Talk:RCA

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Computing High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force.

Media Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

New York City Mid‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

There should be "Controversies" section that mentions patent lawsuits with the inventor of FM radio, Edwin Howard Armstrong (as mentioned on his biography page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexn82 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It says here that RCA was put together by AT&T and United Fruit. Are you sure United Fruit was involved?

Here it says that RCA 'aquired the famous trademark of the dog "Nipper" listening to "His Master's Voice.'

Is this correct? Surely this remained with EMI/HMV - a British company? However, it is possible that they formed an alliance with HMV, and were then permitted to use this trademark within the USA. Can someone please clarify this?

-- David Martland 05:55 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The British Company HMV and the USA company Victor were both decended from companies founded by the same Emile Berliner, and they had a relationship, releasing records recorded by each other on the other side of the pond. Victor was a shareholder in Gramophone & Typewriter and then HMV, though I don't know what percent. I think by agreement HMV and Victor split up the rights to use the artwork in different parts of the world. HMV had the rights to the dog & gramophone logo in most of Europe and the Commonwealth (although Canada seems to have been a special case, as Berliner had already established a seperate company there; see Berliner Gramophone). Victor had rights to the logo in the USA, Latin America, and Japan (and possibly a few other non-European countries). While there are still some details I'm not sure of, I hope this helps. -- Infrogmation 07:35 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I belive the Victor company of japan (AKA JVC or Nivico ) held the rights to japan. cmacd123 09:05 20041006

Yes, after JVC split from US RCA Victor. -- Infrogmation 21:04, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ahem. In World War I, Italy fought AGAINST Germany. It was NOT allied with it. Figured someone should point this out. -Penta 02:04, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Artist List

Any chance we can get a list of artists that are on RCA Records?

First Television

Didn't "Philo Farnsworth" demonstrate the worlds first TV system (not RCA)? -68.239.224.85

Define "television". RCA showed *something* in 1939, but the Germans had been broadasting in 1935 and John Logie Baird would have argued strenously that *he* was first. Define "first" - a wavery black diagonal line flickering in a darkened laboratory, or a scheduled commerically-supported broadcast with sound? "Firsts" are rarely definitive. Thank heaven Tesla never got interested in pictures by wire else the revert war would never end. --Wtshymanski 17:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What Farnsworth demonstrated would qualify as "television." In 1929, he transmitted an image of his wife over eletronic television. Recognizable image, recorded with a camera, converted to radio waves, received, decoded, and displayed by another, independent piece of hardware = television. However, Farnsworth's system was not the first television. It was the first electronic television. Previous television systems were mechanical, relying on a light bulb and rotating disc. ClarusWorks 17:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't claim RCA's 1939 television system was the "first" television. Details about Farnsworth don't belong in the RCA article if he wasn't working for them. I put in a link to History of television where people interested in that subject can go for detail. -- Infrogmation 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

defunct?

How can RCA be defunct? I still see televisions and other products being manufactured with that brand name attached. I should remove the defunct businesses category from this article. --SuperDude 08:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RCA TVs are made by Thomson SA so RCA exists only as a brand name used by Thomson for consumer electronics and by Sony BMG Music Entertainment for recorded music. Steelbeard1 03:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, if that's true, then why does the article state this: "Thomson eventually bought the RCA trademarks, subject to the perpetual license GE had issued to Sony BMG's predecessor." 24.7.217.221 02:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It simply means that Thomson bought the RCA trademarks from GE after they bought corporate RCA, subject to the license that BMG got from GE for the same trademark rights. Cherrydude 04:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't get about this situation is that, if Thomson & BMG bought the RCA trademarks, then technically, GE doesn't have the power to license that property, because they no longer own that property. So, in the end, that sentence makes no sense whatsoever. 24.7.217.221 19:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomson owns the trademarks. BMG uses it under license from Thomson. Steelbeard1 19:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How could Thomson own the trademarks? GE licensed them to Thomson. If you recieve a license from someone for a product, that doesn't mean you own the trademarks. That just means that you're "renting" them for a certain amount of time. 24.7.217.221 23:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the UK Intellectual Property Office web site at [1] and [2] which show that GE transferred the British registered trademark "RCA" to RCA Trademark Management SA (owned by Thomson) on July 31, 2003. So Thomson owns the RCA trademark, lock, stock and barrel.Steelbeard1 02:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of RCA records artists

Removed this as it was a fairly short list of artists; some of them of major note, some not so major. If this was to be a complete list, it would bloat out the article far more than its benefit would justify, and if it isn't, what's the point of a list of *some* RCA artists?

