stassen@trwspp.UUCP (09/18/84)
[] > After a few years, you'll have to copy your tapes anyway, regardless > of what type of vcr you use. Magnetic tapes are NOT long, long term > storage. Oh really? My father-in-law (the producer of "Benson") has tapes of many of his episodes, as well as tapes of some other things that he has produced (some as old as ten years). He bought a VHS recorder when they first came out (he was using an old 1-1/2 inch studio taping machine before then, and copied his whole library to VHS several years ago). The tapes are ALL fine, with no noticeable loss of signal. If you care for your tapes properly, they should be good for MANY years (more than 10). Besides, I would suspect that several generations of copying will degrade the quality of the recording much more than the small amount of print-through, stress, and drop-out that will occur. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The opinions expressed in this document are my own. They are not intended to reflect the views of my employer - TRW - or anyone else. Intelligent and responsible commentaries should be directed to me; Flames to the bit bucket. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Christian W. Stassen [decvax!trwrb,vortex,ihnp4!vortex]!trwspp!stassen "If we knew what the hell we were doing, then it wouldn't be research."
stassen@trwspp.UUCP (09/19/84)
[] Technology and quality have nothing at all to do with who wins the war... the sole factor in that is how popular they are, because the companies which sell the most popular models will have the most money and incentive to invest in more research, creating better systems, and gaining even larger portions of the market. It's like a vicious circle ... once a company starts gaining, only a catastrophe will prevent it from continuing to take over almost all of the market. The most popular format WILL BECOME the highest quality format, even though it may not be now. It was actually a good move on the part of the "behemoths of VHS" to make a low-end system which MADE MONEY. This gave them a base to create systems competitive with Beta. > You must be absolutely right because you sound logical. That must > explain why Sony invented Hi-Fi a year and a half (market time) > before the VHS'rs. Also Beta Movie, Cassette changers, etc., etc. > Yes in deed, I always wondered how they could do that so consistently. > I used to think it was because some few firms (silly and deluded) had > their eye fixed on technology rather than maximizing the current > bottom line. The latter view (current bottom line uber alles) is what > has killed industry in this country. It seems to have afflicted the > behemoths of VHS. Dick Grantges hound!rfg Sony may have its eye fixed on technology, and they certainly do have a good track record (eg trinitron), but VHS versus Beta is a little different. Had Sony made a Trinitron which was incompatible with more than half of the broadcasting stations in the US, I doubt that they would have done quite as well. The one thing which is MOST important to ANY company is $$$. Sony invented hi-fi first because they have (so far) made a reasonable profit from Beta, and can continue to pour research dollars into it. There are rumors circulating (through distributors in L.A.) that Sony is not going to continue to pour those dollars into research because they feel that they are not gaining enough of the market (due to the popularity of VHS). If and when that ever happens, it spells the end for Beta ... no more real improvements (though you may still be able to buy them). Sometimes you can win with technology. Right now, Beta isn't significantly better than VHS (according to most people who are laying out MORE money to buy a comparative VHS unit), and VHS certainly is more popular. This may be a case where you can't win with *only* technology ... it requires popularity and availability as well, especially when there are conflicting competitors. Example: Dolby versus DBX. Dolby B had 10x noise reduction (approx), DBX comes out with 1000x, but it was incompatible with Dolby, who already had almost all of the market. Last I heard, Dolby C (about 100x) was way ahead of DBX. Technology didn't win - compatibility and market share did! All figures are to order-of-magnitude and VERY approximate. I looked seriously at both Beta and VHS, and decided on VHS not because it was better engineered (because it probably isn't), but because several years down the line it probably will be. The sole point to be gained from my article was that nobody seems to consider this when buying a VCR; they only look at what is best *now*. That's not planning for the future, and not a wise way to make a major purchase. Would you buy a new car without knowing how much it would be likely to break down? That wouldn't be planning for the future. Would you save $50 on an air conditioner which eats $3 more in electricity per month than a more efficient (but slightly more expensive) model? That also would not be planning for the future. Would you buy a VCR without looking at how available tapes will be, or how good the one you replace it with will be? Be a smart shopper ... you've got to look around, and consider more than the present! Comprendez? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The opinions expressed in this document are my own. They are not intended to reflect the views of my employer - TRW - or anyone else. Intelligent and responsible commentaries should be directed to me; Flames to the bit bucket. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Christian W. Stassen [decvax!trwrb,vortex,ihnp4!vortex]!trwspp!stassen "If we knew what the hell we were doing, then it wouldn't be research." Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ Lines: 10 [!] You must be absolutely right because you sound logical. That must explain why Sony invented Hi-Fi a year and a half (market time) before the VHS'rs. Also Beta Movie, Cassette changers, etc., etc. Yes in deed, I always wondered how they could do that so consistently. I used to think it was because some few firms (silly and deluded) had their eye fixed on technology rather than maximizing the current bottom line. The latter view (current bottom line uber alles) is what has killed industry in this country. It seems to have afflicted the behemoths of VHS. Dick Grantges hound!rfg
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (09/21/84)
> Sometimes you can win with technology. Right now, > Beta isn't significantly better than VHS (according to most people who > are laying out MORE money to buy a comparative VHS unit), and VHS > certainly is more popular. This may be a case where you can't win > with *only* technology ... it requires popularity and availability as > well, especially when there are conflicting competitors. Example: > Dolby versus DBX. Dolby B had 10x noise reduction (approx), DBX > comes out with 1000x, but it was incompatible with Dolby, who already > had almost all of the market. Last I heard, Dolby C (about 100x) was > way ahead of DBX. Technology didn't win - compatibility and market > share did! All figures are to order-of-magnitude and VERY approximate. I agree. De facto standards have a MAJOR effect on new products. Ever think what kind of color T.V. could be produced if it didn't have to be compatible with NTSC to have any market? Personally, I'm real hesitant to jump on any new tech bandwagon that may be just a flash in the pan. Read only video disks, CD's (remember 4 track cartrige tapes {or 8 track for that matter}, Quad, etc.) may all be just fads, and I'm not independently wealthy enough to sink hard earned $$$'s into something just because its so super Hi-Tech that it's neat. I'll give 'em a few years, enough time to insure that the new features are enough to maintain sufficient popularity, or until they come out with De Facto compatible models that I can use with some already existing media. Keith Doyle {ucbvax,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
dw@rocksvax.UUCP (Don Wegeng) (09/21/84)
I would agree that SOME people try to buy the VCR with the highest
quality, but I would also bet that MOST people buy a VCR which is
compatable with the one's that their friends have. This is suppose
to allow for easy sharing of tapes, etc. [I thought this also,
but personally have not found many ocasions where I wanted to
share tapes.]
While VHS is the overall sales leader in the country, there are also
areas where Beta sells more. Rochester NY (where I live) is an example
of such an area. My friends in the industry say that this is because
Beta caught on fast here, and therefore has remained dominant.
--
/Don
"I ain't 'fraid of no hole!"
arpa: Wegeng.Henr@Xerox.ARPA
uucp: {allegra,princeton,decvax!rochester,amd,sunybcs}!rocksvax!dw
|| ihnp4!tropix!ritcv!rocksvax!dwnewton2@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (09/25/84)
Your use of the relative dominance of Dolby noise reduction over relatively late-arriving (to cassettes) competitors like dbx to illustrate the point that inferior technology can dominate through huckstering marketing is exactly, one hundred-eighty degrees inaposite. The example actually demonstrates the opposite condition: Dolby's technologies by and large represent the unusual triumph of ingenious, thorough and honestly represented engineering methods in a market made by Barnums. Dbx, while a sound enough approach (purloined from telco practice common since compandors were developed) *when applied to relatively unimpaired media*, is ballyhooed in a meaningless and misleading cloud of hoopla which concentrates on a single number purported to represent the "quantity" of noise reduction. To learn how to think about the problem of noise reduction, as well as to read a superb model of a well-crafted and concise engineering paper, there is still no better beginning than Ray Dolby's "An Audio Noise Reduction System".. wq
rodrique@hplabs.UUCP (Mike Rodriquez) (09/27/84)
HUH???
