http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/ Engadget Comments for TDK: Ok, we're done with the 200GB recordable Blu-Ray http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/
Blu-Ray was designed as (a) a recordable technology and (b) expandable from the beginning.

Afer all, the very first BD set-top-boxes functioned only as recoreders (like VHS, but... er... BD). DVD was a read only format from the get-go, and DVD+-R/RW were really just high end hacks to the format... hence them taking so long to hit.

-Pie]]>Apr 28th 2006 9:45AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/Apr 28th 2006 9:48AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/
Ok, Is this real? The cost of these babies would definitely but a huge crater on your wallet. Blue Ray hasn’t yet to win the HD wars, and theses faithful buccos are already developing Its 200GB Blue Ray cousin on crack.

I feel like there’s more publicity stunt written in the forehead of these 200 Gibby mommas, than being the real thing. I'm getting kind of tired with this HD war anyway. Why can’t you people just get along?


Alexander Wunderlich]]>Apr 28th 2006 9:54AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/Apr 28th 2006 9:55AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/Apr 28th 2006 9:55AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/

yeah they are biund to be expensive, plus the cost of the drives and drives that can record on blu-ray.
hey what about the possiblilty of a blu-ray hdd?]]>Apr 28th 2006 9:57AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/Apr 28th 2006 9:59AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/
Good job to TDk though!]]>Apr 28th 2006 10:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/
]]>Apr 28th 2006 10:36AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/Apr 28th 2006 10:48AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/Apr 28th 2006 10:48AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/
blue ray started out stating that normal discs would hold 40-80GB.]]>Apr 28th 2006 10:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/Apr 28th 2006 11:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/Apr 28th 2006 11:09AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/
Money + time in burning a disc that large would not be fun to waste!]]>Apr 28th 2006 11:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/
The Single Layer Blu-Ray disc is 25GB. A Dual Layer is 50GB.

HD-DVD at Single Layer is only 15GB. The dual layer is 30GB (and that, apparently, is what at least some of the movies are shipping on now).

No where was there the mention of a 40 or 80GB disc in either the BD or HD-DVD camp.

-Pie]]>Apr 28th 2006 11:30AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20060410005113&newsLang=en]]>Apr 28th 2006 11:31AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/
So do NOT develop high-capacity backup mediums is what you're saying??

-Pie]]>Apr 28th 2006 11:31AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/
Actually what he is saying is that he has no clue what he is saying because this exists in some laboratory in a bunker 50 floors below sea level. ]]>Apr 28th 2006 11:42AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/Apr 28th 2006 11:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/Apr 28th 2006 1:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/?aaa...wrong. Theres something called "___ The Complete ____ Season".]]>Apr 28th 2006 1:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/
Redundancy is key to that problem. Even for a CD, bits can be missing and then recreated from algorithms built into the format. The same concept is behind forms of RAID and you can thank deep space NASA communication in the 70's for the innovation. Depending on the level of backup, a third or more of the disk could be missing and any other regions of the disc could then recreate the damaged area. However, I am not sure the level of scratch protection going into the format. Perhaps the Blu-Ray site has that answer.
]]>Apr 28th 2006 1:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/Apr 28th 2006 1:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/
Or are they trying to stick this to data only, movies will always be capped at 50GB?]]>Apr 28th 2006 2:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/Apr 28th 2006 2:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/
I seriously didn't even realize it meant they had finalized the technology until I was nearly finished reading the article.]]>Apr 28th 2006 2:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/Apr 28th 2006 3:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/Apr 28th 2006 4:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/
All TDK media are hard-coated with Durabis, a polymer than can withstand being scratched by a SCREWDRIVER. ALL Blu-Ray Discs are hard coated (by requirement) but only some are Durabis coated, but as I said the TDK will have it for sure.]]>Apr 28th 2006 5:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/
Its not on all tdk media...at least not cd and dvd media, because can i scratch a tdk disk(or ANY disk for that matter) with my fingernail. Last time i checked, my fingernails are softer then steel.]]>Apr 28th 2006 6:30PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/
"Traditional" Blu-ray discs hold 25GB per layer. This new disc (to be pedantic, it isn't technically Blu-ray since it isn't part of the current spec; same goes for JVC's hybrid Blu-ray/DVD disc) holds 33GB on each layer; hence six layers for 200GB.

This bump in layer capacity makes me doubt that any announced Blu-ray player could play these 200GB discs. It's also using a substrate with different optical properties that existing players won't be tuned for.]]>Apr 28th 2006 6:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/Apr 28th 2006 11:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/Apr 29th 2006 9:40AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/Apr 29th 2006 4:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/
HD-DVD is less expensive but that's like the only good thing about HD-DVD. It's time that we breake from this old things and move on. Blu-Ray is the next step. A Blu-Ray disc can store like 25 GB at one side and HD-DVD only 15 GB. You have to make a dual-layer HD-DVD to store more data then you can on a singe layer Blu-Ray so I don't understand why people are so excited about HD-DVD in the US. Ok, I don't like sony either but that will not stop me from getting one of their Blu-Ray players. And why choose 15 GB and you can choose a disc that can store 25 GB on each layer? I don't realy see the reason for it. Soon 15 will be feel too small and we need to move on the another format. And to be honest, 15 GB already feels too little for me at least. When I finaly get my hands on a Blu-Ray burner I will be able to burn all my files on a few disks which will be wonderful.

So why choose 15 GB when you can choose 25 GB? I don't see the reason.]]>Apr 30th 2006 2:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/
While I don't want to fuel the flame wars... I will point out what many have already...

BetaMax was a FAR superior format than VHS (in fact, BetaMax is still used by many studios for commercials and such), but VHS won the war.
Sony squeezes their formats too tightly, and doesn't want to play nice with the other children.

The bottom line is, Sony isn't electronic's industries messiah anymore. The walkman was cool and all, but I feel they've had some fairly mediocre products the last 15 years. The data helps prove my statement, where they've lost their grip on the electronics industry to Samsung and Panasonic, etc.
They're big head has gotten the best of them in the past, and its very possible it will again.

I'm not one to complain. I think blue-ray is awesome. Its not without its faults, but its technologically speaking better than HD-DVD.

However, I don't want to support Sony in any more of their bull-shit industry squabbling. They need to play nice or get the fuck out. Play dirty with the ps3 or with their slave labor, but don't fuck with the public and be stubborn about your format. It hurts your company and the consumers.

Yeah, I might be biased... but Sony has fucked me too many times (without the common courtesy of a reach-around).

Fuck me one, same on you.
Fuck me twice, shame on me.

Fuck me for 15 years... get the fuck out.

]]>May 2nd 2006 3:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.edhardyclub.com/]]>Dec 4th 2009 7:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/
I really appreciate your help.

http://chat.iraq-4ever.com]]>May 19th 2010 7:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/28/tdk-ok-were-done-with-the-200gb-recordable-blu-ray/
50 Terabytes

google it

]]>Apr 16th 2007 12:18AM