OOXML "Technically Inferior"

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by peterwn, Feb 6, 2008.

  1. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    See:
    http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...-microsoft-ooxml-is-technically-inferior.html

    'IBM responds to Microsoft: OOXML is "technically inferior" '

    Especially:

    "We spoke to Bob Sutor, vice president of standards and open source
    for IBM, who responded to Microsoft's recent claims regarding IBM's
    involvement in the OOXML dispute. "IBM believes that there is a
    revolution occurring in the IT industry, and that smart people around
    the world are demanding truly open standards developed in a
    collaborative, democratic way for the betterment of all," Sutor told
    Ars. "If 'business as usual' means trying to foist a rushed,
    technically inferior and product-specific piece of work like OOXML on
    the IT industry, we're proud to stand with the tens of countries and
    thousands of individuals who are willing to fight against such bad
    behavior."

    So, there you have it.
     
    peterwn, Feb 6, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. peterwn

    Gordon Guest

    On 2008-02-06, peterwn <> wrote:
    > See:
    > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...-microsoft-ooxml-is-technically-inferior.html
    >
    > 'IBM responds to Microsoft: OOXML is "technically inferior" '
    >
    > Especially:
    >
    > "We spoke to Bob Sutor, vice president of standards and open source
    > for IBM, who responded to Microsoft's recent claims regarding IBM's
    > involvement in the OOXML dispute. "IBM believes that there is a
    > revolution occurring in the IT industry, and that smart people around
    > the world are demanding truly open standards developed in a
    > collaborative, democratic way for the betterment of all," Sutor told
    > Ars. "If 'business as usual' means trying to foist a rushed,
    > technically inferior and product-specific piece of work like OOXML on
    > the IT industry, we're proud to stand with the tens of countries and
    > thousands of individuals who are willing to fight against such bad
    > behavior."
    >
    > So, there you have it.


    So, there we have it from Bob Sutor. But is he correct? Time will tell
     
    Gordon, Feb 6, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. peterwn

    Squiggle Guest

    Gordon wrote:
    > On 2008-02-06, peterwn <> wrote:
    >> See:
    >> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...-microsoft-ooxml-is-technically-inferior.html
    >>
    >> 'IBM responds to Microsoft: OOXML is "technically inferior" '
    >>
    >> Especially:
    >>
    >> "We spoke to Bob Sutor, vice president of standards and open source
    >> for IBM, who responded to Microsoft's recent claims regarding IBM's
    >> involvement in the OOXML dispute. "IBM believes that there is a
    >> revolution occurring in the IT industry, and that smart people around
    >> the world are demanding truly open standards developed in a
    >> collaborative, democratic way for the betterment of all," Sutor told
    >> Ars. "If 'business as usual' means trying to foist a rushed,
    >> technically inferior and product-specific piece of work like OOXML on
    >> the IT industry, we're proud to stand with the tens of countries and
    >> thousands of individuals who are willing to fight against such bad
    >> behavior."
    >>
    >> So, there you have it.

    >
    > So, there we have it from Bob Sutor. But is he correct? Time will tell


    Whether he is correct or not is pretty irrelevant in the long run, its
    whether he is on the winning side.

    Technically inferior standards/products often end up being the market
    leader.

    Unix, os/2, windows (and others).
    VHS, BETA.
    NTSC, PAL, SECAM
     
    Squiggle, Feb 6, 2008
    #3
  4. peterwn

    Ross Guest

    On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:12:15 +1300, Squiggle <>
    wrote:

    >Technically inferior standards/products often end up being the market
    >leader.
    >
    >Unix, os/2, windows (and others).
    >VHS, BETA.
    >NTSC, PAL, SECAM


    Windows 3.1 vs Geoworks
     
    Ross, Feb 6, 2008
    #4
  5. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    On Feb 6, 9:12 pm, Squiggle <> wrote:

    >
    > Technically inferior standards/products often end up being the market
    > leader.
    >
    > Unix, os/2, windows (and others).
    > VHS, BETA.
    > NTSC, PAL, SECAM


    These 'inferior' standards (except Windows) are still around.

    Windows has been through various incarnations, so it is not a
    'standard' eg an application / driver written to work under Windows
    3.1 is may not work under Vista.

    It looks like that OOXML even if adopted as a standard will be an
    'oprhan' from the word go. As far as I can see, while Office 2007
    uses some format like OOXML, it seems tht it would not use the *real*
    (ie standard) OOXML (assuming it even meets the usual criteria of a
    standard).

