Talk:Videotape format war/Archive 1

Why End of Beta
The section 'end of beta' begins by immersing the reader into the fact the jury is still out on exactly what Sony did wrong. Then the section goes on to categorically solve the problem. This is the wrong tone. No one can say for sure what happened - least of all a Wikipedia editor. The article should instead report on what various experts have suggested. An author must never colour an article with personal opinion as this person has done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.193.255.35 (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent Change
Hi this is my first time editing a wiki article. I have been doing some research for one of my college classes and was asked to contribute to a wiki article related to my topic. I have inserted a paragragh in the Market Share section that talks about some of the reasons behind the format war and why Sony's format declined so quickly, it is the second paragraph in that section. Please feel free to edit it or make changes. I also added my references in the reference section. thanks Rcross17 20:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Beta completely dead?
This article concludes by talking as if Beta is completely dead, despite the fact that similar technology, in the form of Betacam. Though Beta has fallen out of use in the home, it did manage to become the industry standard for industries that need high-quality video. I know of many TV studios that still use Beta tapes for their shows, and I personally use it on a regular basis for video production and presentation. I am going to edit the end of the article to point out Beta is not truly dead. --QuantumDriverX 23:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Betamax is to Betacam :as: IBM PC floppies are to Macintosh floppies. Yeah sure they use the same media, but they are completely different & incompatible formats.  (You can't play a Betamax tape in a Betacam machine, nor can you play Betacam in a Betamax machine; just doesn't work.)  Theaveng 15:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The above simile is understated. I'd say Betamax is to Betacam :as: Floppies are to CDRs. Betacam does more than move the tape faster, it records the signal entirely differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.113.79 (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The original simile is actually more accurate. You can insert a Betmax tape in a Betacam machine (and vice versa).  In either case, it won't play.  Similarly you can also insert a Macintosh floppy in a Windows floppy drive (and vice versa).  But again it won't read.  You cannot insert a floppy (of either persuasion into a CD drive (Oh, and vice versa). 86.176.152.185 (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of item regarding picture quality.
I strongly oppose the removal of this item: "Betamax offers a higher video resolution (bandwidth), lower video noise, and less luma-chroma crosstalk than VHS. For these reasons, Betamax was often quoted as providing superior pictures to VHS. In practice however VHS was "good enough" for most viewers at the time, and the actual picture performance depends on other factors including the condition or quality of the tape and individual video recorder models."

I wrote this in a non-POV way, but it is technically correct. It is a documented fact that the Betamax format has a higher video bandwidth than the VHS format, and an examination of the tape spectra assignments will show this. You can read some of the technicalities here: http://www.betainfoguide.com/BetaBetter.html

So it is wrong to remove this short section which helps to tell the story. I will re-insert the paragraph unless someone can provide a clear technical explanation of why it should not be there. Colin99 21:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

OK well therse are the paragraphs we are talking about:

''It was widely believed that Betamax was better quality than VHS, although reviews at the time didn't back this up -- there seems to have been no difference visible to the naked eye. Any difference in quality was only detectable using test equipment.''

This is not POV, it's fairly factual. But it does lack a citation to the Total Rewind site.

''Betamax offers a higher video resolution (bandwidth), lower video noise, and less luma-chroma crosstalk than VHS. For these reasons, Betamax was often quoted as providing superior pictures to VHS. In practice however VHS was "good enough" for most viewers at the time, and the actual picture performance depends on other factors including the condition or quality of the tape and individual video recorder models.''

This is in fact more POV as it leaves out the fact that this is only the case when runing at its highest speed (or if not there needs to be a comparison of BI,II and III vs SP,LP,EP). And it also lacks a citation. Plus, you disparage VHS by saying that VHS was "good enough" and that other factors would have made up for VHS's performance (and are we talking BI vs SP or BII vs SP?). So I feel I was correct in deleting the passage, as the original one wasn't that good anyway, that way if it offended you it keeps the article as factual as possible. - Diceman 07:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The quote "Any difference in quality was only detectable using test equipment" is at best relating to one particular market and is not well sourced. Many viewers can certainly see a difference. But I see one of the problems now. You are talking about USA equipment, I am in Europe. BI etc did not appear in the UK. Here it is a straight fact that the VHS system has a lower vertical line resolution (approx 240 vs Beta 250), and the allocation of spectrum on VHS tape causes more chroma-luma interference and video noise. It's also true to say that the higher line count in the PAL system makes more bandwidth demands of the system, each sweep of the video head (ie each field) contains more video information than with NTSC. So the failings of a video system are quite evident on PAL & SECAM.

So, in order to still retain the important part of the story, that Beta has a higher technical performance than VHS, I had created the paragraph which you removed. Perhaps then the paragraph should be partly re-instated with some reference to Europe (whilst still keeping it brief). How about:

"With reference to the European market at least, technically Betamax has a higher video writing speed than VHS and so a greater bandwidth. This allowed Betamax to offer slightly higher resolution and certain other small technical advantages.  For these reasons, Betamax was often quoted as providing superior pictures to VHS.  In practice however VHS was "good enough" for most viewers at the time, and the actual picture performance depends on other factors including the condition or quality of the tape and individual video recorder models."

I have retained the section about VHS being "good enough", what I was aiming at here was it was adequate at the time; whereas with modern large widescreen displays it is fair to say that VHS is no longer adequate in the 21st Century. Furthermore I was hoping to balance the forgoing description of Beta's technical superiority with a comment which in part explains why technical superiority alone was not enough to make the format win. However I'm willing to listen if you would like to reword it.

Would this be more acceptible to you? Hoping you take this on board as a friendly discussion as intended. Colin99 13:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Murphy's law would dictate that my older brother doesn't pay his half of the phone bill, diabling my internet service at this vital point in the discussion (thanks for having patiernce). This is what I wrote earlier:
 * This article is largely a minor rewrite of the Total Rewind article, before we go any further you should have a look at the source material: http://www.totalrewind.org/sidebars/F_beta_frame.htm. They don't appear to favour any one of the video formats over the other so make of that what you will. - Diceman 11:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

How is this for a rewrite:

''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 by Sony as providing superior pictures to VHS. In practice however VHS picture quality was indistinguishable from Beta to the general consumer, as the actual picture performance depended on other factors including the condition or quality of the tape, and individual video recorder models.''

