Jobs and Mac say "no thanks" to BluRay

[Worf101]

Seems Steve would rather have us use streaming vid from Itunes or some other source. Seems he thinks that BluRay is a "a bag of hurt." The licensing fees for use of BluRays in MacBooks is too effin much and so, no go.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10...dStoriesArea.0

I take no side in this debate. I don't own a BR player but will get one soon as Oppo makes one.

Da Worfster

[Mr Peabody]

I'm surprised, I can understand Mac wanted to promote downloads so they can get their piece of the pie, what about BR from a pure storage stand point.

I personally don't watch any video on my computer unless it's a brief U-tube or something. I also won't be one to embrace downloads. I'm just not that into incorporating computer into other aspects of my entertainment. I realize I'm probably a minority in this. It will be just another download vs disc debate.

[pixelthis]

HES RIGHT, STORAGE alone is reason enough to have a Blu drive.
But as far as movie watching, downloads are fine for computers.
Also for the home.
Blu is going to be a great way to watch movies but the higher res is probably gonna be lost in a notebook.
But storage, I think he missed that one

[kexodusc]

Yep, pretty predictable. For all the nice-guy talk Apple delivers, they're pretty self-serving too. BluRay is not good for iTunes and HD digital downloads, so why would Apple support that? I wouldn't if I was in their position.
The storage component on the surface is a good argument, but honestly given the price of TB drives and such, very, very, very few potential Mac owners are going to be considering BluRay as a legit storage option, or even need it. Where that would have a lot more appeal is in the business world, and most of those guys use PC anyway.

Don't think it's gonna matter. The market's big enough for both of them.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Yep, pretty predictable. For all the nice-guy talk Apple delivers, they're pretty self-serving too. BluRay is not good for iTunes and HD digital downloads, so why would Apple support that? I wouldn't if I was in their position.

And why would a computer geek care about film, its presentation, or its quality. Its about video, and video only for these guys, they could care less about high quality 1080p and great sound through a quality sound system. Video is good enough through a computer screen, and sound is good enough for them through computer speakers.

The storage component on the surface is a good argument, but honestly given the price of TB drives and such, very, very, very few potential Mac owners are going to be considering BluRay as a legit storage option, or even need it. Where that would have a lot more appeal is in the business world, and most of those guys use PC anyway.

Don't think it's gonna matter. The market's big enough for both of them.

I have three large storage drives attached to my desktop computer. I would not consider these very portable, but I would consider a bluray disc quite portable.

I agree with you, the market is diverse enough, and big enough for both. Folks that like quality presentation of film are going to choose bluray, and those who think that video is good enough will choose downloads. Different needs and desires, and a market to satisfy both.

[Woochifer]

Surprising announcement given that Apple has had a seat on the BDA board since day one. But, not so surprising given how Apple's ecosystem around iTunes is evolving, as Kex pointed out. Apple is currently the #1 provider of downloaded video content, and that's a market that they would obviously like to see grow. Blu-ray is a competitor in that sense.

It took the computer industry years before DVD drives became standard issue, and I would suspect that Apple will quietly add a Blu-ray option at some point (rumor is that the latest beta versions of Mac OS X have frameworks added for Blu-ray support), simply because the market adoption will get to a point that Apple can no longer ignore it.

For now, DVD media is sufficient for packaged software, and external HDs are now cheap enough to serve as economical backup devices (and Apple's backup app, Time Machine, is clearly designed to primarily work with external drives and not disc media).

I think that Apple has got some plans of their own for the living room. One potential clue is in their newly introduced Macbook and Macbook Pro models. Both of these computers shipped with the new DisplayPort connector for external video output, rather than HDMI or DVI or VGA. The premise here is that DisplayPort is capable of 4,096 x 2,160 resolution, which is much greater than the maximum resolution possible with HDMI. DisplayPort is also capable of delivering audio signals over the same cable.

No idea what this means, but Apple very well could be looking to establish their own beachhead in the living room and do so while bypassing what the other CE giants are doing. I've seen rumors of Apple working on their own flat panel TV with integrated media center capabilities, and these announcements would fit right into that plan. While I don't see how they would sustain that kind of product line with HDTV price points and margins getting squeezed, Apple does have a track record of adding value to otherwise commodified products, which allows them to maintain some of the highest margins in the industry.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Surprising announcement given that Apple has had a seat on the BDA board since day one. But, not so surprising given how Apple's ecosystem around iTunes is evolving, as Kex pointed out. Apple is currently the #1 provider of downloaded video content, and that's a market that they would obviously like to see grow. Blu-ray is a competitor in that sense.

It took the computer industry years before DVD drives became standard issue, and I would suspect that Apple will quietly add a Blu-ray option at some point (rumor is that the latest beta versions of Mac OS X have frameworks added for Blu-ray support), simply because the market adoption will get to a point that Apple can no longer ignore it.

