Electrical chain to stop selling VCRs

[Lexus]

From the BBC website:

The death of the video cassette recorder appears to be in sight after the UK's largest electrical chain said it is to stop selling them.
Dixons will phase out VCRs due to the boom in DVD players, sales of which have grown seven-fold in five years.

It ends a 26-year love affair with a gadget which changed viewing habits by allowing people to leave home without missing their favourite programmes.

Dixons expects to sell its remaining stock of VCRs by Christmas.

The High Street retailer says demand for VCRs has fallen dramatically since the 1990s.

It aims to concentrate on their successor, the DVD which has charmed consumers with its speed and superior quality.

John Mewett, marketing director at Dixons, said: "We're saying goodbye to one of the most important products in the history of consumer technology.

"The video recorder has been with us for a generation and many of us have grown up with the joys and the occasional frustrations of tape-based recording.

"We are now entering the digital age and the new DVD technology available represents a step change in picture quality and convenience."

The final nail in the coffin for VCRs is the low price of DVD players, which can now be bought for as little as £25.

The cost of DVD recorders are also falling to a level within reach of many consumers.

The BBC's business reporter Hywel Jones said: "So far Dixons is the only major chain to abandon sales of VCRs.

"But video cassettes are likely to join record players and Rubik Cubes as objects of nostalgic affection.

The first video cassette recorder went on sale at Dixons in 1978 priced £798.75 - the equivalent of about £3,000 in today's money.

It was made by Japanese electronics giant JVC and had a slot in the top to insert the tape and piano-style keys.

More at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4031223.stm

[NightWing]

Not suprising.

Places like Fry's, Suncoast, Blockbuster and other places selling or renting VHS pre-recorded have cut way back on shelf space over the last few year over here. This is due to the drop in sales of VHS recorders. Mostly do to the same factor that crushed LP records and tapes when CD came out. Took a bit to build a base but when it occured it really cut the older media to shreads.

When players drop to forty US dollars and on sales hit below twenty and recorder hit the magic sub-200 dollar price. It has really destroyed the VHS market here.

[remmo]

Can anyone remember the amount of time you spent explaining to your parents and grandparents how to even do just the basic things with a VCR.
I cursed the day they introduced 'Videoplus', and now i've got to start all over again when they buy one of these things for christmas.
Just shoot me now and be done with it.

[Nilfennasion]

The day I went to a Philips press event and was told they were not going to make any VCRs anymore come 2003, I knew the VCR was dead.

There is one solution for people who will not be taught. Make them figure it out themselves.

[mats.hogberg]

...and right this moment, the successor to the DVD format is taking shape, and won't be far off before it hits the shelves.
A little different than when we took the step from vinyl/audio cassettes to CD/CD-R... I still remember looking at and listening to the first CD player (a Philips) at the local TV/HiFi dealer!

/Mats

[yoda313]

Hello,

VCR's will never die off.... (completely that is)

Kevin

[Skoorb]

Good. It's a crap, old technology that has little place still around. I'm reminded of how long it took to properly phase out 3.5" drives (pretty much nobody uses them anymore). That technology was old well before people really stopped using it. There was little between them and CDs, so there was a long period of time where people still had to use was was clearly a poor technology. VHS is the same.

I'll admit I bought a VHS player about two years ago to film programs on tv, and in fact I still use it every month or two. Really most of my wrath comes from the fact that blockbuster and others have been WAY TOO SLOW to adopt DVD. I go in there for a new release and still see more VHS sometimes than DVD. The dvds will all be rented, but plenty of VHS to be had. I'd guess about 1/5 of my rentals are VHS, simply because the movie was rented out in DVD, and the moron running the store thought, wrongly, that people still want to rent VHS, but only the poorest of the poor (or those who watch few movies) still don't have a DVD player.

In any case, DVD recorders are still pretty pricey, so VHS will still exist for many as a way to record tv programs until tivo and the like are yet cheaper.

[spiderman2k1]

The only good thing about VCRS are good for now is back up to DVDs, and that about it these days.

[Boffo]

I'm really pissed because now my kid won't have anywhere to shove his oatmeal!! (good thing about DVD players, if they are not on, he can't insert his spoon into the things--I have a master switch that he can't reach!!)

[shelbyGT]

vcr's will be around until vinyl goes out of style.

