Actor Everett labels Starbucks a 'cancer'

[ponderingturtle]

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

ANd how did people use them?

And how stupid where people that even with VHS they often operated it at slower speeds(EP vs SP) and got even lower video quality. How do you explain that aparent utterly stupid action?

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

And yet, people buy Kias...

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.

I have repeatedly said that they were used for recording. Just not time-shift recording.

Evidence?

Read the articles I linked to. If you don't want to accept evidence, don't.

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?

Like I said, they did buy they to record, they just didn't buy them to time-shift record.

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.

No, it is not an anecdote. It is an article written by people who know the industry a hell of a lot better than you and I. Ignore it, if you will.

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?

You are so naive. You think consumers are really educated about the products they buy? You think people know what goes on inside their computers? Their fridges? Their cars? They don't. And they buy products for a lot of other reasons than merely to suit their needs. They buy them to show off, to impress the neighbours, their friends, themselves.

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).

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.

50%. Tops.

That's not a lot, is it? Only half of people could operate the product they just bought? I don't call that a 50% success rate, I call that a 50% failure rate.

If 50% of people couldn't operate their cars, would that not give you cause for concern?

 

[CFLarsen]

ANd how did people use them?

Already explained.

And how stupid where people that even with VHS they often operated it at slower speeds(EP vs SP) and got even lower video quality. How do you explain that aparent utterly stupid action?

Who said they were "stupid"?

 

[Rob Lister]

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.

Or porn.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

We have our answer - VHS was superior to Beta.

 

[HarryKeogh]

We have our answer - VHS was superior to Beta.

Can we now compare other dead technologies? I'll start...8-track vs. Reel-to-Reel. Discuss.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Already explained.

Where did you say anything about how they where used? All you have been doing was shooting down uses

Who said they were "stupid"?

Willfuly reducing the quality of a product, is that not a decent working definition of stupid?

 

[Thanz]

I have repeatedly said that they were used for recording. Just not time-shift recording.

Then you are bleating about nothing. Longer tapes are better for recording, period. Whether they are time shifting or not.

Read the articles I linked to. If you don't want to accept evidence, don't.

I am willing to accept relevant evidence. Evidence about the time when VCRs were introduced, not years later. Your earliest "evidence" comes from 1994, when Beta was already dead as a consumer format. So how can it be relevant to whether VHS or Beta were superior or why VHS was preferable?

Like I said, they did buy they to record, they just didn't buy them to time-shift record.

So, you have no real point - unless your position is that length of tape is only relevant to recording at a programmed time. Which would be stupid, but you can tell me if that is the case.

No, it is not an anecdote. It is an article written by people who know the industry a hell of a lot better than you and I. Ignore it, if you will.

I say that your anecdote is irrelevant, and you say on the contrary it is pivotal. Now your anecdote is an article? Well, even if you are referring to your articles, yes they are irrelevant. They all come from an era where there is tons of prerecorded content for VCRs. Which makes them irrelevant when determining why people bought VCRs and the uses they made of them before such content was available.

You are so naive. You think consumers are really educated about the products they buy? You think people know what goes on inside their computers? Their fridges? Their cars? They don't. And they buy products for a lot of other reasons than merely to suit their needs. They buy them to show off, to impress the neighbours, their friends, themselves.

I think that they are more educated about their needs and the products they buy than you think they are. I can't fix my car myself - I don't know how it all works under the hood. But I certainly know what my needs are and which vehicle best suited those needs.

50%. Tops.

That's not a lot, is it? Only half of people could operate the product they just bought? I don't call that a 50% success rate, I call that a 50% failure rate.

If 50% of people couldn't operate their cars, would that not give you cause for concern?

False analogy. 50% don't know how to operate one feature of their VCR, probably because they don't use it or they have someone else do it for them. That figure is taken from a time when there was tons of pre-recorded content and many (most?) used the VCR to view that content.

If 50% of people did not know how to operate a feature of their car that they never use, that would not disturb me.

 

[Rob Lister]

Thanz, why do you bother? Is being trolled a hobby?

 

[Thanz]

Thanz, why do you bother? Is being trolled a hobby?

I have a weak spot for the antics of Claus. I think maybe it got transferred to Claus when shanek stopped posting. Perhaps during one of the epic Claus/shanek duels.

Is there a support group available?

Looking back, I also tried with Carlos Swett. And for a time Franko. Dear Lord, I have a problem....

 

[CFLarsen]

Where did you say anything about how they where used? All you have been doing was shooting down uses

Try to read post #188 and #195.

