CTS - 2006 :: Interview with Lite-On's Jelmer Veldman

[Bob Crabtree]

Lite-On claims to be the outright No.2 optical-disc hardware maker world wide. Jelmer Veldman, whose job it is to grow the company's own-brand sales in Europe, took time out at CTS to answers our questions - about high-def DVD, the recent taking over all of BenQ's optical-drive manufacturing, new products in the pipeline and more, including what's happened to LightScribe.

Check out the full interview then tell us if you think there are other questions we should have asked - cos we'll try to get them answered, too.

[mull]

No inquiries about dual layer discs? That, along with these stupid high burning speeds and Lightscribe, is one of the really f-in stupid bits of technology that these companies have been adding in a token fashion and then totally failing to support.

Oh yea, another pet peeve of mine; why are there no attempts to get slimline optical drives used in SFF machines? It still seems pretty rediculous to me that these tiny machines are lumbered with huge full size 5.25" drives. Why are there no more serious attempts to standardise on a smaller size? Obviously the cost is higher, but there would certainly be a bit of a market there for these things...

[Bob Crabtree]

No inquiries about dual layer discs? That, along with these stupid high burning speeds and Lightscribe, is one of the really f-in stupid bits of technology that these companies have been adding in a token fashion and then totally failing to support.

Who do you believe isn't supporting dual-layer and the other things - the hardware makers?

There are two issues with dual-layer as best as I can see.

One is that if you are trying to write a DVD to disc that needs to span the two layers - here I'm talking about a DVD created from your own camcorder footage, not a rip-off of a commercial movies - it took the disc-authoring software companies a LONG time to make that transition between layers seamless; they gave you no way to choose at which point in your video the layer-break would happen. That did, I believe, greatly slow down the uptake of dual-layer, even though hardware makers were quick to offer it as a feature.

The other issues is the differential in price between single-layer and dual-layer discs but there is sweet FA that Lite-On or any hardware maker can do about that - and I personally don't know whether this is a chicken-and-egg kind of result of media companies not selling much media and thus not enjoying economies of scale or whether it is (as I tend to assume) them stupidly wanting to get a bigger margin on dual-layer than single-layer and thus, effectively, putting up a barrier to the sale of dual-layer discs.

As Jelmer made clear when we talked - and as I think the article makes clear - the hardware makers have little choice but to add features such as dual-layer support and ultra-high burn speeds, just to make sure that when the buyer compares products, all the boxes can be ticked.

I know it's stupid, you know it's stupid and the hardware makers know it's stupid but it is the way of the world.

And, hand-on-heart, if you were buying a burner now, wouldn't you try to ensure that all the boxes were ticked? I know I would (though I'd make an exception for DVD-RAM).

I can remember back in the early 70s, when I was working in electrical retailing, Indesit arrived on the scene with a bang. It's washing machines were very cheap but they also had one unique selling point - a stainless steel drum, when everyone else's washing machines had enamelled drums.

The truth is that enamelled drums were fine and not really in any way inferior to stainless steel (when you consider the likely working life of a washing machine's mechanical parts and the point beyond which a machine becomes uneconomical to repair).

But, Indesit made massive play of its stainless steel drum, and this caught the public's imagination - so much so that the other makers were disadvantaged. They responded in a positive way - by switching to stainless steel - rather than dissing it and saying that enamel was as good or better.

Oh yea, another pet peeve of mine; why are there no attempts to get slimline optical drives used in SFF machines? It still seems pretty rediculous to me that these tiny machines are lumbered with huge full size 5.25" drives. Why are there no more serious attempts to standardise on a smaller size? Obviously the cost is higher, but there would certainly be a bit of a market there for these things...

Again, I'm not sure that Lite-On is the right company to ask (or blame). My expectation, though, is that the higher price of slim opticals is the real barrier - makers of SFF PCs don't want to risk their machines being seen as over-priced and simply can't afford to swallow the differential themselves.

I would agree with you, though, that it would be great if optical drives were of standard size however, I suspect that the problem here is less to do with the size of the drives than the fittings.

Some drives are mounted in removable bays and these, it seems to me, are seldom if ever interchangeable between different makes of PC or even between different models from the same maker.

But that seems unavoidable - to me - when, in effect, each caddy has to be shaped to fit the particular design of laptop in which it's going to reside.

I honestly don't know whether the naked slimlines from different optical drive makers are actually massively different in size and, thus, not interchangeable - but I tend to think that is not the case, simply because the PC makers would end up being forced to buy only from a single source, and I don't see them being willing to put themselves in that position.

Of course, I may be utterly wrong on the size thing so I'd be happy if someone who knew the score for sure could either put me right or confirm that what I've said is true. I will, though, make a point of asking Jelmer.


Bob

[mull]

Woah, thanks for the long response, Bob. The first issue, dual layer dvds, I'll take your pioint on. There are a number of breaks in the chain, as it were, that have prevented the uptake of the format, and like you say, I don't think we'll ever see full availability of dual layer discs, mainly becuase of the cost. However, I would have like to have heard Jelmer's views on the matter.

The slimline drive issue I do think that optical makers can be held partially accountable for. They have the production capacity to make enough of these drives to sate Dell's laptop sales, after all, so I would argue a few of these could be diverted into desktop products for enthusiats. As far as the mounting issue goes, I've seen pictures of mounting devices that fit two slimline drives into a 5.25" bay; only a bit of metal, very cheap to produce. I'm sure there are enough SFF owners who would pay a bit of a premium for a solution like that to at least warrant a small run.

Bit off topic;

Not all the blame for the lack of innovation in this area is the hardware makers, of course; system integrators are the main groups holding the progression to small PCs back, I feel. Dell, for example, innovate little at all with enclosures, because the margins are so low already that R'n'D money is non-existant; and they have little competition from other OEMs innovating anyway.

[Bob Crabtree]

Woah, thanks for the long response, Bob. The first issue, dual layer dvds, I'll take your pioint on. There are a number of breaks in the chain, as it were, that have prevented the uptake of the format, and like you say, I don't think we'll ever see full availability of dual layer discs, mainly becuase of the cost. However, I would have like to have heard Jelmer's views on the matter.

Truth is, I think I was just too cynical about double/dual layer that I'd blocked it out from my mind!

The slimline drive issue I do think that optical makers can be held partially accountable for. They have the production capacity to make enough of these drives to sate Dell's laptop sales, after all, so I would argue a few of these could be diverted into desktop products for enthusiats. As far as the mounting issue goes, I've seen pictures of mounting devices that fit two slimline drives into a 5.25" bay; only a bit of metal, very cheap to produce. I'm sure there are enough SFF owners who would pay a bit of a premium for a solution like that to at least warrant a small run.

Well, you definitely can buy such burners, as SCAN's site shows.
Bit off topic;

Not all the blame for the lack of innovation in this area is the hardware makers, of course; system integrators are the main groups holding the progression to small PCs back, I feel. Dell, for example, innovate little at all with enclosures, because the margins are so low already that R'n'D money is non-existant; and they have little competition from other OEMs innovating anyway.

But whose fault is that? The companies respond to mass-market demand and we all want ultra-cheap kit. So, price, becomes the lowest common denominator. If I was any different from the majority of people, I'd be more critical but, truth is, I'm always keen to pay the least to get the most!

Bob