    It is worth noting that compilers, interpreters, etc often come with a
    'strict' or similar switch to lock out any languge extensions so that
    a user can be assured that the sorce code complies strictly with
    standards - this is so that the software is assured to compile on
    'production' or client machines. I do not really see Microsoft having
    such a feature in Office, why is may looen Microsoft's 'lockin' of
    customers.

    In any event MS Office will drift away from OOXML and in due course
    will adopt some new format completely, leaving OOXML as a complete
    orphan.

    ISO in the meantime will tighten up rules and procedures governing
    standards to avoid this sort of nonsense in the future.
     
    peterwn, Feb 6, 2008
    #5
  6. In article <47a96be0$>, Squiggle did write:

    > NTSC, PAL, SECAM


    I think there is probably a greater proportion of the world's population
    watching PAL broadcasts than either of the other analog formats. It also
    happens to be the best of the bunch.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 6, 2008
    #6
  7. peterwn

    thingy Guest

    Squiggle wrote:
    > Gordon wrote:
    >> On 2008-02-06, peterwn <> wrote:
    >>> See:
    >>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...-microsoft-ooxml-is-technically-inferior.html
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> 'IBM responds to Microsoft: OOXML is "technically inferior" '
    >>>
    >>> Especially:
    >>>
    >>> "We spoke to Bob Sutor, vice president of standards and open source
    >>> for IBM, who responded to Microsoft's recent claims regarding IBM's
    >>> involvement in the OOXML dispute. "IBM believes that there is a
    >>> revolution occurring in the IT industry, and that smart people around
    >>> the world are demanding truly open standards developed in a
    >>> collaborative, democratic way for the betterment of all," Sutor told
    >>> Ars. "If 'business as usual' means trying to foist a rushed,
    >>> technically inferior and product-specific piece of work like OOXML on
    >>> the IT industry, we're proud to stand with the tens of countries and
    >>> thousands of individuals who are willing to fight against such bad
    >>> behavior."
    >>>
    >>> So, there you have it.

    >>
    >> So, there we have it from Bob Sutor. But is he correct? Time will tell

    >
    > Whether he is correct or not is pretty irrelevant in the long run, its
    > whether he is on the winning side.
    >
    > Technically inferior standards/products often end up being the market
    > leader.
    >
    > Unix, os/2, windows (and others).
    > VHS, BETA.
    > NTSC, PAL, SECAM


    History is interesting and it is even more interesting when you look at
    the costs.

    Good enough and cheap seems to win over superior but expensive...

    ie BETAMAX v VHS, betamax was better but much more expensive, VHS won....

    OS/2 v Windows, OS/2 was obviously superior and yet a crappy
    non-networked OS won....it was way cheaper....

    I dont like the Unix v windows comparison directly because they have not
    really competed...it is more a hardware fight than a OS fight.

    Very Expensive RISC v Cisc....intel (sort of) won...but the markets
    differ....certainly moving forward the x86 architecture is going to
    dominate the next 10~20 years IHMO.

    A better one is Unix v Linux and we can see who is winning that one, x86
    machines are dirt cheap and Linux is all but free...

    Or SCO Unix v Linux as it is the same x86 based hardware....

    Add another,

    USB v Firewire...

    and the present OS fight is Linux v Windows...if history follows form,
    MS is stuffed. However installed base might carry the day or make the
    battle a long one...(see the Unix v Windows skirmish)

    In the case of XML though MS's version is both more expensive and
    inferior and since they are on pretty even footing MS should not stand a
    chance...

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Feb 7, 2008
    #7
  8. In article <>, thingy did write:

    > and the present OS fight is Linux v Windows...if history follows form,
    > MS is stuffed. However installed base might carry the day or make the
    > battle a long one...


    Installed base can only delay the transition, it cannot prevail.

    I see parallels in Linux vs Windows in the earlier Windows vs Mac situation
    around 1990 or so, back when Apple was still dominant in GUI systems.
    Windows 3.x was the version that really started to get popular, even as Mac
    users (of which I was one) looked down on it as a pile of steaming
    excrement. It didn't have anywhere near the ease of use, the built-in
    functionality, or the seamless hardware-software integration. Or the looks,
    for that matter. But what it did offer its users was a greater freedom of
    choice: you weren't constrained within Apple's higher-priced, less-flexible
    walled garden, and that was important to a lot of people.

