Actor Everett labels Starbucks a 'cancer'

[Rob Lister]

Why do you guys bother with such indepth replies? A simplee sentencee is all that is required.

 

[AmateurScientist]

The question is: Did people learn to program their VCRs, so they could tape that episode of Hill Street Blues?

No, they didn't. They still can't do it.

Perhaps it's a litmus test of just how far humanity can go?

Jumping out of the 80s and 90s for a moment, the success of Tivo (although I have a 5 or 6 year old Replay PVR myself, being an early adopter) demonstrates that the graphical interface is much more user friendly than a text based one. Nearly all vintage VCRs employed a text based programming interface, and that was the primary problem. It was too easy to screw up. Combine that with the fact that many consumers used cable set-top boxes that had to be set to the correct channel for time shifting, or at least had to communicate correctly with one's VCR, and you had millions of instances of recording at the right time, but on the wrong channel.

Tivo is the answer to those problems, and enjoys an enormous following. It has largely solved the user interface problems of the 80s and 90s VCRs. Don't get me started on its silly program recommendations, however. Fortunately, I don't have to deal with those.

AS

 

[HarryKeogh]

Tivo is the answer to those problems, and enjoys an enormous following. It has largely solved the user interface problems of the 80s and 90s VCRs. Don't get me started on its silly program recommendations, however. Fortunately, I don't have to deal with those.

AS

I love that I never watch commercials anymore. My shows (just the first-run, no more taping repeats) are waiting for me and you could zip through the commercials in a few seconds. And if I'm home when my show starts I'll do something for a few minutes (like clean up the apartment) until there's enough stuff recorded (usually about 15 minutes for an hour long program) so I could zip through the commercials.

And that's why Rupert Everett is a schmuck.

 

[Bob Klase]

Irony aside, you are aware that both formats had been out a while before the movie companies began to even consider making movies available for video?

Read the article I linked to. It's not a fair example.

No. I really don't give a crap which one you think is a better product. Most people will concede that Beta had a better picture (and most people don't give a crap about that either).

The vast majority of people decided what product was a superior product based on things they felt important. You've decided that they're all wrong and the only consideration is picture quality.

You're wrong.

 

[Bob Klase]

What good is a long recording, if the quality is not good enough?

Do you mean "what good is a long recording if the quality is not good enough for you"? Unfortunately most people decide what they consider "good enough" quality. It may vary from your decree, but they don't care.

Have you seen the quality of the new flatscreen TVs?

I have. Some have very good picture quality. I'm sure you'll be buying one of those regardless of price or size. l Perhaps you'll even find one without a remote control- certainly don't need a remote since picture quality is the only thing to consider.

 

[Meadmaker]

But that is not what people generally buy. They buy non-HD flat panels, of poor quality. Solely because the thingie is flat.

Not that I don't welcome flat screens. They just aren't of a very satisfactory quality. Yet. People buy a cool gadget of low quality. Like the hoola-hoop ring.

The customer is not always right.

I can't speak for every consumer, but I bought a non-HD flat screen tv specifically because it was flat, and this consumer was, in fact, right. It doesn't matter to me that some people don't understand my decision criteria, and think I was lulled by some sort of advertising gimmick.

To try to steer this thread a little bit back toward the topic, McDonalds, Starbucks, and Wal-Mart have specific characteristics rarely, if ever, present in non-chain stores, and there's a good reason to frequent those establishments if that's what you're looking for. I never go to Starbucks, but sometimes, McDonalds is exactly what I'm looking for, and they get my money.

Unfortunately, most of the time I really want is something from Wilson's Burgers, but they went out of business after McDonalds moved in. It doesn't mean McDs had a better product. It just meant that McDs could weather the difficult startup period until Wilson was forced out of business.

 

[Darat]

The question is: Did people learn to program their VCRs, so they could tape that episode of Hill Street Blues?

No, they didn't. They still can't do it.

...snip...

Urban myth.

 

[CFLarsen]

I am pointing out that you are not always not-not-wrong not not-wrong. I hope that clears it up.

Not particularly. You haven't shown that I am wrong. Just declared that I am.

Because you say so and thus it must be true.

Nope:

Remote Control Anarchy

ease-of-use standards remain woefully low for VCRs and the like

50% of all VCR users were not table to correctly initiate delayed recordings

Seven out of 10 owners use VCRs to play recorded tapes (such as rented movies) rather than to record television programs to watch later, according to the Consumer Electronics Association. The joke of the "blinking 12:00" -- a sign that viewers never learned how to program their VCRs -- turned out to be true.
Source

Sorry to disappoint you.

