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schliz writes "Samsung expects Sony's Blu-ray technology to be superseded within five years, despite winning the high-definition format war in February."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

PS3

[hellfish006]

Does that mean the PS3 isn't future proof?

Re:PS3

[oldspewey]

I'll tell you what's future-proof ... Duke Nukem Forever ... that's future-proof.

Re:PS3

[Naughty Bob]

future proof of what though?

Why, future, of course!

The whole project has been carefully and hermetically sealed to ensure that not a drop of future can get in.

ehh..

[nuclear305]

The article starts out saying Blu-Ray will be superseded within 5 years and then goes on to talk about OLED technology with absolutely no mention of what might supersede blu-ray?

That's what I get for actually RTFA though; a few paragraphs loosely related with no actual technical information.

Re:ehh..

[Gunnut1124]

You RTFA? I try not the even RTFS when it's got "Blu-Ray" in the title...

Re:ehh..

[Z00L00K]

The speed of the development of flash drives will make the optical drives obsolete.

It's possible to buy 32GB flash disks today and the speed at which they are growing far outnumbers the speed of the development of the optical drives.

So expect that in a few years you will insert a CF card or USB stick into your media station and watch the latest movie.

Re:ehh..

[shawn(at)fsu]

Not saying you're not right or wrong but it's not just size and speed that matter. You also have to look at production of the media itself. If the media is easier cheaper to produce then it gets a big leg up. Right now I'd imagine that DVDs are cheaper to produce than flash drive. I have nothing to back that up with other than cost, I'm not sure what the comparison of Flash to Blu-Ray is.

Re:ehh..

[larry bagina]

20 years ago, we stuck a card into our atari/nintendo/sega to play a game.

Re:ehh..

[morgan_greywolf]

The speed of the development of flash drives will make the optical drives obsolete.

Provided that, within 5 years, the cost of that flash memory is competitive (or better than competitive) with optical drives.

Until that happens optical drives will be here to stay.

And, BTW, DVD was supposed to have superseded CD by now.

Re:ehh..

[Duncan Blackthorne]

Not. I seriously can't see a video store renting out USB-anything. Which is cheaper to mass produce, something electronic, or a pressed disc? I recognize that you can get a USB flash drive for less than $10.00US (and less than $5.00US in many cases) but not with the capacity for a high-def feature-length movie. I'd think it more likely that streaming HD over broadband will replace rented media.

Re:ehh..

[Drooling Iguana]

I don't even RTFC, but I can say with authority that you're wrong and stupid. Probably ugly, too.

Re:ehh..

[Beardo the Bearded]

Hey, I had an N64 up until late last year. It was damned fast. With the introduction of the original Playstation, we had

Loading remainder of comment, please wait.....

load times. Yes, we can fit a lot more data onto those 750MB disks than the cartridge tech of the time. Now they're giving away 1GB Flash drives with a box of cereal. You can easily buy 16GB drives now, and that's got 4x the info of a DVD.

It'll be much easier for "Them" to lock down each game with a globally unique serial number when you're burning Flash drives; much, much harder than when you're pressing CD / DVD runs. Microchip will sell you chips (by the reel, of course) that are pre-programmed and have an incrementing sequence in one section.

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..

[jrothwell97]

The speed of the development of flash drives will make the optical drives obsolete.

It's not even flash disks. All physical sales will become obsolete with the take-off of digital downloads. With the advent of legal movie downloads and on-demand TV services, most physical media sales will, I predict, be dead within twenty 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.

Re:ehh..

[SpiderClan]

"Where all the thoughtful analysis have gone?"

It's (they've?) apparently eloped with the grammar.

Re:ehh..

[MightyYar]

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"

That's actually pretty insightful. I only bought a DVD once my video rental store no longer carried VHS. Toward the end it was really nice, since their back catalog (which was mostly VHS) was really cheap.

DVD didn't really have too much of an advantage over VHS for my small-ish 25" TV. The sound was pretty equivalent, and the ability to seek was not really very important like it was with the difference between CD and tape. By the time I bought a DVD the players were $15 :)

Re:ehh..