    Similarly, to those who keep insisting that Linux doesn't quite offer full
    equivalents to every single application that they're used to, that's not
    essential to its success. It is now Microsoft that is constraining users'
    choices, both deliberately in terms of its licensing, and not so
    deliberately in terms of Windows' high, inflexible resource requirements.
    It is now Linux that is offering the freedom of choice, to run your systems
    the way you want to, with your choice of expensive, up-to-date hardware or
    cheaper, more modest hardware--the decision is yours.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 8, 2008
    #8
  9. peterwn

    impossible Guest

    "thingy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Squiggle wrote:
    >> Gordon wrote:
    >>> On 2008-02-06, peterwn <> wrote:
    >>>> See:
    >>>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...-microsoft-ooxml-is-technically-inferior.html
    >>>>
    >>>> 'IBM responds to Microsoft: OOXML is "technically inferior" '
    >>>>
    >>>> Especially:
    >>>>
    >>>> "We spoke to Bob Sutor, vice president of standards and open source
    >>>> for IBM, who responded to Microsoft's recent claims regarding IBM's
    >>>> involvement in the OOXML dispute. "IBM believes that there is a
    >>>> revolution occurring in the IT industry, and that smart people around
    >>>> the world are demanding truly open standards developed in a
    >>>> collaborative, democratic way for the betterment of all," Sutor told
    >>>> Ars. "If 'business as usual' means trying to foist a rushed,
    >>>> technically inferior and product-specific piece of work like OOXML on
    >>>> the IT industry, we're proud to stand with the tens of countries and
    >>>> thousands of individuals who are willing to fight against such bad
    >>>> behavior."
    >>>>
    >>>> So, there you have it.
    >>>
    >>> So, there we have it from Bob Sutor. But is he correct? Time will tell

    >>
    >> Whether he is correct or not is pretty irrelevant in the long run, its
    >> whether he is on the winning side.
    >>
    >> Technically inferior standards/products often end up being the market
    >> leader.
    >>
    >> Unix, os/2, windows (and others).
    >> VHS, BETA.
    >> NTSC, PAL, SECAM

    >
    > History is interesting and it is even more interesting when you look at
    > the costs.
    >
    > Good enough and cheap seems to win over superior but expensive...
    >
    > > ie BETAMAX v VHS, betamax was better but much more expensive, VHS
    > > won....

    >


    No, the differences in perceptible quality between VHS and Betamax
    recordings were minute. The issue that settled the competition in the reral
    world was recording time. When 4-hour VHS tapes hit the market, you couldn't
    sell a Betamax machine at any price, because Betamax tapes were limited to 1
    hour.

    > OS/2 v Windows, OS/2 was obviously superior and yet a crappy non-networked
    > OS won....it was way cheaper....


    Cheaper? Nah. It was the lack of native OS2 applications that killed OS2.
    People were willing to pay a premium for **any** os that would run quality
    desktop applications, and it turned out that only Windows developers were
    able to deliver.

    >
    > I dont like the Unix v windows comparison directly because they have not
    > really competed...it is more a hardware fight than a OS fight.
    >
    > Very Expensive RISC v Cisc....intel (sort of) won...but the markets
    > differ....certainly moving forward the x86 architecture is going to
    > dominate the next 10~20 years IHMO.
    >
    > A better one is Unix v Linux and we can see who is winning that one, x86
    > machines are dirt cheap and Linux is all but free...
    >
    > Or SCO Unix v Linux as it is the same x86 based hardware....
    >
    > Add another,
    >
    > USB v Firewire...


    This is a poor example, because the versaltility of low-cost USB technology
    is so much greater than that of Firewire. Yes, Firewire still (for now at
    least) beats USB in terms of data transfer speeds. But when it comes to
    driving keyboards, mice, printers, scanners, wireless network gear,
    headsets, etc -- the technical edge that USB enjoys over Firewire, thanks to
    its low-cost design, is undisputed.

    >
    > and the present OS fight is Linux v Windows...if history follows form, MS
    > is stuffed. However installed base might carry the day or make the battle
    > a long one...(see the Unix v Windows skirmish)
    >


    If history follows form, Microsoft will dominate the desktop software market
    for the **next** 15 years. Why? Because development of software for the nix
    desktop remains in a stunningly uncreative and technically unsophisticated
    rut. Not a single application has been generated that isn't either (a) a
    shameless clone of some old Window app or (b) a bright idea in perpetual
    beta. The only challenge to Microsoft I see right now is from Google, which
    has the brains and capital to possibly transform "desktop software" into an
    anachronism.

