Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sony & Panasonic Plan Next-Gen 300 GB Optical Discs By the End of 2015

samzenpus posted 1 year,24 days | from the building-it-better dept.

Media 289

SmartAboutThings writes "If you think optical discs are dead and are a sign of the past, maybe you need to take this into consideration – Sony and Panasonic have just announced in Tokyo that they have signed a basic agreement with the objective of developing the next-generation optical discs that are said to have a recording capacity of at least 300GB. The two companies have even set a deadline for this ambitious project: before the end of 2015."

cancel ×

289 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Check out my optical dick (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44414401)

It's 300gigacocks long.

Muthafucka!

Re:Check out my optical dick (0)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414521)

Can I get a SCSI I interface kit, to update the spindle on my B&W NeXT Cube? :-)

Re:Check out my optical dick (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44414695)

This.

Re:Check out my optical dick (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44415113)

That's all marketing. We slashdotters know it's only 279.4 gibacocks. All the geek-girls are unimpressed.

Great (1)

Desler (1608317) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414433)

Another year another multi-100s GB optical disc announced. So is this one going to actually come to market this time?

Re:Great (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414463)

Another year another multi-100s GB optical disc announced. So is this one going to actually come to market this time?

Will there be any optical drives left in the wild by the time such a beast makes it out of the lab?

Re:Great (1)

Ubi_NL (313657) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414585)

Indeed. Now that everything is 'streaming' and 'cloud' i wonder what their intended market is. For me personally, in the last year I only handled optical discs to copy them to my NAS. For long term storage the technology is too immature and delicate. Why would I buy this?

Non-connected users (5, Insightful)

davidwr (791652) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414699)

There are people who don't have fast internet.

There are people who PREFER to view content on non-Internet-connected devices to avoid tracking.

Re:Non-connected users (5, Informative)

Archangel Michael (180766) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414921)

BluRay players require "updates" for DRM, and those are typically done via being Internet Connected (optionally USB Stick). The new DRM will most likely require Connectivity at some point as well. Some of my older BluRay discs no longer work in new players, even with updates. Broken ... by design.

too much, too late? (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | 1 year,24 days | (#44415047)

my newest computer doesn't even have a disc drive...

Re:too much, too late? (2)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | 1 year,24 days | (#44415139)

Neither do most of mine. I do have a blu-ray burner in one PC, but have never used it to burn, and only used it to read a Bluray once. That Bluray failed to play in 3D, and was then played on my PS3.

I think I'm done with optical on a PC unless they come up with a 5TB disc that writes quickly to be used as a backup medium. Hard drives are just too large and low-cost for optical to make sense in most use cases.

Re:too much, too late? (1)

rullywowr (1831632) | 1 year,24 days | (#44415157)

640k ought to be enough for anybody...

Re:Non-connected users (5, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | 1 year,24 days | (#44415291)

welcome to the definition of why people torrent. Torrent a bluray/rip it, and you'll never have to deal with random restrictions of rights which exist on Bluray players, etc. #1 cause of alleged piracy aka copyright infringement right there.

Re:Non-connected users (2)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | 1 year,24 days | (#44415067)

The parent was talking about a self-hosted NAS device. I have 8 TB of space at home (RAID 5) and despite home movies, and raw pictures (minds out of the gutters, people) I haven't come close to filling it up. The initial purchase was a bit steep, but I trust it a helluva a lot more than optical storage.

Re:Non-connected users (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44415283)

Then you're an idiot. NASes are not for backup purposes. An optical disc will outlive a hard drive by decades.

Re:Great (1)

alen (225700) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414717)

unless you're a complete slob, blu rays don't scratch. and if they do its so minor that they will still play

Re:Great (4, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414723)

Streaming hasn't even caught up to the current set of legacy consumer media.

So there's still a problem of content delivery. Networks generally aren't fast enough and they also tend to be owned by competing media companies. Do you really think that Time Warner is going to let someone else stream 4K media to you?

Good luck with that bandwidth cap.

Just the monopoly aspects of the situation make it likely that there will continue to be a need for a consumer media format.

Like with virtual DVD jukeboxes, the problem isn't the tech but all of the companies actively trying to hold the tech back.

