Samsung Says Blu-Ray Has Five Years Left

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Samsung Says Blu-Ray Has Five Years Left

image

Samsung has low expectations for the PlayStation 3's disc format, estimating its lifespan to be about five more years.

It was a happy day for Sony when Microsoft announced it was dropping HD-DVD support, ending the high-definition disc war, but Samsung, a member of the Blu-ray Disc Association, doesn't believe Sony can enjoy victory for long.

"I think it [Blu-ray] has 5 years left, I certainly wouldn't give it 10," stated Andy Griffiths, director of consumer electronics at Samsung UK.

Despite a predicted short life-cycle, Griffiths expects 2008 will be the format's most successful year as prices for players drop.

"It's going to be huge", he added. "We are heavily back-ordered at the moment."

Instead of focusing on the disc technology, Samsung has been experimenting with OLED screen lighting, a more vivid and adaptable competitor to larger LCD screens.

"We will launch the OLED technology when it's at a price that will be appealing to the consumer, unfortunately that's not yet," explained Griffiths, predicting that the right time should be about 2010.

"In 2012 we will be in a true HD world. Everything from your television to your camcorder will be offering you pictures in high-definition, and we plan to offer you that HD world from all angles."

Source: Pocket-Lint via Joystiq

Permalink

Eh, DVD's are basically "tech. zombies" - right now they are "dead" - but there are people who still use them and will use them for a long time. Blu-Ray may have a 5 year lifespan but people will use it for 10 years if it's cheaper than the format trying to kill Blu-Ray.

They're leaving out the whole 'cost-effectivenesss' ratio; sure Blu-ray may be 'dead' in five years, but whatever replaces it is probably going to be really damn expensive. Blu-ray isn't exactly cheap now, that's half the reason people are still using DVD. It's cheap and it works.

Blu-ray is too expensive for my taste. Why pay $35 on up for a movie I can get on dvd for $10? Besides, I watch more movies on my comp than anywhere else, which doesn't support blu-ray (though I hear it can be played like a dvd, which kinda defeats the purpose of the format.) Also don't have a Hi-Def tv, so it would just be more of a waste.

ElArabDeMagnifico:
Eh, DVD's are basically "tech. zombies" - right now they are "dead" - but there are people who still use them and will use them for a long time. Blu-Ray may have a 5 year lifespan but people will use it for 10 years if it's cheaper than the format trying to kill Blu-Ray.

How are DVDs dead? They're still getting universal support from every single major film studio.

The format to replace/kill Blu-Ray is already around: downloadable HD movies on demand. The only limitations are the size of your hard drive, download speed, and availability. Mark Cuban had a nice write-up about this over a year ago, and as much as I like to touch my media as much as the next guy, he's got a point. If you can watch an HD movie at home of equivalent quality to Blu-Ray without a Blu-Ray player, why buy a player?

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

How are DVDs dead? They're still getting universal support from every single major film studio.

They're said to be 'dead', just like PC gaming is said to be 'dead' or 'dying'. It's not true, but people like to claim it is. In the actual sense all it means is that DVDs are cheaper than Blu-Ray.

I've actually been able to find Blu Ray movies for dirt cheap... probably because nobody's buying them because they're too damned expensive and nobody has the technology yet.

Check this out... I got the FIVE DISC Blade Runner collection (blu ray, of course) for less than $15.

Look around... there are bargins...

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

ElArabDeMagnifico:
Eh, DVD's are basically "tech. zombies" - right now they are "dead" - but there are people who still use them and will use them for a long time. Blu-Ray may have a 5 year lifespan but people will use it for 10 years if it's cheaper than the format trying to kill Blu-Ray.

How are DVDs dead? They're still getting universal support from every single major film studio.

They are like phone books.

They aren't actually "dead" yet, but...

Sethran:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

How are DVDs dead? They're still getting universal support from every single major film studio.

They're said to be 'dead', just like PC gaming is said to be 'dead' or 'dying'. It's not true, but people like to claim it is. In the actual sense all it means is that DVDs are cheaper than Blu-Ray.

(this man finished my sentence!)

What the hell was wrong with DVDs??

Bored Tomatoe:
What the hell was wrong with DVDs??