For now, DVD media is sufficient for packaged software, and external HDs are now cheap enough to serve as economical backup devices (and Apple's backup app, Time Machine, is clearly designed to primarily work with external drives and not disc media).

I think that Apple has got some plans of their own for the living room. One potential clue is in their newly introduced Macbook and Macbook Pro models. Both of these computers shipped with the new DisplayPort connector for external video output, rather than HDMI or DVI or VGA. The premise here is that DisplayPort is capable of 4,096 x 2,160 resolution, which is much greater than the maximum resolution possible with HDMI. DisplayPort is also capable of delivering audio signals over the same cable.

No idea what this means, but Apple very well could be looking to establish their own beachhead in the living room and do so while bypassing what the other CE giants are doing. I've seen rumors of Apple working on their own flat panel TV with integrated media center capabilities, and these announcements would fit right into that plan. While I don't see how they would sustain that kind of product line with HDTV price points and margins getting squeezed, Apple does have a track record of adding value to otherwise commodified products, which allows them to maintain some of the highest margins in the industry.

Actually Wooch, if you look at the 1.3a standards increased bandwidth, it does take you up to 2160p with Deep color and YXCC color as well. Unfortunately displayport is going to be another one of those technologies that never reach the hometheater crowd unless Apple figures out a way to make it compatible with BD+ and the crap that is AACS. The big guns of the consumer electronic companies want HDMI, a standard they can control rather than Displayport, a standard they cannot. Also, what good is a 2160p interface going to be in a world where 1080p is the standard? Does anyone think that we are headed to resolution that are higher than 1080p anytime soon? Don't hold your breath on this one, it will be years before we see anything even remotely higher than 1080p. The infrastructure just isn't there from a scanning, authoring(they are just coming out with more effiecient tools for 1080p) and from an encoding perspective as well. There are rumors that Apple is working on display with ports that hook them directly to the internet, and primed for Itunes downloads. Toshiba is also working in that direction as well. Personally with the rumors I have been hearing, I think Jobs is going to retire soon anyway.

[nightflier]

Actually Wooch, if you look at the 1.3a standards increased bandwidth, it does take you up to 2160p with Deep color and YXCC color as well.

OK, but that means that there would have to be HDMI components that also go higher than 1080p. A fat pipe is only as wide as what's on either end. What Apple seems to be doing with DisplayPort is creating a fat pipe on both ends too. The source would be an internet-connected AppleTV-type device and the screen could be something they license one of the major manufacturers to include as an input along with HDMI. Even with higher resolution capable HDMI, it will be years before the components that connect via HDMI will follow suit. More importantly, the market would have to be there. Apple doesn't care about all that, they're building it, and they know that their iTunes audience will come along - they have the advantage of being both on the software and the hardware side of this equation.

But I think the real thrust behind this is copy-protection. If Apple can set it's own standard with DisplayPort, then it won't have to cow-tow to Hollywood's HDCP standard. Apple may be hoping that smaller media providers and artists will bypass Hollywood altogether and jump on board with a more free and open Apple standard (whatever that will entail). Of course, Apple will license this technology out too, thus creating more revenue.

Now granted, I'm not going to guess as to whether Apple will succeed in this, but it certainly is an interesting proposition. Apple's been butting heads with Hollywood over copy-protection for some time now, and this may be the thing that gets around the problem. Even if DisplayPort doesn't gain appreciable market share, the threat of it alone will give Apple bargaining muscle. Jobs is no dummy, so he may very well be onto something. Whether he retires or not, I'm sure he wants to go out with a bang and not a whimper - DisplayPort could be just explosive and disruptive enough.

[pixelthis]

Actually Wooch, if you look at the 1.3a standards increased bandwidth, it does take you up to 2160p with Deep color and YXCC color as well. Unfortunately displayport is going to be another one of those technologies that never reach the hometheater crowd unless Apple figures out a way to make it compatible with BD+ and the crap that is AACS. The big guns of the consumer electronic companies want HDMI, a standard they can control rather than Displayport, a standard they cannot. Also, what good is a 2160p interface going to be in a world where 1080p is the standard? Does anyone think that we are headed to resolution that are higher than 1080p anytime soon? Don't hold your breath on this one, it will be years before we see anything even remotely higher than 1080p. The infrastructure just isn't there from a scanning, authoring(they are just coming out with more effiecient tools for 1080p) and from an encoding perspective as well. There are rumors that Apple is working on display with ports that hook them directly to the internet, and primed for Itunes downloads. Toshiba is also working in that direction as well. Personally with the rumors I have been hearing, I think Jobs is going to retire soon anyway.

