taak9@isuvax.iastate.edu (Steve Sheldon) (04/28/91)
I recently attended a demonstration for the new CD-I players that Phillips Sony are working on. The demo was given by Microware(here in Iowa), which makes OS-9, the operating system of the new CD-I. Basically CD-I and CDTV serve the same purpose, just built around two different computers. The interesting thing that came out of the demo, was that the rep from Microware said that they were using Amiga's for production work of CD-I animations. They're using Deluxe Paint III, DigiView, and the Toaster. His reasoning was that these tools don't exist on the CD-I hardware. Kind of interesting, but then he also said that every company doing software development for CD-I is using different tools. I'm afraid, tho, that the CD-I product will be more successful simply because of the tremendous amount of capitol backing it up. Steve Sheldon TAAK9@ccvax.iastate.edu
valentin@public.BTR.COM (Valentin Pepelea) (04/28/91)
In article <1991Apr27.233408.208@news.iastate.edu> taak9@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > >I'm afraid, tho, that the CD-I product will be more successful simply >because of the tremendous amount of capital backing it up. I contest this argument. First of all, the CD-I has been "about to ship in October" for 4 years now. CDTV on the other hand is a real product. It is shipping, and titles are already available for it. Ziltch for CD-I. Secondly, Philips has fallen into financial trouble lately. That will hamper them from promoting the product adequately. Commodore on the other hand is doing better than ever, if your take the stock price as a measure. (Too bad you can't take the stock price as a measure.) Software is easy to port to the CDTV, and the development platform is widely available and mature. Hah! for CD-I. Philips has gone the right way by fetching a real-time multitasking OS for their machine, and perhaps a better one at that, but the market will not consider this a factor. The CD-I has better graphics, yes, but on a television set you can't make the difference. At this point in time, CDTV looks like the sure winner. Only a brilliant marketing campain could propel CD-I beyond the growing success of the CDTV. But Commodore could not possibly be beaten at the marketing game, could it? Valentin (duh) -- "An operating system without virtual memory Name: Valentin Pepelea is an operating system without virtue." Phone: (408) 985-1700 Usenet: mips!btr!valentin - Ancient Inca Proverb Internet: valentin@btr.com
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (04/29/91)
In article <2600@public.BTR.COM> valentin@public.BTR.COM (Valentin Pepelea) writes: > >The CD-I has better graphics, yes, but on a television set you can't make >the difference. > This is the untrue part that is my only serious concern for CDTVs success. Although it is true that physical resolution increases won't improve things much, COLOR resolution is still a major limiting factor. I don't know the exact number of colors a TV can display but it is FAR more than what the Amiga can, without DCTV or HAM-E that is. -- Ethan "Brain! Brain! What is Brain?"
lshaw@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (logan shaw) (04/29/91)
In article <1991Apr28.184508.27650@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >In article <2600@public.BTR.COM> valentin@public.BTR.COM (Valentin Pepelea) writes: >>The CD-I has better graphics, yes, but on a television set you can't make >>the difference. >> > This is the untrue part that is my only serious concern >for CDTVs success. Although it is true that physical resolution >increases won't improve things much, COLOR resolution is still a >major limiting factor. I don't know the exact number of colors a >TV can display but it is FAR more than what the Amiga can, >without DCTV or HAM-E that is. Oh, piff. Everybody knows the success of a product in the computer industry is determined by three and a half factors: - When it is relesased / whether it becomes a standard. - Advertising / level of marketing hype - How much software is developed for it, and how quickly. - Price (if it's aimed at the home market). Notice that the actual technical capability of the machine is _not_ a factor here. Later, Logan -- // # "He said that He had your number; you cut the telephone line. \X/ # You said you needed a reason; He said 'there ain't much time.' Logan # You kept trying to avoid it; He kept knocking on the door. Shaw # In a flash it was over; you were a prisoner of war." -Rez Band
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (05/03/91)
>>I'm afraid, tho, that the CD-I product will be more successful simply >>because of the tremendous amount of capital backing it up. > > I contest this argument. [First, CDTV is shipping now] > Secondly, Philips has fallen into financial trouble lately. That will > hamper them from promoting the product adequately. ^^^^^^ That was _last_ year's news. Shortly after that posting, Reuters' news was: " Philips' net profit form normal operations during the first quarter rose to 135 million guilders, compared with 6 million guilders a year ago. The results surprised stock market analysts, who had been expecting a loss of between 10 million and 30 million guilders. Operating income rose to 655 million guilders from 450 million in the same quarter of 1990. The increase was attributed to turnaround in two loss-making divisions: professional products and electronic components." > Software is easy to port to the CDTV, and the development platform is > widely available and mature. Hah! for CD-I. Easy to port _what_? Games, sure. Not much else currently fits the idea of arrow-button driven titles visible from a couch 6 feet away :-). It's a slightly different ballpark here. As for CDTV having a mature CDROM and CD-quality audio development system... please tell us more. It was also suggested that the market won't consider the OS a factor. True. It also won't give a damn about _how_ the disc was created ;-). > The CD-I has better graphics, yes, but on a television set you can't make > the difference. I'll let others respond to that. > At this point in time, CDTV looks like the sure winner. Only a brilliant > marketing campain could propel CD-I beyond the growing success of the CDTV. I've been away... did I miss something demonstrating this "growing success"? thanks! - kev <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu> >"An operating system without virtual memory Name: Valentin Pepelea > is an operating system without virtue." Phone: (408) 985-1700 > Usenet: mips!btr!valentin > - Ancient Inca Proverb Internet: valentin@btr.com
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (05/03/91)
> The interesting thing that came out of the demo, was that the rep from > Microware said that they were using Amiga's for production work of CD-I > animations. They're using Deluxe Paint III, DigiView, and the Toaster. Yes, some do. Not all, tho. For instance, I tried to get a couple of CD-I studios to buy Amigas, but they already had the needed soft/hardware tools on other machines. Tho I'd think that an Amiga with digitizer and Toaster would now be a handy and inexpensive addition. > His reasoning was that these tools don't exist on the CD-I hardware. Right, tools exactly like those don't exist yet on the CD-I player _itself_. But that doesn't matter, because: > Kind of interesting, but then he also said that every company doing > software development for CD-I is using different tools. That's the key. CD-I authors use Suns, Macs, PCs, Amigas... and whatever peripherals you can get for those. There are also CD-I crosscompilers for at least the first two mentioned, there are CD-I emulation units which hook up via SCSI/RS232, and of course there are digitization/paint/edit programs commercially available for the above machines. Many companies have also written their own custom authoring software over the years. In other words, CD-I authors have a large choice of tools and platforms. (If a CDTV author didn't feel obliged to use only Amiga equipment, he'd have a similar choice range.) I'd guess that a lot of the choosing is done by the artists, btw. If they're used to an Amiga, or Mac-II, or whatever, I suspect they beg for the studio to buy one <g>. best - kevin