#Is CD-I a dying format?
7 messages in this thread
John,
——> " I see VIS, from what little I know, as a parallel medium, since
it utilizes computers, as opposed to CD-I, which uses the ubiquitous TV."
Huh? VIS connects to televisions, not computer monitors. But both CD-I
and VIS are computers inside. They use quite different operating systems
(OS-9 for CD-I v. DOS/Modular Windows for VIS).
VIS' huge advantage is that titles can easily be ported from DOS or
Windows, while CD-I titles have to be mostly re-written. VIS is leveraging
an installed base of Multimedia PC systems that'll be 600,000 to 1 million
by the end of this year, while CD-I is limited to an installed base of
perhaps 20,000.
CD-I and VIS, though positioned somewhat differently for marketing
purposes, are competing head-to-head.
Nick
Nick,
I'd say that most CD-I titles are written from scratch to take advantage of
its features. The same should be done for VIS titles to take best
advantage of its features (and for, of course, the totally different end
user environment).
Your mention of a "leverage base" of a bunch of MPC systems makes no sense
to me. (In the first place, you can find numerical quotes to fit any
viewpoint <grin>. Some say there are over 60,000 installed CD-I systems;
Philips claims it'll be in the millions by 1994.)
But more to the point, you seem to think that most MPC owners are going to
*also* buy a VIS. Given a choice of using the original titles on already
owned equipment for which the native titles were designed to be used (with
keyboards, mice and monitors), versus spending extra money to buy another
(crippled) PC (VIS) to use a ported-down title on, why would they?
What it boils down to is this: Could you honestly recommend to your family
that they buy a VIS player right now? Could you look them in the eye and
say, "Yes, I think it will be a good longterm investment?" Give us your
analysis.
kevin
Kevin:
It seems that the systems people like Philips easily lose sight of their
position in the ol' food chain. Systems providers, title developers
(publishers) and consumers are very dependent on each other. As Philips
has demonstrated, no systems vendor can simply plant a flag and claim to be
the market leader, without support of the other two groups. Likewise no
small group of consumers (or even large groups sometimes) will get what
they want if the other two legs don't see a way to profit from the
proposal.
Philips' big problem right now is winning large-scale independent support
from developers. Your statement that VIS dpends on MPC owners buying the
VIS system too, is beside the point. The strength of VIS is that they have
a leg to stand to win developer support, an area where Philips is weak.
Both Philips and Tandy must then struggle to win substantial consumer
support.
>I'd say that most CD-I titles are written from scratch to take advantage
of >its features. The same should be done for VIS titles to take best
advantage >of its features (and for, of course, the totally different end
user >environment).
The "Home Software" market, on the PC, has been producing titles that are
"keyboard-less" and cursor driven for the last 4 years (at least). A title
like "The Playroom (Broderbund)", "The Manhole (Activision) or "Wing
Commander (EA/Origin)" is as well suited to the VIS as it can be.
William Volk
Kevin,
I'm talking about software development when I say that VIS is leveraging an
installed base that's 10 times the size of CD-I, even though the Multimedia
PC was announced years after CD-I was. As a developer, I look at
developing once for Windows and VIS, versus developing another version for
CD-I. With several hundred thousand Multimedia PC machines already
installed, it's a no-brainer to go with VIS, since I have to do an MPC
version. I don't mean to be condescending, but this isn't exactly rocket
science. More machines means more software sales. When there are 10 times
as many machines, I have to have tremendous faith in Philips to believe
that it can offer enough incentive to develop for CD-I.
VIS isn't all that different from Multimedia PCs. Look at "Just Grandma
and Me." How much do you think its functionality needs to change to work
well on VIS — or on CD-I, for that matter? Hardly at all, but to go to
CD-I requires far more investment than to go to VIS.
Sure, Philips forecasts that CD-I will be in the millions in 1994. Big
deal. MPC machines will reach a million in a few months!
I'm not saying that MPC owners will buy a VIS. Why would they? I'm saying
that I can sell them virtually the same software. There are certainly
titles that'll work on an MPC machine that won't work on VIS. There are
interface changes that have to be made for VIS. But the differences are
tiny compared with the cost of going from DOS/Windows to CD-I.
You can look at VIS as a crippled machine or you can look at it as an
enhanced machine. If VIS is crippled by its lower-resolution screen, lack
of keyboard and expansion bus, etc., then CD-I is equally crippled.
Certainly CD-I has an operating system that offers some advantages for
doing certain things, such as animation, but again, they're hardly worth
the huge increase in risk
[continued in the reply]
[continued]
that goes with porting to yet another platform, when we're doing MPC
versions *anyway*. It all comes down to that — we're doing MPC versions
anyway, because it has by far the biggest, fastest-growing installed base,
although one could argue that the Mac is still ahead in a sense. But we're
doing Mac versions, too.
Nope, I don't consider VIS to be a great investment. I recommend that
people buy a real computer. As a cable box, VIS might be pretty good. I'm
skeptical of the whole category of these machines, as I was saying before
VIS was ever introduced! And if VIS is a risky investment, CD-I is far,
far riskier since its software doesn't leverage off of anything.
If VIS flops, I clearly can still make money from my investment by selling
my titles on MPC machines. If CD-I flops, I lose a whole lot more time and
money.
Nick
P.S. Haven't we had this discussion in the Multimedia Forum? 😉