Re:Great (1)

alen (225700) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414801)

time warner doesn't have a bandwidth cap, at least not in NYC for most plans

the problem is bandwidth. blu ray is 30mbps. real 4K will probably be around 100mbps. why would i pay all this money to time warner every month when its cheaper to buy movies on optical discs?

sheared bandwidth choke points (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414933)

Will make Streaming at peek times hard and off peak push / downloading is better but say 50GB / 100GB an movie is can add up fast.

Re:Great (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | 1 year,24 days | (#44415005)

It's possible to use a lot less than that. Pirates generally fit a 720p movie in 4.4GB, or a 1080p in 8GB. Quality isn't quite blu-ray, but it's not far off.

Re:Great (1)

alen (225700) | 1 year,24 days | (#44415209)

on a decent TV you can see a difference. not that big of a deal

Re:Great (4, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414993)

Now that everything is 'streaming' and 'cloud' i wonder what their intended market is.

People who want 4K video in their homes, for one. Or even decent high-def. I've watched streaming video, and the picture quality just doesn't cut it for me even on a laptop screen, much less on my widescreen TV.

At the core of the problem is the poor quality of Internet service. I'm in the heart of the Silicon Valley, and the fastest Internet service available to me is 3Mbps. If I change ISPs and add channel bonding, I can push it up to the high single digits. If I want to watch a Blu-Ray-quality movie, even with the newer codecs, that means I would need to download at least 15 gigabytes of data. That translates to 11.3 hours of saturating the connection just to watch a single movie.

Move to 4K, and the download time balloons unimaginably—about a hundred gigabytes for a two-hour movie. At that rate, I could download one every few days. That's just plain insane.

The fact of the matter is that for many Americans, "the cloud" is just plain not able to keep up. Call me when every home in the U.S. has fiber. Until then, we still need optical media for content delivery.

Re:Great (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44414779)

Probably not. Blu-Ray XL is going nowhere at its current cost (I can get 25 packs of 50GB blu ray discs for the cost of one 100GB XL disc). If they get a 300GB disc that costs 4x BRXL, you can bet it will go nowhere as well.

Re:Great (1)

Gerzel (240421) | 1 year,24 days | (#44415205)

More importantly, is the price per gig going to be competitive?

If they can't get the price down then they won't be worth it unless they can prove their disks are shelf stable for extremely long periods of time or they can get up to the terabyte range HDDs and Flash will be the better option in nearly all cases.

Re:Great (2)

mlts (1038732) | 1 year,24 days | (#44415295)

Not multi-100 GB, but I do have a BDXL drive on the desktop which can do 100 gig disks at 4x, using Nero.

Optical may be pedestrian as a media system (especially compared to SSDs), but there is a sweet spot in price that makes it worth using as a long term backup/archival media, especially when combined with fault-tolerant archiving [1]. Nothing is 100%, but I have found when restoring, I have had better luck pulling from CDs, DVDs, or Blu-Ray media than I have had with older HDDs.

As for time burning media, since I have a machine that acts as a file/backup server, I can fire off a backup, switch out media every so often, and call it done.

[1]: It may not be elegant, but WinRAR using volume archives combined with recovery records and recovery volumes (I try to use one extra disk for every 4-5) has done a good job so far. I have learned to avoid backup programs that write to optical drives in their own format... because there is a good chance that one glitch on a disk can render the whole archive unusable.

Who'll bet against... (4, Insightful)

benjfowler (239527) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414447)

... it being so completely hidebound by strong DRM, that it'll be completely unusable -- and in due course, completely irrelevant?

SO typical of Sony.

This turkey is DOA.

Re:Who'll bet against... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44414505)

How exactly would they put DRM on a blank, recordable disc?

Re:Who'll bet against... (3, Interesting)

localman57 (1340533) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414599)

By making all the writers that they license to use the technology incorporate anti-piracy detection software in the driver? Then use some kind of unlocking scheme so that the hardware will only write when using their drivers? That sounds about right.