stassen@trwspp.UUCP (10/02/84)
> You want to talk vicious circle?? How about the consumer looking for a VCR > being told that VHS is more popular than Beta. So, the consumer says to himself, > "Wow! Then I'd better get a VHS!" Thus, after a number of these, VHS *becomes* > more popular, which in turn reinforces the "VHS is more popular" line. It's > got nothing to do with High-end, Low-end, or Ass-end. It's all got to do with > marketing strategy. That's not all VHS has going for it. Since it was introduced AFTER Beta, it still managed to gain more of the market. Certainly not (only) by being more popular, because it wasn't (at first). > You can't be serious. What you are suggesting, when all of the rhetoric is done > away with, is that we should all flock like mindless sheep to buy what we are > told is the most popular, because it'll be the one around later. And what we > shouldn't do is support the manufacturer that creates the best product for the > money. We should reward the company with the inferior engineering division and > the superior marketing division, while condemning the company with the superior > engineering division and the inferior marketing division. Right. No thanks. You can't be serious. For someone who claims to see through the rhetoric, you don't understand the main idea behind the argument. It is, stated simply, WHEN YOU GO TO BUY SOMETHING EXPENSIVE, YOU WANT TO MAXIMIZE YOUR SATISFACTION FROM OWNING IT. IN ORDER TO DO SO, YOU MUST CONSIDER PRESENT AS WELL AS FUTURE SATISFACTION DERIVED FROM OWNING THE MACHINE. If you disagree, then you had better come up with a sound argument. Misinterpreting me, and then proving the misinterpreted argument to be wrong DOES NOT prove me to be wrong. And, where do you come up with this "reward the company" bull***t? When I look for a product, I don't consider the company AT ALL. I don't think "gee, what a deserving corporation. I think I'll buy their product." Any smart consumer is out for his own benefit -- it's his money. I want maximum product satisfaction for the dollar. Finally, if you really want to reward the technological innovators, and you don't give a damn about deriving any satisfaction from the product, why don't you own a LaserDisk? They have better picture quality than Beta has any chance to attain. The non-contact, non-degrading recording medium is far superior to any sort of video tape. Of course, you can't record, and you can't get many movies, but if enough people buy laser disks, they will have the money to find a way; after all, they're real innovators. Besides, you obviously don't care about availability of movies -- you own a Beta deck because technology means so much more. In my book, I would much rather have a lot of movies to see than a flashy technological deck. That is MY OPINION. I have yet to hear any arguments solid enough to sway it -- all that I have heard is meant to somehow show me that smart marketing is BAD. Right... no thanks. > Do you really expect that if VHS kills Beta that the "behemoths of VHS" will > have any incentive to constantly improve their systems? The fact that Sony is > out there adding some new spiffy feature to the Beta is what keeps VHS going > to keep up. Sure, I can well believe that VHS would've developed the stereo > VCR eventually without Beta Hi-Fi to compete with, but it probably would've > taken longer, and I *seriously* doubt that they would have bothered developing > a Hi-Fi system. Competition among the various producers of VHS will keep it moving forward long after Beta is gone (provided that it dies first). > What you don't seem to understand is that what will *really* kill the Beta, if > it dies at all, is people like you who go for popularity rather than quality. > Popularity? Talk about popularity with the people whose Fords or GM's are in the > garage more than the less-popular, but better engineered Toyotas. Or to be more > germane, talk about popularity with the people who have a CED videodisc player > on their hands. I almost bought one, you know, because there was a greater > selection of movies on CED than Laserdisc. I guess the jokes *not* on me, eh? What you're suggesting, when all of the rhetoric is done away with, is that we