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!

GE Developing 1TB Hologram Disc Readable By a Modified Blu-ray Drive

timothy posted about 5 years ago | from the sooner-is-better dept.

Data Storage 238

Globally Mobile writes "The Register has this article concerning GE's announcement that it has been developing a 1 terabyte DVD-size disk that can be read by a modified Blu-ray player. Peter Lorraine, GE's lab manager, talking at an Emerging Tech conference last week, said that license announcements could be expected soon. He also mentioned the notion of disks having the capacity of 100 Blu-ray disks, implying a 2.5TB or even 5TB capacity, gained by increasing the number of layers used for recording. The discs will be used for high-end commercial niches initially and then migrate to consumer markets in 2012-2015. Also here is a video of the technology explained. Wish we could see this sooner! Reminds me of the technology that Bowie's character came up with in The Man Who Fell to Earth."

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

Well (3, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | about 5 years ago | (#29607881)

Great, I haven't still even got a normal bluray player. Nor did I get HD-DVD. Seems like I might just skip it and wait for the modified player that supports this.

Re:Well (3, Insightful)

jdgeorge (18767) | about 5 years ago | (#29608161)

Great, I haven't still even got a normal bluray player. Nor did I get HD-DVD. Seems like I might just skip it and wait for the modified player that supports this.

Yeah, I got a PS3, too. Who wants a "normal" Blu-ray player?

"Informative".... Nice.

Re:Well (2, Interesting)

oldspewey (1303305) | about 5 years ago | (#29608357)

I find I'm "skipping a generation" in many technologies: Operating systems, storage standards, gaming consoles, etc.

Re:Well (5, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 5 years ago | (#29608487)

I find I'm "skipping a generation" in many technologies: Operating systems, storage standards, gaming consoles, etc.

Parents cut off your allowance again?

Re:Well (3, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 5 years ago | (#29608829)

I see little reason to "upgrade" during this generation too. For one, everything is very expensive for small gains, in order to really "enjoy" Blu-Ray you have to buy an -expensive- player, for me I'd have to buy an expensive HD TV, and the disks themselves are expensive. Yeah, if you are buying a new TV and everything it makes little sense not to upgrade, but if you are like just about everyone else who has everything working why pay $$$ and upgrade? Sure, HD has a better picture quality, but not $1000+ worth of it, plus, I can rent DVD movies for $1 a night, I can't rent Blu-Ray that cheaply. I didn't get any current gen game consoles save for the Wii until recently because at the start they all sucked and the Wii was the only one that started with a decent price. The 360 was too unreliable in the first few motherboard revisions (RRoD) and the PS3 until about a month or two ago was -far- too expensive. Vista was inferior to XP and cost extra so I didn't upgrade my XP box to Vista. And to be perfectly honest, I don't need a lot of data backed up, my music is redundantly backed up on various MP3 players over the years and audio CDs, I don't have a huge picture collection so most pictures are still on my 4 gig SD card, and anything else needed to be backed up fits nicely on a standard DVD. I don't need to spend $2 on Blu-Ray disks and more for a drive when I only need a few gigs of things backed up.

Re:Well (2, Insightful)

iamhassi (659463) | about 5 years ago | (#29608629)

"I find I'm "skipping a generation" in many technologies:"

trust me, you're not missing anything. Seems nothing has changed, they just take the same old stuff and slap a new coat of paint on it. Guess Hollywood isn't the only ones who have run out of new ideas.

Re:Well (4, Funny)

WED Fan (911325) | about 5 years ago | (#29609135)

I find I'm "skipping a generation" in many technologies: Operating systems

So you went from ME to Vista? Sap!

Re:Well (1)

Korin43 (881732) | about 5 years ago | (#29608379)

But how else will you transfer large files?? Clearly optical disks are the best way!

Re:Well (3, Insightful)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | about 5 years ago | (#29608699)

If you put a thousand of these in the back of a VW bug and drove it from California to New York....

to be correct here (2, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | about 5 years ago | (#29608453)

This is actually Bluray 1.0. There were experiments being done involving multi layer discs way before bluray. [wikipedia.org] Sony is the one who dictated the 50GB size for the discs for consumers (25GB for data). Bluray discs themselves can hit considerably higher.

