Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Blu-ray Gone In Five Years, Samsung Claims

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the oh-great-now-you-mention-it dept.

Data Storage 554

schliz writes "Samsung expects Sony's Blu-ray technology to be superseded within five years, despite winning the high-definition format war in February."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

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

PS3 (4, Funny)

hellfish006 (1000936) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876197)

Does that mean the PS3 isn't future proof?

Re:PS3 (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876687)

Hell, the PS4 isn't future proof. And it doesn't even exist yet.

Re:PS3 (5, Funny)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876743)

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

Re:PS3 (0)

wtfispcloadletter (1303253) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876789)

future proof of what though?

Re:PS3 (2, Informative)

slashgrim (1247284) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876855)

Does that mean the PS3 isn't future proof?

1) Sony brags about a 10yr lifespan.
2) The PS3 has been out for 2yr
3) According to Samsung Blu-ray will be "superseded" in 5yr
4) So, the PS3 will be "superseded" 7rs into life
5) But just because a better tech comes out doesn't mean they'll stop selling PS3s. PS2 has been selling strong for the last 2 years with no signs of letting up.
6) I bought a PS3 for a Linux CELL dev box. So I don't care either way :)

ehh.. (5, Interesting)

nuclear305 (674185) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876213)

The article starts out saying Blu-Ray will be superseded within 5 years and then goes on to talk about OLED technology with absolutely no mention of what might supersede blu-ray?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

Gunnut1124 (961311) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876261)

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

Re:ehh.. (5, Funny)

Drooling Iguana (61479) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876867)

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

Re:ehh.. (4, Insightful)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876347)

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.. (4, Interesting)

shawn(at)fsu (447153) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876545)

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.. (3, Insightful)

roblarky (1103715) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876853)

But consider the grand scheme. Blockbuster can re-use the flash devices as the studios would have a data stream to the stores where the movies can be loaded onto the old Disaster Movie flash drives.

Re:ehh.. (2, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 6 years ago | (#24877017)

Why would I go to Blockbuster to rent a movie on a flash drive?

Blockbusters HQ -> internet -> local Blockbuster -> flash drive
Home -> car drive -> local Blockbuster -> car drive -> Home (x2 because you have to return the damn flash drive)

Why shouldn't people do this instead:
Blockbusters HQ / iTunes Store / etc -> internet -> Home

Be aware there's going to be DRM on the movie in both cases (to prevent copy/to expire the movie once the rental period is over), so there's really no point talking about it.

Re:ehh.. (4, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876629)

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

Re:ehh.. (5, Interesting)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876939)

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.. (0, Offtopic)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 6 years ago | (#24877043)

I pity the guy who was still playing with an Atari 2600 in 1988.

Intellivision and Colecovision were much better!

Re:ehh.. (5, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876633)

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.. (1)

Chaos Incarnate (772793) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876727)

While it hasn't done so for audio, because the two post-CD audio formats died due to a war similar to the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray one, it seems to me that DVD has superseded CDs as far as computer software goes. (And it superseded them for console games years ago.)

Re:ehh.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24876757)

Have you bought a computer recently that doesn't have a DVDRom drive? If so, go pay $25 for one, as they are cheap. I'd say they're superseded CDs - maybe not for music, because that's based on the music industry's usage, but for everything else. If anyone still stores data on CDs they need to realize they're wasting more time+money than if they used a single DVD.

Re:ehh.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24876819)

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

In most areas where it competes, it has. For archiving, movies and general data storage it has.
The cost of the media is almost the same as is the cost of the hardware itself.

The only area where DVD hasnt replaced CD is for audio, partly because DVD Audio is very little/no improvement over CD and both are being replaced by MP3 & other media formats.

Re:ehh.. (4, Insightful)

Duncan Blackthorne (1095849) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876703)

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.. (3, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876793)

BluRay movies push 20+ gigs of storage. The cheapest 16 GB flash drives are like $40-$50 aren't they? And that won't even hold the movie.

A blank BluRay disc probably costs around $1 I'd guess, and they can go multi-layered.

It will be years and years before flash storage drives will be cheaper than an optical disc, but the nice thing is that discs scratch were as flash drives hold up quite well (even through washing machines).

And they use 3-4GB of that storage (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24876911)

Whoop.

Re:ehh.. (5, Insightful)

45mm (970995) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876971)

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.. (1)

yankeessuck (644423) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876723)

I believe cost is going to be the prohibitive factor there. It oughta be a whole lot cheaper to manufacture a BD disc than it is to for a flash drive. Maybe someone with the numbers can provide some insight.

