CDTV vs CD-I, Crap CD-I Golf on Show
Gerald (Jerry) KUCH
>
> I case you're interested, I visited an entertainment fair in
>Sweden recently, and someone was displaying a Philips CD-I
>machine there. Unfortunately there were no Philips spokesmen
>present, but a golf game was running and it looked...
>...crap!
>
> Bad frame update (25/30 Hz or worse) and pale colour made
>me think the CDTV might be able to compete.
>
> Anyway, the CD-I golf game was _very_ disappointing.
And the announcers who are constantly droning on in the background while
you play... "Nice putt..." "He really seems to have missed his mark this
time..." especially the one with the aggravating Australian accent... egads...
almost enough reason to disconnect your TV's speakers...
"It looks like he's a total asshole on this putt... it's hopeless now."
No offense intended to any Australians, out there, BTW, but if you check out
the soundtrack of this game you'll probably see what I mean about the
omnipresent irritation.
>
> Anders Skelander
>
--
Jerry Kuch (je...@cs.mcgill.ca) ----- SOMETHING NEAT SHOULD GO HERE.
"I was wrong to play God. Life is precious, not a thing to be toyed with.
Now take out that brain and flush it down the toilet."
--- M. Burns "Treehouse of Horror II"
etx...@garbo.ericsson.se
I case you're interested, I visited an entertainment fair in
Sweden recently, and someone was displaying a Philips CD-I
machine there. Unfortunately there were no Philips spokesmen
present, but a golf game was running and it looked...
...crap!
Bad frame update (25/30 Hz or worse) and pale colour made
me think the CDTV might be able to compete.
Anyway, the CD-I golf game was _very_ disappointing.
Anders Skelander
Jacco de Leeuw
>In article <etxansk.718904060@garbod20> etx...@garbo.ericsson.se writes:
>>
>> I case you're interested, I visited an entertainment fair in
>>Sweden recently, and someone was displaying a Philips CD-I
>>machine there. Unfortunately there were no Philips spokesmen
>>present, but a golf game was running and it looked...
>>...crap!
>>
>> Bad frame update (25/30 Hz or worse) and pale colour made
>>me think the CDTV might be able to compete.
>>
>> Anyway, the CD-I golf game was _very_ disappointing.
Huh?! I rented a CD-I player with 7 titles, but Golf was in my opinion
very good! I demonstrated it to several people and they agreed with me
wholeheartedly! It *was* difficult to play, I admit. Could be me, of course,
I'm a terrible game player... But the digitized pictures gave it a very
realistic touch. It's just a matter of taste, I think. I am laughing when
I see the golf player in the corner of the screen (PIP, just like in a TV
golf broadcast), watching the ball in the air, and then throwing his club
on the ground in anger when it misses!!!
>And the announcers who are constantly droning on in the background while
>you play... "Nice putt..." "He really seems to have missed his mark this
>time..." especially the one with the aggravating Australian accent... egads...
>almost enough reason to disconnect your TV's speakers...
>"It looks like he's a total asshole on this putt... it's hopeless now."
>No offense intended to any Australians, out there, BTW, but if you check out
>the soundtrack of this game you'll probably see what I mean about the
>omnipresent irritation.
Huh again?! I was laughing on the floor about all these comments! Lighten up,
man! (Last saturday I saw the German version of CD-I and, I admit, it was
less fun. Somehow I accept critic in a funny Australian accent better than
in the German language ;-)
There are some *very* nice titles for CD-I (the Smithsonian for example),
I don't say that is so because CD-I is better than CDTV, it is clearly
a matter of money (which makes software). But there are also titles for CD-I
who are utterly *crap*! Have you seen Pinball? Argh! What a piece of sh*t!
Pinball Dreams (and soon Pinball Fantasies) beat it already!
(Someone ought to hire these Swedish guys, let them program more pinball
stages, make some wonderful music, and put it all on CDTV!!!!)
>>
>> Anders Skelander
>>
>--
> Jerry Kuch (je...@cs.mcgill.ca) ----- SOMETHING NEAT SHOULD GO HERE.
> "I was wrong to play God. Life is precious, not a thing to be toyed with.
> Now take out that brain and flush it down the toilet."
> --- M. Burns "Treehouse of Horror II"
--
Jacco de Leeuw | Dpt. of Computer Science | Email: le...@fwi.uva.nl
J.C. van Wessemstr. 54 | University of Amsterdam. | Fidonet: 2:512/47.347
1501 VM Zaandam, Holland <-Phone: +31-75-352068 | Evel lednewZ!
Sevilla: "$3.000.000 a year". Maradonna: "How much is that in grams?"
Michael van Elst
>I'm a terrible game player... But the digitized pictures gave it a very
>realistic touch.
Surely a matter of taste. IMHO, the game didn't look anything realistic
but rather like a collage of animated photographs. The sound was cute
in the beginning but gets annoying after some time.
On the other hand I have seen a digitized golf player on CDTV (this
wasn't a game, so the comparison is not a good one) which looked
_realistic_.
This of course has nothing to do with CDTV vs. CD-I player, it just
judges the quality of that golf game.
Regards,
--
Michael van Elst
UUCP: universe!local-cluster!milky-way!sol!earth!uunet!unido!mpirbn!p554mve
Internet: p55...@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de
"A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
etx...@garbo.ericsson.se
>In <1992Oct13.0...@fwi.uva.nl> le...@fwi.uva.nl (Jacco de Leeuw) writes:
>>I'm a terrible game player... But the digitized pictures gave it a very
>>realistic touch.
>Surely a matter of taste. IMHO, the game didn't look anything realistic
>but rather like a collage of animated photographs. The sound was cute
>in the beginning but gets annoying after some time.
To be more specific: I expected the CD-I machine's animation capabilities
to be something of a "new generation" experience, taking advantage
of the so-called "Full Motion Video" technique. I couldn't see anything
in this Golf game that did something a very slow PC computer with VGA
couldn't do.
Anders Skelander
Kevin Darling
>To be more specific: I expected the CD-I machine's animation capabilities
>to be something of a "new generation" experience, taking advantage
>of the so-called "Full Motion Video" technique.
Wait a little while. The full motion video card isn't out yet.
That Golf game was one of the very first CD-I titles ever done.
Some people love it; some don't care for it. Personal taste, obviously.
From a technical standpoint, it's interesting because the background
is a pseudo 24-bit DYUV digitized photo of a real golf course. The
golfer is overlaid in 128 colors from the second video subsystem,
using hardware masking via a Copper-like instruction stream.
As time goes by, authors get better at using the hardware; the same
as with CDTV authors. (You wanna talk about some really poor examples
of "multimedia"? :^) In any case, I think you'd agree that a person
shouldn't make broad conclusions from seeing just one title.
best - kevin <kdar...@catt.ncsu.edu>
etx...@garbo.ericsson.se
>etxansk@garbo (Anders Skelander) writes:
>>To be more specific: I expected the CD-I machine's animation capabilities
>>to be something of a "new generation" experience, taking advantage
>>of the so-called "Full Motion Video" technique.
>Wait a little while. The full motion video card isn't out yet.
Sorry, I forgot.
>That Golf game was one of the very first CD-I titles ever done.
>Some people love it; some don't care for it. Personal taste, obviously.
>From a technical standpoint, it's interesting because the background
>is a pseudo 24-bit DYUV digitized photo of a real golf course. The
>golfer is overlaid in 128 colors from the second video subsystem,
>using hardware masking via a Copper-like instruction stream.
Are there CD-I titles available that really look good? Perhaps
Philips (or whoever was showing the machine) picked a visually less
impressive game by random.
>As time goes by, authors get better at using the hardware; the same
>as with CDTV authors. (You wanna talk about some really poor examples
>of "multimedia"? :^) In any case, I think you'd agree that a person
>shouldn't make broad conclusions from seeing just one title.
Agreed.
Anders Skelander
Philip McDunnough
[ ]
>
>Wait a little while. The full motion video card isn't out yet.
Seems to me I've heard this before! In any case, these are bad economic
times and I doubt that people will spend money on high priced consumer
goods. I kind of suspect that the SNES will have the final say.
>
>That Golf game was one of the very first CD-I titles ever done.
>Some people love it; some don't care for it. Personal taste, obviously.
>From a technical standpoint, it's interesting because the background
>is a pseudo 24-bit DYUV digitized photo of a real golf course. The
>golfer is overlaid in 128 colors from the second video subsystem,
>using hardware masking via a Copper-like instruction stream.
Actually, I found it kind of neat. I didn't like Philips' controller.
>
>As time goes by, authors get better at using the hardware; the same
>as with CDTV authors. (You wanna talk about some really poor examples
>of "multimedia"? :^) In any case, I think you'd agree that a person
>shouldn't make broad conclusions from seeing just one title.
If you really want to see bad multimedia buy an MPC PC. So much hype and so
very little of substance. Both CDTV and CD-I are far about that poor excuse
of a "standard" (which I have).
I suspect that CD's will not become popular until prices become reasonable.
People are not fools. The other thing is to get away from the audio CD
specification and have these things output data at a better rate. Every
CD-ROM, CDTV, CD-I system I've seen has been too slow. Of course, nothing
I have every owned matches the disappointment I found in the so-called
MPC units. A Mac with a CD-ROM player is far better. Microsoft has probably
set back CD's by 100 years.
Philip McDunnough
phi...@utstat.toronto.edu
Kevin Darling
>Seems to me I've heard this before! In any case, these are bad economic
>times and I doubt that people will spend money on high priced consumer
>goods. I kind of suspect that the SNES will have the final say.
Or Sega -- they just intro'd their CD-ROM addon yesterday. But then,
Nintendo and Sony have announced that they'll _both_ be making SNES
compatible game/CD systems (and discs) by mid-1993.
>If you really want to see bad multimedia buy an MPC PC. So much hype and so
>very little of substance. Both CDTV and CD-I are far above that poor excuse
>of a "standard" (which I have).
Must be true... I've seen the same comment from too many others who own
both CD-I/CDTV and MPC units.
>I suspect that CD's will not become popular until prices become reasonable.
I tend to agree that the mass consumer may not understand why some
discs will have a high price. OTOH, books have similar $$ variations.
>[...] The other thing is to get away from the audio CD
>specification and have these things output data at a better rate.
Yes. But it'd have to be as cheap to make as CDs.
PS: hot unconfirmed rumor - Apple will port Kaleida's Script-X to CD-I.
Supposedly, this would mean that future titles could run on both CD-I
players and Apple's Sweet Pea player.
kevin <kdar...@catt.ncsu.edu>
Bill Sheppard
cranked up the marketing machine big time. Radio ads, TV ads, large print
ads, my housemate even received a mailing from Philips inviting him to see
CD-I at a local retailer and get $100 in free titles. That, combined with the
street price of $599 and the rapidly increasing popularity of Photo CD, I
think there may be a reasonable number of units sold for Christmas. Panasonic
is supposed to have there player out by Christmas, too.
Bill
Philip McDunnough
[ ]
>
>Or Sega -- they just intro'd their CD-ROM addon yesterday. But then,
>Nintendo and Sony have announced that they'll _both_ be making SNES
>compatible game/CD systems (and discs) by mid-1993.
As I understand it the Sega product only produces 32 (or 64?) colours. The
SNES is capable of 256 which is more realistic. Has Sega's CD addon increased
the colour capabilities of the unit? Is it Kodak Photo Cd compatible, which
is probably a requirement for the consumer.
>
[ ]
>
>>I suspect that CD's will not become popular until prices become reasonable.
>
>I tend to agree that the mass consumer may not understand why some
>discs will have a high price. OTOH, books have similar $$ variations.
$4 dollar children's books going for $40+ is not my idea of something
any consumer should consider. One only has to look at the Discis books
on the Mac/CDTV and their price to realize why people are staying away
from these products. Broderbrund and their Living Books is another example,
although to be fair their product is far better. Why on earth would someone
buy an "electronic" book for $40+ when you can get it from the library and
read it to your children at night- something which is far better in the
first place.
Another example is the excellent Mammals CD for the PC. I've seen its price
vary anywhere between $40 and $120. The CD industry has certainly not
earned my confidence and I have a pretty open mind towards these matters.
They'd better get their act together with respect to prices, or they might
as well go away and do something else.
>
>>[...] The other thing is to get away from the audio CD
>>specification and have these things output data at a better rate.
>
>Yes. But it'd have to be as cheap to make as CDs.
CD's cost very little to master now. Apple's new CD has taken a first step
towards geting away from the audio spec by using the multispin approach
found in the NEC and Sony readers. At 300kb/sec things become more interesting.
In fact I'm beginning to appreciate Apple's grasp of the issues involved
here. I think they are on the right track with their new consumer line,
especially the 600 with the built in CD reader which is Kodak Photo CD
compatible (multi-session). Price is a bit high though.
The big question, from my point of view, is what the heck is C= doing about
CDTV. They've relesed a product and freeze dried it. It has (had) real
possibilities. Now I'm beginning to wonder. They should have more colours,
better sound and a faster Kodak Photo CD compatible reader in it.
>
>PS: hot unconfirmed rumor - Apple will port Kaleida's Script-X to CD-I.
>Supposedly, this would mean that future titles could run on both CD-I
>players and Apple's Sweet Pea player.
Is Apple's Sweet Pea player yet another CDTV/CD-/VIS type device? As far
as Kaleida goes, is Script-X real?
Philip
phi...@utstat.toronto.edu
James Jones
>Well, it should be interesting - at least here in the Bay Area, Philips has
A Friday evening or so ago, I was tuned into The Learning Channel, and over
the course of the evening saw a Philips CD-I ad (with a T. rex skelton,
pinball machines, and a seal morphing into CD-I discs) run five times.