What qualifies as an RCA records artist? One signed to RCA? Which RCA? One distributed by RCA? What if they were only distributed by RCA in some countries at some stage (e.g. ABBA)?

Fourohfour 12:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RCA Logos

The block letters RCA logo introduced in 1968 is used by Thomson. The original lighting bolt RCA logo is used by Sony BMG. Steelbeard1 15:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The circular lightning bolt logo is the "original" logo that was replaced by the newer 1968 logo as indicated above...the reverse of what is claimed in the page.

After GE split up RCA, BMG revived the "original" logo. Steelbeard1 19:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RCA and RCA Victor infoboxes

I would love to see infoboxes for the RCA Records, RCA Victor and RCA Red Seal labels, but the present layout consolidating all of RCA into one article makes it impractical today. Can the article be split so the recorded music operations can have infoboxes? Steelbeard1 11:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and placed the RCA Records infobox in the RCA article. I hope this will hasten the splitting up of the RCA article to make RCA Records a separate article. Steelbeard1 05:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make RCA Records a separate listing again.

With infoboxes being added to active record labels, we desperately need to make RCA Records a separate article instead of redirecting it to RCA. How can it be "unredirected"?

Agreed. We need to split RCA Records from the main RCA article. Steelbeard1 10:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a split box in the main article to try and fast forward the spinning off of RCA Records into a separate article. Steelbeard1 03:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The split is complete. RCA Records is now a separate article. Steelbeard1 19:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

some old rca memories

the round logo with the lighning bolt was affectionately referred to by employees in the 70's as "the rca meatball."

the tv labs in bloomington, indiana, developed a potential competitor for the beta tape system. it comprized a dual-reel cassette which had a clamshell door which protected the recording media. when inserted into the recorder/player, the door would be pulled open and the record/playback head would slide INTO the cassette, providing about a 120-degree or more wrap of the tape around the revolving head. unlike beta or vhs, virtually the only moving parts of this system were the tape and the reels. this was demonstrated to me in the mid-late 70's by Larry Smith. after the demo, i remarked to Larry that, not only would i buy one of these players immediately when it became available, i'd also buy a tv to use with it! it was that good!

the recording tape of that size and era was not of very high quality yet, and there would be blank spaces of insufficient oxide coating or other imperfections which caused sporadic white bars to blip onto the tv screen during playback. the rca engineers elegantly solved this problem by detecting the white spots and, where they occurred, replacing them, on the fly, with the same scan line from the previous frame! the "on-versus-off" comparison of that circuitry was breathtaking at the time. flip the switch: bars pop up every second or two. turn on the circuit: no white blobs at all! zero.

unfortunately, management at rca decided that it would be impossible to market such a player/recorder for less than a retail price point of about $1000.

ironically, the first beta and vhs machines came out in the $1200 or so range, as i recall. management had killed another potential market winner through ongoing lack of foresight and marketing guts. common, but sad. --24.163.113.113 01:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RCA has No 1-800 Number Support

... and that fact is not mentioned in the article. Sodlllop 15:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely irrelevant to the article. Steelbeard1 15:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction rewrite

I shortened the (long) introduction by moving the extra information to a 'Present' section. The introduction needs a rewrite because it only deals with the present status of RCA. It does not cover its past history (i.e, why it was a major corporation or past contributions that shaped the era) as well as briefly explain why and when it broke-up. Can someone who is more familiar with the subject rewrite it? Ǣ0 ƞS 08:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RCA