Meanwhile, who knows what kind of DRM will be put on this crap as it's supported by all your favorite media dinosaurs.

Can someone find the old slashdot article about petabyte holographic storage? I don't remember how far back it was, but talking about hundreds + layer holographic storage basically.

Re:to be correct here (5, Insightful)

iamhassi (659463) | about 5 years ago | (#29608935)

"Can someone find the old slashdot article about petabyte holographic storage? I don't remember how far back it was, but talking about hundreds + layer holographic storage basically."

Every year there's another "hundreds of layers of storage" article, and we're still sitting here with dual layer DVDs. By the time we see terabyte discs we'll probably all have petabyte hard drives. I remember them talking about blu ray in the 90s, with the prototype arriving in 2000. [wikipedia.org] Back when we had 6gb drives the idea of 50gb discs was amazing, but they dragged their feet so bad creating a standard that by the time it reached market we all moved on to terabyte hard drives. Blu ray burners are still too damn expensive [newegg.com] , costing five times ($160 vs $30) more than a DVD burner costs. And once you have one then what? Pay $3 to $7 for each BD-R disc? [newegg.com] No thanks, even at $3 for 25gb that's $120 per terabyte, 50% more than a 1 terabyte hard drive [newegg.com] .

So forgive me if I don't get all excited every time they announce a new high capacity disc format because they haven't fixed the one they have out now.

Gonna have to buy another copy of (2, Funny)

wiredog (43288) | about 5 years ago | (#29608503)

the White Album.

Re:Gonna have to buy another copy of (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | about 5 years ago | (#29608545)

and Dragon's Lair

Re:Well (1)

inertia@yahoo.com (156602) | about 5 years ago | (#29608575)

I'm not sure I understand. Could you use a car analogy?

Re:Well (1)

Translation Error (1176675) | about 5 years ago | (#29608607)

There's always something better around the corner.

GE (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29607891)

Reminds me of the technology that Bowie's character came up with in The Man Who Fell to Earth .

Yeah but the Man Who Fell to Earth wasn't illegally dealing with the fucking Iranians.

Re:GE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29608179)

Silly troll - Doc Brown was played by Christopher Lloyd, not David Bowie! Besides, GE has no link that I'm aware of to the DeLorean Motor Company that I'm aware of.

Maybe I'm missing something...

Re:GE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29608527)

Doc dealt with the Libyans.

Re:GE (0, Offtopic)

Rip Dick (1207150) | about 5 years ago | (#29608735)

I like how Doc donned a bulletproof vest after reading Marty's letter from the past. He was pretty confident that they wouldn't aim for the head/legs/groin. Also, he apparently wasn't too concerned about the rocket launcher they were toting through the roof of their mystery machine van...

Re:GE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29608353)

Well, if you want to expand on the entire thought process, there were probably rules on his homeworld against giving technology to the natives that he was breaking anyway.

I would have thought (4, Insightful)

MikeyinVA (1450809) | about 5 years ago | (#29607919)

that by now, DVD-DL would come down in price. Regular DVD-Rs, I can find them for $0.30 or less each but DVD-DLs are still $1.60 each. With Blue-ray and all this advancing technology, the industry is still strangling the consumer for DVD-DLs.

Re:I would have thought (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29607997)

Don't even ask about the price for DV-DA. .... (I blame Trey Parker for warping my brain.)

It would be nice if you (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29608399)

used the subject as a short summary of your post, rather than the informationless beginning of your comment.

I agree (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29608721)

No, wait, I think I got this backwards.

Re:I would have thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29608413)

You haven't been looking hard enough. The prices are in flux, I just picked up a 25 spindle of DVD+R DL discs for about $0.70 each.

Re:I would have thought (1)

PRMan (959735) | about 5 years ago | (#29608559)

I just got a 5-pack for $5.

Re:I would have thought (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 years ago | (#29608615)

DVD-DL has largely been ignored due to DVD shrinkers and splitters.