Next day it was on the Discovery Channel. My viewing habits are perhaps
unusual, and of course I don't and can't watch everything, so I don't know
where else the ad may be showing.
James Jones
Gregg Giles
>
>Has Sega's CD addon increased
>the colour capabilities of the unit? Is it Kodak Photo Cd compatible, which
>is probably a requirement for the consumer.
The Sega-CD does not increase the number of colors. As for Photo-CD, that
seems to be more of a techno-infatuist gimmick. The industry has a hard enough
time pushing CD-ROM to computer owners, so I seriously doubt you'll see Photo-CD
revolutionize the way people take pictures anytime soon. The Sega-CD does not
support Photo-CD (it does support CD-DA, CD+G, etc.)
It will be interesting to see how the entrance of CD games into the Sega
market will effect the Amiga market (if it does at all). The Amiga's ticket to
CD-ROM so far seems to be the Fred Fish discs (albeit a weak reason to buy a
$400-$600 device).
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Giles (Dynamix, Inc.) Willy Beamish Team (MSDOS CDROM, Sega-CD)
All opinions expressed are my own. Net: ggi...@cie.uoregon.edu, BIX: ggiles
>> "Illusions are painfully shattered, right where discovery starts." -Rush <<
Philip McDunnough
[ ]
>
> The Sega-CD does not increase the number of colors. As for Photo-CD, that
>seems to be more of a techno-infatuist gimmick. The industry has a hard enough
>time pushing CD-ROM to computer owners, so I seriously doubt you'll see Photo-CD
>revolutionize the way people take pictures anytime soon. The Sega-CD does not
>support Photo-CD (it does support CD-DA, CD+G, etc.)
Photo-CD is hardly a gimmick. It is one good reason for a consumer to buy a
CD-I or whatever based CD reader. Certainly, and with all due respect, Willy
Beamish is not one (and I own the PC disk based version-> silly, pure taste,
and reflects one more reason why we are having problems with education). The
Sega-CD has a really exciting lineup alright. Let's see: Mixed up Mother Goose
( which I like but can't get to work without stuttering on an MPC), other
Sierra games of questionable taste and value and WB (and hopefully others from
Dynamix). This Sega-CD reflects what I and many others perceive as a problem
with the CD industry as a whole. A bunch of fast money types with little or
no taste tring to peddle $10 products for $100.
> It will be interesting to see how the entrance of CD games into the Sega
>market will effect the Amiga market (if it does at all). The Amiga's ticket to
>CD-ROM so far seems to be the Fred Fish discs (albeit a weak reason to buy a
>$400-$600 device).
CDTV for all its faults is years ahead of anyhthing Sega has announced. The
lack of Photo-CD and/or CD-I connections has, in my opinion, doomed it to
failure. SNES's unit will have a field day with this one, and not even Sierra's
dislike of the 65816 is going to stop it. For once, it will be nice to see
them choosing the wrong platform. Then again Tandy's VIS may be a success??
Philip McDunnough
phi...@utstat.toronto.edu
Gregg Giles
>
>Certainly, and with all due respect, Willy
>Beamish is not one (and I own the PC disk based version-> silly, pure taste,
>and reflects one more reason why we are having problems with education).
Hmmm, that's it, blame the problems of education on video games. I think
it's more the fault of BAD PARENTS, but that's off the subject.
>This Sega-CD reflects what I and many others perceive as a problem
>with the CD industry as a whole. A bunch of fast money types with little or
>no taste tring to peddle $10 products for $100.
And Commodore doesn't do the same thing? And Tandy? And Philips? And Apple?
And, and, and...? First of all, I personally don't see Sega-CD taking over the
world. IMHO, there are too many parents that will refuse to buy a ~$300 device
because "Joey already has a game machine, he doesn't need another." Next, I
honestly don't see who will need to move discs between a computer and the
Sega-CD; even if you could display Photo-CD on a Sega-CD machine, what could
you do with it? (Even if there were enough colors to make them look halfway
decent).
Photo-CD may be good for computer users and photography buffs, but I can't
possibly see how it would make any difference to the Sega-CD or Nintendo's
"yes it's really coming" CD unit.
>CDTV for all its faults is years ahead of anyhthing Sega has announced.
I won't argue with that. It's an Amiga. <Grin>
>lack of Photo-CD and/or CD-I connections has, in my opinion, doomed it to
>failure.
IMHO, the price tag will hurt more. I'm really curious to see how many
people that use computers casually if they've ever heard of Photo-CD. Heck,
many still don't know what CD+G is.
>SNES's unit will have a field day with this one, and not even Sierra's
>dislike of the 65816 is going to stop it. For once, it will be nice to see
>them choosing the wrong platform. Then again Tandy's VIS may be a success??
Good thing this isn't turning into something personal. We wouldn't want to
look accusatory.
Gregory G Greene
>people that use computers casually if they've ever heard of Photo-CD. Heck,
>many still don't know what CD+G is.
I think more people will start to know about Photo-CD. I have seen
about 4 or 5 commercials on the subject this past weekend on tv. Same
with CD-I.
G.Greene
James Jones
> I think more people will start to know about Photo-CD. I have seen
> about 4 or 5 commercials on the subject this past weekend on tv. Same
> with CD-I.
I recall reading somewhere that some outrageously large fraction of film used,
or maybe even of silver used, is film for baby pictures. If only for this
reason, I think that Photo-CD will do well...especially if one can add sound.
James Jones
(not an expert on CD or on marketing, just expressing my personal opinion)
Kevin Darling
>g...@kepler.unh.edu (Gregory G Greene) writes:
>> I think more people will start to know about Photo-CD. I have seen
>> about 4 or 5 commercials on the subject this past weekend on tv. Same
>> with CD-I.
>
>I recall reading somewhere that some outrageously large fraction of film used,
>or maybe even of silver used, is film for baby pictures. If only for this
>reason, I think that Photo-CD will do well...especially if one can add sound.
I just saw a message on CIS saying that the national CD-I ads were scheduled
for the following channels: A&E, Discovery, Learning, ESPN, TBS, TNT, CNN
and major sports events between now and Christmas. Prime News will be added
soon, and local ads are planned (I've already seen one of those, saying
something like "CD-I: The Next Generation" just before Star Trek: TNG.
As for baby picutures... yes! I think that a handheld (purse storable)
Photo CD player would be a killer sell to grandmothers :-) :-)
kevin <kdar...@catt.ncsu.edu>
Philip McDunnough
[ ]
>
>I just saw a message on CIS saying that the national CD-I ads were scheduled
>for the following channels: A&E, Discovery, Learning, ESPN, TBS, TNT, CNN
>and major sports events between now and Christmas. Prime News will be added
>soon, and local ads are planned (I've already seen one of those, saying
>something like "CD-I: The Next Generation" just before Star Trek: TNG.
These marketing tricks are one of the reasons the economies of both our
countries are in serious trouble. People cannot afford $800 game machines
or whatever you want to call them. CD-I, CDTV, MPC (worst of the lot),
Performa600CD, etc...are not what people should be spending their credit
on.
I'm beginning to think that people should stick to swimming, jogging, baseball,
etc...The electronics' consumer industry has provided an extremely high
noise/signal ratio. Lot's of hype, high prices and basically useless. You'd
at least expect motion as good as a $200 VCR out of a $3000 computer. What
do you get? 256 colour GIF's.
>
>As for baby picutures... yes! I think that a handheld (purse storable)
>Photo CD player would be a killer sell to grandmothers :-) :-)
That's really low Kevin! Every grandmother would be better off opening up
a bank account for their grandchildren. People have to tell the electronics'
people that the game is up. $200 is the limit and forget the $80 games.
As it stands, the SNES will have their CD-I (32-bit processor on a cartridge
in the slot) CD-ROM out reasonably soon (say by next summer). That's a
reasonable price. Now if they'd stop charging a fortune for their games, I'd
be more sympathetic. It's becoming harder and harder to tell the difference
between the "pirate" and the "pirate".
Philip McDunnough
phi...@utstat.toronto.edu
Paul Griswold
Time.... Oh well... Maybe Commodore will someday, somehow, learn that GOOD
advertising sells, not just adverstising.
That morphing bit for CD-I is awesome!
Paul Griswold
Quote: "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the
women's movement must concentrate on attacking marriage. Freedom for women
cannot be without the aboliton of marriage." Sheila Cronen -
N.O.W. Times "The simple fact is, every woman must be willing to be recognized
as a lesbian to be fully feminine."
Think about that before you vote for Slick Willie!!!
These are the people who form his foundation.
pa...@weird.miami.fl.us
Norman St. John Polevaulter
> [Photo-CD is awesome, it's the koolest thing since sliced bread,
> everyone and their grandmother should own one, and if C= doesn't make it
> a standard option on the Amiga within the next 15 minutes they will just
> shrivel up and die like the guy at the end of "Indiana Jones and the
> Last Crusade."]
Forgive me for intruding, but... well... how can I say this?
Photo-CD is almost spectacularily useless. There, that worked.
I mean, what's the deal here? Our current system: you get a $20 camera
and some ridiculously cheap rolls of film, you snap all the pictures you
want, you bring them to the drugstore and develop them again ridiculously
cheap and then look at them whenever you want.
Now comes the Photo-CD system! With this marvelous innovation, you need to
buy a special (expensive) camera, get some weird and expensive disks to
save pictures on, and then own a $1000 bizarrely complex piece of electronics
that hooks up to your TV set (if you can figure it out) and lets you look at
your photos, only when you're at home in front of the TV! If you actually want
tangible physical photographs you have to invest another $700 or so for a
grainy color printer that will give you pictures far uglier than an ordinary
photograph. This is an improvement? I mean, technology is nice, but geez!
I'm sorry, but the whole thing just seems sort of stupid to me. Any companies
that are betting on Photo-CD's success are going to take a major bath, IMHO.
They're going to be lucky to sell even one of these albatrosses.
"Two hundredth verse, same as the first!"
[Your blood pressure just went up.] Mark Sachs IS: mbs...@psuvm.psu.edu
DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions they'd probably try to charge me for it.
Scott C. Kennedy
|> In many articles just dozens and dozens of people write:
|> > [Photo-CD is awesome, it's the koolest thing since sliced bread,
|> > everyone and their grandmother should own one, and if C= doesn't make it
|> > a standard option on the Amiga within the next 15 minutes they will just
|> > shrivel up and die like the guy at the end of "Indiana Jones and the
|> > Last Crusade."]
|>
|> Forgive me for intruding, but... well... how can I say this?
|>
|> Photo-CD is almost spectacularily useless. There, that worked.
Hardly. I suggest you reinvestigate what you are discussing.
|> I mean, what's the deal here? Our current system: you get a $20 camera
|> and some ridiculously cheap rolls of film, you snap all the pictures you
|> want, you bring them to the drugstore and develop them again ridiculously
|> cheap and then look at them whenever you want.
The Photo CD system uses the same camera you send you film in for processing.
Kodak (or a processing House) digitizes your images to CD returns both the
negatives and the CD. You can then use your Photo-CD compatible (as liscenced
by Kodak) viewer and viola...
No special hardware needed by the consumer. I believe you are thinking of the
Canon Zapshot
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott C. Kennedy (s...@watson.ibm.com) | This post does not reflect the intent
Distributed High Performance Computing | or actions of my employer, and their
IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Facility | actions don't reflect mine either.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I had this dream the other night. I went to work one day, and nobody
remembered who I was. So, I decided to take the day off. - 2nu
John Gordos
>In article <92295.094...@psuvm.psu.edu>, Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>|> In many articles just dozens and dozens of people write:
>|> > [Photo-CD is awesome, it's the koolest thing since sliced bread,
>|> > everyone and their grandmother should own one, and if C= doesn't make it
>|> > a standard option on the Amiga within the next 15 minutes they will just
>|> > shrivel up and die like the guy at the end of "Indiana Jones and the
>|> > Last Crusade."]
>|>
>|> Forgive me for intruding, but... well... how can I say this?
>|>
>|> Photo-CD is almost spectacularily useless. There, that worked.
>
>Hardly. I suggest you reinvestigate what you are discussing.
>
>|> I mean, what's the deal here? Our current system: you get a $20 camera
>|> and some ridiculously cheap rolls of film, you snap all the pictures you
>|> want, you bring them to the drugstore and develop them again ridiculously
>|> cheap and then look at them whenever you want.
>
>The Photo CD system uses the same camera you send you film in for processing.
>Kodak (or a processing House) digitizes your images to CD returns both the
>negatives and the CD. You can then use your Photo-CD compatible (as liscenced
>by Kodak) viewer and viola...
>
>Scott C. Kennedy (s...@watson.ibm.com) | This post does not reflect the intent
This is still crazy. I'm gonna waste a 600Mb CD for 12/24/36 pictures? For 36
lousy pictures? This can't be right.
I'd have just as many CD's laying around as I do rolls of film currently. And
to top the whole thing off, I've got to look at them at crappy TV resolutions?
Yeah, right.
John
--
John A. Gordos, III gor...@ucunix.san.uc.edu
Access Corporation Univ. of Cincinnati
Standard Disclaimers apply.
Kevin A. Roll
>A Friday evening or so ago, I was tuned into The Learning Channel, and over
>the course of the evening saw a Philips CD-I ad (with a T. rex skelton,
>pinball machines, and a seal morphing into CD-I discs) run five times.
>Next day it was on the Discovery Channel. My viewing habits are perhaps
>unusual, and of course I don't and can't watch everything, so I don't know
>where else the ad may be showing.
I've seen it here, don't remember which channel... notice how Phillips
made the totally false claim that this was "another first from Phillips?"
I saw the same thing in a print ad. What a bunch of liars.
--
AMIGA///| Zeta Psi | WRUW 91.1 FM |
/// |---------------| Rat's Nest | Yeah, whatever.