Note that the vertical resoltion is the same (625 lines for PAL for both). - Diceman 12:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't take the Total Rewind site as gospel on this issue, particularly as it seems to be from USA so does not necessarily speak for the European market.

I think we are close to a compromise. I would drop the "Sony" mention because of course there were several manufacturers and they did some marketing together. I think it is still POV to say that the VHS picture is indistinguishable from Beta, but can tweak it slightly. So:

''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.''

Are we there now? Colin99 14:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The Total Rewind site is a UK site which is why I thought you might like it. I haven't personally compared Beta and VHS pictures so I'll take your word for it that there is a difference and add the above paragraph to the page. - Diceman 12:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I worked with both formats in the mid-1980s and I like the point that for professionally manufactured tapes, Beta was indistinguishable from VHS for the general consumer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.113.79 (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that VHS HQ was in fact signal processing improvements, and in no way did it change the resolution. It increased the apparent resolution, but the actual bandwidth on the tape never changed. Otherwise, it would not be compatible with older VHS decks. As to which improvements an HQ branded deck has, your guess is as good as mine. Some had all of them, others, the minimum amount (and at minimum cost) needed to qualify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.153.47 (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Software?
I don't understand this part in Market Share chapter: "Betamax's combination of lower market share and a lack of --software-- both strengthened VHS's hand, and gradually the public turned away from Beta." What software is being referred to? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.188.83.18 (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Software in this instance refers to Video Tapes. The same way that the hardware would be the actual players.68.192.22.48 00:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Manufacturers?
How many companies made Betamax Players? (was it just Sony?) How many companies made VHS players (JVC, Panansonic, Sharp, RCA are a few of the brands I have seen) if it is 40 to 1 (VHS to Betamax) that would have had some part in the price of Beta being higher than VHS and that could be a factor as to why VHS won. The public has often backed an inferior product ,especially when the inferiority is not by a large margin, when the price is much lower. 75.67.45.110 05:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sony was the leader. Sanyo, NEC and Toshiba also signed on. Zeninth OEMed their decks from Sony, but Sony didn't really want to be an OEM. Sanyo was an OEM for a number of brands, like those sold at Sears and later Radio Shack. Other brands included Marantz (They offered a stereo deck with Dolby C), Aiwa, and even Pioneer offered two SuperBeta decks (a rare example of a Sony OEMed deck).

When Zenith defected to VHS, they sourced their decks from JVC. RCA originally got them from Panasonic, and would later use Hitachi as their OEM. The main players were Panasonic (really Matsushita, whose brands include Panasonic and Quasar), JVC and Hitachi. The real issue here is that Matsushita and Hitachi are much larger individually than Sony, so they could supply the market with a lot of decks.

If Sony had gained the support of Matsushita, it would be different. Legend has it Hitachi approached Sony, but Sony wouldn't deal with them until the situation at Matsuhita had been settled. Sony didn't want to appear to be undermining any negotiations with Matsushita by cutting a deal with Hitachi. Sony even offered Matsushita a licence for Betamax at no cost, as they knew one standard would be more profitable than many.

Sanyo was also pushing their V-Cord system, Panasonic had VX, and Quasar offered their "Great Time Machine. None of those formats lasted very long once Betamax hit the street. Everyone quickly signed on with one camp or the other.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.153.47 (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * NEC was one of the few (perhaps the only?) Betamax licensees who used no Sony made components in their Betamax VCRs. NEC's top of the line Beta HiFi models were the V-70 and V-71. The V-70 I used to own had over 30 controls, inputs and outputs on the front and rear panels. (I counted them, but have forgotten the exact number. I also opened it up and found no Sony branded parts, just NEC and some other names on some of the chips.) It had a NiCd backup battery for the clock and timer and a lighted mirror that flipped down when a tape was inserted so the user could visually check the amount of tape left by looking through the clear tape door. It had a full digital display with a tape counter- the mirror was there for people used to the old top loaders. ISTR the V-70 was also capable of recording 24 hours of HiFi stereo audio. But not even all those never ever available on a home or prosumer VHS VCR could save the Betamax format. Curiously, NEC's camcorder sold as a companion to their Betamax VCRs was merely a NEC branded Sony Betamovie, a 100% Sony made product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 07:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing
This isn't acceptable for Wiki sources: "A quick perusal of the Betamax library reveals that adult entertainment was readily available. For example, Playboy Industries released their videos in a dual format, both Betamax and VHS, for most of the 1970s and 80s (and can be confirmed with a quick search through Ebay's adult section, or other used video markets)"

You can't say "this is true; you can figure out why yourself this way...". There has to be a legitimate third-party cite.Alvis 06:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Would a picture of a Porn Catalog filled with Betamax titles be sufficient? -  Theaveng (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not, that would still be WP:OR Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Would a page scanned out of a copy of Video Magazine solve this? Or the catalogue I found the other day? I have a better idea: Prove that porn was NOT available on Beta format cassettes. For those of us who were there, know it was readily available.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.153.47 (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It would not be OR. Otherwise any citation that I found to support any edit that I made would be OR. 86.176.152.185 (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Destroyers
Is it true that if you fast foward or rewind BETA tapes the BetaMax Player will destroy the tape according to imaxination 80 of youtube that what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.21.50 (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes absolutely no sense. Obviously Beta tapes can be fast forwarded or rewinded otherwise they would be useless Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Then every VHS machine made since the early 90s would do the same thing. They used to brag how their slow, clunky thread/unthread process reduced headwear, unlike a Betamax which laced the tape immediately and kept it that way until you pressed "eject"... (Sanyo Beta machines only threaded the tape when you pressed play, and retracted it when you pressed stop.)

