Not even large data centers really in the typical sense.
100% archival storage.
This will never be for the average consumer. By their marketing alone I can tell you they’re pretty much exclusively targeting large data centers with this tech.
douglasg14b@lemmy.world 11 months ago
capital@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I wonder how many people said that about computers back in the day when they were occupying a whole room.
Tattorack@lemmy.world 11 months ago
It’s not a scale issue. But a use issue.
I don’t see many people burning disks anymore.
frezik@midwest.social 11 months ago
Much to my frustration. Backing up a self-hosted NAS to 3-2-1 standards is difficult and/or expensive. I wish LTO drives weren’t out of reach.
onlinepersona@programming.dev 11 months ago
How big were drives 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 30 years ago? Floppy disks were big for their time. They held 3.5" floppies held a whopping 1.44MB in 1986. Average new phones have capacity orders of a magnitude bigger than that.
You might need to take a step back and look at history before making such absolute claims.
Tattorack@lemmy.world 11 months ago
What does this have to do with what I just said?
The problem isn’t how much data these can hold, but that they’re not rewritable. THAT is what makes them only useful to data centres.
You can only write to them once. But they’re not like hard disks or flash memory where you can delete the data and write again.
sir_reginald@lemmy.world 11 months ago
people also have necessities like these. family photos and videos, music and movies ripped from their physical media and ebooks can all be stored in a read only storage device.
BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Exactly.
So what if they’re write once? If the capacity is high enough vs cost, then I just continue filling it up with incremental Backups. Knowing it’s stable and massive means I just buy a new storage medium when it’s full… In ten years.