• empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I’ve never had a need to burn a blu-ray. When bd-r’s hit the scene with their obscenely priced recording drives, it was only maybe a year or two before flash memory had already become cheap and fast enough that any volume of data large enough to justify a BD was better served on a 16/32gb thumbdrive unless it needed to be distributed in volume, and I’ve never needed to make enough identical copies of something to justify the $200-$300 that the first drives cost.

    It sucks losing an option but I actually doubt most anyone will notice. 3rd party manufacturers will keep making disc’s for a while anyway, Sony is far from the only company doing this technology.

    • Obinice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      2 months ago

      I use archival blurays for cheap, deep storage for decade plus usage, not something I’d trust to flash memory or even a hard drive. Tape is an option of course but that’s pricey.

  • magic_lobster_party@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Did anyone ever burn their blu ray discs? There has been so many better options like USB sticks and external hard drives ever since the launch of blu ray.

    • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yes, they are the best medium for long term backups, as optical discs should be fine for decades. Hard drives and USB sticks are liable to fail within a few years.

    • philpo@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 months ago

      Blue-Ray Discs are basically the only viable WORM (Write-Once-Read-Many) that is available to normal and small scale professional users. The cheapest alternative, Tandberg RDX is a few hundred bucks per TB. And these are far inferior in terms of protection against outside influences compared to BD media.

      And considering that a lot of professional data (e.g. tax reports) are legally required to be saved on WORM in a lot of countries it is indeed an issue, even more so in times of crypto/ransomviruses. None wants to loose their precious baby or wedding photos to a untimely virus. And no, normal Dropbox/OneDrive is no proper backup. And USB drives/external harddrives degrade over time, especially if not used.

      • suction@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Uhm sorry to rain on your parade, but all the cool people made fun of Maxwell guys back then. Our Nakamichi ‘gons got fed TDK exclusively…

  • corroded@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    2 months ago

    I really wish there was a viable alternative for physical backups. Blu-ray just doesn’t have enough storage space, tape is expensive, and hard drives need to be periodically read.

    I’ve read about holographic WORM media, but I just don’t think there’s enough consumer demand for the hardware and media to ever be as affordable as blu-ray.

    Once upon a time, I could back up all my important data to a stack of DVD-Rs. How am I supposed to back up a 100TB NAS, though? The “best” alternative is to build a second NAS for backup, but that’s approaching tape drive levels of cost.

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 months ago

      How am I supposed to back up a 100TB NAS, though?

      By spending money. 100T is a quite a lot of data and big data sets cost money to properly maintain.

    • urda@lebowski.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Checkout AWS S3 “Deep Glacier Archive”. It’s perfect for data you only “read” in recovery events, since you have to wait up to 12 hours to retrieve the data. I backup my Plex this way.

      • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

        Based on their 100T of data the .00099 per GB pricing will have them spending $99 a month, or $1200 a year, for backup.

        • urda@lebowski.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          You have to ask yourself if that’s worth it to you.

          For me? Yeah, I don’t want to rebuild these datasets.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yup, that’s why I don’t bother backing up media to places like S3 or B2, I only back up important stuff like family pictures and tax documents. Replacing my DVD or Bluray collection is feasible, it just costs time and money, but I can’t replace pictures and whatnot.

    • Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      I just double my HDDs and put them in RAID1. Not foolproof against data loss, but I wouldn’t be heartbroken if I lost my Plex library. For important docs I add a cloud backup.

        • bazmatazable@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’m trying to do a 3-2-1 but instead I’m doing a 4-3-0. Original is on SSD with scheduled backups to two separate HDs so that I have 3 copies on two different media (if SSD + HD counts as distinct enough) so then I added in BDR as an infrequent 4th manual copy for my most irreplaceable data (and I’m very strict with what counts as irreplaceable so that the total is just over 100GB at this point). Eventually I need to get a copy of the disks off site but for now they are in the basement.

          I have no illusions about how long the BDRs will last. (Seems like it is anywhere between 100 days and 100 years).My aim is to just have another copy that is distinct from magnetic or flash storage. My plan is to burn new updated copies so that any data on an old disk will get burned to a newer disk at some point. Maybe in ten years I’ll abandon this approach but for now it makes me feel better.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            You really should have offsite backup as well. If your home catches on fire, everything will be lost. That can be as simple as taking those BDRs to a friend’s house.

            Cloud storage is relatively cheap if you limit your storage. You can get 1TB for $6/month from B2, and I think it scales down as well (e.g. 100GB should be $0.60/month).

  • 0x0@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    213
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    We must cut all options for the end user to own anything, let’em pay subscriptions instead.

    In a SONY board meeting, probably.

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Eh, I doubt many people are burning their own Blu-ray discs - this does not apply to discs you buy that already have films on, those are manufactured differently, and are still being made.

      But even if you do archive your personal data onto Blu-ray discs, there are still other manufacturers besides Sony.

      This really isn’t a big deal.

        • FangedWyvern42@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Who still burns discs (outside of retro gamers) in 2024, let alone Blu-Rays? They aren’t killing the whole format.

