Successful technology startups are usually those that hit the market in a sweet spot — where market conditions create significant demand just as the startup is introducing its product. From the look of the rapidly-consolidating hard drive business, it might appear that I’ve missed the sweet spot with the metal foil disk technology some readers may remember I’ve been working on for several years. Hopefully not. But in any case it is probably time for an update.
When I started down this path toward a drive that uses very thin metal foil instead of polished glass there were several potential customers. Then Western Digital and Seagate started buying their competitors until now there will shortly be just two hard disk companies that actually make their own products. Toshiba may continue on its own course, but Toshiba contracts its manufacturing to others, while Seagate and WD are vertically integrated, making almost everything in-house.
Some of this consolidation can be attributed to the growing success of solid state drives based on flash memory technology. That’s certainly the case with Samsung, which is selling its hard drive operation to Seagate and further expanding its flash business in the process. But hard drives are far from dead. The best technology roadmaps I can find suggest hard disks will remain dominant in PCs and data centers alike until 2025. So I keep telling myself there is plenty of time yet to deploy my technology.
Just because a platform is likely to survive doesn’t mean that it will do so without change, and change is one of the things that has hurt my foil drive. We focused all our work on the 48mm (1.8-inch) form factor drives common in media players and netbooks just in time to see those drives scheduled for retirement as the bottom end of the market gives way to flash. Uh-oh. Back to the drawing board.
What’s interesting about this impending demise of 48mm drives and how I made the wrong call is that by conventional thinking they shouldn’t be going away at all. We always need more storage space in our devices and flash is still too expensive to compete with 48mm on a bit-to-bit basis. What I failed to anticipate (and what killed me) was cloud storage.
For the first time, new media players, netbooks and notebooks generally have less internal storage than did the previous hardware generation. That saves money for the manufacturers but, more importantly, those same manufacturers are further leveraging this deliberate storage deficit to push their own cloud storage services. Who needs a lot of storage on your iPod if you can keep all your movies in MobileMe?
And that cloud storage will all be on hard drives, of course, so we’re back in business, though at a larger form factor.
All hard drives will shortly be either 2.5-inch or 3.5-inch and my sense is that in the long term (that is between now and 2025) the 2.5-inch form factor will prevail. Downward cost pressures will make it logical to standardize on a single physical size and 2.5-inch drives will fit in smaller devices like set-top boxes where 3.5-inch drives are already too big.
So I am aiming at the new sweet spot, the 65mm (2.5-inch) foil drive.
What’s taken so long is that making this stuff turns out to be very hard to do. You have to find the right alloy (more difficult than you’d guess), get someone to make it for you at a purity better, frankly, than the world has ever demanded before, then figure out a way to roll, stretch, punch, deburr, polish, clean, and package it, with each of those stages worth a startup in its own right.
Just the purity part can be difficult for many folks to get their minds around. In this case we’re talking about not just the precise alloy, but also about occlusions — particles within the alloy. Occlusions are chunks of metal that deserve to be in there but ideally would be more completely mixed in the alloy matrix. Typical occlusions might be tiny grains of chromium or cobalt. The trick is that occlusions have to be smaller in diameter than the thickness of the foil so they don’t mess-up the magnetic environment on both sides of the platter at once. If your disk is 30-microns (0.03mm or 0.00118110236 inches) thick, then occlusions have to be guaranteed less than 30-microns.
Try getting that from a company best known for making cannons.
This is not only a pain in the ass to accomplish, nobody had even requested it before. So when you show up at the door of a giant steel company asking them to do just a few kilograms of some obscure alloy at a purity level beyond anything they’d ever even imagined, don’t be surprised if they laugh in your face.
If you can get the right alloy at the right purity, then you have to figure a way to make it super-flat. This is traditionally accomplished through progressive rolling then stretch-leveling then polishing, again to a standard never before required for a material that is also very thin. It takes years and kissing lots of frogs to find vendors who can do such work.
Even then you still have to clean the disks and package them for sputtering. This involves not just special cleaning machines that have to be built, but also designing packaging to protect the disks in transit yet can be opened at the disk drive factory without damaging the very fragile disks.
And that’s all it takes to change the world.
At the bleeding edge of technology there is always a question of whether it is worth the effort. At each platform transition is it better to throw money and energy at being the best of the last generation or the first of the next generation? This question is embodied in the whole disk drive versus flash drive competition. I had decided already to continue with hard drives. But that doesn’t necessarily mean everything has to be made using refinements of techniques that were in some cases developed centuries ago.
