Blu-ray Gone In Five Years, Samsung Claims

schliz writes "Samsung expects Sony's Blu-ray technology to be superseded within five years, despite winning the high-definition format war in February." Maybe that means five years from now will be the perfect time to stock up on cheap Blu-ray disks and equipment.

Comments

Article dosen't make much sense.

[Ethanol-fueled]

I'll save us the trouble of a discussion about this lame article by posting the comments from the TFA's:

"Stupid article, OLED is a display technology, blu-ray is a storage technology. They are not rivals, but co-exist. Meaningless rubbish article on Pocket-lint, obviously not examined here by anyone with any AV knowledge."

"Does he think that OLED is going to replace BD as a storage medium?I fail to see how that is even possible considering one is a TV and another is a disc format and video player. Idiot shouldn't be allowed to speak anymore, doesn't know what h is talking about"

"...why would Blu-ray be incompatible with OLED? how is a new type of screen gonna change anything? might look better, brighter.. but....how does that effect anything?"

"OLED is going to take over from LCD as a display technology, and that will spell then end of BlueRay data storage? wtf?"

And, finally, this gem:

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Re:Article dosen't make much sense.

[nine-times]

Everyone seems to want to blame the Samsung guy, but it seems more likely that the author (Kathryn Small) shouldn't be writing for any kind of a technology publication. The title of the article "Blu-ray 'gone in five years', Samsung claims," doesn't quite match what the guy from Samsung says. He says he doubts Bluray will be around for more than 5-10 years, but will be huge in the mean time. He says, "We are heavily back-ordered at the moment."

And then the author transitions into talking about OLED in a way that makes you think that OLED is a competing technology to Bluray. Either she misunderstands the connection, or she's just a sloppy writer and used a shoddy transition to talk about something that's only peripherally connected. But it sounds like she may have strung together several comments from Samsung that weren't entirely connected.

Even Sony doesn't really expect Bluray to be around for 20 or 30 years. It's far more likely that we'll be relatively media-less in the future, and more distribution will be online. That transition is coming, but only as quickly as fiber can be laid, which is to say not for several years at least. Griffiths (Samsung) was probably just commenting on that commonly accepted prediction. So if the idea was connected at all, he may have been saying, "Since media isn't the future, we're focussing on displays".

Yeah, I'm reading between the lines a bit, because the writing of this article is pretty weak.

Blu-Ray = LaserDisc

[AmigaHeretic]

I'm still sticking with my formula:

Blu-Ray is to DVD as LaserDisc was to VHS

A cool toy for those movie buffs.

Re:Blu-Ray = LaserDisc

[TheRaven64]

I think DVD-A is a better analogy. It was introduced at around the same time as a competing format (SACD) which had better backwards compatibility. It had clear advantages in terms of quality, but not really any compelling features, and it eventually lost out to downloads.

Limited by the eye

[Malluck]

What will a new format bring us? More storage space? Higher Resolution video?

While I can see a use for more storage space for data files, I don't see a new disk format dethroning BD for video. Your screen and more importantly your eyes only have so fine a resolution. Beyond a certain threshold, more resolution doesn't do you any good. I dare say BD is there now given our current viewing technologies.

At some point there's not enough perceived benefit to justify changing out the media. Look at CDs as an example. There's no reason why you couldn't cram more music data on the disk for higher fidelity recordings, but at the same time there's no reason to cram any more data onto CDs. Most people can't perceive the difference between a recording made at 44.1 KHz and a 96KHz sampling rate. Even fewer have the equipment to reproduce it.

Re:Article summary: Guy smoking crack.

[sm62704]

Hey, this is the entertainment industry we're talking about. You know, the same people who think that workable DRM isn't a pipe dream?

You know why Hollywood movies cost millions upon millions of dollars to make while Star Wreck: In The Pirkinning cost a few grand? Why RIAA CDs cost $20-$30 while indie CDs cost $5-$10? It's because cocaine is damned expensive, makes you greedy and sociopathic, gives you a sense of entitlemant, makes you stupid, and makes you think it makes you smart.

Re:ehh..

[45mm]

It will be years and years before flash storage drives will be cheaper than an optical disc.

So is that less than, equal to, or greater than Samsung's claim of five years?

Re:ehh..

[redxxx]

Why in the world would I stick a rented flash stick in any device I own? That's like connecting my computer with ever computer the flash stick has been in.

I swear, people remember nothing for health class.

Re:ehh..

[raitchison]

Once the studios have determined that Blu-Ray has reached sufficient market penetration, they will stop releasing new movies on DVD.

They did the same thing with VHS which is what ultimately killed it off (drove the final nails in the coffin) in the format, before that there were always a number of holdouts for whom VHS was "good enough"

With DVD they will try to kill it off sooner, primarily because DVD is relatively easy to copy and so they can start turning on image constraint for new releases.