Toshiba shows next generation blue laser DVD media.

[PC-Engine]

IMHO, most PCs do not have a CD burner. Go to Dell or Gateway if you want proof. Why on earth would PC makers, who operate on razor-thin margins, force AOD burners when the user doesn't want them? The trend is clearly to lower cost, not more bells and whistles. When did we agree that the PC industry was going to wholeheartly support AOD?

If you look at the price of a cheap CDROM and compared that to a cheap CDRW, you'll realize that a consumer would be stupid not to opt for a CDRW when purchasing a PC. Would you want to save $20 and not have burning capabilites?

Secondly, CD burners became mainstream only after the adoption of CDs as a format, which was largely driven by the music industry, and it was a very slow process. Remember 4x CD-Rs? Remember green/blue/gold disks? It was a long way to get to here. DVD's, same story - but driven by the movie industry. In all cases, the application came first. Even VHS, many people think that VHS won out because you could tape a whole football game!

CDROMs and CDROM drives in the PC sector became prolific because it replaced the floppy disk. However I do agree that BD and AOD will be slow in gaining acceptance, but not because there's no use for it, it's because of price. If it's cheap then people will find a use for it.

 

[nondescript]

If you look at the price of a cheap CDROM and compared that to a cheap CDRW, you'll realize that a consumer would be stupid not to opt for a CDRW when purchasing a PC. Would you want to save $20 and not have burning capabilites?


CDROMs and CDROM drives in the PC sector became prolific because it replaced the floppy disk. However I do agree that BD and AOD will be slow in gaining acceptance, but not because there's no use for it, it's because of price. If it's cheap then people will find a use for it.

Replies to your points:
1. Doesn't matter what the difference in cost is. I agree, it would be stupid not to pay 20 bucks to get a burner. But that's not the point. The point is, most PCs do not come with CD-Rs standard. Most PCs sold today do not have CD-Rs. Take a quick survey of your dorm, or your friends.

2. CD-R's replaced floppies - an application. I don't see an application for a 30 GB rewriteable media yet. And yet that still isn't the point. The reason they are CD-Rs, and not something-else-Rs, is because CDs were already widely used and accepted. The CD-ROM and CD-R drives in computers came AFTER the music CD. Same with DVD.

3. "If it's cheap then people will find a use for it." It won't be cheap if no one uses it.

You still haven't answered my questions:

Why would a PC maker force consumers to use an unproven format with no apparent application? I have yet to hear of a successful product that has no use.

And why AOD over BR? How do you know this?

 

[PC-Engine]

1. Doesn't matter what the difference in cost is. I agree, it would be stupid not to pay 20 bucks to get a burner. But that's not the point. The point is, most PCs do not come with CD-Rs standard. Most PCs sold today do not have CD-Rs. Take a quick survey of your dorm, or your friends.

I should've clarified my statement. Most PCs sold today. CDROM drives are basically being replaced by burners. Of course there are loads of OLD computers that don't have burners but that is obvious.

2. CD-R's replaced floppies - an application. I don't see an application for a 30 GB rewriteable media yet. And yet that still isn't the point. The reason they are CD-Rs, and not something-else-Rs, is because CDs were already widely used and accepted. The CD-ROM and CD-R drives in computers came AFTER the music CD. Same with DVD.

The application would be removable portable storage, archiving, backup, whatever you can think of. Storing several DVD movies on one disc. Hollywood would use that instead of boxed sets etc.

3. "If it's cheap then people will find a use for it." It won't be cheap if no one uses it.

People will use it.

You still haven't answered my questions:

Why would a PC maker force consumers to use an unproven format with no apparent application? I have yet to hear of a successful product that has no use.

The applications were mentioned above. It's up to the consumer.

And why AOD over BR? How do you know this?

Every AOD drive will be completely backwards compatible with every format the DVD Forum has ever created because AOD itself was created by the DVD Forum. It uses existing manufacturing infrastructure which will make the drives and media cheaper than BD. It doesn't need caddies.

