Straight from El Jobso's mouth at today's
notebook keynote: "Blu-ray is just a bag of hurt. It's great to watch the movies, but the licensing of the tech is so complex, we're waiting till things settle down and Blu-ray
takes off in the
marketplace." Phil chimed in with "We have the best HD movie and TV options in
iTunes." Damn. As if that weren't enough to make Mac-lovin' home theater junkies cringe, Steve also commented (when asked about the dearth of HDMI in his introductions) that HDMI was "limited in resolution," and Philip Schiller elaborated by saying that "for typical computer use, DisplayPort is the
connector of the future." So, does that mean we can't count on
Blu-ray support in OS X 10.5.6?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Jamus @ Oct 14th 2008 2:08PM
If Blu-Ray is not on life support by January 2009, I am guessing Blu-Ray will make it into Macs directly from Apple. If it actually takes hold this Christmas (drop your freaking price Sony!), then Apple will probably add it in. Otherwise, my guess is it will stay a 3rd party add on.
Carney @ Oct 27th 2008 9:55AM
In response to your demand that Sony drop its prices for Blu-ray, the PS3 is a bargain for the price.
At this point in the product cycle for DVDs, the prices were much higher, especially in inflation adjusted dollars.
And other manufacturers are free to sell Blu-ray players at lower prices if they wish; those who do typically omit support for BD-Live and other features.
Joseph @ Oct 14th 2008 2:08PM
I'm not buying a MacBook until they include Blu-ray
Big John @ Oct 14th 2008 2:34PM
I'm sure they'll dearly miss your sale.
ophello @ Oct 14th 2008 10:32PM
Uh...wow...really? that's...a silly reason not to buy a computer.
wewa @ Oct 15th 2008 4:31AM
That would be great. I would love to see the demise of BD and Macbook simultaneously. Yeah!
Ben @ Oct 14th 2008 2:15PM
He's totally right too, the Blu-ray licensing is a mess. You'd think being on the board of the BDA would've gave them influence over it.
As for the HDMI comment, it is only useful for TVs and really doesn't make much sense on a notebook.
LiqwidZero @ Oct 14th 2008 3:17PM
The MacBooks aren't netbooks. They cost way too much to be one.
Bet @ Oct 14th 2008 3:38PM
Maybe it has something to do with Sony?
If they were the main developers, maybe they want to have their laptops out first to try to get sales?
I dunno.
DrXym @ Oct 14th 2008 4:17PM
Licensing could definitely do with unification but it doesn't seem too complex for content providers - obtain a CPA Light licence from http://www.blu-raydisc.info for $500 annually and an AACS basic one off licence for $3000 and pay 4 cents per disc thereafter. The big companies would probably pay for the full CPA licence and volume AACS licence. Replicators, hardware manufacturers and software tool devs would have different fees to pay and may also need to licence from MPEGLA.
It certainly seems disingenuous for Apple to claim they can't work it out when they sit on the BDA board and have an army of lawyers must have engaged in tens of thousands of billable hours gone into protracted negotiation and lengthy contracts with all the various content providers.
It would be more truthful for Apple to just say they suddenly don't like Blu Ray because it interferes with their own business model.
Vic @ Oct 15th 2008 1:31PM
Great point about being 1 of the 18 board members of the BDA...why spend the $50,000 annual fee to be a board member if you're not going to fully back the format?? It doesn't make sense to me.
While I don't care about Blu-ray support on my laptop, I would at least like the option of Blu-ray on an iMac since the beautiful 24" display is perfect for watching 1080p content, however, these announcements don't bode well for the next generation iMacs.
Apple may not get my business if they don't include Blu-ray in their next iMac upgrade, instead, that $ will go towards a Sony, HP or Dell all-in-one PC with Blu-ray support.
THizzle7XU @ Oct 16th 2008 1:55PM
I think the idea would be to be able to use your Macbook as a Blu-ray player hooked up to a TV. That's why HDMI on a notebook makes sense.