We proved by spending a lot of time and money that the roll-stretch-punch-deburr-polish-clean-package process could be done at a level comparable to current glass disks. But what happens next year when our customers inevitably demand even tighter tolerances?
We’d be screwed.
While what we wanted to do was possible it wasn’t practical. Operating on that bleeding edge it was becoming clear that most of the blood would shortly be ours. It was time to either give up the dream or make a quantum leap in manufacturing what many already viewed as a technology that was itself obsolete.
So I of course opted to build my Model T using nanotechnology.
Our new process builds foil disks one atom at a time, completely eliminating every step of the previous process. The new process comes down to: Step One — remove finished foil disk from machine. There is no Step Two.
With the new process there are no occlusions and the disks are absolutely, perfectly flat. The disks can be made of any alloy ever imagined or some new alloy we invent. And here’s the really cool part: while we’re making foil disks why not make the magnetic recording layer, too? No more sputtering.
Every stage of a manufacturing process has some units that can’t pass inspection. Our new process collapses dozens of stages and their associated wastage into a single stage.
It’s all or nothing.
Now to prove we can do it 800 million times per year.
Your right if your doing the same as everyone else it’s time to change the game.
A question though…
Care to make a prediction on how long before you get your 2nd gen foils on display?
and once you’ve locked down the IP time to add your partners to the next startup tour … when did you say your first startup adventure was going to hit the air waves? I’m still waiting or did I miss it?
https://www.wikihow.com/Use-You%27re-and-Your
Cringely – what is the benefit of your foil platter over glass platters?
Here’s the original article from his PBS days: https://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2006/pulpit_20061026_001143.html
Josh – thanks.
Finally!!! This is good news Cringe! How about an update on your shoot for the moon? I love your projects…
“The best technology roadmaps I can find suggest hard disks will remain dominant in PCs and data centers alike until 2025.”
I find that hard to believe. Do you have a link?
On the basis of dollars-per-gigabyte, spinning magnetic media still has flash memory beat. Now, I haven’t recently seen any graphs of that ratio vs. time, for each type of media, but I don’t see those two curves crossing any time soon. And as long as the cost of platter-based storage can be kept low by new refinements (in technology and manufacturing processes), I find it pretty easy to believe that it can remain competitive.
On the flip-side, it’s fair to concede that similar refinements are happening with flash memory to continually make it more cost competitive. But are they happening fast enough?
SInce we’re talking about cost vs. storage density, does anyone know if tape is still cheaper than platters (on a per-gb basis)?
To add to what Paul DeLong said, the rise of the flash media is only apparent. Sure, they’re taking over, but only on the front-end, in phones, tablets, laptops and probably soon desktops. But we will still need something to carry the load of the data, and that something will use platter HDDs; be it a NAS inside your home or a SAN at a cloud storage provider.
It’s even entirely possible that flash will never reach the price per GB threshold needed to dethrone HDDs completely and will share the storage market with them: flash on front-end devices, HDDs on the backend.
It’s less than clear that this metric (dollars per GB) is the relevant one.
For consumers, the trend WAS an ever increasing need for storage, because what was not available was not big enough; but that has changed in the past few years. Most consumers are now at the point where a single 2 (or 3 or 4) TB drive is good enough — perhaps two, one for media and one for backup. And assuming a multi-TB drive is necessary, rather than a .5TB drive, is being generous.
(I fully expect to see replies along the lines of “oh yeah, my collection of movies fills 50TB. But guess what, dude, this is not about you, it’s about the MASS market.)
There was a period when we wanted larger drives to hold our music; then larger drives to hold our video. But there’s no obvious successor to video that requires huge capacity. Which means (and this is my point) the battle moves to OTHER criteria.
People want storage that is cheap, yes, but they also want it to be robust, to be low power, to be small. Right now flash is less than ideal for external drives, leaving a bad taste in the mouths of many consumers. We’ve had one bad firmware incident after another; and pretty much every 3rd party flash drive uses so much PEAK power that, after a particularly grueling series of writes it’s likely to disconnect from the bus. But what people want is something with the potential attributes of flash (mechanically robust, silent, low AVERAGE power) without its current crappy attributes. And they’re willing to pay for that.
The fact that mechanical drives stalled at 2TB for years, with various Windows crappiness not allowing them easily to grow beyond this, shows my point — the incessant demand for larger drives is no longer there.
The fact that the USB3 introduction has been so late, and is still an abortion in progress, has meant that there’s been limited incentive for external SSDs to realy take off.
But the directional signs are all clear. SSDs at 100s of MB/s, which aren’t designed by cheapskate morons are coming, and there’s NO WAY spinning metal, whether it’s on glass or foil, will compete.
