Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

XBox + UltimateTV for $500

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the integration-time-come-on dept.

Daetrin writes "Red Herring reports in this article that Microsoft is planing on combining the XBox with their UltimateTV Recorder with a projected final cost of about $500. The article also talks in some detail about the massive (though partially expected) losses that the XBox is costing Microsoft. There's also another article on Yahoo that sums up what Red Herring said."

127 of 297 comments (clear)

  1. Another hybrid machine by Black+Aardvark+House · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Again, they're complicating what is supposed to be blazingly simple. Console games are attractive to many for ease of operation.

    And to some, plunking down $500 may seem like a lot, people may decide to make separate purchses for a video game and PVR instead.

    Maybe Microsoft should be looking at their offering of games instead to see why they're losing the battle against sony and Nintendo.

    --

    I am the evil aardvark!

    1. Re:Another hybrid machine by Dark+Paladin · · Score: 2

      I hate to be the cruel one (well, no I don't), but I have to agree with this.

      For the most part, the games on the Xbox have been, well, rather weak compared to the other systems.

      For console gaming, it seems like Sony has the most games, Nintendo has the best games, while Xbox has the most mediocore (sp) games.

      That might change in the future, but I'm personally waiting for the Xbox to hit that magical $99 price range before I pick one up just for the 2 or 3 games (aka - Halo, since it looks like its never coming out for the Mac) that I really want to play on it.

      --
      52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
  2. In other news.... by T3kno · · Score: 4, Funny

    Root canal + Proctological Exam for $275

    --
    (B) + (D) + (B) + (D) = (K) + (&)
  3. Record gameplay by totallygeek · · Score: 3, Funny
    Yeah, but who wants to watch "movies" of their gameplay?

    --
    Click here or here.
    1. Re:Record gameplay by British · · Score: 2

      Go to http://www.drunkgamers.com. They have some funny quicktime movies of Halo(somewhere on the site). One of their favorite things to do is blow up a Warthog or two into the air with grenades, and then try to shoot it with a rocket launcher. Warthog skeet shooting!

    2. Re:Record gameplay by motardo · · Score: 2, Informative
      You mean this? http://halo.bungie.org/misc/warthogjumpmirrors.htm l

      They do all kinds of fun things with the warthogs.

    3. Re:Record gameplay by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "Yeah, but who wants to watch "movies" of their gameplay?"

      Recording and watching your own gameplay is more fun than you might think. Have you ever done this?

      Back in the day when I played Descent, I always recorded my daring escape from each mine from the time I blasted the reactor to my way out of the exit. They were a blast to re-record and re-watch.

      Did you ever use the replay mission command in Wing Commander II and such? What about reorded matches in Need for Speed III? This is the way I was able to re-watch the time I (as the cop) was able to stop my brother (the crook) by driving around the track in the opposite direction, going up a hill, hurling my car through the air and landing on top of him. And I was able to watch it from his perspective as well.

      Yes, replay demos are fun, especially at LAN Parties while you take a break to eat pizza.*

      * yeah yeah I know 'real' lan gamers eat WHILE they play

    4. Re:Record gameplay by sharkey · · Score: 3, Funny

      watch "movies" of their gameplay

      Maybe. Can you get Virtual Valerie on X-Box?

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    5. Re:Record gameplay by totallygeek · · Score: 2

      Recording and watching your own gameplay is more fun than you might think. Have you ever done this?


      No, but maybe that is because I only play Zork, Wizardry (yes, Proving Grounds) and BSD mille. God, I love Mille Bornes.

      --
      Click here or here.
    6. Re:Record gameplay by Latent+IT · · Score: 2

      Well, you could get your Tivo to record Svideo, albeit painfully. Just get converter from Svideo to RF, set it to channel 3, get a Y joint, and make it a second input to your Tivo's RF. That'll "work", but somehow I doubt you'd be happy with the results. =)

  4. Oh great by uradu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First, they were giving away hardware below cost. Now, they're giving away more hardware even more below cost. But I guess, in the grand old tradition of dot-coms, they'll eventually make it up in volume.