Willfuly reducing the quality of a product, is that not a decent working definition of stupid?

Not at all. It could also be due to cost cutting. Not exactly unheard of.

Then you are bleating about nothing. Longer tapes are better for recording, period. Whether they are time shifting or not.

You are missing the point entirely. VCRs were sold on the concept of time-shifting. Not merely because you could record what your telly showed.

I am willing to accept relevant evidence. Evidence about the time when VCRs were introduced, not years later. Your earliest "evidence" comes from 1994, when Beta was already dead as a consumer format. So how can it be relevant to whether VHS or Beta were superior or why VHS was preferable?

You clearly haven't read the articles I linked to. Your loss, not mine.

So, you have no real point - unless your position is that length of tape is only relevant to recording at a programmed time. Which would be stupid, but you can tell me if that is the case.

Again, your loss, not mine.

I say that your anecdote is irrelevant, and you say on the contrary it is pivotal. Now your anecdote is an article? Well, even if you are referring to your articles, yes they are irrelevant. They all come from an era where there is tons of prerecorded content for VCRs. Which makes them irrelevant when determining why people bought VCRs and the uses they made of them before such content was available.

It is not my problem if you can't keep up. Your loss, not mine.

I think that they are more educated about their needs and the products they buy than you think they are. I can't fix my car myself - I don't know how it all works under the hood. But I certainly know what my needs are and which vehicle best suited those needs.

If that is true, then we can simply shut down all stores and fire all sales representatives.

Obviously, you are wrong.

False analogy. 50% don't know how to operate one feature of their VCR, probably because they don't use it or they have someone else do it for them. That figure is taken from a time when there was tons of pre-recorded content and many (most?) used the VCR to view that content.

The problem with programming a VCR has always existed. This is the point you keep missing. Perhaps willingly?

If 50% of people did not know how to operate a feature of their car that they never use, that would not disturb me.

That's not what I asked. I asked if 50% couldn't operate their car, what then?

Dear Lord, I have a problem....

Why continue, then? If you think you have a problem doing this, stop doing it.

Or, if you can't, at the very least stop whining about it.

 

[CFLarsen]

Urban myth.

Do you have newer figures?

 

[Meadmaker]

In my household, one member of our family can program the VCR. The other can't. The member of my family that can is my wife, who is a stay at home mom and a trained psychologist. I, on the other hand, am a computer programmer by profession. I can't program the VCR.

Why? It isn't because they are too difficult to use. It's because I never cared enough to learn. Once in a great while, I've wanted to program something, but I never bothered to take the 10 minutes to figure out how to do it. It just isn't important enough to me. I don't watch much TV.

My wife, on the other hand, is constantly taping and time shifting, and has been for years. She typically starts watching TV around 10:00, after having taped the shows earlier in the evening. She also uses the same tapes over and over and over, until they just are so poor you can't watch anymore. It seems like tape length is more important than picture quality to her.

As for flat screen TVs, I can watch mine whether I'm on the couch, or the exercise bike. I can't do that with a curved screen, because the bike is at too much of an angle. If the picture quality is lower, I'll have to take your word for it. I never bothered to compare them. It's just not something I am concerned with.

 

[Bob Klase]

Originally Posted by Bob Klase
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.

Typical of many of your replies, that's a non sequitor. It only applies if you define "education" as buying into CFLarson's over simplistist line of BS.

Notice that I said I don't care what *you* think is a better product. Since you've already declared that picture quality is the only consideration there's no further education needed to know what your opinion is.

he consumer is not always right, hm?

You keep bringing that up as though it was a inviolate law of physics. It's not.

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

They also owned several other McDonalds franchises. They could afford a money loser, for a while.

The point is that the chains have advantages that go beyond price, selection, and quality. Their dominance in the marketplace is not just because people really like tasteless, fast, cheap, food. Their are financial factors that also are at play.

 

[CFLarsen]

You keep bringing that up as though it was a inviolate law of physics. It's not.

I was being ironic.

 

[Bob Klase]

The problem with programming a VCR has always existed. This is the point you keep missing. Perhaps willingly?

By your own reasoning problems with programming are irrevelant. Picture quality is the only consideration.

 

[Darat]

Do you have newer figures?

I'll point you to the statistic you provided that said 50% of people can programme their video recorders.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'll point you to the statistic you provided that said 50% of people can programme their video recorders.

Only 50%? Failed product.

 

[HarryKeogh]

Only 50%? Failed product.

Just to be clear...you're claiming the VCR is a failed product because 50% of people couldn't program it to tape shows airing at a later time?