Beta tape was manufactured with this issue in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.153.47 (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment on LaserDisc
I am not sure if it's accurate to say that the LaserDisc format never gained much ground. It was quite popular in Japan and other Asian countries, though maybe not in Europe and America. Rodparkes (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My Japanese friend tells me she's never heard of laserdisc, only VCRs and DVDs, so it could not have been too popular. So anyway, how popular was laserdisc?  How many homes owned one?   Theaveng (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I remember Siskel & Ebert pitching laser disks on their movie review program. There was an active community of movie buffs promoting it - some of them opposed DVDs when they first came out.    Laser Disks were well known in video magazines, and places that sold a lot of VCRs would usually have one or two as well.  There was a short-lived store near my house that was all laser disk. Algr (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes and I owned a laserdisc, but I'm an admitted nerd. Nobody else I know owned one.  So how popular were laserdiscs?  1% of the homes had one, perhaps?    Theaveng (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well 'my friend from XYZ has never heard of ABC' is never a good argument. I'm sure there would be cases when someone on this date can honestly says 'my American friend has never heard of Barack Obama'. Anyway back to the main point, according to LaserDisc 2% of US households and 10% of Japanese households had LaserDisc players at one time. Probably still a niche but not a tiny one Nil Einne (talk) 11:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 1% is tiny compared to the nearly-100% who owned a VHS player or recorder. 10% is more significant, but still tiny.   Theaveng (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of LaserDiscs, the article says "Manufacturers also introduced disc-based systems called Capacitance Electronic Disc (CED) (aka videorecords) and LaserDisc. Neither of these disc formats gained much ground as both could record consumers' favorite TV programs; however, they did hold small niche markets." Uh... what? 71.43.195.94 (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That sentence seems clear to me. What's your question?   Theaveng (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

RCA's CED did OK for a few years, it appealed to people who wanted to watch movies, but were not really interested in recording TV shows, and didn't want to pay the price for a VCR. JVC's VHD never really went anywhere outside of Japan. LaserDisc appealed to those who wanted something better than tape offered. In the early days these devices often were available for substantially less than a VCR, which explains their appeal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.153.47 (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Lessons Learned/Similar Format Wars
I changed the last section heading from "Lessons Learned" to "Similar Format Wars" as i think it sounds better, and also due to the fact the section does not list any lessons that have been learned through the VHS/Betamax war. Thoughts? &larr; &kappa;&epsilon;&eta;&eta;&epsilon;&part;&gamma; ( talk ) ( contribs ) 14:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Noticed that user:Theaveng has changed the title of this back to "lessons learned" I have reverted it, and have given the reasons above. There are no listed objections. Theaveng, please list why you think it should be "lessons learned". Thanks &larr; &kappa;&epsilon;&eta;&eta;&epsilon;&part;&gamma; (talk) (contribs) 15:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Because I don't want THIS article to devolve into a long, long, long list of "wars" like:
 * -laserdisc
 * -SACD v DVD Audio
 * -DAT vs Digital Compact Cassette
 * - and on and on and on
 * The topic was already sufficiently recovered in 2-3 other wiki entries. A link to those entries should be sufficient, otherwise there's a danger of article creep (where this entry wanders off into off-topic trivia).    Theaveng (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thats fair enough. But that was not my question... personally, i dont think you have improved the article much. My version only had the HD/Bluray war, not SACD v DVD Audio etc... you are giving reasons which dont exist. I'll leave the stuff you have changed, but as the section does not have any lessons which have been learned, i will change the title back to "Similar format wars" ... Unless you edit the section to provide various lessons which have been learned, please DO NOT change the title again, or i will consider it vandalism, because i know you are doing this on purpose. I note by your talk pages, you are getting up various peoples noses. Keep changing this and you will be reported. Thanks. &larr; &kappa;&epsilon;&eta;&eta;&epsilon;&part;&gamma; (talk) (contribs) 09:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well. Just wait and see.  In about six months time, other users will have added other format wars to the list, and the section will have grown into a huge, non-relevant topic that has nothing to do with videotape.  -  I'm going to just sit back and watch.    Theaveng (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Pointing at the other format wars should reduce that, whether through the current format or -- SEWilco (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't really see where this article's subject is improved by that paragraph/section - no lessons learned, and it lists events from other recording formats - so basically an off-topic section. Why not just list Format wars in the "See also" section, and leave it at that? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That might be a more general solution, however there have been reports that Sony (Betamax loser in this war) made some interesting maneuvers in finishing the Bluray battle. That might be collected as lessons learned by Sony for the later HD fight.  One might also consider rearranging the Format wars article to make video easier to spot (leading icons on each entry, or a sortable table?).  -- SEWilco (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Porn versus Sony
It is an internet legend. Sony did not block porn, nor did the porn industry favour one format over the other. This myth came up again when the Blu-ray versus HD DVD battle began.

Porn sold VCRs, period. They offered their product in both formats, as alienating half (or more) of your market wasn't a good idea in the early days. The situation remained that way until the mid-eighties. With more and more movies coming out on tape, duplication started getting tight, and many duplicators began to increase their VHS capacity without adding any new Beta decks. In that time frame, the sales swung over to VHS in that market too.

Time wasn't really an issue either, as your average porn movie ran for an hour, maybe an hour and ten minutes. They were done on film in those days, and meant for theatrical exhibition. Videocassettes were just another way to sell their product. Film was expensive, so the number of new releases every year was limited, as were the theatres to exhibit the films in. Unlike the mid-eighties, when production switched over to 'direct to tape' mode, and a lot of new entrants appeared due to the declining cost of getting into the business. Some of the new producers may not have even bothered to release their titles in Beta format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.153.47 (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your "porn sold VCRs" statement. Porn is not the major seller most people think it is.  Even on today's internet, which many believe exploded in popularity because of adult photographs/video, the porn market represents only a small percentage (1%) of total online revenue.   1% is tiny today, and it was tiny in the 1970s.