    1. Re:Oh great by Chazmati · · Score: 2

      I thought that selling below cost was illegal. Years back, in the pre-digital camera era--at least before digital cameras were popular and affordable at the consumer level--Fuji was getting into trouble for 'dumping' film in the US. The intent, of course, was to gain market share and eventually recap the loss. I remember because I grew up in Rochester, NY where Kodak was big. I suppose this was a US law to protect US businesses from foreign competition, and as such it wouldn't apply to a domestic business selling in the US.

      I know, I'm talking about completely different products, film is generally interchangeable from brand to brand and no one will notice the difference. Not so with gaming consoles.

    2. Re:Oh great by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2
      I remember because I grew up in Rochester, NY where Kodak was big. I suppose this was a US law to protect US businesses from foreign competition, and as such it wouldn't apply to a domestic business selling in the US.

      I believe that in that case the law in question was the notorious US 'anti-dumping' legislation. This allows pretty much any form of foreign competition to be labelled 'dumping' and protectionist tarifs applied.

      In the Kodak case the issue was that Fuji was selling film to supermarkets etc. who were then selling it as own branded products. This allowed Fuji to rapidly establish a national distribution channel that started to take business from Kodak's more expensive product. Kodak rang up its congressmen and asked what they were paying them for, a trumped up case was sent to the trade commission which decided for protectionism.

      It is the same thing with the steel tarifs. The US integrated steel producers are unecconomic for two reasons, first the companies never set up a proper pension fund so the companies have massive liabilities for pensions etc. for retirees, the second bigger problem is that mini-mill technology can produce steel for less than half the cost due to lower capital costs and the ability to blend in recycled steel.

      In practice US protectionism tends to only 'work' against Japan which has similar protectionist mechanisms. When the US imposed tarifs on Japanese film and supercomputers, Japan quietly retaliated in other areas. The recent steel tarifs are something of a novelty in that the Bushies took on the EU which is selectively retaliating, targetting companies in marginal states that made campaign contibutions to Bush and the GOP. Interesting thing is that there is some evidence that the big auto makers may be buying foreign steel anyway and refusing to place contracts with the US firms, reconning that their best long term strategy is to push the US suppliers under rather than have them lobbying against them.

      There are also anti-trust provisions that prohibit selling bellow cost for the purposes of driving competitors out of a market. But selling for a loss is OK if you are not a monopolist (which Microsoft is not in the video game sector) and also OK if done for a legitmate business reason. In the case of video games every company has a razor and blades business model in which the console is sold at a loss so that they can sell the games.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    3. Re:Oh great by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2
      I'll assume you mean 'work' as in doesn't work

      Well protectionism always 'works' in the sense that tarif barriers keep cheaper or better foreign goods out. But protectionism also leads to retaliation by the disadvantaged countries that costs US jobs and more importantly to higher US prices which also costs US jobs. In the case of steel a few thousand steel worker jobs are being saved at the cost of ten thousand workers in the car industry and other steel intensive industries. And on top of that consumers will be forced to pay higher prices which leads to inflation, higher interest rates and loss of jobs.

      Face it -- the current administration is moving America in a more and more isolationalist direction.

      I don't think it is isolationism so much as losing relevance. Whether the 'President' gets fast track negotiating authority or not is irrelevant now because whether or not he gets the authority the US is not a credible partner for trade negotiations. Bush has shown signs that he wants to walk the world stage as a major leader but at this point the only countries friendly to him are the UK, Israel and Afghanistan.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  5. Oh boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Massive" losses? I don't see "Massive" losses in the article. I see statistics describing a 3.3 billion loss over ten years, for a company that has 50 billion in the bank and is reportedly now getting a $10billion/yr net profit? That's not massive, not relatively.

    Of course, if regulators decide post-enron that balance sheets should be more explicit, and you suddenly have to do things like count employees as being paid even though you're paying them in stock options instead of money, some amount of that may evaporate.

    But either way. Microsoft has more than enough money to buy users. So they will. And it will be nothing more than a small wincing pain to them.

    1. Re:Oh boo hoo by Jason+Earl · · Score: 2

      That's what Bill Gates projected that the losses would be back in 1999. In other words, that's pulling numbers out of the clear blue sky. The article stated that Microsoft lost $750 million this fiscal year and is expected to lose $1.1 billion next fiscal year.