If you want to operate in the disk drive space, figure out how to put a transparent flash cache in front of your mechanical HD that doesn’t suck. (Unlike Seagate, who are apparently only capable of creating a flash cache that is largely useless.)
If you want to operate in the consumer space, create a new flash brand whose products are absolutely VALIDATED to work under standard consumer conditions, with no crap about bad firmware and power overloads — and back this up with a money-back, no questions asked, guarantee.
There are two intermediate term markets of interest — the consumer market (flash) and the dollars/GB market (cloud and maybe consumer backup). I don’t see a place for something that’s slightly better than traditional HDs along dimensions no-one cares about.
While I don’t know about the year 2025, it’s less that 14 years away. Not too long.
Also, if Bob’s foil drives are as effective as he claimed in the original article, all the big storage vendors would use them (yes, the 2.5″ form-factor) in their storage arrays. If he can provide compelling advantages in less power consumed, less heat generated, and good data density, and provided throughput and latency are as good as other devices, they would get used.
If the main storage target is going to be storage server farms, I’d think the target will actually be 3.5″ drives. Capacity of 3.5 drives will always exceed 2.5″ drives and that is whst matters the most for cloud storage
Think about it — current 2.5″ customers are mostly laptops and Apple, always the trendsetter is busy eliminating the hard drives in favor of flash storage. They have already done it to their AppleTV set top box, which is probably the world’s top selling set top box right now.
I think Bob is missing the boat on HD sizes again.
Apple’s box may be a poor example since it’s for streaming not storage.
Server can hold many more 2.5 hard drives then they can 3.5 per U which makes them more common now days in data center
Good luck.
If you pull it off and the end result is compatible, cheaper, faster, and higher capacity, count me in as a customer.
Heck, count everyone in.
Ah. I wish I had sent a comment wishing you luck when you had initial proposed the idea. I distinctly remember thinking the real benefit of the foil disks would be the energy savings if they were utilized in a large data storage centers.
You seem focused on the high volume, consumer end of the market. Maybe I read it wrong, or that is just the final destination.
As a small startup, why not focus on the huge disk array companies. For much less energy, get a much higher density of storage. Sell to the big cloud centers that are sucking down the local power grid.
There are fewer customers, you may have an easier time with distribution, and one big company (maybe the one that starts with G, they hate the blog, but may love the disks) could make the company. You can also work out the first generation of issues in with less exposure to the market.
Later you can expand into the Best Buy shelves.
Anyhow, this is not your first rodeo, so good luck.
Disk drives are now essentially a commodity with only the interfaces and motor speeds changing from one application to another. The platters are identical. So aiming for PCs also aims at data centers and aiming at data centers also aims at PCs. They all come from the same parts bins at the same manufacturers. Gateway or NetApp, it’s the same stuff.
— They all come from the same parts bins at the same manufacturers. Gateway or NetApp, it’s the same stuff.
If that’s really, really true than EMC, et al, are making a bloody fortune. Last I understood, while the parts have the same source, Enterprise Parts get increased QA and SLA; IOW the top X% of the line.
…well, if you look at their recent earnings reports, yes, they are making a fortune…
2.5-inch glass disks vary from $4-6 depending on quality, which in this case means flatness. So while there is SOME variation, it isn’t all that much compared to the cost of the drive. Remember EMC doesn’t make drives, by the way. They buy them from Seagate and WD just like we do.
Whether or not this is successful, I feel like this is something James Burke’s spiritual successor will be talking about in 50-100 years.
You know there are some very clever kids doing this in a university labe RIGHT NOW, and they are ahead of you.
If they are here in the U.S., or in Europe, you’re fine. It will take too ling for their administrators to patent the process, and shill it to some manufactuer. If they are in Asia, you better hope they are in Japan. If they are Chinese, and even if they are doing it here in the U.S., you got a problem.
But hey, patent it and license after your first generation of drives. I don’t begrudge you the royalties. I’m really interested in what you would write about when you don’t need the money…
Who said there were no patents? Patents? We’ve got stinking patents!
I have no intelligent comment to make but, as a long-time reader, I have to say kudos to you for your solution!
Speaking of long overdue projects, when is your rocket going to land on the moon?
Summer of 2012.
Oh cool! Who’s got the live streaming rights? If you haven’t found an outlet yet, I have a great producer friend over at Discovery Channel. E-mail me if you’re interested, I’ll put you in touch.
We have a deal already.
When will we see an announcement with more details?
“…is it better to throw money and energy at being the best of the last generation or the first of the next generation?” That reminds me of the early ’60s when transistors prompted tube companies to make vacuum tubes the same size as transistors. I kid you not…they were in actual consumer products.