Re:Who'll bet against... (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414983)

They'd be better off if they didn't produce any writers. At 300 GB a disc, it would be too expensive to store all that information on hard disks, and if only pressed disks existed, then the only way to keep a reasonable number of movies lying around in this quality would be to buy a legitimate copy. At least for the next 5-10 years when hard drive capacities catch up. On a 4 TB drive, you can store quite a few DVD quality, or even BluRay quality movies. But when they start coming out to 300 GB a piece, you're going to need at least an order of magnitude increase in hard disks before you are going to want to store these movies on your hard drive.

Re:Who'll bet against... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44415271)

This is when the scene just creates heavily compressed versions of those films like they did back in the dialup days.

Re:Who'll bet against... (3, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | 1 year,24 days | (#44415277)

300GB is expensive to store?
What year do you live in?

You can get 3TB drives for $115. Building a Raid out of these is cheap and easy. Besides by the time these come out you will be able to likely transcode the video to a better type and save lots of space. As we do now with transcoding dvds to h264.

Re:Who'll bet against... (1)

gl4ss (559668) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414679)

How exactly would they put DRM on a blank, recordable disc?

ask dvd consortium or audio-cdr or.. it's possible. doesn't make much sense for anyone involved though!

Re:Who'll bet against... (2)

Shados (741919) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414635)

Unfortunately that describes Blu Ray, and that, also unfortunately, worked out just fine.

Re:Who'll bet against... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44414703)

I know zero people who have a blu ray reader. Let alone a writer for their computers.

The only blu-ray i see in the wild is in playstations. And they're almost never used for that.

Optical disks have become pretty silly with flash being as cheap and reliable as it is now.

Re:Who'll bet against... (1)

alen (225700) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414753)

lots of people have blu ray players

Re:Who'll bet against... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44414817)

I know zero people who have a blu ray reader. Let alone a writer for their computers.

The only blu-ray i see in the wild is in playstations. And they're almost never used for that.

Well, whoop-de-do for you. We're all glad you don't have any friends.

Meanwhile, the world outside of your precious ironclad superl337 hacker bubble keeps buying and using them, as evidenced by how they still exist and haven't died from the market. But please, by all means, don't leave the echo chamber. You can stay there and enjoy your smug, reassuring circle-jerk of ignoring the outside world, and we'll all be out here dealing with reality and doing real things.

Re:Who'll bet against... (1)

beltsbear (2489652) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414649)

This is correct. I would actually be interested in Blu-Ray if it were open and not DRM'ed to death. 50 GB per disk with a $1 cost per disk in an unlocked format would have its followers but instead they would rather keep it locked up.

Re:Who'll bet against... (5, Informative)

nabsltd (1313397) | 1 year,24 days | (#44415023)

I would actually be interested in Blu-Ray if it were open and not DRM'ed to death. 50 GB per disk with a $1 cost per disk in an unlocked format would have its followers but instead they would rather keep it locked up.

Writable Blu-Ray discs don't have any kind of DRM. If you have a Blu-Ray writer and software, you can write whatever you want on the disc. There is free and libre software available that runs on a variety of operating systems.

Re:Who'll bet against... (1)

PRMan (959735) | 1 year,24 days | (#44415147)

And it plays on any Blu-Ray machine.

I guess... (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414481)

They need something to store 4k stereoscopic movies.

Re:I guess... (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414693)

Even streaming BluRay quality movies is difficult on most home connections. Sure, Netflix has "HD" content, but it's nowhere near the quality level of BluRay. And even if they did have the same quality, I don't want to be transferring 25 GB over my connection every time I want to watch a movie. At least not with the caps most ISPs enforce. There's going to have to be some kind of new media format if they ever want to start selling 4K TVs. The only alternative is to have people plug portable hard drives into kiosks in order to rent a movie. Like redbox, but bring your own disk. This would work better for renting, but wouldn't work so well for buying. multiple 300 GB movies would fill up even large capacity hard disks pretty fast.

Re:I guess... (2)

Z00L00K (682162) | 1 year,24 days | (#44415093)

Meanwhile the USB flash drives are quickly growing in capacity - already there are 512GB USB [kingston.com] Sticks on the market. (OK, expensive, but considering the fact that they are getting cheaper all the time it's not a big deal, and when the optical disks comes out they may be obsolete already)

Who uses BD for backups now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44414531)

If a pricey 50-GB BD disk isn't commonly used for backups why would anyone, consumer or business, want a 300-GB optical disk that may cost $10 or more for a single use when a 500-GB USB 3.0 drive can be had for $50, is many times faster and is, of course, reusable (until it dies).