 * In the days of Betamax, the major factor was the length of the BLANK TAPE. 60 minutes on Beta-I versus 240 minutes on a VHS "Long Play" VCR.  The customers quickly went for the longer VHS times, and although Sony resisted the tide, they eventually conceded with Beta-II and Beta-III speeds.  But by that point, it was too late.  -  So it was the home recording market that decided who won.   Theaveng (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Tone and NPOV statement about Sony
"What Sony did not take into account was what the consumers wanted."

My two cents: this line sounds editorial/argumentative rather than encyclopaedic, although it is an interesting analysis. It might even be true. I'd rather see it referenced, or, if it can't be because it is original research, have it published somewhere first - an industry journal, perhaps, or a business paper.

As a company, I believe Sony has generally had its finger on the pulse, thus its success over the long term, and although they may not have read public demands accurately on this emerging technology, which is possible, this states that "they did not take [it] into account" which suggests negligence and is an strong indictment of their overall R&D/marketing acumen, and then we're into a whole new article. That kind of statement (about a company which has otherwise thrived)requires nuanced support. It doesn't stand on its own. The line might be applicable in an article about e.g. General Motors, explaining why a company failed. Sony hasn't failed - one product did.

Another possible interpretation might be that the public didn't know what it wanted, because this was all new. Consumers were trying various things out as the technology emerged, and in the end Beta was a bit of a crap shoot - like many business ventures with new technology - which Sony lost. Companies - good companies - don't just follow; they lead. Maybe Sony tried to lead but the consumer would not be led on this. I'm just making the point that there are various ways to interpret this failure and if one is going to be selected as the meta-narrative it needs to stand on something firm.

It's a good read, and I found what I was looking for mostly; it just needs a bit of care along the lines I suggested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.121.9 (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The Porn Thing
I noticed the page now completely omits any reference to porn or the adult film industry. While it is certainly true the 'porn killed BetaMax' statement is false, I still think this myth should be mentioned on this page (with a proper explanation why it is untrue, of course) as it has become part of the story. Also, at this talk page I found several references to porn quotes on the main page, apparently the refrences have all been removed. I don't know why... Hertog (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was surprised as well to find no mention of the myth at all, especially considering how pervasive it is. —Josh3580talk/hist 15:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

What about 8mm?
Sony had demonstrated a prototype videotape recording system they called "Beta" to the other electronics manufacturers in 1974, and expected that they would back a single format for the good of all. But JVC in particular decided to go with its own format (despite Sony's appeal to the Japanese Ministry of Trade and Industry), thus beginning the format war. Manufacturers also introduced other systems such as needle-based, record-style discs (RCA's Capacitance Electronic Disc, JVC's Video High Density disc) and Philips' LaserDisc. None of these disc formats gained much ground as none were capable of home recording; however, they did hold small niche markets. CED's inexpensive[1] record-like format (using a fine keel-shaped stylus to read an electronic signal rather than mechanical vibrations) made it attractive to low-income families during the 1980s, and LaserDisc's 5 megahertz/420 line resolution made it popular with discerning videophiles until circa 1997 (when DVD-Video became the new standard for high-quality)

What about 8mm?
The article ought to mention the 8mm video format, which although mainly used in camcorders did have some use for home recording and pre-recorded tapes. I probably haven't got time to fix this myself at present. --rossb (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 8mm was developed once Beta was perceived to be on the way out. Since it was released after Beta was formally abandoned, it did not compete with it.  However, 8mm did compete head on with VHS-C in the camcorder market (and later Hi-8 with SVHS-C).  This would thus have a valid place in this article.  Please feel free to add a suitable section (with the appropriate citations, naturally). 86.176.152.185 (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Dubious remark
The article claims:

"...Ironically, their parent corporation, Matsushita, later met with RCA, and agreed to manufacture a 4-hour-capable VHS machine for RCA, much to JVC's chagrin."

This makes no sense - JVC were never a subsidiary of Matsushita! --109.255.188.234 (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This thread is ancient history, of course, but... you're mistaken. See for example this article from the WSJ. Or this one from Bloomberg. From our own article on JVC: "From 1953 to 2008, Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. was the majority stockholder in JVC."

