Interesting. I was looking back at my BluRay collection (physical) the other day, looking for a UHD movie to test with, and in my memory, all BDs with UHD, but to my surprise, very few of them were actually UHD, with most just being HD (1080p). I doubt there's in in my collection that are BD100; could I even play them? Currently using a PS5 as my BD player, and PS4 and PS3 before that.
A PS5 can play UHD Blu-Ray, PS3 and PS4 (even the Pro) can’t.
UHD discs are fairly noticeable at a distance as they usually use black disc cases instead of blue. They’re somewhat niche (if Blu-ray wasn’t already niche) and often sell at a premium, so I suspect unless you’ve been seeking them out you won’t have them barring the odd multi format bundle.
Question: what's the streaming budget for the big platforms? Can they offer 50-100 mbps? For example, a 70 gb video for a 2.5 hour movie would need 67 mbps to stream. Having access to a rip like that for a popular movie (meaning new or classic) is normal "on the high seas" and it has a detectable difference on my budget-tier setup compared to a ~20 gb rip. I'm wondering if streaming platforms can afford to offer something like that.
Sure, they could. But given that the average consumer really doesn’t care that much about picture quality (DVD _still_ outsells Blu-ray for example), why would they bother? Increased storage and bandwidth costs, for what exactly? To cater to the small group of consumers that have good enough hardware (and eyes) to distinguish/care about 20Mb versus 100Mb? Those people are probably buying physical media anyway.
We're misunderstanding each other. I take what you say to mean that Netflix could offer me unlimited bandwidth for 5 euros a month or whatever they're charging.
Just before I left the UK in 2018 there was starting to become this trend for voice verification on some services, in one particular one I had to go through the setup of (perhaps it was Virgin Media? I forget), they had me say "My voice is my passport" to train it on how I sound. I smiled to myself.
Cloudflare spends ~$400M/year on R&D while Chrome may be spending almost that much alone. Whoever buys Chrome needs to earn >$1B in revenue from it either directly or through some sort of synergy.
Why does acquisition of chrome demand $1b in revenue as an outcome? Why does chrome demand $400m in input spend ongoing, if it no longer has to deliver Google specific changes?
Brave takes open source chromium code, which is majority funded by Google, and adds things on top of it.
People underestimate how expensive it is to build a browser. There's a reason why we have only 3 major engines. Firefox (struggling), Chromium (Google backed) and Safari (Apple backed)
We have made the web far too complicated, and attempted to replicate a world of other programming paradigms into what was intended to be a remote folder browsing API
> Why does chrome demand $400m in input spend ongoing, if it no longer has to deliver Google specific changes?
I don't know if it needs $400m but I wouldn't be surprised if it's $20m+ just to keep the browser secure.
Google paid out $12m last year in bug bounties and I assume they spend that much or more for in-house security researchers/developers (headcount is expensive) and periodic independent audits of the codebase.
