Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site trwspp.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!stassen From: stassen@trwspp.UUCP Newsgroups: net.video Subject: Re(2): VHS vs Beta - future considerations ( about rfg's article ) Message-ID: <580@trwspp.UUCP> Date: Wed, 19-Sep-84 13:45:28 EDT Article-I.D.: trwspp.580 Posted: Wed Sep 19 13:45:28 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 07:22:11 EDT References: <577@trwspp.UUCP>, <619@hound.UUCP> Organization: T R W, Redondo Beach, CA Lines: 91 [] 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