    > In the case of XML though MS's version is both more expensive and inferior
    > and since they are on pretty even footing MS should not stand a chance...
    >


    Applications matter to end users -- not formats. People predicting the
    demise of Microsoft have never seemed to understand that.
     
    impossible, Feb 8, 2008
    #9
  10. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    On Feb 8, 10:55 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:

    >
    > Applications matter to end users -- not formats. People predicting the
    > demise of Microsoft have never seemed to understand that.


    Until people receiving OOXML documents attached to their E-mails start
    telling the sender which orifice they can stick OOXML up.

    As it is, Victoria University has told people not to use the .docx etc
    formats (ie Microsoft's variant of OOXML) as no one can read them.
    Moreover both OOXML and Office 2007 are 'off limits' when prepring
    articles for peer reviewed learned scientific journals as it botches
    up mathematical formulae (even if you save in traditional .doc with
    Office 2007).

    So people can read my attachments I prepare the document on Open
    Office (run it under Windows if ou like!) then 'export' it in .pdf
    format. I recommend everyone does this rather than muck around with
    that OOXML crap.

    It is bad enough being bossed around by Helen Clark than to to be
    bossed around by Bill Gates too.
     
    peterwn, Feb 8, 2008
    #10
  11. peterwn

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarweb "impossible" typed:

    > No, the differences in perceptible quality between VHS and Betamax
    > recordings were minute. The issue that settled the competition in the
    > reral world was recording time. When 4-hour VHS tapes hit the market,
    > you couldn't sell a Betamax machine at any price, because Betamax
    > tapes were limited to 1 hour.


    Obviously you didn't own one. I did. I bought a fully-featured, high-end
    practically unused flagship Sony Betamax machine for about 1/20th of it's
    new price (the previous, "not-poor" owner had gone to VHS for a greater
    variety of hire tapes, he'd paid over $2K for it, I got it for less than
    $100 18 months later) at a time when you could still buy blank Beta tapes at
    about the same price as VHS tapes in most outlets. My tapes ranged in
    recording time from 2 to 3.5 hours IIRC.

    For what I paid for it I got a real bargain at a time when I wouldn't have
    been able to afford even a low-end VHS machine. I lived out in the sticks so
    the lack of hire movies wasn't an issue, it was only used for recording TV
    programmes, a task it excelled at until well past the stage when the tapes
    were no longer readilly available. It had so many features compared with VHS
    machines commonly around at the time it was great. Lots of LFLs to impress
    the friends. <g>

    It was still functioning perfectly when I pulled it to bits to see how it
    worked. I could no longer easilly source tapes for it and VHS machines with
    similar features were more affordable by then. (~$800)

    Cheers,
    --
    Shaun.
     
    ~misfit~, Feb 8, 2008
    #11
  12. peterwn

    impossible Guest

    "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    news:47ac4491$...
    > Somewhere on teh intarweb "impossible" typed:
    >
    >> No, the differences in perceptible quality between VHS and Betamax
    >> recordings were minute. The issue that settled the competition in the
    >> reral world was recording time. When 4-hour VHS tapes hit the market,
    >> you couldn't sell a Betamax machine at any price, because Betamax
    >> tapes were limited to 1 hour.

    >
    > Obviously you didn't own one. I did. I bought a fully-featured, high-end
    > practically unused flagship Sony Betamax machine for about 1/20th of it's
    > new price (the previous, "not-poor" owner had gone to VHS for a greater
    > variety of hire tapes, he'd paid over $2K for it, I got it for less than
    > $100 18 months later) at a time when you could still buy blank Beta tapes
    > at about the same price as VHS tapes in most outlets. My tapes ranged in
    > recording time from 2 to 3.5 hours IIRC.
    >
    > For what I paid for it I got a real bargain at a time when I wouldn't have
    > been able to afford even a low-end VHS machine. I lived out in the sticks
    > so the lack of hire movies wasn't an issue, it was only used for recording
    > TV programmes, a task it excelled at until well past the stage when the
    > tapes were no longer readilly available. It had so many features compared
    > with VHS machines commonly around at the time it was great. Lots of LFLs
    > to impress the friends. <g>
    >
    > It was still functioning perfectly when I pulled it to bits to see how it
    > worked. I could no longer easilly source tapes for it and VHS machines
    > with similar features were more affordable by then. (~$800)
    >