      In other words, if Microsoft expected to lose $3.3 billion over 8 years, then they are well on their way to doing far worse than they expected.

      As for the stock options, that's a completely different scandal. However, according to Bill Parish if Microsoft had to count stock options as expenses then they would actually be losing money. In other words that $40 billion that Microsoft has in the bank is money that it skimmed off the stock market, not money it made selling software.

    2. Re:Oh boo hoo by Jason+Earl · · Score: 2

      Because a large portion of Microsoft's employees benefits are through stock options Microsoft has far lower overhead than the would have if they paid their employees with actual money. That makes their stock look very desirable and guarantees that they a great deal of outside investment (which neatly solves the problem of having stock options that are an employee draw). The Economist, and Warren Buffet say it much better than I do. Here's an excerpt, the link is here.

      FASB did, however, manage to make firms include a footnote in their accounts detailing the share options awarded during the year. Smithers & Co., a research firm in London, calculated the cost of these footnoted options and concluded that the American companies granting them overstated their profits by as much as half in the financial year ending in 1998. In some cases, particularly that of high-tech firms (which tend to be generous with options), the disparity is even greater. For instance, Microsoft, the world's most valuable company, declared a profit of $4.5 billion in 1998; when the cost of options awarded that year, plus the change in the value of outstanding options, is deducted, the firm made a loss of $18 billion, according to Smithers.

      Some maintain that these numbers exaggerate the problem: there is genuine dispute over how best to calculate and account for the cost of executive options. But this is quibbling. Warren Buffett, a well-known American investor, put the case succinctly for tightening the rules on share-option schemes in the recent annual report of his investment company, Berkshire Hathaway. "Accounting principles offer management a choice: pay employees in one form and count the cost, or pay them in another form and ignore the cost. Small wonder then that the use of options has mushroomed," he observes. "If options aren't a form of compensation, what are they? If compensation isn't an expense, what is it? And, if expenses shouldn't go into the calculation of earnings, where in the world should they go?"

      It would seem that it's not such faulty logic after all.

  6. There's that myth again... by artemis67 · · Score: 2, Informative

    From the Yahoo/Reuters report:

    All three companies make losses on their hardware products, but make up those losses with sales of higher-margin software.

    Of course, only Microsoft is losing money on the X-Box, but the myth that all console makers routinely sell their hardware at a loss is pervasive. It just ain't so.

    1. Re:There's that myth again... by dfenstrate · · Score: 2

      You'll notice how Sega is no longer in the console business, and is now making games for Sony and Nintendo.

      Sega tried that method, and it blew up in their face. Microsoft is having a hard time with it, but they have so much cash they can take it for a while. Not that they'll ever make money on it though.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    2. Re:There's that myth again... by j0nb0y · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, Sony is also selling the ps2 at a loss. So, this is common for consoles. I believe Nintendo does make money from console sales though.

      --
      If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
    3. Re:There's that myth again... by gwernol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course, only Microsoft is losing money on the X-Box, but the myth that all console makers routinely sell their hardware at a loss is pervasive. It just ain't so.

      Okay, I'll bite. Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion? I'd like to believe you, but just stating it is hardly compelling. Any articles you can point us to? Recent financial statements from Sony or Sega that show this to be true?

      It may be a myth, but it certainly makes sense (its a variant of the razor-blades business strategy) especially in a market that is so competitive. It clearly used to be true, at least back in the days of 8-bit consoles, so why should we believe it is not true now? To debunk the myth you'll need to present some evidence.

      --
      Sailing over the event horizon
    4. Re:There's that myth again... by Fred+IV · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nah, Sony hit the break-even point for their hardware investment months ago. They're no longer taking a loss for console sales. Microsoft on the other hand...

      Dont take my word for it...seek the advice of the master:
      Gord speaks

  7. Isn't it already much cheaper? by falzbro · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Xbox had dropped in price to $199, obviously. If you are a new DTV subsciber, you can get an ultimateTV box for $100 or less in most cases.

    So, we're excited to pay twice as much now?