should all go out and buy products that are made by smart people and researchers, and spend our hard-earned money on things which are of superior technological construction, not things which will entertain us and make us happy. I think I'll stick to buying the things that satisfy me most ... I like lots of movies. If you like slick lights and buttons, well, that's your business. I agree that we all should buy Toyotas... again, my point is not to buy the most popular, but to buy the most satisfactory. And, again, misinterpreting that point and proving the misinterpretation wrong says nothing about the original point. If you will be happier with the product made by the more "deserving" company, then buy it. If you won't, buy something else. Secondly, when you consider how happy you will be with your new acquisition, you should consider more than your present satisfaction. Those were, and still are, my two points. All of the rest are my own opinions;* I am willing (and would very much like) to discuss this further, but by private mail only please. It seems that there are a lot of people who (rightfully so) would not want to see it. > Give me a break. Ditto. * by this I mean that my two points are up for discussion, my own opinions are subjective, and therefore a lot harder to argue about. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The opinions expressed in this document are my own. They are not intended to reflect the views of my employer - TRW - or anyone else. Intelligent and responsible commentaries should be directed to me; Flames to the bit bucket. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Christian W. Stassen [decvax!trwrb,vortex,ihnp4!vortex]!trwspp!stassen "Seek not, lest ye crash the heads."
thoth@tellab2.UUCP (Marcus Hall) (10/04/84)
In article <595@trwspp.UUCP> stassen@trwspp.UUCP writes: >Besides, you obviously don't care about availability of movies -- you own >a Beta deck because technology means so much more. > I think I'll stick to buying the things that satisfy me >most ... I like lots of movies. If you like slick lights and buttons, well, >that's your business. From this article, one could easily get the idea that there is a lack of movies for Beta. I have never had any problems getting any movie I wanted in Beta format. Every advertisement I can remember for any video tape stated availability for both Beta and VHS. Are there really any movies available only on VHS? Incidently, there certainly are more movies in Beta hi-fi than in VHS Hi-Fi, but they're sure to get the VHS Hi-Fi tape duplicators working someday. :-) I bought Beta because my friends had Beta, and it was nice that it had slightly better specs. I don't really think that it makes that much difference, but I'm very pleased with Beta. One feature that my 2700 has that no VHS deck has, however, is a tape counter that works in hours, minutes, and seconds. It reads the control track and counts frames. This and the tape indexing system are easy to start relying on. When I use a deck without these (any VHS and many Betas, to be fair) I feel so lost... marcus hall ..!ihnp4!tellab1!tellab2!thoth
rkp@drutx.UUCP (10/05/84)
>One feature that my 2700 has that no VHS deck has, however, is a tape >counter that works in hours, minutes, and seconds. It reads the control >track and counts frames. Sorry! The JVC DR-D225 has an elapsed time counter. It is a VHS deck. -- Russell Pierce AT&T Consumer Products (303) 538-2023 1200 W. 120th Ave. ...!drutx!rkp Denver, CO 80234
john@anasazi.UUCP (John Moore) (10/25/85)
In article <162@ecrcvax.UUCP> pete@ecrcvax.UUCP (Pete Delaney) writes: >I fear we seem to be helpless at stoping this system from devoring us. >President Regean said he was against stoping the red ink if it cut's into >the Star Wars project. What's the sense in this madness? +++FLAME ON+++ What is this junk doing in net.ham-radio? It ought to be posted to net.politics or net.jokes only. Ham radio is internationally NON-POLITICAL! +++FLAME OFF+++ -- John Moore (NJ7E/XE1HDO) {decvax|ihnp4|hao}!noao!terak!anasazi!john {hao!noao|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!terak!anasazi!john (602) 952-8205 (day or evening) 5302 E. Lafayette Blvd, Phoenix, Az, 85018 (home address)