Leopard to support HD DVD and Blu-ray?

Yesterday when Steve showed us 10 of his favorite new Leopard features, he left out at least a couple we were a little more than interested in: HD DVD and Blu-ray support. While Tiger does have support for HD DVD and Blu-ray drives, it's not able to play back Hollywood movies from either format. Someone at MacRumors has discovered that the new DVD Movie Player.app in Leopard now includes preferences for both HD DVD and Blu-ray. Sure, Tiger included a preference pane for "HD", but this was for discs with H.264 encoded HD video created in Apple's DVD Studio Pro -- or the like. Of course, this isn't the only thing needed to add next-gen Hollywood movies to Leopard, but we're hoping Apple can pile on the rest before October, like AACS, HDCP, VC1 and of course an actual drive shipped with a new Mac.


[Via AVSForum]

[Rob @ Jun 12th 2007 11:16AM]

another apple post... everyone start complaining... maybe if you wish hard enough, Engadget will stop posting relevant news stories

[BoZs13 @ Jun 12th 2007 11:20AM]

ah, you beat me to that comment lol

I can't wait for the hating!!!!!!!!!

[JJ @ Jun 12th 2007 12:25PM]

Are they forcing you to read it?

[Jorge @ Jun 12th 2007 10:49PM]

Yup, i agree that if we ignore apple news engadget will post less apple news. Too much is getting boring.

note:not that i hate apple, i really like apple stuff but not to the point of being a fanboy.

[just.Rob @ Jun 12th 2007 11:41PM]

you know i was joking... right?

[Derrick @ Jun 12th 2007 11:18AM]

"Sutdio" Pro Ultimate Extreme Corporate $129

[liqwid @ Jun 12th 2007 11:20AM]

Hopefully this is true. I need to find a use for my HD DVD add-on when I buy a standalone player.

I suppose Apple won't ship with Blu-Ray because speeds are only at 1x, probably 2x now, and would drive computer prices much higher. It would be a nice option, but I don't see people waiting hours upon hours burning a disk. If drives were at 5x or a touch higher, then I could see a possibility of them being in there. I'd rather use a dual-layer DVD-R. It's quicker and more affordable.

[michael @ Jun 12th 2007 11:34AM]

I think this is just another Apple fantasy. It would be cool, but haven't we already heard enough of these 'rumors' and things about everything Apple? I hear rumors about Microsoft stuff all the time, but most of it seems to be negative or not mentioned on here. I have to rely on other sites.

I think Apple will fully support BluRay. Usually Apple is strict to what it does, and if they support BluRay, it's going to stay BluRay. I just hope a winner comes out some day.

[andy @ Jun 12th 2007 11:57AM]

even though dvd studio pro already support hddvd? i think they'll go with some kind of combo, they like to simplify for users that dont know there is a difference

[peshue @ Jun 12th 2007 11:37AM]

I think the term you'll be looking for if it doesn't support the hd movie formats is "suck".

[the other steve jobs @ Jun 12th 2007 11:45AM]

honestly, i couldn't care less if Apple didn't bother supporting this DRM bullshit. We will be stuck with the same problems Vista has if Apple caves in. Or do you want to buy all new video cards and all new monitors too?

I don't want to buy a new monitor just so i can watch some Hollycrap HD DVD... i want to watch the HD DVD's the i make. I want people to be able to get copies of my movies and watch them. my biggest fear is if people with DRM'd HD DVD and BR players can watch non-DRM'd disks (that i make). If they don't, there's little chance i'll ever bother with HD distribution, because i'm not paying zillions for a (100% hackable) DRM key.

[Revrant2394 @ Jun 12th 2007 12:03PM]

Yeah, HD-DVD isn't the one to worry about, Blu-Ray is the one with that newfangled DRM nonsense that studios "promise" not to enact on a whim.

As for this Apple "news", I, and many others, still don't care.

[a ham sandwich @ Jun 12th 2007 12:01PM]

why are there leopard rumors AFTER wwdc?

then again hd movie formats on leopard would be sweet.

[capn @ Jun 12th 2007 12:04PM]

I don't think Apple should or ever will adopt an integrated Blu or HD drive. What's the point? With their strong push to online downloads (iTunes), streaming (Apple TV), and eventually online rentals (iTunes, again), there's absolutely no reason to support disc media. I wouldn't even be surprised if they drop their Superdrive just like they did with the floppy on the original iMac.

[koopa @ Jun 12th 2007 12:09PM]

Of course apple will support one if not both types. The question is when. Are you still using floppies? Probably not. If it were my company, I certainly wouldn't package one drive over the other. Not until the market starts leaning towards one side. I just don't understand jumping in blindly like Sony (PS3). Hey I remember I had a Betamax back in the day when the question was: VHS vs. BETA. I chose wrong too quickly and ended up with a tiny section of the video stores to choose from. That sucks when your equipment is cutting edge yet still obsolete.

[shelterpaw @ Jun 12th 2007 12:13PM]

If it's a blue-ray or hd-dvd burner/player then I can see the need. If it's just a player, then who cares. I can't find anyplace that rents the movies and I have never met anyone that's bought one. Adding it to a computer just seems like an unnecessary expense. Maybe in two years it'll be different, but until they lower the priced on HD content, forgetaboutit.

