Lord Blackadder
Aug 10, 01:10 PM
There's nothing really sinister about it. It's just harder to measure and to this point, there's been no point in trying to measure it in comparison to cars.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
ezekielrage_99
Jan 15, 06:06 PM
Dude this is insane if its real. Yah think???
I wasn't saying if it's real or not it's the fact that Gizmodo just did a huge prank and they listed a Keynote supposedly from Apple. Real or not Apple is very protective about information about themselves.
I wasn't saying if it's real or not it's the fact that Gizmodo just did a huge prank and they listed a Keynote supposedly from Apple. Real or not Apple is very protective about information about themselves.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 22, 06:57 PM
Whereas I agree with your post entirely, I get the feeling that you wouldn't be saying this if Apple were the only ones not to collect such data. You have bashed Google many times for the amount of data it collects, but as soon as Apple is to be seen to be doing it, it's all cool. A "non-issue.":rolleyes:
some how I think the only reason he is saying that is because Apple is the one doing it.
If it was anyone else LTD would be bashing it like no tomorrow.
My issue with it is the fact that it does not let you opt out. It would be one thing to freely give away that infomation. It is another not to be even given the option to opt out. On top of that the way Apple is doing it is even worse.
Google and Apple are in the wrong I feel. I just feel Apple is even more wrong than Google. Google at least only stores the last 50 cell towers and 200 wifi compared to Apple which keeps all of it locally.
some how I think the only reason he is saying that is because Apple is the one doing it.
If it was anyone else LTD would be bashing it like no tomorrow.
My issue with it is the fact that it does not let you opt out. It would be one thing to freely give away that infomation. It is another not to be even given the option to opt out. On top of that the way Apple is doing it is even worse.
Google and Apple are in the wrong I feel. I just feel Apple is even more wrong than Google. Google at least only stores the last 50 cell towers and 200 wifi compared to Apple which keeps all of it locally.
jrtc27
Apr 30, 12:59 PM
Do you mean you like the change, or the reverse of the change?
You only have to look at the second screen shot to see why the slider was potentially confusing�
Image (http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/29/162642-lion_subpane_slider_old_500.jpg)
When there are only two options, the inactive option looks a lot like a depressed button.
Apple's always fiddling with this. You have to wonder why they didn't just stick with the old tabbed interface, which is arguably the most instantly recognisable way of switching window views. I guess there's a bit more flexibility in buttons, in terms of their placement� or maybe they're just trying to think different.
I mean I like the change away from the slider. The slider was confusing (I'm a techie, and I was confused at first when I saw videos and screenshots), and the squarer buttons look better than the old style in Snow Leopard, especially with the two shades of grey - they are much more modern and much subtler.
You only have to look at the second screen shot to see why the slider was potentially confusing�
Image (http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/29/162642-lion_subpane_slider_old_500.jpg)
When there are only two options, the inactive option looks a lot like a depressed button.
Apple's always fiddling with this. You have to wonder why they didn't just stick with the old tabbed interface, which is arguably the most instantly recognisable way of switching window views. I guess there's a bit more flexibility in buttons, in terms of their placement� or maybe they're just trying to think different.
I mean I like the change away from the slider. The slider was confusing (I'm a techie, and I was confused at first when I saw videos and screenshots), and the squarer buttons look better than the old style in Snow Leopard, especially with the two shades of grey - they are much more modern and much subtler.
leontes
Jan 9, 03:47 PM
I posted a story to digg (http://www.digg.com/apple/MacRumors_spoils_keynote_for_watchers_on_their_spoiler_free_page) regarding the spoiling issue. I think Arn was extremely responsive to the issue and avoiding these kinds of inadvertent spoiling is difficult to do in this day and age. My brother even txted me a spoiler. Is it possible to be completely unspoiled regarding something like this?
There is no spoiling information so far in the story, but I imagine most of us are avoiding digg like the plague.