That's fine and dandy (5, Insightful)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414541)

But what are they going to do about the I/O? It takes me about 20-30 minutes to write a single 5 GB DVD and verify the data on the disc. Now with a 300 GB disc, it will take me a full day to write a disc?

I hope they have a plan to address the bandwidth limitation of these discs, and not just focus on "EHRMAGAWD BIG DISC!" for the consumer shock value.

Re:That's fine and dandy (2)

timeOday (582209) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414669)

My question is whether they will even bother supporting consumer-level writing devices in the first place. I think they are more interested in selling 4K stereo movies at 48 fps (which admittedly could be cool). The article seems to emphasize magazine-changing devices for the video production industry, which is another application that does NOT involve $30 burners and $2 blanks on newegg.

Re:That's fine and dandy (2)

Stormwatch (703920) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414719)

I really don't care about insane high resolutions, but I'd love to get movies on 60 fps.

Re:That's fine and dandy (2)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | 1 year,24 days | (#44415119)

doesn't matter how many fps the blue ray or your tv have, if it was filmed in 24fps that's what it will be. the blue ray or the tv could interpolate to get faux high FPS, but then you get the soap opera effect and still the pan blurring (because each movie frame in the panning shot will be blurred, so there's no way to interpolate in an unblurred fashion.

Re:That's fine and dandy (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414931)

We all said the same thing about CDs, DVDs, and Blu-Rays when they first came out. Eventually the technology will be available for this to be a consumer device at an affordable price. While it is appealing to have a single disc for full system backups, it looses a lot of it's value if it runs at DVD drive speed. I could use a USB 3.0 external drive that is cheaper and faster.

Re:That's fine and dandy (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414689)

I expect they will be primarily for reading, much like current optical discs. Primary uses will be selling 4k/8k video and games consoles. Both Sony and Panasonic see 4k/8k as the next big selling points for TVs now that 3D is dying down.

I doubt writing will ever be very affordable. PVRs will use HDDs and like BluRay the recorders and blank media will remain expensive. There just isn't demand, even for BluRay. Also, why make pirating your media easier?

I'm glad it's happening though. The nightmare scenario is where all media goes to digital distribution, completely blocking second hand sales and genuine ownership. Whatever DRM they use will be cracked soon enough, no need to worry about that.

Re:That's fine and dandy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44414743)

USB 3, thunderbolt, etc.

Re:That's fine and dandy (4, Informative)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414885)

You obviously do not understand I/O. My DVD drive is SATA 6 GB/s, but the disc cannot spin fast enough to be read at 6 GB/s. Hence the reason it takes 30 minutes to write/verify a disc. The bottleneck is not the interface, but the mechanical spin of the disc.

Re:That's fine and dandy (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44415129)

SATA 6 GB/s -- 6Gb/s Gigabits/sec not Gigabytes/sec.

Re:That's fine and dandy (2)

SpeZek (970136) | 1 year,24 days | (#44415263)

I imagine multiple lasers can alleviate some I/O concerns. There used to be 72X CD drives that used split lasers to read 7 tracks simultaneously. I imagine with modern tolerances, the same idea could be used for these optical discs.

Re:That's fine and dandy (5, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414767)

Speaking of I/O, there's the problem of the actual HDMI/Displayport connection. Many 4k TVs only have a 30 Hz refresh rate [arstechnica.com] at full resolution. Basically, the bandwidth of existing cables isn't enough to handle a 4k movie at a higher refresh rate. They're going to have to come up with a whole to cable standard just to deal with the increased resolution.

Re:That's fine and dandy (1)

Phreakiture (547094) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414965)

But what are they going to do about the I/O? It takes me about 20-30 minutes to write a single 5 GB DVD and verify the data on the disc. Now with a 300 GB disc, it will take me a full day to write a disc?

That seems a tad slow. I can write and verify a 5GB DVD in about 8-10 minutes, and that's using a four-year-old burner. You may want to see if something on your machine could be tuned a little better.