 

[Deepak]

As long as they cost $ 49...I dont care whether they are Blue Ray/Red Ray/Gamma Ray/X Ray.....////

 

[PC-Engine]

As long as they cost $ 49...I dont care whether they are Blue Ray/Red Ray/Gamma Ray/X Ray.....////

Hehe that's one way of putting it

 

[nondescript]

I should've clarified my statement. Most PCs sold today. CDROM drives are basically being replaced by burners. Of course there are loads of OLD computers that don't have burners but that is obvious.

My apologies, should have clairified mine as well. I mean that even today, most computers are not sold with CD-Rs. Again, go look at the Dell website if you have any doubts. Most of their standard PCs do not have CD-Rs, but DVD-ROM instead.

The application would be removable portable storage, archiving, backup, whatever you can think of. Storing several DVD movies on one disc. Hollywood would use that instead of boxed sets etc.

I'm glad we agree that applications come first...now, portable storage, archiving and backup sound like the same thing to me...under the broad category "storing stuff". Now, the question is, how many people actually backup their data (be honest). Or, if they need archiving, how many need more that a CD or DVD worth of data.

I'm sure it will find a use, this might be it, but I really can't see the average Joe buying this. "Data archive" is simply not in the same league as movie or music. DVD boxed sets? Maybe...we'll see.

3. "If it's cheap then people will find a use for it." It won't be cheap if no one uses it.

People will use it.

Glad that we agree "people using it" comes before "cheap".

You still haven't answered my questions:

Why would a PC maker force consumers to use an unproven format with no apparent application? I have yet to hear of a successful product that has no use.

The applications were mentioned above. It's up to the consumer.

The key words were "unproven format." Once again, I stress that the reason PC use CD-Rs is because CD already existed and were widely used. In other words, PCs did not help the adoption of CDs; they used a format that already existed. PCs were not a deciding factor in the adoption of CDs as a storage media.

If anything, the dominant PC format was displaced by CD's. Remember Zip drives? They were a dominant PC storage format, that got killed later on by the CD, which first was a music CD.

Every AOD drive will be completely backwards compatible with every format the DVD Forum has ever created because AOD itself was created by the DVD Forum. It uses existing manufacturing infrastructure which will make the drives and media cheaper than BD. It doesn't need caddies.

Ok, I should have read the thread more carefully - good points here.

Summing up:

Doesn't matter what format, you need a application to succeed. There isn't going to be a magical "when its cheap enough, people will use it." People need a reason to use it first, then the price will fall, drawing in more people. AOD/BR are fine technologies, but no one will care if no one needs them.

That is why BR seems to have the advantage. Anyone who tries to predict the future is an idiot, but I'll try anyway - while AOD may sell 100k units to sys admins to back up hard drives, BR will sell millions as PS3s alone. With the rest of the consortium, you'd have BR players, DVR's, the like. Sure, you could sell AOD DVR's and stuff, but the point is, just PC industry support alone is not enough.

 

[Fafalada]

Not if MS and the PC industry is backing it

Has there been any actual info on that, to date though?
DVD-Forum support seemed pretty nonconsequential to M$ in the past, they are one of the biggest backers of 'nonstandard' DVD+R, among other things
Going on pure speculation it seems just as likely they'd back BR... (actually considering how much they like to go against industry standards, probably MORE likely 8) )

 

[PiNkY]

Of DVD Forum's members, Intel, Nec, Time Warner, Toshiba and IBM support AOD. Personally I hope for AOD as I don't want to return to cartridges as slim drives are the way to go for new PC casing standards. Also, according to Toshiba AOD drives can reuse standard DVD tilt-servos for lens disc distance correction, while Blu-Ray needs more expansive ones in even its first (single speed) implementations. And why the hell go back to groove-only encoding?