YOU ARE PROBABLY RIGHT about 2160, but never say never.
If, in 98, you told someone that a 32" flat screen HDTV could be had
for under 500 bucks in 2008, and that 1080p would be quit common
by then, they would have locked you up.
just a few days ago I saw a TINY HDTV camcorder in sd card
format!!!
CAME WITH TWO 8 gb SD cards, total price, 600 and change.
Amazing the way the tech is moving, really, they were saying solid
state video storage by 2020 in 2000, its a reality now

[Mr Peabody]

I read an article that speculated 4k will be the next rez format. At this point there aren't many cameras capable of even recording that rez. They say it's used some in the medical field and the Panasonic 150" plasma is 4k rez. The article claimed that a 150" screen at 1080p would look grainy. My question is what did they use for a source. There are also some 4k projectors available that are used in theaters as well. With this in mind it makes Wooch's info quite interesting. The article also thought 4k in a consumer market would be pretty far down the road. But, what if in the next couple years Apple could provide a 4k download or stream. That would certainly shoot BR right out of the saddle, maybe. I still think downloads, even at such an advantage, will take some doing to make it easy enough for Joe 6-pak to use it.

I also saw Sony has two models of combo HDTV and PC. Both come with a recording Blu-ray drive. The more expensive one has 1TB of hard drive. Both have a 22" screen. I seen them on the Circuit City website if anyone is interested in looking. I'm sure most large Sony dealers will have them.

[kexodusc]

Could just be me, but at 50" and smaller screens, is added resolution really going to bring a lot more to the table to the average consumer? Especially in places like China, Japan, and Europe where room sizes are typically smaller?
Maybe instead of 2K and 4K res, people should be thinking of other ways to improve PQ?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

OK, but that means that there would have to be HDMI components that also go higher than 1080p. A fat pipe is only as wide as what's on either end. What Apple seems to be doing with DisplayPort is creating a fat pipe on both ends too. The source would be an internet-connected AppleTV-type device and the screen could be something they license one of the major manufacturers to include as an input along with HDMI. Even with higher resolution capable HDMI, it will be years before the components that connect via HDMI will follow suit. More importantly, the market would have to be there. Apple doesn't care about all that, they're building it, and they know that their iTunes audience will come along - they have the advantage of being both on the software and the hardware side of this equation.

No, what Apple is attempting to do is not pay for liscenses for HDMI technology, and attempt to push a non liscensed technology. And why go through all that trouble for music applications? I can tell you this right now, none of the studios are going to liscense their movies to flow down an unprotected pipeline like displayport. The CE industry is solely behind HDMI, so just where in hometheater applications does apple think this will go? I am going to venture to say, not very far. The computer industry has not had alot of luck with getting their technology accepted by the movie studios.

But I think the real thrust behind this is copy-protection. If Apple can set it's own standard with DisplayPort, then it won't have to cow-tow to Hollywood's HDCP standard. Apple may be hoping that smaller media providers and artists will bypass Hollywood altogether and jump on board with a more free and open Apple standard (whatever that will entail). Of course, Apple will license this technology out too, thus creating more revenue.

Sorry dude, they are going to have to cow tow to HDCP if they want movies. In the film industry, Apple is not a player. If they want to play within the film industry via downloads, they are going to have to adopt the technology the film industry has chosen to support. The HDCP standard is what they have choosen, and Apple has to get with the program if they want the movies delivered via downloads. Hollywood is not going to adopt displayport, they are already major players in HDMI. Apple is not going to make the money they want to make dealing with smaller media providers. Face it, consumers want television programming and movies, and unfortunately for Apple, the Hollywood studios are the only sources that provide that content.

Now granted, I'm not going to guess as to whether Apple will succeed in this, but it certainly is an interesting proposition. Apple's been butting heads with Hollywood over copy-protection for some time now, and this may be the thing that gets around the problem. Even if DisplayPort doesn't gain appreciable market share, the threat of it alone will give Apple bargaining muscle. Jobs is no dummy, so he may very well be onto something. Whether he retires or not, I'm sure he wants to go out with a bang and not a whimper - DisplayPort could be just explosive and disruptive enough.

You sadly overestimate the computer industry's power in Hollywood. Yes Apple has been butting heads with Hollywood over copy protection, and they are not winning the battle either. The threat of Displayport doesn't scare any studio, they already broadly support HDMI, and Apple has to get with the program, or lose the content. Displayport is a computer industry connection, and will probably remain in the computer industry.

You really need to learn how Hollywood film studio work. You seem to think the computer industry can push the film industry around like its nothing. How far away from the truth this is.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I read an article that speculated 4k will be the next rez format. At this point there aren't many cameras capable of even recording that rez. They say it's used some in the medical field and the Panasonic 150" plasma is 4k rez. The article claimed that a 150" screen at 1080p would look grainy. My question is what did they use for a source. There are also some 4k projectors available that are used in theaters as well. With this in mind it makes Wooch's info quite interesting. The article also thought 4k in a consumer market would be pretty far down the road. But, what if in the next couple years Apple could provide a 4k download or stream. That would certainly shoot BR right out of the saddle, maybe. I still think downloads, even at such an advantage, will take some doing to make it easy enough for Joe 6-pak to use it.