Re:That's fine and dandy (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44415051)

300GB(ytes) will saturate a 6Gb(it) sata 3.0 connection for 8*300/60=40 Minutes. So, wrong order of magnitude. In all fairness this "2015" date is probably more likely to be 2020 (widespread availability), and there will be SATA 4.0 by that time, probably 10x faster (to support the inevitably faster SSDs that will become available in that time frame). It's really just evolutionary steps; by the time this "huge" 300GB disc becomes available, there will be 10 TB hard drives on (discount computer parts store) for 120$, so backups will still be a pain.

Re:That's fine and dandy (1)

adiposity (684943) | 1 year,24 days | (#44415063)

They don't care about consumer writing of discs, just consumer reading (preferably in blu-ray players made by Sony themselves).

Re:That's fine and dandy (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44415197)

Why is this modded +5 insightful? 30 minutes to write a 5GB DVD, is your PC from 2003?

Obviously a 300GB disk is faster even at the same rotational speed, density is higher. Plenty of IO ports can do fast speeds. Even at 6gbps SATA or SAS, a 300GB write could be done in 400 seconds if the physical device could keep up.

who cares (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44414543)

by then everything will be so locked down the only thing able to take up 300gb space will be all the fucking laws we need to follow to be on the internet

Capacity ain't everything. (5, Insightful)

danaris (525051) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414581)

Capacity's all very good, but what about speed?

Current-gen optical disks are, as I understand it, dramatically slower than SSDs, which is where a lot of storage is moving these days.

If these new ones aren't significantly faster than the old, I don't really see them catching on in the mainstream.

Dan Aris

Re:Capacity ain't everything. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44415247)

This will allow content companies to release 4K and 8K movies; ala the next Blu-ray. I don't see consumers burning this blank media in their homes. External hard and flash drives are better suited for that.

What would you need such things ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44414607)

Is that... for selling movies on them throughout 21st century ? Youtube won't fit on those disks, go home Sony you're a drunk old man.

bang / buck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44414623)

I would guess that the same amount of storage on usb flash would be comparably priced by then, if the price of drives and blank media for blu-ray discs when they came out are any indication. of course, forget bringing one of these discs to another computer early on since there won't be a reader for it. what is the target for these? I haven't been impressed with longevity of optical media and I still occasionally get coasters, which doesn't bother me when blank media are $0.50 and less but these likely won't be cheap

Too little, too late (5, Interesting)

swilver (617741) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414637)

Wake me when optical disc capacity exceeds harddisk capacity again... like it used to when the CD was released.

optical disks? (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414653)

I don't get it. Why do we care about 300GB optical disks, when I can fit a terabyte of data onto something the size of a fingernail? Optical tech is dying.

Re:optical disks? (2)

jedidiah (1196) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414821)

> Why do we care about 300GB optical disks, when I can fit a terabyte of data onto something the size of a fingernail?

Do you have one of those? How much did it cost you?

How does that compare to the bulk unit price of stamped optical media or even BDR blanks?

The real truth of the matter is that you can't fit a terabyte onto something the size of a fingernail. Even if you could, you would never be able to afford it.

also USB 2.0 IO is not that good also embedded (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | 1 year,24 days | (#44415065)

also USB 2.0 IO is not that good also embedded systems may not have alot of cpu power to work usb at a high use rate.

sata is better and less CPU overhead.

Re:optical disks? (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | 1 year,24 days | (#44415161)

> Why do we care about 300GB optical disks, when I can fit a terabyte of data onto something the size of a fingernail?

Do you have one of those? How much did it cost you?

maybe the dude just has gigantically big fingers.

Re:optical disks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44414823)

Because that fingernail-sized thumb drive is not expected to be readable for nearly as long as the optical disc.

That's the last remaining beauty of the entire setup.

Re:optical disks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44415233)

Until the disc get scratched...

Re:optical disks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44414843)

I don't get it. Why do we care about 300GB optical disks, when I can fit a terabyte of data onto something the size of a fingernail? Optical tech is dying.

Well, check back in 50 years to see how well-preserved the data on your fingernail-sized media is, compared with the data on the optical disks.