 

[PC-Engine]

I mean that even today, most computers are not sold with CD-Rs. Again, go look at the Dell website if you have any doubts. Most of their standard PCs do not have CD-Rs, but DVD-ROM instead.

There are different options for different PCs. If you want a barebone PC then yes it probably doesn't come with a burner. If you want a medium performance PC then it has a CD burner. If it's the top of the line then it's a DVDRW/CDRW. The CD burner is usually an equal swap option ie it costs the same as a DVDROM drive.

The key words were "unproven format." Once again, I stress that the reason PC use CD-Rs is because CD already existed and were widely used. In other words, PCs did not help the adoption of CDs; they used a format that already existed. PCs were not a deciding factor in the adoption of CDs as a storage media.

CDROM not CD audio was created for and by the PC industry alone therefore it was a deciding factor. Most people didn't buy CDROM drives for playing music. They bought them because software programs came on CDROMs. AOD doesn't need to be proven. It's backwards compatible with all previous standards which has already been proven.

If anything, the dominant PC format was displaced by CD's. Remember Zip drives? They were a dominant PC storage format, that got killed later on by the CD, which first was a music CD.

Actually Zip drives were way inferior in capacity, reliability, and price that's why it didnt' catch on.

 

[jvd]

The competitive Blue-ray Disk format uses a lens with a numerical aperture of 0.85 and a disk with a 0.1-mm cover layer, which makes the format [i}incompatible with the DVD format. [/i]

DVD format is also 'incompatible' with CD, but every single DVD player can play CDs because they have either dual lasers, or adjustable single laser. Not only it's confirmed that Blu-Ray devices will play DVDs but it's just a common sense that it will be like that.

Yes but hd dvd would need a dvd lense and a cd lense. The blue ray would need a blue ray lense , a dvd lense and a cd lense ... more stuff to fail

 

[Panajev2001a]

No jvd...

They can do like PlayStation 2 does and use a single laser to do it ( reconfigurable laser )... they only need two parts: pne for Blu-Ray and one for DVDs and CDs.

Pinky, Blu-Ray comes also without caddy.

Blu-Ray has extra protective layers compared to AOD and AOD will be much more scratch prone than Blu-Ray...

 

[jvd]

No jvd...

They can do like PlayStation 2 does and use a single laser to do it ( reconfigurable laser )... they only need two parts: pne for Blu-Ray and one for DVDs and CDs.

Pinky, Blu-Ray comes also without caddy.

Blu-Ray has extra protective layers compared to AOD and AOD will be much more scratch prone than Blu-Ray...

actually i believe (i may not be right ) that the ps2 uses to lenses. Thats why there are ps2s that will play dvds just fine but mess up on cds and the otherway around. Unless the laser is stuck a certian way.

 

[London Geezer]

No jvd...

They can do like PlayStation 2 does and use a single laser to do it ( reconfigurable laser )... they only need two parts: pne for Blu-Ray and one for DVDs and CDs.

Pinky, Blu-Ray comes also without caddy.

Blu-Ray has extra protective layers compared to AOD and AOD will be much more scratch prone than Blu-Ray...

actually i believe (i may not be right ) that the ps2 uses to lenses. Thats why there are ps2s that will play dvds just fine but mess up on cds and the otherway around. Unless the laser is stuck a certian way.

NO JVD, PS2 uses one single lens. Sony was bragging about it when it first launched.... i'm sure someone can find a link for this.
the reason it sometimes stops to read either CD or DVD but works fine with the other is beyond me....
i personally got disc read errors with both formats, but a lens cleaner should sort it out...

 

[nondescript]

There are different options for different PCs. If you want a barebone PC then yes it probably doesn't come with a burner. If you want a medium performance PC then it has a CD burner. If it's the top of the line then it's a DVDRW/CDRW. The CD burner is usually an equal swap option ie it costs the same as a DVDROM drive.

Thanks for the recap of the PC market. You missed my point. Most people today buy computers without a CD-R. Most people buy "barebone PCs", or whatever you want to call them. Again, the trend is to cheaper computers, not more bells-and-whistles.