Save your money.
You think hard drives will be around in 2025? You’re off on that. We can now get 1 Terabyte SSD hard drives. Granted they’re over $3000, but the price drops by half every 18 months. By 2014, they’ll be $750. By 2015, about $500. By 2020, they’ll be under $100.
Flash memory has killed all other storage technology. Floppies? Zip Drive? Why settle for mere megabytes when they’re giving away 2Gb USB memory keys? When the iPod first came out, it was all hard disk storage. Now, almost all of them use flash memory.
We now see flash memory as standard equipment on not just tablets and netbooks, but full sized computers like the MacBook Air. And, I’ve even seen SSD RAID 5 drive arrays.
Flash memory is faster and has no moving parts, and the more they make, the cheaper it gets. Flash will completely replace hard drives by the end of the decade.
“By 2020, they’ll be under $100.”
Maybe, but how large of a hard drive will you be able to get for $100 in 2020? Hard drives may still offer significantly more capacity for the money than SSDs at that time, and demand for storage space is certain to keep going up.
There won’t be any $100 hard drives in 2020. Hell, there aren’t any $100 OEM hard drives now. Try $30. And it is anybody’s guess what the capacity will be in 2020, but here are the basic reasons why you might want a foil drive:
Disk drive makers will always adopt technologies that save FOB dollars on every disk drive. It’s nice to have more capacity, sure, but when you can offer real savings measured in dollars per drive they will always go for it. In the case of foil drives the media costs less than polished glass, which runs about $4 per platter in volume. Even though titanium costs way more than glass, we use so much less of it that the material cost is WAY lower. This lower mass means a drive can use either a smaller/cheaper motor (saving even more money) or you can add more platters to the same motor (increasing capacity for very little extra cost). Because of the significantly lower spinning mass, energy consumption drops by 80 percent! Think of the effect on a data center.
Don’t forget, too, that we can run foil drives at 50,000 RPM, though that is a specialized case requiring a stronger motor.
Because the spin-up time for such a low-mass drive is less than half a second you can use lots of drives and simply stop them when not in use. This could economically replace tape libraries, for example — a $5 billion business — dramatically increasing performance while also increasing reliability (no tape stretch, print-through, or conditioning required).
The drives also have a higher MTBF because the heads can’t crash. The foil media yields, distorted by the air bearing, so the heads literally CAN’T crash unless that crash is caused by an external shock way in excess of 100 G’s. Head-parking for notebook drives is not needed, nor is the accelerometer that triggers the parking, again saving money.
Because the nanodisks are ABSOLUTELY flat and have NO bad sectors the head flying height can be reduced, increasing areal density. This means that next-generation techniques like patterned media and HAMR, both of which are proving to be VERY difficult to make work in production drives, can be put off for a few years and maybe forever (forever being 2025). We can support density increases of 4X just with the lower flying height. We can put two foil platters in the same space that presently holds one glass platter, further doubling capacity. That’s eight times the capacity for LESS money And when patterned media or HAMR are necessary, they’ll work just fine on foil drives, too.
“This lower mass means a drive can use either a smaller/cheaper motor (saving even more money) or you can add more platters to the same motor (increasing capacity for very little extra cost). Because of the significantly lower spinning mass, energy consumption drops by 80 percent! Think of the effect on a data center.”
Something’s not right with the physics here… At steady state the spinning mass has no effect on anything. The only reason you need a motor at all once you’re spun up is to overcome friction in the bearings and friction from ploughing through the air/gas in the drive, but neither of these is related to the mass. If you talked about surface area of various components I’d probably be convinced.
“Because the spin-up time for such a low-mass drive is less than half a second you can use lots of drives and simply stop them when not in use. ”
Now this part makes some sense. But the whole thing makes me nervous. Let me tell a little story. Back in the early 1970s IBM came out with new high performance 6250 BPI reel-to-reel tape drives. Woo-Hoo. By the early 1980s, a cheap table-top drive could read and write the same tapes with better performance for a fraction of the cost. What changed? Simple – memory.
The 1970s drives were designed with brilliant high precision mechanical engineering: the tape capstan was light (titanium?), hollow, and foil-like (nothing like your foil, of course), precision machined and balanced, punched full of holes and with a strong vacuum system that kept the tape securely glued to the capstan surface. A very powerful capstan motor was needed, and that too was designed with minimal mass with the available magnets of the day. All this was in the interest of increasing the acceleration that could be applied to the loop of tape between the vacuum columns, and thus allowing the inter-block gap to be shortened by a factor of 2 or more, since the tape had to be taken up to speed within that gap.