Seriously though, you can get verbatim DVD-DL for $1 or less per disc if you buy spindles, just look more carefully. Note that Verbatim is almost the only brand worth buying if you expect to be able to read the discs for any length of time. Or at least it was a few months back when I did my last spate of research and disc buying. I'll buy whatever for day use; I buy Memorex for medium-term use and Verbatim for storage and long-term use. YMMV, I guess.

Re:I would have thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29608977)

This year I've picked up 110 DL-DVDs for ~$.30/ea. 60 of those were 10 packs at $3.75/ea and the rest were a 50 pack for $13. There are plenty of good DL deals around if you look. And the regular DVD-Rs go for about ~$.10/ea in bulk.

Remix (5, Interesting)

Wowsers (1151731) | about 5 years ago | (#29607943)

How many MB will be wiped out by a pathetically small scratch on the disk? Remember the promises made of audio CD's?

Re:Remix (5, Funny)

SHaFT7 (612918) | about 5 years ago | (#29608037)

1TB discs? Now OSes can be even BIGGER!

Re:Remix (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | about 5 years ago | (#29608061)

I realize you're joking, but Can != Should.

Re:Remix (4, Insightful)

gnick (1211984) | about 5 years ago | (#29608257)

"Can != Should" is pretty well agreed upon here.
"Can == Will" is an unfortunate reality in most cases...

Re:Remix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29609101)

Yes, but imagine a 1TB Linux release... Ubuntu may be on to something here...

Re:Remix (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29608249)

Pretty soon you'll be able to store your entire porn collection on a 1 pedobyte disc.

Re:Remix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29608359)

Pedobyte? I don't want data that prays on children. D:

Re:Remix (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 5 years ago | (#29608523)

Pretty soon you'll be able to store your entire porn collection on a 1 pedobyte disc.

Pedobytes of porn? Mist be kiddy porn, then.

Re:Remix (1)

Yamata no Orochi (1626135) | about 5 years ago | (#29609099)

Pedobytes of porn? Mist be kiddy porn, then.

thatsthejoke.jpg

Re:Remix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29609033)

Ubuntu still fits on a good old CD.

Re:Remix (1)

mindstormpt (728974) | about 5 years ago | (#29609185)

And games, you can just hear the publishers: "But games nowadays need so much content that we'll have to increase prices to 120â".

Re:Remix (2, Informative)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | about 5 years ago | (#29608145)

If it is being used for audio/video applications, scratches would be no more damaging on this super HD disc (10,080p!) than a regular Blu Ray or DVD. If you are using it for data storage... I have bad news for you...

Error Correction (4, Insightful)

ThrowAwaySociety (1351793) | about 5 years ago | (#29608367)

How many MB will be wiped out by a pathetically small scratch on the disk? Remember the promises made of audio CD's?

With well-designed error correction, nothing. Enough error correcting data would be distributed all around the disc to recover from localized scratches.

Re:Error Correction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29608947)

EXACTLY!

This is the reason why this disc is such a big deal.
The redundancy this thing offers is a very attractive thing to me.
No more "oh the disc is scratched, my games screwed now"

Combined with the tough Blu-ray coating TDK made and the scratch problem just disappears.

Re:Remix (4, Informative)

Chyeld (713439) | about 5 years ago | (#29608463)

So do what most people do and dedicate a portion of the disk(s) to some form of error correction [sourceforge.net] data.

Re:Remix (2, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | about 5 years ago | (#29609119)

So do what most people do and dedicate a portion of the disk(s) to some form of error correction data.

You sure do have a funny definition of "most people".

Re:Remix (3, Interesting)

john83 (923470) | about 5 years ago | (#29608479)

How many MB will be wiped out by a pathetically small scratch on the disk? Remember the promises made of audio CD's?

You're assuming that in order to fit more data on the disc, they've just shrunk CD technology. That's not the case. Holographically stored data are spatially distributed. I'm not sure exactly how they handle damage, but I think a "pathetically small scratch" would have a pathetically small effect on the replay.

