Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:01:12 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> To: "Greg Lehey" <grog@lemis.com>, "Terry Lambert" <tlambert@primenet.com>, "David Scheidt" <dscheidt@enteract.com> Cc: <jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>, <erickw@taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us>, <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: Marketing vs. technical superiority (was: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit") Message-ID: <000101bf313e$e16c7ca0$021d85d1@youwant.to> In-Reply-To: <19991117102851.53109@mojave.sitaranetworks.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> [Format recovered--see http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html] > > On Tuesday, 16 November 1999 at 20:39:22 -0800, David Schwartz wrote: > > >>>> In fact, that VHS was able to overthrow Beta, the market > >>>> leader, simply because it was better is proof that market power > >>>> can't lock us into inferior technologies. > >>> > >>> No, it only proves that market power won't necessarily "lock us into > >>> inferior technologies" not that it can't. There is a very important > >>> difference. > >> > >> You guys need to look into the relative merits of these two > >> technologies before you argue about them. Beta is a vastly > >> superior technology when compared to VHS, > > > > How is it superior? Picture quality? If picture quality is so > > all-important, why did SuperVHS fail? Actually, VHS is far > superior thanks > > to the larger cassette allowing longer recording times. > > Beta wasn't that much smaller. The current maximum full-quality > recording time is 200 minutes. Video-8 handles 120 minutes with no > trouble. A modern Beta tape could easily have handled 200 minutes or > more. On the other hand, VHS cassettes are particularly bulky. I > don't think anybody else thought of this as an advantage. When Beta was one hour, VHS was two. When Beta was five hours, VHS was eight. This wasn't because of some amazing better technology in VHS, the two were nearly identical technologically. It was simply because the VHS cartridge was larger and could accomodate a longer tape. > > Both VHS and Beta exceed broadcast quality. > > Neither VHS nor Beta attain broadcast quality. Most recorders cheat > by recording the same half frame twice; try single frame advancing a > tape. Okay, let me ask you a simple question then -- if picture quality is more important than recording length, why is nearly every tape I've ever seen recorded at the lowest possible quality level supported by that particular recorder? The fact is, consumers value recording length over picture quality. Even pre-recorded tapes generally use higher speeds (and thus lower quality) just to save on the cost of tape. > > And, in fact, in comparisons of the two formats, about as many > > reviewers preferred Beta as preferred VHS. > > References, please. See pretty much every actual research paper on the subject, including Lardner(1987), Weinstein(1984), Prentis(1981), and even Consumer Reports. Klopfenstein summarizes the research as follows: "Although many held the perception that Beta VCR produced a better picture than VHS, technical experts ... have concluded that this is, in fact, not the case; periodic reviews in Consumer Reports found VHS picture quality superior twice, found Beta superior once, and found no difference in a fourth review. In conclusion, the Beta format appeared to hold no advantages over VHS other than being the first on the market, and this may be a lesson for future marketers of new media products." > >> and "VHS vs. Beta" is actually _the_ standard argument put forward > >> during "Why The Best Technology Does Not Always Win" discussions. > > > > Yes, and amusingly, the best standard did win, despite > Sony's powerful > > marketing and head start in the market. > > Can you specify why you think it to be the best standard? Do you mean > the "best-marketed" standard, the most reliable standard (figures, > please), the standard with the best definition, the easiest to use > standard, the most economical standard (figures please)? The standard that consumers actually liked best because it was the first to allow them to record a full movie, the first to allow them to record a full football game, and provided so much picture quality, that people turned the quality all the way down, and still do to this day. As for whether VHS was even marketed beter than Beta, that's always simply been assumed. I've never seen any evidence to the contrary, and all the evidence I have seen suggests that Sony put up quite a fight, both technically and in the marketing arena. > >> The market _did_ in fact lock us into an inferior standard. > > > > Bullshit. Plain and simple bullshit. This is really an > urban legend borne > > out of motivational speakers looking for examples. There is no actual > > research to back it up, and in back the research points the other way. > > Your messages are rapidly becoming content free. If you really want > to continue posting, could you at least bring some fact to back up > your claims? _My_ messages are becoming content free? Where is a single fact to back up your claims? You're just citing urban legends at me. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000101bf313e$e16c7ca0$021d85d1>