Blu-ray and Apple (1 Viewer)

[Carlo_M]

I agree that monopoly does not describe Apple's situation. But you don't need to be a monopoly for the Justice Department to find you enforcing policies that are anti-competitive in nature. Not saying they are with BD, but just pointing out that you don't need to be classified as a monopoly to be found guilty of anti-competitive practices.

I don't think BD will be the next SACD/DVD-A because I'm fairly certain it's already eclipsed both in terms of sales and market penetration. If BD goes away, it will likely be because Jobs got it right in predicting that all physical media gives way to downloadable content, not because of its firmware situation. When I talk to people who don't have a BD player yet, the answer I never get is: "because of the firmware updates/compatibility issues". The answers I do get are:

1. Cost.
2. Don't own HDTV.
3. Can't tell the difference (or a significant difference) between DVD and BD.
4. No good reason to upgrade.

None of which would be solved even if firmware was not an issue.

 

[Sam Posten]

Apple is a CONSUMER monopoly when it comes to buying Flash RAM tho. Every other company in the world gets in line behind them. That's kinda a new twist, wonder how that will play out long term...

 

[mattCR]

Originally Posted by Ted Todorov
As for the "Apple is trying to be Microsoft" meme -- I disagree. Microsoft was convicted as an illegal monopoly. Apple doesn't have a monopoly in any market* -- and since we are talking about Blu-ray, we are talking about computers where they have, what, 5% of the global market? Using the word monopoly here is laughable. More to the point, Microsoft was using its monopoly in an illegal fashion -- it was specifically convicted of using its OS monopoly as leverage to kill competition in the browser market. Apple is using it's 5% PC market share (by all accounts unsuccessfully) to force the BD association into making Blu-ray less of a bag of hurt. If Blu-ray goes the way of SACD it will be because it shot itslef in the foot too many time, not because Apple did it in.

*unless you want to talk about the iPad, but it is silly to claim a monopoly for a product that didn't exist 6 months ago. Even the most fervent Apple fans don't think Apple will still have a 95% share or the tablet market a year or two down the line, even if Gizmodo did just call the Samsung Galaxy Tab "A Pocketable Train Wreck".

Just as a note, Microsoft was -NEVER- convicted of being a monopoly. They settled with the states long before it went that far. You somehow think "it's 5% of the market, how can you say monopoly?" So, let's throw out "convicted' because it didn't happen; they lost an initial ruling, won the appeal, and then settled.
But back to the point, the argument has nothing to do wth what "percentage" of the PC market share Apple has. The argument isn't that they control any significant share, it is whether or not they are using unfair meas/pressures to disadvantage a competitive product in the marketplace. For example, the EU conducted a multi-year investigation into Apple's appstore for dissallowing 3rd party development apps, only after apple allowed them (Closed Sept. 27) but the EU holds open 2 other investigations at the moment (sealed). Apple at no point held a 100% market share or anywhere close in mobile app development. But it was because they had instituted a policy which created a "forseeable hardship" on competitor developers to a marketplace that they were seen as gaming the system.
Blu is a difficult situation and I meant it somewhat coyly, but it rides the line. By pronouncing Blu a "bag of hurt" Apple could be seen as coloring the marketplace against a product, and by refusing to provide support (not necessarily supply, but support) for it... which alone wouldn't be much..... except Apple contracts out for production two of the largest chinese based assemblies in the world, as well as the flash and component manufacturers as a consumer.
So, the argument isn't that they control only 5%, it's whether or not they put marketplace pressure as a consumer and supply ... this is the part that really screwballed microsoft. Part of it was pressuring OEMs to use MS Office, etc. but a big part of it was also that as a consumer, Microsoft had contracted out and were using at "maximum capacity" the means by which a competitor could rise up. That's the part the EU and others get pissy about apple with.. whether or not they are trying to manipulate the FlashRAM and production facilities to get "first come" production to prevent competitors in those lines of product...

My statement RE: Bluray was more a matter of "it's a foolish decision" but I also think the "bag of hurt" statement is the kind of thing that can come back and bite you in the ass later.

 

[mattCR]

Originally Posted by Sam Posten
Apple is a CONSUMER monopoly when it comes to buying Flash RAM tho. Every other company in the world gets in line behind them. That's kinda a new twist, wonder how that will play out long term...