Re:Remix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29608921)

Ah, as ever, the computer science solutions pretty much anyone who posts here should know already are getting modded up, while the above comment based on some actual knowledge of the technology is left untouched. I don't know why I read this site any more.

Re:Remix (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | about 5 years ago | (#29608511)

So add parity. Even if you added 50% parity, that'd still be a decent amount of information on each disk, enough to back up every photo I've ever taken and some video.

Re:Remix (1)

AP31R0N (723649) | about 5 years ago | (#29608641)

With that much space they could have software that automagically stores some parity bits somewhere else. Or write the data twice. If you are storing 100 GB (a shit ton) you could write it on the disc about 10 times.

Or have a backup. i'd use these disks as a backup, rather than primary storage.

Re:Remix (1)

stms (1132653) | about 5 years ago | (#29608879)

Why would you need to worry about disk scratches? With this kind of size you can put one in your drive and not need to remove it for years depending on your data usage.

Off-site backup? (2, Interesting)

moogoogaipan (970221) | about 5 years ago | (#29607979)

I might be able to use it for off-site backup. As long as it can hold data for 3 years, I am good. Hopefully it doesn't cost 5K per disc.

Re:Off-site backup? (2, Insightful)

localman57 (1340533) | about 5 years ago | (#29608533)

Aw, crap. Now it's just a matter of time before someone asks the "How do I archive data forever" question. Again.

Tb or TB or TiB? (2, Insightful)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 5 years ago | (#29607995)

The title is confusing. Are these Tb or TB?

Re:Tb or TB or TiB? (4, Funny)

Mekabyte (678689) | about 5 years ago | (#29608079)

1 tuberculosis

Re:Tb or TB or TiB? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29608103)

TitBytes, as in how many tit pictures you can fit in the disc.

Re:Tb or TB or TiB? (2, Funny)

gnick (1211984) | about 5 years ago | (#29608285)

TriBbles. It's an unfortunate organic consumable necessary for disc production, but they're fairly easy to replicate.

Re:Tb or TB or TiB? (1)

Rip Dick (1207150) | about 5 years ago | (#29608797)

One of the great enemies of the Klingon Empire. Ah... to think of the victory songs after a successful tribble hunt.

Re:Tb or TB or TiB? (1)

Polarina (1389203) | about 5 years ago | (#29608631)

The article answers that question.
"The Register has this article concerning GE announcement that it has been developing a 1 terabyte DVD-size disk that can be read by a modified Blu-ray player."

Re:Tb or TB or TiB? (1, Flamebait)

AP31R0N (723649) | about 5 years ago | (#29608713)

Storage is always in bytes. Bits would be transmission rate (because it correlates to frequency). tFA was consistent in using TB.

Good job at pretending to be confused by a typo, though.

(if you really were confused and not being pedantic, fork over your geek'n chit so we can tear off a corner)

Re:Tb or TB or TiB? (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 5 years ago | (#29608857)

Storage is measured in bytes, communication channels in bits. The difference between 1TB and 1TiB is only about 9%. I'm guessing most people could recover that by clearing out temporary files and duplicates.

Re:Tb or TB or TiB? (1)

six025 (714064) | about 5 years ago | (#29609023)

The title is confusing. Are these Tb or TB?

Definitely a Terror-bit. Imagine the "evil bit", used by terrorists ;-)

Just in time for Windows 8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29608041)

I was beginning to worry it'd be a multi-disk install.

The Man Who Fell to Earth (4, Informative)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about 5 years ago | (#29608089)

Reminds me of the technology that Bowie's character came up with in "The Man Who Fell to Earth."

A quick reminder that the movie actually came from a novel, The Man Who Fell To Earth, by Walter Tevis.

(Movie was a moderately faithful adaptation, as such things go-- unlike some SF movies, where little is taken from the book other than the name, and--in the case of Bladerunner--not even that.)

Re:The Man Who Fell to Earth (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | about 5 years ago | (#29608363)

where little is taken from the book other than the name

There's nothing wrong with that. It improved Starship Troopers considerably.