        • MeatsOfRage@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          Really though, who burns Blu rays. Yes I’m sure there’s a handful of people out there doing it but I don’t know anyone who’s still burning discs in 2024. Storage space is large and cheap now and way less hassle than discs. Companies as big as Sony can’t keep producing products for a tiny market it just doesn’t make sense.

    • hesusingthespiritbomb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 months ago

      Different divisions. This is more akin to when Sony decided to stop making floppy disks. The market is there for now, but it’s just not worth it from a financial perspective.

      The amount of people burning their own blu rays is minimal. Even the type of people who emphasize owning their own content just use a NAS system.

      • 0x0@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        This is more akin to when Sony decided to stop making floppy disks. The market is there for now, but it’s just not worth it from a financial perspective.

        Ironically Japan is just now phasing out floppies, so there’ll still be a market for a while.

        A NAS is mostly geared for online media storage, whereas disks are for offline.

    • new_guy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      92
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Why are we suddenly selling more NAS grade HDDs?

      • Seagate executives
      • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Are we back to trusting Seagate again? Last I knew their spinning rust was t trust worthy. I’ve had 6 drives fail me in the last 2 decades, and all but one or two were Seagate, so I just assume their bad anymore and go with other suppliers.

        • new_guy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I genuinely don’t know. Their name was just the first one that came to my mind.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Every drive I’ve had fail, personally or professionally, has been a Seagate drive.

          • pikmeir@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            I’ve had both Seagate and WD drives fail. I just think drives fail rather commonly.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Seagate does seem to have a higher failure rate, but they are also cheaper. From this article:

          The oldest (average age of 92.5 months) hard drive Backblaze tested was a 6TB Seagate (ST6000DX000). Its AFR was 0.11 percent in 2021 and 0.68 percent in 2022. Backblaze said this was “a very respectable number any time, but especially after nearly eight years.”

          “In general, Seagate drives are less expensive and their failure rates are typically higher in our environment,” Backblaze said. “But, their failure rates are typically not high enough to make them less cost-effective over their lifetime. You could make a good case that for us, many Seagate drive models are just as cost-effective as more expensive drives.”

          Their oldest drives are Seagate as well, so that’s saying something.

          Whether a drive will be reliable for you is less related to the manufacturer and more related to capacity and luck.

          Here’s an anecdote from Reddit:

          I’ve had numerous hard drive failures over the years – nothing atypical, I just use lots of drives, and like almost everything else, they have stochastic failures. But between Seagate and WD, the Seagate drives all at least let me know they were going to fail soon, via SMART monitoring, and gave me (just) ample time to get all of my data off of them before completely dying. My WD drives that failed did so instantaneously, without any prior indication of problems.

          But this could also be luck, idk. My takeaway is:

          • Seagate has a little higher failure rate, which explains why they’re often cheaper
          • Seagate may do a good job detecting errors with SMART
          • all drives fail and whether one will fail before another is more likely up to luck than any systemic issue by a manufacturer
      • glimse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Something tells me the market for media servers is very different than the market for BD-R. The only benefit to having a collection of burned discs over a NAS is that you can let people borrow them. It’s otherwise mostly downsides

        • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          If you have a Nas… install plex or jellyfin and you can still let them “borrow” it all the same…

          Far from a “downside”.

    • otp@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I believe they’ve said that this doesn’t change their production of non-rewritable Blu-rays.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      I mean sure, but Jellyfin and HDDs exist, and are much more convenient than burning a Blu-ray that you have to put in a drive to watch.

      • 0x0@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Optical disks tend to be used for offline archival storage more than movies (IIRC they’ll still be printing out Blu-Ray movies, just not blanks).

    • FangedWyvern42@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      This is not as big a deal as you think. Blu-Ray production itself isn’t ending, they just aren’t making any more rewritable Blu-Rays. Most people aren’t going to be burning stuff to Blu-Rays. You’ll still be able to buy Blu-Rays if you want a physical copy of a film.

  • rem26_art@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

    Is this just Sony’s own production of consumer writable Blu-ray discs, or is it like, Sony preventing other manufactures from producing them as well?

  • atmur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is just blank writable discs, movies and TV shows on bluray will continue to be produced… for now.

  • HexesofVexes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    I mean, as long as there is a hard copy archive option out there this is ok (cloud is already flirting with copyblight).

  • NutWrench@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Good. Flash storage is everywhere now. Why go through an extra layer of proprietary hardware and DRM when you can have direct access to the video files which can be read on any platform?

    • Hello Hotel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      The DRM is extra awful with bluray, its usefullness is dipressingly lmited. Being propriatary makes it worthless as an archive medium.

  • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Damn, the end of an era. I wonder how anime will be sold in Japan now if not on Blu-rays?

    • dev_null@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 months ago

      They sell anime on recordable Blu-rays? Surely they use normal Blu-rays?

      • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Okay yep, I am too tired two days in a row.

        I thought it was all Blu-ray’s, not just recordable (re-recordable?) ones.

        I thought it meant that like, yeah Blu-ray’s in general are being phased out.

  • Toes♀@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    2 months ago

    I have a BluRay drive capable of burning but I’ve never needed it for that. I’ve been mostly using it for my ancient cd collection.