There are many factors to consider when making the jump to blu-ray for data storage… the most important being long-term data integrity of the media and recording process. The anecdotal evidence being discussed so far seems to indicate that even azo dye (LTH) media isn’t as good as azo based dvd products because bd-r’s are still a developing technology… ,
bd-r seems to be going through some manufacturing r&d which will hopefully make things better by the time the pricing matches the mass marke (somewhere under $100 for writers & less than $1 each for media). Most of us tech people will hold blu-ray writer & media companies to the same standard that’s been reached with cd-r & dvd-r drives & media… disc rot seems to be a problem with cd-r about 7 years and about 5 years for dvd-r (or at least the earliest possible time you should consider re-copying the data to new media as a backup when properly stored at optimal conditions). when discs aren’t stored in optimal conditions and/or have physical defects lifespans are greatly reduced. Following this trend, blu-ray media would be good for 2-4 years… and that’s not acceptable given the current pricing. So the hardware & media have to get better to be acceptable to the tech industry for wide-adoption. Otherwise, hard-drive/ssd arrays might end up being the better alternative for long-term data archiving.
there is also a commercial r&d going on for 4-layer bd-r discs totaling 128gb, however since the costs for making 2-layer (the htl process) is so expensive there is some doubt that these drives would end up in the mass market before something else in the terabyte range comes along. cheaper, faster & better.
I want to see the organic dye lth process get similar results to dvd media… and it’s just not there yet. Prices would need to be in the range of the most expensive Ty SL discs in volumes of 100pk. ($40-$50 per 100 pack for BD DL). Imagine 50tb of data archival for 5 years at $50? Crazy, but a goal I hope we reach in 2011.