But I think the Macbook's prices are the real bag of hurt.
squiggleslash @ Oct 14th 2008 2:25PM
DisplayPort 1.1 is semi-compatible with HDMI, that is an HDCP-encumbered HDMI signal can be converted into a DisplayPort signal fairly simply. While it's not entirely analogous to DVI vs HDMI (DVI was electrically compatible with HDMI), it certainly would be no bad thing if TVs and receivers started having DisplayPort sockets instead of HDMI sockets and there would be no problem with people creating converter gadgets, as long as you're going HDMI-to-DisplayPort only, and not the other way.
The licensing issue with Blu-ray is convoluted, both from the point of view of there being no unified licensing authority, and the technical requirements needed to comply with the licenses.
For getting the required patents, the same problem nearly afflicted DVD, the DVD Forum eventually created the DVD6C, a one-stop-shop for most of the DVD patents and technologies. Anyone creating anything DVD related just goes to DVD6C and the MPEG LA and they're covered. The BDA lacks an equivalent.
For complying with the licensing, things get awkward because of the secure path requirements. All Blu-ray discs are encrypted using AACS, and a license to support AACS requires that from the moment the data is decrypted, it only pass through secure channels before being converted electrically into lights on a screen. When you own the whole widget, that's relatively easy to comply with. For standalone players, you control the OS on your player, and you just need to output the picture via HDMI encrypted with HDCP and you're covered.
But for a computer based player, it gets more awkward. Apple is going to have to make major architectural changes to Mac OS X to make it possible to play Blu-ray movies on a desktop machine without violating the AACS licenses. It's not impossible - part of the reason Vista has so many problems is that Microsoft has endured the same exercise and spent enormous amounts of time making digitally signed device drivers work, so an HD DVD player application could guarantee that it was talking to a real monitor and not some program pretending to be one. Given Microsoft's preferred format was dumped by Hollywood, they must be kicking themselves.
Apple are also in a similar position to Microsoft. They want digital downloads to succeed and see downloads as being the future. They "took a side" in the BD vs HD war, but appeared to have done so just to spite Microsoft (they backed Blu-ray), and have never actually turned their support into anything concrete. Which makes sense, because while Microsoft's support for HD DVD had some basis in it (HD DVD was designed to integrate into a digital downloads system, and indeed the "ghost" of HD DVD lives on as Xbox Live Marketplace which is almost entirely based upon HD DVD technology), Blu-ray is more of a rival to downloads than a friendly infrastructure, and as such Apple's support for the technology never made much sense.
I'd be surprised if Apple does anything with Blu-ray beyond support it as a disc storage system, at least in the near future.
Chris @ Oct 14th 2008 2:31PM
Joseph: you'll probably be waiting quite a while then - given Apple's increased emphasis on HD video sales via iTunes, I don't expect them to have an interest in helping the competition - especially when licensing requires pervasive DRM support at the OS, device driver, and even hardware level (for example, requiring that HD data be encrypted *on the internal PCI bus* to deter theoretical bus-level video capture hacks).
NorthCranky @ Oct 14th 2008 2:34PM
It is itunes that is limited in resolution and while we're at it itunes is a bag of hurt [Jobs.] It hurts looking at it. It breaks mirrors... and it smells. Give unlimited downloads of a purchase and resolution that can fill hdmi [Jobs] and then it might not smell.
Big John @ Oct 14th 2008 2:37PM
Let's be honest here: the Engadget HD crowd is more discerning than most. I don't have that big of an issue with the HD content offered by iTunes, and the general public has no problem with it.
Their consumers aren't clamouring for BD on a mass level. It's a niche for them and they see no reason to go after that niche if it means a higher cost to ALL their consumers.
NorthCranky @ Oct 14th 2008 2:51PM
Someone actually replied to this. Haha. Was just being cranky. I thought it was quite hilarious.
Multi-format-mayhem @ Oct 14th 2008 2:42PM
Having spoken to some independent movie people it turns out that the cost to the small & medium guys Blu-ray demands (in fees & licencing etc) is a major roadblock to them bringing content.