[AttillaTheNun]

What killed VHS off was the obscure minority of consumers such as yourself still purchasing or renting VHS titles.

For the vast majority of consumers, DVDs had so many more compelling reasons for people to upgrade than BluRay ever will.

BluRay will remain a niche offering, as there are relatively few compelling reasons for the majority of consumers to upgrade from DVDs.

The studios will not stop releasing DVDs as long as the majority of the market is purchasing them.

Re:ehh..

[gnick]

Consider that you have to go to the video rental place twice...

Why? You enroll with Blockbuster and shell out $10 for a BlockBuster-Blue USB stick. When you want to rent a movie, you take it in, have the movie loaded on to your stick with a DRM time bomb making it playable for 48 hours, and take it home. No need to return until you rent your next flick.

Re:ehh..

[MBGMorden]

We've seen this upgrade path repeatedlywith the introduction of cassettes tapes, CDs and DVDs. Each technology upgrade comes with a higher price/profit margin for the content providers. I expect BlueRay will be the same.

Indeed we have seen it repeatly: the price spikes higher initially and then settles to the same prices as the previous format and then the previous format is phased out. In the end CD's cost no more than cassette tapes - DVD's costed no more than VHS. Eventually you might even see the older format cost MORE because it's seen as a legacy format that it's costing them more to support than the mainstream format.

Eventually, BluRay will be as cheap or cheaper than DVD's, and at that point it will make no sense NOT to upgrade.

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.

[Kjella]

Funny part is, that any new cheaper/better display medium should FUEL blu-ray sales, not the other way around. Except for many people apparently being half-blind, the other thing holding them back is the cost of a good HD set to enjoy it. If people could afford a 100" video wall at home the blu-ray sales would skyrocket.

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.

Re:Article dosen't make much sense.

[geekoid]

Blu-Ray sales will skyrocket when I can buy a player with all the standard features for 50 bucks.

Article summary: Guy smoking crack.

[ivan256]

Maybe he's right, and BluRay will be gone in 5 years, but he's clearly smoking something.

The article says that BluRay is going to be huge for a while, but in the long term Samsung is backing OLED displays.

WTF?

Re:Article summary: Guy smoking crack.

[0xdeadbeef]

Obviously every movie will be distributed in a dedicated OLED display.

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.

Clearing his desk as we speak...

[Naughty Bob]

The guy basically says that the Blu-Ray format will be huge, this year. He then goes on to say how it will rapidly become obsolete.

Great way to, er, halt sales in their tracks.

Superceded by what?

[gfxguy]

Ok, everybody just stop buying now; wait for five years to see the new technology and then pay a premium to be the first.

This is pretty ridiculous, isn't it? I mean sure, a new technology will come along... a new technology came along and superceded video tapes, too, but they still exist!

Stating that the technology will just be "gone" is ridiculous.

Re:Superceded by what?

[eln]

Actually, the new display format (codenamed "Death Ray") will not only play movies with unprecedented levels of detail, it will also actively seek out and destroy older technologies. It is recommended that you put all of your old DVDs, BluRay discs, video casettes, and laserdiscs into a lead-lined safe and sink it at least 500 feet into the ocean prior to installing your new Death Ray player.

Re:Superceded by what?

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

The difference is that VHS was popular and entrenched in the market before something else came along. With Blu-Ray that doesn't seem very likely. Beating HD-DVD has only caused prices to go up since there's no longer a need to compete, and HDTVs are still a relatively small market of TVs in people's homes and will continue to be so for years to come. Factor in things like people still figuring out how to make good looking HD content and plenty of people who still don't see anything wrong with DVD and VHS and you can begin the see the friction preventing Blu-Ray from making any ground in the next few years. By the time those things are overcome there's a good chance there'll either be a better format, or HD content widely available online, making Blu-Ray obsolete before it ever gets a chance to be the default format that everybody buys their content in.

Although we often think of the average consumer as clueless about longetivity and future-proofing I've seen a lot of evidence that the general public aren't convinced by Blu-Ray. It's only just won the HD Wars and yet already the average guy on the street can smell Blu-Ray's blood in the water.