A few years later, just a few KB of solid state memory completely removed the need for any of that. No need for heroic acceleration – just back the tape up to a bit before where you want to access, spin ‘er up as slowly as you like, buffer the data all the time, and decelerate at leisure. Cruise right over the inter-block gaps – the connection between physical blocks on the tape, and logical blocking as seen by the software was broken. Streaming, it was called… Not only the fancy capstan wasn’t needed, but even the vacuum columns could go, replaced by a clunky idler arm. (Of course tape technology itself moved on as well, cartridges came in for their operational convenience, GMR heads changed magnetic recording in other ways that were not easily foreseen by the mechanical engineers, and so there was little actual competition between the old and new drives.)
Well, there’s no direct technology connection to your project here; foil-based devices are mere coincidence. But I am skeptical when it comes to the ability of extreme mechanical (even if nano-) engineering to compete with Moore’s Law. Of course I don’t know how it will play out, but I think often of those IBM mechanical engineers and all the awards they won for their drive.
It takes power to spin-up the drive and that power is directly related to the rotating mass. It takes power to keep the drive spinning and that power is related to frictional and bearing losses which are IN TURN related to rotating mass. The average energy savings in a data center for foil drives is 83 percent.
Your claim about head crashes not being possible reminds me of the old Iomega drives, they made the same claim, for the same reason. I was working at Verbatim developing media for these drives and saw the results of the head touching down many times. If the platter is flexible, it will flex and in unpredictable ways. The head may have survived but the media sure didn’t; there was typically a very visible 1″-2″ gouge in the media (lost data) many track wide. At current densities that would be hundreds of sectors ruined. There was a reason they also advertised the heads as self cleaning.
The base problem with flash: it *will* wear out. HDD, if they get past infant mortality, can last for decades. Beyond that, retention and endurance are inversely related. Add to that the move to 25 and 20 nm NAND, which has cycle limits at 3,000, and things get antsy. While the unit cost of NAND does go down, the cost of over provisioning and controller logic to deal with lowered erase limits and retention make the SSD vs. HDD decision more complicated. Below 20 nm, who knows? Unity Semiconductor has been developing a NAND “replacement” for some years, but still in the future. Likely, there are others working on other approaches.
“the price drops by half every 18 months.”
Maybe. “Moore’s Law” isn’t a law at all, merely an observation of what has happened in the past. There is no guarantee it will continue indefinitely!
Also, it predicts that the number of transistors doubles, not that the cost is reduced by half. They have been roughly tracking, but again this may not continue as the manufacturing becomes increasinly expensive.
Conventional Disks vs Tape: If you consider a whole hard disk as “the media” tape was 2x cheaper than slowish disk last I checked, excluding the cost of tape drives. Reliable tape drives tend to be pricey, rapidly go obsolete and tend to be hard to repair. Disk interfaces tend to change slowly (e.g. you can still hook up an IDE drive to a modern machine, even if you have to use USB to do it).
So in the right circumstances, tape can still be superior (that 2x cost thing trumps everything else if you have big enough backup needs) but for me, I think I have bought my last tape drive and am rather happy about it.
Disappointed in the normally awesome level of commentary here.
Looks like you should stick to software startups if you’re looking for tips from readers, Cringely!
The difference between this and Duke Nukem Forever?
50k RPMs?
Sign me up for one!
Bob, this is real interesting. How do you make time for these projects in between your RV-trips and family time and blogging? Impressive.
You may find this silly on first blush. But, think deeper and this may have some usefulness/context to your drive-business idea? Old announcements, but in case you did not read about this before, here is what I would ask you to look at.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/23/rvd_system/
https://www.engadget.com/2006/11/25/college-student-creates-paper-based-storage-system-no-not-that/
There have been a few who have laughed at this. And yes, there have been no further news from the lad, but perhaps he just ran out of R&B dollars and could not advance further.
Did you see the comment at the end of your first link “You do the maths, but we reckon that’s way short of a 90-450GB disk”, referring to 432 large pages of content?
How does the energy cost of nano-tech manufacturing compare with multi-step candidate (including wastage) or prevailing conventional flash and glass platters?
Amortized over expected lifetime…
In automobiles nobody accounts for energy cost of acquiring material and manufacturing – only for energy efficiency of operating.
(Those clunkers in Cuba are by far the most energy efficient vehicles in the world seeing that the energy of materials and manufacturing is being amortized over 30 years and they have this law that vehicle with passenger space may not pass pedestrians without offering a lift. )
We’ll see, but it looks encouraging…
Passing laws to prevent the use of energy or using military force to prevent a higher standard of living can hardly be attributed to the vehicles “energy efficient” qualities.