\\\/// | New Ministry | Wed 2-5 AM |
\XX/ | Album !!! | Industrial/Talk |
Kevin Darling
> This is still crazy. I'm gonna waste a 600Mb CD for 12/24/36 pictures?
> For 36 lousy pictures? This can't be right.
resolutions, from preview to full: 128x192, 256x384, 512x768, 1024x1536,
and 2048x3072. There is also a portfolio format which contains about
800 midres images.
Coming soon is the ability to add your own text, graphics, audio and menus
(eg: making presentation discs to distribute to salespeople). Photo CDs
can be viewed on Kodak players, CD-I players, or read on many CD-ROM
equipped computers. Mac and PC program support for it is quickly growing.
Photo CD is one of the hottest topics around in multimedia, scanning,
photography, graphics and cdrom groups/forums/magazines. Wake up!! :)
kevin <kdar...@catt.ncsu.edu>
Kevin Darling
>[someone writes:]
>>A Friday evening or so ago, I was tuned into The Learning Channel, and over
>>the course of the evening saw a Philips CD-I ad (with a T. rex skelton,
>>pinball machines, and a seal morphing into CD-I discs) run five times.
>
>I've seen it here, don't remember which channel... notice how Phillips
>made the totally false claim that this was "another first from Phillips?"
>I saw the same thing in a print ad. What a bunch of liars.
CD-I was publicly announced back in early 1986, the first disc demo'd
in late 1987, and the first commercial player in 1988. CD-I players
were in industrial use before CDTV was even announced.
kevin <kdar...@catt.ncsu.edu>
Jason Balicki (KodaK)
>I've seen it here, don't remember which channel... notice how Phillips
>made the totally false claim that this was "another first from Phillips?"
>I saw the same thing in a print ad. What a bunch of liars.
AH! But they qualified it with "the worlds first CD-I player" not "the
worlds first interactive CD player." I'm sure that you laywers would
see the difference. The latter would be lying, the former is suicide. :)
--Jason Balicki
ko...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
George Robbins
>
> This is still crazy. I'm gonna waste a 600Mb CD for 12/24/36 pictures? For 36
> lousy pictures? This can't be right.
>
> I'd have just as many CD's laying around as I do rolls of film currently. And
> to top the whole thing off, I've got to look at them at crappy TV resolutions?
Go do some research before displaying further ignorance. One of the basic
features of the photo-CD technology is the use of "writable" CD-ROM media
so that you can take you personal "disk" and have additional "rolls" of
images appended to it.
As far as "crappy" TV resolution, it's a trade-off. First, the images on
the disk are recorded at a resolution supposedly superior to print film.
Second, how you chose to display them is up to you - you can either think
of it as a large screen - low resolution slide show, or use the high
intrinsic resolution to blow up portions of the images without loss of
detail.
Whether Photo-CD is a winner or not, I don't know. But I do know that
you're not going to find a better way to get ultra-high quality images
scanned into digital format and inexpensivly stored for future use!
--
George Robbins - now working for, work: to be avoided at all costs...
but no way officially representing: uucp: {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr
Commodore, Engineering Department domain: g...@cbmvax.commodore.com
Philip McDunnough
[ ]
>
>Forgive me for intruding, but... well... how can I say this?
>
>Photo-CD is almost spectacularily useless. There, that worked.
What can I say?! You are very much mistaken.
>
>I mean, what's the deal here? Our current system: you get a $20 camera
>and some ridiculously cheap rolls of film, you snap all the pictures you
>want, you bring them to the drugstore and develop them again ridiculously
>cheap and then look at them whenever you want.
Fine, now suppose you want to make a family album. Suppose you'd like
sound clips? Do you become a ventriliquist?
>
>Now comes the Photo-CD system! With this marvelous innovation, you need to
>buy a special (expensive) camera, get some weird and expensive disks to
>save pictures on, and then own a $1000 bizarrely complex piece of electronics
>that hooks up to your TV set (if you can figure it out) and lets you look at
>your photos, only when you're at home in front of the TV! If you actually want
>tangible physical photographs you have to invest another $700 or so for a
>grainy color printer that will give you pictures far uglier than an ordinary
>photograph. This is an improvement? I mean, technology is nice, but geez!
There will be portable system, and you can carry the CD with you. Most homes
have TV sets, and I suspect that Photo-CD will be very popular when the price
is right. It is one of the few good reasons for getting a CD-ROM like player.
By the way, a 300dot/in HP550C is hardly grainy.
That $1000 piece of equipment is not (and does not) going to cost that. We are
really talking $200->$300, and if my daughters can figure it out I suspect
you can too, given that you were able to post here.
>
>I'm sorry, but the whole thing just seems sort of stupid to me. Any companies
>that are betting on Photo-CD's success are going to take a major bath, IMHO.
>They're going to be lucky to sell even one of these albatrosses.
No, they are going to do very well indeed. CD-I machines may not. CDTV will
if the price is right and they become Photo-CD compatible. Moreover, the
time is not yet right for all these gadgets. People are still hurting
economically.
Philip McDunnough
phi...@utstat.toronto.edu
Gregory R. Block
>lousy pictures? This can't be right.
>
>I'd have just as many CD's laying around as I do rolls of film currently. And
>to top the whole thing off, I've got to look at them at crappy TV resolutions?
>
>Yeah, right.
Thick. Here's what you do.
Go on a vacation to the Rockies, and take about 20 rolls of film with
you. Fill them all, and have them all developed onto one CD. They're
stored on disc with a much greater resolution than the TV, and they
bring it DOWN to the TV's resolution, if I understand the process
correctly.
Or, alternatively, mom and dad kept all the negatives to your baby
pictures from when you were a day to eight years. They could put all
of your pictures on one disk, grab a magic marker, scrawl your name
across the top, and have hours and hours of viewing enjoyment.
It's not quite as limited as you make it out to be.
--
(: (: (: (: Have you overdosed on smileys today? Why NOT!?! :) :) :) :)
(: NEVER EVER mess with a PCB jumper you don't understand, :)
(: even if it's labelled "SEX AND FREE BEER". -Dave Haynie :)
(: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
Bill Sheppard
>These marketing tricks are one of the reasons the economies of both our
>countries are in serious trouble. People cannot afford $800 game machines
>or whatever you want to call them. CD-I, CDTV, MPC (worst of the lot),
>Performa600CD, etc...are not what people should be spending their credit
>on.
I'm sorry, this line of reasoning completely escapes me. There are plenty of
people out there who can easily afford to drop $599 for a CD-I player, and in
so doing will be helping to spur a whole new area of the economy, much of
which could help absorb the many layed-off defense workers. Let's see, for
starters there are all the programmers who could be producing CD-I software.
And there's the whole motion picture industry, much of who's output can be
incorporated into CD-I titles. And we can start moving towards replacing
paper-based phone books and catalogs with more environmentally-friendly and
oh-so-handy compact discs. And Photo CD is also more environmentally friendly
than print developing (assuming the customer doesn't get both).
Then there's the whole on-line information industry which would be spurred on.
Video on demand from the phone companies. Easily accessible information
databases. Video teleconferencing. The list goes on and on, all that's
needed is a critical mass of installed CD-I players (or equivalent).
The whole act of dictating what people "should be spending their money on"
seems to me to be treading in very dangerous territory...
>I'm beginning to think that people should stick to swimming, jogging, baseball,
>etc...The electronics' consumer industry has provided an extremely high
>noise/signal ratio. Lot's of hype, high prices and basically useless. You'd
>at least expect motion as good as a $200 VCR out of a $3000 computer. What
>do you get? 256 colour GIF's.
Well, for CD-I's case, the full-motion video will exceed the quality of a $200
VCR.
>>As for baby picutures... yes! I think that a handheld (purse storable)
>>Photo CD player would be a killer sell to grandmothers :-) :-)
>That's really low Kevin! Every grandmother would be better off opening up
>a bank account for their grandchildren. People have to tell the electronics'
>people that the game is up. $200 is the limit and forget the $80 games.
Say's who? If Steve Wozniak can afford to buy CD-I players (he bought three
players and every available title) for his eight kids than more power to him.
And I don't suspect he's forfeiting any educational opportunities to do that.
And for that matter, the educational software on CD-I will do more (if
properly applied) to promote our youths' development than many other avenues
of recreation. Moderation in all areas, of course.
Bill
David C. Navas
It seems to me that this Photo CD thing is like a VCR tape without motion
and without sound.
I don't get it. How many people here would sit through a slide-show at
your neighbors house? Right....
There are three things that are nice about photos:
1) You can curl up in bed together and look through them.
2) You can blow them up and make posters out of them.
3) You can carry them with you to the hairdressers and show off
your grandchildre.
Quick, which one of these does Photo-CD actually improve?
Hmm, it won't decay over 200 years -- but who's going to care about your
2D way-lo-res pictures of the Rockies in 200 years when they can hop an
intracontinental bullet train and be there in two hours?
That's not to say that the process isn't useful for getting digital
reproductions of your photos -- it will make all kinds of photographic
crimes (and millions of UFO faked sitings, I bet) that much easier to do.
It'll allow folks to get real picture backgrounds for their CD-I games,
but I'm not sure where the mass-market appeal for the thing is.
--
David Navas ja...@netcom.com
Co-author of: Web Data Acq. and Anal. dna...@oracle.com
Upcoming products: Shadow V, Jazzbench 2.0.
Marc N Barrett
>Sorry, but Photo CD doesn't work like that. It works like this: You use your
>old camera with a standard roll of film. You take it to your photo dealer.
><n> days later, you get the negatives, the positives, a n d a compact
>disc, which you can view on your Photo CD player. No special camera required,
>Photo CD images contain so many pixels that they r e q u i r e ordinary
>photo film.
Good point. An article on Photo CD in VIDEO Magazine said that the
Photo CD images on the disc have a resolution about 16 times greater than the\
highest resolutions available on home video products (VCRs, etc..). That
means the images must be about 1280x800 in resolution, 24-bits, or even
higher.
> __________________ ___________________________________________________
>| David A. Sjoen |"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they |
>| Gulaksveien 4 | follow me; and I give them life eternal; and they |
>| N-4017 STAVANGER | shall never perish, and no one shall seize them |
>| Norway | out of my hand." John 10:27-29 |
>`------------------'---------------------------------------------------'
> E-MAIL: dav...@ifi.hsr.no (Rogaland University Centre, Norway)
---
| Marc Barrett -MB- | email: bar...@iastate.edu
--------------------------------------------------
David Andreas Sjoeen
> In many articles just dozens and dozens of people write:
> > [Photo-CD is awesome, it's the koolest thing since sliced bread,
> > everyone and their grandmother should own one, and if C= doesn't make it
> > a standard option on the Amiga within the next 15 minutes they will just
> > shrivel up and die like the guy at the end of "Indiana Jones and the
> > Last Crusade."]
>
> Forgive me for intruding, but... well... how can I say this?
>
> Photo-CD is almost spectacularily useless. There, that worked.
>
> I mean, what's the deal here? Our current system: you get a $20 camera
> and some ridiculously cheap rolls of film, you snap all the pictures you
> want, you bring them to the drugstore and develop them again ridiculously
> cheap and then look at them whenever you want.
>
> Now comes the Photo-CD system! With this marvelous innovation, you need to
> buy a special (expensive) camera, get some weird and expensive disks to
> save pictures on, and then own a $1000 bizarrely complex piece of electronics
> that hooks up to your TV set (if you can figure it out) and lets you look at
> your photos, only when you're at home in front of the TV! If you actually want
> tangible physical photographs you have to invest another $700 or so for a
> grainy color printer that will give you pictures far uglier than an ordinary
> photograph. This is an improvement? I mean, technology is nice, but geez!
Sorry, but Photo CD doesn't work like that. It works like this: You use your
old camera with a standard roll of film. You take it to your photo dealer.
<n> days later, you get the negatives, the positives, a n d a compact
disc, which you can view on your Photo CD player. No special camera required,
Photo CD images contain so many pixels that they r e q u i r e ordinary
photo film.
:)avid
--
Ian Kennedy
>In many articles just dozens and dozens of people write:
>
>Photo-CD is almost spectacularily useless. There, that worked.
>
>buy a special (expensive) camera, get some weird and expensive disks to
>save pictures on, and then own a $1000 bizarrely complex piece of electronics
>that hooks up to your TV set (if you can figure it out) and lets you look at
I'm sorry, but you are completly wrong! Photo CD players start out
at $400.00. They require no special camera. You take your pictures
with a normal camera. Then you go to a developer that can handle
photo CD (there are several here in Seattle). They transfer
your normal film to CD. You go home and look at them. No $1000.00
player needed, no special camera needed. It is more expensive than
just looking at slides or prints but not as expenive as your totally
uninforamed post made it sound.
--
|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Amiga 3000/25-130MB/6MB/DCTV | Eagle Talon TSI AWD/ABS/Turbo |
|I don't need no stinkin' AGA! | Ia...@Microsoft.com |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|
Philip McDunnough
>phi...@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes:
>
>>These marketing tricks are one of the reasons the economies of both our
>>countries are in serious trouble. People cannot afford $800 game machines
>>or whatever you want to call them. CD-I, CDTV, MPC (worst of the lot),
>>Performa600CD, etc...are not what people should be spending their credit
>>on.
>
>I'm sorry, this line of reasoning completely escapes me. There are plenty of
>people out there who can easily afford to drop $599 for a CD-I player, and in
>so doing will be helping to spur a whole new area of the economy, much of
>which could help absorb the many layed-off defense workers. Let's see, for
>starters there are all the programmers who could be producing CD-I software.
>And there's the whole motion picture industry, much of who's output can be
>incorporated into CD-I titles. And we can start moving towards replacing
>paper-based phone books and catalogs with more environmentally-friendly and
>oh-so-handy compact discs. And Photo CD is also more environmentally friendly
>than print developing (assuming the customer doesn't get both).