Jeh (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

porn bit, met with actual reliable sources
I removed most of the section. Listing stats on the sales of pornography versus other things isn't relevant at all unless it includes stats of actual video cassettes in the years Betamax and VHS were still competing for dominance. And Sony did not allow pornography for Betamax, there no such videos found on EBAY or anywhere, nor does Sony allow pornography on their newer BluRay system. Google news archive search for "porn" AND "betamax" shows hordes of results to weed through, I just posting a link to Wired magazine. I remember G4TV's icons had an episode where they mentioned pornography drove early adapters of this technology to buy VHS. If I find a transcript somewhere I'll link to it. Not sure if sales figures can be found of videos in the early days. Did pornography outsell everything else?  D r e a m Focus  14:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Video Tape Format War
Was there a video tape format war between Betamax and VHS? or is it unfounded rumour? We can draw some conclusions to what happened to the betamax to why it had a poor reputation in the early 1980's, Did PAL and Secam colour configurations "SP recorders only" that was marketed opposed to NTSC that marketed LP Betamax recorders with the same recording length as VHS Home Systems machines have the built in concessions granted to a "SP recorder only" video recorder? (built in better picture module to compensate for the restricted long play. NTSC has the same amount of recording on all three imaging device formats of approx five hour, NTSC recording lengths was(Video8mm=5hs/VHS=5hrs-46mins/BETA=5hrs)compared to recording lengths on PAL/SECAM (Europes and The Middle East/Australia & NZ Television systems) was Video8mm=3hrs-40mins/VHS=8HRS/Beta=3hrs-35mins. as per chart you can see the difference between the two colour configuration, and notice Betamax in Europe was sold as a SP recorder only, with no LP mode called Beta-3, there is nothing technically wrong with a SP recorder only, many products have been successful as a "SP recorder only such as "VHS-C" (Video Home System Compact)and Mini-DV (Miniature Digital Video)so this rules out that Betamax was erased from the video recorder consumer market because it did not have enough recording length, and this also deletes the the theory that the manufacturers of the Betamax did no know how to produce long play on there video recorder compared to VHS and lost in a Tape format war, because you can see that the manufacturers did know how to make long play on the Betamax because NTSC systems have 5hrs recording length on the Betamax compared to 3hrs-35mins on the European/Australian,NZ/India systems, this raises questions boosting up inside the machine because all other products that have restricted capacity always offer a option to cater for this restriction, like Mini-DV camcorder format because it was smaller it had to be marketed with no long play system or else be thrown off the market, because "small is a luxury item Where is the advantage inside the Betamax sold on PAL? "HOW DO WE GET EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS EQUIPPED WITH ADVANTAGES GIVEN TO A SP RECORDER?" It seems apparent that PAL and SECAM systems swapped a shorter record l Betamax for a longer recording length and forfeiting the extra long play of the Video8mm camcorder systems of the early/mid 1980s. Why? It would seem a option if the recorders had other hidden advantages built inside there machines to warrant SP recorder, example, Betamax video recorders offered more electronic trick modes inside there machines than VHS, this was done by using "Non Tape Dethreading of the Video Head on Fast Forward and Rewind" that offered the consumer at the time a option of a more electronically advanced machine by not having a tape de-threader built into the machine "if the video head is worn down prematurely because the tape swipes the video head twice when using fast forward and rewind modes because their is no built in tape de threader, which is the loading device mechanism that loads the tape around the video head , "on all VHS machines models they have a built in tape de threader" a built in tape de-threader means that when you press "STOP" the tape de-threader releases the video tape from the video head when you want to fast forward, or rewind the video tape. so you can see why the Betamax looked more electronically advanced compared to VHS recorders, offering opposed to the VHS specifications, Electronic tuner, electronic buttons, infrared remote control, and a four cassette auto changer making the machine capable of 15 hrs continuous recording, so it is easy to see the benefits in having a "non tape de-threader" built inside the Betamax because of the deals it could negotiable in the way of "super electronic advancements" compared to a "built in tape de threader VHS" as per specification the VHS never warranted electronic advancements because the consumer was catered for in the way of a "Built in tape de threader" easing pressure on the video head being worn down prematurely, So now for the tricky bit what people want to know "where is the advancement in the Betamax like the advancements highlighted for to compensate for lack of a length built in tape de-threader for the the machines reduced long play?" If the recording l is also restricted this means the Betamax machines have another trick up there sleeves offering yet another technical advancement inside there machines. and you can see "you cannot have your cake and eat it" The opinion to date going back to the early 1980s suggest that the shorter play SP recorders only marketed on PAL and SECAM systems opposed to NTSC colour configurations indicate that the Betamax was to blame for giving no concessions to the consumers of Betamax machines in the way of electronic advancements, built into the video recorder because it lacked a LP mode, and like the specifications of having a "non built in tape de threader" suggests and that is to allow the consumer to have another option made available inside the machine to compensate for this restriction in Long Play "in the way of electronic wizardry" But before we can say the Betamax was at fault for doing this, we must also look at to as to why they would not put the proper parts inside the PAL and SECAM Systems video recorders for common sense reasons we must. So first we will look for evidence that they did not deliberately take out vital parts inside the machines that could compensate for a SP recorder only video recorder. Concessions given to SP recorders are such as those seen on Mini DV camcorders, because of it does not have a long play mode on the camera it is able to be manufactured smaller than a long play Video8mm camcorder offering the public a option of large and small (full capacity long play, or restricted capacity long play but with the benefits of a more compact size), in order to produce a smaller camcorder the LP mode had to be made void in order to be able to manufacture a smaller camcorder, that was the deal with the Mini DV, it was smaller so it had no need to have any other advances such as long play, size is luxury and the public brought it. Can a SP recorder marketed, opposed to a Longer play VHS have been the downfall of the Betamax? Lets look at SP-recorder formats like VHS-C(Video Home System Compact)The VHSC was marketed as a SP short record camcorder format from 1982 until around 2008, and seemed to be very successful as a SP recorder only alike Mini DV's SP recorder only natural format that did not get a bad reputation like the Betamax did, so this rules out the theory that Beta lacked the ability to be able to produce long play against the VHS because Betamax cassettes can hold 10hrs 20mins LP inside the shell(Advertised on Betacam-SX62 the Beta-6 or Beta 6.2) please note this is a dummy cassette, and will not record 10hrs 20mins because it was only a example only 2yellow colour coded cassette" used in the Television broadcast Industry just before the launch of VHS-5 the fifth and last edition of the VIdeo Home System format in 1999, entitled, (DSVHS Digital Super Video Home System, offering now 12hrs LP, and 1080 lines horizontal what they call 1080p today) and secondly there is no evidence to suggest Betamax could not have been made alongside VHS for 30 years like VHSC was side by side with Video8mm was. Because there is no real evidence to say the consumer had to lose out on further technical advancements they would normally get from a SP recorder format therefore another theory arose "The conspiracy theory" that suggests a professional criminal gang hijacked The Betamax and tried to extort money out of the electronic manufacturers(World Wide Standard) and maybe the television industry, and when they never paid up never paid up the Criminals destroyed the Betamax's mass media description, and hence it became forever misinterpretated spreading from amueter media sources disguising it's self as Professional allowing amueter reviewers that would not have been able to otherwise, to now run riot on the professional review scene untrained, this can happen as is well known examining all possibilities will give s a perfect overall picture even considering that owning a video recorder that was also the most glamourous same system used in television studios could have been the asking price claim to fame of owning the same recorder as a limited edition, and the buyers of the betamax did not mind, and went along with the deal happily knowing deep down inside themselves it was a great video recorder.The World Wide Standard On Professional Broadcasting in 1982, and was offered to the public that they had first refusal of the new television broadcast systems, hence the limited amount of time the Betamax was available on the consumer market until it was solely exclusive to the Broadcast television industry, Betamax left the consumer market on january the first 1985, This poses the question "Why did the manufacturers have any motive to degrade the Betamax?" and the evidence is very small that they had any motive, what fool in there right minds would do this? Just looking at the details of the Betamax sales figures on close of production of the format for year starting 1984, and ending to the first of january 1985, state that there was was 2.5 million Betamax machines manufactured (33% of the worlds video supply)and these figure do not indicate a declining formatt because they was only commissioned with 33% of the worlds video supply in 1977 by the "World Wide Standard Of Manufacturers" 66% was commissioned to VHS by the "WWSOM", These sale figure indicate that Betamax never lost a sale to VHS and always kept there share of the worlds video market and even winning International video recorder of the year award in 1985 there third title all in all. In 1982 "the year of the video recorder" even though rumour appeared to circulate about the Betamax the actual events of said year read different showing that the model VTC-5000 Betacord nicknamed V-Cord3 outsold every model of VHS to become the worlds first mass production video recorder ever made by Sanyo, and hold the record jointly even still today with the new DVD format. The evidence show clearly that Betamax was discontinued because it was a limited edition "Super new broadcast machine format" for the television industry. Evidence of betamax decline is also noted as a misinterpretation showing figures for 1986 when Betamax had already been decommissioned why obviously they would only hold 6% of the world video recorder market because they had stopped been made so sale figure would only be 6% This is because when a format is discontinued the manufacturers have a obligation to manufacture spare parts for the machines they had made previously to date of decommissioning, such as tuner parts, capacitors, video-heads , But incase of worse case scenarios whole machines was made available under the title "broken beyond repair/stolen" to get the consumer a video recorder for compatible playback on their existing cassettes, these are rare machines and not officially on sale on the consumer market after they was decommissioned as soon as 1985 arrived but only for rare cases of someone's stolen video recorder or broken beyond repair in a accident, these replacement machines continued to be offered to owners of Betamax for a few years with the last production run of these machines being in March of 2002 and closing completely January the first 2003, he last production run was of 4000 video recorders headlined by the EDV model. As of today Betamax is still in production in the TV broadcasting industry with Digital Betacam. and Betamax HDCAM vcr recorders and camcorder holding the top of the range broadcast television equipment still being today "The world Wide Standard On Professional Broadcasting" for 32 years, and credited to be the most successful television broadcast telvision equipment in the history of television since 1985 noted with Digital Betacam (DigiBeta) it is thought betamax(Betacam will be manufactured anytime up to year 2025 when it will be 50 years old. Betamax first went into prodcuction in November of 1974 and released on sale April 1975. Could this have been a accident a misunderstanding and because of the Betamax video's early exit from the consumer market as soon as 1984 ended gave people the impression that betamax was discontinued because there was a fault with the specifications? and not being able to see the betamax still continue because it was made obscure from their view in the fact the broadcast television stations was using it and the public could not see that, and this led people to believe it was totally defunct, and made obsolete? On paper there seems to be nothing wrong with the Betamax and was simply misinterpreted when infact it was a class A piece of machinery ,Blame the World Wide Standard Of Manufacturers" because they are the ones that invented the Betamax and distributed the copyright to a consortium of manufactures acting as managers of the format, with the head manager of the consortium Sony? this may be like banging your head against a brick wall as blaming the world wide standard would be interpreted a a contradiction in terms that 200 electrical manufacturers did not know what they was doing and would bodge the record length and not give added incentives granted inside a SP recorder formatt marketed on PAL and SECAM colour configuration Systems a kind of inside job-Industrial Esponage,Maybe there annaounsionsion in the early 1980's to discontinue the Betamax for as soon as 1985 arrived because it was well known Betamax was only going to be made for a short time/limited edition because it was only really ever intended to replace U-matic video recorder format as the TV industry's standard machinery, and criticism arose that the Betamax manufacturers was decommissioning 33% of the worlds video recorders in just one day and letting down the buyers with a format unlike VHS that would not be seen after the first of January 1985?. On paper there seems to be nothing wrong with the Betamax and was simply misinterpreted when infact it was a class A piece of machinery. The mystery continues to find out what was wrong with the Betamax? If you look at this early record Betamax / Betacam has it's origins from the 1950's with this all new film recording Format Led By Ampex called "Video tape recorder" and that is where the X in Beta to make Betamax comes from. Betamax was announced in 1958 along with VHS and Video 8mm, to format the three World Wide Standards World Wide Standard on professional broadcasting, World Wide Standard on Consumer camcorders and World Wide Standard on Home VCR recorders and Film Players. this early ANNUNCIATION (First broadcast of colour video, obviously a ANNUNCIATION ,RCA and Ampex colour video recorder. RCA is VHS and Ampex is Betamax) In 1958 video became alive When the worlds first video recorder launched by Ampex in 1956 called the Quadruplex was colour converted by VHS in 1958 the planned formatting of the late Fiftes of the three imaging devices of 8mm.VHS/Beta was to ensure smooth formating of the three imaging device ready for the early to mid 1980's, changing over to VHS, Beta, and Video-8mm From the exsisting format of 8mm/ Super and 8mm and also, 16mm film( used for outdoor broadcasts instead of video until the 1980s), also U-matic video cassette recorder. In 1977 Betamax video format was commissioned with 33% of the worlds video recorder market, and VHS 66%,Betamax consumer home vcr recorders With JVC appointed head of the consortium of VHS manufactures, and Betamax was led by, Sony Corporation that consisted of nine manufacturers acting as management of this Beta format Sony acting as the manager of the consortium appointment by the "World Wide standard of manufactures to govern this device" Ampex launched the first video recorder in 1956 and RCA adapted a colour system to the Ampex video recorder in 1958.Is this the legend of a manufactured row that we infact manufacture rows for sake we manufacture everything else in the world, and so the routine schedule suggested that it was time to manufacture a row for sake of rowing to cater for people that like a row and a machine as well? Betamax being a shark where it knew it was best and elite all along but making out it was second rate to promote war mongering and promote that idea to the masses this was ok " but there is nothing wrong with me really i am only here to psych you out" Was there any difference between VHS and Betamax? is that last question starting a debate that was manufactured to start a row?. How about creating a merger machine called BetaVHS ? is that where you have just banged their heads together? maybe some would see that as "schizophrenia" or to others as simply "two faced"?. We have looked at all angles of Betamax and VHS and found many theories to what could have happened. and it is for you to to make your own decision on what you think happened between Betamax and VHS.