You must have posted this while I was writing. There is something wrong with the reply boxes, I lost my reply twice and then everytime I browse away it leaps to the top of whatever you are writing above the quote, which is REAL freaking annoying

 

[Sam Posten]

Sorry =(

 

[mattCR]

Not your fault; damn though, last night when you were talking about developer interest, I had a really great reply written, talking about the early appleII, the AppleIIGS, the rise of developers like BeagleBrothers (with incredible AppleWorks add ons), CinemaWare (with two of the most significant early computer games ever), Sierra-On-Line (who developed the adventure genre and sold more Apples then probably any other developer) and the changeover in product and methodology, the rise of the PC, interest in how Windows95 came to the market; how OS7 really almost laid apple to it's early grave and was the tipping point which guaranteed that Apple would never grab a significant market share globally, and the interest in consumer level products from PS2/3, XBOX, Wii, etc. and how developers view them, I was on a roll... and then *wham!* gone! grumble grumble grumble
But here are my brief points:
Developers all psyched about tons of products. AppleII changed everything.
Apple IIGS really changed the game as it had never been imagined, and developers went for it until apple told them not to.... along with the Amiga, it brought out high-res graphics (while Mac was monochrome and PC was 16 color) with games that made everything else look stupid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwEpgMTn48k&feature=related

Apple had set itself apart, but they had divided their product lines and really damaged themselves. Longterm it worked out, but at the time, it was a devestating divide of talent, and for quite a few years, it kicked their ass.
Real development excitement on the PC end didn't happen really in earnest again until Windows95. While Mac trucked along, OS6 and then the disasterous OS7 were a complete mess, along with Apple products that were seen as having significant hardware and software problems (sad mac) and they gained a reputation as being "behind" a good idea, but behind. While the PC was standardizing VGA, apple had multiple color quickdraw standards across different units and resolutions which made development a god awful nightmare.

That's what made Win95 a success; while Apple had screwed the pooch (something Jobs has not been shy about talking openly about, and one he has written about how bad it was) it pretty much set the stages for what happened next. Developers were generally excited about Windows95, because it offered a unified development platform as an all-in-one, tools and a base already developed for them, and because MS had backed outside standards (like VESA, PCI, etc.) it meant that they could be extended through outside parties. Meanwhile, nobody could figure out how to develop anything for ADB (Apple Data Bus) or Apple's unique take on SCSI, which wasn't even a correct implimentation of that standard. So, from about 1993-1998, MS and others got a heads up because Apple pretty much walked like sheep into a slaughterhouse and took it. It wasn't until 1998 that Jobs came back to rescue apple. The thing that really saved apple, outside of the new macs and OS8, which wasn't great but at least feasible (OS8 and 9 were also bad OS's, and sorry, if you had to compare them with Windows of that generation, it was still easy to see that Apple had fallen too far behind and it took forever and work from NeXT to really play catchup) but it was the support of software developers in the form of direct loans and software development (Adobe and Microsoft) that really propped up their platform. Just history.

The reason why I think that's worth mentioning is because for the first time probably since about 99-2001, the tables have been flipped somewhat. The development strength in a new marketplace is clearly Apple. Adobe and Microsoft are the ones who are playing catchup. Now, Adobe and Microsoft's position now isn't nearly as bad as the one Jobs walked into, but it's different. What really pulled up Apple was when Jobs basically came out and said: The entire past is screwed. From this point on, we are going to pretend OS8, 7 and 6 did not happen. We're going a totally different direction, and we're doing it because we're going to innovate our way out of it.
But one of the tricks that made that sell was that they took existing popular products and managed to build those people into alcolytes of how much better it was.

That's the trick that Microsoft is trying to pull with WP7. They are basically trying to say: Pretend WinCE6.5 and earlier are gone. But we're going to ask for all of our XBOX alcolytes, people who like that product, to come out and point out that XNA (the development platform for XBOX Live network games, etc.) is a cross platform that goes: Windows-XBOX-WP7, and we're going to have a single development option for that, and we'll give you the tools on the house (this is exactly what Apple did in 1999), and like Apple, who threw out the tools, and MS for the first real development time since Win95, they are saying: Here is everything you really need to get going, free:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/xna/archive/2010/09/16/xna-game-studio-4-0-available-for-download.aspx

I have no idea how this will all shake out. But here's my gut feeling.

Android is Amiga. It will be seen by a ton of people as spectacular, with super devotees. It will have some of the best features here and there, but to really "get" them you have to "know someone" or "be in on it" and the divide in versions will be a significant problem, just as it was for Amiga. No matter how great the platform is, and how wide the acceptance is (for a while, Amiga was the top selling machine in all of Europe) the ins and outs get to be a real hurdle of "what goes here"

Apple is now in Microsoft's roll, about 1999. They have the prohibitive lead. They have taken their product and development tools, and because of the value of their audience, they are now profiting off them, judging products worthy (remember "Window 98* stickered software?), and providing passive endorsements.

