Unlike you may think, Jim. I actually have only two general comments to make here. Actually Bill Potts is absolutely right in his intervention, the *real* reason behind the success of VHS over beta was the 'monopoly' attempt strategy espoused by BETA proponents! I'm even surprised that this "detail" seems to have been... 'forgotten' or something here. This 'reason' is well documented and stated by most classic/reputable books in Business Policy and Marketing areas of business degree programs in North America. (I know that because this is what I teach! ;-) ) And my last observation is that I still insist that market forces are not to be considered even the best tool to bring about changes to the marketplace due to (among many other reasons) the lack of coordination, stability, and effectiveness that such approaches would entail. But evidently I do realize that government intervention may not be perfect either. However, we're discussing *effective* ways of bringing metrication about, and it's simply *undeniable* that when governments use their muscle power to push something through, while doing it properly, they *DO* succeed, as you acknowledged yourself with the NTSC example, and as ALL examples of successful lasting metrication efforts we've witnessed historically in all countries around the world demonstrate! Therefore, please remember that the ultimate goal of all of us is to find means to make metrication happen, but happen fast, effectively and (why not?) even efficiently! The whole problem is that some, like you, are trying to 'reinvent the wheel', so to speak, and want to come up with strategies that would avoid government compulsory metrication. Well... Again, history seems to be unquestionably proving that (so far...) there is no other way. The closest effort to 'your way' that I can think of that was successful was the Australian experience. But even there, it had to have 'teeth' in it, otherwise, it, too, would have failed in time. Regards, Marcus On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 12:39:55 Jim Elwell wrote: >Han Maenen writes: > >> I distrust market forces. They do not necessarily boost the >> good things. They made inferior standards like VHS Video >> and the MSDOS PC the global ones. > >I think you are confusing "technically good" with "good." VHS had one >advantage over BETA at first: longer record time. While BETA had a better >picture, clearly customers preferred the longer record time. VHS was the >*better* solution, when the differences were weighted by customer >preferences. > >As to MS-DOS and PCs, I'd be the first to admit that Microsoft/IBM won over >Apple and Amiga due to marketing superiority rather than technical >superiority. But, that is also part of the mix. Many, many products that are >superior never see the light of day or fail to reach their potential due to >poor marketing. > >The problem is that the only way to avoid this is to let a small group of >people decide what is best for everyone, and very frequently what is "best" >is only obvious in hindsight. The cure is far worse than the disease. > >Marcus will no doubt chime in here about Microsoft being an effective >monopoly. That may be the case now, but it certainly wasn't in 1981, when >Apple was a much larger company than Microsoft. > >> It is just as well that we did not allow market forces to >> establish global TV standards. Then we might have NTSC here >> instead of PAL. I have heard things about NTSC. And I know >> about the joke: Never Twice the Same Color. > >This is an example exactly opposite of the point you want to make. NTSC is a >*government mandated* standard! > >If American broadcasters and worldwide TV manufacturers had had the freedom, >NTSC would have died out many years ago. But, no, instead we get stuck in >government-moderated battles over HDTV, and decades later still have crummy >television. > >Having some "experts" pick and mandate a TV standard leaves us far worse off >than had the market been able to change with technology. > >Jim Elwell > > Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