    I'm sure you're right about your experience. But I was referring to the main
    trend in the early VHS-Betamax competition, which was pretty much a
    late-1970s thing in North America. That's where video recorders were most in
    demand, and that's where recording time became a decisive sales issue. As I
    said, VHS had the early mass-market advantage because Sony miscalculated.
    Since video professionals had seemed to be perfectly content with its 1-hour
    tapes, Sony blithely asssumed that home users would feel the same. But what
    home users really wanted to do, it turned out, was to record an entire
    night's worth of television programming in one go, including feature-length
    movies. By 1980, VHS had a 70% share of the vcr market, and by 1985 it was
    well over 90% (see, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betamax). The
    huge economies of scale resulting from this rapidly drove Betamax out of the
    vcr market altogether. The New Zealand vcr market, of course, was a little
    different, if only because the prices charged for electronics in this
    country were so absurdly high for so long. So while I'm sure you're right
    that your second-hand Betamax gear was a terrific bargain at the time,
    that's really kind of beside the point.
     
    impossible, Feb 8, 2008
    #12
  13. peterwn

    impossible Guest

    "peterwn" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Feb 8, 10:55 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Applications matter to end users -- not formats. People predicting the
    >> demise of Microsoft have never seemed to understand that.

    >
    > Until people receiving OOXML documents attached to their E-mails start
    > telling the sender which orifice they can stick OOXML up.
    >


    ODF attachments tend to evoke a similar response. The default standard for
    attachments is doc, xls, ppt, and pdf, and I think most users know that at
    this point.

    > As it is, Victoria University has told people not to use the .docx etc
    > formats (ie Microsoft's variant of OOXML) as no one can read them.


    Nah, Victoria University has simply informed researchers about potential
    incompatibilities between document formats and explained how they can avoid
    those problems:

    http://www.academic-consulting.co.nz/newsletters/july2007.pdf

    It's common for researchers to be working with multiple document formats
    gernertaed by a variety of different applications. Surely you're not
    suggesting that Victoria University is telling people what applications they
    can and cannot use, are you?

    > Moreover both OOXML and Office 2007 are 'off limits' when prepring
    > articles for peer reviewed learned scientific journals as it botches
    > up mathematical formulae (even if you save in traditional .doc with
    > Office 2007).
    >


    Nah. The problem is with the new version of Microsoft's Equation Editor,
    which apparently generates unreadable/uneditable equations when converted
    from docx to doc. That's certainly a blunder -- but it has nothing to do
    with the docx format as such. In any case, there are very few research
    professionals who actually use the Microsoft Equation Editor -- sturdier
    tools like LaTeX and MathType have long been much preferred.

    > So people can read my attachments I prepare the document on Open
    > Office (run it under Windows if ou like!) then 'export' it in .pdf
    > format. I recommend everyone does this rather than muck around with
    > that OOXML crap.
    >


    That's fine if your recipient has no need to edit the attachment. If they
    do, then you'll probably want to save to doc format -- unless of course you
    know for certain that they use WordPerfect or OO.

    > It is bad enough being bossed around by Helen Clark than to to be
    > bossed around by Bill Gates too.
    >


    If you're following orders from either, then you have a serious issues with
    self-esteem.
     
    impossible, Feb 8, 2008
    #13
  14. On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:58:23 +0000, impossible wrote:

    > ODF attachments tend to evoke a similar response. The default standard
    > for attachments is doc, xls, ppt, and pdf, and I think most users know
    > that at this point.


    I didn't realise that there was a ISO standard for attachments on emails.


    --
    Smoking Causes Lung Cancer

    Franklin D Roosevelt: "We have always known that heedless self-interest
    was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics."
     
    Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC), Feb 8, 2008
    #14
  15. On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:04:48 +0000, impossible wrote:

    > I'm sure you're right about your experience. But I was referring to the
    > main trend in the early VHS-Betamax competition, which was pretty much a
    > late-1970s thing in North America. That's where video recorders were
    > most in demand, and that's where recording time became a decisive sales
    > issue.


    I was under the impression that the deciding factor was that the porn
    industry in the USA settled on using VHS.

    Nothing to do with recording time - everything to do with lecherous men
    having to purchase VHS machines in order to view the stuff.


    --
    Smoking Causes Lung Cancer

    Franklin D Roosevelt: "We have always known that heedless self-interest
    was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics."
     
    Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC), Feb 8, 2008
    #15
  16. peterwn

    impossible Guest

    "Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC)" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:58:23 +0000, impossible wrote:
    >> news:...
    >>> On Feb 8, 10:55 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >>> peterwn" <> wrote in message

    news:...
    >>>>
    >>>> Applications matter to end users -- not formats. People predicting the
    >>>> demise of Microsoft have never seemed to understand that.
    >>>
    >>> Until people receiving OOXML documents attached to their E-mails start
    >>> telling the sender which orifice they can stick OOXML up.
    >>>

    >>
    >> ODF attachments tend to evoke a similar response. The default standard
    >> for
    >> attachments is doc, xls, ppt, and pdf, and I think most users know that
    >> at
    >> this point.
    >>

    > I didn't realise that there was a ISO standard for attachments on emails.
    >
    >


    If you think you need an ISO standard to send a file attachment, I feel
    sorry for you. By convention, the standard for attachments is doc, xls,
    ppt, and pdf, because these are the formats that are most accessible to the
    largest number of users. In an environment where everyone used Wordperfect
    Office or OO, I suppose the default standard would be different. But with
    Microsoft Office on 98% of desktops worlwide, and with the Adobe Acrobat
    reader available as a free download on pratically every site that
    distributes documents, I think my estimate of what the default standard has
    become is pretty accurate.
     
    impossible, Feb 8, 2008
    #16
  17. peterwn

    impossible Guest

    "Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC)" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:04:48 +0000, impossible wrote:
    >
    >> I'm sure you're right about your experience. But I was referring to the
    >> main trend in the early VHS-Betamax competition, which was pretty much a
    >> late-1970s thing in North America. That's where video recorders were
    >> most in demand, and that's where recording time became a decisive sales
    >> issue.

    >
    > I was under the impression that the deciding factor was that the porn
    > industry in the USA settled on using VHS.
    >
    > Nothing to do with recording time - everything to do with lecherous men
    > having to purchase VHS machines in order to view the stuff.
    >
    >


    You could sell porn videos pasted frame-by-frame on the back of snack
    crackers and there would be a teeming market for the stuff at any price. So
    no, I don't see the incentive for the porn industry to lead the way on this.
    VHS won out when the technology to record, rather than play, videos became
    accesible to home consumers on a mass scale and when the choice to record
    more on VHS, rather than less on Betamax, became a no-brainer.
     
    impossible, Feb 8, 2008
    #17
  18. peterwn

    ~misfit~ Guest

    > "Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC)" <> wrote in
    > message news:p...
    >> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:04:48 +0000, impossible wrote:
    >>
    >>> I'm sure you're right about your experience. But I was referring to
    >>> the main trend in the early VHS-Betamax competition, which was
    >>> pretty much a late-1970s thing in North America. That's where video
    >>> recorders were most in demand, and that's where recording time
    >>> became a decisive sales issue.

    >>
    >> I was under the impression that the deciding factor was that the porn
    >> industry in the USA settled on using VHS.
    >>
    >> Nothing to do with recording time - everything to do with lecherous
    >> men having to purchase VHS machines in order to view the stuff.


    That is an urban legend that has well and truly been 'busted'. The 'Video
    Wars' have long been studied by marketers as an example of what happens with
    competing formats. They debinked that myth very early on.
    --
    Shaun.
     
    ~misfit~, Feb 8, 2008
    #18
  19. peterwn

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarweb "impossible" typed:
    > "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    > news:47ac4491$...
    >> Somewhere on teh intarweb "impossible" typed:
    >>
    >>> No, the differences in perceptible quality between VHS and Betamax
    >>> recordings were minute. The issue that settled the competition in
    >>> the reral world was recording time. When 4-hour VHS tapes hit the
    >>> market, you couldn't sell a Betamax machine at any price, because
    >>> Betamax tapes were limited to 1 hour.

    >>
    >> Obviously you didn't own one. I did. I bought a fully-featured,
    >> high-end practically unused flagship Sony Betamax machine for about
    >> 1/20th of it's new price (the previous, "not-poor" owner had gone to
    >> VHS for a greater variety of hire tapes, he'd paid over $2K for it,
    >> I got it for less than $100 18 months later) at a time when you
    >> could still buy blank Beta tapes at about the same price as VHS
    >> tapes in most outlets. My tapes ranged in recording time from 2 to
    >> 3.5 hours IIRC. For what I paid for it I got a real bargain at a time
    >> when I
    >> wouldn't have been able to afford even a low-end VHS machine. I
    >> lived out in the sticks so the lack of hire movies wasn't an issue,
    >> it was only used for recording TV programmes, a task it excelled at
    >> until well past the stage when the tapes were no longer readilly
    >> available. It had so many features compared with VHS machines
    >> commonly around at the time it was great. Lots of LFLs to impress
    >> the friends. <g> It was still functioning perfectly when I pulled it to
    >> bits to see
    >> how it worked. I could no longer easilly source tapes for it and VHS
    >> machines with similar features were more affordable by then. (~$800)
    >>