CDROM not CD audio was created for and by the PC industry alone therefore it was a deciding factor. Most people didn't buy CDROM drives for playing music. They bought them because software programs came on CDROMs. AOD doesn't need to be proven. It's backwards compatible with all previous standards which has already been proven.

Puh-leeze. CD-ROM (or ISO 9660, I think) is a standard created by the same companies that created the audio CD, primarily Sony and Phillips. The two formats use the same hardware to read, have the same data density, are manufactured exactly the same way. CD-ROM was not "created for and by the PC industry alone." Sony and Phillips (primarily consumer electronics companies, not PC makers) said, "hey, audio CDs can also be used for data storage, we just need add a file system." They cooked up a format for the PC industry. And since it was so cheap, and the CD infrastructure was so developed, PC makers went along.

To say the CD-ROM is a different media from the audio CD is like saying a NTFS hard drive is a different media from a FAT32 hard drive.

Backwards compatibility? Imation LS-120 drives were backwards-compatible to floppies, big deal...CDs were not backwards-compatible, they still took over.

Actually Zip drives were way inferior in capacity, reliability, and price that's why it didnt' catch on.

Alright, we have two different views of the story. My view - Zip disks WERE the dominant PC industry standard. Made for and by the PC industry. Iomega had several million installed, and was a billion-dollar company. No other standard came close.

Then CD came along, a outside format from Sony and Philips, consumer electronics firms, and squashed them with cheaper prices and superior technology - prices that were lower because they had already acheived large volume production in another industry.

Glad we agree that Zip disks were crap, and got killed by CDs.

-------------
In summary:

1. Application comes first. People need a reason to use it. Then it becomes cheaper. (I take your silence to mean agreement)

2. PC industry support did not make CD-ROM or DVD-ROM dominant standards. These standards were fed to them after they became dominant in other industries. ( I'm waiting for your rebuttal)

 

[jvd]

No jvd...

They can do like PlayStation 2 does and use a single laser to do it ( reconfigurable laser )... they only need two parts: pne for Blu-Ray and one for DVDs and CDs.

Pinky, Blu-Ray comes also without caddy.

Blu-Ray has extra protective layers compared to AOD and AOD will be much more scratch prone than Blu-Ray...

actually i believe (i may not be right ) that the ps2 uses to lenses. Thats why there are ps2s that will play dvds just fine but mess up on cds and the otherway around. Unless the laser is stuck a certian way.

NO JVD, PS2 uses one single lens. Sony was bragging about it when it first launched.... i'm sure someone can find a link for this.
the reason it sometimes stops to read either CD or DVD but works fine with the other is beyond me....
i personally got disc read errors with both formats, but a lens cleaner should sort it out...

I figured it was two lenses . WHich is the simple explantion of why one will work yet the other doesn't. Unless there are some models using cheaper dvd players ?

 

[marconelly!]

I figured it was two lenses . WHich is the simple explantion of why one will work yet the other doesn't. Unless there are some models using cheaper dvd players ?

Nope, PS2 uses single lens. As londonboy said, Sony was bragging about it back then. The reason why one type of disc can stop working while the other works nice is because of the failure on lens focus changing mechanism.

 

[PC-Engine]

Thanks for the recap of the PC market. You missed my point. Most people today buy computers without a CD-R. Most people buy "barebone PCs", or whatever you want to call them. Again, the trend is to cheaper computers, not more bells-and-whistles.

I think this is debatable. Let's say barebone PCs do sell more...who cares? A CD burner is an equal swap option and the consumer is free to chose. Who says they'll not chose a CD burner over a DVDROM drive?

