Originally Posted by BobY
Since you never tire of misrepresenting what I say, I never tire of correcting you. Perhaps when you realize that, you'll stop.
I don't have any blind faith in HD DVD--I do have years of experience in CE that tells me Blu-Ray is doomed to niche status, but I never said HD DVD will triumph, just that it's the only one of the two that could be successful for a whole host of reasons previously enumerated.
And I never likened the Blu-Ray/HD DVD format war to the Beta/VHS format war. VHS won because it provided the features consumers wanted (longer recording time with acceptable picture quality). There is little difference to consumers between Blu-Ray and HD DVD other than HD DVD is less expensive and has certain exclusive movies while Blu-Ray has different exclusive movies, so no, I don't see the Beta/VHS analogy.
It's not that consumers don't care about picture quality, rather they balance picture quality with other priorities. They put different values on different things.
The longer recording time issue was straightforward. RCA told SONY "If it can't record a whole football game on one tape, we're not interested". Simple. RCA knew lots of Americans would choose a video recorder that could time shift a whole football game over one that didn't.
The silly thing was, nobody was forcing anyone to use EP mode, it was simply an option they could choose when needed. SONY refused to offer that option to RCA because, in SONY's estimation, the picture quality would not be acceptable. This is yet another example of SONY's arrogance toward consumers, not offering a feature consumers desire because in SONY's estimation it's not good enough--basically imposing their values on consumers and ultimately paying the price for their arrogance.
I don't believe I have ever misrepresented anything you said intentionally. I didn't state you likened the VHS v Beta war to the Blu-ray/HD DVD war. You stated this after discussing the VHS v Beta format war:
There is no way to know yet if any Hi-Def disc format will be a mass consumer success, but based on history, the format that provides satisfactory performance at a lower price always wins over a format that provides better performance at a higher price.
Which followed your statement that VHS had the price advantage and acceptable quality. I am assuming you are referring to HD DVD as the format with a lower price here. I just offered my opinion that after VHS was a couple of years into the format war, it had a solid lead, not way behind, so if anybody that read your comments thought it meant HD DVD is doing well and looked just like VHS, they should know better. HD DVD is way behind, everywhere in the world, there has never been a format come form behind after this length of time and do anything but continue on as a tiny niche format or disappear which are the only two possible outcomes for HD DVD in my opinion.
I sure can't find any misrepresentation by me of your comments on a second reading.