to cough up a fortune on extra hardware because the expensive hardware is missing features.

Yes it does. It's symptomatic of Apple's "We're right, you're wrong" attitude. Apple does not respond to consumers' wishes, it dictates them. No other company could get away with this. Somehow Apple does, and I admire its marketing team, including Steve Jobs, for being able to pull this off. But it doesn't mean I like the end result.

Look, this is my opinion. You don't have to agree with it, and clearly Apple doesn't agree with it. But I do feel that when you're paying through the nose for something, it would be nice to get features that you can take for granted on much cheaper platforms. The iPhone is another example of this, which is why I won't buy one. Looking at the whole picture, I think a Mac is worth the money, but like I said, it would be nice to be able to pay that bit extra for extra features without having to give up the standard stuff.

I should have put this in my original post but I'll ask you now:

Why is there no official Blu-ray support on the Linux platform?

Apple is not alone in avoiding it. If Blu-ray playback is a perceived holy grail then why have the likes of Ubuntu and RedHat steered clear of adding it to their operating systems?

Breezer · 03-07-2010 11:07pm

Talisman wrote: »

Dell and HP announced support for Blu-ray in January 2004. HP were shipping computers with Blu-ray drives before the end of the year.

Admittedly I'm using Wikipedia as my source for dates, so I could be wrong on those. However, Toshiba weren't shipping Blu-ray at that stage. Most consumers weren't buying into it either, because it was still fighting it out with HD-DVD.

There were a few models in 2009 with IPTV. More 2010 models were created with IPTV. It is becoming standard, i.e. eventually all models will have it.

Many models ship with integrated MPEG-2 digital receivers, but that certainly hasn't become standard. More people still choose the likes of Sky. Things being included doesn't mean they will become standard (which is precisely the argument you are making against Blu-ray).

I also said that if Apple were going to support it they would have done so when it launched.

Presumably, but we're debating whether or not this is a good thing, not whether or not it's factual.

No it wasn't. My point was that Apple make most of their money from the iPhone, iPad and iPod devices.

So why not scrap the Mac altogether and be done with it? If they're going to sell a product, and price it as a premium product, I believe it should at least have what is now a basic feature offered by most of the competition. It's exactly like the iPhone originally not having MMS, because "people don't use MMS. Email is the future." Four years later and people are still sending MMS.

Why is there no official Blu-ray support on the Linux platform?

I don't know, but I presume it's due to some sort of proprietary licensing requirement. Many Linux distributions don't support DVD or MP3 playback out of the box either. I could equally ask why Microsoft does support it.

Can I ask why, as a consumer, you're so jubilant about the fact that your product is missing something most equivalent and many lesser products have? Because you don't believe you'll need it in 6 years? It may make sense for Apple but I can't see why a consumer would be happy about it. I could understand someone not caring at all, but you really seem to be adamant that this is a great thing.

Talisman · 04-07-2010 10:23am

Breezer wrote: »

Admittedly I'm using Wikipedia as my source for dates, so I could be wrong on those. However, Toshiba weren't shipping Blu-ray at that stage. Most consumers weren't buying into it either, because it was still fighting it out with HD-DVD.

The Blu-ray v HD-DVD format war started in 2002. Sony officially announced Blu-ray, Toshiba and NEC announced HD-DVD. Toshiba weren't shipping Blu-ray in 2004 because they were in the opposing camp. The PS3 was launched in 2006 and many people see that as the Blu-ray launch because they didn't take any notice of the format before then. However Sony were producing stand alone Blu-ray players in 2003 they were expensive though. The PS3 was the first Blu-ray 2.0 compliant player which featured in the marketing spin for the format because it was internet enabled.

Many models ship with integrated MPEG-2 digital receivers, but that certainly hasn't become standard. More people still choose the likes of Sky. Things being included doesn't mean they will become standard (which is precisely the argument you are making against Blu-ray).

The people who avail of Sky will be upgraded to what is now considered the "HD" service as standard. The new Super Hi-Vision will be the new "HD" service and subscribers will shell out more for it. IPTV is rolling out around the world and the TV manufacturers are following it. You can choose to ignore it because you live in a market where it hasn't been widely happened yet. Digiweb announced their intention to create a wireless IPTV network back in 2005, they haven't followed up on it however. To date the only provider offering IPTV in Ireland is Magnet.