 * TLDR. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Umatic
My grandfather was a wedding photo/videographer, and had umatic as did my jr high school. These models had rotary dial tv tuners built in. The cost issue, yes- but the article states umatic was not convieniant or easy for home use; well, okay it is primarily a pro format, but there were models that were quite easy to use and while large and pricey were no harder then a VHS VCR to use and I considered them easier - they had the tuners and I believe a flip style analog digital clock to program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B026:E460:A528:FD90:38D1:6FBE (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Super VHS surpassed broadcast quality in Europe?
Considering the standard of broadcast television was 625 lines horizontal by the 1980s, how is 420 lines somehow "better"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.146.228 (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Different sorts of "lines". PAL and PAL-like derivatives use 625 horizontal scan lines (and NTSC uses 525). That is not the same sort of "lines" as the oft-quoted "420 lines of horizontal resolution" (it's actually 420 lines of horizontal resolution per picture height, but that's irrelevant here). In any case Super VHS never "surpassed broadcast quality" though it does exceed both NTSC and PAL broadcast standards in this sole spec. Chroma bandwidth, chroma noise, and stability were nowhere near broadcast quality. Jeh (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Bad writing - betamaxed
This sentence doesn't seem appropriate to me. It's pointlessly derisive and inaccurate. You can refer to the slang without calling it 'the only remaining aspect'. The provided definition isn't really valid either. The technology didn't win but it didn't have a short shelf-life. A short shelf-life might be valid when referring to DIVX or even HD DVD but betamax lasted commercially for multiple decades.


