SanDisk secretly concocting read-only memory for archival use?

Getting wind of a flash memory successor is far from new, but a major player in the flash game now seems to have something a bit counterintuitive going on behind the scenes. After slashing jobs and prices in an attempt to "keep up with competitors," SanDisk is now reportedly delving into the "read-only memory" realm, as it seeks to create a product that acts as a "cheap archival device." Although the company is remaining tight lipped about the details, this self-proclaimed "3D memory" is said to last "up to 100 years" and become the "new digital film," but we're not exactly sure the digital disposable market is apt to boom anytime soon. Moreover, SanDisk seems to hope that this new creation will "remove the PC from the equation," allowing users to relive to excruciating annoyance that is developing film in-store while removing the ability to delete photos or overwrite bad snapshots once taken. Nevertheless, the memory is purportedly being tested in a retail pilot program, and Greg Rhine (head of SanDisk's consumer business) noted that Walgreens and Wal-Mart both raved over the invention, as it would theoretically force more customers to revert to ages ago when OTC development was an unfortunate mainstay.

[Sean @ Feb 27th 2007 3:14PM]

This is probably for the "disposable" digital camera market (CVS for example). Enough people were hacking and reusing them instead of returning them that they were losing money.

[John Stracke @ Feb 27th 2007 4:23PM]

But CVS's model relies on being able to reuse the camera. Write-once memory throws that out the window.

[Funkstar @ Feb 27th 2007 3:27PM]

I can see an alternative use for this technology. How about forensics? Photos on it can't be removed, altered and the written back. EXIF and time stamps can be altered, but this can't.

Also what about disribution of music? Promotional material? If it's cheap enough, it could be a viable alternative to CD-Rs for some situations.

[Matt @ Feb 27th 2007 3:40PM]

On the other hand, I really don't see this as a winner for digital film. The ability to take a lot of pictures and delete the crappy ones is part of the disruptive growth driving the DSC market. Even disposable cameras can do this.

On the other hand...
If this is really cheaper than NAND flash then it could actually be really cool for the DAP market. The ideal usage model for most people is to have enough storage to never have to erase any music. Current NAND players offer 8GB or less of storage, which is a bit too small to hold the entire library. Bump that up to 16GB and the write-only model starts to work. It would need to offer at least 50-100% more storage than NAND for the same $$, but it could work.

I can imagine the commercial tag line of the new $99 32GB write-once Sansa - "This will go down on your permanent record." Get it... permanent record... I kill me.

[pappy @ Feb 27th 2007 3:40PM]

Of course you failed to mention the even more notorious WOM. Hailed as THE most secure storage medium, the Write Only Memory can store vast amounts of digital data that can never be lost, stolen, or read.

[LJKelley @ Feb 27th 2007 4:18PM]

Seems like a step backwards to me... but thats just me. I guess it could have its uses, such as backup content for corporations or to replace DVDs/CDs/CDR that is only written to once with permanent data.

http://www.startblue.net

[Andrew C @ Feb 27th 2007 4:18PM]

Wait I'm confused. Someone explain to me why a card that you can only read is good for retailers? I mean can't I still print photos off of my home printer at home, regardless of whether or not it is read only?
I don't get it.

apc

[John Stracke @ Feb 27th 2007 4:24PM]

It's good for retailers because it's bad for customers: when you fill up a card, you have to buy a new one.

[Paul @ Feb 27th 2007 9:06PM]

But, if the cards are really that cheap, then CVS will just be able to swap out the used card for a new one before putting it back on the shelf. And until those blank cards are available to the public (if at all) CVS hackers are up crap creak with no paddle.

[Lei @ Feb 27th 2007 4:23PM]

I would definitely have a use for this technology. There aren't many mediums for storing images over a long period of time cheaply. CD-R and DVD-Rs degrade over time, HDs are too large, have too many moving parts to be relied upon, and current flash media are too expensive. I do a lot of serious photography and would be able to use this to archive my files reliably. I also take around 5k-10k pictures a month when I'm traveling which equates to about 40-100GB worth of RAW images. I have to carry an external hard-drive based storage device just to backup. If they can somehow price this at $2-3/GB, I would happily switch to using these instead of the current CF to make sure not one image is lost.

[Lei @ Feb 27th 2007 4:36PM]

I disagree that this is bad for customers. I think retailers will probably use this in their disposable camera technology. No real impact on me as far I'm concerned. It's not like SanDisk and all the other flash makers will suddenly stop producing RW flash cards. This is just another option and if it's cheap enough, a fantastic option for photography. The last thing I want to do is store all my photos on a format that degrades and becomes outdated over time. My main concern today with my digital-only pictures are preserving them for the future. If my HD or my backup HD dies due to a surge or failure, I would lose all of the pictures I've taken. It'd be great if I had the equivalent of negatives for filing and safe storage in a fire-proof box.

[John @ Feb 27th 2007 6:33PM]

FYI, SanDisk started delving in 3D, read-only memory back in October 2005 when it acquired Matrix Semiconductor. During the analyst call, which coincided with earnings, the CEO discussed the potential market for such products...

[starwxrwx @ Feb 28th 2007 1:21AM]

Something like this could be great for replacing the CD/DVD - and eliminating the need for optical drives in laptops (think: ultraportable).

Otherwise, if your laptop came with install programs on a flash drive - I'm sure most people would be tempted to erase it and use it for something else (or even do it by accident).

[Aron Trimble @ Feb 28th 2007 12:52PM]

Am I the only one that thinks this is paving the road for OSes installed directly to chips allowing OS upgrades to be as easy as replacing a memory card?

[Michael @ Mar 13th 2007 8:36AM]

I hear a lot of grumbling about the potential cons but not a lot of excitement about the possibility of 100 year digital storage. There's nothing out there that even comes close to that so far. If it's as archival as SanDisk says it is I doubt disposal digital cameras are their primary goal.

I'm a photographer and at this point in my career I fill up a 200Gb external hd in a little less than a year. It scares the hell out of me when I consider the fact that these drives are magnetic! Whatever you do for a living or for enjoyment imagine a lifetime's worth of your creativity and hard work gone in the blink of an eye ( or the drop of a drive! ). True you can increase the odds of keeping your work safe through redundancy but I would feel so much better if my storage media was a little more film like in terms of longevity. I'd still make a extra copies though :)

Read the article "The Digital Ice Age" in the December issue of Popular Mechanics and you can see how desperate some industries are for true archival storage.

It still doesn't solve the problem of future compatibility though.........