There is no spoiling information so far in the story, but I imagine most of us are avoiding digg like the plague.
spazzcat
May 2, 11:46 AM
I find it hilarious that Steve Jobs claimed Apple was not tracking users, but now all of a sudden we find Location tracking being completely removed from this version of iOS, that is honestly something that annoyes me..
Wedding Hairstyles Updos and
messy updo hairstyles
updos, wedding hairstyles,
wedding hairstyles big
Wedding Hairstyle Curl Updo
wedding updo Wedding Updo with
Updo Hairstyles, Wedding
View 80 wedding hairstyles
Formal Updo Hairstyles.
Wedding hairstyles updos for
Black hairstyles updos with
Wedding Hairstyles 2010
Simple bridal hairstyles updos
Zolk
Nov 24, 02:19 AM
The sale is on. :)
24-inch iMac ordered. :D
24-inch iMac ordered. :D
Prom1
Mar 27, 10:05 AM
Yeah, installing an OS straight from the Internet ? Never heard of that before. :rolleyes:
Not everyone is stuck on dial-up, and it would be nice for Apple to finally provide an option that has been the norm in many other OS installers for the last 15 years.
However, I doubt we won't see optical discs. For one, they are much cheaper and faster to duplicate than Flash memory devices. It would make no sense for Apple to go the costly route of Flash only distribution just yet since most of their line-up still have DVD drives.
Not to mention the cool-storage shelf life for optical storage as a final backup. I'm willing to bet out of ALL the users on these boards (myself included) clamoring for no more optical in a MBP/MB that we still have TONS of optical discs with important data lying around and not solely limited to DVD movies.
Not everyone is stuck on dial-up, and it would be nice for Apple to finally provide an option that has been the norm in many other OS installers for the last 15 years.
However, I doubt we won't see optical discs. For one, they are much cheaper and faster to duplicate than Flash memory devices. It would make no sense for Apple to go the costly route of Flash only distribution just yet since most of their line-up still have DVD drives.
Not to mention the cool-storage shelf life for optical storage as a final backup. I'm willing to bet out of ALL the users on these boards (myself included) clamoring for no more optical in a MBP/MB that we still have TONS of optical discs with important data lying around and not solely limited to DVD movies.
mcmadhatter
Sep 12, 08:21 AM
If you click check for itunes updates you get a message The Itunes update server could not be contacted, try again later
pdjudd
May 2, 11:54 AM
"Bugs". That's so funny. Like it wasn't something indented by Big Brother, make that Apple. We truly do have a new evil empire now.
I presume you have hard proof of this unfounded claim I hope.
I presume you have hard proof of this unfounded claim I hope.
fishmoose
Apr 15, 04:36 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; sv-se) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
I think Apple will be able to get the right deals in the end get Steve Jobs pissed enough at the labels and they'll come around he usually gets his way, one way or another.
I think Apple will be able to get the right deals in the end get Steve Jobs pissed enough at the labels and they'll come around he usually gets his way, one way or another.
yellow
Apr 13, 10:51 AM
http://www.risikolebensversicherungvergleich.de/logos/asstel_full.jpg
Looks like it should be the name of a cellular company in the US.
"Asstel.. We screw you like no other." :)
Looks like it should be the name of a cellular company in the US.
"Asstel.. We screw you like no other." :)
wpotere
Apr 13, 11:17 AM
There are already armed marshall on many flights in the US. WHen was the last time we had a shoot out in the sky? :rolleyes:
His point was remove the TSA security check and only have only armed air marshals. Bringing a gun to a bomb fight is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
My point was that the TSA security does provide a buffer to keep terrorists from boarding a plane packed with explosives where an armed masrhal is going to be useless.
The world we once knew no longer exists, time to get used to it.
His point was remove the TSA security check and only have only armed air marshals. Bringing a gun to a bomb fight is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
My point was that the TSA security does provide a buffer to keep terrorists from boarding a plane packed with explosives where an armed masrhal is going to be useless.