 * Today, the only remaining aspect of the Betamax system is the slang term 'betamaxed', used to describe something that had a brief shelf life and was quickly replaced by the competition.

Thanks, ogenstein (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree. Removed. Jeh (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

No Porn On Beta
This has of course come up over and over before already, but I would like to leave a note here for future editors, since it's actually fairly difficult to find a reasonable source (other than a scan of a betamax sleeve, which is hard to pin down to reality) to resolve the question of whether Betamax porn *existed at all.* Many people seem to believe it didn't, and tons of "reliable sources" (magazines and newspapers) imply it didn't by stating that Sony "wouldn't allow" it - a ludicrous statement, but that's a conversation for another time.

In its current state, the article fortunately does not state that porn didn't exist on Betamax. In case the question ever arises again, I can establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that it did. Here is a contemporary source, an advertisement in Hustler, August 1979 (clearly NSFW): [] The above states that videos can be obtained on "Beta II or VHS." I don't think this can be cited directly to improve the article, but it should serve to impeach any sources that suggest that Betamax porn did not exist.Gravislizard (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Uncited material in need of citations
I am moving the following uncited material here until it can be properly supported with inline citations of reliable, secondary sources, per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CS, WP:NOR, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

History
The first video cassette recorder (VCR) to become available was the U-matic system, released in September 1971. U-matic was designed for commercial or professional television production use, and was not affordable or user-friendly for home videos or home movies. The first consumer-grade VCR to be released was the Philips N1500 VCR format in 1972, followed in 1975 by Sony's Betamax. This was quickly followed by the competing VHS format from JVC, and later by Video 2000 from Philips. Subsequently, the Betamax–VHS format war began in earnest. Other competitors, such as the Avco Cartrivision, Sanyo's V-Cord and Matsushita's "Great Time Machine" quickly disappeared.

...despite Sony's appeal to the Japanese Ministry of Trade and Industry, thus beginning the format war.

CED's inexpensive record-like format (using a fine keel-shaped stylus to read an electronic signal rather than mechanical vibrations) made it attractive to low-income families during the 1980s, and LaserDisc's 5 megahertz/420 line resolution made it popular with discerning videophiles until circa 1997 (when DVD-Video became the new standard for high-quality).

Competing technologies
Both had previously cooperated in the development and marketing of the U-Matic video cassette format. Sony brought along a Betamax prototype for Matsushita's engineers to evaluate. Sony at the time was unaware of JVC's work. At a later meeting, Matsushita, with JVC management in attendance, showed Sony a VHS prototype, and advised them it was not too late to embrace VHS "for the good of the industry" but Sony management felt it was too close to Betamax production to compromise.

U.S.-market
While VHS machines' lower retail price was eventually a major factor, the principal battleground proved to be recording-time. The original Sony Betamax video recorder for the NTSC television system could record for only 60 minutes, identical to the previous U-matic format, which had been sufficient for use in television studios. JVC's VHS could manage 120 minutes, followed by RCA's entrance into the market with a 240-minute recorder using VHS. These challenges sparked a mini-war to see who could achieve the longest recording-time.

RCA had initially planned a home video format around 1974, to be called "SelectaVision MagTape", but canceled it after rumors had come about discussing Sony's Betamax format, and was considering Sony as an OEM for an RCA-branded VCR. RCA had discussions with Sony, but RCA felt the recording-time was too short, insisting that they needed at least a 4-hour recording-time (reportedly because that was the length of an average televised American football game). Sony engineers knew that the technology available to manufacture video heads was not up to the task yet, but halving the tape speed and track width was a possibility. However, the picture quality would be degraded severely, and at that time Sony engineers felt the compromise was not worthwhile.

RCA would go on to market "four hours, $999", forcing a price war and also a "tape length" war. Betamax eventually achieved 5 hours at Beta-III speed on an ultra-thin L-830 cassette, and VHS ultimately squeezed 10-and-a-half hours with SLP/EP speed on a T-210 cassette (or 12 hours on DVHS's T-240s). Lower tape speeds meant a degradation in picture quality, as adjacent video bands created "crosstalk" and noise in the decoded picture.

Picture-quality
The extension of VHS to VHS HQ increased the apparent resolution to 250 lines, so that overall a Betamax/VHS user could expect virtually identical luma resolution and chroma resolution (≈30 lines), wherein the actual picture performance depended on other factors, including the condition and quality of the videotape and the specific video recorder machine model. For most consumers the difference as seen on the average television of the time was negligible.

