Posted by Bill Vermillion on 02/25/01 11:31

In article <icqtm1pt9haq7nmjs56g5lrmer2tdo1oj9@4ax.com>,
NunYa Bidness <nunyabidness@nunyabidness.org> wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 19:09:06 -0800, Randy
><no_spam_please@my_address.com> Gave us:
>
>>On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 23:18:06 -0500, "pezoids" <pezoids@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Most people are slaves to the industry and will submit to whatever new
>>>format emerges next.
>>>
>>>I see dvds going strong until a cheaper and more pewerful version of video
>>>I-pod emerges. One that can hold terabytes of data and can still fit in your
>>>pocket and can be plugged into any TV or PC. Something that can easily hold
>>>every movie and every cd you own with room to spare and easy to uprade.
>>>
>>>Until then, I'm a dvd man...
>>
>>
>>This thread got kinda out of control.
>
> As if a Usenet poster could judge such a thing.
>
>>I still want highest quality possible.
>
> No shit.
>
>> From what I understand Ipod is
>>a lossy format, which I hope the public will drop.
>
> There is a lot of lossy conversion taking place. The fault of Ipod
>is that they want a subscription fee.
>
>> And who wants to
>>watch anything on less than 52" screen?
>
> A bit biased.
>
>> But you know how marketing
>>plays into this...
>
> You are about to make an opinion... I can smell it.
>
>> Betamax was better than VHS, but look what
>>happened.
>
> VHS was better as it relates to price/value/performance.
>The high price of Sony's crap is what caused it to fail. It is really
>that simple. Price point is everything.
>
>> I think this boils down too is "education" ,
>
> Better get started then.
>
>> we must help
>>educate the world so they don't fall into the VHS trap.

> You're an idiot. VHS was not a trap. It was an affordable form
>factor. Beta was a high priced, if not even overtly overpriced pile.
>Had Sony set the price point right, they would have won the battle.

Prices for VHS were only about $100 less than Beta and when you
talk at $1000+ that is not a big difference. My SL7200 Beta cost
me $1495. The VHS units - then just coming on the market as Beta
had over 95% share - were at least $1295. Then the prices started
falling, but the Beta equipment was built better, and the Faroudja
circuits in the better Betas made them the choice if you wanted
great video.

However a vast majority of people didn't know what great video
looked like and used RF connections - while most of the Beta people
used composite.

I got my Beta in March of 1977.

>>I can hardly wait for HD DVD, and willing to pay for it.

> Oh boy, you're right up on the video realm.

>>Don't buy CRAP, and they won't sell it.

> No shit. Consumers have always driven the market and survival of a
>given product. Look at the example above to see proof.

> Don't spew crap, and we won't pick it apart.

And through the course of 'home entertainment' each new version
lasted about 1 generation - as many people didn't want to change.

That has not held true as much now - but the revolutionary products
almost always had a bigger impact than the evolutionary productcs.

The first phongraphs were accoustic and windup. In the late 1920's
electric recording and players - running at 78 RPM became popular.

And 25 years later the LP and 45 came in replacing the 78s. Those
was first introduced in 1949.

Philips made a dictating machine using a small cassette that became
the main music medium replacing the 45's and LPs - something that
4-track and 8-track never did.

By the 1980s CDs came out - and the compact size and the novlety of
shiny silver disks made them take off like nothing ever had before.

When DVD came out in about 3 years everyone saw how much better it
was to be able to skip to chapters, take something out and put it
back without rewinding, etc.

Each of those were revolutionary. The SACD was evolutionary and
never really took off. The HD and Blu-Ray are evolutionary so
there won't be the great rush among the average users to go
to those. I say that based on looking at the history of home
entertainment for the past 100 years.

If the often predicted 'movie on a chip' or 'cube' something so
small that you could carry several in your shirt pocket [for those
who have shirts with pockets] that would be revolutionary and
would gain widespread adoption.

Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

[Back to original message]