    1. Re:Isn't it already much cheaper? by cryptochrome · · Score: 2

      Videophiles may sneer at the convergence capabilities of these boxes (they did at the PS2's dvd capabilities) but the fact of the matter is they make sense. I don't want a half dozen boxes around my TV. That's a great way to blow the circuit breakers and eat up space and plugs I don't have. If it can be built all in one box (and it can, and since there are common technologies such as MPEG2 compression underlying these different devices the convergence boxes can be made relatively cheap and efficient compared to buying a bunch of them) then why not do so?

      --

      ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

  8. This is a good idea by joshamania · · Score: 2

    This may be the first somewhat innovative thing that M$ has done in a good long time. Unless innovation doesn't mean bringing things to market. I generally hate M$, but UltimateTV had two receivers before Tivo, still only costs $10/month (and they're still updating the software and coming out with new units).

    If I could throw my DVD player into the same unit as my DSS/PVR, that would kick so much ass. I use the PS2 as my DVD player right now, but I'd like to free up a digital audio port for a CD player or mp3 storage box for my stereo. I don't care if the PS2 is digital because I've still only seen one game mixed in 5.1, and that was only SOME of the cutscenes of Metal Gear Solid 2...mucho dissapointing (on the audio angle...otherwise, kick ass game).

    So what I get to do is buy the new UltimateTV/XBox thingy for $500 (or whatever) instead of buying a $1000 5.1 receiver with 4+ digital audio inputs on it. I like my receiver, and I don't want to buy a new one.

  9. New Xbox? by restauff · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "A machine that combines the features of the Xbox with UltimateTV" could mean one of two things. The way I understand it, you would have to essentially buy a new Xbox (if you already have one) when you purchase this device. Wouldn't it make more sense to provide expansion and upgrade features for the current Xbox, rather that incorporation its technology into a new device?

  10. Not something I would want at all... by bastard01 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am a current xbox owner, and although I really don't like microsoft at all because of what they have done to remove competition from the computing industry, the console seemed to be a really cool thing, that and I wanted to play halo within my lifetime. This type of thing is going to actually hurt them a lot more than it would help, because the majority of console gamers buy a system just for the task of playing games, not for recording television shows, or any other idiotic random task that they will come up with for the next versions, if they don't step up on the games, which is the most important aspect of console gaming, then they will lose all of their customers.

  11. Think of the new features! by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 2, Funny

    I, for one, think this is a great idea. A game console and digital VCR all in one. I'm *really* hoping that this will give us the ability to import actors from TV, movies and commercials into video games.

    Afterall, why should Austin Powers be the only one lucky enough to beat Britney Spears to a pulp...now you can import her into the fighting game d'jeur and beat-in her talentless ass or import her into Halo and blast her to smithereens!

    --
    Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
    1. Re:Think of the new features! by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 2
      "I, for one, think this is a great idea. A game console and digital VCR all in one. I'm *really* hoping that this will give us the ability to import actors from TV, movies and commercials into video games."

      Supposedly the next MPEG video compression standard will work by separating the video out into 'objects' and handling them individually. Honestly I see this idea of ripping characters from movies and putting them into video games feasable when done in league with the video codecs that are around the corner.

      Since I am at work, I will leave it up to the trolls to suggest what kind of mods you could make by taking characters from certain types of movies ;-)

  12. XBox -- UltimateTV Combo? by begonia · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We have a TIVO and a game box. But the TIVO's in the den and the Games are in the basement, and frankly, that's a pretty consistent division with all my friends. The two functions just target different audiences. I could see M$ stumbling badly on this.

    --
    RM
  13. Grand 'ol MS tradition by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seems that MS is trying to make it by heaping on the features. Not that this is a bad thing in itself but when you do so you have to make sure you don't lose direction.

    The product is controversial in part because it creates a conflict within the machine: will the game slow down so that the hard drive can record "BattleBots"? Balancing the needs of gamers and general users will not be easy.

    Why not throw in some word processing capabilities for another couple hundred? Add a CD-R and printer so you can printout docs and scoresheets and copy saved games (of course a DRM drive). MS has too be careful they don't start to lose direction and the XBox no longer becomes a gaming console and starts to lose its user freindliness (never used one so I don't know what the environment is like). Perhaps the console market will turn out to be a market where feature bloat isn't as nearly a good thing.