Puh-leeze. CD-ROM (or ISO 9660, I think) is a standard created by the same companies that created the audio CD, primarily Sony and Phillips. The two formats use the same hardware to read, have the same data density, are manufactured exactly the same way. CD-ROM was not "created for and by the PC industry alone." Sony and Phillips (primarily consumer electronics companies, not PC makers) said, "hey, audio CDs can also be used for data storage, we just need add a file system." They cooked up a format for the PC industry. And since it was so cheap, and the CD infrastructure was so developed, PC makers went along.

You're missing my point. If the PC industry didn't adopt the CDROM format, CDROMs wouldn've NEVER taken off. This is independent of CD audio. CD audio burning capability didn't come until later so there was no reason to create a CDROM format for home electronics. If if weren't for the PC industry, you wouldn't be seeing CD burners today.

Backwards compatibility? Imation LS-120 drives were backwards-compatible to floppies, big deal...CDs were not backwards-compatible, they still took over.

LS-120 was too little too late and had to compete with CDRs a significantly superior format. AOD will not be competing with any significantly superior format with regards to cost or otherwise.

Then CD came along, a outside format from Sony and Philips, consumer electronics firms, and squashed them with cheaper prices and superior technology - prices that were lower because they had already acheived large volume production in another industry.

The prices became cheap because the PC industry adopted it. Do you remember how much the first CDROM drives cost? The fact CD audio players were already in existence didn't help the price CDROM drives much.

 

[Vince]

PC-Engine, perhaps your not getting this and you've actually suceeded in getting people to fight you on your absurd grounds.

There has yet to be a trend where electronic standards proliferate from the PC to the Livingroom. This isn't how it works, it didn't work this was with VHS, CDs, DVDs, and it won't be this way with Blu-Ray.

I realize your phantasy scenario where an entity you don't like will fail is banking on this imaginary parrallel world, but unfortunatly it just doesn't exists.


Whats going to happen is people are going to want to buy something to record on. The Blu-Ray group, which has a practical aswell as virtual monopoly on the home electronics sector will sell these as VHS replacements that will work in conjunction with HDTV which the US is mandated to switching oveto by 2007 or there abouts. People will want to record in Real-time HD, and the Blue Ray group will be there for them.

Content Creation Houses (eg. Sony is one - heh) who make the actual Movies, Music, Games, et al. will embrace the standard because thats whats there, and thats what THEY support, and thats what the consumers will buy.

AOD is going to die. There is no immediate need for this type of mass storage media on the PC - it just doesn't exist. Especially when CD-Rs are selling for around Two cents apiece. Why buy a new standard [AOD] for, lets say ~$200 when you can buy 7,000,000MB of storage space for the same price if my mind didn't fuck me.


Now, this is how it's goin' down: Blu-Ray will launch in the consumer space and dominate the VHS-replacement market as prices drop. AOD will be a niche as it's inferior to BR in HD recording, has little to push it and no base to produce it in the home electronic segment. This is the segment that will be the cataylst for growth.

Then, later, BR will make he jump to the PC space and replace the current CD-Rx and DVD players. Microsoft, as law dictates, will support it. End of story.

 

[PC-Engine]

Blu-ray will be competing with hardrive based PVRs, which will be hella cheap when Blu-ray enters the market

Not only that I predict standalone AOD recorders to be selling at half the price of Blu-ray recorders through an OEM model.

 

[Vince]

Blu-ray will be competing with hardrive based PVRs, which will be hella cheap when Blu-ray enters the market

Oh yes, since HDD based TiVo-esque devices are just exploding in usage.

People don't want limited HDD's, it's just as psychological as it is tangible. They want something to record on and put in their shelf. They want the same thing they had with VHS, just smaller and higher resolution. The whole idea of a HDD in that role is wrong.

Not only that I predict standalone AOD recorders to be selling at half the price of Blu-ray recorders.

Just wait untill demand goes up. Your looking for problems. Sony is selling it's Blu-Ray plaer now for such high prices because it can - it's the sole type of this commodity product on the market. The price will normalize, which is obvious to anyone without the biased, anti-Blu Ray mentality.