Another improvement would be SuperBeta (sometimes called High Band Beta) in 1985. SuperBeta offered a gain of 20% to 290 lines in horizontal resolution and some mechanical changes to reduce video noise, but by then Betamax's American and European share had already dropped to less than 10% of the market.

Europe
For PAL versions, time was less of an issue. Betamax's longest tape (L-830) could record for 3 hours and 35 minutes, compared to VHS's 4 hours. For the European markets the issue was one of cost, since VHS had already gained dominance in the United States (70% of the market), and the large economy of scale allowed VHS units to be sold at a far lower cost than the rarer Betamax units.

In the mid-to-late 1980s, both formats were extended to Super Betamax and Super VHS. Super Betamax offered a slight improvement from 250 to 290 lines horizontally. Super VHS offered up to 420 lines horizontal (in modern digital terms, 560 pixels edge-to-edge), which surpassed broadcast-quality and matched the quality of laserdiscs in this one parameter. However, the "super" standards remained expensive niche products for a small minority of videophiles and camcorder hobbyists.

When home VCRs started to become popular in the UK, the main issue was one of availability and price. VHS machines were available through the high street rental chains such as Radio Rentals and DER (subsidiaries of Thorn-EMI, which also owned Ferguson Electronics, which marketed JVC-sourced VHS recorders since they already had a longstanding contract to market JVC televisions), while Beta was seen as the more upmarket choice for people who wanted quality and were prepared to pay for it. By 1980, out of an estimated 100,000 homes with VCRs, 70% were rented, and the presence of three competing formats (the third being Video 2000) meant that renting was an even more attractive choice, since a lot of money (about £2000) could be spent on a system which might become obsolete. By the time Betamax machines became easier to rent, VHS had already claimed 70% of the market.

Within continental Europe there were three choices by 1980, with the arrival of the Video 2000 format from Philips and Grundig that replaced Philips' outdated "VCR" format. Although it featured many capabilities formerly only available on expensive broadcast video recorders, V2000 had too long a development cycle and arrived late to the market. Apart from this, to keep costs down, many of its unique features, such as Dynamic Track Following, were only implemented on the most expensive models, meaning that mainstream models suffered from indifferent video quality. Also, many features that came standard on VHS and Betamax machines (such as direct AV in and out connectors), were only available as expensive "optional extras" on V2000. The machines were also found to be less reliable than their VHS and Beta counterparts, and for all these reasons the format never gained substantial market share. V2000 was cancelled in 1985, the first casualty of the format war.

Outcome
The main determining factor between Betamax and VHS was the cost of the recorders and recording-time. Betamax, in theory, has a slightly better recording format than VHS due to resolution (250 lines vs. 240 lines), slightly superior sound, and a more stable image; Betamax recorders were also of higher-quality construction. However, these differences were negligible to consumers, and thus did not justify either the extra cost of a Betamax VCR (which was often significantly more expensive than a VHS equivalent) or Betamax's shorter recording-time.

JVC, which designed the VHS technology, licensed it to any manufacturer that was interested. The manufacturers then competed against each other for sales, resulting in lower prices to the consumer. Sony was the only manufacturer of Betamax initially, and so was not pressured to reduce prices. Only in the early 1980s did Sony decide to license Betamax to other manufacturers, such as Toshiba and Sanyo.

Sony's decision in 1975 to limit Betamax's maximum recording-time to one hour (for NTSC systems) handicapped its chances of winning this marketing war. VHS's recording-time at first release (1976) was two hours, meaning that most feature films could be recorded without a tape change. It was not until the late 1970s that Betamax offered recording-times comparable to VHS. In PAL regions, the L-750 Betamax tape lasted 3 hours and 15 minutes, while VHS was limited to a 3-hour maximum (the E-180), though later on an E-240 tape lasting four hours became available.

By the time Sony made these changes to their strategy, VHS dominated the market, with Betamax relegated to a niche position.

End of Beta
Beta sales dwindled away and VHS emerged as the winner of the domestic / home-market format war. The video format war is now a highly scrutinized event in business and marketing history, leading to a plethora of market investigations into why Betamax failed. Sony seemed to have misjudged the home video market. Sony believed that the one-hour length of its current U-matic format would be sufficient for Betamax. However, U-matic was primarily a professional standard with constant surveillance by television technicians and which did not need more than one hour length per tape. For home usage, one hour would not be enough to record lengthy programming, such as a baseball game or a movie.

By 1988, Beta format was officially declared dead without any more new models released. Sony began to assemble and market its first VHS machines, models SLV-50 and SLV-70HF, with VHS chassis mechanism purchased from Hitachi, initially. Production ramped up by 1990 using Sony's own VHS VCR mechanism, responding to consumer's increasing demand for first-purchase Hi-Fi stereo units and flying-erase-head editing models. Despite claims that Sony was still backing Beta, Sony also had good success with VHS by the mid-1990s. It was clear that the Beta format was dead - at least in Europe and North America. In parts of South America and in Japan Beta continued to be popular, and machines were still in production up to the end of 2002.

Despite the failure of Betamax, its technological successor the Betacam tape and its successor Digital Betacam (shortened to Digibeta) would become industry standard for professional video recording, production, broadcast and presentation market.

"En" shouldn't mean "American" in English language Wikipedia articles (en.wikipedia.org)
hi,

In this article, Europe doesn't exist. We see the video format war from an American businessman's perspective.

I call this bad.

Neither video format is American. Nothing makes the United States role in the story predominant.

Or at least, nothing makes it normal that Europe is totally neglected.

Writing history from an American perspective is okay in an American school book.

Neglecting, even omitting Europe from that is not okay...

Writing history from an American perspective in a Wikipedia article, omitting Europe is something even worse...

Let this article be the first one to be improved to meet this standard.

(And if this standard doesn't even exist, let's establish it)

Peter

&#45;-peter.josvai (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)