There is not a lot of people that can easily part with $600 for a CD-I player.
I hardly see CD-I and SNES as the saviours of those scientific careers
lost by cuts in defense and other spending. We aren't talking about cutting
edge stuff here.
CD-I has managed to sell around 10,000 units. I wonder how many programmers
that will support. CDTV sold manybe 50,000 units. It perhaps has a larger
base now with the A570 and potentially interesting projects. But we aren't
talking about a massive industry.
I like the idea of Photo CD, CD-I, CDTV, etc...I even have 2 of them. However,
I know few people who have the money to pay for these types of items, unless
it is a primary hobby (as in my case).
>
>Then there's the whole on-line information industry which would be spurred on.
>Video on demand from the phone companies. Easily accessible information
>databases. Video teleconferencing. The list goes on and on, all that's
>needed is a critical mass of installed CD-I players (or equivalent).
These all sound nice. You are talking futures. People need jobs now. CD-I is
simply not going to save the economy.
>
>The whole act of dictating what people "should be spending their money on"
>seems to me to be treading in very dangerous territory...
I'm not dictating what people should spend their money on. I'm saying that the
people don't have the money to spend. I assume you are aware of the credit
problem which exist in both Canada and the US.
>
>>I'm beginning to think that people should stick to swimming, jogging, baseball,
>>etc...The electronics' consumer industry has provided an extremely high
>>noise/signal ratio. Lot's of hype, high prices and basically useless. You'd
>>at least expect motion as good as a $200 VCR out of a $3000 computer. What
>>do you get? 256 colour GIF's.
>
>Well, for CD-I's case, the full-motion video will exceed the quality of a $200
>VCR.
Kevin's been saying that for what seems to be years. Philips keep hinting at it.Well all I can say is, they haven't done it. When they do, then we can resume
the conversation.
>
>>>As for baby picutures... yes! I think that a handheld (purse storable)
>>>Photo CD player would be a killer sell to grandmothers :-) :-)
>
>>That's really low Kevin! Every grandmother would be better off opening up
>>a bank account for their grandchildren. People have to tell the electronics'
>>people that the game is up. $200 is the limit and forget the $80 games.
>
>Say's who? If Steve Wozniak can afford to buy CD-I players (he bought three
>players and every available title) for his eight kids than more power to him.
>And I don't suspect he's forfeiting any educational opportunities to do that.
>And for that matter, the educational software on CD-I will do more (if
>properly applied) to promote our youths' development than many other avenues
>of recreation. Moderation in all areas, of course.
Hmm...I assume you are kidding. Steve Wozniak is hardly your typical person.
I have yet to see educational software anywhere that's of any use (with some
rare exceptions). All I see are "interactive" books, colouring programs,
idiotic mathematics' stuff, etc...All these activities are better done via
a direct interaction between a parent and their children. Look, I've got
most of the stuff you are probably referring to. I have 3 children. I spent
a fortune on what I thought was an exciting future. I'm no longer a believer.
Philip
Kevin Darling
>CD-I has managed to sell around 10,000 units.
have been sold in the US alone in the first 12 months. And that people
in the US and UK together own over a half million CD-I titles.
Heck, over 3000 players were sold in Portugal in the first few months.
>>[about FMV]
>Kevin's been saying that for what seems to be years. Philips keep hinting
Yes, I said that FMV would be out by the end of 1992. The addon card
for Philips' player has been demonstrated, and Matsushita demonstrated
their own FMV-equipped CD-I player last week.
kevin <kdar...@catt.ncsu.edu>
Thomas &
: In article <1992Oct22.1...@hsr.no> dav...@ifi.hsr.no writes:
: >Sorry, but Photo CD doesn't work like that. It works like this: You use your
: >old camera with a standard roll of film. You take it to your photo dealer.
: ><n> days later, you get the negatives, the positives, a n d a compact
: >disc, which you can view on your Photo CD player. No special camera required,
: >Photo CD images contain so many pixels that they r e q u i r e ordinary
: >photo film.
:
: Good point. An article on Photo CD in VIDEO Magazine said that the
: Photo CD images on the disc have a resolution about 16 times greater than the\
: highest resolutions available on home video products (VCRs, etc..). That
: means the images must be about 1280x800 in resolution, 24-bits, or even
: higher.
First it's a bit slow: It takes more than a second for a simple 90 deg rotate.
moving the rectangle to select zoom an zooming in is damn slow!
A remote control isn't apropriate to use this thing!! At least something
like a joystick our trackball should be there!! Hey what about a keyboard,
could nearly be a computer.
Second the resolution it displays and stores is not so great: I zoomed in once
and could clearly see single coloured pixels. HQ color film has better
resolutions! (simply look at large photo's!!) I wouldn't accept the loss of
quality.
Third the price for CD's is too high! The salesman said something about
100DM (70$) but that might be wrong..
About the audio I can't say much. They used the TV-set for it...
All in all:
not very impressing.
:
: > __________________ ___________________________________________________
: >| David A. Sjoen |"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they |
: >| Gulaksveien 4 | follow me; and I give them life eternal; and they |
: >| N-4017 STAVANGER | shall never perish, and no one shall seize them |
: >| Norway | out of my hand." John 10:27-29 |
: >`------------------'---------------------------------------------------'
: > E-MAIL: dav...@ifi.hsr.no (Rogaland University Centre, Norway)
:
: ---
: | Marc Barrett -MB- | email: bar...@iastate.edu
: --------------------------------------------------
===============================================================================
Thomas Fettig // Dekan-Albrecht 10 // 6653 Blieskastel // 06842-2249
fet...@dfki.uni-sb.de fet...@cs.uni-sb.de
We dance around in a ring and suppose / but the secret sits in the middle and
knows.
Robert I. Eachus
I got to see a Phillips CD-I display the other day running a
Sesame Street game. I was appalled at the quality, both of the
graphics and the intreface. (I tried to get a sales droid to demo
some other disk to see if it was the software or hardware, but he
didn't know how to change disks.)
If this is the "competition" to the CDTV forget it. The only
problem is that someone who has seen this demo may not even be willing
to look at a CDTV...
--
Robert I. Eachus
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
Bill Sheppard
>Marc N Barrett (bar...@iastate.edu) wrote:
>: In article <1992Oct22.1...@hsr.no> dav...@ifi.hsr.no writes:
>: Good point. An article on Photo CD in VIDEO Magazine said that the
>: Photo CD images on the disc have a resolution about 16 times greater than the\
>: highest resolutions available on home video products (VCRs, etc..). That
>: means the images must be about 1280x800 in resolution, 24-bits, or even
>: higher.
Actually, they are stored on-disc at ~3000x2000. This will allow even HDTV to
be used at full resolution, or zooming in to the photo without loss of
resolution.
> I played around with a photo CD Player today. I can't say it convinced me.
> Second the resolution it displays and stores is not so great: I zoomed in once
> and could clearly see single coloured pixels. HQ color film has better
> resolutions! (simply look at large photo's!!) I wouldn't accept the loss of
> quality.
A print will have better resolution than your TV, but as TV's improve your
existing Photo CD discs will contain the necessary data to give you better
looking pictures. The reaction I've seen from most people is that Photo CD is
a better solution than getting slides made, dragging out the projector, etc.
Also, the ability to crop images, create a script with audio, and similar
multimedia capabilities will become increasingly desirable as the public
becomes more familiar. Note the increasing sales of video editors.
> Third the price for CD's is too high! The salesman said something about
> 100DM (70$) but that might be wrong..
No, should be in the ballpark of $1/print right now. No more than instant
film...
James Jones
>CD-I has managed to sell around 10,000 units. I wonder how many programmers
>that will support. CDTV sold manybe 50,000 units.
I wonder where the 10,000 number came from? The number I've seen cited for
CD-I sales was 60,000. (I hasten to add that all I know is what I read in
the papers or electronically; I would have to inquire with the person who
cited the number to find his source.)
James Jones
Bill Sheppard
>There is not a lot of people that can easily part with $600 for a CD-I player.
>I hardly see CD-I and SNES as the saviours of those scientific careers
>lost by cuts in defense and other spending. We aren't talking about cutting
>edge stuff here.
We certainly are talking about cutting-edge when it comes to the entire
information revolution which is inevitable. This leads into the whole shift
from a manufacturing economy to an information economy. Much better
communication links between people/organizations, virtual reality, etc. It's
going to happen, and the sooner people begin to adapt the technology the
sooner it will happen.
>CD-I has managed to sell around 10,000 units. I wonder how many programmers
>that will support. CDTV sold manybe 50,000 units. It perhaps has a larger
>base now with the A570 and potentially interesting projects. But we aren't
>talking about a massive industry.
I believe your figure of 10,000 is low, though I won't offer evidence.
Regardless, it's still in its infancy, and there are a dozen manufacturers
ready to jump into the market.
>>Then there's the whole on-line information industry which would be spurred on.
>>Video on demand from the phone companies. Easily accessible information
>>databases. Video teleconferencing. The list goes on and on, all that's
>>needed is a critical mass of installed CD-I players (or equivalent).
>These all sound nice. You are talking futures. People need jobs now. CD-I is
>simply not going to save the economy.
This work is already taking place. People are making their living working on
this stuff. My point is there will be many _more_ people working on this
stuff as people accept the technology.
>I'm not dictating what people should spend their money on. I'm saying that the
>people don't have the money to spend. I assume you are aware of the credit
>problem which exist in both Canada and the US.
For many people, yes. But there are also millions of people who can easily
afford these products without putting themselves at risk of homelessness.
>>Well, for CD-I's case, the full-motion video will exceed the quality of a $200
>>VCR.
>Kevin's been saying that for what seems to be years. Philips keep hinting at
>it. Well all I can say is, they haven't done it. When they do, then we can
>resume the conversation.
I've seen it, it exists, and it will be on the shelves within six months.
>Hmm...I assume you are kidding. Steve Wozniak is hardly your typical person.
>I have yet to see educational software anywhere that's of any use (with some
>rare exceptions). All I see are "interactive" books, colouring programs,
>idiotic mathematics' stuff, etc...All these activities are better done via
>a direct interaction between a parent and their children. Look, I've got
>most of the stuff you are probably referring to. I have 3 children. I spent
>a fortune on what I thought was an exciting future. I'm no longer a believer.
Sounds like maybe you've been burned by buying the wrong multimedia product;
the Sesame Street software is superb, and undoubtedly is of great value in
furthering pre-schoolers educational development. So are the Richard Scarry
titles. Some of the other educational software (music, fine arts) is also
unequalled on other platforms, and it will only get better (very rapidly, I
predict). And in a technical world, there is a lot of value in introducing
youngsters to technology early.
Bill
George Robbins
> Second the resolution it displays and stores is not so great: I zoomed in once
> and could clearly see single coloured pixels. HQ color film has better
> resolutions! (simply look at large photo's!!) I wouldn't accept the loss of
> quality.
Supposedly, it actually stores several copies of each picture in various resolution.
The highest resolution is pretty impressive, I would wounder if the Zoom funtion
you were using was able to access the higher quality image, or was simply zooming
based on the "TV resolution" image that you were viewing.
> Third the price for CD's is too high! The salesman said something about
> 100DM (70$) but that might be wrong..
That sounds pretty high, but not so bad if you can get several rolls of film
stored on one photo-CD.
Staffan Vilcans
> I've seen it here, don't remember which channel... notice how Phillips
> made the totally false claim that this was "another first from Phillips?"
> I saw the same thing in a print ad. What a bunch of liars.
That's called good PR you know. Say you're first even if you're not. A
lot of magazines and so on even belives this.
Ofcourse this would not have happend if C= had sent away more press
releases and so on. But you could ofcourse try to get Philips convicted
for that false claim. If I see something like that here in Sweden I
will surely do that!
*** REALLY NICE SIG I THINK ***
INTEGER I
DO 42 I=1,4711
WRITE(*,*) 'WHO NEEDS C ANYWAY?'
10 CONTINUE
STOP
END
Philip McDunnough
[ ]
>
>We certainly are talking about cutting-edge when it comes to the entire
>information revolution which is inevitable. This leads into the whole shift
>from a manufacturing economy to an information economy. Much better
>communication links between people/organizations, virtual reality, etc. It's
>going to happen, and the sooner people begin to adapt the technology the
>sooner it will happen.
There is certainly a change in the way information is distributed, retrieved,
etc...I heard all these lines when I bought a Mac and then a NeXT. I very
much doubt that this information revolution is about to center on CD-I.
>
>>CD-I has managed to sell around 10,000 units. I wonder how many programmers
>>that will support. CDTV sold manybe 50,000 units. It perhaps has a larger
>>base now with the A570 and potentially interesting projects. But we aren't
>>talking about a massive industry.
>
>I believe your figure of 10,000 is low, though I won't offer evidence.
>Regardless, it's still in its infancy, and there are a dozen manufacturers
>ready to jump into the market.
The 10k figure, which may be low and is disputed by Kevin, was taken from a
recent comparison of MPC's, CD-I's and CDTV. In that article, they claimed
both CDTV and CD-I had hardly been accepted with CDTV having roughly a 5-1
advantage in sales over CD-I (and the consumer CD-I sales were said to be
10k). In any case 10k, 50k...both figures are low.
>
>>>Then there's the whole on-line information industry which would be spurred on.
>>>Video on demand from the phone companies. Easily accessible information
>>>databases. Video teleconferencing. The list goes on and on, all that's
>>>needed is a critical mass of installed CD-I players (or equivalent).
>
>>These all sound nice. You are talking futures. People need jobs now. CD-I is
>>simply not going to save the economy.
