Actor Everett labels Starbucks a 'cancer'

[NeilC]

Very true. Who on earth wants the whole world to be eating the same crap food just because it appeals to instant gratification and has a big marketing budget?

 

[Forty-Two]

I was applying this more to Starbucks (that is a franchise, isn't it?), although I realize that much of the discussion of late has centered about Wal-Mart. You're right. It wouldn't apply as well to the Wal-Marts of the world.

Starbucks is and isn't a franchise. Stand-alone stores are all company-owned, so if you walk into one in a shopping center, you are entering a non-franchised store that answers directly to corporate.

The Starbucks counters you'd find inside a bookstore, supermarket, or airport, however, are franchised. By and large, I've found their service to be much worse because they don't answer directly to Starbucks corporate. The "baristas" in the supermarket are employed by the supermarket, and so on. I've had some really nasty customer service from a franchise store while traveling, and believe me, that "partner" would not have lasted a day at a "real" Starbucks.

It gets confusing, though, because my employee discount is good only at corporate-owned stores, not at franchises. Also, the franchise stores can offer their own promotions -- for example, buy $50 worth of groceries and receive a free latte -- that we can't honor at our stores. From a business standpoint, I see why Starbucks chose to open franchises, but I think it injures the integrity of the brand.

 

[Bob Klase]

Originally Posted by Bob Klase
"Superior video quality" and "superior product" are two different terms meaning two different things. Even assuming that the superior video quality claims are true, that does not automatically mean it was a superior product.

The product has a specific function: To record and show video. If superior video quality does not mean it is a superior product, then you are placing the value on something else than what the product does.

So if I'm gone and want to record 2 hours of TV while I'm away, I get good video quality on Beta for the first hour and zero video quality for the 2nd hour. On VHS I get slightly worse video quality for the whole 2 hours. You're right- video quality is the only consideration in determining the better product.

Or I make a VCR that takes 4 hours to rewind a tape- it's a better product than VHS because it has better video quality. Once again ou're right- video quality is the only consideration in determining the better product.

Or I want to rent movies on video- Beta has 10 movies available and VHS has 5000- but Beta would be the better product because the video quality would be better on 10 movies.

It's like saying that Toyota makes better cars because there's better AC in their cars.

And you're right once more- focusing exclusivelly on one feature (such as air conditioning or video quality) is the determining factor as to which is the better product.

 

[CFLarsen]

Or I want to rent movies on video- Beta has 10 movies available and VHS has 5000- but Beta would be the better product because the video quality would be better on 10 movies.

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.

 

[Rob Lister]

Perhaps not, but the others were. A troll wouldn't see it, but everyone else would.

 

[CFLarsen]

Perhaps not, but the others were. A troll wouldn't see it, but everyone else would.

I'm a troll for pointing out a flaw in an argument?

Thanks for your constructive input.

 

[Thanz]

I'm a troll for pointing out a flaw in an argument?

Thanks for your constructive input.

No, a troll for avoiding the parts of the argument that you can't answer and instead picking on the hyperbole. Try answering the main thrust - that is, even before tapes were rentable, VHS had more functionality than Beta due to the greater capacity of the tapes. In fact, that point is even more important before studios started offering pre-recorded content. Changing a tape during playback is much less of a concern than having to change a tape during recording.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, a troll for avoiding the parts of the argument that you can't answer and instead picking on the hyperbole. Try answering the main thrust - that is, even before tapes were rentable, VHS had more functionality than Beta due to the greater capacity of the tapes. In fact, that point is even more important before studios started offering pre-recorded content. Changing a tape during playback is much less of a concern than having to change a tape during recording.

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

Have you seen the quality of the new flatscreen TVs?

 

[Thanz]

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

I think that the dominance of the VHS format shows that the quality was "good enough". In fact, your choice of that phrase is interesting. VHS quality, while perhaps not the best, was "good enough". People even used 2 hour tapes to record on the lowest quality setting to get 6 hours of recording that was "good enough" for time-shifting tv.

Have you seen the quality of the new flatscreen TVs?

I am not sure what relevance this has. What is your point? If anything, the high quality of some new high-definition flat panel TVs is illustrative of my point. Even with the high def options, lower quality tube TVs still sell. Not because they offer better video quality - but because they are "good enough".

And, of course, what good is superior video quality if you only get half of your show?

 

[CFLarsen]

I think that the dominance of the VHS format shows that the quality was "good enough". In fact, your choice of that phrase is interesting. VHS quality, while perhaps not the best, was "good enough". People even used 2 hour tapes to record on the lowest quality setting to get 6 hours of recording that was "good enough" for time-shifting tv.

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.

I am not sure what relevance this has. What is your point? If anything, the high quality of some new high-definition flat panel TVs is illustrative of my point.

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.

 

[HeavyAaron]

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.

Or maybe the customer just has different values than you do. The marginal cost versus the marginal quality improvement of a more expensive unit may be too high for some people. That doesn't make them wrong. It means they have different preferences.