HINT: It's not about capacity. It never was.

Re:optical disks? (1)

gewalker (57809) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414861)

If you can stamp the disk in the press and have 300 GB of data, its a very useful for a distribution media (downloading 300 GB is still a slow process). I only get about 3 MBit/sec on my cable service, so 300 GByte is very slow download (over 9 days).

The ability for consumer level recording is much less important to the promoters of large optical formats.

7 years late to the party.... (1)

elfprince13 (1521333) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414663)

....InPhase's tapestry was demonstrably there in 2008, and it was writable, but they went under due to bad management. I'm sure Sony & Panasonic aren't the current IP holders, so whatever they break to market is going to be technologically inferior to boot.

Hurry up and don't buy competing products! (1)

Legal.Troll (2002574) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414673)

Then you will have wasted your money when our new technology becomes the standard! (Seriously, though, I like optical discs.)

Good, now all of Stargate SG1 on one platter (1)

davidwr (791652) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414681)

Er, make that 3 platters. It was a long-running show.

Re:Good, now all of Stargate SG1 on one platter (1)

kwiqsilver (585008) | 1 year,24 days | (#44415025)

They'll still only put three episodes on each disc, so you have to buy the big box set for $99.99, and then go change the disk every couple of hours during a marathon.

Re:Good, now all of Stargate SG1 on one platter (2)

PRMan (959735) | 1 year,24 days | (#44415173)

And every time you change the disc, they'll show you 20 minutes of unskippable ads.

NO (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44414697)

I'm done with spinning disk and all their stupid copy protection which keeps half of the movies from even playing. I want all solid state; the technology is here, it's a lot faster, and more reliable.

It has to be more reliable than DVDs (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44414739)

High speed CDs were barely tolerable with regard to reliability, but DVD-Rs ended it for me. It can take a day to write a disk for all I care. I don't need a useless disc quickly. I don't want to hunt for the right combination of drive and disc though, and a successfully written disc must not have uncorrectable read errors, period.

Power usage? (1)

dasgoober (2882045) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414749)

Will it have equal or less power usage than my SSD, for those of us who like the extended laptop battery life?

Turbo horse buggy (1)

oldhack (1037484) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414785)

Carbon fiber abacus, or ...

But, How Reliable are They? (1)

adric22 (413850) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414787)

One of the MAIN reasons I gave up optical discs is because they were not reliable. Sure, the factory pressed discs were okay. But anything burned at home seemed to have a lifespan of 2 years tops before it started to degrade. At one point I was buying expensive DVD-RAM for backups because it was actually business-grade and would last for a long time. But the capacity soon became too low to use anymore, especially considering the cost of the discs. I have heard about the "archive quality" discs but have never put any to the test.

Re:But, How Reliable are They? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44415105)

When you lose your whole music/picture collection after a bad HDD, but then go to your 2x redundant cd/dvd backup and find them all dead, you can only laugh at optical from then on.

Too little too late (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414789)

By the end of 2015 USB sticks will probably be twice that capacity and 4 times faster without needing a special drive to write/read them.

Loaded with MP3's how much jail time is that (2)

RichMan (8097) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414815)

So 300GB of bootleg songs.
Say 4MB/song
      300/0.004 => 75,000 songs -> ~ 1/2 a year songs
      at $2,250 per song thats $168.75M
      at $222,000/24 songs thats $693.750M
I bet wallmart will sell full discs for $50.

80 years as min wage riaa jantor to work off the (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | 1 year,24 days | (#44415081)

80 years as a min wage riaa janitor to work off the fine

Not for general consumers (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414827)

I was going to jump on here and point out (along with everyone else so far) that this is a dumb idea. Consumers simply won't care. Then I decided to RTFA... From Sony's website where I saw, "standard for professional-use" and "In recent years, there has been an increasing need for archive capabilities, not only from video production industries, such as motion pictures and broadcasting, but also from cloud data centers that handle increasingly large volumes of data following the evolution in network services."

So this is not intended for general consumers anyway. But I still think it's a dumb ass idea. I have seen too-many ultra high density optical disks schemes come and go over the years, and none have found traction in any sector.