Presumably, but we're debating whether or not this is a good thing, not whether or not it's factual.

I've been dealing in facts not opinion, but if you want an opinion Blu-ray support is bad.

So why not scrap the Mac altogether and be done with it? If they're going to sell a product, and price it as a premium product, I believe it should at least have what is now a basic feature offered by most of the competition. It's exactly like the iPhone originally not having MMS, because "people don't use MMS. Email is the future." Four years later and people are still sending MMS.

That's not what Apple are about. The company has always had an elitist air about it. It's about the design, the engineering, the user experience. Your opinion is of no consequence, Apple have set their position in the market and aren't going to change it just to sell a few more computer units. Incorporating Blu-ray support into OS X has the potential to do untold damage to the "user experience" and thus the Apple brand.

I don't know, but I presume it's due to some sort of proprietary licensing requirement. Many Linux distributions don't support DVD or MP3 playback out of the box either. I could equally ask why Microsoft does support it.

Signing up to Blu-ray means DRM-ing the operating system, Linux is based on open source so that is going to be an issue. Vista was a complete disaster for Microsoft, their first effort at DRMing the operating system. Do you really want Apple to DRM OS X? What would happen if they didn't get it right?

Can I ask why, as a consumer, you're so jubilant about the fact that your product is missing something most equivalent and many lesser products have? Because you don't believe you'll need it in 6 years? It may make sense for Apple but I can't see why a consumer would be happy about it. I could understand someone not caring at all, but you really seem to be adamant that this is a great thing.

I'm not jubilant. I don't give a sh!t about Blu-ray and find it hilarious when people get worked up about it not being supported by Apple but don't actually put any thought into reasons why.

I use a Mac mini as a media centre because it's easy for my kids. It's also wife friendly and she can use the computer when she needs to. I use a Mac mini and mini server for work and I also use a MBP for work. I don't use an iPod, iPhone or iPad. I bought my first Mac in 2006, only because I was offered a one time deal of 25% off through a work partnership. I don't buy the "Apple lifestyle" BS. OS X meets my needs and so I use it, prior to 2006 I worked in a predominantly Windows environment and I had no interest in anything related to Apple.

Signing up to Blu-ray means selling out to the entertainment industry, Apple and Linux are the last men standing in that regard. Here's a link to an article that was written in 2001 - Missing the BIG picture. Hale Landis was right, and Apple / Steve Jobs are right to resist Blu-ray.

was.deevey · 04-07-2010 11:10am

I'm not jubilant. I don't give a sh!t about Blu-ray and find it hilarious when people get worked up about it not being supported by Apple but don't actually put any thought into reasons why.

Because Apples reasons are selfish :rolleyes:

Bluray inclusion = lost itunes movie sales = lost revenue

Bluray inclusion = minority happy = not enough additional sales to justify spending money on supporting it

I DID originally like the idea of bluray for backups, but as hard drives are now massive, SFF and cheap .. what used to seem a short time ago seem like a good idea now seems completely illogical.

Movies on some sort of flash memory should the the rental way forward IMHO

Breezer · 04-07-2010 2:35pm

Talisman wrote: »

Toshiba weren't shipping Blu-ray in 2004 because they were in the opposing camp.

I'm aware of that, that was my point.

The people who avail of Sky will be upgraded to what is now considered the "HD" service as standard. The new Super Hi-Vision will be the new "HD" service and subscribers will shell out more for it. IPTV is rolling out around the world and the TV manufacturers are following it. You can choose to ignore it because you live in a market where it hasn't been widely happened yet. Digiweb announced their intention to create a wireless IPTV network back in 2005, they haven't followed up on it however. To date the only provider offering IPTV in Ireland is Magnet.

So basically it hasn't and isn't looking like becoming standard here. Is it becoming standard in any market? (Genuine question), i.e. have providers adopted it at a reasonable price and are people signing up to it?

I've been dealing in facts not opinion, but if you want an opinion Blu-ray support is bad.

Well the thread was about opinion, Sad Prof was looking for our thoughts on the matter. It's clearly factual that Apple doesn't and probably won't include Blu-ray support any time soon.

That's not what Apple are about. The company has always had an elitist air about it.