Re:The Man Who Fell to Earth (1)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | about 5 years ago | (#29608409)

(Movie was a moderately faithful adaptation, as such things go-- unlike some SF movies, where little is taken from the book other than the name, and--in the case of Bladerunner--not even that.)

This is something I often lament, but Blade Runner is one of the few examples where the departure from the novel was a very, very good thing. Don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of PKD, but Ridley Scott's adaptation worked much better for the screen than a faithful adaptation would have. Dick's style, unfortunately, does not transfer well to the screen (the notable exception being Richard Linklater's fantastic adaptation of A Scanner Darkly).

Re:The Man Who Fell to Earth (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 5 years ago | (#29608831)

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep would have made a terrible film in a faithful adaptation but it, and The Man in the High Castle, could both work well as in miniseries format.

Someone smack the submitter/editor (1)

MartinSchou (1360093) | about 5 years ago | (#29608185)

So, what is it? 1 Tb (terabit) or 1 TB (terabyte). If you are going to fuck up your abbreviations, at least be consistent about it instead of using Tb in the title and TB in the text.

Actually I think it's the editor that needs to be hit upside the head with a terrabat (no, that's not a typo, that's supposed to be a bat made out from the ground - i.e. granite), as he probably tried to "prettify" the title.

Re:Someone smack the submitter/editor (1)

wjsteele (255130) | about 5 years ago | (#29608391)

I've got an idea... and I know it sounds unreasonable for /., but how about if you read the article and watch the video. It's quite possible that the answer is contained within one or both of them.

Bill

Skip the video...waste of time. (1)

FiloEleven (602040) | about 5 years ago | (#29608589)

The gist of the video was "there is lots of data. we are working to make a holographic disc." Completely information-free!

Re:Someone smack the submitter/editor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29608819)

What's it feel like to be angry all the time? I suppose beating your wife -er wait this is Slashdot. No woman will have you.

Silly me.

Why? (2, Interesting)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | about 5 years ago | (#29608187)

With the plummeting costs of magnetic storage, what is the point of this? I mean, optical storage is practical when you are talking about a few GB, but for multiple TB? I mean, how long would it take to burn one of those suckers, five, maybe six months? Why not just buy a cheap eSATA or USB external drive and stick it in a closet somewhere -- it's not much more expensive, lasts longer, and saves you a ton of productivity.

Industry (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 years ago | (#29608473)

The entertainment industry could use then to create 1 disk sets.
All Disney Films on one disk, for example.

Anyone where stamp data is needed for this size.
I can see a solution where you ahve an HD attached to your computer with a special addition BUS designed to push data to these devices at a high rate. Since it's direct you remove a lot of over head,. It would be expensive, but for companies dealing in petabytes of data it would probably be worth while.

Re:Industry (4, Informative)

PRMan (959735) | about 5 years ago | (#29608649)

Chinese street vendors could use them to create 1 disk sets. All Disney Films on one disk, for example.

FTFY

Re:Industry (1)

SBrach (1073190) | about 5 years ago | (#29609155)

All Disney Films on one disk, for example

And they would only charge $10,000 for it.

Re:Why? (1)

moon3 (1530265) | about 5 years ago | (#29608541)

Much bigger problem is the optical mechinery of these discs, those might be readable after 10 years, but the drives with ton of moving parts might not even last that long, at that time we would have solid state discs much more capable, anything mechanical is just a dead-end research here. More like somebody tricked GE capital investors to buy this expensive "holography" technology, I can't see anything really groundbreaking stemming from this.

Re:Why? (1)

localman57 (1340533) | about 5 years ago | (#29608581)

Because some people need large storage with shock (drop) resistance. Also, magnetic and flash media can't match optical for ROM (manufactured image) applications.

Re:Why? (1)

iYk6 (1425255) | about 5 years ago | (#29608599)

Why not just buy a cheap eSATA or USB external drive and stick it in a closet somewhere -- it's not much more expensive, lasts longer, and saves you a ton of productivity.

