5 ms·
VHS was not worse is better. It’s better is better.
by MBCook 7mo ago
VHS was not worse is better. It’s better is better.
- toomuchtodo 7mo agoBetamax was arguably better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videotape_format_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videotape_format_war
- mbreese 7mo agoArguably better quality, but at the cost of being shorter. In the great trade off of time, size, and quality, I think VHS chose a better combination.
- a96 7mo agoImportantly, it was so short that it was inadequate. Go beats no go every time.
- SoftTalker 7mo agoNot in ways that the market cared about.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- rapnie 7mo agoIt depends which definition of "better" you use. VHS won the adoption race, so it was better there. While Betamax may have been technologically superior, in hindsight we can say it apparently failed to address other key aspects of the technology adoption lifecycle.
- MBCook 7mo agoWho cares? It couldn’t hold a movie on one tape. Thats what the market ended up selecting for. As soon as renting movies took off Beta lost. When they compromised quality to get there, they were just more expensive. And later S-VHS improved quality anyway.
- kn0where 7mo agoSpecifically, VHS had both longer recording times and cheaper VCRs (due to Matsushita’s liberal licensing) than Betamax did. Beta only had slightly better picture quality if you were willing to sacrifice recording length per tape. Most Betamax users adopted the βII format which lowered picture quality to VHS levels in order to squeeze more recording time onto the tape. At that point Betamax’s only advantage was a slightly more compact cassette. Also to correct another common myth, porn was widely available on both formats and was not the cause of VHS’s success over Betamax.