Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site brl-vgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!brl-vgr!wmartin
From: wmartin@brl-vgr.ARPA (Will Martin )
Newsgroups: net.video
Subject: Re: RCA abandons CED format
Message-ID: <47@brl-vgr.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 10-Apr-84 15:40:08 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-vgr.47
Posted: Tue Apr 10 15:40:08 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Apr-84 07:14:29 EST
References: <835@seismo.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistics Research Lab
Lines: 21

Regarding the announcement and the news coverage of it that day:

Did anyone else see and be irked by the McNeil/Lehrer News Hour coverage
of this item? They had an interview with one of the staff of the trade
magazine Consumer Electronics, and spent 10 minutes or so on the subject
without ONCE mentioning the laser disc, the format competition between
disc types, or the issue of the essential technical differences between
disc formats!  It is obvious to me that RCA's attempt to make a cheap
(relatively) video disc system, using technology that causes mechanical
wear on the components (as opposed to the non-contact laser method) was
simply idiotic and doomed from the start.  A few hundred dollars of
price difference means nothing for this sort of expensive electronic
toy; freedom from maintenance and future hassle is, however, a MAJOR
consideration. The versatility (single frame playback, addressibility,
computer control, etc.) of the laser format makes it an order of
magnitude better than the RCA technology. I wouldn't dream of getting
the latter, unless it was SO cheap (garage sale price level) that I
would consider it disposable. Ignoring all this made that interview
completely worthless, as far as I could judge...

Will