[solarfox]

I suspect that the VCR will follow the same path as the open-reel tape deck and the vinyl turntable -- it won't disappear completely, it just won't be a "mass-market" item any more. A handful of higher-end models -- probably the 4 or 6-head, SuperVHS types -- will continue to be produced by one or two manufacturers, to serve the niche "videophile" market that still wants them, but the sub-$100 models will pretty much disappear, and within a few years you'll probably have to go to a shop which specializes in exotic audio/video equipment to get one.

[remmo]

It may even be worth putting it away in a cupboard for a while, look how much some of the old games consoles go for nowadays

[NightWing]

Will be like Betamax units. There will be colectors but not the major part of the market.

[ROBERT BLACK]

vcr's will be around until vinyl goes out of style.

Yup.


4 DVDplayers, and 1 SVHS vcr, and I still like my old mothballed 2 head Magnavox from the 80s. It still works well too.

[oldfart13]

"I'm reminded of how long it took to properly phase out 3.5" drives (pretty much nobody uses them anymore)."

Really? I used one not 2 days ago to update some files on a friend's PIII that didn't have USB ports. Most of the computer places around here still sell desktops with them, though some big name outfits will only add them if requested. The only comps I don't see the 3.5" drive on these days are high end games machines. I use my old one all the time to transfer old data files from 3.5" discs that I had with my old Celeron. I think there is some life to the 3.5" disc format yet...

[RabidDog]

I think he either meant the 5.25 inch drive OR the 3" floppy.. strange how the BEEB is comparing a video recorder to a DVD player.. they have two different purposes?

[Prot]

Once dvd recording prices approach that of VHS (and that time is rapidly approaching), then you will see the standalone vcr die. While most movies now coming out will usually only be available on dvd, it is still cheaper to record your favorite shows on tape than it is to record on dvd.
As for dvd recorders, I myself would prefer a model with a hard drive. That way I can make sure what I recorded is what I want to burn to a dvd.

[Nilfennasion]

The other solution is to burn the content to a DVD+RW, and then when you're absolutely certain you wish to keep it, transfer it to a DVD+R.

The recordable market has a way to go yet before it fully stabilises. With the emergence of DVD+R DL, there has been a small, but growing, call for a rewritable equivalent. Especially after the high failure rate and compatibility issues of +R DL coming to light.

[Skoorb]

"I'm reminded of how long it took to properly phase out 3.5" drives (pretty much nobody uses them anymore)."

Really? I used one not 2 days ago to update some files on a friend's PIII that didn't have USB ports. Most of the computer places around here still sell desktops with them, though some big name outfits will only add them if requested. The only comps I don't see the 3.5" drive on these days are high end games machines. I use my old one all the time to transfer old data files from 3.5" discs that I had with my old Celeron. I think there is some life to the 3.5" disc format yet...

Sure, some people still use them, but I've not in 5 years, except as a boot disk once in a blue moon. We have only one 3.5" in our house. Nobody at work uses one. In fact, in the entire department, I can truly say I've not seen one lying on a desk EVER in 18 months of being here.

[Darth Paris]

My PC doesn't even have a 3.5" drive.I just use a portable USB drive for on the go stuff. As for VCRs that is just fine they are gone, but DVD recorders need to drop in price a little more before they become mainstream.

[skorch]

Something everyone has overlooked is the standalone DVD recorders vary in quality/compatibility depending on what media one uses.
With the VCR as long as you had a halfway decent one the picture of a program you recorded would be about the same on other VCRs.
There's no denying the quality of a DVD is far superior to VHS, but to me a videotape seems to have a more tangible quality to it that the delicate DVD will never have.

[Nilfennasion]

There is no point in having a durable copy of a programme if the representation of that programme therein looks like shit. Cross-colouration, low-level noise, dot crawl, colour-bleed, all inherent to VHS. True black is actually possible on recordable DVD.

I can't wait for a movement to start up with retros claiming that VHS offered better anything that DVD. A few screen caps should slap them in the face like they deserve.

[mats.hogberg]

Well, DVDs do have shortcomings, (you won't see macro blocks on a VHS...) but on the whole, I think you must be very nostalgic to claim VHS superiority...

/Mats

[Nilfennasion]

You wouldn't see macro-blocks on DVD either if the designers had been realistic about how much data space would be required for 720x576 full-motion video. 10.0 MB/S is pretty paltry when you factor in the amount that soundtracks eat up.