Mr Peabody,
There are no camera that I know of capable of 4k used in the film industry. As a matter of fact, Panaflex cameras are still the most dominate film camera's in use today. Its a film camera, not a digital camera. Most digital cameras in use right now only support
720p or 1080i. Very few support 1080p. This is why most HD concerts on bluray are 1080i

The pipeline for a 4k download or stream would be far larger than we currently have, or what has been talked about for the future. Right now, only a few classic films have even been scanned at 4k because it is so expensive to do, let alone store. Even if they could create the technology, where would they get the product? Most all films these days are routinely scanned at 2k, which is equivalent to 1080p, not 4k. Who would pay for the scanning of films at 4k? The studio won't do it for downloads they wouldn't get enough in return, and Apple would not get a good ROI if they paid for it because it would drive up the cost of downloading. 4k is so far down the line, its is crazy to mention it at this point. We have not even talked about how Apple would get a 4k film through the likes of Time warner or comcast cable, who are already testing downloading limits for heavy users. Downloading one film even using VC-1 compression would probably be a months worth of downloading, and pop the cap they set on maximum download limits.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Could just be me, but at 50" and smaller screens, is added resolution really going to bring a lot more to the table to the average consumer? Especially in places like China, Japan, and Europe where room sizes are typically smaller?
Maybe instead of 2K and 4K res, people should be thinking of other ways to improve PQ?

At 50" and smaller, not even 1080p brings all that much to the table, let alone 4k.

[Mr Peabody]

AT&T is beginning something called U-verse in the area. This is a fiber optic system where they plan to compete with cable. I talked to a girl who has the feed and if what she told me is correct their DVR's do not have a hard drive. It's like you have a storage space some where. One of her boxes broke and I mentioned it was a pain when that happens because you lose all your recorded content on the hard drive. She began to tell me she didn't lose anything and the box didn't contain the hard drive, she could even tell her box what to record from any computer with internet access. This system sounds pretty interesting. I wonder what, if anything, they use for copy protection. When I had my cable box I could record my stuff onto DVD but it wouldn't allow HD recording. I didn't get into recording with her. I wish I had thought of it at the time. My satelite boxes have no provision to copy HD content either. It would be interesting to see what extent you could use the Blu-ray burner in that Sony combo.

[pixelthis]

AT&T is beginning something called U-verse in the area. This is a fiber optic system where they plan to compete with cable. I talked to a girl who has the feed and if what she told me is correct their DVR's do not have a hard drive. It's like you have a storage space some where. One of her boxes broke and I mentioned it was a pain when that happens because you lose all your recorded content on the hard drive. She began to tell me she didn't lose anything and the box didn't contain the hard drive, she could even tell her box what to record from any computer with internet access. This system sounds pretty interesting. I wonder what, if anything, they use for copy protection. When I had my cable box I could record my stuff onto DVD but it wouldn't allow HD recording. I didn't get into recording with her. I wish I had thought of it at the time. My satelite boxes have no provision to copy HD content either. It would be interesting to see what extent you could use the Blu-ray burner in that Sony combo.

MY GUESS would be that its some kinda server system, but that is just a guess

[pixelthis]

Could just be me, but at 50" and smaller screens, is added resolution really going to bring a lot more to the table to the average consumer? Especially in places like China, Japan, and Europe where room sizes are typically smaller?
Maybe instead of 2K and 4K res, people should be thinking of other ways to improve PQ?

We are well into the HD age so how about some kind of color
standard instead of everybody making a wildass guess?
I am talking about a digital reference signal that would set your set to a reference standard. If you wanted you could "bloom" the reds as much as you wanted, but if you wanted accurate you could switch this on.
AS for 1080p dont let sir cranky tell ya wrong, 1080p does
make a difference, espescially for Blu-ray.
At least on a 42" set, well worth the trouble, really, and when you consider that most if not all broadcst is 1080i which is deinterlaced
to 1080p easier than downconverted to 720p, well, its great, especially
when you sit closer to the screen, or watch a lot of newer movies.

[kexodusc]

We are well into the HD age so how about some kind of color
standard instead of everybody making a wildass guess?
I am talking about a digital reference signal that would set your set to a reference standard. If you wanted you could "bloom" the reds as much as you wanted, but if you wanted accurate you could switch this on.
AS for 1080p dont let sir cranky tell ya wrong, 1080p does
make a difference, espescially for Blu-ray.
At least on a 42" set, well worth the trouble, really, and when you consider that most if not all broadcst is 1080i which is deinterlaced
to 1080p easier than downconverted to 720p, well, its great, especially
when you sit closer to the screen, or watch a lot of newer movies.

