Amex Digital does what Steve won't, intros portable Blu-ray burner for Macs

A "bag of hurt," huh Steve? How do you like these Apples? Amex Digital has stepped in to give prospective MacBook / MacBook Pro owners (and anyone with a fresh USB-equipped Mac, really) the ability to watch and burn Blu-ray Discs... so long as they're cool with hauling around an external unit. The glossy black / white drive (coincidence?) is pretty much a Blu flavor of the portable Super Multi Drive it churned out in July. It'll burn BD-RE / -R (single-layer) discs at 2x, while dual-layer versions will only toast at 1x; as for blank DVDs, they'll get done at a rate of 4x to 8x depending on flavor. Not too painful at just $289, wouldn't you agree, Mr. Jobs?

[Thanks, A1]

[NOAKES @ Oct 16th 2008 7:15PM]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOFJIKAJFLKDFDFDFD

[Nate @ Oct 16th 2008 7:47PM]

Zing!

[John @ Oct 16th 2008 10:48PM]

Apple is so stupid. I really wish they'd grow up and realize that big boy computers should be able to support whatever media format I can throw at it. I mean really. I don't care if Blu-Ray is a big bag of sweaty balls for Jobs; they shouldn't be the ones deciding what to support. At this point, they should have had HD-DVD and Blu-Ray support out the door and let the consumer decide what to use through 3rd party components.

This is all coming from an avid kool-aid drinker.

[happy_penguin @ Oct 17th 2008 4:05AM]

Someone mentioned in another post that the reason why Apple didn't include Blu Ray on the new Macbook is because the only drives available would have been too thick for the new designs. I don't know, but it may well be a mistake. I do love the new Macbook/Pro design but if it's a simple matter of not fitting perhaps they would have been better off to make a design that would accept Blu Ray as an option. Will there be thinner drives and will Apple include them as an option later?

[Chad Zeluff @ Oct 17th 2008 12:19PM]

@happy_penguin:

I must disagree with you 10 times over. Of course Jobs has a right to choose what medias to support, and which medias to NOT support: it's HIS company. ANd his company is doing just fine without your suggestions.

Why would Apple even WANT to support Blu-ray? Another DISK media that's going to be outdated in 4-6 years? People converted their VHS collections to DVD, and now you're pushing people to upgrade all their DVDs to Blu-ray? And then something new after that?! No thanks. I'd rather Apple come up with a digital download concept, where I buy a movie for $20, and then when higher res stuff comes out, I can optionally pay $5 to upgrade the quality from 1080p to 1920p (or whatever).

Think about the FUTILITY of all of this disk media storage, in comparison to pure digital media...

[JB @ Oct 17th 2008 12:42PM]

@Chad

Actually, Apple is not his company....it is owned by shareholders - he is not the majority shareholder. So my hoipe is that he is doing the right thing for his owners and nto for himslef.

The reality is that as long as the stock price keeps going up (current global market fark ups aside) the woners feel he is doing a great job.

[happy_penguin @ Oct 17th 2008 2:07PM]

"Chad Zeluff @ Oct 17th 2008 12:19PM

@happy_penguin:

I must disagree with you 10 times over. Of course Jobs has a right to choose what medias to support, and which medias to NOT support: it's HIS company. ANd his company is doing just fine without your suggestions."

Ummm.... I'm just an Mac user like any other Mac user and no they are not doing just fine without suggestions. It's the suggestions of the users that power Apple's design decisions and their success.

"Why would Apple even WANT to support Blu-ray? Another DISK media that's going to be outdated in 4-6 years? People converted their VHS collections to DVD, and now you're pushing people to upgrade all their DVDs to Blu-ray? And then something new after that?! No thanks. I'd rather Apple come up with a digital download concept, where I buy a movie for $20, and then when higher res stuff comes out, I can optionally pay $5 to upgrade the quality from 1080p to 1920p (or whatever)."

Because people are asking for it? What makes you so certain that Blu Ray will be gone? I know that there are many "experts" out there who suggest it will be, but how do you know? CD hasn't gone away after 23 years, DVD is still around after some fifteen years. How about the problem of the infrastructure of the internet in the United States. Do you really believe that you can get the same content from the internet that you can from Blu Ray that easily? And all of that may be irrelevant anyway. Blu Ray is also not just for movies. It's a pretty damn good storage medium as well.

"Think about the FUTILITY of all of this disk media storage, in comparison to pure digital media..."