So elitist it won't provide what the elitists who buy its products want? Why, then, did it cave on MMS? Or on iPhone apps? That was probably the most lucrative cave in history, actually. Why did it allow Windows to be run using Boot Camp? Apple, like any other business, will go where the money is.

Apple have set their position in the market and aren't going to change it just to sell a few more computer units. Incorporating Blu-ray support into OS X has the potential to do untold damage to the "user experience" and thus the Apple brand.

Its position is all about selling more units, just not computer units. Apple has made selling media online its main business, and it's taking every step to push that. Which is, of course, a legitimate business decision. But it limits customer choice and therefore damages the user experience. Unlike including Blu-ray support, which would give customers more choice.

Now, you may say that Blu-ray support would mean less people who use Macs buying off iTunes. Two points on this:

1) Does that not suggest that Blu-ray is actually what customers want, and that iTunes downloads, Hulu, etc. are actually not, in a lot of people's opinions, as fantastic as you are making out?

2) The vast majority of people running iTunes are doing so on Windows, which supports Blu-ray. Preventing the relatively small number of people who have supported Apple by buying its computers and running OS X from doing the same is not going to make much of a dent in Blu-ray sales, or massively increase iTunes sales. It is going to piss off Apple's customers and make them consider other options. Have a look at the comments in the thread Sad Professor linked to to see examples of this, it's not just me.

Signing up to Blu-ray means DRM-ing the operating system, Linux is based on open source so that is going to be an issue. Vista was a complete disaster for Microsoft, their first effort at DRMing the operating system. Do you really want Apple to DRM OS X? What would happen if they didn't get it right?

Vista was a complete disaster on just about every front: system requirements, driver issues, too many editions, too abrupt a change in the UI, etc. You can't single out DRM as the one reason it failed.

What this comes down to is that Steve Jobs has decided that web downloads are the way forward. He's probably right regarding the long term, but in the short to medium term I can't see that working in most markets.

So either:
- He's right, I'm wrong, many customers are wrong, and the companies pushing Blu-ray are wrong. If so, well done Steve.

- He's right, but only because by taking this step and forcing his customers to do things his way, he has made himself right. If he manages to do this and hold on to customers, again well done on the business front. But since we're discussing opinions here, my opinion as a customer is that this annoys me, and I have a right to state that.

- He's wrong, he'll realise this eventually, and put Blu-ray support into OS X (it wouldn't be the first time Apple has backtracked on an issue).

- He's wrong but, as you suggest above, he doesn't actually care about sales figures or profit, and prefers to create what in his opinion is the perfect user experience. In which case, he should not be the CEO of a publicly floated company, because his duty is to make money for the shareholders. Now, Steve can get away with this more than most CEO's, because he has a crowd of worshippers following him who will actually go out of their way to make sure his vision succeeds. But eventually, he will hit a stumbling block (he hit several on the iPhone, mostly when he tried to sell it in Europe, and hastily backtracked - which is why I don't think this is actually the case).

Talisman · 04-07-2010 11:23pm

Breezer wrote: »

I'm aware of that, that was my point.

My original point was that Blu-ray hasn't displaced DVD as the mainstream format. I'm happy that you acknowledged that most consumers weren't buying into Blu-ray. In fact they still aren't, for example in North America, "Avatar" sold 6.7 million copies in the first 4 days of retail sales. Blu-ray accounted for 2.5 million, DVD sales were 4.2 million. In the first quarter of this year DVD and Blu-ray sales were down 8% on the previous year, disc rentals were down 14%. These figures are from a recent Variety article.

So basically it hasn't and isn't looking like becoming standard here. Is it becoming standard in any market? (Genuine question), i.e. have providers adopted it at a reasonable price and are people signing up to it?

Around 32% of the Asia/Australia market is IPTV, it's high because of the pace of the rollout in China and India. In Australia, 21 of 26 Sony's 2010 TV models have IPTV. Would you consider that becoming a standard feature? In North America, IPTV has about 18% market penetration, AT&T are currently rolling out their U-verse service to 18 million homes in the US. There are pockets of IPTV availability all over Europe, but it is lagging behind because there hasn't been a major roll out yet. BT and Deutche Telekom are to begin their rollouts before the end of the year. If you're looking for hard figures the best I can give you is that in 2009, France had IPTV in over 2.5 million homes, Germany had 1.8 million. Considering both countries would have around 30+ million homes the figures (6-8%) are not good by comparison to other markets.