>
>This work is already taking place. People are making their living working on
>this stuff. My point is there will be many _more_ people working on this
>stuff as people accept the technology.
It's possible that CD-I will employ more people. Philips is continuing its
push. However, I just can't see a massive information industry coming out of
any of the current CD-based standards.
>
>>I'm not dictating what people should spend their money on. I'm saying that the
>>people don't have the money to spend. I assume you are aware of the credit
>>problem which exist in both Canada and the US.
>
>For many people, yes. But there are also millions of people who can easily
>afford these products without putting themselves at risk of homelessness.
Well there are people who can afford them. I'm saying they won't buy them, and
moreover it isn't clear that it's a worthwhile purchase. The transfer rates
are way too low and the titles too expensive.
>
>>>Well, for CD-I's case, the full-motion video will exceed the quality of a $200
>>>VCR.
>
>>Kevin's been saying that for what seems to be years. Philips keep hinting at
>>it. Well all I can say is, they haven't done it. When they do, then we can
>>resume the conversation.
>
>I've seen it, it exists, and it will be on the shelves within six months.
Lot's of people have seen lot's of things. I don't doubt your word. However,
I can't purchase one and until I can I just see it as something which may or
may not make it to market.
>
>>Hmm...I assume you are kidding. Steve Wozniak is hardly your typical person.
>>I have yet to see educational software anywhere that's of any use (with some
>>rare exceptions). All I see are "interactive" books, colouring programs,
>>idiotic mathematics' stuff, etc...All these activities are better done via
>>a direct interaction between a parent and their children. Look, I've got
>>most of the stuff you are probably referring to. I have 3 children. I spent
>>a fortune on what I thought was an exciting future. I'm no longer a believer.
>
>Sounds like maybe you've been burned by buying the wrong multimedia product;
>the Sesame Street software is superb, and undoubtedly is of great value in
>furthering pre-schoolers educational development. So are the Richard Scarry
>titles. Some of the other educational software (music, fine arts) is also
>unequalled on other platforms, and it will only get better (very rapidly, I
>predict). And in a technical world, there is a lot of value in introducing
>youngsters to technology early.
I've purchased many multimedia platforms. What I am convinced of is that canned
programs are not the way to go. A real interactive educational program involves
the children in its construction. I can think of many good example, none of
which exist on CD-I nor CDTV. Music is an interesting example. I'd rather
my children learn to play the piano on a real one.
As for exposure to technology early, this is in my very humble opinion the
greatest misconception of them all. It's totally unimportant.
Philip McDunnough
University of Toronto
phi...@utstat.toronto.edu
Kevin Darling
> I've purchased many multimedia platforms. What I am convinced of is that
> canned programs are not the way to go. A real interactive educational
> program involves the children in its construction. I can think of many
> interesting example. I'd rather my children learn to play the piano
> on a real one.
Who says you can't have an interactive tutorial while using a real piano?
Just stick the TV set nearby :-) Personally, I wish I'd those CD-I
piano and guitar courses back when I was learning. Beats practicing alone.
However, your previous comments reminded me of an anecdote I read the other
day. A father finally found some time off, and asked his small son if
he'd like to play some softball. "Sure!" the kid replied, and ran off
to his room (to get a glove and ball, the father thought). Instead the
kid came back with a Softball game cartridge. Yikes.
kevin <kdar...@catt.ncsu.edu>
Rick Kelly
>In article <1992Oct22.1...@hsr.no> dav...@ifi.hsr.no writes:
>>Sorry, but Photo CD doesn't work like that. It works like this: You use your
>>old camera with a standard roll of film. You take it to your photo dealer.
>><n> days later, you get the negatives, the positives, a n d a compact
>>disc, which you can view on your Photo CD player. No special camera required,
>>Photo CD images contain so many pixels that they r e q u i r e ordinary
>>photo film.
>
> Good point. An article on Photo CD in VIDEO Magazine said that the
>Photo CD images on the disc have a resolution about 16 times greater than the\
>highest resolutions available on home video products (VCRs, etc..). That
>means the images must be about 1280x800 in resolution, 24-bits, or even
>higher.
However, it is still not as good as a printed photo from a top of the line
film processor.
And the best portable viewing system for Photo CD, at this time, would be
640x480 color LCD. That's the state of the art.
--
Rick Kelly Rick's Amiga Framingham, Mass.
think!unixland!rmkhome!rkamiga!root
Philip McDunnough
>phi...@utstat.toronto.edu (Philip McDunnough) writes:
>> I've purchased many multimedia platforms. What I am convinced of is that
>> canned programs are not the way to go. A real interactive educational
>> program involves the children in its construction. I can think of many
>> good examples, none of which exist on CD-I nor CDTV. Music is an
>> interesting example. I'd rather my children learn to play the piano
>> on a real one.
>
>Who says you can't have an interactive tutorial while using a real piano?
>Just stick the TV set nearby :-) Personally, I wish I'd those CD-I
>piano and guitar courses back when I was learning. Beats practicing alone.
Well, I agree that practising alone is not ideal. That has never been the
case in our, and I suspect many, home as 2 of my daughters learn the piano
and I'm a guitarist who started out on the piano. Nevertheless, that's not
the real issue. I suppose you could get that Miracle Piano system! However,
I view it and most other electronic piano aids as being detrimental to
developing concentration skills, learning to read music properly and basically
instilling the idea that there's an easy way out. There isn't.
I feel quite strongly that developing a HyperStudio stack on some topic (this
is a program similar to HCGS but more multimedia oriented, is far better than
having the topic arrive on a disc where people look at it on a TV like drones.
Multimedia just isn't here, and may not be for years. It's an expensive
venture which should be voted down by the people with their pocketbooks. Just
look at Compton's Multimedia Encyclopedia ( $500?), World Atlas, Composer's
Quest ($100), the infamous Discis books, etc...and you will see an enormous
amount of resources being poured into selling people what can only be called
junk.
>
>However, your previous comments reminded me of an anecdote I read the other
>day. A father finally found some time off, and asked his small son if
>he'd like to play some softball. "Sure!" the kid replied, and ran off
>to his room (to get a glove and ball, the father thought). Instead the
>kid came back with a Softball game cartridge. Yikes.
Hmm...:)
Regards,
Philip
phi...@utstat.toronto.edu
Tom R Krotchko
>have been sold in the US alone in the first 12 months. And that people
>in the US and UK together own over a half million CD-I titles.
Shipped or sold? I have a funny feeling that a bunch of CD-I's are sitting
in the back rooms of shops and department stores the world over.
>Heck, over 3000 players were sold in Portugal in the first few months.
>Yes, I said that FMV would be out by the end of 1992. The addon card
>for Philips' player has been demonstrated, and Matsushita demonstrated
>their own FMV-equipped CD-I player last week.
Tandy will confuse the market so much that no one will buy anything
right now.
To...@cup.portal.com
Tom Krotchko
George Robbins
> >
> > Good point. An article on Photo CD in VIDEO Magazine said that the
> >Photo CD images on the disc have a resolution about 16 times greater than the\
> >highest resolutions available on home video products (VCRs, etc..). That
> >means the images must be about 1280x800 in resolution, 24-bits, or even
> >higher.
>
> However, it is still not as good as a printed photo from a top of the line
> film processor.
Remember that photograhic film and print media may be continuous in the color
domain, but not in the spatial domain, because the image always has a certain
degree of graininess.
The highest resolution stored on the photo-cd is certainly higher than what
you get with a pocket instamatic or one of those disk cameras. I would expect
it to fall somewhere between 35mm color print film and slide film, but I
don't recall the exact claims.
> And the best portable viewing system for Photo CD, at this time, would be
> 640x480 color LCD. That's the state of the art.
People find this kind of resolution just fine for casual viewing. Just what
kind of resolution do you think you get when watching a rental-movie on your
VCR? The ability to blow up portions of the image without loss of detail
should help considerably.
Also, what is portable? Woudn't you consider a small unit with an RF modulator
to be portable, even if you have to clip it to your neighbors rabbit ears?
James Jones
>I suppose you could get that Miracle Piano system!
*Keyboard* magazine ran a review of the Miracle Piano system--the main gripe
that I recall was that there was no way for the system to tell that the student
was using bad technique to play the right notes. (Clearly they need to add
two data gloves to the system... :-)
James Jones
Thomas &
:
:
: : In article <1992Oct22.1...@hsr.no> dav...@ifi.hsr.no writes:
:
: : Good point. An article on Photo CD in VIDEO Magazine said that the
: : Photo CD images on the disc have a resolution about 16 times greater than the\
: : highest resolutions available on home video products (VCRs, etc..). That
: : means the images must be about 1280x800 in resolution, 24-bits, or even
: : higher.
:
: Actually, they are stored on-disc at ~3000x2000. This will allow even HDTV to
: be used at full resolution, or zooming in to the photo without loss of
: resolution.
The display resolution could be 1280x800 (1024 in eurpe maybe?). But
still pictures have to be better than standard TV to look good.
: <i wrote>
: > I played around with a photo CD Player today. I can't say it convinced me.
: > Second the resolution it displays and stores is not so great: I zoomed in once
: > and could clearly see single coloured pixels. HQ color film has better
: > resolutions! (simply look at large photo's!!) I wouldn't accept the loss of
: > quality.
:
: A print will have better resolution than your TV, but as TV's improve your
: existing Photo CD discs will contain the necessary data to give you better
: looking pictures. The reaction I've seen from most people is that Photo CD is
: a better solution than getting slides made, dragging out the projector, etc.
: Also, the ability to crop images, create a script with audio, and similar
: multimedia capabilities will become increasingly desirable as the public
: becomes more familiar. Note the increasing sales of video editors.
But why is this kodak player so slow? And why a box that looks and feels
like an hifi-device, whereas it really is a computer with a cd-drive?
That doesn't make much sense to me. With a mouse and a keyboard you'd get
much better value. Don't they have an OS/9 in there? I think they won't
stay long considered the Software can be ported to PC/CDTV/AMIGA/MAC ...
And who need's this audio-cd ability anyway? Many people will realize
they can have one in a computer with much better use. The only point
kodak really has is the offer to produce the CD's and make prints of them.
The rest doesn't look so promising to me. Perhaps they try to get things
going with their Player and hope that other's will offer software for
popular computers. And what mean's scripting and cropping if you can't
store this on CD. How do you move the information? By moving around the
Player ? (it's "portable" {:-)
: > Third the price for CD's is too high! The salesman said something about
: > 100DM (70$) but that might be wrong..
:
: No, should be in the ballpark of $1/print right now. No more than instant
: film...
you say 1$ per single photo/dia? thats 3-4 times the price !
btw: Does anyone know the approximate resolution of colour film?
===============================================================================
Thomas Fettig // Dekan-Albrecht 10 // 6653 Blieskastel // 06842-2249
fet...@dfki.uni-sb.de fet...@cs.uni-sb.de
I really hate this damned machine / I wish that they would sell it
It never does quite what I want / But only what I tell it.
Bill Sheppard
>But why is this kodak player so slow?
The speed is largely due to the maximum (current) transfer rate of a CD
player, roughly 150KB/sec. Since each picture may be 768x512x16bits (or in
that ballpark) you're looking at ~800KB of data. There may be compression
which could speed this up, but any way you cut it you're looking at lots of
data. Faster data tranfer rates are coming, so future players might
incorporate this.
>And why a box that looks and feels like an hifi-device, whereas it really is a
>computer with a cd-drive? That doesn't make much sense to me. With a mouse and
>a keyboard you'd get much better value.
The point of a dedicated Photo CD player or CD-I player is to present it as a
non-threatening consumer electronics item, not a PC. People (well, most of
us!) don't want a PC in their living room, and Photo CD is designed around the
TV which is likely in the den or living room. You don't want to shuttle your
visiting relatives to your office to huddle around the PC monitor to view your
vacation slides, you want them sitting on the couch around the big screen!
Besides, you can still use the Photo CD discs in your PC or Mac which does
have a mouse and keyboard. As a matter of fact, Photo CD is making big waves
in the high-end desktop publishing arena because it is a very low cost to get
high resolution color scans, and an relatively economical way to store them.
>Don't they have an OS/9 in there? I think they won't stay long considered the
>Software can be ported to PC/CDTV/AMIGA/MAC ...
CD-I players contain CD-RTOS (essentially OS-9). To my knowledge Photo CD
players don't contain an OS. I don't expect Photo CD players to be successful
because, today, a CD-I player is only $100 more, and as the other
manufacturers jump in CD-I costs will drop rapidly.
>And who need's this audio-cd ability anyway? Many people will realize
>they can have one in a computer with much better use. The only point
>kodak really has is the offer to produce the CD's and make prints of them.
Audio CD is needed because the idea is for people to see this as an upgrade to
their existing non-threatening audio CD player, and not to have to have three
or four different units in their stereo system. Besides, 98% of the
electronics needed for audio CD would already exist in the Photo CD player. I
don't think Kodak expects to make much on the players (they are made by
Philips, anyway) - they are simply trying to move with the digital revolution
and keep from being left in the dust, keep film from becoming obsolete.
>The rest doesn't look so promising to me. Perhaps they try to get things
>going with their Player and hope that other's will offer software for
>popular computers. And what mean's scripting and cropping if you can't
>store this on CD. How do you move the information? By moving around the
>Player ? (it's "portable" {:-)
Kodak does offer Photo CD software for Macs and PC's; other companies have or
are adding Photo CD S/W support into publishing packages.
The scripting/cropping information is stored in local RAM in the playback
device. This is inherently non-portable, although you could in theory have
this on a memory card which could move with the disc. On the other hand, you
could easily videotape your multimedia creation; the tape is certainly
portable! And portable players are available (slightly larger than a Sony
Discman, have a flip-up LCD color screen and NTSC output.
>: No, should be in the ballpark of $1/print right now. No more than instant
>: film...
