RE:RE:Latest PodcastRead the text below and u will see that it comes down to 2 important things. Be efficient(read: be the cheapest) and be the first(early adopters always have market advantage). I am glad to see AMY is doing all they can to be efficient! But maybe it is time to just start to recycle and get some patents later on. Sure looks like other company's are getting in the zone just to be there even with lesser tech!!! So, if the machines are so similar why did Betamax lose to JVC? Many thought the betamax machine would win: It had the better image quality and the Betamax is decidedly better built. Compare ejecting a tape on the Betamax to the VHS. First, watch the Betamax. Note how smooth it is. And then watch the VHS. Thats abrupt and will wear out the mechanism. Yet, to my engineers eye the VHS was the better solution. First, the VHS was lighter than the Betamax: 29 and a half lbs compared to 36 lbs for the this Betamax machine. Thats a huge difference for a mass manufactured object. It impacts everything from material costs to assembly time to shipping costs. So, at the low end of the market the VHS machines were cheaper than Sonys Betamax. Second, the earliest Betamax tapes played for only one hour, VHS played for 2 hours -- enough time for a movie. The ultimate killer, though, was the rental market. While, Betamax focused in its ads and energies on time shifting -- their ads featured headlines like Watch whatever, whenever -- while JVC, the maker of the VHS system, created relationships with the nascent video rental industry. When this market grew, VHS dominated in titles. While you could for a while find both formats eventually retailers began giving shelf space to the slightly more dominant brand, which then dominated even more. So, the Betamax versus VHS dispels the notion that simply being first to market is the most important issue. It reminds us that technical excellence in one area isnt enough