With all the talk going around with new breakthroughs in optical technology including the news* from down under (Swinburne University of Technology in Australia) about 5D storage which is reported to hold 10 Terabytes, which is about 2,381 single layer DVD recordable or 280 dual sided DVD+R discs. It turns out it's those little nano-particles everyone has been talking about recently.
This should be a huge breakthrough that will get all the pesky tape back-up and hard drives out of the picture permanently?
Thus my point: Data storage size and cost per GB (or Terabyte) does not matter any more. We certainly know that the application for storage is significant (optical for archive, tape for capacity) but time and time again in both business storage and consumer based buying habits the 'value' is far beyond the 'storage capacity'. This is is the the dilemma facing Blu-ray right now. The perception of value placed on different formats was really blown away with the Apple iPod. Distribution (and convenience) over storage function. Really the game changer is the architecture of distribution and retention vs. per storage capability.
This makes sense as most of us do not walk around with data storage appliances strapped to our backs for maximum storage: we choose the most convenient package for our needs. The brilliance of the iPod is it took relatively small storage, a compression audio format that reduces the size 20x or more (MP3) , a network for distribution (iStore) and a Digital management console iTunes and created a sensation based around more, not better.
Now we hard core iPod fans would be offended by "not better" right? It effectively solves the users problem with discs or other types of storage like analog audio tape (we used to call them cassette tapes ;) ) in portability and transport. Although I listened to one person on the radio discussing the days of the "boom box" and the social buzz around one at the time. Now no one gathers around the box listening to the jams: it's all on-line.
With USB flash storing up to 64GB (or more) it certainly seems a winner in the portable world but what is USB flash? It's a connector (USB) which interfaces with a computer or other storage device. USB is not the technology that makes non-volatile or " flash" memory the game-changer (and the ability to erase in small sectors). It's all about the connection, the interface cable.
Consider the fact that Micro SD is a strong contender for replacing the optical disc. Consider how it interfaces with computers. It's focus is at cell phones, "smart phones" which don't easily and conveniently interface with USB without an adapter.
I wonder what can be done with nano-particles and flash non-volatile memory. That is use electricity to change the structure of the particles instead of laser light. How will that interface? will the 'drive' become obsolete?
Solid state memory does not spin and the media and "drive" are combined.
All it has to do is plug in to the device. Or a real Apple 'Nano' = nano-particles as in a couple of Terabytes of song and video storage.
*If you want to read the original news source for the new 5 dimensional storage Reuters
No Comments »
I'm always amused when the discussion comes up about on-demand downloads and how they will replace optical media (CD-R, DVD and Blu-ray Disc) Nothing could be farther from the truth.
First let's get the Hollywood fantasy out into the open: On-demand Downloads for MPEG-2 (DVD) and MPEG-4 (Blu-ray). To understand the technology one must be aware that the MPEG formats are compression methods. Now what does that mean? It means that the data will not fit on the disc in an un-compressed form and so a method was created to squeeze the data in (compressing) by removing repeating frames (this is a simplification of the process). This creates an inferior copy of the un-compressed video but for the most part we can not tell the difference. There are "artifacts" that are created and if you understand how the compression method works you can see them in a DVD. Blu-ray is much more refined and looks far better, stunning in fact.
What does this have to do with on-demand downloads?
The Internet also has compression methods: the one most people are aware of is MP3 or MPEG-1 layer 3.
This is a lossy compression algorithm that creates an inferior copy of a audio file. It essentially clips the highs (and lows) of a audio recording, similar to what radio stations use to conserve power in broadcasting.
That means it sounds bad unless you blew out your eardrums with those little buds.
Now if you have ever downloaded MP3 or listened to streaming audio you would be very much aware of the buffering issue (even with a high speed connection). Now if like me you also like to look at video clips on line you would observe a similar phenomena. Now imagine trying to squeeze 4.3 GB (or 25GB+ for blu-ray)
(instead of a couple of megabytes file). LOL you might never finish downloading that "DVD Movie"
So what does the "on-demand" crowd come up with: Oh let's compress it more so it looks like a VHS (or more like MPEG-1, used for video CDs).
So now you get a very poor copy of a video... Just think what happens to a high def video? There is no point to on-demand downloads unless you are looking at a movie on your cell phone (I'm not going there).
High fidelity and the Internet as we know it today do not mix. Now if everyone started downloading full length movies on a large scale (has not happened to date) the pipeline would slow down to the speed of a very slow turtle. Even now people complain about the draw on resources that U Tube puts on network systems (a 3 minute video).
Now where did this all start?
Apple came up with a plan...
Not that others had tried the same thing....
But Apple was able to bring it all together and package it well. Actually they packaged two things very well...
The iPod
...and iTune, digital download and management system for both the desktop, laptop or iPOD, double barrels...brilliant (I hate Steve ;) )
I remember opening one that had been given to me as a gift. It just broke my heart to break open the packaging (and as all the Macs I have owned had the same Aura around them....). I did mention I hate Steve ;)
OK I had one from John Sculley's rein (I actually liked him and his vision (powerPC all the way!!!) of course contrary to the course that was taken, Steve did not consult with me so he got stuck with the iPodand iTunes I could have saved him from this foolish mistake :D
Now why the sarcasm and all that? Because Steve Jobs was brilliant. He was able to overcome several marketing issues with the related and unrelated elements and sprinkle some magic dust and the darn thing glimmers glossy white with some minimalist graphics on it. I use PC's with MS stuff and Linux now. I have found them more economical...I may have owned more macs that most people out there. I know some of you out there still are holding onto your Apple II and LISA. Of course from that came the Mac (darn Steve again, not listening to me).
I digress.
Convience ruled over High Def.
People sacrificed quality for convenience.
I did mention I own and use my iPod?
So I'm not pointing fingers.
I also happen to own several CD players and recording systems and DVD... have not gone Blu-ray yet. I'm a recordable man. Got to have Blu-ray recordable. It's here but very expensive for poor folk like me. Discs offer an excellent off-line storage method. I can store a bunch of home movies on my hard drive for quick access and watching "on-demand". I have tried streaming it across my network but it looks like it may need gigabyte ethernet to move it fast enough.
There was an attempt to bring forward DVD-Audio (because CD actually is ...how do I say this? "compressed".. Although to most of us it's hard to tell the difference and it adds to the overhead of the track)
At any rate that's all audio discussion. Video and High Definition is something different. Will be choose a better quality image or the convenience of on-demand (if it were possible on a wide scale) with the same or better quality? I believe that people will choose quality over convenience in the video market (there will be some niche video like we see now on the Internet, that certainly will not go away). I say this because unlike audio the trend has been towards bigger and bigger screens even before LCD and Plasma. That being said I think the cable companies with a hard line to the subscribers could pull something off but that's not really the Internet, more the internet or wide area network. I think the Internet video scene will evolve into a Indie oasis. It certainly is on it's way now. I think that is where it rules as a means of marketing music and video with the understanding that it's not the High Def version. Like listening to the radio. You want to collect the inferior quality video or audio or the high definition ...
No Comments »