It seems that countries with ‘social capital’ does better with laws that increase vehicle occupancy Cuba being a case in point.
Imagine living in a place where you can offer a lift to any pedestrian. Cuba has the kind of social capital that allows it to move up to a million people (with their livestock) without loss of life, regularly, in the face of hurricanes. Compare that to New Orleans (Caterina) – Cuba discreetly offered assistance which did not even warrant a response.
=============
Not passing laws to regulate conspicuous consumptions of non-renewable, got us into this unsustainable situation.
Interesting…the high corelation between poverty, socialism, the third world, and energy efficiency.
Karel, yes, people do account for the energy costs of manufacturing an automobile, and those costs are far less than the costs of operating them. So those Cuban clunkers aren’t as efficient as you’d like to believe.
Here’s a link, google yourself for plenty more:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=433981
Start thinking about other areas where you could benefit from the acquired knowledge, Bob. From the initial article, I assume your partners are bright in HD area, but quite often it means they would not look left and right of the road taken. So that’s your job, then.
Twenty years in the past or so, some guys were working on an alternative way for manufacturing CDs. I’m too lazy to dig in my archives right now, but the key point was them using foil instead of a rigid carrier. Stunning advantages, at first sight. To be kept on a reel by thousands, no clean room manufacturing required – that sort of thing. It took several years and many dollars, but, apart from that, it took them nowhere in the CD business.
Five years (and counting) for prototyping an aspect of a technology that is believed becoming obsolete, with the discussion going when that would happen, may well turn into leaving you guys behind a little disappointed, in the end. What
I miss in your article, is mentioning an exit point. You’ve defined one, I hope?
Hi,
Bob, anyone reading your blog would get the definite impression you are doing this all on your own in your garage.
Whereas, there are quite a few people that are ACTUALLY doing the real hard stuff, and attempting to get this off the ground (doing the science, math, and have done so from the start). If I were them, I would be pretty *isse* off.
Please have the good grace to restrain yourself from using too many, “I’s”, “Me’s” and “My’s”, and at least mention that the core work is being effected by other people, and that this is definitely a Team Effort!
Lorena
Gosh, Lorena, let’s give poor old Bob a break here. He already had the blog, moon shot, and foil drive to worry about.
Now he has to get the second phase of the Cringely Startup Tour back on track after being hindered by the bad weather back east and losing his tv spot.
I assume his responsibility for all these projects is at a high level. So let him refer to them as “his projects.” Doesn’t bother me any.
There are plenty of engineers involved, you are correct. So let’s be precisely clear about what part of this is attributable solely to me:
1) I came up with the original idea.
2) I found guys who were doing something that could be adapted to my idea but prior to my coming to them they hadn’t thought of it.
3) I found the money
4) I found the appropriate alloy and manufacturer
5) when it became clear that a traditional approach to making the disks wouldn’t work, I found the nanotech process we are using now and convinced the inventor to help us adapt it to this use. The process had been abandoned, by the way.
6) I found more money.
Other than those six things I guess I have contributed very little to this project, you are correct.
Nice. I really like this idea. Well done Bob!
Sounds like he’s making the best damn buggy whip in the world!
The cloud IS where it is all going! I truly wish I could have a small roll up screen I could carry around to get everything I needed, from doing my taxes to getting all my pictures. No (or very little) storage needed.
Joel, there disks in the cloud. They aren’t going away.
For your alloy problem, try talking to a company like SII Seiko Instruments, Inc. They make the alloys for watch hairsprings (iron based) and must, by definition, be very pure alloys.
There is no Japanese vendor who could provide what we needed and Seiko doesn’t actually make alloys at all.
I am surprised Seiko Instruments would not provide an alloy, they do make SPRON which is used in mainsprings and hairspring for watches, it is a Cobolt-Nickel alloy(Co-Ni-Cr-Mo), but it may not be magnetic enough for your application. Since it was designed for mechanical watches, it is really designed to be non magnetic. I hope the nano-technology works out.
https://www.sii.co.jp/components/prec_mat/productSpronDetailEN.jsp?recordID=50121
Did you mean inclusion instead of occlusion?
I’m no expert on this technology – thats why I come to Cringley.com! 🙂
However it occurs to me that the BIG difference between SSD and HD is complexity. SSD are hugely complex on an electronic level; HDs tend to be a tour-de-force of mechanical engineering (as the article brilliantly explains) but with relatively few parts.