In Romania, RCA stands for Raspundere Auto Civila, which is a mandatory ensurance for automobiles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.34.163.6 (talk) 08:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a total rewrite

This article looks like it could use a total rewrite...the "History of RCA" seems to have a proseline, the lead section needs a total rewrite, and there's a "Trivia" section that still needs to be merged. Agreed? --Jacob Myers 21:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RCA (trademark)

This article is strictly about the company which existed from 1919 to 1986. As the brand is still being used by different companies, an article was created to cover the use of the RCA name today called RCA (trademark). All material (outside of incidental mention) about RCA products being made today will be reverted from this article. That material belongs in the RCA (trademark) article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RCA split off from GE and Westinghouse

In the Wikipedia article I see that RCA was created in part by GE and Westinghouse after WWI. Then later in the article around 1986 GE PURCHASED RCA. What gives?

I think the article can be improved by a knowledgeable writer discussing the 1930 consent decree that separated RCA from it's parents. From what I see there is currently no discussion of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.146.129 (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came to the article with the same question. Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A 1922 advertisement for RCA

Here is an ad from a 1922 Science and Invention magazine. The ad is public domain (pre 1923). If you need the logo in a separate image I can do that. SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Material on RCA products made after 1986 do not belong in this article.

I must state again that any material on RCA products made after GE acquired RCA do not belong in this article. If it is to be reinserted, it should go in the RCA (trademark) article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, any material about RCA branded products after 1986 belong in the RCA (trademark) article. I just moved info about ON Corporation taking over the RCA TV business to that article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diversification, divisionalization, GSD

I put in the head Diversification as a start for expansion of material that follows. I think names and activities of divisions should be mentioned. The list of other computer manufacturers had a serious omission -- DEC -- and it is still incomplete -- I think it is gratuitous. GSD was Graphic Systems Division, see e.g. page v of [3] The color scanner should be mentioned -- the Andy Warhol painted pig advertisement was sufficiently noteworthy to be included in major exhibition of posters at Victoria and Albert Museum in London. I hedged date of sale of GSD pending verifiable information. It needs mention in III article. The RCA Spectra computers were not just compatible -- they were clones -- Sarnoff was opposed to spending money on software development, and thought he could just run IBM systems on the Spectra's, hence the disastrous and failed catch up attempts. This is documented verifiably somewhere, but if anyone else is interested, please find it. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RCA as a company is defunct

I want to make it clear that Radio Corporation of America, aka RCA Corporation, no longer exists. I made changes to the article to make that more clear. The company was broken up in 1986 after General Electric took over RCA. The RCA trademark is owned by Technicolor SA which licenses the trademark to other companies which make and market products bearing the RCA name. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sketchy Quotation

"Television will never be a medium of entertainment". Do you have a source for this? Other than different webpages that simply repeat the same quote?

It feels a little wonky, like somebody just made up a companion piece for other famous "inaccurate predictions" quotes.

The language is perhaps a bit off: if Sarnoff were using "medium" in 1955 to describe means of communication maybe he wasn't as far behind the curve as one might think.

I'm not saying the quotation was definitely a fake, but there may be something fishy going on here.

Please try to source this quote so as to determine its legitimacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.104.9 (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RCA v. China

There was an arbitration before the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the 1930s. I only skimmed the front and the back of it, but it appeared that RCA claimed that China violated an agreement to the extent of a non-competition clause. China of course denied, though I'm not sure if they insisted that the contract with RCA didn't extend as RCA claimed (in which casek, RCA was pushing for a monopoly that didn't exist) or if they just felt that they didn't violate the agreement. Either way, the panel found in China's favor. This case may be made into it's own page, but RCA's attempt and failure on an issue that called upon the a well recognized international arbitration group, suggests it's worth including some of the particulars on this page. Hereis copy of the case in pdf format: RCA v. China. IMHO (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on RCA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Level 3 as a Spinoff?

The Later years section mentions that L3 Communications/L3 Technologies is a spin-off of RCA, but that disagrees with the information on the Level 3 page. I can't verify that L3 is actually related to RCA at all. GuyPaddock (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]