🚀 go-pugleaf

mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:

>kz08+@andrew.cmu.edu (Ken Zuroski) writes:
>I wonder if it's a marketing mistake, though.  I suspect people will
>pay more for something that looks like a CD then for something that
>looks like a tape.

Well, I bet the reason is that they wanted the stores to accept it. 
Stores who already have lots of tape racks probably wouldn't be crazy
about getting totally different racks for an emerging format.  It makes
the transition from tape to MiniDisc easier.  Also, DCC uses the same size
case as analog tapes, so MiniDisc's use of the same size case doesn't let
DCC have the advantage there.

>From a consumer point of view, the MD players are alot "neater" than
>DCC players.  No rewinding, bump-resistant, and recording as a file-system.

>Clear advantages over DCC.  Does b/w compatibility matter that much?

I agree, but I haven't seen any ads in magazines for MiniDisc yet, though
I've seen quite a few for DCC.  Not too smart, Sony.  I'm sure they'll
appear soon, though.  Right now, both DCC and MiniDisc are out of my price
range.  There's no doubt in my mind that MiniDisc is the better system. 
I'm just waiting for cheaper/smaller units.
-- 
               -  Ishir Bhan -  ibhan@husc.harvard.edu  - 
                                     - - - 
           "The sky and the impossible explode..." -The Cure