It's quite fascinating that this was not only possible with 1800's technology, but formed the basis of a successful business: "Vacuum-tube amplification would not be developed until the 1910s, so there were limited means for producing signals strong enough to be heard throughout the system. Therefore, for transmitting the news, announcers with especially loud voices — known as stentors — were hired and instructed to speak as forcefully as possible into specially designed double-receivers."
Wikipedia also talks about their sub growth: "Telefon Hírmondó began operations in 1893 with 60 subscribers, a total that grew to 700 in 1894, 4915 in 1895, 7629 in 1899, around 6200 in 1901, and 15,000 by 1907...The annual subscription price of the service was 18 krones (the price of 10 kg sugar or 20 kg coffee in Budapest at that time)."
Claude says retail for 20kg of coffee is $360 today. Assuming that's accurate, it would be equivalent to a service today selling at $30 / month. Some quick research shows Netflix's most expensive Premium plan costs $25 / month.
It's pretty interesting that in 1893 they could run the business sustainably (it survived until radio) at essentially the same price point as modern day, given they were producing all their own content (all live) and providing customers with hardware. Although I suppose they weren't building completely from scratch, they were using the existing telephone network for the actual physical layer connectivity.
Although I suppose they weren't building completely from scratch, they were using the existing telephone network for the actual physical layer connectivity.
Very impressive indeed (although maybe Coffee and Sugar were rarer back then), especially given that according to the article they did built their own infrastructure unidirectional lines at some point
I am Hungarian and "Telefon Hírmondó" translated to English is "Telephone News Teller" (or rather News-Teller, i.e. someone who is telling the news), not "Telephone Herald".
I might have gone with "crier" rather than "herald". That seems a little closer in terms of what the actual job consists of? But I agree that "herald" seems fine.
I am getting down-voted (for saying I did not know of this word, which is wild), but I asked a couple of people from the US and UK and they could not tell what it means, not without a dictionary.
It is a small sample, but you could ask your family and friends.
Plus, I still prefer something that most if not all people know: news-teller over herald, so I would have translated it to that.
“News-teller” is recognizably not standard English. In particular, we don’t commonly use “teller” in that way. No native English speaker would say “news-teller” in ordinary speech or writing.
“News teller” is blatantly non-standard English. It immediately reads as either a deliberate anachronistic affectation, or a bad literal translation (in this case, it is indeed the latter).
“News-Teller” are two English words that wouldn't be used together in that way, “Herald” is one English word and literally means what the naive combination of those two suggests, and is extremely commonly used in that sense in the name of news outlets (newspapers, etc.)
“Crier” is another pissibility with overlapping denotation that is also somewhat commonly seen in that context, “announcer” would work today in speech, but largely is a product of TV & radio so would be somewhat odd choice given the other options available.
I'm aware of that, but the term I'm familiar with is "crier". I've never heard "screamer" used in that sense. Wiktionary doesn't list such a usage; contrast with "crier" for which it is listed.
It's quite fascinating that this was not only possible with 1800's technology, but formed the basis of a successful business: "Vacuum-tube amplification would not be developed until the 1910s, so there were limited means for producing signals strong enough to be heard throughout the system. Therefore, for transmitting the news, announcers with especially loud voices — known as stentors — were hired and instructed to speak as forcefully as possible into specially designed double-receivers."
Wikipedia also talks about their sub growth: "Telefon Hírmondó began operations in 1893 with 60 subscribers, a total that grew to 700 in 1894, 4915 in 1895, 7629 in 1899, around 6200 in 1901, and 15,000 by 1907...The annual subscription price of the service was 18 krones (the price of 10 kg sugar or 20 kg coffee in Budapest at that time)."
Claude says retail for 20kg of coffee is $360 today. Assuming that's accurate, it would be equivalent to a service today selling at $30 / month. Some quick research shows Netflix's most expensive Premium plan costs $25 / month.
It's pretty interesting that in 1893 they could run the business sustainably (it survived until radio) at essentially the same price point as modern day, given they were producing all their own content (all live) and providing customers with hardware. Although I suppose they weren't building completely from scratch, they were using the existing telephone network for the actual physical layer connectivity.
I am Hungarian and "Telefon Hírmondó" translated to English is "Telephone News Teller" (or rather News-Teller, i.e. someone who is telling the news), not "Telephone Herald".
The verb "to herald" means to be a sign of something that is imminent.
But the noun "herald" literally means "official who tells the news"
So this still definitely checks out.
I might have gone with "crier" rather than "herald". That seems a little closer in terms of what the actual job consists of? But I agree that "herald" seems fine.
I have to be honest I have never heard of the word "herald" and I have been in many settings since I was a kid. I bet many natives are in my shoes.
If you're a native English speaker you've probably seen it, even if you didn't know what it meant.
A common context in which it's used is in the idiom "herald a new era" - here's a search: https://www.google.com/search?q="heralds+a+new+era" which shows that it's pretty common.
It's also used in the names of many newspapers around the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herald_(newspaper)
There's also the Christmas carol, "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hark!_The_Herald_Angels_Sing
But I suppose if you don't already know the word "herald" you might just put that down to weird religious language.
I am getting down-voted (for saying I did not know of this word, which is wild), but I asked a couple of people from the US and UK and they could not tell what it means, not without a dictionary.
It is a small sample, but you could ask your family and friends.
Plus, I still prefer something that most if not all people know: news-teller over herald, so I would have translated it to that.
“News-teller” is recognizably not standard English. In particular, we don’t commonly use “teller” in that way. No native English speaker would say “news-teller” in ordinary speech or writing.
A more idiomatic translation would be “reporter”.
if you're going to claim that something is not a valid translation of a word, you should probably know what it means first--duh?
“News teller” is blatantly non-standard English. It immediately reads as either a deliberate anachronistic affectation, or a bad literal translation (in this case, it is indeed the latter).
The downvoting patterns of HN are often disheartening and illogical af
“News-Teller” are two English words that wouldn't be used together in that way, “Herald” is one English word and literally means what the naive combination of those two suggests, and is extremely commonly used in that sense in the name of news outlets (newspapers, etc.)
“Crier” is another pissibility with overlapping denotation that is also somewhat commonly seen in that context, “announcer” would work today in speech, but largely is a product of TV & radio so would be somewhat odd choice given the other options available.
That's what a herald is in the literal sense - someone who is telling the news. Of course these days it is generally used metaphorically.
I might have gone with "crier" rather than "herald". That seems a little closer in terms of what the actual job consists of?
"Screamer" would work as well.
My Hungarian tells me "announcer" would be closer. It's literally someone who says the news.
> “Screamer" would work as well.
No it wouldn’t. A scream expresses extreme emotion or pain, it’s not just speaking loudly.
I've never heard of "screamer" in English for someone who tells the news?
This was before amplifiers were invented, so the announcer had to be very loud.
I'm aware of that, but the term I'm familiar with is "crier". I've never heard "screamer" used in that sense. Wiktionary doesn't list such a usage; contrast with "crier" for which it is listed.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/screamer https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/crier
I don't know about other places/communities - but in the Jewish Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) communities this is still in common use: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haredi_news_hotline
Electrically.