GE expects a 1TB disk will be $100 5 years from now. That's more than a 1TB drive costs now, by then it will be 5 times as much. So people wouldn't use these disks to save money. The only whys I can think of are that it is smaller, and maybe lasts longer. Lasting longer is tough to tell, but historically optical disks have had a longer shelf-life than magnetic media when it has adequate error correction and no DRM.

Re:Why? (1)

Ponga (934481) | about 5 years ago | (#29608605)

I see what you are saying. But at least in theory, optical media such as CD/DVD, etc *should be* much cheaper than anything like a disk drive by virtue of the material components used alone. A DVD is largely plastic, whereas a disk has electronics and finely tuned mechanics and is much more complex; the media AND the drive for that media are all-in-one whereas with DVD, you have one drive for any number of media.

Ya, I'm not sure where we are going wrong there either...

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29608731)

You are looking at it as a 'one off' of 'only need 2-3TB of data times 2'. What if you have a dataset of 15TB? Then say 20% of that changes every month and you want to do full back up for simplicity and speed? Then you maybe have legal requirements of keeping the data for say 5 years. With your scheme I would have to buy 3x12x5 TB worth of HD or about $27,000 worth of 2TB hard drives. That also assumes my dataset is not going to get bigger (fat chance). Never mind either having them all plugged in and using power for something that is rarely used. Plus a rack to keep them in even if they are off. What if you are required by law (many companies are, and it is good practice) to have offsite backups. How much does a CD weigh if I have to mail it vs a HD if I have to do the same thing?

They were talking 2-3 hours to burn 1TB of data. About the same amount of time with a real HD.

OR we could have a stack of 100-200 or so discs that take no AC to keep good. Even if the drive is say 5000 and 1 spindle of disks is 2000 I still come out way ahead.

You are looking at it in the wrong way of who this is designed for and who the early adopters will be. The rest of us will get it and your bitching?! Backup my whole data set onto 1 disk instead of 130 or so DVDs that I have now? Yeah I dont want that at all.

Re:Why? (1)

pla (258480) | about 5 years ago | (#29608811)

I mean, how long would it take to burn one of those suckers, five, maybe six months?

A 24x DVD writer commits 32MB/s. At that speed, it would take just over nine hours to write one terabyte.

However, keep in mind that the biggest limitation to write speed in optical media comes from the maximum rotation speed possible (discs tend to explode above 10k RPM) combined with the areal density. The former we can't get around without switching to something more durable than cheap polycarbonate sandwiches; the latter necessarily increases with capacity. So, a disc that holds more can write more without spinning faster. At 220x the areal density of a single sided single layer DVD, you would expect a write rate on the order of 7GB/s (once the technology matures and drive interfaces can actually sustain such a throughput).

So the short answer - Just as with CDs and DVDs, it'll probably take around an hour at first; after a few years, that will drop to a modest 2-5 minutes. And by then, we'll all complain about the uselessness of a mere terabyte disc when we have multi-petabyte primary storage devices to back up onto them.

Godsend for backups (1)

Alcimedes (398213) | about 5 years ago | (#29608263)

I would love to be able to burn backups to non-magnetic disk, and not have to use 40 of them to back up 1TB or more of data. I would hope that one of the early niches they'll look into will be backups and storage needs.

It can still lose! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29608265)

Yes Blu-Ray can still lose the format war!

Re:It can still lose! (4, Funny)

kazade84 (1078337) | about 5 years ago | (#29608385)

I think it already did... DVD is the victor.

American consumers don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29608403)

I tried to argue that you could fit whole seasons of some TV shows on one Blu-Ray disk, but the argument came back "if it ain't in HD, I'm not buying a Blu-Ray disk." So these new disks could hold entire runs of some series, but it probably won't be sold as such. Pity.

What about a burner (1)

forceofyoda (855030) | about 5 years ago | (#29608435)

Ok, so I can read a 1TB disc using a modified Blu-Ray player. I'm sure it would cost a lot more to be able to burn a 1TB disc, right?

will be (1)

nimbius (983462) | about 5 years ago | (#29608437)

Worthless if RAID overhead keeps increasing...although i wonder if holo-storage raid overhead is more or less than conventional?