Re:ehh.. (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876849)

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.

More like ... "insert your (authorized by MPAA) storage device into your (authorized and locked down) media station, wait for the authentication and DRM layers to churn away, enter the number of viewers and pay for each present person and their Viewer ID, and then watch latest movie."

The way it's going, the DRM will be a lot more cumbersome, and the *AA's will have made sure you can't buy a device of playing a movie without a blood oath and a retinal scan to verify that you have a legit copy which has been duly paid up to be viewed today. Any subsequent thing is going to be more locked down than only requiring HDMI cables for instance.

Cheers

Re:ehh.. (1)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 6 years ago | (#24877001)

The Government cannot keep drugs and illegal immigrants out of the country, what makes you think they can keep DRM free media players out of the country?

Re:ehh.. (1)

mc900ftjesus (671151) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876937)

Not a chance, an optical disc is many times cheaper to manufacture. Reducing profit margins to use a different medium of no real benefit is dumb and bad business. Flash will NEVER be cheaper than optical, ever, ever, ever, ever. It's simply too complicated in comparison.

I'm pretty sure he meant online services. If my copy isn't in my hand, I'm not buying. If we're talking about anything but music or movies, I'll play ball, but the **AA's are worse than the mafia and I don't trust them one bit. Plus, who wants to pay every time they watch a movie?

Re:ehh.. (2, Informative)

flogger (524072) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876999)

Stick a flash drive in and watch a movie? You mean like "Ghostbusters?" [slashdot.org]

Re:ehh.. (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 6 years ago | (#24877007)

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

Much as I'd like to see 32-64G flash drives selling for a buck or so, I can't see it happening even in 5 years.

Re:ehh.. (1)

recharged95 (782975) | more than 6 years ago | (#24877027)

"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."

Already happening... [boingboing.net]

It's very likely a disruptive technology will affect the storage industry in the next 5-8 yrs. And we'll be hitting another tech boom as well (since the current web2.0 is finally dying down...)

Re:ehh.. (1)

eggnoglatte (1047660) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876915)

Well, the author of the article was clearly smoking something good, but there are a lot of people in the industry who believe that BlueRay will be the last physical media format for movie distribution.

All signs point towards live streaming. This would allow movie distribution to finally fully switch to a rental model, something the big studios have really wanted for ages. So as soon as the bandwidth is available to move the whole industry to online streaming, I have no doubt that the content providers will jump on it. Will that happen within 5 years? Maybe, maybe not. But it will happen eventually.

Article dosen't make much sense. (5, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876217)

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. (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876427)

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. (4, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876625)

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

Re:Article dosen't make much sense. (2, Insightful)

Gewalt (1200451) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876803)

...can you even buy a blu-ray movie for 50$? I don't really see blu-ray replacing dvd in movie sales unless blu-ray becomes cheaper. Last time I checked (admittedly, this was a while ago) blu-ray was still twice as expensive as dvd. I have no interest in buying an HDTV, so blu-ray has absolutely nothing for me. Except added cost, of course.

Re:Article dosen't make much sense. (3, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876857)

We're closer than you think. You can buy a BluRay drive for $140.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&SubCategory=598&N=2010100598&SpeTabStoreType=1 [newegg.com]

The way I see it, I bought a PS3 for $400. At the time, the comparable XBox 360 was $350. I got a BluRay player with the PS3 by spending the $50 extra.

The nice thing about the PS3 is that it has built in wifi, and I get firmware updates frequently adding all the new features before more other BluRay players get them, and it is even easier to install the firmware.

Re:Article dosen't make much sense. (2, Insightful)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876771)

I don't know, I've seen some pretty big, HD LCDs at Best Buy the other day for under a thousand, this being less than a decade after 15 inch LCD's with bad pixels costing around $4000

Actually, its easy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24876833)

I bought a cheap projector for about $1000. HD games look fabulous on it, and I have a screen area about 100" diagonally.

However, I never bothered with hi-def movies. Plain old DVDs look plenty good enough for me, even 8 feet away from that 100" screen. I just don't need Blu-ray.

Re:Article dosen't make much sense. (2, Informative)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876449)

That's it! This is the last time. I'm changing my settings to ignore articles posted by timothy. I suggest you do the same.

Re:Article dosen't make much sense. (5, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876593)

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.

Article summary: Guy smoking crack. (4, Funny)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876237)

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. (1)

hurfy (735314) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876349)

Yup, send that guy back to 7th grade english class please. Seems to have entirely skipped the part about supporting the premise you start with.