Re:Not for general consumers (1)

Lumpy (12016) | 1 year,24 days | (#44415141)

If they cant get as robust as SDLT then video professionals will not care.

WE already spool to SDLT for archival. It's robust enough to not worry about data degradation for long term storage. Plus it's already past that mark. SDLT600 is highly common in professional video and film studios for archiving.

i hope they sell TV runs in one box (4, Interesting)

alen (225700) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414847)

at a reasonable price

i get it selling game of thrones season by season. but there is no reason why i shouldn't be able to buy an entire TV run of a 20 year old show in one box for $40 or so

Sony wins! (1)

dmt0 (1295725) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414855)

First there was VHS vs. Beta, than there was CD vs. MiniDisk, than there was BlueRay vs. HDDVD. Now finally Sony will have the digital media market all to itself. If only anyone would still care.

NO THANK YOU! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44414881)

Seeing as Sony is involved, I'll be passing on it. Sony is permanently blacklisted in my book. End discussion.

If they aren't in your blacklist, why not?

Re:NO THANK YOU! (1)

Lumpy (12016) | 1 year,24 days | (#44415109)

So you dont buy any BluRay discs then.... Because BluRay is 100% sony.

Re:NO THANK YOU! (1)

alen (225700) | 1 year,24 days | (#44415177)

sony doesn't even own the largest share of blu ray patents

over 300 companies in that patent pool

Why? (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | 1 year,24 days | (#44415223)

If they aren't in your blacklist, why not?

Building the raspberry Pi in the UK. Created the most open commercial Android console 2 years ago. Latest console PS3 making many of the the right moves now. First mainstream waterproof phone.

Not big enough (2)

Dishwasha (125561) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414951)

Great! Now I will only need 27 optical discs to backup my data.

Backwards compatibility? (1)

kwiqsilver (585008) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414955)

Will it be backwards compatible with Blu-Ray, DVD, & CD, so people only have one optical player collecting dust on the shelf as they stream everything from a local computer or across the internet?

Makes sence (1)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | 1 year,24 days | (#44414997)

considering how irrelevant both companies are anymore. Sony and Panasonic have lost in the consumer electronics markets, partially because they insist on stuff like this. In an era when everything is moving into the "cloud", Sony and Panasonic are looking to make a new generation of optical disks? Will all their TV's have slots built in to insert these disks in?

I am surprised Sharp and RCA don't join them in their alliance of irrelevancy.

Professional use only (1)

evilviper (135110) | 1 year,24 days | (#44415059)

What's with the second link, to the idiot with the blog? It adds nothing to the discussion at all, throws in some factual errors just for giggles... He specifically says this is going to be for "consumer use" when the Sony press release explicitly says "professional-use" right at the top.

Sony is big into MO discs, as a more expensive alternative to tape for archiving and backup. So I expect this will be just another entrant into that market, still lagging far behind magnetic tape in capacity. They claim insane reliability, but then again, some expensive tape manufacturers will offer insurance that'll pay for data recovery for the next 25 years, just like Sony does with their MO discs.

If they weren't completely proprietary, IT folks might seriously consider MO. But as long as it's Sony-only, with high mark-up and no hope on the horizon of cheaper media and drives coming along in the future, or even hope of being able to source replacements in a couple decades, the market will just keep shrinking. Unless there are strict requirements that perfectly match up with Sony's MO format, using Sony's proprietary gear never enters my mind.

Maybe this will find a market in pre-production, editing, or even digital cinema, instead of shipping those hard drives around, but there's really no interest in another optical disc format in the consumer market, as Blu-ray hasn't even seen wide adoption, and far more convenient alternatives become ever more economical.

New and Improved DRM! (1)

Lumpy (12016) | 1 year,24 days | (#44415085)

It's more about DRM refresh than anything else. BluRay has been completely cracked, same for HDCP. Watch to see a NEW digital video design come out along with this to protect that precious content from all you scumag consumers!

Seek times should be fun! (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | 1 year,24 days | (#44415219)

We already have PS3 games on blu-ray that have to install to the Hard drive to deal with the seek times and supposedly have the same data in multiple places on the disk. This should be even more of that fun.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>