Slashdot Mirror
Why VHS Was Better
otis wildflower writes "An article in the UK's Guardian describes why, in the end, VHS is better than Betamax. While this may not be terribly useful knowledge on its own, the author then makes a pretty convincing case that viewing something's success or failure purely on technical merit is not an entirely accurate way of looking at things. For better or for worse, success of new products and technologies is determined by a broad range of factors that make up "the whole product", quality being only one, and possibly a minor one at that. Kind of explains what happened to the Atari Lynx and Jaguar, dunnit?"
Actually, I think the biggest thing that Beta had going for it was that you could scan the tape while fast-forwarding. On VHS, you had to stop, wait for the moving parts to stop whirring, and then press play to see where you were on a tape.
Eventually the VHS people figured out how to do it, but for the first ten years or so you had to get out of fast forward mode in order to get a picture on the screen. Beta could do that from the get-go, and it made working with the tape, a lot faster and easier.
I'm sure someone who is really into video will take up the crusade of why beta is sooo much better than VHS, but eventually VHS more or less caught up, and the six hour tape thing was a really big deal, one in which Beta never could compete. Beta, while technologically superior, was cursed by poor political decisions on the part of Sony, and the tapes were too short anyway.
VHS was to Beta what Microsoft was to IBM back in the 80s -- the open architecture alternative. (Sorry, I had to throw that analogy in just to be cantankerous.)
Let's face it, DVD is a million times better than either VHS or Beta. And if you still need an old beta player, check your local thrift shops. There's more of them out there than you might think.
I said it once, I'll say it again: BETAMAX != BETACAM. If you worked in video, you would know that. Max was a market failure, period. BetaCam is an industry standard. They have nothing to do with each other.
I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
It wasn't really marketing. As previously indicated, it was Sony shooting themselves in the foot.
Beta did have an ever so slightly higher horizontal reolution (the way most TV video sources are measured) than VHS. I wanna say 350 lines vs. 320, or something asinine like that. But, technically, it was better.
For the better majority of Beta's life, though, Sony was the only company who made players. They didn't want anyone else getting a slice of the pie. When companies like Panasonic, Philips, RCA, etc. wanted to make a Beta player, Sony said, "no".
Enter JVC.
JVC came up with VHS. it's not quite as good, but they didn't have any real technical disadvantage. But (and this is the big thing), they would license technology. Philips, Panasonic, and RCA could now make a VCR. Now the consumer had a lot of choices: some companies could make stripped-down models, or models with different features, or what-have-you. Additionally, the customers who just have to have all of their equipment the same brand can do so.
It wasn't really marketing in the way someone wants to think (ads and so forth), it was just a better idea.
Think about it this way: Apple vs. PC. If IBM's technology had stayed completely proprietary, and Compaq had never reverse engineered the system, there's a good chance Apple or even some other platform would've won. Instead, there are 1,000s of brand-names for PC and still just one Apple.
Ever wonder what VHS stands for?
It stands for Vertical Helix Scan
now you know and knowing is half the battle...