    --
    I stole this Sig
    1. Re:Grand 'ol MS tradition by cryptochrome · · Score: 2

      Your typical PVR drive can record and/or play up to three digital streams at a time (based on DirecTivo's capabilities). With multiple or faster drives you could presumably do more. Recording a digital stream on a drive should also not consume much if any processing power. Thus you could probably play the game while recording at least one show, though if you have more set there might be problem.

      --

      ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

    2. Re:Grand 'ol MS tradition by Jason+Earl · · Score: 2

      That's fine for recording your television shows, but what happens if Mom wants to actually watch the Oprah reruns she recorded earlier. Convergence seems like a good idea if you are targetting families with only one television set, but most folks with children actually have a separate television for the kids to play games on.

    3. Re:Grand 'ol MS tradition by cryptochrome · · Score: 2

      Well, lots of folks aren't using their various boxes with multiple TV sets, because lots of folks only have one TV, and don't want anymore. That's why we need ever-larger stands to put our home theaters in. My family didn't have more than one TV, neither does my brother. That's a big market. Furthermore, their are a lot of singles and couples out there who don't have a need for more than one TV but do want all the different stuff. Lots of game systems are sold to adults too, particularly young adults, who are likely to be single.

      Plus, kids can record shows too (if you make it simple enough). They certainly watch a lot of recorded stuff. A PVR might even mitigate their TV watching habits to just a few (parent-approved) shows.

      --

      ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

    4. Re:Grand 'ol MS tradition by Jason+Earl · · Score: 2

      There are two major problems with your argument, the first is that according most surveys there are an average of 2.5 to 3 televisions in most U.S. homes. I also have only one television, but it would appear that we are the exception to the rule. The second major problem is that most single adults are also fairly cost concious. If the XBox/UltimateTV combo debuts at $500 then it is more expensive than purchasing both an UltimateTV and an XBox at current prices.

      In other words, the only market for this convergent box is people that don't own an UltimateTV or an XBox, only have one television, and are so concerned about how their entertainment center looks that they aren't interested in saving $100.

      Something tells me that Microsoft is going to have a hard time marketing their newest contraption.

    5. Re:Grand 'ol MS tradition by cryptochrome · · Score: 2

      1) Ultimate TVs recievers are sold at a loss and require a monthly service charge.
      2) $500 is too much, unless it comes with significantly enhanced features (i.e. DVD capability is standard and good quality, hard drive is relatively large for pvr, internet capabilities, relatively low/no monthly fee, novel parent-friendly control, and/or can act as a digital reciever). Even then $500 is a lot for one consumer item, even a flexible one like that. Bringing it down in price to $400 or less may be a must.
      3) The gamebox buying single young adults I know frequently blow their money on expensive electronics gadgets (often they can't really afford them but they do). It's easy for them since they don't have kids.
      4) Statistical averages don't tell you anything about the distribution of values. There are lots of folks who would like all these capabilities to be associated with one TV.

      --

      ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

  14. Sound Familiar? by dfn5 · · Score: 2

    Microsoft started bundling IE with Windows and look at the trouble they got into. Maybe someone should drop a line to the Justice Dept. about this.

    --
    -- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
    1. Re:Sound Familiar? by WinDoze · · Score: 2

      I'm still pissed I never found the "Windows-and-Ham-Sandwich" bundle that Monkey-Boy Ballmer was talking about. I want that sandwich damnit!

  15. Console and PVR! by Titusdot+Groan · · Score: 2, Funny

    A gaming console and a PVR in one? CoOOOOol.
    Oh, it's from Microsoft ... Arrg!

    Get thee behind me Satan and tempt me not!

  16. What about upgrade cycles? by Zelet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't people (generally younger people) like to replace their console much more often then they would replace a tv-recorder? It seems to me like you are getting locked in to two separate pieces of hardware that have very different upgrade/replace cycles.

    Also, with dual-use systems you generally save money, but in this case I'm not seeing a huge amount of savings. What are the benefits? Save a little space? What about when you replace your Xbox and have to keep the old one around as your tv-recorder. Maybe I am missing something, but it doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

    --
    ...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
    1. Re:What about upgrade cycles? by Jason+Earl · · Score: 2

      It gets worse. I wonder what happens when Mom wants to watch Oprah reruns and Junior wants to play Halo II? In household with more than one television this isn't a problem, but when your DVR and your game console are the same machine it makes it much harder to share.

