NoSomeone else applied this analogy a few months back. It's appealing but if you dig a bit deeper it doesn't work:
The VHS/Betamax war is in the mass entertainment area. Indeed there are network effects here. However, after a certain level, the improvement of the quality of the image becomes not particularly important for the average homeviewer consumer. The main thing for the mass market was to finally be able to watch movies on your own TV, cheaply and easily. You'll find that for the people that needed the best image quality, sharp imaging, they did go for betamax. I'm thinking primarily broadcast television and news crews here.
Why doesn't the analogy work here? We're talking about health outcomes, not entertainment. In health, the best is needed. This is why, for instance, the teutonic chauvinists - Carl Zeiss - went for Optiscan. As others have noted on this forum in the past, Zeiss was apparently considering the main 'competitor', Mauna Kea, but went for Optiscan because Optiscan's tech is far superior. Proof that for medicine - quality is important. If you go to your surgeon and pathologist, and find out they are not using the best, what would your reaction be. And as we have seen in some recent studies, Optiscan's tech is certainly known by some important researchers.
But I agree with you about marketing and promotion. C'mon guys lets get this show on the road.
Expand
(20min delay)