If you have to ask this, you don't understand technology. There's nothing 'wrong' with DVDs, but as soon as a technology is developed, they're already working on something new.

My DVDs are melting right now!

Like ElArab said, Blu-ray may have a 5 year lifespan, but depending on the conpetitor it will be used for 10. How long have DVDs been used so far? I'd like to say about 10 years, maybe 9.

Besides, blu-ray used for gaming platforms could probably be used more than for blu-ray movies and stuff. As games improve (hopefully) in quality, developers will want to extend to more things they want to do that is limited to the other formats. Movies don't really have to do that, you just need the movie and some extra content, they only need blu-ray for less compression. But for games, they can be stored for more things.

It better not only last 5 more years. I'll be seriously pissed if these companies start expecting us to switch formats every few years, its ridiculous. While MGS4 maxed out a Blu-ray, I have yet to hear of a movie that has even come close so why bother even thinking about switching?

Zerbye:
The format to replace/kill Blu-Ray is already around: downloadable HD movies on demand. The only limitations are the size of your hard drive, download speed, and availability. Mark Cuban had a nice write-up about this over a year ago, and as much as I like to touch my media as much as the next guy, he's got a point. If you can watch an HD movie at home of equivalent quality to Blu-Ray without a Blu-Ray player, why buy a player?

Then why is Blu-ray still selling better than DD despite the fact that DD has been out longer?
http://forums.highdefdigest.com/high-definition-smackdown/60623-digital-doesnt-break-disc-dvd-bd-hold-up-despite-onslaught-negative-press.html

Tom Adams, president of Adams Media Research, said, "The fact is, despite what many on Wall Street seem to think, there is very little digital downloading going on. We're talking about $118 million in 2007 spending, and about $254 million this year - so against a $24 billion packaged-media market it'sreally not making much of a dent at this point."

Also, some of us take pride in our solid DVD/VHS/Blu-ray movie collections. Asshole.

I still do not see Blu-ray being used properly. Blu-ray is meant to have larger space than DVDs, yet I have seen Spiderman 1-3 on three separate Blu-ray discs when Blu-ray itself should be able to hold all three films on a single disc.

internutt:
I still do not see Blu-ray being used properly. Blu-ray is meant to have larger space than DVDs, yet I have seen Spiderman 1-3 on three separate Blu-ray discs when Blu-ray itself should be able to hold all three films on a single disc.

And we want Spiderman 3 in along with the first two why?

Aries_Split:

internutt:
I still do not see Blu-ray being used properly. Blu-ray is meant to have larger space than DVDs, yet I have seen Spiderman 1-3 on three separate Blu-ray discs when Blu-ray itself should be able to hold all three films on a single disc.

Agreed. I love blu-ray, but they should be utilizing it's space. You can easily fit the entire PotC, Lotr, Star Wars(HUGE possibilities there), and other popular series.

LOTR? They're working on it. But aside from that, some movies just don't want to be seen with the main series (i.e. Dead Man's Chest, At World's End, Return of the Jedi, X-3...)

internutt:
I still do not see Blu-ray being used properly. Blu-ray is meant to have larger space than DVDs, yet I have seen Spiderman 1-3 on three separate Blu-ray discs when Blu-ray itself should be able to hold all three films on a single disc.

Agreed. I love blu-ray, but they should be utilizing it's space. You can easily fit the entire PotC, Lotr, Star Wars(HUGE possibilities there), and other popular series.

Jumplion:
Besides, blu-ray used for gaming platforms could probably be used more than for blu-ray movies and stuff. As games improve (hopefully) in quality, developers will want to extend to more things they want to do that is limited to the other formats. Movies don't really have to do that, you just need the movie and some extra content, they only need blu-ray for less compression. But for games, they can be stored for more things.

The thing with Blu-ray though is that, at its current technology, the laser doesn't read the information fast enough for gaming. Hence the installs and repetition of data on the disk.