Microsoft is flipped: they are now playing the role of Apple coming out of OS9.... a product before it that had some followers, but not a ton (WinCE6.5) a problematic set of years in the product, but some devoted followers, as well as a potential development base looking for the right thing.

Phone vendors are phone vendors, they go into their own category (See; Samsung, LG, etc. who will just use these system become like "Dell" etc.)
RIM is on the fast track to filling the role of IBM: offering an end to end unified experience that will lock down an audience with a specific product that will control it's field but will have great difficulty moving out of the enterprise (See: DB, Domino, etc.) RIM isn't going under anytime soon, it's projects will remain super profitable, and now and again it may have a real breakthrough that changes the marketplace (think IBM


The real question is: can Microsoft use it's XBOX charisma to whip the 1999 turn around that Jobs managed to do? Can they pull XNA developers from the XBOX to make a dash on WP7?
Google's hope is to pull out to such a "unique, classy, one of a kind" element that Amiga had to get super devoted followers, a bit like people who collect choice custom cars like an Alfa Romeo... and maybe this time around, the cool cleverness of it works out differently then it did the first time around in the 80s.


Apple's challenge is to keep changing often enough to hold onto the bull by the horns.
Microsoft's challenge is to become the alternate to the leader and to pull it's developers into their fold and make them feel as though the risks are low of taking the chance on their product.
Google's challenge will be coming up with an effective way to unify a platform and provide a similar experience.
RIMs challenge will be in putting out a concept that is so in tune with it's market that it becomes a fixture.

I won't speak for Palm (because I think it's the Novell in this situation and gets plowed over like Lantastic or Novel4 before this is over, because it becomes redundant) or alternates (because they are a bit like Linux, they'll have devotees, but never a big enough pool to lure in outsiders) and all of my analysis could be crap. But I don't think so. I think the hitch is that in 1999, Apple had enough Charisma at the top that they managed to convince developers who were BADLY burned by previous versions that now was the time to hop on board, and Microsoft and Adobe provided them cover. Microsoft is in an unenviable situation of having all of the right setup, probably an even better setup then OS9 Apple, but not enough Charisma at the top to go to developers and say: this can really work for you. But their angles on all other points have been dead on.

 

[DaveF]

Matt, fascinating perspective and view to the future. (And sorry to hear about the your Reply-Box fiasco. The Reply Box has serious, long-standing problems. And while it's not especially known for eating entire posts, it's deeply frustrating when a good post, with real effort put into, evaporates due to online forum / network problems.)

 

[mattCR]

I will say this for Microsoft though, they have went all out with advertising, appearing in product placement on Vampire Diaries, Hawaii 5-0 Monday, and this week's Bones had closeup shots of the LG.

For those that haven't seen it, MS finally takes a dig over the bluray issue



Edit: to be honest, this is maybe the best Microsoft ad to come out in years, far better then 90% of what they put out as an ad campaign.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

Edit: to be honest, this is maybe the best Microsoft ad to come out in years, far better then 90% of what they put out as an ad campaign.

Yes it was. I don't know what they were thinking with I'm a PC and Windows 7 was my idea campaigns. I also liked the PC rating at the end. FWIW, I've also been there done that with Blu-rays on the plane thanks to my Dell XPS16 1080P screen and a built in BD burner.

 

[Michael_K_Sr]

Somehow watching a Blu-Ray playing PC made out of Play-Doh doesn't have me salivating for a Windows laptop.

 

[DaveF]

That's a cute ad; I liked it.

But I wonder if "ooh, I can watch a movie on my laptop on the plane!" is going sell PCs much now that we're in the era of watching movies on iPhones and iPads on planes?

 

[Sam Posten]

Plus apple rarely responds to competitors ads, but all they would need to do is to put a single 17" Win 7 BluRay laptop on an airplane tray table and showing the whole machine running out of power before the 3rd act of Avatar....

Seriously, can a _typical_ 17" lappy play that whole BluRay on a single charge? I have my doubts...

 

[DaveF]

Does a Blu-ray drive use much more power than a DVD player? I doubt it. And laptops can easily watch a DVD or two on battery.

And you can watch Blu-rays on 13" and 15" laptops too. The basic argument, which I appreciate, is: I bought my movie on Blu-ray, not DVD. But now I'm traveling and want to watch it on the plane. I need a Blu-ray player.

This issue goes away if all Blu-rays come with DVD version. Some do, but not all.