But it was nice of the Apple guys to come right out and confirm that info publicly
(otherwise, you know, it just gets denied as - try not to have an accident laughing too hard - "hate").
This is just another example of another piece of what is wrong with Blu-ray and why it has a long way to go until it stands a chance of even getting close to replacing DVD.
Mark @ Oct 14th 2008 4:54PM
So how much are these fees that scare of small / medium producers? I'm calling you out on this so please be specific. Is it ten cents? Fifty cents? A dollar? More? What sort of volumes are we talking about here?
daaper @ Oct 14th 2008 5:03PM
I, too, would like to know this. The fees are too much for even a company like Apple?
daaper @ Oct 14th 2008 5:08PM
I'd still like to hear the actual numbers for fees, but I think you misread the article. Apple didn't publicly confirm what you're talking about. I believe you're talking about media licensing, which isn't what Apple was referring to.
"It's great to watch the movies, but the licensing of the tech is so complex, we're waiting till things settle down and Blu-ray takes off in the marketplace."
I think Apple is talking about licensing the technology (players/recorders), not the media...could be wrong.
Multi-format-mayhem @ Oct 14th 2008 7:21PM
@ Mark
My information is that on Blu-ray you have to pay Sony £2500 ($4350) for the licence to replicate your film then another £1500 ($2600) per film for the forced encryption.
Meaning that people who just want a run of a few hundred or a few thousand can't justify that kind of expense.
That was in sept last year so if you're going to dismiss them then go ahead - but feel free to update the numbers, if you can.
3dpenguin @ Oct 14th 2008 7:21PM
Well AACS which is currently required for all Blu-ray movies costs the studio $4300 up front for the papers and a single licensing key, more keys cost $1300 each. Once the movie is published they then have to pay up a royalty per disc.
The BD-Rom Commercial Audio Visual licensing fee at $4000 every 5 years, and is "encouraged" (required) so you can get the papers.
The Information Agreement starts at $2500 for a single book and is upwards of $5000 for all 3 books.
Format and Logo License Agreement starts at $15000 is up to $30000 (RE1.0 starts at $30000 up to $60000)
BD-Live private key $1000
So you're looking at about $25000 just starting up, this doesn't include the printing fees and the royalty fees.
lakersin2025 @ Oct 14th 2008 2:43PM
Does iTunes have 1080p movies yet? I still like to have a physical disc for movies. Can't tell the 3 year old to start clicking around the computer just to watch Wall-E in HD but they do like to be the one to put the disc in the player.
DrXym @ Oct 14th 2008 2:55PM
The Apple TV can't do 1080p and never will. If they did start selling 1080p movies, they might have to explain to potential buyers why they don't work on anything but their higher specced PCs.
David S @ Oct 14th 2008 4:03PM
There are plenty of podcasts that do 1080p precisely becuase the AppleTV supports 1080p. Just becuase Steve doesn't want to deliver 1080p paid content home, doesn't mean AppleTV can't do it.
It's not a defect, it's a feature.
DrXym @ Oct 14th 2008 5:45PM
The Apple TV cannot do 1080p video playback. It can show pictures at 1080p, it can scale 720p video content to 1080p. It cannot play native 1080p output. Go look at its published specs. I expect that if you look at podcasts that offer 1080p, they also offer a downscale version for the Apple TV. For example Macbreak specifically offers an AppleTV version even though it has a 1080p version as well.
The device is like a millstone around Apple's future plans. I'm sure they would love to proclaim they're selling downloads at 1080p which are "as good as Blu Ray" and I expect eventually they will. The writing is on the wall for the current generation of Apple TV.
george @ Oct 14th 2008 2:47PM
lol...... the HD content apple says to has isnt compared to bluray.... it is more like a better quality of a dvd....... apple, please make you ipods and iphones and dont try to get in the HD business....
DrXym @ Oct 14th 2008 2:47PM
A bag of hurt as opposed to individually negotiating (and renegotiating) contracts with every movie and tv studio and distributor in every single country they operate. And on top of that still having to licence much of the same video / audio patents (e.g. H264) found in Blu? Pull the other one.
