[NitpickLawyer]

Thanks for digging this up. Every "scientists create new storage medium" is always a disappointment when you get to see the write speeds. This seems decent? At least in "raw" numbers there's nothing obviously making this useless. Let's hope they have a path to quick commercialisation and make it available. If there's any DC adoption will be the real test, I think.

[po1nt]

First CDs would take hour and a half to write with a laser. Once engineers take over the tech, it will might get faster.

[wumms]

If they get the read speed up to a couple of GBit/s (~100x current max write speed), 4.8TB might be a good fit for 32k movies.

[bdbdbdb]

Of course there are people out there watching 32k movies.

Was 4k not enough?

Am I the only one who's still content with 720p?

[notyourwork]

The display has some bearing on this. Generally, 1080p is good enough but some cinematography benefits from better resolution and as a result, requires a better display.

[stackghost]

>This seems decent?

Definitely. If it actually achieves those speeds it's perfectly reasonable for long-term/cold storage.

[Someone]

Depends somewhat on the read speed, too. Extreme example: if that is one bit per year, it doesn’t matter that you can write stuff on it.

[dyauspitr]

I imagine if you can use lasers to etch at that speed, you can use them to read at similar speeds as well.

[thegrim33]

Write speed is probably the least important metric for people that are considering something like this. After everything with storage and longevity is taken care of, improving write speeds is a nice to have, but not the important part.