I have 2 TV sets in my house, a 32" and a 51".
Problem is when I sit 6 feet away or more, I don't notice nearly as a big a difference going to 1080p as I do going from 480p. On 32" LCD, the difference between 1080i and 1080p are very hard to notice, even in scenes with lots of motion. It's at a point where I have to really focus hard to pic out any artifacts. Improved resolution isn't adding new detail really.
I'm not surprised really, a lot of people have long said the that the difference between 720p and 1080i on such sets was minimal as well for "busy scenes".

On the larger TV, there are some benefits to going to 1080 for sure. But where the jump from 480p pictures was a huge revolutionary improvement, the 1080i or 1080p levels are much less drastic at distances where I'm comfortable sitting. That's about 7 feet minimum on the 51" set. It doesn't work in a room any closer than that, and I typically sit further back. It's definitely better, but given the decreasingly sliding scale of incremental improvements, I'm reluctant to thing resolution is the way to go.

My own thoughts are similar to yours. Color accuracy and saturation, and contrast improvements would still seem to be areas where bigger improvements could be made that would have more universal benefit, regardless of screen size and distance from viewing area.

Or how about we get the cable/satellite industry to move to MPEG 4 or better asap...

[nightflier]

AT&T is beginning something called U-verse in the area. This is a fiber optic system where they plan to compete with cable....

This would solve the problem of people owning the content. If the recorded data is never "downloaded" then there's no ownership transfer. HDCP becomes pretty irrelevant. Maybe this is the model that Apple is looking to apply DisplayPort to?

You really need to learn how Hollywood film studio work. You seem to think the computer industry can push the film industry around like its nothing. How far away from the truth this is.

You just couldn't get through a post without throwing in a dig, could you?

The way I see it, the movie industry (and the music industry) is a circle-the-wagons-but-keep-progress-away kind of player. At every junction they refuse to adopt new technologies and use all their resources to keep innovative technologies that they can't control out of the consumer's hands. Yes, you can put BR on the exception pedestal, if you like, but I would suggest that the battle with Toshiba's HD-DVD was more important than that at the time, so they made an exception. In the computer industry, however, there's a healthy resistance to corporate domination of a medium: movements such as open source, public domain, and creative commons are some of the big ones. But if there is one thing that has always been true of technology, it's that any attempt to stifle it always fails in the long run.

Apple has a technology that has the potential to be better than HDMI. Maybe they do hope that the movie studios play along, but while they wait that out, I'm sure they'll be happy to sign on all those independent studios, free audio/video sources (YouTube, Pandora, etc.), commercial TV programming, and their own iTunes licenced content. Even if they won't make money off the sale of this content, they'll still make money off of selling the hardware pieces to make this work. What I think you're missing is that Apple already has each of these in its product line - everything from the internet connected AppleTV to the displays. All it has to do is add a DisplayPort to the next version of each of these, and it has completed the chain, w/o any cow-towing to Hollywood's HDMI with HDCP.

And if you think that Hollywood isn't influenced by the computer industry, then maybe you've forgotten about the now virtually ubiquitous iPod? If I remember right, most magazines didn't give the first iPods much thrift either when the MP3 download battles were being fought with the RIAA They cited the uncertainty of the legality of compressed audio files as the main reason. Despite it's legal troubles, the fact remains that MP3 technology nearly dismembered the music industry. Then when they had enough, this industry finally realized that it had to join the iTunes borg or disappear altogether. Today, whenever Apple makes a decision, they are more than happy to oblige - and when apple said they'll only make pennies on each download, they begrudgingly swallowed that bitter pill too.

While I can't know how successful Apple will be with DisplayPort, I suspect that they would like nothing more than to have the movie studios kneel before them like the music studios now do. If the music industry debacle is any indication of what we are likely to see in the future with Hollywood, then the winners in this battle won't be the ones who own the content, but rather the ones who control access to it. One can own the rights of all the Hollywood blockbusters, but if there's no way to sell it to anyone anymore, then the loss is just as bitter. You said yourself that Hollywood isn't interested in downloads - well that myopia will be their anchor to bear. If people stop buying movie tickets, and maybe someday even the disks to own the movies, then this industry will change dramatically. When all is said and done, Hollywood will be more than happy to sign a deal where they'll only make pennies on each download.

Of course, we're talking about what might happen, and that's all in the future, but you have to admit that this is a pretty crafty circumvention of Hollywood's strangle-hold on content. And before you go debating every point I made here, why don't we just see what happens in the next few years? Ironically, what Mr.P is describing is the convergence of downloaded content and a Slingbox-type of control over it with none of the headaches associated with having to access huge movie files. If I recall correctly you were the one who said that Slingbox was pretty much irrelevant, that downloads were of no interest to Hollywood, and that the greatest impediment to HD content downloads was bandwidth. It seems to me that each of these issues is here being addressed, and best of all, by circumventing all the nastiness that is HDCP. In this example, you're 0 for 3, despite all that knowledge and insider access.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This would solve the problem of people owning the content. If the recorded data is never "downloaded" then there's no ownership transfer. HDCP becomes pretty irrelevant. Maybe this is the model that Apple is looking to apply DisplayPort to?