I know we don't need articles that need 20 years of education to read but a least a couple years worth would be nice.

Re:Article summary: Guy smoking crack. (0, Troll)

hurfy (735314) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876429)

ok, probably a girl i suppose.

Doesn't someone read this stuff before it gets to front page?

Seriously, what is there to discuss besides the lack of anything to discuss?

Re:Article summary: Guy smoking crack. (5, Funny)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876355)

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

Re:Article summary: Guy smoking crack. (5, Insightful)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876731)

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:Article summary: Guy smoking crack. (1)

Tiro (19535) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876511)

This would make sense if OLED screens had higher resolutions, making 1920x1080 obsolete

Re:Article summary: Guy smoking crack. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24876653)

To play the devil's advocate, though the article doesn't even hint at this, but perhaps OLED's effect on BluRay will come because the resolutions offered by OLED screens in 5 years will be much greater than BluRay can support. At that point, it could become possbile for another format to offer higher resolution than BluRay and be successful. And given Consumer's reluctance to make the jump from DVD to BluRay, if the new format doesn't try to gouge consumers, BluRay should be pretty easy to displace.

I believe it (3, Insightful)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876239)

Blu-ray has remained very expensive; if Sony can't get more market penetration - and fast - there won't be any resistance to the introduction of newer technology. Winning the war against HD-DVD will have been a Pyrrhic victory.

Re:I believe it (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876689)

Blu-ray has remained very expensive; if Sony can't get more market penetration - and fast - there won't be any resistance to the introduction of newer technology

Except that if anyone starts pushing anything newer, it'll just discourage people from buying either one. Everyone will sit back and say, "Great, another format. I guess I should wait this out and see who wins."

Clearing his desk as we speak... (4, Insightful)

Naughty Bob (1004174) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876257)

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.

Re:Clearing his desk as we speak... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876797)

I don't see why BluRay won't stay around for a while. DVD-A [wikipedia.org] , which has almost exactly the same set of listed advantages over CD that BD has over DVD, was introduced in 2008 and shows no sign of being superseded...

Re:Clearing his desk as we speak... (3, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876815)

And, by 2008, I mean 2000. Note to self: Actually read when you press preview.

Re:Clearing his desk as we speak... (1)

Naughty Bob (1004174) | more than 6 years ago | (#24877013)

I don't see why BluRay won't stay around for a while. DVD-A, which has almost exactly the same set of listed advantages over CD that BD has over DVD....

Superficially the same advantages, but Blu-Ray debuts under very different market conditions.

What with almost ubiquitous high speed wireless data transfer, storage 'too cheap to measure', and a mature download market (both legal and illegal), there's a paradigm shift underway, and it doesn't favour physical formats.

I think the guy is spot-on, I just can't believe he said it out loud. I will never get a blu-ray player, because I already have better solutions.

Re:Clearing his desk as we speak... (1)

nlgin37 (1357671) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876913)

Seriously! Who wants to buy a piece of technology thats going to become obsolete in a hurry?

Superceded by what? (4, Insightful)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876277)

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? (4, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876521)

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? (4, Insightful)

LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876557)

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? (4, Interesting)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876841)

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! (5, Funny)

BitterOldGUy (1330491) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876293)

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!

I meant INCREASING! (1)

BitterOldGUy (1330491) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876323)

My head was up my ass and it stank sooo much that I confused frequency with wavelength! My bad!

Re:I meant INCREASING! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24876621)

With "old guy" in your username, I just assumed you had a Senior Moment.

I only just now bought a DVD player. (0)

EWAdams (953502) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876295)

If a technology doesn't last more than four or five years, why bother? Regular DVD works perfectly well -- I don't particularly want to see James Coburn's pores, thank you -- and is now cheap and ubiquitous.

Re:I only just now bought a DVD player. (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876431)

DVD players have been under $30 for almost 5 years, and you just got one "now"?

Wow. I thought I was cynical.

Re:I only just now bought a DVD player. (4, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876677)

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

Re:I only just now bought a DVD player. (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876767)

Hell, 8 track is still the only format I have my Bee Gees Greatest Hits in. All I can say is thank goodness I no longer own an 8 track player.

Re:I only just now bought a DVD player. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24876699)

Cut him some slack, he just upgraded from ye olde wax & cylinder phonograph.

(how he managed to post on Slashdot via telegraph is beyond me.)