I'm not trying to say that Blu-ray will never be useful for gaming, but that they need to work on the read-speeds before developers can use the whole 50GB without repeating data or installing.

stompy:

Jumplion:
Besides, blu-ray used for gaming platforms could probably be used more than for blu-ray movies and stuff. As games improve (hopefully) in quality, developers will want to extend to more things they want to do that is limited to the other formats. Movies don't really have to do that, you just need the movie and some extra content, they only need blu-ray for less compression. But for games, they can be stored for more things.

The thing with Blu-ray though is that, at its current technology, the laser doesn't read the information fast enough for gaming. Hence the installs and repetition of data on the disk.

I'm not trying to say that Blu-ray will never be useful for gaming, but that they need to work on the read-speeds before developers can use the whole 50GB without repeating data or installing.

That is a problem, I admit though I'm usually a patient man.

Thing is, who has ever really heard of Blu-ray before the PS3 was announced? I sure havn't, I know it was around before the PS3 but I never heard a single word about it until the PS3 started going on about "Next gen technology! BLU-RAY!".

The way I see it, Blu-ray has alot of appeal in the world of Video Games with developers wanting more space and such for more ideas and stuff. Blu-ray isn't nearly as dominant in the other medias, but since the PS3 primarily uses blu-ray you have games on Blu-ray disks, wether that was the developers choice or not.

So in a way, blu-ray is "dominating" just on one platform and only in one media place.

I think i'm jabbering on randomly here...

Jumplion:

I think i'm jabbering on randomly here...

Don't worry be happy it's the internet.

I don't plan on replacing my DVDs or getting a HD television anytime soon

I like the higher resolution and the how the movies look somewhat crisper (i've watched some on a PC) but it really wouldn't be worth paying for a Blu-Ray drive, HD television, and the disks themselves just for that. I wouldn't even buy them online to download to my computer because its just not worth it to me.

After watching a movie for 10 minutes I get absorbed into it and unless I actually take a step back and really TRY to admire the quality, it doesn't matter to me whether i'm watching HD or SD.

I wont be getting Blu-Ray movies/tv series until normal DVDs aren't made anymore.

stompy:

Jumplion:
Besides, blu-ray used for gaming platforms could probably be used more than for blu-ray movies and stuff. As games improve (hopefully) in quality, developers will want to extend to more things they want to do that is limited to the other formats. Movies don't really have to do that, you just need the movie and some extra content, they only need blu-ray for less compression. But for games, they can be stored for more things.

The thing with Blu-ray though is that, at its current technology, the laser doesn't read the information fast enough for gaming. Hence the installs and repetition of data on the disk.

I'm not trying to say that Blu-ray will never be useful for gaming, but that they need to work on the read-speeds before developers can use the whole 50GB without repeating data or installing.

I thought it reads slower only because it achieves the same speed as DVDs with that slower speed.

(You didn't hear that from me though >_> )

Ivoryagent:
Also, some of us take pride in our solid DVD/VHS/Blu-ray movie collections.

While pride is definitely a factor, I find that my hesitance to adopt DD comes from reliability and longevity issues. I'd rather not have to go through re-downloading my entire film collection when the hard drive is damaged (even solid-state drives can get a boo-boo), nor do I want to transfer the collection from on storage unit to another when mine is outdated (as we all know it will be).

I honestly doubt a lot of this. Every time some Berk tries to predict the future they end up looking like an idiot because they are wrong.

DVD's are as dead as romance, and for very similar reasons.

OLED? That's just another tech war. There are lot of teches out there for achieving similar results.

DVD is not dead. These are the best years for DVDs, there are more movies available on DVD than any other medium other than film itself.

Zerbye:
The format to replace/kill Blu-Ray is already around: downloadable HD movies on demand.

I think we'll have 3D cinema before we have that.

ElArabDeMagnifico:
I thought it reads slower only because it achieves the same speed as DVDs with that slower speed.

(You didn't hear that from me though >_> )

Not from what I've heard. The read-speed isn't slower by choice, it's a technological limitation. I think it's got something to do with using blue light, but I'm not too sure on the reasons.

Anyways, you'd really think Sony would make its console download a game before it could play the thing for the hell of it?

Of course, this limitation will probably be overcome over time, but it's a barrier now.