What FUTILITY? For most people I know who don't buy Blu Ray movies the reason is that they still buy DVD, not that they buy downloadable content. Such content is no doubt an important segment but don't count out physical discs just yet.

[Evoss @ Nov 22nd 2008 4:01PM]

because he is stupid

[Bloobie @ Oct 16th 2008 7:17PM]

Play them using what?

[IndiaTech @ Oct 16th 2008 7:52PM]

1. Load Windows using Boot Camp.
2. Install WinDVD.
3. ???
4. Profit... I mean watch BD Movies...

[dandaman @ Oct 16th 2008 7:52PM]

damn, good point... Were I the disk reader manufacturer, I'd engineer it to output the data in a similar fashion as the external superdrive for MBA with some onboard data conversion... but I'm not an engineer, so if that is even possible, I do not know.

[Joseph @ Oct 16th 2008 7:16PM]

4x - 8x for DVD?!

[CJ @ Oct 17th 2008 1:43AM]

Keep in mind this is probably a USB-powered drive, and anything more than 8x would require both a) more power, and b) more data speed than USB can provide, respectively.

[Chin-Poh @ Oct 16th 2008 7:17PM]

I don't see anywhere that it can burn DVD-RAM discs.

Can the USB interface really handle Blu-Ray burning and playback?

[why not the LS2LS7? @ Oct 16th 2008 7:25PM]

It worked for HD-DVD on Xbox 360.

BluRay playback maxes out at 54mbits I think.

[Colin Potter @ Oct 16th 2008 7:30PM]

USB = 480Mb/s

Blu-ray = 432Mbit/s @ 12x speed, 288 @ 8x

[chansthename @ Oct 16th 2008 10:41PM]

But USB 2.0 only reaches 20 mb/ps in the real world so .....

[Jamie Hamilton. @ Oct 16th 2008 7:18PM]

Not only that, but it looks thinner than the MBA Superdrive.

[Lowest Ranked @ Oct 16th 2008 7:40PM]

She never said that. At least to my face.

[William Briere @ Oct 16th 2008 8:20PM]

Look at the image closer, there is a little bit of a base underneath the black that is silver. It looks about the same thickness.

[KarlW @ Oct 16th 2008 8:37PM]

It does look pretty good, especially since it's USB bus powered.

If somebody could find out which drive they're using, I'm sure it's possible to fit it in to the existing MB/MBP enclosure in stead of the superdrive (which is now SATA-based). It looks thin enough (from here, admittedly some distance away), and is slot-loading.

[UnixSystemsEngineer @ Oct 16th 2008 8:45PM]

Yeah, the stupid two-tone color scheme makes for an optical illusion.. it's not really that thin.

[Lowest Ranked @ Oct 16th 2008 9:16PM]

And that ain't no reflection either.

[Taylor @ Oct 16th 2008 7:19PM]

Well it just looks like Apple is doing what others are doing and giving Blu-Ray a hard time, in hopes that it never takes off, so digital distribution succeeds. Both microsoft and apple make a point not to support Blu-Ray, and they both just happen to have digital distribution channels (xbox live and, duh, itunes). This of course makes me happy - I don't like sony, and i don't like physical media. I also think paying $30-40 for a blu-ray movie is absolutely ridiculous. Until DRM free downloadable HD movies become available through traditional channels like DRM free MP3's have, i'll keep investing where i have been - hard drive space and a fast connection for bittorrent. Now that i can buy DRM free tracks though, i do actually pay for most of my music, and i wouldn't mind doing it for movies too. Oh well, they'll figure it out some day...
-Taylor

[TMM @ Oct 16th 2008 7:41PM]

Absolutely, 100% right.
Couldn't agree more.

I'm not going to go to another format, yet again.
The future format is: file on your hard drive, or more so: in the "cloud".
Not BluRay.

BluRay is dead already, in my eyes, as physical media will be "dead" in a couple of years.
Apple is planing on towards that: MacBook Air, anyone?

[Tom @ Oct 16th 2008 8:10PM]

See, here's where Steve is missing the boat. iTunes is great and all if I want to *WATCH* movies (and you happen to have an internet connection where you are at a given moment). But if you're a content creator, and you're using that fancy new copy of Final Cut Pro HD you've really got no way to burn it and play it quickly.

[Information Central @ Oct 16th 2008 8:10PM]

Too bad downloadable media is GARBAGE QUALITY. Blu-Ray already isn't that great, but look at the fraudulent "HD" that on-line services are troweling out.