    >
    > I'm sure you're right about your experience. But I was referring to
    > the main trend in the early VHS-Betamax competition, which was pretty
    > much a late-1970s thing in North America. That's where video
    > recorders were most in demand, and that's where recording time became
    > a decisive sales issue. As I said, VHS had the early mass-market
    > advantage because Sony miscalculated. Since video professionals had
    > seemed to be perfectly content with its 1-hour tapes, Sony blithely
    > asssumed that home users would feel the same. But what home users
    > really wanted to do, it turned out, was to record an entire night's
    > worth of television programming in one go, including feature-length
    > movies.


    Indeed. From your link below:

    "When, in 1976, RCA introduced a VHS recorder capable of storing 4 hours on
    a standard T-120 tape, Americans and Canadians flocked to the longer run
    time, as it was perfect for recording the evening primetime schedule or
    afternoon football games. Sony immediately realized that 1 hour was not
    sufficient and introduced Beta-2 and Beta-3 speeds"

    Now why would you suddenly drop your expensive Betamax machine in the
    wheelie-bin for a VHS machine when Sony "immediately" introduced tapes with
    recording times of up to 5 hours (NTSC)? I suggest the "flocked to" referred
    to above was new buyers.

    (Previously the one hour thing was mainly about picture quality. When VHS
    came along with it's inferior picture quality but longer record times
    Betamax was easilly able to extend their recording times, along with a
    resulting degradation of the picture quality, making it similar to VHS.)

    > By 1980, VHS had a 70% share of the vcr market, and by 1985
    > it was well over 90% (see, for example,
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betamax). The huge economies of scale
    > resulting from this rapidly drove Betamax out of the vcr market
    > altogether. The New Zealand vcr market, of course, was a little
    > different, if only because the prices charged for electronics in this
    > country were so absurdly high for so long. So while I'm sure you're
    > right that your second-hand Betamax gear was a terrific bargain at
    > the time, that's really kind of beside the point.


    Indeed it's beside the point, it was a little digression on my part, I
    thought that was allowed.

    The point was that you were totally wrong in your statement as to why
    Betamax failed to capture market share according to every analysis I've read
    (and the facts).

    Check out any of the multiple studies available on the interweb and not a
    single one cites a "one hour recording length" as a defining issue. Betamax
    had a head-start on VHS and by the time the competition arrived they were
    well capable of increasing recording time to (nearly) match. Existing
    Betamax owners weren't inconvenienced in any way. (i.e. It wasn't the
    "Betamax was limited to 1 hour" recording time that killed Betamax as you
    suggested.)

    Wouldn't a simple retraction have been easier than all this
    Googling/Wiki-ing? Or aren't you one to admit when you're wrong?
    --
    Shaun.
     
    ~misfit~, Feb 9, 2008
    #19
  20. peterwn

    impossible Guest

    "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Somewhere on teh intarweb "impossible" typed:
    >> "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    >> news:47ac4491$...
    >>> Somewhere on teh intarweb "impossible" typed:
    >>>
    >>>> No, the differences in perceptible quality between VHS and Betamax
    >>>> recordings were minute. The issue that settled the competition in
    >>>> the reral world was recording time. When 4-hour VHS tapes hit the
    >>>> market, you couldn't sell a Betamax machine at any price, because
    >>>> Betamax tapes were limited to 1 hour.
    >>>
    >>> Obviously you didn't own one. I did. I bought a fully-featured,
    >>> high-end practically unused flagship Sony Betamax machine for about
    >>> 1/20th of it's new price (the previous, "not-poor" owner had gone to
    >>> VHS for a greater variety of hire tapes, he'd paid over $2K for it,
    >>> I got it for less than $100 18 months later) at a time when you
    >>> could still buy blank Beta tapes at about the same price as VHS
    >>> tapes in most outlets. My tapes ranged in recording time from 2 to
    >>> 3.5 hours IIRC. For what I paid for it I got a real bargain at a time
    >>> when I
    >>> wouldn't have been able to afford even a low-end VHS machine. I
    >>> lived out in the sticks so the lack of hire movies wasn't an issue,
    >>> it was only used for recording TV programmes, a task it excelled at
    >>> until well past the stage when the tapes were no longer readilly
    >>> available. It had so many features compared with VHS machines
    >>> commonly around at the time it was great. Lots of LFLs to impress
    >>> the friends. <g> It was still functioning perfectly when I pulled it to
    >>> bits to see
    >>> how it worked. I could no longer easilly source tapes for it and VHS
    >>> machines with similar features were more affordable by then. (~$800)
    >>>