Jumplion:

The way I see it, Blu-ray has a lot of appeal in the world of Video Games with developers wanting more space and such for more ideas and stuff. Blu-ray isn't nearly as dominant in the other medias, but since the PS3 primarily uses blu-ray you have games on Blu-ray disks, whether that was the developers choice or not.

That, I think, is the major appeal of Blu-ray: the massive amount of data it can carry helps propel longer games with more content. 'Spose we're in agreement here.

DVD is dead? Well then Zombies have taken the vast majority of sales.

Zerbye:
The format to replace/kill Blu-Ray is already around: downloadable HD movies on demand. The only limitations are the size of your hard drive, download speed, and availability. Mark Cuban had a nice write-up about this over a year ago, and as much as I like to touch my media as much as the next guy, he's got a point. If you can watch an HD movie at home of equivalent quality to Blu-Ray without a Blu-Ray player, why buy a player?

Recent revelations among service providers and the greater presence of bandwidth caps on plans means that we might be seeing this kind of format come in slower to the market. Depending on how the 250 GB/month stuff with Comcast works out (which, by the way is far greater than many non-US provider's bandwidth caps which have been in place for a while), you're not going to see HD-download-on-demand killing anything anytime soon, as far as I can tell. But a lot can happen in 5 years.

I expect blu-ray, now that the "format war" is over, to eventually bring down its prices just like DVD did. When Blu-ray players start coming down to reasonable levels and you start seeing more simultaneous releases, blu-ray will eventually have its time in the sun. I doubt it'll be dead for a while.

Scratches...

Should have kept the shuttered jacket.

Ivoryagent:
[Then why is Blu-ray still selling better than DD despite the fact that DD has been out longer?
http://forums.highdefdigest.com/high-definition-smackdown/60623-digital-doesnt-break-disc-dvd-bd-hold-up-despite-onslaught-negative-press.html

Tom Adams, president of Adams Media Research, said, "The fact is, despite what many on Wall Street seem to think, there is very little digital downloading going on. We're talking about $118 million in 2007 spending, and about $254 million this year - so against a $24 billion packaged-media market it'sreally not making much of a dent at this point.

Also, some of us take pride in our solid DVD/VHS/Blu-ray movie collections. Asshole.

Looks like I touched a nerve. Trust me, I understand people still like to touch their things.

Sorry, but after checking your link, Tom Adam's numbers are misrepresented. The $24 billion mark is largely due to DVDs, with only $194 million accounted for by Blu-Ray so far in 2008. DVD is still kicking ass when it comes down to raking in the dough, and commercial success thus far for both Blu-Ray and downloadable movies is still underwhelming by comparison. Long-term, I still see downloadable content being more valuable than physical media in terms of market penetration, environmental impact, and economy of space.

I'm actually one of the few people who likes Blu Ray, the extra resolution is nice, the crisp look actually enhances the experience a bit. But I'd never dream of paying anything like full price for a Blu Ray film, it's only worth having a player because of cheap online rentals and the occasional bargain bin sale.

fsanch:

Zerbye:
The format to replace/kill Blu-Ray is already around: downloadable HD movies on demand. The only limitations are the size of your hard drive, download speed, and availability. Mark Cuban had a nice write-up about this over a year ago, and as much as I like to touch my media as much as the next guy, he's got a point. If you can watch an HD movie at home of equivalent quality to Blu-Ray without a Blu-Ray player, why buy a player?

Recent revelations among service providers and the greater presence of bandwidth caps on plans means that we might be seeing this kind of format come in slower to the market. Depending on how the 250 GB/month stuff with Comcast works out (which, by the way is far greater than many non-US provider's bandwidth caps which have been in place for a while), you're not going to see HD-download-on-demand killing anything anytime soon, as far as I can tell. But a lot can happen in 5 years.

I expect blu-ray, now that the "format war" is over, to eventually bring down its prices just like DVD did. When Blu-ray players start coming down to reasonable levels and you start seeing more simultaneous releases, blu-ray will eventually have its time in the sun. I doubt it'll be dead for a while.

Excellent points. I agree, it will take years for HD downloads to overtake physical media. My point was that the technology that is the likely successor to Blu-Ray, HD downloads, already exists. But it's true that the current infrastructure for distribution needs considerable upgrading before this happens.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here