Jumping out of the 80s and 90s for a moment, the success of Tivo (although I have a 5 or 6 year old Replay PVR myself, being an early adopter) demonstrates that the graphical interface is much more user friendly than a text based one. Nearly all vintage VCRs employed a text based programming interface, and that was the primary problem. It was too easy to screw up. Combine that with the fact that many consumers used cable set-top boxes that had to be set to the correct channel for time shifting, or at least had to communicate correctly with one's VCR, and you had millions of instances of recording at the right time, but on the wrong channel.

Tivo is the answer to those problems, and enjoys an enormous following. It has largely solved the user interface problems of the 80s and 90s VCRs. Don't get me started on its silly program recommendations, however. Fortunately, I don't have to deal with those.

AS

While graphical user interfaces can be better, it isn't as much a question of more pixels, but what those pixels are used for.

We still face a mountain of problems with user interfaces, also with the new technologies that emerge today.

I won't ever be hungry, I'll tell you that...

No. I really don't give a crap which one you think is a better product. Most people will concede that Beta had a better picture (and most people don't give a crap about that either).

The vast majority of people decided what product was a superior product based on things they felt important. You've decided that they're all wrong and the only consideration is picture quality.

You're wrong.

If you don't want to educate yourself, you will never find out if you are right or wrong.

Do you mean "what good is a long recording if the quality is not good enough for you"? Unfortunately most people decide what they consider "good enough" quality. It may vary from your decree, but they don't care.

I have. Some have very good picture quality. I'm sure you'll be buying one of those regardless of price or size. l Perhaps you'll even find one without a remote control- certainly don't need a remote since picture quality is the only thing to consider.

No, I won't buy a flatscreen TV until I get at least as good quality as I have today. Some aren't even geared towards HDTV.

Unfortunately, most of the time I really want is something from Wilson's Burgers, but they went out of business after McDonalds moved in. It doesn't mean McDs had a better product. It just meant that McDs could weather the difficult startup period until Wilson was forced out of business.

The consumer is not always right, hm?

 

[Geckko]

Unfortunately, most of the time I really want is something from Wilson's Burgers, but they went out of business after McDonalds moved in. It doesn't mean McDs had a better product. It just meant that McDs could weather the difficult startup period until Wilson was forced out of business.

Well, that isn't true. What is true is that given the product/price trade-off you found yourself in the small minority.

If you have minority tastes and need/want bespoke products, then you have to pay bespoke prices.

If you have tastes like the majority, then you can get the average product at the average (hence much lower price).

I know nothing about Wilsons, but I suspect you weren't willing to pay the price premium for their product to be viable to produce and neither were sufficient numbers of others.


As for MacDonalds "weathering difficult start up to put competitors out of business". Did McDs increase their prices after the competition closed? I know the answer to that is no - because McDonalds have uniform pricing. So your premise is not supported by the facts.

 

[Meadmaker]

Well, that isn't true. What is true is that given the product/price trade-off you found yourself in the small minority.

If you have minority tastes and need/want bespoke products, then you have to pay bespoke prices.

If you have tastes like the majority, then you can get the average product at the average (hence much lower price).

That's not the case. Wilson's was a small town restaurant in my home town, owned and operated by Mr. Wilson. When McDonald's moved in, most of Mr. Wilson's customers kept going to Wilson's. When I wanted a decent hamburger or milk shake, I kept going there, too.

However, the key word above is "most". Some preferred the cheaper McDonalds product. Also, even if I thought Wilson's was superior, there were times when I just wanted something fast and cheap, so I went there, too, sometimes.

This meant a small drop in Mr. Wilson's business. McDonalds, meanwhile, got the travellers' business, and a small part of Wilsons' business. Wilsons business didn't drop by much. Unfortunately for Wilson, he, like most small town restaurant owners, wasn't making much money to begin with. The small drop in his business was enough to put him out of business, leaving us with only McDonalds.

Then, McDs business went up, because now they were the only game in town.

The point is they didn't drive out Wilsons' by having a superior product, or even one that consumers preferred. The problem was that our little town really wasn't big enough for two burger joints. When the second one (McDonalds) opened up, both of them were likely to operate at a loss until one went out of business. McDonalds could afford to operate at a loss for a little while. Wilson couldn't.

 

[Thanz]

Did people actually use it to "time-shift"? Not all that many people actually learned how to program their VCR, did they?

They didn't, and they still don't. Whenever I have given a lecture on usability, I always ask the audience who owns a VCR. Almost everyone raises their hands. I then ask them who can program the bloody thing. Almost nobody keeps their hand up. That's when they understand why usability is key to a successful product.