[tiuk @ Jun 12th 2007 12:27PM]

Interesting fact: you can play HD DVD or Bluray on laptops without HDCP, since it's a "closed system". Because of this, I think the same should apply to iMacs (but not Mac Pros, Mac Minis, etc).

[The Jeremy @ Jun 12th 2007 12:50PM]

If Apple is going to support HD DVD playback in Leopard, does that mean they are going to license the VC-1 (ahem, Windows Media 9) codec from Microsoft? And what about HDi/iHD? That seems counter to Apple's own plans regarding its total support of H.264 and Java which Blu-Ray both actively support.

I mean, its one thing to license those Microsoft codecs for professional software packages that cost a grand, and its another thing to license them per copy of OS X shipped. I don't see this as a positive for Apple, and it is nearly equal to them announcing out of the blue - no pun intended - that they've licensed WMA as a usable audio codec for the iPod line. Since Blu-Ray will win the format war, I think this is an unnecessary codec licensing scheme and unless it came with a decade longer commitment for Microsoft to continue updating Office for OS X, I don't see the strategic point or value to this move.

Then again, perhaps VC-1 support didn't cost anything extra since Apple might've already paid for such license directly to the Blu-Ray Disc Association since it is 1 of the 3 codecs the standard supports begrudgingly, and thus only the HDi licensing cost extra.

[zargon @ Jun 12th 2007 1:03PM]

You need to think outside of the box.

First off, downloadable media is not close to where it needs to be to replace physical media. Music and movies just are not high enough quality for to justify replacing any of my physical media, that is the big hold up for me.

Not even factoring that in, Apple's SuperDrive is going no where from the stand point of backup alone. This is where my thinking out side the box comment stems from. I use DVD's for backup of important stuff, mainly my digital picture collection. HD-DVD and Blu-ray, once they are more affordable and cost effective, are going to extend the backup possibilities.

The need for backup will most likely mean that physical media will always have a secure spot.

[capn @ Jun 12th 2007 1:20PM]

Maybe we should look at a graph showing the lifespan of connectivity solutions (usb, firewire, etc) vs. lifespan of physical media before making a decision. In other words, which lasts longer, connectivity or media? If connectivity does, you may as well just use an extra harddrive (external firewire, usb, flash, etc) for your backup storage instead of media that could more easily scratch, break or get misplaced. This could also keep you from having that silly floppy drive from collecting dust in your closet.

[zargon @ Jun 12th 2007 2:09PM]

I will take the limited risks with physical media over a harddrive of some sort. With my digital pictures, I do have a backup system that creates ISO's for me to burn on DVD-RW, which for the time being are kept on a harddrive so I have that one more added layer of backup. My pictures are the only item I backup this way. Nothing else is backup because it is just not logical.

Have a 3 TB NAS, the cost to back it all up is out of my price range. DVDs or even Blu-ray/HD-DVD would consist of way too many to even consider it. Tape backup is out of the question due to the price of a tape drive alone, which leads me into my third option, never mind the cost of the tapes. My third option, that would probably cost around the price of a tape drive, would be to create another 3 TB NAS to mirror the first one. Again, to do that would cost too much, 2x the cost for each NAS is just not doable.

Keeping up with media isn't a problem, I migrated my backup CDs to DVDs already and will migrate my DVDs to whatever I pick up next when it is cost effective. Having old media around is not an issue.

[stuckouteast @ Jun 12th 2007 1:07PM]

What better way for Apple to take a jab at Microsoft than to fully support Blu-Ray in their machines, and even offer them with Blu-Ray drives? Better yet, do you think the 20gb of textures that iD software was touting in their brief demo yesterday are going to fit on an HD-DVD disc? I think not.

[zargon @ Jun 12th 2007 1:14PM]

Seeing as how HD-DVD can support 15 GB, 30 GB and now 45 GB on a standard HD-DVD and with some of the computer discs able to support 20 GB and 40 GB, I don't think 20 GB of textures is going to be a problem at all...

[Jimmy @ Jun 12th 2007 2:03PM]

zargon - I am not saying you are wrong but please show me a 45GB HD DVD disc or a player that can play one. I have seen lab demos of 51 GB HD DVD discs but those are not the same. HD DVD is designed for 15 GB per layer - the 3 layer 51 GB discs are 3 x 17 GB per layer.

I have also never seen an HD DVD that can have either 20 GB or 40 GB capacities.

Blu-Ray currently has both single and dual layer variants available that hold 25 GB and 50 GB respectfully.

stuckouteast has a point - when it comes to storage between these two formats Blu-Ray wins hands down.

[zargon @ Jun 12th 2007 2:46PM]

Jimmy

Here is a new blurb about when they were able to create this 45 GB disc back in May of 2005.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,120802-page,1/article.html

It may not be out on the market right now, but it is a proof of concept.

I think the break down right now is movie and pressed DVDs in general come in 15 GB, 30 GB, Hy-bird and possible now or soon 45 GB flavors.

The 20 GB and 40 GB are related to computers discs. When I did a quick look, a site mentioned HD-DVD-RAM, but I had thought I read the computer version, at least some of them, would come in those sizes.

When it comes to storage, Blu-ray does not wins hands down. It does win hands down when you factor in the supposed potential, the claimed 200 GB. Right now though, Blu-ray only has a slight lead in the storage realm.