CompuServe Thread

#Foreign Production

22 messages in this thread
#78858From: James RoathNov 23, 1992 10:21 AM
it seems to be a very popular notion that American companies are either lazy, not quality conscious, or just totally disregard the needs of customers. When in fcat American companies are the only innovators in the world market. You mention the Japanese and Koreans, both of whom have made great inroads in our country with their efficient and quality products. I have no qualms about their quality. But realize that the Japanese and Koreans, and to some extent a few European countries, have offered very little in the way of innvoation or technological advancement. They are very good at what they do, which is taking someone's idea and running with it… refining it, perfecting it and mass producing it cheaply. American companies spend far more than their Japanese counterparts on research and development, American companies don't have the government subsidies, American companies must deal with far more restrictive trade and patent regulations than their far eastern counterparts. I ask you, what is the last great inventions to come from Japan ? Wht are the patent laws so blatantly in favor of their domestic companies and hostile to ours ? We lost the television market despite being the driving force behind the technology, we lost the car market despite being the most innovative car makers, we are losing the computer hardware market despite being the technology leaders. Why ? Is it shoddy American workmanship ? IS it cheap foreign labor ? The national debt ? Unfortunately I don't think it will end… Our society values creativity, but we are to free and independant to adopt the work ethics so prevalent in the far eastern countries. We are currently the leaders in virtual reality, but that too will be cloned by the japanese and they will steal it away… Just like the video game, the automobile, the television…
#78941From: Don Curtis/SYSOPNov 24, 1992 12:40 AM
James, You're echoing something I've been saying for years. The Asians are great at taking someone else's idea and perfecting it, making it commericaly viable but very poor at coming up with something original on their own. Don
#78952From: James RoathNov 24, 1992 1:26 AM
Oh soooo true! I spent some time in Japan and the "cookie cutter" way of life was just incredible to me… I liken it to an ant farm. But I gotta give them credit… what they do, they do very well… …… 🙂
#78962From: Michael GerardNov 24, 1992 7:15 AM
Don… Of course, now that the education obtained by Japanese (and soon Taiwanese, and possible Chinese) children far surpasses the quality of education received by the 'average' American child, just how long, do you think, before innovation is also an imported commodity? What most don't recognize, is that the east is in the 45th year or so of its 'industrial revolution'… while the west is approaching its 100th. All of the social impacts associated with that type of change in society are just now begining to be felt overseas: empowerment of women through political and economic strength rising standards of living dissatisfaction with working conditions dissatisfaction with living conditions organized crime organized labor movements If this doesn't look familiar, then we are blind to the realities of social development. Japan's present is our recent history, and our problems today, are its future. The US 'American Dream' isn't dead… it is just being redefined for the future. Society, by its very nature is dynamic, not static.
#79029From: Don Curtis/SYSOPNov 25, 1992 12:41 AM
Michael, I agree, society isn't a static "thing", it's very dynamic. Things could change quite a bit in the future…but for now, we come up with the ideas, and then abandon them…the Asians take those ideas, refine them, jazz them up, make them viable and resell the final product back to us. I still remember when the label "Made in Japan" stood for junk. That was 40 years ago. Things have obviously changed. They could, and fact will, change some more. Don
#78959From: Sean LallyNov 24, 1992 6:30 AM
James, How about HDTV? If the Japanese have the ball now, it's because we fumbled… -Sean
#79019From: Jim SteeleNov 24, 1992 10:58 PM
Sean, The last I heard, a U.S. developed all digital HDTV system had the edge over the the Japanese analog system. Even that system is not taking the consumer by storm…. the sets are just too expensive. Jim
#79128From: Sean LallyNov 26, 1992 6:41 AM
Jim, I'm really not an expert (to say the very least) on business matters and haven't kept up with HDTV a much as I would have liked, but it seems to me that if the Japanese already have a product for sale they're well on their way to trampling upon US manufactures in this field just as they did with VCRs. -Sean
#79193From: Don Curtis/SYSOPNov 27, 1992 12:02 AM
Sean, HDTV standards haven't yet been set in this country, so unless we adopt what the Japanese have adopted…the fact that some Japanese companies have HDTVs on the market is of no concern…yet. BTW, last I saw, HDTV sales in Japan were reported to be *very* low, the cost of the units was way too high. Don
#79226From: Sean LallyNov 27, 1992 4:22 PM
Don, I wonder if the fact that the Japanese are producing HDTV now means that they could somehow use the technology they have as a headstart producing the system that the FCC finally decides on. -Sean
#79302From: Don Curtis/SYSOPNov 28, 1992 1:10 AM
Sean, I doubt it…kind of like building computers, just because you can design a PC doesn't mean you have a head start on building an Amiga. Also, it's my understanding that there are both digital and analog standards proposals under consideration. They're two different concepts. The one thing that would carry over would be the "back end" circuitry…that is the raster scanning circuitry. That would more than likely be the same no matter what front end (broadcast/receive) standard was implemented. But then, by the same token…there's not a whole lot of magic there either. Don
#79355From: Sean LallyNov 28, 1992 1:47 PM
Don, I was thinking that there might be some kindof of chipset that might have been designed that might be able to be used in a similar system (like 68000s in Amigas and Macs). Thanks for the info. -Sean
#79269From: Jim SteeleNov 27, 1992 9:07 PM
Sean, Well, I'd say they have a certain head start. But the FCC still has to determine which HDTV format will be used here. About the only thing salvagable from the current Japanese HDTV system would be the CRT. That is, if my reading is right. Jim
#79353From: Sean LallyNov 28, 1992 1:46 PM
Jim, Well, maybe it won't be that big a deal then. Of course the sooner the FCC make the decision the sooner I can have a HDTV system! <g> -Sean
#79362From: Black Belt SystemsNov 28, 1992 3:13 PM
Your reading is right. The systems are as different as night and day. –Ben …via AutoPilot
#79192From: James RoathNov 27, 1992 12:02 AM
Agreed… Often times our problems lie within the area of standards… I have been reading an awful lot of the review work done by the FCC in attempting to choose a standard, something that they should do in the second half of 1993. The very fact that a government body is determining the standards is a hindrance… Let the consumer decide, let competition be the guide. Unfortunately, even if the FCC does promote a standard it may be a long time before we see HDTV. The televisions will available to us, but how many programmers and local stations are going to be willing to expend the kind of money needed to offer HDTV programming. According to FCC chairman Richard Sikes, the amount of money a station will need to spend to offer HDTV is between 10 and 15 million dollars.
