What if Sony made an extended play U-matic instead of Betamax?

[Myrtonos]

I have recently watched a two part video by Alec Watson on his Technology connections channel on why Betamax failed. In fact it failed harder than most people think.

Part one explains that Beta began as a smaller version of U-matic.

Whatever Sony did to get the same record time as U-matic in a smaller cassette, could have given a longer record time in a U-matic sized cassette. If Sony had done that, then J.V.C's V.H.S might have never existed.

Also read about the rise and fall of Betamax.

 

[Livius wannabe]

I admit I didn't watch the full videos.

I don't understand why you would want them to use the ¾" U-matic tape and not the ½" Betacam one, though.

Also if there is more competition between JVC and Sony, where does this leave Video 2000?

 

[Histor32]

Beta Ruled.. however, in reality you need to have market share. shame he didn't talk about the portables and the real beta prosumer camera setups. light years ahead of anything VHS could provide.

then again.. I also purchased an Amiga .. so my track record for purchasing products that have market dominance are no that great.


I loved beta.. and my amiga.. and that's all that mattered

 

[Histor32]

my bad. forgot to actually make a productive comment


It wasn't about record time.. it was about market share. 3.4inch was prosumer and industrial Sony didn't want to hurt the big ticket product line.

Last nail in the coffin, by the time people started buying these in bulk and our first one was in 1976 same one pictured in the video, most didn't start buying them in mass until 82-85, then you have the CD, 8mm, Laser Disc also competing and last but not least the nail in the coffin came around as the DVD and all tape vanished.

at the end of the day for consumers it didn't matter, for creators it did. Beta, Super Beta, BetaCam and other Beta formats from sony were the standard. all rubbish now

 

[Myrtonos]

I'm not sure what to say on most of the replies but:

It wasn't about record time.. it was about market share. 3.4inch was prosumer and industrial Sony didn't want to hurt the big ticket product line.

Do you know what the point of a video recorder was when it was introduced. If not, the two part video above explains. I'll give a clue, the record time of Betamax wasn't enough for homemade video recordings. Households with television usually only had one video recorder each, only handling one cassette at a time and certainly no technician to switch between tapes or load and unload one while another was recording or replaying.

at the end of the day for consumers it didn't matter, for creators it did. Beta, Super Beta, BetaCam and other Beta formats from sony were the standard. all rubbish now

This is an alternative history thread. This comment is only valid for our timeline.

 

[Histor32]

I'm not sure what to say on most of the replies but:


Do you know what the point of a video recorder was when it was introduced. If not, the two part video above explains. I'll give a clue, the record time of Betamax wasn't enough for homemade video recordings. Households with television usually only had one video recording each, only handling one cassette at a time and certainly not technician to switch between tapes or load and unload one while another was recording or replaying.


This is an alternative history thread. This comment is only valid for our timeline.

YEs I know. ..

and I also remember that if you recorded movies, on a k30 or K60 tape you needed quite a few tapes to record with.
Before the Betamax and camera systems, we had super 8 for home film. by the time of the LS-120 tapes .. 2 hours was sufficient for most items, 8 hours on VHS and slow speed was icky.

the reason why in OTL was sony didn't want to hurt its 3.4 inch professional tape line.

In this time line hey, the only dif is that sony decided to go with the larger cassette and have a vertical production line. I can buy that. but if sony starts to cannibalize its pro format with opening up its format to rivals then well.. that might be tough.


I would more than enjoy a time line though where Betamax wins )

 

[Myrtonos]

YEs I know. ..

and I also remember that if you recorded movies, on a k30 or K60 tape you needed quite a few tapes to record with.
Before the Betamax and camera systems, we had super 8 for home film. by the time of the LS-120 tapes .. 2 hours was sufficient for most items, 8 hours on VHS and slow speed was icky.

I'm not sure what movies (or "movies") you mean but the whole point of video cassette recorders was to watch television shows that couldn't be watched as of when they were broadcast.

In this time line hey, the only dif is that sony decided to go with the larger cassette and have a vertical production line. I can buy that. but if sony starts to cannibalize its pro format with opening up its format to rivals then well.. that might be tough.

Okay, as noted, Beta initially had the same record time as U-matic, and U-matic was larger than Betamax, meaning that a U-matic cassette could hold more tape. So Beta therefore had the same record time on less tape, that is more record time for a given length of tape. More record time for a given length of tape could have also allowed a longer record time in a U-matic sized cassette.

I would more than enjoy a time line though where Betamax wins )

As Alec Watson notes in that two part Technology Connections video, Sony's decision to keep the same record time as U-matic and scaling down the cassette doomed Betamax right from the start, yes even before V.H.S. If Sony had gone the other way, it may well be there would be no such thing as Video Home System.

 

[Histor32]

I'm not sure what movies (or "movies") you mean but the whole point of video cassette recorders was to watch television shows that couldn't be watched as of when they were broadcast.


