#Is CD-I a dying format?
16 messages in this thread
Rich,
==> "VIS is arguably 'more standard' since it is based on a version of DOS
and Windows."
Uh huh. And what happens to Mac or Amiga or whatever owners? What about
the 80% of US households without a personal computer at all?
No, again this is another reason why CD-I is preferable as a *mass
consumer* medium. It was designed by consumer electronics companies for
the specific purpose of being a world standard, highly interactive,
*TV-based* system.
Again though, CD-I doesn't (and wasn't meant to) replace CD-ROM. I think
this is what confuses (and perhaps falsely alarms) some people.
best – kevin
No, I am not afraid that CD-I will replace CDROM. I spend a lot of time
explaining to people that CD-I **IS** CDROM, just a special format intended
for a dedicated player.
Rich,
Umm… small quibble:
I think it's clearer to say that CD-I is another application of the basic
Compact Disc standard (which is why it has its own CD-"name" designation).
It's not CD-ROM, altho CD-ROM XA has been retrofitted with some CD-I sector
features.
It's not CD-DA, altho CD-DA tracks used.
It does use much of the disc for data like CD-ROM, but the embedded
requirement of a specific standardized cpu and specialized audio/video
hardware makes CD-I much more akin to CD-DA, marketwise.
regards – kevin
Kevin:
Our views of the "nature" of CD-I will probably remain apart. I can
appreciate that Philips wants to create the impression that CD-I is
aompletely original implementation of basic CD technology.
However, in fact, first there was CD-audio. It was extended (by virtue of
adding additional error correction etc) into a computer-readable data
implementation called CDROM. CDROM has further been extended (or further
refined, or further specified) in a number of other implementations which
require specific data layouts on the disc. Some of these are CD-I, CDTV
and CD-XA. CD-XA remains a higher-level compatibility factor because it's
style is used by CD-I, CDTV, Photo-CD and some stand-alone applications.
In my view, claiming that CD-I is an indepenedent 3rd format is not unlike
a few years ago when Philips tried to re-position videodisc as
"large-format CDROM" and CD-I as "small-format CDROM."
Rich
Rich,
I understand what you're saying about the CD-ROM connection between various
implementations, and agree that it could be looked at that way sometimes.
However, I don't think that just using a CD-ROM drive with different *HOST*
(non-drive) hardware automatically means you've made an extension or
refinement of Compact Disc. Using that simple criterion, every computer
with a CD drive could be considered a new CD "format". But they're
obviously not.
Likewise, different storage formats on the disc (dir systems such as
ISO9660 or HS… or data encoding such as GIF or Photo CD) don't make a new
CD format.
For example, CDTV isn't an extension of CD-ROM. It uses a normal CD-ROM
(ISO9660 Mode 1 files, no XA, no multisession) setup. In other words, like
most other CD-ROM based systems, it uses the drive as standard mass
storage.
OTOH, as you said, CD-ROM is an extension of CD-DA. It requires additional
*drive* decoding hardware. Likewise, CD-I and XA further extend Compact
Disc functionality by adding the requirement for ADPCM audio decoding and
buffer hardware.
best – kevin
Kevin,
——-> "No, again this is another reason why CD-I is preferable as a
*mass consumer* medium. It was designed by consumer electronics companies
for the specific purpose of being a world standard, highly interactive,
*TV-based* system."
But VIS is also a TV-based system, designed as such from the ground up.
VIS absolutely was designed for the specific purpose of being a world
standard, highly interactive, *TV-based* system. It uses DOS/Windows, but
it's not as though OS-9 was designed for CD-I!
VIS clearly is more standard, if standards are measured by their installed
base, which seems like the only practical measure. Or by the number of
titles. Or most important at this early stage, its greater appeal to title
developers. Surely you won't still claim that there's more happening in
CD-I titles than Multimedia PC titles?
Nick
P.S. ——–> "Sales in the first year reportedly have been double what
CD audio was in its first year. That's pretty impressive, considering its
original prices and the world recession."
I don't want to beat a dead horse, but to me it' *not* impressive when
Multimedia PCs have already sold 10 times that number of systems. MPC
titles clearly are outselling CD-I titles, which only adds fuel to the
developers' desire to choose VIS as the consumer system of choice.
As for Macs and Amigas, there are still many, many times as many of each of
them than CD-I. CD-I is totally unproven as a software platform. Tandy
doesn't want to ride the CD-I wavelet, it wants to ride the MPC wave, which
is really taking off, unlike CD-I. CD-I is in deep trouble unless Philips
figures out a new way to attract developers quickly.
Nick,
Re: 'VIS was designed as a TV-based system from the ground up'
Is VIS designed for NTSC, PAL and SECAM programming and output? Weren't
its video modes derived from VGA? Isn't it true that ported titles have to
be adjusted for the severe TV overscan and lower res? Was VIS designed by
a company with broad experience in digital TV chips? Woof 🙂
Re: 'Surely you won't still claim that there's more happening in CD-I
titles than MPC titles?'
