From Greg Clow Sent Wed, Jan 13th 1999, 16:12
From Greg Clow Sent Wed, Jan 13th 1999, 16:12
On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Jeremy A.Smith wrote: > You know, the bigger joke is that the price difference between gold layer= s, > and aluminium layers, is about 3 pence per CD?(I know - gold is more > expensive but aluminium, but it's more dense, and the layer is so thin th= e > amount of gold used is negligible). >=20 > So let's stop and ponder for a minute, the logic of an industry burning > 1000 10-year CD's at 6000 pence, instead of 1000 1000-year CD's at 9000 > pence, just to save 3000 pence - a saving of 3 pence per =A312.99 CD. Gre= at > idea, industry guys, but think of the long-term... But they ARE thinking of the long term... or, more accurately, *their* long term.=20 By producing a product that they know could quite likely stop functioning in 10 years time, as opposed to a slightly more expensive version that will last a lifetime, the industry is ensuring that we'll all have to repurchase our favorite albums several times if we intend to enjoy them until our dying day. Of course, I don't really buy into this whole "10 year lifespan" theory since I own quite a few discs that are over 10 years old (some approaching 15, I'd guess) and none of them show any signs of giving up the ghost. The any cases of "disc rot" I've ever seen or heard of involve discs pressed at the infamous PDO plant over the course of a couple of years in the=20 early 90s, and this problem was caused by an error in manufacturing the discs, not because of age. Greg