So, I then ponder, you have this tiny disk, moving at high-speed and packed with data… That read/write head not only has to be an aerodynamic masterpiece, I suspect it has to move incredibly quickly and precisely through a very controlled atmosphere – or lack of. Part two of the manufacturing headache!
Contrary to another commentator I understood SSD was currently slower than HD, with correspondingly slower refresh-rates. More robust, yes, but faster no.
A final worry I consider is gyroscopic and centrifugal. This set up sounds really good in a locked-down rack, but not so reliable if being moved about a lot. There’s gravity and, I wouldn’t be surprised, quantum effects on such scales…. Wooa! there!! I got out of my depth! 🙂
“…I understood SSD was currently slower than HD…” I’m no expert either, but several of us umpc owners have swapped out our HDDs for SSDs to get much better performance for the “disk data transfer rate” component of the Windows Experience Index.
… point taken Ronc. Proof is as good as it gets! ;-D
I tried myself a while ago on a laptop (not a umpc but a Thinkpad) and I found it much slower. Going back to an HD cheered me no end. Perhaps the tech has moved on considerably. Perhaps the HD cache was the secret.
The foil disks is vastly superior in mobile use because of its low mass and flexibility.
Ah… So in the same way sports-car wheels are alloy for lower unsprung mass characteristics, foil drives give lower centrifugal and gyroscopic problems in mobile use? Got it. Glass = high mass; foil = low.
Call me skeptical, but I don’t think 3.5 drives are going to be gone by 2025. They’re still the best thing to have in the data center. I don’t see that really changing.
Beware of the “enough” factor – I think that’s what’s going to kill HDDs.
Let’s say you have 1TB of Flash storage for relatively cheap. And you could get 10TB of disk storage in HDDs for the same price. But the thing is – you don’t need 10TB, and Flash is way faster. 1TB might be simply “enough” for all the content you’ll ever create and to store those movies you A) download instead of stream and B) really actually want to collect.
This is what killed HDD based mp3 players. They’re still cheaper per GB – but 16GB is plenty as it’s enough for weeks of continuous music. Music players are an extreme example, with an extremely limited use case – but who’s to say there is not a similar barrier for PC storage. In the past we’ve always had more demand filling the bigger drives – but that is not a law, and that might not always be the case.
Movies are the biggest items I store on my HDD. The highest quality movies I have compress to something like 8GB – that’s good enough for even a pretty big LCD TV, let alone a PC. It’s good enough for anything unless you’re a movie buff with a home theater projector. If i can store 1000 of these on my laptop, I believe that that’s a natural barrier for data growth: I will never need more than 8TB on any machine. I won’t store anywhere near 1000 movies, but everything else I’d want to store will be way smaller still.
Cloud based storage will need bigger drives – computers – I don’t think so.
Should you succeed at producing the foil using nano technology, I think the real invention will be the nano technology, not the foil. The employment of nano technology to assemble macroscopic objects with cost efficiency can be applied to reduce costs and improve quality in a huge number of products.
YES!!! We will make other products with this technology.
Tea, Earl Gray, hot.
YES!!! YES!!!
Jean Luc, here we come 🙂 I’m a beer guy, myself, but I always have some “Earl Gray” in the kitchen – and when I eventually come around to actually make some tea, my wife always asks “Are you sick?” – “No”, I respond, “I just feel a little star trekkish” :-)) During the whole ceremony I repeat this “Tea, Earl Grey, hot” mantra dozens of times, imagining a replicator :-)…
I think you’re mistaken about the fundamental reason for having less on-board flash on new devices. Flash is getting cheaper and cheaper all the time, for example now there’s 19nm process Flash, this on top of latest development of 20nm and 25nm only a couple weeks ago.
Cloud is a joke at which nobody is laughing. Take a look at PSN network downed and hacked. What good is that cloud when 30 million users are offline for 6 days now? NOBODY believes or trusts in the cloud, no matter what the commercials try to convince us of.
But what we do believe in is 32GB micro SDHC that we can buy ourselves, any time we choose, at current market price, and put into a slot in the said device, the cost of which slot is commoditized and will remain constant throughout the production life of the device. It is a drag for a manufacturer to spend a bunch of money on on-board flash that is falling faster than the object can be shipped, stocked, and sold before significant value is lost and that nobody really wants anyway.
Here’s another nice thing about micro SDHC. I can eject that memory chip from my portable phone/camera/MP3/tablet/whatever and put it in my laptop slot and do all the data transfer I want: no cables, no insecure wireless, no bluetooth transfer speeds. Also, if you cannot physically get your hands on my flash ram you cannot get my data. And no company can stop me from accessing it so long as my devices are still running. And I don’t have to trust that they aren’t spying on me or data mining me or otherwise exploiting my private information.
