--- In email@example.com
, Lee Hart <leeahart@...> wrote:
> Different times, different attitudes.
> Left to themselves, manufacturers love to create "kingdoms" where they
> are the supreme ruler for life. They develop a proprietary technology,
> and patent it to keep everyone else out who won't pay. They then seek to
> make as much money, as quickly as possible from it. When they've milked
> it out, dump it and move on.
> But every other company is trying to do the same thing, at the same
> time. The market becomes a battleground for warring technologies. Today,
> we think of this as "good". Survival of the fittest, faster pace of
> innovation, etc. But it also means widespread incompatibility between
> systems, and consumers having to replace things every few years.
> Back when NTSC was born, attitudes were completely different. The
> government (specifically the FCC) *forced* the manufacturers to devise
> one common standard, so all TVs would work with all signals. They also
> forced future innovations to remain compatible.
> It slowed the pace of innovation. But it also meant that a 1949 TV could
> still receive 1999 broadcasts. Since the technology remained stable, it
> also encouraged mass production, and much lower prices for TVs than you
> would have had otherwise. Thus we had TVs in every home, instead of only
> in the hands of the richest 10% that could afford to keep buying new
> ones every time the standards changed.
> Both approaches have merits. You just have to realize that each one has
Great commentary Lee. Definitely food for thought. I wish I could swing this topic back to the 1802, but it's gone too far OT.