    >>
    >> I'm sure you're right about your experience. But I was referring to
    >> the main trend in the early VHS-Betamax competition, which was pretty
    >> much a late-1970s thing in North America. That's where video
    >> recorders were most in demand, and that's where recording time became
    >> a decisive sales issue. As I said, VHS had the early mass-market
    >> advantage because Sony miscalculated. Since video professionals had
    >> seemed to be perfectly content with its 1-hour tapes, Sony blithely
    >> asssumed that home users would feel the same. But what home users
    >> really wanted to do, it turned out, was to record an entire night's
    >> worth of television programming in one go, including feature-length
    >> movies.

    >
    > Indeed. From your link below:
    >
    > "When, in 1976, RCA introduced a VHS recorder capable of storing 4 hours
    > on a standard T-120 tape, Americans and Canadians flocked to the longer
    > run time, as it was perfect for recording the evening primetime schedule
    > or afternoon football games. Sony immediately realized that 1 hour was not
    > sufficient and introduced Beta-2 and Beta-3 speeds"
    >
    > Now why would you suddenly drop your expensive Betamax machine in the
    > wheelie-bin for a VHS machine when Sony "immediately" introduced tapes
    > with recording times of up to 5 hours (NTSC)? I suggest the "flocked to"
    > referred to above was new buyers.
    >


    I think you're right. But of course new vcr buyers at this point greatly
    outnumbered existing vcr owners by several orders of magnitude. Whatever
    those new buyers were in the market for -- longer record times, cheaper
    prices -- that's what determined the ultimate success of VHS.

    > (Previously the one hour thing was mainly about picture quality. When VHS
    > came along with it's inferior picture quality but longer record times
    > Betamax was easilly able to extend their recording times, along with a
    > resulting degradation of the picture quality, making it similar to VHS.)
    >


    It weas too late by then. The market had already turned to VHS.


    >> By 1980, VHS had a 70% share of the vcr market, and by 1985
    >> it was well over 90% (see, for example,
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betamax). The huge economies of scale
    >> resulting from this rapidly drove Betamax out of the vcr market
    >> altogether. The New Zealand vcr market, of course, was a little
    >> different, if only because the prices charged for electronics in this
    >> country were so absurdly high for so long. So while I'm sure you're
    >> right that your second-hand Betamax gear was a terrific bargain at
    >> the time, that's really kind of beside the point.

    >
    > Indeed it's beside the point, it was a little digression on my part, I
    > thought that was allowed.
    >
    > The point was that you were totally wrong in your statement as to why
    > Betamax failed to capture market share according to every analysis I've
    > read (and the facts).
    >


    Cite something besides your own anecdote and I'll look at it.

    > Check out any of the multiple studies available on the interweb and not a
    > single one cites a "one hour recording length" as a defining issue.
    > Betamax had a head-start on VHS and by the time the competition arrived
    > they were well capable of increasing recording time to (nearly) match.
    > Existing Betamax owners weren't inconvenienced in any way. (i.e. It wasn't
    > the "Betamax was limited to 1 hour" recording time that killed Betamax as
    > you suggested.)
    >


    You would explain the success oif VHS how? That it provided consumers an
    inferior product they didn't want?

    > Wouldn't a simple retraction have been easier than all this
    > Googling/Wiki-ing? Or aren't you one to admit when you're wrong?
    > --


    You could do with a little more "Googling/Wiki-ing" yourself, rather than
    just telling tales from memory based on your own unique experience as a
    consumer.
     
    impossible, Feb 9, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Brett Roberts, Microsoft NZ

    interesting post from Miguel de Icaza on OOXML

    Brett Roberts, Microsoft NZ, Feb 1, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    35
    Views:
    857
    impossible
    Feb 7, 2007
  2. peterwn

    Microsoft Office and ooxml (.docx)

    peterwn, May 26, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    169
    Views:
    2,820
    Jonathan Walker
    Jun 1, 2007
  3. Jonathan Walker

    Microsoft employee offered incentives for OOXML support

    Jonathan Walker, Sep 3, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    508
    Jasen Betts
    Sep 9, 2007
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    OOXML fails

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 5, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    48
    Views:
    1,362
    whoisthis
    Sep 11, 2007
  5. peterwn

    IP Issues with OOXML

    peterwn, Feb 10, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    389
    Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC)
    Feb 11, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page