Well, Duh. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24876301)

In five years, physical formats won't mean a thing. Media Files will be downloaded if the infrastructure can keep up.

Re:Well, Duh. (2, Insightful)

Das Modell (969371) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876369)

Only a few, few places will have the necessary network speeds in five years.

Re:Well, Duh. (1)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876505)

Really? Five years sounds like an eternity in the development of net technologies.

Re:Well, Duh. (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876665)

Really? Five years sounds like an eternity in the development of net technologies.

Seems like it's leveling off to me. Things really jumped from the mid 90s to early 00s, but not as much since. I'm not seeing a 10x increase in average connection speeds in the next 5 years.

Re:Well, Duh. (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876851)

Development is not the problem. The issue is deployment.

um (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24877041)

you're crazy. A middle of the road 6 Mbit connection maxed out can download a 5GB blu-ray rip in under 2 hours. You don't think we can stream hi definition content in five years? We can do it right now.

There's a cheaper option... (4, Funny)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876305)

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

Re:There's a cheaper option... (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876953)

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

Damn the luck! And here I just had retina surgery [slashdot.org] a couple of months ago and a new high tech focusing lens implant [slashdot.org] a couple of years ago!

You guys and your hi-def monitors and blu-ray disks, being a cyborg is where it's at!

(caution: links may not be sfw)

There's a difference... (4, Insightful)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876319)

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.

SFp Cum (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24876337)

be a lot sl0ower [goat.cx]

For real (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24876433)

More than likely nothing will replace blu-ray, because we won't need big clunky optical discs to transfer our data; we will just use our gigabit internet connections or terabyte flash drives.

I in fact question whether Blu-Ray will have any mainstream success at all; the vast majority of people are probably not willing to buy all new equipment and expensive Blu-Ray discs just for a marginal increase in picture quality. So it will be a luxury item for five years before it becomes obsolete.

Misinterpretation. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24876453)

"I think it [Blu-ray] has 5 years left, I certainly wouldn't give it 10", Andy Griffiths, Samsung UKâ(TM)s director of consumer electronics, told website Pocket-lint.

I think this is a gross misinterpretation of the statement.

I think that Blu-Ray will be a huge revenue stream for the next 5 years. After that, it'll be a commodity, and will no longer be a "cutting edge" technology. And no giant electronics firm cares much about yesterday's technology, although they still sell a zillion CD players every year.

I also think that OLED will emerge in the next 5 - 10 years. If you're an electronics giant, that's where you want to go next.

Blu-Ray = LaserDisc (5, Insightful)

AmigaHeretic (991368) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876479)

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 (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24876647)

Uses Chrome to google AmigaHeretic

Surprise! An idiot who was stupid enough to buy into the dead HD-DVD format.

High five retard! You bitter tears are hilarious.

Re:Blu-Ray = LaserDisc (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876891)

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.

What the fuck? (3, Funny)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876493)

Blu-Ray to be superseded in five year; Samsung is backing OLED!

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

Re:What the fuck? (4, Insightful)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876585)

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.

New technology (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876561)

Someone may just make a better disc in 4 years. Here is the thing, it isn't about a better disc, but what that disc offers. BluRay isn't about 25 gig layers, but about 1080p, uncompressed audio, etc.

5 years from now, we'll see the first prototypes of quad HD (2160p) prototypes, but it won't mean anything for probably 10 years after that. The prototypes need to become mass manufactured, become common in the homes, and then people need to manufacture content at that resolution.

Most HD movies, CGI work, digital film, etc. is only done at 1080p. You can't put out a 2160p movie until someone starts actually producing movies at that resolution, and that isn't going to happen soon.

BluRay will have a 10 year life, or longer. If you need more storage, BluRay can add tons of layers. Sony has prototypes with 10 layers. Toshiba and other companies have also suggested they can make 10 layers or more on a disc, and some have suggested they've made 500 gig prototypes of BluRay discs.

Will someone make a disc with more storage? Yes. Will it replace BluRay in 5 years? No.

Errr.... (2, Interesting)

sunking2 (521698) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876567)

Given that this article makes absolutely no sense, here's my interpretation. Samsung sees no future in blue ray, so will not invest a whole lot of money in developing a bunch of players (which stinks because thats what we need to drive down prices). Instead they are taking that money and concentrating on OLED displays, hopeing there is more money for them in the display business than in the player business.

