Slashdot Mirror
Gates Predicts DVD Obsolete In 10 Years
An anonymous reader writes "Not to say that Mr. Gates has been wrong before (sarcasm), but now he is claiming that DVDs will be obsolete in 10 years. As this post claims, I would have to disagree with the world's richest man and say that compact disk media is here to stay for a while because there is just no substitute for a media that cost cents." (And since SMH is going registration only, thanks to the anonymous reader who points out two non-registration sites -- FlexBeta and Yahoo! -- to read the same wire story, and for the observation that not all of Gates' predictions pan out.)
Actually video on demand is everywhere digital cable or DirecTV or Dish Network is. With Time Warner I just surf to channel 600, buy a showing of some movie, and there it is, on demand, on my tv screen. No, this isn't done over the internet, but it does exist.
Ingvar Kamprad, the founder of IKEA, is the world's richest man.
Gates wants the current DVD system to become obsolete because Windows Media 9 is one of the encoder formats used in the new HD-DVD format which is currently in the works. (One more reason to support the competing Blu-Ray format ... no MS!)
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Actually he didn't say that. http://www.thocp.net/timeflashes/tf_1981.htm
http://www.leadmagnet.50megs.com
Personally, I have well over a hundred CD's and about half that many DVD's (commercial that is, I'm not counting all the stuff I burn myself), and over the past 10 years, I've had more hard drive failures than scratched CDs/DVDs.
So knowing that everything will be on my computer in 10 years kinda scares me, since a hard drive is no more reliable than silver discs.
After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
- The Tao of Programming
But that's not really on demand (despite the marketing). On Dish (what I've got), those channels are just restricted channels that show the same movie 24 hours a day. You still have to start watching them at the time they start. Granted, it's fairly convenient that the same movie starts every half hour or so on one or more channels, but it's still not on demand.
Real video on demand is the ability to choose any movie from a library like Netflix has and start watching it at the exact moment I want to. Or, for example, say I want to watch a particular episode of the Simpsons from season 5. HBO On Demand on digital cable comes closer with the ability to watch older episodes of Sopranos, etc. However, it's still very limited.
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
On TW Digital Cabble it's not like that. We really do have video on demand. Go to a list of movies (pretty big.. maybe someday it will be every movie ever made, but definately not now).. and we can start it right away.. pause it.. rewind/fast forward, etc.
He's not.
A DVD is 120mm in diameter, and the hole has a diameter of 15mm. And they're 1.2mm thick.
Google knows all.
But that's not really on demand (despite the marketing).
Yes, it is. I've got this technology as well with BrightHouse (aka Time Warner in Orlando).
They have channels that are actually interactive, and you scroll through a list of movies, start the movie, and you have 12-24 hours to watch it, pause it, rewind it, etc. very cool. I'm a geek, and I still wonder how the hell they have the bandwidth to do all these channels, plus all the HD channels they have, plus my fast cable modem (3.5mbps down).
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
If you read my comment, I said "On Dish (which is what I have)". The parent comment said that it was everywhere, including Dish. As I'm a subscriber to that service, I used that service to explain why on demand is a misnomer for their service, given that they call it "Dish on Demand". As I don't have digital cable, I wasn't *trying* to speak for all potential television services.
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
I should start by saying that I work for the Deathstar... err... Time Warner Cable. I can't really speak about the competitors' products, but our VOD is not like the traditional pay-per-view. We still have a pile of channels with the same movie all day that start at half hour intervals, but that isn't VOD. For VOD, we add a few movies a week, you can start them at any time, fast forward/rewind, and you can watch it as many times as you like in a 24 hour period. Believe me, nobody thinks less of the service we provide than I do, but the VOD rollout has worked exactly as advertised. There are two additional "features" that don't make it into the marketing materials... One, VOD movies don't seem to freeze up or pixelate as often as the normal digital channels. And two, the catalog of movies only grows. It started with maybe a dozen movies, and everything that's been added since we launched it is still there. It's still not the volume you'd find at CockBuster, but it's growing. And, surprisingly, it's not all huge megabudget movies, there are quite few foreign films and indies, plus older movies available for a cheaper price than the new releases. The older movies seem to be added according to theme or actor... 80's "classics", or additional movies starring somebody who's in one of the new releases, etc. Between cable prices, Roadrunner prices/performance, network programming, etc... It's the only service we offer that I don't hear too many people bitching about. The OnDemand channels from HBO, Showtime, TMC, and Skinemax are great for catching things that are in the current lineup, particularly any of their original stuff... But I agree that the volume is somewhat limited. Personally, I wish we would ditch the VOIP effort and worry about making the stuff we already sell better... But, I'm just the brooding graphics guy that sits in the dimly lit cave with loud scary music... so I doubt they'll be asking me what I think any time soon.
Someday a real rain is gonna come...
Thats actually not what he envisioned. Or did you not read the article? What he envisioned was decoupling the information from the storage medium so that you wouldn't be so dependent on a flimsy disk with all the limitations brought about because of it.