Everyone who's cheerleading the demise of physical media is ushering out the last vestiges of media quality. Music is destroyed with dynamic compression, and video is destroyed by data compression. It's not that downloadable content CAN'T be good, but that it WON'T be because there are no standards and nobody stands up and demands high quality anymore anyway.

So enjoy the future of "digital quality", in which there's no audio or video that warrants anything better than $5 earbuds and a 320x240 portable player.

[Justin @ Oct 16th 2008 8:16PM]

I haven't spent more than $20 on a blu-ray ever, I usually get them for less than $17.

[Taylor @ Oct 16th 2008 8:16PM]

@Tom
Well if you have a system that is appropriate for watching movies from iTunes, why do you need to burn your movie in the first place? Right now not everyone has a PC hooked up to their TV, but as extenders an HTPCs become more popular, you can just throw your movie from Final Cut Pro right onto a USB stick (since high-gig flash memory is getting so cheap, you will have one big enough soon, or just use a HDD) and bring it with you. Hell, most TVs nowadays have USB ports on them. I doubt my TV would play a high quality HD file from USB, but that will be common in a couple of years. Till then, yeah, Blu-ray might have some niche appeal to content creators, but for the rest of us, it just sucks!
-Taylor

[kastonie @ Oct 16th 2008 8:17PM]

Well said information central. I couldnt have put it any better. Id take some high quality physical media over any downloadable service any time.

[SchmuckyTheCat @ Oct 16th 2008 8:19PM]

Apple is on the Blu-Ray Board of Directors, why would they conspire to give it a bad name?

[required @ Oct 16th 2008 8:24PM]

A season of Weeds on Blu-Ray = $23.95, same season on iTunes = $29.85.

I strongly prefer the Blu-Ray option.

[required @ Oct 16th 2008 8:26PM]

A season of Weeds on Blu-Ray = $23.95, same season on iTunes = $29.85.

I strongly prefer the Blu-Ray option.

[Taylor @ Oct 16th 2008 8:28PM]

@Information Central
I don't know where you get your HD content online but i download my files in 1080p. It runs 10-12GB a file, but i have 3TB of storage so i don't care (500gig drives are only $70 now ya know).
Anyway, they look gorgeous, and i can even stream them over my (wired) network just fine. My HTPC is actually my roommate's old dell, and aside from the atrocity of not having a good sound card (it's on my list) the damn thing works great, and my High def movies are gorgeous, and DRM free, so my library won't go to shit in a few years. You know i have some DVD's from the late 90's that are already skipping due to disk rot? Too bad i couldn't back those up, because circumventing CSS protection is illegal...
I only download movies in HD now, and i have no trouble finding things. Yeah there are lame services that try to call 480p high def, but look, whatever market forces drove people to want HD tv's and blu-ray will have the same effect on downloadable media, and the available high def content will become the same or better than blu-ray. I know it's possible because i download 1080p movies no problem now. Most places don't have servers strong enough to serve that kind of content yet but it will happen, and i can't wait till it does.
-Taylor

[Bryan @ Oct 17th 2008 1:13AM]

I'm sorry, Taylor, but 4Mbit 720p/1080p videos don't hold a candle to 40Mbit Blu-rays.

Dorm roomers and torrenters can keep kidding themselves, but physical media will always be available... and it will always be superior. As a business model, file-based video content will always require DRM-based programs to play - which require a certain OS or a certain graphics card. With physical media, I am guaranteed that if I have a receiver, the right TV and a player (DVD or BD) that my media will play.

[mabhatter @ Oct 17th 2008 1:18AM]

the problem with Blu-ray is the DRM demands are outrageous for personal computers. That's part of why Vista is such a dog having to have large parts rewritten to prevent the owner of the computer from intercepting the Blu-ray movies while playing. Microsoft never directly pays for media codex anyway and Blu-ray is per copy licensing. Microsoft wanted HD-DVD to win because they were the ones getting paid so they got to add it to Vista and Xbox for "free".
Apple doesn't want to be told how to build computers..and the HDMI/Blu-Ray specs demand they do whatever the license giver tells them to... it's 10x as demanding as iTunes on it's worst day.

[Samurai Jack @ Oct 17th 2008 1:29AM]

I'm not convinced that's it. I think Apple doesn't want to bother implementing the equivalent of Vista's protected media path for HD content. In other words, OS-wide DRM. I'm all for that. As much as I like HD video I don't like DRM and I don't need more performance sapping overhead in my OS.