Jon @ Oct 14th 2008 3:13PM
Blah blah buy everything iTunes .. make me super rich Blah blah , Bluray sucks , Buy iTunes fake HD ..
DEEZNUTZ @ Oct 14th 2008 4:40PM
Thank you. You summed it up quite nicely!
Fred @ Oct 14th 2008 3:25PM
Who cares if there is Blu with Apple. I love watching movies on a PSP, computer screen, Iphone, Ipod, I whatever.
Its like going to the multiplexes and watching the Dark Knight on their 10 foot screen, stupid and not worth the money.
Phonytruth @ Oct 14th 2008 3:26PM
Sony and apple need to come to an agreement. I'm assuming Sony doesn't wan't to sell blu ray players to Mac b/c they want the HD nuts to stick w/ Sony. And they say Macs are overpriced, Sony is the most bloated over priced company on earth. But they make decent products, minus the Vaio.
JoeSixPack @ Oct 14th 2008 3:33PM
I just bought a Blu Ray player for my PC and the thing sucks. I've tried 3 different software players and they have bugs or don't play certain titles. This format has no hope. If I, an IT admin, can't get this shit to work easily, I can only imagine how difficult it must be for the average consumer
OneOfOne @ Oct 27th 2008 1:19PM
watching 1080p on a computer monitor unless its 40 inches or more is asinine. its not possible to see the resolution.
dusanmal @ Oct 14th 2008 3:48PM
I applaud Apple for this decision. As squiggleslash points above, specs for BR DRM require sacrifice by the OS in terms of performance (as MS does with DRM-built-in Vista) to secure data from the disc to the screen. That is not something you want in the computer that mainly does many other things. If you want BR disc - get stand alone player... Keep DRM out of computer design. Thanks Apple, you chose not do be "Defective by design"!
JosephC @ Oct 14th 2008 5:10PM
Defective By Design FTW!!
Thank God Apple didn't go BR. I personally would just get the stuff of iTunes. It's just easier for me personally, and I don't really care if my content is just a tad more refined. Until it becomes UBIQUITOUS (meaning every single time I go to best buy, I can see just straight up Blu ray, and no DVD's in the store, and the price of the media and player goes down then I might consider.) But by the time that happens, Apple probably has done something even better XD.
WebDev511 @ Oct 15th 2008 1:50AM
I see that you're still buying the Vista is laden with DRM line.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=284
Point is there isn't any DRM in Vista unless YOU install hardware or software that requires it, like say a Blu-Ray dirve or CableCard.
That said, yeah. Steve isn't going to put Blu-Ray drives (and wouldn't have put HD DVD drives) into his computers as long as he claims that iTunes has HD and people buy it.
matt @ Oct 14th 2008 4:34PM
bag of hurt? more like a bag of whipped up hoopla... wow here I thought we were in for a treat with updated GPUs and revamps... just another product apple redesigned for the sake of redesign... Steve why don't you make just one product and update it ever week? Then make some infomercials and sell 3 for the price of one and call iWow.
The Rockness @ Oct 14th 2008 5:00PM
Good job Mr. Jobs for speaking up about this while HD-DVD still might of had a chance. Where has your head been?
Achilles @ Oct 14th 2008 5:24PM
I don't care either way.
iTunes is too intrusive and resource hungry. Blu still has its head up its a$$ with its prices and buggy, 1.0, 1.1, 2.0-ready, 2.0 blah blah etc.
iTunes, get your SW streamlined. Blu, give me a fraking quality, COMPLETE player that can rival good upscaling DVD prices.
Otherwise, Steve and Blu can go Frak themselves!
Bob @ Oct 14th 2008 5:57PM
Well of course apple want you to use iTunes to buy movies, it wouldn't make any business sense to support blueray.
joe @ Oct 14th 2008 6:12PM
The big thing here is to note the lack of HDMI support.
TV's and projectors come with hdmi. there are plenty of devices in existence now that can use it.
Macs used to come with rca connectors to plug into tv's. now they can't be bothered to support HDMI?