      The only reason that Microsoft is actually planning such a stupid move is that they are currently losing billions of dollars per year on the XBox. Microsoft has to do something or their investors will start to realize that their money is being flushed down the crapper. Xbox is supposed to be the next big growth market for Microsoft.

    2. Re:What about upgrade cycles? by sean23007 · · Score: 2

      Actually, when a younger person (I mean very much younger) tries to get one of these consoles, or any console for that matter, they have to convince their parents that it's worth it. The parents ask questions like "Will it still be as good in 5 years?" "Are you going to want to just get the next one that's a little better?" With a built in TV-recorder, it adds some amount of legitimacy to the device (in the minds of parents) that it lacked earlier. When a mother buys this for her son, she knows she can also use it herself, and that it will last longer.

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    3. Re:What about upgrade cycles? by Jason+Earl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is some chance that Microsoft could salvage XBox if they are able to sign up a significant number of people on their upcoming subscription-based gaming network. However, Microsoft loses too much money on the hardware to ever make a profit on the software at current prices. Current royalties per game are generally below $10. So Microsoft has to sell a whopping fifteen games over the life of the console before it starts to see any profit. What's worse, is that Microsoft has already squeezed all of the price out of the XBox, and they are still selling at a huge loss. Nintendo is actually making money on their console, and Sony is breaking even, and both of these companies are going to be able to save money down the line by integrating the chips in their consoles.

      In other words, Sony and Nintendo both have the power to go to war with Microsoft on price and still make money, and they will be able to make Microsoft bleed for years. A year from now Sony and Nintendo will really be able to punish Microsoft. The price of making an XBox is only going to drop $100 over the next five years.

      Now, if Microsoft can get a significant number of current XBox owners to sign up for their gaming network, then they are in the clear. Plenty of companies have used subsidized hardware to sell internet service. Over time the subscription model would generate enough money to cover the initial cost of the hardware. The dodgy bit is that Microsoft is essentially betting billions of dollars on the success of their gaming network. As things stand now an Xbox gamer that purchases an XBox and ten games, but does not sign up for the online gaming network, causes Microsoft to lose money. In fact, the numbers are so bad for Microsoft that I can't quite figure out why they don't require a subscription. They can't possibly believe that they are going to make up their hardware subsidy with game royalties at the current price structure.

      In the end I think that Microsoft is going to end up taking a bath on the XBox. Sure, they can afford to lose money on the XBox, but I could also afford to give my house away and live in a box. Being able to afford something doesn't make it good business.

    4. Re:What about upgrade cycles? by Zelet · · Score: 2

      The box will let you record/play like a PVR, it'll play DVD's, it'll write DVD's, it'll do movies on demand, it'll do all the MP3 library stuff for music.

      That is a really great idea, and I would love to see it, but if I spent $500 on a machine to do all of this (probably more) I would want to make sure that it will still be useful in 10 years. The problem with this is that the technologies that you mentioned (MP3, DVD burner, playing DVDs) might not be around in 10, 5, or even 3 years from now. I just think that technology moves to fast to start dropping huge amounts of money into combined systems. I would rather spend a little at a time then be able to upgrade the parts when the new "hot thing" comes out.

      To help illustrate what I mean... imagine this:

      You buy the combo unit, in 3 years DVD writers are 10X faster and 60% cheaper (very likely) you want to replace it, but the movie DVD format is going to be replaced a year after that. Plus, you also heard that a new audio compression technology is going to be released just two years after the replacement for DVD is released.

      What do you do? Do you wait for all three? Do you start buying components again? That is the dilemma. The technology is just too volatile.

      --
      ...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
    5. Re:What about upgrade cycles? by Jason+Earl · · Score: 2

      I agree that Microsoft is now trying to expand interest in the XBox. The question is, what do they plan on selling that will make up for the huge subsidy that Microsoft has to overcome to make the XBox a contender in the gaming market?