Yes I use PSN – but only for games. Worthless data is the only data worth risking on the cloud.
Robert X if you can’t make a 10 /100Tb model I would not make it!
Cloud computing needs very large storage and homes need 10Tb plus.
Below 1Tb is going to SSDs in near future.
Bob,
Congratulations on your project, especially overcoming the capacity problem via the leap to nanotechnology (which I’d love to know more about, someday when you can safely release that info to the public)
Just to think outside the box (or drive housing, as the case may be), now that you’ve got a way to construct something that is absolutely perfectly flat, what other applications are there for such a surface ? I’m no engineer, about all I can think of is next generation air hockey tables. But there must be some other, more sophisticated problems out there looking for this type of solution…
This technology is wonderful stuff. I do worry though about cloud-based storage. Not the science used to store the data. The concept of cloud-based.
Like most of us I use DropBox; I used to have a MobileMe account. I still have Google Docs. For me, as a domestic user, the system is too slow, hog-tied by Internet speeds; server distance. So for me, it doesn’t matter if data is stored on rubber-bands as long as it is reliable and available. I’m happier when it’s on an external HD, maybe even a home-based NAS.
When I owned a PC I used to Zip all my data files to save HD space. Now though I don’t bother because storage is cheap and plentiful. Connected locally.
However I do see that the energy savings for a massive data-centre would be appreciable. They probably have their customers who think they are marvellous because, as is the fashion with almost everything, their storage is “out sourced”, with delicious “penalty clauses”.
Forget clouds, I suggest. Keep data all over the place (as in the original idea for secure, attack-resistent Internet). In basements. And yes, on foil drives!
As in those famous sci-fi concepts of the all-seeing computer (Multi-Vac anyone?) is this where cloud-based computing is going?
Slowly but surely, yes. One day all our knowledge will be in the cloud. Then we will merge our senses with the cloud, and we will BE the cloud and the cloud will BE us.
Bob,
If you can get my email from behind the post, I’ve an idle thought kicking around my head for a while that required atomic-level control.
If this is something feasible, it might be a totally unprecedented market for your nanotech. I don’t have the time/tech to capitalize, but you surely seem to know your way around this stuff…
Feel free to email, I will share directly. Could be nothing, but after reading your column for many years, I get the impression you would be the one to have a good sense of knowing if what I am thinking of is possible.
it might be a totally unprecedented market for your nanotech. I don’t have the time/tech to capitalize, but you surely seem to know your way around this stuff…
If you haven’t already read it, you might find “The Innovator’s Dilemma”, by Clayton M. Christensen. He writes (from the point of view of business management) of the dilemma that innovators face in bringing new products to market, and he uses the hard drive industry as his case study. I found it very interesting, and I’m not trying to introduce an innovation in that industry as you are.
Oh…um…”you might find ~ interresting.” (forgot a word there).
Developed in collaboration between legendary music producer and artist Dr. Dre, engineers from Monster Cable and renowned industrial designer Robert Brunner. The Beats by Dr. Dre Studio headphones allow you to experience music the way the artist wants you to. These high definition headphones are precision-engineered to reveal the full sound of today’s digital music including the most sonically demanding rock.
A question though…
Care to make a prediction on how long before you get your 2nd gen foils on display?
electric airsoft guns…
I, Cringely » Blog Archive » Memo from the bleeding edge – Cringely on technology…
cloud computing services,cloud computing hosting,clouding computing,cloud computing service,cloud computing platform,cloud computing server,cloud computing security,cloud computing solution,cloud computing technologies,cloud based solution,cloud serv…
[…]I, Cringely » Blog Archive » Memo from the bleeding edge – Cringely on technology[…]…
I liked up to you will receive carried out right here. The sketch is attractive, your authored subject matter stylish. however, you command get bought an edginess over that you would like be handing over the following. sick without a doubt come further until now once more since exactly the same nearly a lot regularly inside case you defend this hike.
Watch full movies no cost
GE sensing…
[…]I, Cringely » Blog Archive » Memo from the bleeding edge – Cringely on technology[…]…
The dare wall , daily videos of music , info , documentaries ,fashion , tutorials and more , hip hop , drum and base , dubstep , rock , house , anime and more , with the download link , whach the funniest and most viral videos on the net…
[…]I, Cringely » Blog Archive » Memo from the bleeding edge – Cringely on technology[…]…
The Best shop online shop. We have all sort of thing. If you want a best product go to us. Thanks for your time….
[…]I, Cringely » Blog Archive » Memo from the bleeding edge – Cringely on technology[…]…