Re: First Mac With Blu-Ray


"-hh" <recscuba_google@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:078ca38f-a0f1-494f-b722-bb9e234cb766@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"John Slade" <hhitma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Craig Koller" <cwkoller...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

They just don't think
it's ready to universally adopt. Blu Ray media is comparatively
expensive and, frankly, there are hi-rez technologies that make BR not
quite a must have (AVCHD and H.264 encoding provide great quality).

But Blu-Ray is far better technology. It holds more content and
make people want to buy more movies and stuff.

When the alternative is a 1TB hard drive for $100, the storage of Blu-
Ray doesn't compete well - - and for when people want to make their
own movie, they're typically not of sufficient size to fill even a
DVD, whose media is significantly cheaper. As such, Blu-Ray gets
stuck in the middle.

But that HD drive doesn't play BR disks you rent or buy. Storage is not
the main issue here. It's not going to be used to store user data but BR
will be used to watch movies and TV shows.

I remember in 2000 when I got my first CD burner, I
paid $200 for it and the media cost $1 per disk on sale.

I had CD-Rs five years earlier (1995), back when media was $10/disk.
APS Technologies, which was later bought out by LaCie.

I used to have a bull*** detector attached to my computer but I sold
it.

Which means that Slade was a late adopter and is now trying to be
critical of other late adopters. If we apply Slade's 5year adoption
rate to Blu-Ray, then he wouldn't be ready to buy until 2008+5 = 2013,
so the fact that Apple doesn't offer OEM support today is irrelevant
to his pathetic whining.

Actually 2000 was when they became popular for the home user. But sure
some had them way earlier.



Anyway why would DVRs hamper Blu-Ray? Blu-Ray is also
for movie watching and recording and most will just
watch movies. Few will use it for a recording device for video.

"Few will use it as a recording device for video" --> and thus, Slade
answers his own question.

It would not hamper people playing movies on Blu-Ray.

Afterall, why should one spend $90 for a 15-pack of Memorex 25GB BD-R
disks when one can choose to instead get a HD and have twice as much
storage .. and faster ... and rewriteable ... for effectively the same
price?

Because it's more stable and reliable than a HD. That is if you don't by
cheapo media. HDs fail all the time and it's a bitch to get data off them if
they fail.

The benefit of the Windows universe is that there are enough hardware
makers that yes, you will be able to find a box with whatever you want,
including BR. ..

How can this be a benefit of the Windows universe? This is not a
software issue this is a hardware issue. Blu-Ray drives are hardware you
know. Windows and OS X don't have much to do with it except for the
>>driver.

Its "all hardware" except for the DRM licenses, which must be
incorporated into the OS and software. These license conditions have
been referred to as being draconiant and a "World of Hurt" (sic), and
who said that is well known to anyone who has been bothering to pay
attention.

It is about the harware and not Microsoft or OS X. Because you are a
silly dope, you should know that the BR copy protection has been broken. Not
that this matters much.

... but at this point it may be too late...

For business models that rely on the distribution of physical media
instead of streaming content? Perhaps. For but one example,
Hulu.com has chosen to decline to publish their financials, which
carries some interesting undertones.

In other words, Apple doesn't have it so it must be a bad technology. I
bet you change your tune when Apple has Blu-Ray players on their machines.

John



.

Loading