Let's not forget: This, after decades of different models and interfaces. It still doesn't seem possible to design an interface for a VCR that people can use for "time-shifting".

"Time-shifting" is therefore not a valid reason why people wanted VHS instead of Betamax.

You have more distortions of the space-time continuum here than your average Star Trek episode. Who cares whether people can program their VCRs now? How is that relevant to the days when VHS was battling with Beta? As you have admitted, there was very little pre-recorded content available when the VCR was introduced. Camcorders were not really on the scene yet either. The VCR's primary use was to record stuff off of TV to watch later at your leisure. With little to no pre-recorded content, what else were they bought for? And longer recording time was more important than a marginal improvement in video quality for the majority of consumers. Your blinking 12:00 story is irrelevant.

But that is not what people generally buy. They buy non-HD flat panels, of poor quality. Solely because the thingie is flat.

Not that I don't welcome flat screens. They just aren't of a very satisfactory quality. Yet. People buy a cool gadget of low quality. Like the hoola-hoop ring.

The customer is not always right.

Why do you say that the consumer is wrong for choosing "flat" over video quality? That is ridiculous. For someone in say, a 600 square foot bachelor apartment "flat" could be the more important concern. Who are you to say it is wrong?

 

[ponderingturtle]

The question is: Did people learn to program their VCRs, so they could tape that episode of Hill Street Blues?

No, they didn't. They still can't do it.

Perhaps it's a litmus test of just how far humanity can go?

So people didn't use any video recording when the competition was going on at all? They didn't record anything and had no content available, so why on earth did any buy the damn things?

By what you are agrueing as there where no movies available at the time and people didn't record anything, either one is a waste of money and shouldn't have been purchased.

There I have found the right answer.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That's not the case. Wilson's was a small town restaurant in my home town, owned and operated by Mr. Wilson. When McDonald's moved in, most of Mr. Wilson's customers kept going to Wilson's. When I wanted a decent hamburger or milk shake, I kept going there, too.

However, the key word above is "most". Some preferred the cheaper McDonalds product. Also, even if I thought Wilson's was superior, there were times when I just wanted something fast and cheap, so I went there, too, sometimes.

This meant a small drop in Mr. Wilson's business. McDonalds, meanwhile, got the travellers' business, and a small part of Wilsons' business. Wilsons business didn't drop by much. Unfortunately for Wilson, he, like most small town restaurant owners, wasn't making much money to begin with. The small drop in his business was enough to put him out of business, leaving us with only McDonalds.

Then, McDs business went up, because now they were the only game in town.

The point is they didn't drive out Wilsons' by having a superior product, or even one that consumers preferred. The problem was that our little town really wasn't big enough for two burger joints. When the second one (McDonalds) opened up, both of them were likely to operate at a loss until one went out of business. McDonalds could afford to operate at a loss for a little while. Wilson couldn't.

Error in facts here. Who owned that McDonalds? McDonalds is a franchise and so who ever was running it did not have deep corperate pockets, they had their own money. Then they where latching on to McDonalds product line and marketing, for a fee.

What the real problem here is that any competition is a bad thing, as this was not a case of a big corperation forceing a little guy out, but one little guy forcing a different one out with a bit of hired help from a big corperation.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You have more distortions of the space-time continuum here than your average Star Trek episode. Who cares whether people can program their VCRs now? How is that relevant to the days when VHS was battling with Beta? As you have admitted, there was very little pre-recorded content available when the VCR was introduced. Camcorders were not really on the scene yet either. The VCR's primary use was to record stuff off of TV to watch later at your leisure. With little to no pre-recorded content, what else were they bought for? And longer recording time was more important than a marginal improvement in video quality for the majority of consumers. Your blinking 12:00 story is irrelevant.

No his arguement is that video recorders where status symbols and not functional pieces of technology, as they had no real use, so the one with the better picture quality is a better status symbol, as neither is used for any real thing.

 

[CFLarsen]

You have more distortions of the space-time continuum here than your average Star Trek episode. Who cares whether people can program their VCRs now? How is that relevant to the days when VHS was battling with Beta?

Because the sales pitch was that, with video, you could program your VCR to record when you weren't there. Only, people couldn't work it out. This has not changed today.

As you have admitted, there was very little pre-recorded content available when the VCR was introduced. Camcorders were not really on the scene yet either. The VCR's primary use was to record stuff off of TV to watch later at your leisure. With little to no pre-recorded content, what else were they bought for? And longer recording time was more important than a marginal improvement in video quality for the majority of consumers. Your blinking 12:00 story is irrelevant.