> you say 1$ per single photo/dia? thats 3-4 times the price !
Last time I checked instant film (Polaroid) was around $7 for ten pictures.
$1/print is certainly more than standard print developing, but not
substantially more than having slides made.
Thomas &
: >: No, should be in the ballpark of $1/print right now. No more than instant
: >: film...
:
<I wrote>
: > you say 1$ per single photo/dia? thats 3-4 times the price !
:
: Last time I checked instant film (Polaroid) was around $7 for ten pictures.
: $1/print is certainly more than standard print developing, but not
: substantially more than having slides made.
I compared with our prices here in Germany. for $7 you get about 32 pictures
in about 8x10 CM! Format (not inch!!). I don't compare with instant film
here,as the method is comparable to normal film, isn't it?
thomas
Rick Kelly
>In article <root...@rkamiga.UUCP> ro...@rkamiga.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>> >
>> > Good point. An article on Photo CD in VIDEO Magazine said that the
>> >Photo CD images on the disc have a resolution about 16 times greater than the\
>> >highest resolutions available on home video products (VCRs, etc..). That
>> >means the images must be about 1280x800 in resolution, 24-bits, or even
>> >higher.
>>
>> However, it is still not as good as a printed photo from a top of the line
>> film processor.
>
>Remember that photograhic film and print media may be continuous in the color
>domain, but not in the spatial domain, because the image always has a certain
>degree of graininess.
>
>The highest resolution stored on the photo-cd is certainly higher than what
>you get with a pocket instamatic or one of those disk cameras. I would expect
>it to fall somewhere between 35mm color print film and slide film, but I
>don't recall the exact claims.
True. And consumers that own televisions with dedicated video in might even be
able to see it.
The degree of graininess is going down as film improves.
>> And the best portable viewing system for Photo CD, at this time, would be
>> 640x480 color LCD. That's the state of the art.
>
>People find this kind of resolution just fine for casual viewing. Just what
>kind of resolution do you think you get when watching a rental-movie on your
>VCR? The ability to blow up portions of the image without loss of detail
>should help considerably.
A Photo CD with 100 pictures costs a lot more than a video film rental.
>Also, what is portable? Woudn't you consider a small unit with an RF modulator
>to be portable, even if you have to clip it to your neighbors rabbit ears?
I've never met an RF modulator that I liked.
--
Rick Kelly Rick's Amiga Framingham, Mass.
think!unixland!rmkhome!rkamiga!root
Bill Sheppard
No, I'm referring to Polariod instant film, which self develops upon being
ejected from the camera. My point is that instant film has been a success for
twenty years at a cost of >$1/print; I don't think people will reject Photo CD
strictly on the per-print cost, especially given that I suspect it may drop
rather rapidly as it gains acceptance.
Bill
Mike Whalen
From a publisher's standpoint it's great.
Think of it! Magazine producers can put their shots ON cd so it's all ready
for the service bureau. NO scanning charges!
From a consumer's standpoint.. it's kind of expensive and just a novelty.
However it's going to set the publishing world on fire, IMO.
Mike..
-- Via DLG Pro v0.995
---------
Oh NO! I'm going to be.. NET.SICK! BLLLOOORRRRRP!!!
UUCP in the USA.. UUCP in the USA.. Hey hey HEY!
CHA CHA CHA!
---------
Kevin Darling
>No, I'm referring to Polariod instant film, which self develops upon being
>ejected from the camera. My point is that instant film has been a success for
>twenty years at a cost of >$1/print; I don't think people will reject Photo CD
>strictly on the per-print cost, especially given that I suspect it may drop
>rather rapidly as it gains acceptance.
Interestingly enough, Polaroid is supplying new scanners (which will carry
the Kodak name) for Photo CD so that 35mm prints and *instant prints*
(ie: Polaroids) can be put on disc. Seems that they don't want to be
left out of Photo CD.
kevin <kdar...@catt.ncsu.edu>
Kevin Darling
>I don't think that PhotoCD is useless.
>
>From a publisher's standpoint it's great.
As an example, Josten's (the large school yearbook company) is testing
using Photo CD as the submission format. The same discs can be used
by the students in Pagemaker for the layouts. They would then send
the Photo CDs and Pagemaker files to Jostens, and speed up turnaround.
kevin <kdar...@catt.ncsu.edu>
Craig Ganoe
> phi...@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes:
> >There is not a lot of people that can easily part with $600 for a CD-I player.
> >I hardly see CD-I and SNES as the saviours of those scientific careers
> >lost by cuts in defense and other spending. We aren't talking about cutting
> >edge stuff here.
>
> We certainly are talking about cutting-edge when it comes to the entire
> information revolution which is inevitable. This leads into the whole shift
> from a manufacturing economy to an information economy. Much better
> communication links between people/organizations, virtual reality, etc. It's
> going to happen, and the sooner people begin to adapt the technology the
> sooner it will happen.
>
decade. The technology here certainly isn't cutting-edge here either, CDTV
is just 5(7?) year old Amiga technology with a CD-ROM drive, MIDI, and a card
slot, packaged for the home entertainment center, CD-I isn't even that except
it can show Photo-CDs.
> >CD-I has managed to sell around 10,000 units. [ ... ]
> I believe your figure of 10,000 is low, though I won't offer evidence.
> Regardless, it's still in its infancy, and there are a dozen manufacturers
> ready to jump into the market.
>
15,000 last that I heard, may be more than that now, but my point here would
be if people aren't buying it, it's not going to matter how many manufacturers
are making models.
[ stuff about how CD-I will save the economy deleted to keep this realistic]
> >>Well, for CD-I's case, the full-motion video will exceed the quality of a $200
> >>VCR.
>
> >Kevin's been saying that for what seems to be years. Philips keep hinting at
> >it. Well all I can say is, they haven't done it. When they do, then we can
> >resume the conversation.
>
> I've seen it, it exists, and it will be on the shelves within six months.
>
Yep, it does exist, and it probably will be out soon, but did you happen to
catch the price on what this expansion card for CD-I is to cost? Don't worry,
I'll answer that, the same magical $200 price that the VCR mentioned above
costs. Oh, but wait, these people that are supposed to shell out $600 for
CD-I (or CDTV for that matter) and $200 for FMV ($600+$200=$800). $800 to
replace the $200 VCR (that can record too), $200 CD player, and $150 video
game machines that they already have because they bought all this other great
new technology when it came out. You must be one of those people who
also believes that everyone's going to run out and buy a $2000+ HDTV when
they're available.
> >Hmm...I assume you are kidding. Steve Wozniak is hardly your typical person.
> >I have yet to see educational software anywhere that's of any use (with some
> >rare exceptions). All I see are "interactive" books, colouring programs,
> >idiotic mathematics' stuff, etc...All these activities are better done via
> >a direct interaction between a parent and their children. Look, I've got
> >most of the stuff you are probably referring to. I have 3 children. I spent
> >a fortune on what I thought was an exciting future. I'm no longer a believer.
>
> Sounds like maybe you've been burned by buying the wrong multimedia product;
> the Sesame Street software is superb, and undoubtedly is of great value in
> furthering pre-schoolers educational development. So are the Richard Scarry
> titles. Some of the other educational software (music, fine arts) is also
> unequalled on other platforms, and it will only get better (very rapidly, I
> predict). And in a technical world, there is a lot of value in introducing
> youngsters to technology early.
>
Sounds like you're out to put someone down who's already down, and
from Philip's posts, I believe he has both CDTV and CD-I, so watch who you're
accusing of buying the wrong product. I've tried both and have a CDTV, for
as much as you're up on technology you're missing on software technology.
Neither platform has any titles that begin to use all the capabilities of the
machine's hardware (I should clarify this to say that I know CDTV is capable
of much more). Which I believe is part of what Philip was saying above, plus
software just can't take the place of good parenting. Some of the titles for
each platform are good, but not enough for the average person to justify
going out and buying one of these machines. Until, better and more software
is available for these platforms, you just aren't going to see people running
out to buy it.
So far, I've been quite pleased with my CDTV and it looks like its support is
growing (slowly) with some much better titles due out in the near future. I'm
glad that you're happy with your CD-I (I'm assuming you own one here), but I
wouldn't give up my CDTV for one.
> Bill
Craig
Kevin Darling
>cyc...@netcom.com (Bill Sheppard) writes:
>> I believe your figure of 10,000 is low, though I won't offer evidence.
>> Regardless, it's still in its infancy, and there are a dozen manufacturers
>> ready to jump into the market.
>
>15,000 last that I heard, may be more than that now, but my point here would
>be if people aren't buying it, it's not going to matter how many
>manufacturers are making models.
Again, Reuters reported 60,000 sales in the first year. And according to
the UK EET, Motorola is having to form a new sales team in order to meet
intense demand for CD-I parts for extra players expected to be sold at XMas.
Radio Rentals (a large UK rental chain) is beginning to rent players now.
Apparently, at least in the UK where there's been some advertising since
last spring, sales/rentals are brisk. According to Philips/Japan, sales
there are expected to take off once more brandnames are available. Makes
sense to me... I'd expect multiple sourcing to also help in the US.
>> [FMV card]
>Yep, it does exist, and it probably will be out soon, but did you happen to
>catch the price on what this expansion card for CD-I is to cost? Don't
>worry, I'll answer that, the same magical $200 price that the VCR mentioned
>above costs. Oh, but wait, these people that are supposed to shell out
>$600 for CD-I (or CDTV for that matter) and $200 for FMV ($600+$200=$800).
>$800 to replace the $200 VCR (that can record too), $200 CD player, and $150
>video game machines that they already have [...]
Add on at least $200 to that game machine for CD-ROM capability, plus
add $200-400 for the Photo CD player you'd no longer need.
In any case, already owning something doesn't prevent you from buying more :)
Otherwise what are we all doing with multiple TV sets, phones, audio systems,
game machines, computers and VCRS? :-)
>So far, I've been quite pleased with my CDTV and it looks like its support
>is growing (slowly) with some much better titles due out in the near future.
Good! Will you buy a CDTV-II to replace your old model if/when it comes out?
best - kevin <kdar...@catt.ncsu.edu>
Bill Sheppard
>decade. The technology here certainly isn't cutting-edge here either, CDTV
>is just 5(7?) year old Amiga technology with a CD-ROM drive, MIDI, and a card
>slot, packaged for the home entertainment center, CD-I isn't even that except
>it can show Photo-CDs.
CD-I is unquestionably more advanced than CDTV - it has more powerful graphics
hardware, a faster CPU, and imminent full-motion video support. While it's
certainly not cutting-edge by workstation standards, it sure is by consumer
electronics standards.
>> >CD-I has managed to sell around 10,000 units. [ ... ]
>> I believe your figure of 10,000 is low, though I won't offer evidence.
>> Regardless, it's still in its infancy, and there are a dozen manufacturers
>> ready to jump into the market.
>15,000 last that I heard, may be more than that now, but my point here would
>be if people aren't buying it, it's not going to matter how many manufacturers
>are making models.
A dozen manufacturers means far more sales outlets, far more advertising, a
much stronger perception among the public that this is a legitimate standard
rather than a passing fancy, and greater price competition. All of these
factors will undoubtedly have a great effect on sales.
>[ stuff about how CD-I will save the economy deleted to keep this realistic]
I wasn't claiming CD-I will save the economy, but I guarantee a critical mass
of reasonably powerful multimedia hardware in the home will make a lot of
companies a lot of money, and consequently employ a lot of people.
>> >>Well, for CD-I's case, the full-motion video will exceed the quality of a $200
>> >>VCR.
>Yep, it does exist, and it probably will be out soon, but did you happen to
>catch the price on what this expansion card for CD-I is to cost? Don't worry,
>I'll answer that, the same magical $200 price that the VCR mentioned above
>costs. Oh, but wait, these people that are supposed to shell out $600 for
>CD-I (or CDTV for that matter) and $200 for FMV ($600+$200=$800).
First of all, that $800 price will drop as a variety of models from Europe,
Japan, and Korea hit the market early next year. Second of all, both VCRs and
Laserdisc players cost more than $800 upon introduction (not even adjusting
for inflation) and they were both successful, yet CD-I is a potentially far
more useful appliance than a VCR or Laserdisc player is.
>> Sounds like maybe you've been burned by buying the wrong multimedia
>> product...
>Sounds like you're out to put someone down who's already down, and
>from Philip's posts, I believe he has both CDTV and CD-I, so watch who you're
>accusing of buying the wrong product. I've tried both and have a CDTV, for
>as much as you're up on technology you're missing on software technology.
>Neither platform has any titles that begin to use all the capabilities of the
>machine's hardware (I should clarify this to say that I know CDTV is capable
>of much more).
I absolutely agree that the software is in its infancy; that's why I have high
hopes for its (CD-I's) success, because people are buying based on what's
available now. Given better and better software, it will be an easier choice
for people to make.
>So far, I've been quite pleased with my CDTV and it looks like its support is
>growing (slowly) with some much better titles due out in the near future. I'm
>glad that you're happy with your CD-I (I'm assuming you own one here), but I
>wouldn't give up my CDTV for one.
Well, it looks to me like CDTV's lost the war. The number of outlets for CD-I
has to outnumber CDTV by a factor of 20 (virtually every electronics
department or store in the Bay Area has it); Blockbuster rents players and
titles across the country; CD-I supports Photo CD now; the advertising budget
for CD-I must exceed CDTV's by a factor of 100; many, many titles are in
development; CD-I Ready audio titles are selling in music stores worldwide
(I'm not talking about CD+G, but actual CD-I titles); full motion video
support will be out imminently and has a high probability of receiving support
as a standard format by the motion picture studios; portable CD-I players
exist today. At this point I don't believe anything short of a stroke of
marketing and development genius can save CDTV; while CD-I's future is far
from assured, it's a much more likely thing than is CDTV's.