If a movie is not stored(it always has to be downloaded or how does it get to your set) it can be encypted. The studios are not going to send their product unencrypted through any pipeline, even if it is not stored. At this point they are very keen to areas where pirates can steal content. You can bet they are going to slap some sort of encryption on any movie passed through u-verse.

You just couldn't get through a post without throwing in a dig, could you?

Try another filter. The one you have now see's EVERYTHING as a dig. You are too defensive, probably because you are advancing probable theories based on your limited knowledge of the moving and shaking in the Hollywood film community.

The way I see it, the movie industry (and the music industry) is a circle-the-wagons-but-keep-progress-away kind of player. At every junction they refuse to adopt new technologies and use all their resources to keep innovative technologies that they can't control out of the consumer's hands. Yes, you can put BR on the exception pedestal, if you like, but I would suggest that the battle with Toshiba's HD-DVD was more important than that at the time, so they made an exception. In the computer industry, however, there's a healthy resistance to corporate domination of a medium: movements such as open source, public domain, and creative commons are some of the big ones. But if there is one thing that has always been true of technology, it's that any attempt to stifle it always fails in the long run.

Nightliar, this shows just how blind you are. The movie industry is not in the same financial condition as the music industry, so the way you see it shows you just cannot see. New technology for the computer industry is not translated to new technology to the hometheater community. The computer industry is not the film industry,or the home video industry. Your constant attempts to throw them together as one shows that you do not understand the very industry you are analyzing. The film industry openly embraced HDMI and bluray, both are new technologies suited to the VIDEO market. Just because they do not trust the computer industry technology does not mean they are not embracing new technology.

Apple has a technology that has the potential to be better than HDMI. Maybe they do hope that the movie studios play along, but while they wait that out, I'm sure they'll be happy to sign on all those independent studios, free audio/video sources (YouTube, Pandora, etc.), commercial TV programming, and their own iTunes licenced content. Even if they won't make money off the sale of this content, they'll still make money off of selling the hardware pieces to make this work. What I think you're missing is that Apple already has each of these in its product line - everything from the internet connected AppleTV to the displays. All it has to do is add a DisplayPort to the next version of each of these, and it has completed the chain, w/o any cow-towing to Hollywood's HDMI with HDCP.

The Film industry choose HDMI because it fit their needs. If displayport fit their needs, they would have probably adopted it. According to Wiki, displayport maxes out at 2560x1600 while HDMI 1.3a is capable of 4096x2160. According to Wiki displayport does not support Dts MA lossless or Dolby trueHD, it does not support communications between CE devices, and it does not pass xvYCC colorspace. HDMI supports all of these, so that shows that displayport is not suitable for hometheater and CE applications. Once again, what you think is important(Apple TV) is not important to the average hometheater owner. I see plenty of hometheater owners talking about bluray players, LCD, Plasma's, and bitsreaming of audio. What I do not hear anyone talking about when it comes to their hometheaters is tivo, Apple TV, or displayport. Your are tranferring what you think is important to everyone, and that has been your mistake in every debate we have ever had. According to Apple themselves, the biggest use of the Ipod is music and television programming, not youtube, not pandora. Commercial television programming cost them money, and they charge for television programming. Its not given away free, that is for sure. It is rented, just like their movies. What the independents can provide to apple is not where the demand is, free or not.

[qoute]And if you think that Hollywood isn't influenced by the computer industry, then maybe you've forgotten about the now virtually ubiquitous iPod? If I remember right, most magazines didn't give the first iPods much thrift either when the MP3 download battles were being fought with the RIAA They cited the uncertainty of the legality of compressed audio files as the main reason. Despite it's legal troubles, the fact remains that MP3 technology nearly dismembered the music industry. Then when they had enough, this industry finally realized that it had to join the iTunes borg or disappear altogether. Today, whenever Apple makes a decision, they are more than happy to oblige - and when apple said they'll only make pennies on each download, they begrudgingly swallowed that bitter pill too. [/quote]

Once again you are melding the music industry with the film industry. They are not the same, and their business plans are not the same. The film industry could care less about the Ipod. What they care about is HDTV television penitration, because that is what drives sales of bluray players and disc. When the Ipod was released, I saw no Hollywood studio breaking down the doors of Apple to provide content. I know with Disney and Sony they are having a very tough row at getting their top tier releases on Itunes at the same numbers they get them on disc. They are still having this problem some several years after the Ipod release. Once again, you are over playing your computer cards.

