Nealb, I believe you are correct, I'm not positive but I do believe I heard Sony tried to control the Beta software market. You'd think you'd learn from your mistakes. But the question is: Is total short term market domination more profitable than the long term not dominating the market? You know how business is, make the buck today don't worry about tomorrow. Sony is probably making a killing by dominating the market, they don't really care about the long term future of SACD anymore than they did about Beta. Make a killing now, and our R&D will come out with another format so we can dominate another market. Sony is too smart to not learn from their mistakes, so that tells me Beta was no mistake. They dominated a market for several years and made a killing.
Too snobbish for SACD as it exists?
Perhaps I am wrong, but I get the feeling that the reason SACD players have not been as successful as hoped lies with the fact that the very persons for whom the benefits of the higher resolution format are appreciable are hesitant to put a Sony, Marantz or Pioneer product in their systems. A product like Krell, CJ, Levinson, etc.,while usually significantly more expensive than the aforementioned "mid-fi" brands provide the purchaser with a certain cache and a greater level of satisfaction, albeit sometimes a psychoacoustic contribution to the listening experience. I, personally, would be more willing to spend more on a quality SACD player from a true high-end company, however elitist that may sound, even knowing that I may be paying for diminished returns. I just wonder if there is a large pool of high-end consumers waiting to see what marquis companies will introduce before they commit to the format.
- ...
- 25 posts total
- 25 posts total