Bill
Philip McDunnough
[ ]
>
>CD-I is unquestionably more advanced than CDTV - it has more powerful graphics
>hardware, a faster CPU, and imminent full-motion video support. While it's
>certainly not cutting-edge by workstation standards, it sure is by consumer
>electronics standards.
Neither is worth it at this time. Moreover CDTV has the very big advantage of
being able to double as a computer. It would be interesting to see an AGA
CDTV.
>
>>> >CD-I has managed to sell around 10,000 units. [ ... ]
>>> I believe your figure of 10,000 is low, though I won't offer evidence.
>>> Regardless, it's still in its infancy, and there are a dozen manufacturers
>>> ready to jump into the market.
>
>>15,000 last that I heard, may be more than that now, but my point here would
>>be if people aren't buying it, it's not going to matter how many manufacturers
>>are making models.
>
>A dozen manufacturers means far more sales outlets, far more advertising, a
>much stronger perception among the public that this is a legitimate standard
>rather than a passing fancy, and greater price competition. All of these
>factors will undoubtedly have a great effect on sales.
Wishful thinking. There's a recession. CD-I isn't going anywhere.
>
>>[ stuff about how CD-I will save the economy deleted to keep this realistic]
>
>I wasn't claiming CD-I will save the economy, but I guarantee a critical mass
>of reasonably powerful multimedia hardware in the home will make a lot of
>companies a lot of money, and consequently employ a lot of people.
Well critical masses of things help, although I'm afraid that CD-I will never
be there.
>
>>> >>Well, for CD-I's case, the full-motion video will exceed the quality of a $200
>>> >>VCR.
>
>>Yep, it does exist, and it probably will be out soon, but did you happen to
>>catch the price on what this expansion card for CD-I is to cost? Don't worry,
>>I'll answer that, the same magical $200 price that the VCR mentioned above
>>costs. Oh, but wait, these people that are supposed to shell out $600 for
>>CD-I (or CDTV for that matter) and $200 for FMV ($600+$200=$800).
The VCR is far more versatile and more importantly it can record. That fact
did in RCA's video disc player yaers ago, even though the pictures and sound
were far better than VCR's ( I bought one weeks before RCA dumped it). Unless
the units are very inexpensive they won't sell unless they can record, with
the implications that we all know goes with that. People don't have any money.
Here's something to think about. I'd venture to say that the computer type
platform that is easiest to pirate media off will end up being the standard.
Should CD's come out for the SNES and Genesis at $70+ then those systems will
lose in popularity. I believe that few people actually pay for software,
which is one reason why I am not optimistic re CD-I/ CDTV.
>
>First of all, that $800 price will drop as a variety of models from Europe,
>Japan, and Korea hit the market early next year. Second of all, both VCRs and
>Laserdisc players cost more than $800 upon introduction (not even adjusting
>for inflation) and they were both successful, yet CD-I is a potentially far
>more useful appliance than a VCR or Laserdisc player is.
It not more useful as discussed above. Laserdisc players have yet to catch on
except for a small percentage of people. They will thrive when they can
record.
>
>>> Sounds like maybe you've been burned by buying the wrong multimedia
>>> product...
>
>>Sounds like you're out to put someone down who's already down, and
>>from Philip's posts, I believe he has both CDTV and CD-I, so watch who you're
>>accusing of buying the wrong product. I've tried both and have a CDTV, for
>>as much as you're up on technology you're missing on software technology.
>>Neither platform has any titles that begin to use all the capabilities of the
>>machine's hardware (I should clarify this to say that I know CDTV is capable
>>of much more).
>
>I absolutely agree that the software is in its infancy; that's why I have high
>hopes for its (CD-I's) success, because people are buying based on what's
>available now. Given better and better software, it will be an easier choice
>for people to make.
People should not buy most of the software available now. There are a few
good titles. Before buying any people should beware of funding other people's
BMW habits.
[ ]
CDTV is not out of it. CD-I is not available in Canada yet and it can't be
a computer. It won't make it except possible as a SNES addon. Photo CD
is highly overrated at this time.
Philip McDunnough
phi...@utstat.toronto.edu
Philip McDunnough
[ ]
>
>Again, Reuters reported 60,000 sales in the first year. And according to
>the UK EET, Motorola is having to form a new sales team in order to meet
>intense demand for CD-I parts for extra players expected to be sold at XMas.
>Radio Rentals (a large UK rental chain) is beginning to rent players now.
Well Kevin, I keep seeing the rough figure of 10k consumer units sold (approx).
>
>Apparently, at least in the UK where there's been some advertising since
>last spring, sales/rentals are brisk. According to Philips/Japan, sales
>there are expected to take off once more brandnames are available. Makes
>sense to me... I'd expect multiple sourcing to also help in the US.
More futures. Believe it when it happens. There's no software.
[ ]
>
>Add on at least $200 to that game machine for CD-ROM capability, plus
>add $200-400 for the Photo CD player you'd no longer need.
Well the full motion capability is not available as of yet. Photo CD may very
well be more suited to computers where printing( eg. to a DeskWriter550C) and
manipulations of the photos become possible. That would favour CDTV, as the
Amiga has some excellent graphics' packages.
>
>In any case, already owning something doesn't prevent you from buying more :)
>Otherwise what are we all doing with multiple TV sets, phones, audio systems,
>game machines, computers and VCRS? :-)
How can you speak like that. This is the same reasoning that Mitsubishi is
taking with the release of the largest consumer TV set. It's aimed at people
who don't know what to do with their excess money. Geez, people are out of
work, there's a terrible economic climate, etc...and you're talking about
buying more throw away items.
>
>>So far, I've been quite pleased with my CDTV and it looks like its support
>>is growing (slowly) with some much better titles due out in the near future.
>
>Good! Will you buy a CDTV-II to replace your old model if/when it comes out?
Good question. I for one will not consider this option, nor putting more time
into CD-I. Unless C= were to offer a $100 upgrade, they can forget about me
as a CDTV customer. As far as CD-I goes, it's just another waste of time and
money.
The C='s, Philips', Tandy's of the world are going to have to do better. Let
them get it right before introducing half finished products. In reality, C=
should just give every CDTV owner a CDTV/II or whatever is to come. They seem
to have their acts together better on the computer side. Somehow I suspect
they are all headed the way of the Neo-Geo, MultiSound card, etc...Niche...
and the SNES will in the end be the thing attached to the TV with possibly
a Mac in the den (with a built in Photo CD).
Philip McDunnough
phi...@utstat.toronto.edu
Glenn Doiron
[zap]
> I'm sorry, this line of reasoning completely escapes me. There are plenty of
> people out there who can easily afford to drop $599 for a CD-I player, and in
> so doing will be helping to spur a whole new area of the economy, much of
> which could help absorb the many layed-off defense workers. Let's see, for
> starters there are all the programmers who could be producing CD-I software.
> And there's the whole motion picture industry, much of who's output can be
> incorporated into CD-I titles. And we can start moving towards replacing
> paper-based phone books and catalogs with more environmentally-friendly and
> oh-so-handy compact discs. And Photo CD is also more environmentally friendly
> than print developing (assuming the customer doesn't get both).
Excuse me? When did the CD-recycling programs start in YOUR corner of the
world? Or do you get bio-degradable CD's?
[zap]
Glenn Doiron
--
Amiga UUCP+
Origin: uunet.uu.net!starpt.UUCP!doiron (Organization:68K Software Development)
BIX: gdoiron
** Not enough memory to perform requested operation. Add 4 megs and retry.
Mike Rogers
>decade. The technology here certainly isn't cutting-edge here either, CDTV
>is just 5(7?) year old Amiga technology with a CD-ROM drive, MIDI, and a card
>slot, packaged for the home entertainment center, CD-I isn't even that except
Exactly. Consumer electronics isn't about forging out in new areas techwise,
it's all down to priuce points and marketing. Viz the Walkman, a classic. The
tech was there for nearly five years before Sony's integration and price
positioning led to a market driven economies of scale and massive manufacturing
cost reductions. Consumer CD-ROM is waiting for that same stroke of luck.
Philips are trying to kickstart it with mongo advertising. This is tricky,
since most consumers only bought their CD in the last two or three years and
will have experienced few mechanical failures. They are satisfied.
There is definately something missing. Maybe PDAs will supply the missing
factor. Lots of companies suspect this, although interest has cooled over the
last year or so.
In the face os consumer apathy, C= abandoned an independent CDTV approach, and
now seem to be trying to groundbreak it using the Amiga connection. This may
work, but it does cut them off from the greater mass of consumers. They are
free, of course, to try again with some improved 'CDTV2'.
--
Mike Rogers,Box 6,Regent Hse,##EveryoneHasTheRightToFreedomOfOpinionAndExpressio
TCD,EIRE. <mi...@maths.tcd.ie>##nThisRightIncludesFreedomToHoldOpinionsWithoutInt
###############################erferenceAndToSeekReceiveAndImpartInformationAndI
deasThroughAnyMediaAndRegardlessOfFrontiers...#10 UN Declaration of Human Rights
Kevin Darling
kdar...@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes:
>
>Well Kevin, I keep seeing the rough figure of 10k consumer units sold
>(approx).
So name your sources. Let me guess: in Amiga or other anti CD-I magazines?
>Well the full motion capability is not available as of yet.
Well, I don't think that even you would go so far as to predict that
it's not close. FMV titles have been shown and the cartridge is due any
time now. The UK price has been projected as low as 70 pounds (~$130).
One CD-I title just shown to the public is a tennis training program which
can be customized for your own physical specs. It has ~1400 FMV clips.
>>In any case, already owning something doesn't prevent you from buying more :)
>>Otherwise what are we all doing with multiple TV sets, phones, audio systems,
>>game machines, computers and VCRS? :-)
>
>How can you speak like that. This is the same reasoning that Mitsubishi is
>taking with the release of the largest consumer TV set. It's aimed at people
>who don't know what to do with their excess money. Geez, people are out of
>work, there's a terrible economic climate, etc...and you're talking about
>buying more throw away items.
Now you've simply gone off the deep end. I just bought a replacement
answer machine the other day. Geez, I shouldn't have done that, eh?
Maybe I shouldn't buy an A1200 soon, either. Yeah, that's the ticket:
if I don't buy anything, that would sure help the world economy. NOT.
You bought early and got a CDTV. Now you're whining if other consumers
buy anything which seems to have more longevity. Sounds like sour grapes.
Btw, hot news from the recent annual CD-I conference in Los Angeles:
Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia will soon be bundled in with players.
Goldstar showed off their player, due next year. And Reader's Digest
is about to announce their first multimedia books on CD-I.
kevin <kdar...@catt.ncsu.edu>
Kevin Darling
> CDTV is not out of it.
Being single-sourced, CDTV was never "in it", IMO.
> CD-I is not available in Canada yet and it can't be a computer. It won't
> make it except possible as a SNES addon. Photo CD is highly overrated
> at this time.
Short term thinking.
kevin <kdar...@catt.ncsu.edu>
Philip McDunnough
In article <kdarling....@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu> kdar...@garfield.catt.nc
su.edu (Kevin Darling) writes:
[ ]
>>
>>Well Kevin, I keep seeing the rough figure of 10k consumer units sold
>>(approx).
>
>So name your sources. Let me guess: in Amiga or other anti CD-I magazines?
Nope. It was some PC magazine. I'll get you the exact title next time I see
it. It may even have been New Media.
>
>>Well the full motion capability is not available as of yet.
>
>Well, I don't think that even you would go so far as to predict that
>it's not close. FMV titles have been shown and the cartridge is due any
>time now. The UK price has been projected as low as 70 pounds (~$130).
I know it's close, and I'll even admit it's exciting. Won't do much to sell
CD-I though unless the prices drop dramatically. Look, you're talking to
someone who is basically receptive to CD-I/CDTV type units. However, I don't
see the software and people don't have any money.
>
>One CD-I title just shown to the public is a tennis training program which
>can be customized for your own physical specs. It has ~1400 FMV clips.
Sounds nice. CDTV has a nice title which is a game in which you pilot your
way through the body. It's pretty interesting.
>
>>>In any case, already owning something doesn't prevent you from buying more :)
>>>Otherwise what are we all doing with multiple TV sets, phones, audio systems,
>>>game machines, computers and VCRS? :-)
>>
>>How can you speak like that. This is the same reasoning that Mitsubishi is
>>taking with the release of the largest consumer TV set. It's aimed at people
>>who don't know what to do with their excess money. Geez, people are out of
>>work, there's a terrible economic climate, etc...and you're talking about
>>buying more throw away items.
>
>Now you've simply gone off the deep end. I just bought a replacement
>answer machine the other day. Geez, I shouldn't have done that, eh?
>Maybe I shouldn't buy an A1200 soon, either. Yeah, that's the ticket:
>if I don't buy anything, that would sure help the world economy. NOT.
No, you may have the money to buy these things, but most people do not. They
buy on credit. I do not feel that getting people cheap credit is the way to
a stable a thriving economy. It is a sure prescription for stressed out
people under enormous financial constraints. At this time both our countries
have terrible deficits, social programs which are breaking down, poor
educational systems, etc...I do not feel that buying CD-I units will help
anyone. In fact, there should perhaps be a tax on these types of luxury
items. As for the A1200, it certainly sounds interesting!
>
>You bought early and got a CDTV. Now you're whining if other consumers
>buy anything which seems to have more longevity. Sounds like sour grapes.
Now, now...I don't regret buying CDTV for one moment. The cost of the unit
was not that high compared to the cost of all the disks I got. Same goes
with my other multimedia systems. No sour grapes, no regrets, etc...I still
feel that CDTV is better than CD-I for the same reasons I've given all along.