While I can't know how successful Apple will be with DisplayPort, I suspect that they would like nothing more than to have the movie studios kneel before them like the music studios now do. If the music industry debacle is any indication of what we are likely to see in the future with Hollywood, then the winners in this battle won't be the ones who own the content, but rather the ones who control access to it. One can own the rights of all the Hollywood blockbusters, but if there's no way to sell it to anyone anymore, then the loss is just as bitter. You said yourself that Hollywood isn't interested in downloads - well that myopia will be their anchor to bear. If people stop buying movie tickets, and maybe someday even the disks to own the movies, then this industry will change dramatically. When all is said and done, Hollywood will be more than happy to sign a deal where they'll only make pennies on each download.

You are having some very vivid dreams. The film industry has never went to the computer industry for anything, it has always been the other way around. As long their are disc being produced, Apple will always have go before the studios with their hat in hand. As long as there are movie theaters, Apple is just a second tier delivery format. When theater tickets are not sold, and when disc are not sold, the market for downloads will be so big that Apple will have to compete with other download (or storage) delivery systems for content. As a matter of fact, the world might be so different that even downloads might be obsolete. How about a flash drive with a movie on it that plugs directly into a movie player? While people are still buying movie tickets and disc's, you forward looking foolishness is just what it is, flights of fancy.

Of course, we're talking about what might happen, and that's all in the future, but you have to admit that this is a pretty crafty circumvention of Hollywood's strangle-hold on content. And before you go debating every point I made here, why don't we just see what happens in the next few years? Ironically, what Mr.P is describing is the convergence of downloaded content and a Slingbox-type of control over it with none of the headaches associated with having to access huge movie files. If I recall correctly you were the one who said that Slingbox was pretty much irrelevant, that downloads were of no interest to Hollywood, and that the greatest impediment to HD content downloads was bandwidth. It seems to me that each of these issues is here being addressed, and best of all, by circumventing all the nastiness that is HDCP. In this example, you're 0 for 3, despite all that knowledge and insider access.

Slingbox is still irrelevant. I still do not read anyone talking about slingbox integration in their hometheaters. My cable just slapped a download limit that would allow me to download about 10 movies a month along with my regular downloading(music). Sorry, but I buy WAY more than 10 movies a month. Why are they doing this, because of bandwidth, and theat issue has NOT been addressed.

Since none of what you say has happen, I cannot be 0 for 3, but you could be dreaming(or out of touch with reality). So far the only thing you have proven is that you know as much about the film industry as I know about heart surgery. You continue to advance a false theory that the film industry is going to have to cow tow to the computer industry. I hate to bring you some bad news, but what Microsoft did with HD DVD has soured whatever inroads the computer industry could have made in the film industry. You can bet your best pair of shoes that it will be quite a while before any significant deals with computer related companies will happen. There is a profound mistrust of the computer industry because of just what you have stated, their free spirit. The film industry believes(and I have heard this too many times to count) that the computer industry does not value its product. So they are not going to beat Apple, Microsoft or any company like them doors down for anything at this point. Sorry, but at least you can continue to dream.

[E-Stat]

I don't own a BR player but will get one soon as Oppo makes one.

Soon, grasshopper. I haven't made the move yet either.

rw

[nightflier]

There is a profound mistrust of the computer industry because of just what you have stated, their free spirit. The film industry believes(and I have heard this too many times to count) that the computer industry does not value its product. So they are not going to beat Apple, Microsoft or any company like them doors down for anything at this point. Sorry, but at least you can continue to dream.

Look, we have a different point of view. I was discussing the topic, and you come in and address me personally. Well, lil't, I guess it just goes to show that you can't be amture enough to discuss anything without insulting. I have said this before, and you deny it, but you turn everyone off. Now I'm not going to address you directly because you don't deserve that kind of consideration.

Now regarding your points, I disagree. I think that the change we've seen the last couple of years in the music industry is a very real possibility for the change we could see in the movie industry. DisplayPort may not be the technology that makes it happen, but that's no indication that it won't. Movies are being comodotized and their value, even in HD with all the add-ons and higher quality sound & video, may just not be worth what we think it is. And regarding the iPod, it also displays video, and although it is often low-quality, not all of it has to be. If we consider that now TVs are coming with iPod docks, I suspect that this is a very fast-changing phenomenon.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Look, we have a different point of view. I was discussing the topic, and you come in and address me personally. Well, lil't, I guess it just goes to show that you can't be amture enough to discuss anything without insulting. I have said this before, and you deny it, but you turn everyone off. Now I'm not going to address you directly because you don't deserve that kind of consideration.

I addressed your comments. You personally are like gum on the bottom of my shoes. I have told you countless times, I do not care one bit about you. You could leave this planet tomorrow, and I will get up, eat breakfast, and go to work as usual. I will however challenge your words when I know they are wrong(which seems like all the time when discussing film and video). Stop taking everything so personally so it does not become personal.