Of course, there may well be a group of underinformed consumers as well. But you have yet to provide evidense that this is the cause.

Aaron

 

[Grammatron]

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.

I like how anecdotes pass as facts when you are the one telling them.

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.

And yet, still more fact-less anecdotes.

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

Solely? And the research for this is...

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.

Neither are you, though that does not seem to stop you one bit.

 

[CFLarsen]

Or maybe the customer just has different values than you do. The marginal cost versus the marginal quality improvement of a more expensive unit may be too high for some people. That doesn't make them wrong. It means they have different preferences.

Of course, there may well be a group of underinformed consumers as well. But you have yet to provide evidense that this is the cause.

Aaron

The norm is that the consumers are underinformed. How can we, as consumers, possibly keep up with all the new products?

Do you know what "analog cheese" is? That's a product sold in Norway as pizza topping. People think it is cheese, but it is actually made of palm oil. It has nothing to do with cheese. You'd expect at least some kind of bovine animal excretion to be part of the product, yet it isn't.

Go to your fridge. Pull out any product. Tell me that you knew, in advance, exactly what was in every product in your fridge.

Can you? No, you can't.

 

[HeavyAaron]

The norm is that the consumers are underinformed. How can we, as consumers, possibly keep up with all the new products?

Do you know what "analog cheese" is? That's a product sold in Norway as pizza topping. People think it is cheese, but it is actually made of palm oil. It has nothing to do with cheese. You'd expect at least some kind of bovine animal excretion to be part of the product, yet it isn't.

Go to your fridge. Pull out any product. Tell me that you knew, in advance, exactly what was in every product in your fridge.

Can you? No, you can't.

That's a rediculous standard for "informed customer." I used the term "under informed." I meant that there is a level of "reasonably informed." And if you want to get all technical about it a customer would rationally learn enough about the product before buying to the point where the person believed that the costs associated with additional learning with regards to the product outweigh the perceived benifits in making a better purchase decision. To meet your critera of "informed customer" they would actually need to act irrationally. I don't think you really want to advocate irrational behavior.

Aaron

 

[HarryKeogh]

The obvious answer is that for some consumers having a marginally better picture quality was more important than a longer recording/playback time. For others the opposite was true. For either side to argue one was the superior machine based on one measure of performance is silly.

If a machine was produced with even better picture quality than Beta but the tapes were only 1/2 hour long would that be a superior product to Beta? It depends on what the consumer is looking for. If they are looking solely for the best picture quality than the answer is yes. If they wanted to record the hour-long Hill Street Blues that answer would probably be no.

On paper Beta had more impressive specs in terms of video quality but in real world scenarios many people probably couldn't even tell the difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videotape_format_war

Betamax offered a slightly higher horizontal resolution (250 vs 240 lines for PAL), lower video noise, and less luma-chroma crosstalk than VHS, and was marketed as providing superior pictures to VHS. In practice however VHS picture quality was very similar to that from Beta, as the actual picture performance depended on other factors including the condition or quality of the tape, and individual video recorder models

It appears that more consumers found a much longer recording/playback time to be more desirable than a marginally better picture.

 

[CFLarsen]

I like how anecdotes pass as facts when you are the one telling them.

Where did I claim they were facts? I told you what I have experienced. You can dismiss it, if you like. I would, however, love to see where I am wrong, when it comes to programming VCRs. I would really appreciate new information for my lectures.

And yet, still more fact-less anecdotes.

If you have evidence that people in general can program their VCRs, I would love to see it.

Solely? And the research for this is...

You cannot possibly argue that the quality of flatscreens is better than tube TVs.

Neither are you, though that does not seem to stop you one bit.

Why am I not wrong? Don't mindlessly state it, show it.

I would love to be wrong on flatscreen TVs - I think the design is far better instead of those bulky boxes that take up WAY too much space in my living room. But the quality is not good enough - especially not when you consider the hefty price tag.

 

[CFLarsen]

If they are looking solely for the best picture quality than the answer is yes. If they wanted to record the hour-long Hill Street Blues that answer would probably be no.

It appears that more consumers found a much longer recording/playback time to be more desirable than a marginally better picture.

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?

 

[Grammatron]

Where did I claim they were facts? I told you what I have experienced. You can dismiss it, if you like.

So you agree that your data is close to useless, thank you.

If you have evidence that people in general can program their VCRs, I would love to see it.

You made a claim and you have no evince. There's nothing more I should be doing at this point.

You cannot possibly argue that the quality of flatscreens is better than tube TVs.

Luckily that's not at all what I question.

Why am I not wrong? Don't mindlessly state it, show it.

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

 

[Grammatron]

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.

Because you say so and thus it must be true.

 

[HarryKeogh]

I'm just glad the VCR is joining (consumer) Beta in obsolesence. Magnetic tape is just so 20 years ago. I love my DVR.

Anyway, gotta run. Looking at the clock on my VCR it's already 12:00.