>
>Btw, hot news from the recent annual CD-I conference in Los Angeles:
>Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia will soon be bundled in with players.
>Goldstar showed off their player, due next year. And Reader's Digest
>is about to announce their first multimedia books on CD-I.
Surely you have seen Compton's MPC encyclopedia? Hardly worth much. As far as
yet more books on CD's, I just can't get excited about these things anymore.
They have for the most part been boring and a real waste of money. 2 exceptions:
A Bun for Barney and Grandma and Me.
Philip McDunnough
Philip McDunnough
>> CDTV is not out of it.
>
>Being single-sourced, CDTV was never "in it", IMO.
Well, I suspect that C='s new Amiga's a their CD-ROM for them will provide
CDTV with a far more interesting software selection. I just can't see us
retuning to the COCO.
>
>> CD-I is not available in Canada yet and it can't be a computer. It won't
>> make it except possible as a SNES addon. Photo CD is highly overrated
>> at this time.
>
>Short term thinking.
Perhaps. I've taken to thinking in my lifetime. Most people still don't have
CD players let alone Photo CD's.
Philip
phi...@utstat.toronto.edu
Opal Sullen
CS> Blockbuster rents players and titles across the country
fyi, philips took a large stake in blockbuster. is it still any surprise
that their cd-i unit is carried there?
who cares about the hardware, it is software that is going to make or break
these kinds of things. clearly, philips understands the importance of
forming aliances w/ other industry leaders and goes for it despite the
sometimes steep costs. commodore, on the other hand, has a totally
different approach--the loner, step-child approach. sure, they will add
photo-cd capabilities after it is a total industry smash hit that has been
around for 5 years.
why do they prefer to lose market share rather than pay companies to
develop software for their machines? lamers. i say they are lamers.
sure, they make a good piece of hardware, and the OS is great, but where is
the word processor and spreadsheet that is on par with the word and excel?
face it, cdtv COULD be a smash if microsoft put even a little muscle behind
it. you KNOW they would have made the thing a hit already. after all,
they would have a pile of progra,,ers developing stuff for it that would
put it miles ahead of anything else. right?
repeat after me, "the hardware does not matter; it's the software that
makes or breaks it."
-- Via DLG Pro v0.995
Opal Sullen - Session Manager @
0x0 Republik, Orange County, Ca. 714.530.5442
sul...@republik.fidonet.org - eag...@orion.oac.uci.edu
___________________________________________________________________
F i d o N e t - U s e N e T - I n t e r N e t - A m i g a N e t
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1:103/108.0 - Republik.FidoNet.Org - 40:402/1.0
Paula Lieberman
are used is that the price for the performance is better with Polaroid than
Kodak scanners.
-- Via DLG Pro v0.992
Bill Sheppard
>Neither is worth it at this time. Moreover CDTV has the very big advantage of
>being able to double as a computer. It would be interesting to see an AGA
>CDTV.
When the time is right (meaning reasonable numbers of people are receptive to
a computer in their living room) CD-I will be able to double as a computer
with no more difficulty than CDTV being a computer. I have a CD-I player in
the next room with floppy drives, SCSI, mouse, keyboard, and more advanced
software development tools than your Amiga.
>>A dozen manufacturers means far more sales outlets, far more advertising, a
>>much stronger perception among the public that this is a legitimate standard
>>rather than a passing fancy, and greater price competition. All of these
>>factors will undoubtedly have a great effect on sales.
>Wishful thinking. There's a recession. CD-I isn't going anywhere.
Recessions don't last forever - if you believe Bush (I don't) this one is
over. At any rate, recession or no there are plenty of people out there who
can easily afford a $600 CD-I player. Would you make the same argument that
anyone selling a computer for home use (which typically will cost $1000 -
$2500) is a fool because there's a recession? Any potential buyer of a PC for
home use (especially educational or entertainment uses) is a potential buyer
of CD-I. And could save money doing it, albeit giving up certain productivity
applications.
>Well critical masses of things help, although I'm afraid that CD-I will never
>be there.
Time will tell.
>The VCR is far more versatile and more importantly it can record. That fact
>did in RCA's video disc player yaers ago, even though the pictures and sound
>were far better than VCR's ( I bought one weeks before RCA dumped it).
Boy, you do have a knack for purchasing obsolete technology!
Bill
Philip McDunnough
>phi...@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes:
>
>>Neither is worth it at this time. Moreover CDTV has the very big advantage of
>>being able to double as a computer. It would be interesting to see an AGA
>>CDTV.
>
>When the time is right (meaning reasonable numbers of people are receptive to
>a computer in their living room) CD-I will be able to double as a computer
>with no more difficulty than CDTV being a computer. I have a CD-I player in
>the next room with floppy drives, SCSI, mouse, keyboard, and more advanced
>software development tools than your Amiga.
Well I have more systems in my house than you do:) What's your point? The
Amiga OS is a viable operating system. OS-9 will never be anything but a
niche product no matter how many cross-development tools are developed for
it. If I were C= and Philips, I'd be concerned with the potential impact of
Tandy's VIS product. The PC has established itself as the VHS of computing.
Not the best, but not bad enough to be rejected. It has become the standard.
Being someone interested in this items, and having a young family, I would be
very tempted by VIS except for the fact that I know what Windows is like.
>
>>>A dozen manufacturers means far more sales outlets, far more advertising, a
>>>much stronger perception among the public that this is a legitimate standard
>>>rather than a passing fancy, and greater price competition. All of these
>>>factors will undoubtedly have a great effect on sales.
>
>>Wishful thinking. There's a recession. CD-I isn't going anywhere.
>
>Recessions don't last forever - if you believe Bush (I don't) this one is
>over. At any rate, recession or no there are plenty of people out there who
>can easily afford a $600 CD-I player. Would you make the same argument that
>anyone selling a computer for home use (which typically will cost $1000 -
>$2500) is a fool because there's a recession? Any potential buyer of a PC for
>home use (especially educational or entertainment uses) is a potential buyer
>of CD-I. And could save money doing it, albeit giving up certain productivity
>applications.
The home computer market is a tricky one. First of all, many "home computers"
are computers bought by people's employers for them to do some work at home.
Others double as a home business tool and a few are sold to people hoping
(in vain I believe) that this will give their children a competitive advantage
over others. So, I am one that is not convinced that there is a market for a
true home computer. The costs are too great and the returns minimal.
As I've already said, those few people who buy PC's for home entertainment do
so because they can get the software for free. This is not the case with CD-I,
VIS, CDTV, MPC, etc...
I do not yet see a market for a $600 CD-I player, although I really do believe
in the concept of both CDTV and CD-I. You would realize this had you been
here a year ago. There are not enough people willing to buy a $600 product
that will have so little software. The one reason CDTV may succeed is because
of the CD-ROM players for the Amiga's. Developers have to have a large
market to undertake CD-ROM development. I can only see CDTV/Amiga, VIS (because
of Tandy), MPC's, Sega and SNES being in this position.
>
>>Well critical masses of things help, although I'm afraid that CD-I will never
>>be there.
>
>Time will tell.
True...
>
>>The VCR is far more versatile and more importantly it can record. That fact
>>did in RCA's video disc player yaers ago, even though the pictures and sound
>>were far better than VCR's ( I bought one weeks before RCA dumped it).
>
>Boy, you do have a knack for purchasing obsolete technology!
I'm batting 50/50!
Philip
phi...@utstat.toronto.edu
Bill Sheppard
>The Amiga OS is a viable operating system. OS-9 will never be anything but a
>niche product no matter how many cross-development tools are developed for it.
Yes, the Amiga OS is a viable operating system, but does not have the
multimedia scripting tools available which CD-I does (including Mac- and Sun-
based development) which are very important to many of the production houses
doing multimedia, especially since many of them are coming squarely from the
motion picture realm. I'm not saying there aren't tools for the Amiga/CDTV,
but to my knowledge they require an Amiga as the primary host, which is
somewhat of a limitation for those designers already using Macs and Suns for
this sort of work. As far as OS-9 being strictly a niche product, I disagree
based on the hundreds of thousands of users of OS-9 based systems in the last
ten years (primarily Tandy Color Computer, but many 68K-based systems too) who
use/used their PC's for the same uses you do. Regardless, OS-9 is positioned
to provide comprehensive OS support for every facet of current and developing
computer technology, such that when a base of CD-I players exist for potential
computer upgrades, the OS will in no way be a liability.
>If I were C= and Philips, I'd be concerned with the potential impact of
>Tandy's VIS product. The PC has established itself as the VHS of computing.
>Not the best, but not bad enough to be rejected. It has become the standard.
I agree that once again by virtue of sheer momentum VIS could become the
dominant platform. My hope, however, is that the insufficiency of the VIS
hardware and system software will bear out that CD-I or CDTV (I consider both
superior to VIS) are better systems. Perhaps people will look at a VIS
system, see the CD-I system next to it (they'll likely be sold side-by-side in
most electronics outlets), and prefer CD-I.
>I do not yet see a market for a $600 CD-I player, although I really do believe
>in the concept of both CDTV and CD-I. You would realize this had you been
>here a year ago. There are not enough people willing to buy a $600 product
>that will have so little software. The one reason CDTV may succeed is because
>of the CD-ROM players for the Amiga's. Developers have to have a large
>market to undertake CD-ROM development. I can only see CDTV/Amiga, VIS (because
>of Tandy), MPC's, Sega and SNES being in this position.
I would amend this to say that developers have to have a large market _or_
_lots_of_funding_ to undertake CD-ROM development. Philips has seen to it
that that funding exists, and lots of CD-I development is taking place.
Whether it can be sustained will depend on steady sales of CD-I players, or
widespread adoption of CD-I in training environments.
Bill
Rick Kelly
>In a message dated Sat 31 Oct 92 4:31, Cyc...@netcom.com wrote:
>
> CS> Blockbuster rents players and titles across the country
>
>fyi, philips took a large stake in blockbuster. is it still any surprise
>that their cd-i unit is carried there?
>
>who cares about the hardware, it is software that is going to make or break
>these kinds of things. clearly, philips understands the importance of
>forming aliances w/ other industry leaders and goes for it despite the
>sometimes steep costs. commodore, on the other hand, has a totally
>different approach--the loner, step-child approach. sure, they will add
>photo-cd capabilities after it is a total industry smash hit that has been
>around for 5 years.
>
>why do they prefer to lose market share rather than pay companies to
>develop software for their machines? lamers. i say they are lamers.
>sure, they make a good piece of hardware, and the OS is great, but where is
>the word processor and spreadsheet that is on par with the word and excel?
>
>face it, cdtv COULD be a smash if microsoft put even a little muscle behind
>it. you KNOW they would have made the thing a hit already. after all,
>they would have a pile of progra,,ers developing stuff for it that would
>put it miles ahead of anything else. right?
>
>repeat after me, "the hardware does not matter; it's the software that
>makes or breaks it."
I saw a CD-I commercial on tv last night. If I didn't know anything at all
about CD-I (like the average consumer), I would just assume it was another
game machine that uses CD disks.
CD-I and CDTV are still solutions in search of a problem, as far as most
consumers are concerned.
Harv R Laser
Flipping thru the new issue of VIDEO magazine (it caters to home
videophiles who want to read reviews about camcorders, video tape
decks, hi-end teevee, and movies-on-tape) I came across a 3 or 4
page spread for CD-I. They used some media review quotes to
reinforce what a groovy wonderful product CD-I is. ONe of the
quotes was attributed to Tom Malcolm.
Tom was Senior Editor of .info magazine. .info was an Amiga-boosting
magazine created entirely on Amigas with Amiga software. .info did
a CDTV <> CD-I comparison article. They took a lot of heat for it
because of the good things they had to say about CD-I. .info is
now out of business, and Tom no longer works for them. However his
words live on in Phillips' CD-I advertising. Ironic, sez I.
Harv
(former Contributing Editor to .info magazine who owns a CDTV and
doesn't own a CD-I and doesn't even want one).
Tom R Krotchko
>consumers are concerned.
Do you realize last year around this time the proponents of CD-I were busy
telling everyone how several Japanese makers were going to introduce players
this year.
Well, they haven't. And more significantly, the number of titles for CD-I
hasn't really increased.
I wonder if anyone will have the guts to say "next year several Japanese
makers are going to introduce players..."
To...@cup.portal.com
Tom Krotchko
Kevin Darling
>Do you realize last year around this time the proponents of CD-I were busy
>telling everyone how several Japanese makers were going to introduce players
>this year.
Last year at this time, CDTV proponents were talking about the Japanese
CDTV consortium, and saying that a DCTV card for Photo CD was imminent :-)
But yes... altho Sony and Kyocera have been renting players in Japan for
the past six months, and Matsushita and Goldstar have shown their units,
most US player introductions will come slightly later than predicted.
To anyone who's been keeping up, it's become apparent over the past year
that Japanese and Korean makers were mostly waiting for FMV first...
not to mention letting Philips pay for the first mass advertising :^)
>And more significantly, the number of titles for CD-I
>hasn't really increased.
The number is about double what it was last year at this time, and output
is now getting close to a dozen titles per month. More significantly,
many Mac/PC/CDTV CD-ROM producers are now or will be creating CD-I titles.
Even rock groups are getting into it. U2 uses CD-I in their shows, and
Todd Rundgren announced his next album will be interactive on CD-I players.
>I wonder if anyone will have the guts to say "next year several Japanese
>makers are going to introduce players..."
Sure, I'll say that :-) Is anyone crazy enough to predict otherwise?
kevin <kdar...@catt.ncsu.edu> <76703...@compuserve.com>
Rick Kelly
That's the point. Japanese companies won't get interested until they see
some action.
I've seen the current Phillips ads on tv, and they are fairly lame. The
thing comes off as looking like a specialized Nintendo machine.