The world we once knew no longer exists, time to get used to it.
e12a
Nov 16, 04:03 PM
I'll throw up at the notion of having a Turion in any apple. Those things blow.
Slix
Apr 29, 03:52 PM
Apple listens to it's fans. Yay! XD
Links
Aug 10, 03:41 PM
I ordered mine on Monday and got it yesterday (ground shipping!). [...]
Jim
Reminds of an issue many years ago when Apple released the G3 (B&W).
The first batch had a crippled ATA bus due to the wrong chip.
If you bought the same machine, same model number, same specs
a month later you had a different chip and much improved Hard Drive performance.
How could you tell them apart?
You had to search out the chip inside the G3 and find the number on the chip to compare with the newer one.
Jim
Reminds of an issue many years ago when Apple released the G3 (B&W).
The first batch had a crippled ATA bus due to the wrong chip.
If you bought the same machine, same model number, same specs
a month later you had a different chip and much improved Hard Drive performance.
How could you tell them apart?
You had to search out the chip inside the G3 and find the number on the chip to compare with the newer one.
iOS v Android
May 3, 01:47 PM
And why is this on mac rumors.
Does it really matter what the competition does.
Does it really matter what the competition does.
Boquito17
Nov 28, 03:19 PM
Fun game, have it on PS3. A few things must be addressed though.
It does take too little killstreaks to gain really. But at least the killstreaks top out at 11 on this one, which I think makes it better.
The attack dogs really do my head in though!
Those dogs are real pains, nearly impossible to kill :P
It does take too little killstreaks to gain really. But at least the killstreaks top out at 11 on this one, which I think makes it better.
The attack dogs really do my head in though!
Those dogs are real pains, nearly impossible to kill :P
dr_lha
Oct 17, 09:58 AM
Before people start quoting VHS vs Betamax, can people use actual facts rather than urban legends?
For example: Betamax being superior to VHS is a myth, most people cannot tell the difference between the two formats. Read this excellent article:
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/comment/story/0,12449,881780,00.html
The real reason VHS beat Betamax is the following:
1. VHS had longer tapes, Betamax's tapes were smaller, and Sony had difficulty coming out with larger capacity tapes. Faced with one system that's standard tapes could record 1 hour and one that could do 3 hours, most people chose the latter (VHS).
2. Sony's tight grip on the Betamax format kept prices high and innovation low. VHS decks were cheaper and made by more manufacturers, and hence consumers had more choice.
3. The porn industry chose VHS.
For example: Betamax being superior to VHS is a myth, most people cannot tell the difference between the two formats. Read this excellent article:
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/comment/story/0,12449,881780,00.html
The real reason VHS beat Betamax is the following:
1. VHS had longer tapes, Betamax's tapes were smaller, and Sony had difficulty coming out with larger capacity tapes. Faced with one system that's standard tapes could record 1 hour and one that could do 3 hours, most people chose the latter (VHS).
2. Sony's tight grip on the Betamax format kept prices high and innovation low. VHS decks were cheaper and made by more manufacturers, and hence consumers had more choice.
3. The porn industry chose VHS.
kirk26
Mar 28, 02:41 PM
This is good!
tvguru
Sep 12, 07:19 AM
Man that's early must be a big update. :cool: :D
NT1440
Apr 16, 06:19 PM
The angled back is very ZuneHD ish......
timmillwood
Oct 3, 01:30 PM
lets hope we get new MBPs before Macworld in Jan!
in Jan i hope to get iTV, iLife '07, Leopard and maybe an iPhone
I would like to see iTV a cross between Tivo and Front Row
There is not much i would like to see added to iLife but i bet Steve will make my buy it
in Jan i hope to get iTV, iLife '07, Leopard and maybe an iPhone
I would like to see iTV a cross between Tivo and Front Row
There is not much i would like to see added to iLife but i bet Steve will make my buy it
ikir
Apr 30, 06:59 AM
Nooooo i loved the slider style and animation.
No comments:
Post a Comment