🚀 go-pugleaf

Stuart Painting wrote:
> 
> In article <5dalhn$q...@tor-nn1-hb0.netcom.ca>, John Savard
> <URL:mailto:sew...@netcom.ca> wrote:
> >
> > Iain Wilkie Logan <iain...@enterprise.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Or VHS versus Betamax - a case of a
> > >poorer technology becoming predominant, which is relatively unusual. Perhaps
> > >it was a victory by 'marketing' over 'product worth'.
> >
> > Actually, no.
> >
> > VHS was poorer than Betamax in some respects, but better in others
> > that were more valued by more consumers.
> >
> > Beta mode  L-500 time L-750 time   Equivalent VHS mode     T-120 time
> >
> > Beta I     1 hr       1 hr 30 min   Standard Play          2 hrs
> > Beta II    2 hrs      3 hrs         Long Play              4 hrs
> > Beta III   3 hrs      4 hrs 30 min  Extended Play (EP/SLP) 6 hrs
> 
> European readers of this might be a bit mystified because on this side
> of the pond, Beta machines only had _one_ speed: an L-750 tape played
> for 3 hours 15 minutes. The equivalent VHS tape (E-180) played for 3
> hours exactly. Hence you got more on a Beta tape than you did on VHS.
> And the picture quality was better (or it seemed that way to me when I
> did an A-B comparison back in 1979).
> 
> The reason for VHS succeeding in the UK had absolutely nothing to do
> with the relative technical merits of the formats: put simply, JVC did
> an exclusive deal with Thorn EMI (who ran the Radio Rentals, DER and
> Multibroadcast chains of TV rental stores). Hence on day one, JVC had
> 90% of the rental market sewn up.  Few people could afford the 750 UKP
> needed to buy a video recorder, but a lot could afford 25 UKP per month
> to rent one. When they went looking for a machine to rent, they would
> have had to hunt high and low to find a Beta machine, but VHS was
> available from 3 different high street stores (part of the same chain,
> but they weren't to know that). So they made the obvious choice.
> The large number of rented video recorders had a knock-on effect on the
> sale/hire of prerecorded tapes, with inevitable results.
> 
> So there you have it. A triumph of marketing, certainly.
> 
> stuart
> 
> --
> Stuart Painting (stu...@zedtoo.demon.co.uk)

The point being made here is (I assume) that the standardization of an
inferior product as opposed to the (continued in the face of all
arguments to the contrary) proprietary nature of a superior one led to
the demise of the superior product and the proliferation of the inferior
one. Correct?

Same shit, different industry.....
-- 
Any posts or replies, past or present, are not indication or statement
of the position of Federated Department Stores on any subject, unless
otherwise explicitly stated. They are only my own; this should be
self-evident to most sentient beings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To reply via email, remove (including %'s) the SPAM_REPELLANT from the
Reply-To address
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Junker - Systems Development
Federated Department Stores