Makes sense (1)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876599)

The next-gen HD stuff is already in production with that new 150" panasonic that has 4xHD, and 16xHD researchers claim that will be the broadcast standard as early as 2025... so maybe leasing that equipment makes more sense than owning it if a higher-res version will be out potentially before the lease expires. (F&F from google searches)

An Observation From A Big Music Fan (5, Interesting)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876603)

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.

Re:An Observation From A Big Music Fan (1)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876763)

Simple: most people listen to music on the go, and mp3 players are cheap and allow them to do just that.

Translation: (1, Funny)

Duncan Blackthorne (1095849) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876609)

"We reject your (Blu-Ray) reality, and substitute our (HD-DVD) own. Oh, and buy our new OLED televisions, they're really really shiny!"

Obviously they think that nobody has any critical thinking skills. Gah!

Limited by the eye (5, Insightful)

Malluck (413074) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876613)

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.

When will BR-R discs be cheap? (1)

neildiamond (610251) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876617)

Seriously! That's all I want are cheap discs for backing up. I don't care about the format wars and being able to see more zits on people.

Online distribution (1)

Ctrl-Z (28806) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876631)

Isn't it likely that Blu-Ray will be superseded within five years because we will get all our content online anyway? It's already happening, and will only accelerate with larger hard drives and bigger tubes.

I have Blu-Ray, audio is amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24876651)

I love the audio improvements that Blu-Ray allows. It will definately be around for the life cycle of the PS3 which is about 10 years. After that, it will probably be some other new technology.

I have only one question: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24876759)

Why do Blu-ray players still cost over $400?

Article is crap premise is valid (1)

Lostlander (1219708) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876783)

While the article provides no substantial proof, rhyme, or reason I believe the premise is valid. With rapidly increasing capacity and rapidly decreasing size and cost flash memory may actually replace optical medias. Flash provides the convenience of small size the capacity of large disks and the speed of transfer needed to successfully play a movie at proper resolutions.

I think that flash has the capability to be easily integrated into televisions and provide all the functionality we liked of both dvd/blue-ray and VHS. It would be capable of seeking instantly(or nearly so} to any point in the video and it would be a quickly recordable media. A built in flash card reader in a tv could be used in much the same way as a VCR was except with the onscreen guide benefits of a DVR.

Is... is that a threat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24876887)

Sounds like a threat to me...

I can do that! (2, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876925)

OLED screens are on their way out because internet speeds are getting faster and cheaper every year.

Intel will fail at selling quad-core processors because Logitech just introduced an optical 4-buttons mouse with a scroll wheel and a touch pad.

Microsoft Windows Vista will start selling like hot cakes once Windows 7 is out because it's going to rain on launch day.

Wow, this IS fun! Now where's my paycheck?

If media designers and producers think (1)

FireStormZ (1315639) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876957)

The pushing a new DRM protected format on people every five years is going to *cut down* on 'piracy' I would like a little of whatever they are drinking.

The success of the CD was in its longevity, from a music media in the mid eighties to the defacto way for home users to back up data today it has lived along side the DVD for more than a decade, you know DVD the technology more than a dozen years old which still out paces Blue Ray. If anything this will drive people away from DVD/Blue Ray and onto the web for legit services (netflix) and less reputable ones.. I want to know if I am going to drop 300+ for a blue ray player it will still be relevant in a decade. Hell I'm still using my dorm room tv from 1995!

To be frank if I were on the team which designed a media format with a lifetime of less than a decade I would *not* put that on my resume.

Silly Slashdot (3, Informative)

xigxag (167441) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876981)

I've often wondered why Slashdot editors don't RTFA themselves, particularly, why they don't go back to the original source article [pocket-lint.co.uk] when it's readily available on-line. The text (not the headline) of the article makes it clear that first of all, Griffiths isn't saying Blu-Ray ONLY has five years left. He's saying it has AT LEAST five good years left, but less than ten, in his opinion. Secondly, the business about OLEDs makes it clear that the thrust of the timeframe discussion is with respect to a profit stream. That is, there are five good years of profits left in Blu-Ray, but in the future, Samsung sees OLEDs as a long-term source of profits. Which is reasonable. After all, CD players are still around, and Sammy still makes 'em, but they're not a major revenue source at this point. From that perspective, of hardware profits, they're basically dead, although from a software perspective, CDs are still the #1 media delivery mechanism.

Bribing the other side is victory? (1)

Dracos (107777) | more than 6 years ago | (#24876983)

Let's face it, Sony threw a lot of money at Blu-ray's opposition and it away.

Last I heard, DVD media and equipment was still outselling both of the "next gen" formats.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?