Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!taco!hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu!kdarling
From: kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: CDTV and CD-I (last)
Message-ID: <1991Apr13.061739.6348@ncsu.edu>
Date: 13 Apr 91 06:17:39 GMT
Sender: news@ncsu.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Lines: 54

In <1991Apr12.125623.8709@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes:

> There is NO way that their [CD-I] price-point can be close to Commodore's.
> The Amiga 500, which is what CDTV is, is 4 year old technology.
> Those chips in the A500 have been made for over 6 years.
> And Commodore makes them themselves.

I've already answered you once about this over in c.s.a.misc, but again:

CD-I has been in R&D for 5 years by the largest consumer electronics firms
in the world, with chips and players manufactured for almost two years now.  

Ever price the chips in CD audio players, or digital TVs?  Darned cheap.
The same companies who make those chips, make CD-I chips.

They're fairly cheap even right now off the shelf (you can buy the main video
chip for example, for about $25... add in a VGA 16million color RAMDAC palette
for $15, and a meg of RAM, and you've just built an killer NTSC/PAL card).
In consumer-sized mass quantities, the cost will be almost peanuts.

> Also, if the CD software for CD-I is being done so intricately,
> those CDs are going to cost a heck of a lot of money.

I remember similar arguments against audio CD's versus cassettes and LPs :-).
But yes, you're right, a lot of money goes into a quality title.  That's
one of my points.  CD-I has Columbia, MCA, et al, who can do that easily.
Tell me, what does it cost to make a movie?  And what does it cost to rent
or buy the tape?  (hmmm... renting titles?  possible business there...)

> Now, we have our own priorities of quality and price, but
> if you are selling to the American mass-market, by now I think
> we've all discovered that THINKING has very little to do with the
> decision to buy. 8) It is glitz and price.

Oh I agree.  That's partly why C64s, VHS, and IBM clones won out.

But wouldn't it be nice, just once, to promote the better technology
and have a _good_ standard for home consumers at first?  Bearing in
mind also, that because far more than just one company is involved,
the standard will evolve faster?    To use the favorite Beta vs VHS
argument, this is a case where VHS is actually better to begin with.

Or, from another perspective: I watched IBM clones slow much of computer
progress to a virtually stop for a decade.  I watched VHS take years to
get close to Beta clarity.  I'm just getting too old to sit around and
watch similar crap happen again in the interactive TV market <grimace>.

I think some people see this as an Amiga vs world situation.  No.  It's
simply a market CBM is going into without having the superior technology.
That's 100% _backwards_ from the way they got started with the Amiga, yes?
I would be ecstatic if they tried again, but with something to be proud of.

 best wishes - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>