[Tim @ Oct 17th 2008 12:55AM]

Im loving the tie-down question at the end. it is awesome, wouldnt you say?

[Chin-Poh @ Oct 16th 2008 7:19PM]

I'm impressed its slot-loading and can accept the smaller 8cm discs, most slot-loading drives can't take the smaller discs.

I'm certainly interested in this, love how sleek and thin it is, but I hope it can burn DVD-RAM discs.

[Luis @ Oct 16th 2008 7:26PM]

Yeah, I guess it wasn't really a "fancy" trick after the Wii did it. It probably helped lower the cost for the mechanism because every Wii has it.

I'm confused though. Is there software that supports watching Blu Ray movies? does Quicktime play them? does the DVD player? Otherwise its just a burner for projects?

[Grant H @ Oct 16th 2008 7:21PM]

Oh, wow! Something third party which actually looks really, really good.

[who? @ Oct 16th 2008 7:21PM]

It costs more than an iPod Touch to watch Blu-ray on my Mac? I'll just hang tight, if it's all the same to you...

Seriously, that's like 100 HD TV episodes off the iTunes store!

Or a brand new, 22" monitor!

Or


Honestly, I've only seen like twenty Blu-ray movies in stores, and regular DVD quality has been more than good enough for ripping to my iPod in the past. Maybe when Apple ups the iPhone/iPod Touch screen resolution it'll be worth it, but until then, I'm perfectly happy with getting my HD off of iTunes.

[Colin Potter @ Oct 16th 2008 7:34PM]

What stores do you shop at? I haven't seen a store with a collection of less than 100 titles since February. And its true, there would be absolutely no benefit to ripping the movies to your iPod, unless the resolution was upped and you held it rather close to your eyes... but this is good news for anyone with a blu-ray collection who wants to take their movies on a plane trip, or use their Mac mini as an HTPC

[who? @ Oct 16th 2008 7:43PM]

1. Best Buy and Target

2. I agree on both points, but I have a MacBook and carrying it around wouldn't be worth the hassle for me, as I travel a lot, and don't have a 'permanent' residence per say (with a Mac Mini would probably be great for stationary users).

3. I hope the next iPods have some crazy resolution, like 640x960. If they doubled the resolution like that on the iPod Touch/iPhone, you would need a magnifying glass to see the pixels (and a Blu-ray drive ;-))!!!

[Lowest Ranked @ Oct 16th 2008 7:43PM]

Right. Because the human eye can discern between 1080p and 480 on an iPod sized screen...

[who? @ Oct 16th 2008 7:56PM]

@ Lowest ranked

You're saying you can't see the pixels on the iPod Touch/iPhone screen? It bugs the heck out of me when I'm playing a 3D game and I can't see the facial features from a distance... No, but really, you're saying you DON'T think it's a good idea for the iPod Touch/iPhone to get a better resolution?

[Lowest Ranked @ Oct 16th 2008 8:05PM]

Better resolution? Sure!

But HD on a 2" screen IS undiscernable by the unaided human eye, as you stated, you'd need a magnifying glass even if they were able to make the screen with 1,920 pixel columns with 1,080 pixel rows.

[required @ Oct 16th 2008 8:29PM]

A season of Weeds on Blu-Ray = $23.95, same season on iTunes = $29.85.

I strongly prefer the Blu-Ray option.

[who? @ Oct 16th 2008 8:43PM]

@required

My point was that it would cost too much to buy the thing that let you watch Blu-ray (this $289 product that we are discussing, in case you forgot which article you are replying to) on a Mac. I was referring to this product, not making any comparison between the price of Blu-ray discs vs. online media!

Anyway, my theory is: wait until Blu-ray is built-in to Apple's computers, then use Blu-ray to its fullest potential! Blu-ray FT(future)W!!! ;)

[Thunder18 @ Oct 16th 2008 10:40PM]

There would be no point converting blu-ray to ipod/iphone format for the fact that the resolution of the screen would not fit the content. Which is probably why you are finding a lot of blu-ray discs as of late coming with SD digital copies that can be downloaded to your portable media at a more fitting resolution.

Also, to those that shun physical media. Hope you're running some kind of raid 1 array with your terrabytes of data. Mean time between failure's a bitch! At least if my Blu-Ray player breaks, I haven't actually lost my media. Hell if it breaks within warranty, I get a new player and everything's fine. I've yet to see a hard drive manufacturer guarantee anything other than the hardware.