No Need for DRM... (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | about 5 years ago | (#29608467)

If you can't even fit the disk on your hard drive to rip it! It's all part of a devious scheme to make backup copies impossible to do *puts tinfoil hat*.

Re:No Need for DRM... (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 5 years ago | (#29608639)

Actually, the useful content will be not much more than on Blu Ray. The rest of the space will be used for the excessive DRM.

Re:No Need for DRM... (1)

HogGeek (456673) | about 5 years ago | (#29608687)

I suspect few geeks have less that 1Tb (or is it 1TB) of disk space...

Personally, I have over 21 Tb in 6Tb, 6Tb, 4Tb, and 5Tb increments...

*Yawn* (4, Interesting)

Urza9814 (883915) | about 5 years ago | (#29608475)

Wasn't there a company promising this exact same technology about ten years ago? I've found articles from 2005 talking about a holographic disc from InPhase, and I seem to recall hearing about another company working on something similar even earlier than that, though I can't recall the name of it...what I do recall is hearing something along the lines of the company shutting down several years ago.

Re:*Yawn* (2, Insightful)

QuantumRiff (120817) | about 5 years ago | (#29608827)

Its like Nuclear Fusion.. The technology of Tomorrow, and always will be!

$ Better Spent Elsewhere (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29608495)

I see portable disk based storage for the most part going the way of the dinosaur. With computers having ever increasing capacity and more devices having internal hard drives, throughput is going to become more important. Why put anything on a disk when you can download it from your home server using your cell phone anywhere in the world? That's the technology worth researching.

On a side note, this is still impressive. If they find a way to make these disks/drives faster, more reliable, and somehow overtake magnetic disks as new hard drive technology I think they would be much more valuable than they are as a new type of DVD/Blu technology. I just have a hard time seeing the laser/spinning disk method going there.

No moving parts, please! (2, Interesting)

Fishbulb (32296) | about 5 years ago | (#29608633)

Everything I'd heard about holography and one of the most appealing and promising things about it was that it would not require, or at least minimize, moving parts. Why are they now recreating holographic media as Yet Another Spinning Disc device with parts that wear out quickly, go out of alignment, and put the media at risk of damage? A digital storage medium without moving parts could easily provide devices with unprecedented longevity.

I get the connection to make a Blu-Ray backward-compatible medium, but why lock ourselves in to a bad idea (spinning platters) for a medium that's had lackluster adoption*?

* - which I contend is almost entirely the fault of the iron grip the entertainment distribution industry has tried to impose on the digital storage industry With Great Fail.

Too late? (1)

kheldan (1460303) | about 5 years ago | (#29608653)

The discs will be used for high-end commercial niches initially and then migrate to consumer markets in 2012-2015.

Assuming the Earth doesn't end in a gigantic apocalypse and we're all still here, that is.

Ohh the Pornmanity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29608683)

Finally I can backup all my collection and more into few disks!

Someone has to say it (1, Redundant)

still cynical (17020) | about 5 years ago | (#29608781)

Looks like I'll have to buy the White Album again.

Can they be pressed? (2, Insightful)

Guysmiley777 (880063) | about 5 years ago | (#29608805)

Mass produced CDs and DVDs aren't "burned", they are pressed from masters so that the embedded metal foil layer has the correct pattern on it. This allows for very, very high speed production. Is it possible to do the same thing for these holographic discs? If not, this could be a nice backup media but won't replace DVD or Blu-ray.

The RIAA most like this (1)

Goateee (1415809) | about 5 years ago | (#29608821)

Soon I may put all relevant music ever made onto a single disk. Internet filters wont have much effect then.

Is this a related article? (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | about 5 years ago | (#29608859)

Is this related to the recent article about the government uses of computers?

versus LTO (1)

TheSync (5291) | about 5 years ago | (#29608989)

I think a big challenge to these holographic schemes is that LTO keeps ramping up, and thus an archive market for non-tape solutions never opens up. LTO-4 now holds 800 GB, and when LTO-5 comes out it wil be 1.6 TB.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?