#79204From: Don Curtis/SYSOPNov 27, 1992 12:45 AM
James, It'll be like the move to color in the late 50's and early 60's. Major market stations will do it within a year or two of the standard being accepted. Others will follow over the following years to the point that by the year 2000, I suspect all stations will have HDTV transmitters. Don
#79225From: Sean LallyNov 27, 1992 4:22 PM
James, That is a bummer that we have to wait so long before a standard is set. I wonder if the rational of letting them set a standard was to somehow protect the businesses and (by trickle-down) the consumer so that there weren't a bunch of different standards set and confusion. Thinking about it the above really doesn't make to much sense since the broadcaster/cable folks are going to need to purchase their equipment first. I wonder if the FCC, in an act of protectionism, will go out of their way to not pick the Japanese system (if that is even one of the options). I wonder if there is any way for a digital system to get picked that could be changed over time? So that if someday everybody wanted to bump the resolution from 1000 to 1500 scan lines they could just reprogram everything to do so? Any ideas? When you say 'station', what do you mean? Are you talking about the local distributers or the 'originators of the programming? -Sean
#79275From: Jim SteeleNov 27, 1992 10:01 PM
Sean, I see HDTV as a high-end medium. How many people are going to care about watching soaps & game shows in HDTV format? On the other hand, movies would benefit from the higher res and wider aspect ratio of HDTV. These could be delivered by tapes, direct-broadcast satellite, cable, or fiber optics regardless of what the local stations do. If the FCC adopts a digital HDTV system, the sets (essentially computers) could be designed to display a standard NTSC signal – perhaps with enhancement. That way, the people who want HDTV can get it & use it with existing programming while HDTV sources become available. Those who don't can still use the current ancient system while it lasts. By the time it's ready to fade away, the price of HDTV recievers should be comparable to NTSC sets. Jim'
#79354From: Sean LallyNov 28, 1992 1:46 PM
Jim, I would imagine that all the people who now moan about seeing movies in letterbox format would appreciate HDTV. I saw a couple hours of this years Wimbledon Championship on an HDTV set and must say that I was very impressed. It really is a nice aspect ratio for a bunch of sporting events. The screen was quite large (probably 6' across) and getting right up to it to watch just a little corner had incredible detail, it was as if thirty TVs had been put together for this one screen (if you know what I mean). On top of all that anything would be better than seeing all those ugly blank/black lines on an NTSC screen. Thanks for filling me in on what might be coming. -Sean
#79363From: Black Belt SystemsNov 28, 1992 3:14 PM
Yah. <grinning> And you know what? When they have big, hi-res sets with wide:short aspect ratios, know what they're gonna moan about? Right. that darned “little "square" looking movie format'' still grinning> –Ben …via AutoPilot
#79373From: Mike ToddNov 28, 1992 4:07 PM
Consumer research in Europe and the USA has shown very clearly that there is almost no demand at all for HDTV (even if sets were cheaper) … I do not believe that the authorities over here or in the USA will make any firm decisions for quite some time yet. I can't go into too much detail as the research contents are company-confidential, but I can say that a tiny fraction said they'd buy HDTV if it was available at under #1500 ($2500) … that fraction just about trebled if the price was comparable with existing high-end TV sets. What was interesting is that the demand for wide-screen was _very_ much greater. Media pundits that I know do not believe HDTV will become a fact of real life for another 10 years or so … but wide-screen is already beginning to see a real consumer demand and is likely to become a small, but significant, market in the next 3 years. The problem is that most punters really do not understand that there's a difference between HDTV and Wide-Screen TV. Indeed some HDTV systems use more or less the existing aspect ration … in other words HDTV doesn't mean wide-screen. Some experiments were carried out earlier this year with a large (2000+) lay viewing panel … it turned out that what they preferred was not wide-screen but big-screen. They don't want wide aspects, they just want bigger pictures … in fact the image that was preferred by 95% of the panel was on a _square_ screen, but one which was a bright and flicker-free image 36"x36" (but the resolution was actually slightly _worse_ than standard PAL!) Miek (from the UK)