Its position is all about selling more units, just not computer units. Apple has made selling media online its main business, and it's taking every step to push that. Which is, of course, a legitimate business decision. But it limits customer choice and therefore damages the user experience. Unlike including Blu-ray support, which would give customers more choice.

Now, you may say that Blu-ray support would mean less people who use Macs buying off iTunes. Two points on this:

1) Does that not suggest that Blu-ray is actually what customers want, and that iTunes downloads, Hulu, etc. are actually not, in a lot of people's opinions, as fantastic as you are making out?

2) The vast majority of people running iTunes are doing so on Windows, which supports Blu-ray. Preventing the relatively small number of people who have supported Apple by buying its computers and running OS X from doing the same is not going to make much of a dent in Blu-ray sales, or massively increase iTunes sales. It is going to piss off Apple's customers and make them consider other options. Have a look at the comments in the thread Sad Professor linked to to see examples of this, it's not just me.

Apple has 7% of the computer market in the US, that's its largest market. World wide it has around 5% market share based on 2009 sales figures. Apple doesn't have the resources of Microsoft where an extra few hundred/thousand bodies can be thrown at the task of redeveloping the operating system. It's not a simple case of including a few lines of code and heh we've got Blu-ray playback.

Vista was a complete disaster on just about every front: system requirements, driver issues, too many editions, too abrupt a change in the UI, etc. You can't single out DRM as the one reason it failed.

I worked in Microsoft on the Windows team so I do know what I'm talking about on this subject. DirectX 10, the increased system requirements, driver issues - they were all related to DRM. The UI didn't change significantly. I don't expect you to read the entire document but I've included the following link for reference purposes. A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection.

Here's the summary:

Windows Vista includes an extensive reworking of core OS elements in order to provide content protection for so-called “premium content”, typically HD data from Blu-Ray and HD-DVD sources. Providing this protection incurs considerable costs in terms of system performance, system stability, technical support overhead, and hardware and software cost. These issues affect not only users of Vista but the entire PC industry, since the effects of the protection measures extend to cover all hardware and software that will ever come into contact with Vista, even if it's not used directly with Vista (for example hardware in a Macintosh computer or on a Linux server). This document analyses the cost involved in Vista's content protection, and the collateral damage that this incurs throughout the computer industry.

And here's a more consumer friendly article on the subject : Vista and More: Piecing Together Microsoft's DRM Puzzle

Just because customers want something doesn't make it right. In order for OS X to support Blu-ray, OS X would have to go through a painful transition just like Windows did. As I said before my argument against Blu-ray has been based on facts not opinion. Yes it would be nice if Apple could be all things to all men and give Blu-ray playback to those who so desperately desire it but it's not going to happen in the near term. My advice would be to accept it and move on.

Sad Professor · 05-07-2010 1:22am

I almost forgot about the end-to-end HDCP issue. I guess that's why Jobs called Blu-ray a "bag of hurt". Although isn't there already HDCP in iTunes that prevents you playing iTunes movies on an unauthorized display?

Talisman · 05-07-2010 9:50am

Yes there is HDCP in iTunes, it was added in iTunes 8 as a requirement to get HD content into the iTunes store.

And before anybody gets the idea that if it's already in iTunes then it's not a big issue to add Blu-ray playback, there is a very big difference between iTunes having HDCP and extending it to the operating system.

As I said previously, giving in to the entertainment industry is not good. People want to get a movie and watch it wherever they want, however the content providers want to dictate how and where you can watch it. Apple got slapped for adding HDCP to iTunes content because people can't watch it on a projector or their big screen TV, but it is the content providers that are dictating the requirements.

I don't know if anybody read the article I linked to by Hale Landis, if you haven't here is the closing paragraph, which sums the situation up. Written in 2001, and it's a bit apocalytic in outlook but it's true.

So have fun fighting the battle against CPRM and alike but please do not be surprised when you fail, after all the war has been lost, long live the new world order: proprietary devices, proprietary interfaces, copy protection, limited functionality, and prepare you credit card accounts for all those monthly rental and service charges you will be paying for every "computer controller consumer electronics device" you use.

Blu-ray coming to the Mac? Steve says "Nope"

Comments