Analysis: No Blu-ray on Macs, and nobody cares

Danny Gorog30 September 2008, 4:00 AM

If customers don't want Blu-ray, why should Apple?


Whether you love or hate Apple, one thing you've got to concede is that it's good at spotting technology trends and building products around them. To this day, it's the only company that offers consumers an entire ecosystem of gadgets (computers, phones, media players) that integrate together, out of the box.

But cast your mind back to 2000 when Apple nearly mis-stepped by betting that DVD players, rather than CD burners in computers, would be big with consumers. With the market still immature, Jobs quickly got Apple back on track by including CD burners (and DVD burners in their top end machines) in all but their low-end iMacs, and launched the now infamous 'Rip, Burn, Mix' campaign.

Fast forward to now, when the iTunes store is the largest retailer of music in the world and when Apple announces that customers are now renting over 50,000 movies and TV shows per day, and you'll get a sense of why Apple is stalling on Blu-ray.

There's likely to be one winner in the HD space, and the less legitimacy Apple (who is the leader in the video production space via its Final Cut franchise) gives to Blu-ray, the less likely the format is to succeed.

In Apple's world of course, all media should come via the iTunes cloud. And if it doesn't come from iTunes it should be created or ripped by the user. In Apple's world, the more media that consumers purchase from iTunes, the more powerful and valuable its formats, platform and hardware proposition becomes.

But it's far from Apple's fault that Blu-ray has been a failure in market take-up so far. Sure, you can buy a PS3 with an included Blu-ray player for $699, but the cheapest standalone Blu-ray player in Australia is still around the $450 mark and most Blu-ray media still cost upwards of $30 per disk. 

The issue of quality is also relevant. While Blu-ray provides a better picture than DVD, HD downloads from iTunes also look vastly better than DVD too.

In an article at Ars Technica, Jacqui Cheng says "People are happy enough with the way regular DVDs look on their HDTVs that it's not worth dropping another USD$200+ (plus even more to cover the more expensive movie purchases and rentals) on a Blu-ray player."

Other analysts, including the much cited Rob Enderle says "There are increasing concerns that this holiday season will be [retail's] last real shot with Blu-ray."

However unlikely that Apple will include Blu-ray burners in its consumer computers, rumours point to Blu-ray support showing up in the next version of OS X, 10.5.6. Maybe Apple will offer a Blu-ray option on the flagship Mac Pro to satisfy the demands of the professional video set who are desperate to jump into HD?

Either way, Apple is stalling on Blu-ray for as long as it can, and consumers don't care. The longer Apple can hold off Blu-ray the better its chances of dominating the market for video and TV show downloads, like it does for music.

Post your comment



Comments

RSS feed Email alert

Hemma (User):

Did Apple do any research stating that their customers don't want blu-ray? Or is that what they want their customers to think?

Then again, they might leave it as a feature later, and just make a big deal out of blu-ray when it becomes mainstream.

30 September 2008, 9:35 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

TV Bis (User):

I would say that's it's not the price of the Blu-ray player that is holding it back, it's the price of a decent HD TV to view it on. I paid $1,200 for a DVD player when they first came out because I could see the advantages over VHS. I already had a television which you could view it on but with Blu-ray the advances are not all that better over the standard DVD and I still have to pay thousands of dollars extra to view it.

30 September 2008, 9:45 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Senior Forumologist):

And you'd probably be spot on.
Why include a BluRay reader in a computer that will probably never play back HD content onto a monitor/TV capable of it?

Of course that's entirely neglecting the fact that data can go on the discs... Final Cut Studio would be so much nicer to install from a single BluRay disk!

30 September 2008, 9:52 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Me In Oz (Cornerstone member):

" ..Either way, Apple is stalling on Blu-ray for as long as it can, and consumers don't care. The longer Apple can hold off Blu-ray the better its chances of dominating the market for video and TV show downloads, like it does for music." - APC

Sounds like good business sense to me !

And personally, even on my 106 cm HD plasma, I can't see any differences in the quality of video or quality of audio at 'sane' volumes !


30 September 2008, 9:53 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

tl8 (User):

Now if only it didn't take a day, and all our download limit, to download a movie.

30 September 2008, 9:58 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Me In Oz (Cornerstone member):

They are $2.95 on Tuesday nights at Blockbuster and .................... you can 'google' the rest ;)

30 September 2008, 10:40 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

agami (User):

When Apple offered DVD-RAM drives as an option on the PowerMac G4, blank media was over $30. When The PowerMac G4 and the PowerBook G4 Titanium offered SuperDrive (DVD-RW) options, blank media was in the $20-$30 space. Moreover, those parts at the time cost beyond $500. It wasn't all to do with watching movies.

Fast forward to today, I just put a Blu-Ray Read/DVD±RW combo drive in my media centre PC for $160 and I had the option of getting a Blu-Ray Burner for $330. So the parts are at a good price point. It's not all about watching movies at 1080p.

Apple is most likely waiting for a confluence of factors to underpin a salient product strategy. That's all well and good but the Apple of yesteryear would have had it as a Build-to-Order option by now.

30 September 2008, 11:17 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Izzy (New user):

Wow. I don't know how to express all of the things wrong in that article.
1) PS3's are $399 USD, not $699
2) BRD burners for PC's are $210 (Newegg)
3) Only imbeciles who compare an actual HD BRD signal with a DVD would choose DVD. There is no comparison. Sounds like HDDVD dying fanboi-ism. Jacqui is one of those imbeciles obviously.
4) Apple fans DO care. I want BRD in my new lappy so I can watch those 100 BRD movies I have.
5) BRD is not much more than regular DVD's in cost unless you shop in the bargain bin at WalMart.

30 September 2008, 1:16 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Senior Forumologist):

As this is an AUSTRALIAN site, US prices aren't exactly a priority on the author's minds.

1. EB Games says $699 for Playstation 3
2. Absolute cheapest BluRay burner in Australia is about $295+freight
3. Only imbeciles with too much money would assume everyone just buys the best regardless of price.
4. So buy a BluRay drive for it... Moron.
5. $12.95 per disk vs ~$1 per disk for similar quality. Yeah. Not much difference. Assuming you can't add up.

30 September 2008, 2:46 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

JGrant (User):

Wasn't the DVD authoring program with final cut studio committed to HD-DVD? This might be another reason for the delay.

I find it funny that people who can't tell the difference with HD video and standard def spend thousands of dollars on TVs! It's freaking ridiculous!

30 September 2008, 2:25 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

jake (User):

maby the ps3 costs a hell lot more because it can do alot more than play blu-ray disks, like it can play games, surf the nte, run linux, use almost any USB keyboard mouse microphone or webcam download demos and games, play cd's dvd's and blu-ray also supports alot of formats and more can be added with the right coder

i/we just bought a Playstation 3 the other day with 2 blu-ray ps3 games

02 October 2008, 7:50 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

EggLet (User):

I don't understand why apple would not at least offer a Blu-ray drive as an option, it seems quite silly considering apple WAS generally more specialised and up with technology. Blu-ray would be highly vital for professionals, storing video and backing up, considering they can hold up to 50 GB.

16 October 2008, 3:57 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Senior Forumologist):

Don't quote me on it, but I think I read somewhere that it's due to complicated licensing requirements for the BluRay video playback. Since the average Mac buyer would assume a BluRay drive means BluRay movies, they held off.

Why they don't offer BluRay burners for storage only I don't know. Like you say, 50GB is definitely heading to be a requirement for backups.

16 October 2008, 6:00 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

anonymous user Anonymous user


Tags