-- Cyrus (http://blogs.msdn.com/cyrusn)
From wikipedia:
The RIAA was formed in 1952 to administer the RIAA equalization curve, applied to vinyl records during cutting and playback.
For those of you that don't know. Vinyl records unlike CDs and just about every other music reproduction device have something besides a flat equalization. That is why you need a "phono preamp" on your equipment to hook up to your turntable. The phono preamp takes the signal and applies an equalization to the signal to make it flat again. I don't know if this is an urban legand or not, but I've heard that early pressings of CDs had the vinyl eq on the mix and that the CDs sounded like crap because of this. I have not experienced this directly, but there are many CDs that sound like crap.
It's not video on demand, period, unless it has two features which tend to be missing from bt. The first one I have actually seen in some clients: Up-prioritize the blocks at the beginning first. The second one is missing: Work with the video player, and retrieve blocks which are needed to continue the stream from some place you have skipped to immediately.
If you combined bt with (for example) vlc you might be able to make a vod system from bt. But what you are describing is not vod, it's video-after-demand.
Given that there are some video on demand systems which serve up DVD quality (or near it) video and which support jumping to time points in the stream and such, I'd say that bittorrent is a pretty pathetic substitute for video on demand.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
My last IDE drive purchase was last month - 250GB IDE for $169 (CompUSA, instant rebate.) This is about $0.68 per GB, compared with a marginal cost of about $0.25 for DVD (4.6GB variety).
But look at my hard drive purchase history:ACG is the "Annual Compound Growth" in my sample - the rate at which the GB/$ is growing annually.
Assuming an annual growth of just 1.50 (50%) is maintained, in ten years $150 will buy a 10TB drive. That's over 1000 9GB DVDs.
I think that to assume ANY storage technology currently in use today will still be in use in 10 years is a bad assumption. My analysis is therefore flawed as well; for $150 we'll probably be able to buy 100TB of ultra-fast holographic or biomechanical memory in ten years.
In ten years, the only people buying IDE drives will be the Amiga enthusiasts.
The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
I have to agree the DVD will be replaced by something - because there is a technology that effectively replaces cheap media: other cheap media, that does more.
It's unlikely any DVRW/CDRW technology will ever be truly rewritable. But as USB thumb drives increase in size and Hard Drive sizes shrink to meet MP3 player and cell phone demand, they'll be fully rewritable, smaller media than DVDs or CDs - why use anything else?
In a few years the one advantage DVDs will have over hard drives and flash memory will be the complication of copying them, which is ideal for companies trying to sell their content. This advantage will be made obsolete by 2 things:
Larger optical media, which has been mentioned here several times already.
A more effective copy protection system that works over the Internet; this same copy protection system could be used just as well for the content on any physical media, leaving the physical complications of copying it negligible.
Every slashdot post that mentions Gates and his predictions or opinions on technologies always has someone quoting the "640K ought to be enough for anybody." He never said that. When will people learn?
10Mbps for $100/month sounds achievable for bursty usage like web browsing, but a) way more screen-hours (orders of magnitude?) are spent watching television than web browsing; and b) the throughput per screen requirements are way higher.
Scale that connection up to 10-15MBps per television set, at an average of 1-1.5 sets per household active during primetime, and I think Comcast's infrastructure in my town would melt. (Figuratively.) I am not an expert on network infrastructure, but I think a lot of hardware and fiber is called for before it can happen, and when the cost of that gets folded into my cable bill, Netflix is going to look pretty good.
Where's "-1 Just Plain Wrong" when you need it?
Microsoft & Gates have invested billions of dollars in content distribution (e.g., cable/broadband) and digital rights to a wide variety of works of art, etc. BillG stands to make a(nother) mint if he can get a working DRM and collect a toll every time someone watches a movie.
At the time the PC was spec'ed out, just 64K was considered a large amount of RAM in any personal computer. In just 7 years from the release of the 8086, the 32-bit 386 was designed to address 4GB of physical RAM. Again, at the time, such a number was considered an incredibly insane amount of RAM for a personal computer. Almost 20 years from the 386's release in 1985, we're finding that 4GB of address space is too small. It would seem to me that 1MB was more or less satisfactory for almost a decade and 4GB for two decades. Now, did Bill Gates say anything of the sort regarding the 640K barrier. To quote from this page: "QUESTION: I read in a newspaper that in 1981 you said, "640K of memory should be enough for anybody." What did you mean when you said this? ANSWER: I've said some stupid things and some wrong things, but not that. No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time." Yeah, sure someone in a design meeting said that 640K should be an upper limit of RAM. Was it a bad choice or a misinformed choice? Hardly, considering what they knew about the future of the PC. Obviously when someone designed the CD they said, "740MB ought to be enough!" That kind of space seems small now.
The thing about the CD format chosen on the storage capacity required for Beethoven's 9th is probably an urban legend too. Probably an urban legend