Re:Superceded by what?

[sm62704]

Ok, everybody just stop buying now; wait for five years to see the new technology and then pay a premium to be the first.

I just bought an analog, 42 inch flat screen CRT less than five years ago. I have no reason whatever to buy Blu-Ray, as with my analog TV Blu-Ray won't look any different but the disks and players are damned expensive (I need a new DVD player, mine's worn out. $30 at Wal Mart, how much is Blu-Ray again?). I don't see buying a new TV any time soon, so I guess I'm lucky, I'll transition from DVD to whatever superceds blu-ray.

Of course!

[BitterOldGUy]

We all know that technology moves up the EM spectrum! The next technology will the Ultraviolet ray!

And we all know, because we're moving up the spectrum, the frequency is decreasing. Therefore, products will come out quicker!

Jeeze!

There's a cheaper option...

[pandrijeczko]

...downgrade to standard definition retinas and just stick with DVD.

There's a difference...

[MindlessAutomata]

Between being "superseded" and "universally adopted".

Technically, Blu-ray has already superseded DVD in many, many aspects. But Blu-ray now still has very little adoption. What really matters is not whether Blu-ray will be (technologically) superseded, but the cost-benefit of the technology. If Blu-ray gets adopted by the general consumer due to falling prices, it'll be around awhile so long as the next generation is more expensive especially relative to its perceived benefits, much like current situation with DVD as it is. Blu-ray being technologically superseded in 5-10 years is hardly surprising by itself.

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.

Re:What the fuck?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I fucking dare you to make those two thoughts form a coherent sentence.

Sure: Blu-Ray to be superseded in five year so Samsung is investing in display production capability instead; Samsung is backing OLED in that field.

An Observation From A Big Music Fan

[pandrijeczko]

I don't claim to be a huge film or TV buff, there's a few movies and TV series I enjoy, I own a mid-range widescreen TV but could give two hoots about the occasional bit of blockiness on the screen or surround sound. If people do want top quality movie and TV entertainment, then good luck to them.

But as a music fan, it's always struck me as really strange how, in the video world, everything is moving to High Definition and Blu-Ray yet in the music world, many people seem to want lower quality compressed music downloads rather than shiny CD disks.

I've spent as much on a reasonably good hifi as a lot of other people spend on video equipment and I *really really* don't get what is the big deal with compressed music - sure, I use MP3s of my collection on a portable player for travelling and the gym but I don't see how someone who buys compressed music can be classified as a music fan when a "movie buff" is never going to be taken seriously unless he/she has got a huge TV, cable, surround sound, etc.

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:I only just now bought a DVD player.

[MyLongNickName]

I won't tell you about my 8-track player then, I guess... The Partridge Family collection came with it.

Still too much compression

[Animats]

We do need more data storage capacity for HTDV, because even with Blu-Ray, there's too much compression. That's the cause of the usual annoying artifact that moving objects are blurred at the edges and stabilize a few frames after they stop moving.

Displays are currently ahead of transmission and storage. Right now, LCD displays are capable of 1080p at frame rates into the 70Hz range, and some game consoles can output imagery approaching that range. But the data rates from most video media can't get up there yet.

"Digital cinema", as seen in theaters, currently comes in 1080x2048 (compared to the 1080x1920 of HTDV), which digital cinema people call "2K", and 2160x4096, or "4K". But their frame rates are low, 24 FPS normally, 48FPS at best. The number to shoot for is slightly above 70; Showscan established in tests years ago that humans can't tell the difference between 70FPS and higher rates, and there really is a noticeable improvement in audience reaction between even 48 FPS and 70 FPS. So we should probably be going for 72FPS.

The future of storage and transmission may be FrameFree compression. This is a combination of motion detection and morphing for image interpolation. When it works well, the frame rate is effectively limited only by the display and decompression technology. It also allows generating slow motion video from regular video, and is used for that in sports applications.

So there's the market target: 4K, 72FPS display, framefree compression, a 150 inch screen, a Super Bowl stream with enough bandwidth, and a case of beer.