 

[Carlo_M]

Dave - I would doubt it uses significantly more power, in terms of spinning and reading the disc, but I bet the software/CPU usage is likely higher. It's got to be more taxing for software/hardware to push over 2 million pixels per frame than 345,600.

 

[Ted Todorov]

Originally Posted by mattCR
Just as a note, Microsoft was -NEVER- convicted of being a monopoly. They settled with the states long before it went that far. You somehow think "it's 5% of the market, how can you say monopoly?" So, let's throw out "convicted' because it didn't happen; they lost an initial ruling, won the appeal, and then settled.
...
Apple at no point held a 100% market share or anywhere close in mobile app development.

Sorry they lost the trial == convicted. Conviction overturned on appeal doesn't make them "not convicted" -- you can't push the original conviction down the memory hole. (And their victory on appeal wasn't based on any of the evidence presented at trial having been untrue). As we both know, Administrations then changed and the DoJ dropped the case ("settled") instead of bringing it to the Supreme Court or retrying it*. Microsoft were also declared to be engaged in "abuse of it's dominant position" (read monopoly) by the European Commission and was fined a total of well over $2 billion, a record, by far. (The largest single fine against Microsoft was a whopping $1.44 billion in Feb. 2008).

Let's not start pretending this is some sort of moral or legal equivalent to Apple.

As far as app development Apple does in fact hold probably a 90% market share on mobile app developer revenue -- those 100,000 Android apps are being given away, not sold, the developers are making peanuts compared to the iOS ones. Yes, some are being sold on Android but, relative to iOS, no one is buying them. It explains why the best *selling* Angry Birds was released as a free app on Android -- even as famous an app as Angry Birds can't expect to make real money selling for Android. Most developers are on Android either because they simply want users to use their service (see Facebook, etc), for ideological reasons, or in hope that some time in the future they will make money and they are getting a head start in the market now. Developers could, with a straight face, argue that Apple has a monopoly -- though that would probably upset Android stakeholders along with RIM and Microsoft a lot more than Apple.

But the 5% computer share isn't and can't be a monopoly, and don't expect the Europeans, the Justice Department or anyone else to come sniffing around Apple's dissing of Blu-ray. Also, having Foxconn stick a BD drive in the Macs they assemble may be simple, but integrating BD support in Mac OS X without in anyway shape or form hurting speed or harshing other parts of the user experience would damn hard.

* Had Microsoft's conviction stuck, a probable outcome would have been breaking the company up into an OS co. & an app (Office, SQL, Exchange, etc.) co. This IMO would have been a huge boon for Microsoft I & II as they would have been forced to compete seriously at a time before either Google or Apple became strong enough to present a threat. Microsoft would be in far better shape than they are now. You can look at IBM, which survived its anti-trust battles intact but ended up transforming itself (getting rid of big chunks of the hardware business) in a way that was similar to what a court mandated break up would have forced on it.

 

[Sam Posten]

Top seller, 2 hour 30 minute battery:
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=6701575&csid=ITD&recordsPerPage=10&body=REVIEWS#tabs

 

[DaveF]

../../../../img/vbsmilies/htf/confused.gif
That 2:30 battery life has got nothing to do with Blu-ray. It's an oversized PC with an undersized battery. If you buy that PC, you're not watching Blu-ray, DVDs, or any other movie in-flight.

Originally Posted by Carlo Medina
Dave - I would doubt it uses significantly more power, in terms of spinning and reading the disc, but I bet the software/CPU usage is likely higher. It's got to be more taxing for software/hardware to push over 2 million pixels per frame than 345,600.

Even if you're watching a DVD, you're still "pushing" 2 million pixels full screen on a 1920x1080 display. Blu-ray might decrease battery life. I doubt it's significant. Are there any benchmarks we can reference?

 

[mattCR]

Sam-
What? Come on, you're linking to a gaming series laptop as a comparative. If people are flying, and want entertainment purposes, and aren't a kid, this isn't what they are grabbing.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834115859 = 3.5Hr Full function battery life, 6Hr with ES on Battery Life
Sony goes one better, and does 4Hr, with the optical:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834127258
etc.. there is also a Sony 13.3 out there with BD and a 6Hr life..
So, it all depends on what you are looking for and how

 

[Sam Posten]

Do any of them have a 1080p display? If not then you arent hardly getting much value of watching on Bluray vs DVD or download.

 

[DaveF]

Like I said, it's irrelevant. A person buys a movie, it's a blu-ray. They don't buy a blu-ray for home and then a DVD for travel. They've got Blu-rays and they'd like to watch them when traveling.