Like I have said before, you are a uneducated fool nightliar. You make up all of these uneducated predictions and analysis, and when called on it, you get defensive and out pops the passive aggressive crap. Just face it, you do not know enough about the film and video industry to make any lame predictions, so you just need to stick with the computer industry.

Now regarding your points, I disagree. I think that the change we've seen the last couple of years in the music industry is a very real possibility for the change we could see in the movie industry.

Once again, you don't know $hit about the film and video industry, so any prediction you make, is a uneducated prediction, which means useless. The music industry was guilty of collusion in trying to keep the price of CD's too high, and they did not pay attention to the demographic that was purchasing their product. If they had, the would have quickly lowered their prices, and they would not be in the mess they are in now. The film and video industry have not done that at all. They have allowed disc prices to fall in a very natural way on the market, and sales of bluray players has jumped 321% over last year, and disc sales nearly double that.

DisplayPort may not be the technology that makes it happen, but that's no indication that it won't.

If it cannot pass the new audio codecs, cannot do 2 way communication, and does not support xvYCC colorspace, then it does not meet the needs of the video industry. There is your indication it won't. The industry has already thrown its support behind HDMI, and they are not going to support a technology they cannot control. Displayport is an open standard connection, and I can guarantee no major film studio is going to allow their movies to travel down a connection that does not support BD+, BD watermark and AACS. There is the other indication it won't. Do you need more indications it won't?

Movies are being comodotized and their value, even in HD with all the add-ons and higher quality sound & video, may just not be worth what we think it is. And regarding the iPod, it also displays video, and although it is often low-quality, not all of it has to be. If we consider that now TVs are coming with iPod docks, I suspect that this is a very fast-changing phenomenon.

Again you are wrong. If movies were comodotized, and do not have the value we think they have, then why are the studio pushing BD+, BD watermark, and AACS down our throats? Why do they have HUGE insurance policies on their film libraries? Because their catalog titles have a huge value to them, and they want it protected from theft. Disney catalog titles are worth hundreds of billions of dollars, so you can hardly call it a product with no assigned economic value. This shows how little you know about the film industry. Stick with computers, you just do not have the education to talk about the business side of the film industry. You are much to ignorant on the issue.

An Ipod screen is so small, what the heck is quality on it? What good would it do to release HD movies when it cannot even support 720x480 on its screen? It isn't even able to provide basic DVD resolution as the screen is too small. TV's with Ipod decks are a marketing gimmick, that so far has seen very little traction in the market. LG released a flatpanel with a Ipod deck, and special software to improve the picture quality. It didn't sell, and was discontinued shortly after it was released to the market. At little dose of reality is in order nightliar. They also have TV's coming out with built in bluray players as well. You are reaching, really reaching in giving the computer industry more power than they really have. As I have said before, after Microsoft's debacle with HD DVD, it will be a long time before the film industry will get cozy with the computer industry, except when they can make money off of them. So far, they see Bluray as the money maker, and downloading as just an alternate source of making small change.

Your ability to do analysis on the film industry has made you look foolish. You said the war between HD DVD and Bluray has left an open for downloading to grow. Didn't happen. Bluray has become a MUCH larger revenue source for the studios, and downloads revenue has been largely flat this year AGAIN!!! So much for that.

Your contentions that Bluray was just going to be a niche product proved wrong about 6 million players, and 10 million bluray discs ago. It is already three times the size of the last niche video product the Laserdisc, and has sold 8 times as many disc in less than three years(laserdisc was twenty years old)

Folks on this website had to read ten pages of this kind of uninformed crap, and not one bit of it came to pass. So if anyone has a poor record of prediction, you wear the dunce cap proudly I am sure.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

We are well into the HD age so how about some kind of color
standard instead of everybody making a wildass guess?
I am talking about a digital reference signal that would set your set to a reference standard. If you wanted you could "bloom" the reds as much as you wanted, but if you wanted accurate you could switch this on.
AS for 1080p dont let sir cranky tell ya wrong, 1080p does
make a difference, espescially for Blu-ray.
At least on a 42" set, well worth the trouble, really, and when you consider that most if not all broadcst is 1080i which is deinterlaced
to 1080p easier than downconverted to 720p, well, its great, especially
when you sit closer to the screen, or watch a lot of newer movies.

Pix, there are color standards. Its called ITU-R BT standard REC 709 and SMPTE standard C. You can find this color space on any calibration disc for HD sources, its not a guess at all.

[E-Stat]

The music industry was guilty of collusion in trying to keep the price of CD's too high, and they did not pay attention to the demographic that was purchasing their product. If they had, the would have quickly lowered their prices, and they would not be in the mess they are in now.

Which is one of the most ironic aspects of the evolving audio story - as opposed to the video story. I would never have thought that the primary source for music purchases would become the $.99 iTunes download with the equivalent video performance of VHS tape running at SLP. Just ponder if that trend extended to films - instead of buying the movie, you chose to purchase individual *popular* scenes.

rw