Actually, that's only half-true. In my years as a reviewer, I found that the most common cause of macro-blocks was shitty source material. Some of the pieces of dreck that have been released in Region 4, I wouldn't be surprised to learn they were made from betacam tapes. Warners is also notorious for putting too much into too little space, although their source material is generally much better.

Anyway, to address your point, yes, DVDs have their shortcomings. But compared to those of VHS, they are generally miniscule.

[igalan]

I don't have experience with DVD recorders, but can you store 8 hours of video with average quality? Well any VCR will allow you to store 8 h on a 4 h tape. I don't think a DVD recorder can do that, in a single layer disc, a 4 hour movie already looks worse than VHS.

[Nilfennasion]

In a word? No.

I curse the day that the manufacturers of the discs published this irresponsible and utterly unrealistic claim. Yes, you can store eight hours on one 4.35GB disc. Would you want to watch it after the fact? Hell no. Eight hours is utterly unrealistic even for a DVD+R DL disc. That is, unless a recorder supports recording at Half D1 or whatever it is called, which tends to look awful on a decent-sized display anyway.

Having said all that, you might be able to store eight hours on an E240 VHS tape. But the same problem applies - it will look like crap. In fact, it looks even worse since true black is not possible on VHS, it has half the resolution, and the time-compression required generally entails even further colour bleed. Not to mention that the framerate winds up making motion incredibly jerky.

Seriously, I've got one word for anyone who wants to record eight hours without changing a disc. Lazy.

Oh, and worse than VHS? Hardly. With decent source material and the right encoding system, four hours can easily fit on one layer without a major problem in terms of quality. I take it you haven't seen such Columbia Tristar releases as Hollow Man or Ghostbusters.

[Richard_G]

I don't have experience with DVD recorders, but can you store 8 hours of video with average quality? Well any VCR will allow you to store 8 h on a 4 h tape. I don't think a DVD recorder can do that, in a single layer disc, a 4 hour movie already looks worse than VHS.

That is the same point I was going to make. Even recording at 352 x 288 and keeping the bitrate down, you aren't going to get 8 hours worth on one disk. OK, so the quality of VHS is pretty grim, but I personally would rather watch a soft picture from tape than a screen full of macroblocking and mpeg artifacts. As most people use VHS to record TV programmes, the content is pretty dire anyway!

The vast majority of the general public (not people that are on here and know anything about the subject), are quite satisfied with crap quality though, so it may not be that important.

[Nilfennasion]

The vast majority of the general public (not people that are on here and know anything about the subject), are quite satisfied with crap quality though

...until they see how much better it can get. My old man spends a lot of time wishing he'd shot home videos on film so he could transfer them to DVD. Sometimes, you have trouble making out which relative is which in them.

[igalan]

Ok, 8 h on VHS may not look crisp and clear, but neither does the original broadcast (I'm referring to analog broadcasts, not digital TV -satellite, cable-). Anyway I won't record anything that I want to keep for some time with Long Play (LP). But if I want to record a daily show and watch it during the weekeng without commercials, then I'm going to record in LP. Or any other program for that matter.

So I see no reason to dig my VCR and get a DVD recorder, in fact I see more reasons to keep it. Any recording made from TV will look like crap, it doesn't matter if it's recorded on DVD or VHS. And with VHS I have much longer running times.

However if you have digital TV with good image quality, it may be worth a DVD recorder, because you could get near DVD quality, at the expense of very short running times (2 hours is really the maximum). For everyone else VCR is the way to go.

[igalan]

That is the same point I was going to make. Even recording at 352 x 288 and keeping the bitrate down, you aren't going to get 8 hours worth on one disk. OK, so the quality of VHS is pretty grim, but I personally would rather watch a soft picture from tape than a screen full of macroblocking and mpeg artifacts. As most people use VHS to record TV programmes, the content is pretty dire anyway!
[...]

Exactly! Even if you have digital TV, DVD is not enough; with 2 h you can barely record any movie, even if there are no commercials. A DVD with a built-in hd is the only viable solution right now, but they are too expensive to be considered as alternatives to VCR. At least not in Spain (or most of Europe).

Now tell me where can I get a DVD recorder with a 60 GB drive for less than 300 Euro; and I'll change my mind .