Okay, as noted, Beta initially had the same record time as U-matic, and U-matic was larger than Betamax, meaning that a U-matic cassette could hold more tape. So Beta therefore had the same record time on less tape, that is more record time for a given length of tape. More record time for a given length of tape could have also allowed a longer record time in a U-matic sized cassette.

As Alec Watson notes in that two part Technology Connections video, Sony's decision to keep the same record time as U-matic and scaling down the cassette doomed Betamax right from the start, yes even before V.H.S. If Sony had gone the other way, it may well be there would be no such thing as Video Home System.

I'm not disagreeing .. I know U Matic was larger . I have a basement full of them as my father was a television news producer, have two Umatic decks that still work. the main reason we bought sony was because of u-matic.


I look at it this way.. think of it like this.
canon makes a great 24-70L why would they make a regular 24-70 that is just as good with out the L if it is their system.


Sony had a system. By the machines, by the tapes, by the cameras, they didn't want to mess with the tier structure, yes its possible that U-matic could have been a bigger hit, its also possible that sony would have made it rather pricy as they are known to do, even to this day. VHS won on price, so you will need sony to think about price more. Again, I would love to see Beta win, or even U-matic over VHS. couple decisions here or there would make a great difference.

 

[Myrtonos]

Sony had a system. By the machines, by the tapes, by the cameras, they didn't want to mess with the tier structure, yes its possible that U-matic could have been a bigger hit, its also possible that sony would have made it rather pricy as they are known to do, even to this day. VHS won on price, so you will need sony to think about price more. Again, I would love to see Beta win, or even U-matic over VHS. couple decisions here or there would make a great difference.

I'm not sure that Betamax machines were always more expensive than V.H.S ones. Though V.H.S certainly offered more record time per unit of currency, not just in absolute duration. Basically, V.H.S appealed to more people than Betamax, so more people flocked to V.H.S, which mean that more manufacturers bought licenses to build V.H.S cassettes and matching tape decks than licenses to make Beta cassettes or build Beta tape decks. With more manufacturers building V.H.S machines than Beta ones, there was more competition among V.H.S manufacturers and so prices of V.H.S machines had to be lower. V.H.S deck manufactures had to cut costs to compete.

Note that V.H.S machines were less well made than Beta ones as explained in the middle of part two.

 

[Myrtonos]

I don't understand why you would want them to use the ¾" U-matic tape and not the ½" Betacam one, though.

It's not so much about the tape width as the dimensions of the cassette. Suppose Sony had kept the cassette dimensions (other than thickness) the same and extending the record time. The record time of U-Matic was at least enough for studios, each with multiple machines handling multiple cassettes and a technician to switch between them and eject and insert cassettes while others were playing or being recorded.
The point of a home V.C.R was timeshifting of a television broadcast. If you weren't at home and couldn't watch a show as it was broadcast, timeshifting meant you could watch them later on, and a lot of shows, even at the time, were longer than 90 minutes.

The 90 minute record time of Betamax was at its original and highest recording speed, Beta I, and it was at that speed that Beta had the better picture. Later on the speeds Beta II and Beta III were added.

The controlling Sony could have had more success with larger cassette, this giving a longer record time at Beta I.

 

[marathag]

The controlling Sony could have had more success with larger cassette, this giving a longer record time at Beta I.

The other things are the VHS was licensed so near anyone could make a VHS deck that could record and then playback a 2 hour, grainy picture with lots of artifacts for a far lower cost than Sony, the only company you could get U-matic or Beta from for years, unlike what JVC did

Tape or overall cartridge size wouldn't have mattered for home units, size concerns was more a newsmedia issue. Nobody wanted to hump an 1" Ampex 'Portable' around

and having a 30 minute record was fine for those out in the field.
Sony having a large 3/4" cassette would not have hurt home sales. It was the higher pricepoint that was the trouble, along with 1 hour limit.

To truly strangle VHS in the crib, they would need a 3 hour playback and have more companies competing in sales for price and features

 

[Nivek]

truly strangle VHS in the crib, they would need a 3 hour playback and have more companies competing in sales for price and features

Sadly Laserdics failed too

 

[Myrtonos]

The other things are the VHS was licensed so near anyone could make a VHS deck that could record and then playback a 2 hour, grainy picture with lots of artifacts for a far lower cost than Sony, the only company you could get U-matic or Beta from for years, unlike what JVC did

Sony did attempt to licence Betamax but manufactures like R.C.A didn't want to buy licences to build video recorders that could only record for 90 minutes.

Sadly Laserdics failed too

Laserdisc was launched after even VHS and couldn't record at home.

 

[marathag]

Laserdisc was launched after even VHS and couldn't record at home.

and no low cost Disc Burning at home till a decade after the Disc was on the way out