Originally posted by: Sweeney599
oh my God. (sigh) no, I won't do it . . . Can someone with skills in logic please explain Arnie's logical fallacy to him? I don't have the patience.
Originally posted by: Arnie.d
Ofcourse it would. Why pay more for another analog format if it's more of the same?
Originally posted by: Sweeney599
but all of the formats at the time were analog, so this really wouldn't have made a difference.
Originally posted by: lordjedi
1) an analog format,
1) an analog format,
but all of the formats at the time were analog, so this really wouldn't have made a difference.
Ofcourse it would. Why pay more for another analog format if it's more of the same?
oh my God. (sigh) no, I won't do it . . . Can someone with skills in logic please explain Arnie's logical fallacy to him? I don't have the patience.
How is it a logical fallacy? For most people, it provided almost no improvement over what they already had. In those days, most people did not have audio receivers. So the only benefit was chapter skip and instant rewind. This was probably easily outweighed by the shear size of the disc. Most people don't want something that big around. If they did, they'd essentially be replacing a collection of small tapes with a collection of large discs that took up more space. People don't usually like to do that.