On the contrary, it is pivotal: People couldn't operate their VCRs then, and they still can't. We have gotten virtually nowhere in all that time. The only thing we have done, is throw in more and more functionality.

Why do you say that the consumer is wrong for choosing "flat" over video quality? That is ridiculous. For someone in say, a 600 square foot bachelor apartment "flat" could be the more important concern. Who are you to say it is wrong?

Because consumers are being fooled into believing they are getting a superior product. They are spending a lot of money on something that is of a lower quality. With the low number of scan lines, especially on PAL, together with a lower quality of those lines, you end up with a worse product.

But it looks good and everybody's buying them...so it must be good....

So people didn't use any video recording when the competition was going on at all? They didn't record anything and had no content available, so why on earth did any buy the damn things?

By what you are agrueing as there where no movies available at the time and people didn't record anything, either one is a waste of money and shouldn't have been purchased.

There I have found the right answer.

No, you misunderstand. They could record, but they couldn't program the thing to record when they weren't at home. That inability invalidated one of the major reasons to get a VCR in the first place.

 

[ponderingturtle]

B
Because consumers are being fooled into believing they are getting a superior product. They are spending a lot of money on something that is of a lower quality. With the low number of scan lines, especially on PAL, together with a lower quality of those lines, you end up with a worse product.

But it looks good and everybody's buying them...so it must be good....

That depends on how you measure product. Flat screens are always better than curved and for flat panels, well if it is between a 15" CRT or a 25" flat pannel as that is all that will fit in the room which is better?

There are many reasons for each kind and you simply declair one criteria and say it is all that is importnat. If it where car's I am sure you would pick one rating and say that it is the best vehical and eveyone who did not buy it where idiots as it has the best millage/crash ratings or what ever.

No, you misunderstand. They could record, but they couldn't program the thing to record when they weren't at home. That inability invalidated one of the major reasons to get a VCR in the first place.

No you are simply not actualy giveing any indication that they where used for anything at all when the competition between VHS and Betamax was going on. And everything is all about picture quality.

 

[Thanz]

Because the sales pitch was that, with video, you could program your VCR to record when you weren't there. Only, people couldn't work it out. This has not changed today.

Evidence?

Look, that was one of the pitches, yes. But people also recorded stuff when they were there, or when one person was there for another person who was not there ("Honey, I am going to be late. Make sure you tape Hill Street Blues for me, okay?").

So, if people didn't buy them to record, what did they buy them for? If they were all duped, as you seem to be saying, why did the product remain so popular?

On the contrary, it is pivotal: People couldn't operate their VCRs then, and they still can't. We have gotten virtually nowhere in all that time. The only thing we have done, is throw in more and more functionality.

Your anecdote is "pivotal"? My, what arrogance. Everyone else's anecdotes can be dismissed out of hand, but yours are "pivotal"? Look, an anecdote decades after the introduction of VCRs is simply irrelevant to why people purchased VCRs when they were introduced. If you can't accept that simple fact, then there truly is no hope for you.

Because consumers are being fooled into believing they are getting a superior product. They are spending a lot of money on something that is of a lower quality. With the low number of scan lines, especially on PAL, together with a lower quality of those lines, you end up with a worse product.

But it looks good and everybody's buying them...so it must be good....

Wow. Now you can read the minds of everyone buying flat panel tvs, too. The Amazing Clauskin, I suppose.

People buy a product that suits their needs. Your assumption that they are all duped dunderheads is arrogance in the extreme. Could you be any more condescending?

 

[HarryKeogh]

They could record, but they couldn't program the thing to record when they weren't at home. That inability invalidated one of the major reasons to get a VCR in the first place.

Unless you were one of the millions of consumers who could program their VCRs (or Betas) to record programs when they weren't at home (according to your link above 50% of consumers could).

 

[CFLarsen]

No his arguement is that video recorders where status symbols and not functional pieces of technology, as they had no real use, so the one with the better picture quality is a better status symbol, as neither is used for any real thing.

They were hard to operate. I didn't say they weren't functional.

 

[Darat]

Claus - at best your figures show that 50% of people couldn't programme their videos - so that means 50% could. It also doesn't take into account that many videos will have been in multiple occupancy households and it only required one person to be able to programme the video for that feature to be worthwhile. (Certainly from the very first video my family had it was my bother and me that programmed the video no matter who wanted to record a programme.)

I would suggest you perhaps try to find historic sales of blank video cassettes that would give a good indication of what people were actually using their videos for.