Apple will start to decline again as Steve Jobs starts making there hardware incompatible with how most people want to use it.
hmurchison@gmail.com @ Oct 14th 2008 7:28PM
Joe
DisplayPort (which is on the Mac laptops announced today) is compatible with HDMI through an adapter. Blu-ray licensing "does" suck and it's not like Apple's the first company to point out the licensing issues.
ExtremeGadgetGuy @ Oct 15th 2008 10:02AM
Finally, someone points out the real issue with the lack of Blu-ray and HDMI support. Apple is once again going back down the path of promoting technology that takes them out of the mainstream. To say you won't support HDMI because of its lack of resolution support is disingenuous. Everyone knows that HDMI support is for easy integration with home theater gear. If DisplayPort really is the future (b.s. in my opinion) then why not tout its compatibility with HDMI instead of saying HDMI is inferior? HDMI is here to stay in this new HD world.
All this does is reconfirm that the people behind Apple prefer to keep their hardware as much of a closed system as possible. What is funny to me is how they market themselves and the "free-birds" and yet have the most tightly controlled hardware and OS's on the market. What's even funnier is all the people who buy into their line.
chuck @ Oct 14th 2008 6:15PM
Hi,
Our programmers suck @$$ and couldn't incorporate Blu-ray into iTunes, so we're just going to say Blu-ray sucks. It's extremely convincing when we say it on a stage in front of a giant screen. We know all of our followers will agree and keep paying out the nose for our eye-candied overpriced products.
-Steve
atw292 @ Oct 14th 2008 6:33PM
OK...I'll ask...since everyone else must know something I don't...
It's been a while since I've seen Steve Jobs in public, or any pictures of him lately, but he does NOT look good...
What's up....?
madog @ Oct 14th 2008 7:11PM
If it's so easy to incorporate official, licensed Blu Ray tech into the Mac, why don't you stop bitching about it, do it yourself and make millions? Stop blaming people you have never, and will never meet about things that you think you deserve?
britboyj @ Oct 14th 2008 8:05PM
Has anyone else thought about what else Apple would have to do to incorporate Blu-Ray?
They do not go in half-cocked so iLife, Logic, FinalCut and Shake would ALL have to be updated to support Blu-Ray. That's a lot of work and a lot of licensing.
My guess is that we'll see if when all of Apple's software is able to support it. One roll-out, everything works.
Wile E. Quixote @ Oct 14th 2008 8:23PM
Man, what a bunch of whining wankers. Seriously. I'm glad that Blu-Ray support isn't included on the new MacBooks. Do you want MacOS to suck as bad as Vista does? Well then put in Blu-Ray support with its requirement that every bit of data coming off of a Blu-Ray disc be encrypted from the player to the display so that evil pirates don't steal all of that Hi-Def goodness. One of the reasons why Vista's performance is so bad compared to XP is because Vista spends lots of time monitoring itself making sure that some evil 1337 hax0r d00d isn't stealing HD content. You can go read Peter Gutmann's analysis of Vista's DRM, which, despite much shrill whining by various MS fanbois, has never been refuted, here
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
and Bruce Schneier's analysis here:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/drm_in_windows_1.html
The only response that the Vistards have been able to muster are various ad hominem attacks and whining that they don't care about Vista's DRM overhead, they just want to be able to play their Blu-Ray DVDs in their shiny new laptops.
Personally I think that this is retarded, if you want to watch Blu-Ray DVDs then buy a Blu-Ray DVD player. If you're spending north of $1,500 on a laptop and one of your major reasons for doing so so you can watch Blu-Ray DVDs on a 15" laptop screen which doesn't even support full 1080p resolution then you should really go talk to your mother and ask her why she used to sweeten your breakfast cereal with lead based paint chips. The fact that I can play DVD's on my MacBook is a nice feature, on the other hand it's not the primary reason I bought my MacBook, or any other computer for that matter. I don't want Apple to compromise their hardware and software so that they can build in the kind of pernicious DRM that Blu-Ray demands just so that a small minority of idiots who obviously aren't using their computers for any important work can watch Blu-Ray movies.