Stereo8 or "8track" in the vernacular of the time allowed for the selection between four stereo programs, not eight (there were two tracks per program).<p>One problem from a content standpoint was aligning songs within the fixed time provided by the loop. It was not uncommon for a song to span programs creating a break in the piece and a mechanical thunking sound. Compact cassette allowed more graceful handling of differences in the length of its programs (though not as graceful a handling as the LP format).<p>On the other hand, Stereo8 had an excellent functional interface. Loading and playing a tape was simpler than the LP which preceded it and the cassettes which followed.
Maybe it would have been more illustrative to pick something that wasn't actually a commercial success? :)<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8-track_tape#Commercial_success" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8-track_tape#Commercial_success</a>
> <i>I don’t know how Philips designed Compact Cassette, but if they were not purposedly user-centered, at least they had better luck.</i><p>If it wasn't luck, then Philips lost something along the way. In Dutch tech circles, Philips is infamous for continuously making exactly the fault that the RCA made in this article: too much invention, too little market research.