Eh? I've never claimed such a thing. What I will claim is that CD-I
titles are authored explicitly for a TV/living room environment (and ported
VIS titles are NOT). I will also say that while VIS may be a short term
magnet for MPC developers, I do NOT believe that a situation allowing quick
computer ports automatically translates to good quality mass consumer
multimedia titles. For example, CDTV had a far, far better software base
(oriented for TV) than MPC does, and yet in the main, its titles pale
beside CD-I titles.
kevin
>Weren't its video modes derived from VGA? Isn't it true that ported
titles >have to be adjusted for the severe TV overscan and lower res? Was
VIS >designed by a company with broad experience in digital TV chips? Woof
🙂
Most of the MS-DOS home software titles were written for VGA Mode 13Hex.
That is 320 x 200 x 256 colors. The VIS supports that mode as well as
32768, YUV, and dual plane modes. So most of the DOS titles will move over
without changing their content. 256 color mode isn't ideal, but DOS
developers have been using it for over 4 years and have alot of experence
in optmizing the content and performance.
The video output is excellent (the S-Video is amazing). It's also easy to
"do your own thing" in terms of manipulating the video memory directly, you
are unrestricted in your access to video memory.
William Volk
Well said on developers. There are too many competing systems to CD-I.
The main advantage could be better titles for CD-I if the other systems
have junk titles, but early reports indicate that some of the CD-I titles
are not so good. If its hard to develop titles for any system, that will
reduce the quantity. I see the real consumer machines as enhanced game
machines with cd-rom drives. The rest of the folks will be using computers
or machines which can play computer titles.
Bill,
——–> "I see the real consumer machines as enhanced game machines with
cd-rom drives. The rest of the folks will be using computers or machines
which can play computer titles."
I agree, except that I'd add smart cable boxes, which may be how CD-I and
VIS each make their mark. All Philips has to do is convince Warner or TCI
to use a CD-I-based cable box and they'll have an instant market. It seems
to me, though my memory is fuzzy, that Philips still has a fair bit of
cash, despite its business problems. Warner, in particular, seems to be
looking for cash to upgrade its cable systems… anything could happen.
Philips has an amazing ability to convince non-technologists that CD-I is
way ahead of anything else on the market. Of course, it is in some ways.
In software development, though, it's behind. I'm sure that people from
Apple and Microsoft are talking to the cable companies, too, saying "Look,
we have X million developers out there who know our software. How many
does Philips have?"
Nick
Nick,
My memory is a bit fuzzy too, but I think IBM just bought into an
interactive cable service. So you could be right. Of course, GTE's
experimental ITV service out in California has been doing R&D for a couple
of years on using CD-I players both as cable-connected information
terminals and as cued-disc addons to educational cable shows.
==> "Philips has an amazing ability to convince non-technologists that CD-I
is way ahead of anything else on the market."
???? I am a soft/hardware engineer, and that's one reason why I support
CD-I.
==> "Of course, it is in some ways. In software development, though, it's
behind."
From the viewpoint of a newcomer used to doing development on a single
system, that's no doubt true. CD-I houses do often choose to use
combinations of authoring platforms, as no one system encompasses all the
needed capabilities. You can't break new ground by continuing to use older
and simpler platforms. (VIS's new video modes are an acknowledgement of
this, too.)
kevin
I thought there was a TIME-WARNER and IBM alliance. Have you heard anything
on this?
Bill,
Very much on the contrary, one of the best things going for CD-I is that
the overwhelming majority of its titles have been reviewed as superior
examples of what home interactive discs should be all about, both by owners
and consumer magazines.
Yah, it'd be interesting if Sega and/or Nintendo got into "content" titles
for their game machines. According to a recent survey, only about 1/5th of
US homes use a computer, while about 1/3 have video games.
As late as last week, Nintendo repeated its intention to continue working
with Philips on the means to make its CDs usable on CD-I as well.
kevin
Nintendo proved that the consumer doesn't give a hoot about what's inside
of the box. It's what happens when they turn the box on that counts.
Price plays no small role as well… The VIS' choice of hardware is based
on getting publishers to produce titles for the platform.
As to CD-I vs. VIS, the quantity/quality of titles will decide that battle
(and there will be other battles).
The interactive media publishers are in business to make money. They will
publish for the platforms that provide the best return on investment with
acceptiable risks. It's easier to justify porting an existing sucessfull
MS-DOS title to VIS and easier to "make a deal" than it is to launch a CD-I
title AT THIS TIME.
William Volk
And let's remember that VHS beat out Beta in the marketplace. We can't
assume that a "best" format will win. Me, I'm eagerly awaiting the Sega
CD-ROM machine to see what a low cost platform can really do.
I hope the Sega CD-ROM system does well. If it has any problems, it's
mainly the cost of developing for the system and the color palette
limitations. But if it gets good titles, that won't matter.
William Volk