      The reason that Microsoft is looking for new markets is because it is clear that Microsoft is going to lose their shirt selling XBoxes unless something comes along to pull their yams out of the fire. That's part of the reason that the Ultimate TV convergence is so stupid. Taking one product that is bleeding cash and adding another product that is bleeding cash (and selling it for far more than the competition) is not likely to be a very good long range strategy. Especially if you consider all of the people that have a special TV just so the kids can play games while Mom is watching Oprah (fat lot of good your convergent PVR/console is going to do you in that case).

      The fact of the matter is that the "home entertainment market" is dominated by devices that sell for less than $100 at your local Wal-Mart. Microsoft doesn't want to be in that business, and they probably couldn't compete with those companies if they tried. The margins are too thin, and the competition too fierce.

      Now, Microsoft could possibly try and turn the XBox into a PC competitor, but if they tried that then you can bet that Compaq, Dell, Gateway, and the rest of the PC OEMs would have a cow. All of a sudden StarOffice would come standard on every PC sold. Personally I would like to see Microsoft try and compete with Dell, that would be hilarious.

    6. Re:What about upgrade cycles? by tshak · · Score: 2

      A lot of your data is wrong based on my sources (I know ppl in redmond). An no, I do not consider Mr. Gord and his speculative rants to count as a source :-).

      Current royalties per game are generally below $10.

      I've seen and heard of so many numbers regarding this it's not even funny. Again, most of it is speculation, but I guaruntee that most 3rd party titles are not below $10, and most 1st party titles (which have been selling extremely well) earn much more.

      Microsoft has already squeezed all of the price out of the XBox, and they are still selling at a huge loss.

      Yes, they are taking a loss. The latest numbers "speculate" $150 per box. Other then the GPU most parts will be going down over time - especially since the XBox "rev 2" will be hitting the streets in less then 12 months (similar to the PS2 "rev 2"). What's more interesting, is that many specualte that the PS2 "rev 2" is still loosing a little bit of money, unlike your claim. I could go on, but your entire arguments of the XBox being a horrible business venture is based on speculation not fact. I wouldn't underestimate this initiative. MS is recieving a lot of pessimism because they are the new kid on the block, but most of it is unwarrented.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
  17. tivo would be nice by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 2

    but right now I would really like some more games for the thing...

  18. Killer app by Tune · · Score: 2, Funny

    Probably a stupid suggestion, but I wonder...

    If
    XBox + UltimateTV = KillerApp
    Then
    Massive loss + massive loss = big bucks?

    How do all these poor Microsoft share holders make a living?

    1. Re:Killer app by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      How do all these poor Microsoft share holders make a living?

      I'm sure the 10 billion dollars that MS makes in profit annually does something to reduce their pain.

  19. who are they targetting? by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

    With older tivo's available at bargan basement prices of $99 to $150 and many other alternatives available, who are they after? The parents surely dont want the kids to have their own pvr or spend that money on them... the hardcore adult gamer is a very small segment of the total console gamer population (Look nintendo is targetting kids... little kids... there's a reason for this) Along with this the PVR market is having trouble... most stores are dropping PVR's (you cant get a tivo in best buy or circuit city anymore...) as the sales are prett much over with.. everyone who wanted a pvr has one, everyone else isnt buying them or are waiting for someone to make one that doesnt require a service.. (Do NOT tell me the Tivo will work without it.. until they give me a way to set the clock without having it ever dial in to the company with all my viewing habits I dont want their crap.) or who look at the device and say.. "MY $99.00 VCR does that. why should I buy something expensive that I cant just keep that tape of that show/movie/porn feature?"

    I really want to know what they think will gravitate people to this? they killed the Ultimate TV project because of dismal sales.. do they think that combining a poor selling product to a good selling product will result in a stellar product?

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:who are they targetting? by King_TJ · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, I tend to agree with the original poster (although I can't really speak for why PVR's aren't available at Best Buy and the like -- maybe they are just always running out of stock?).

      I'm starting to get really touchy about paying any more money out for subscription type services, and that's a big reason why I haven't bought a PVR. In today's society, we're expected to spend an awful large chunk of our monthly income on services. When you sit down and look where your money is going, it's rather scary.

      I'm paying out $50 a month for my DSL circuit, another $30-50 for my analog phone line it runs through, $30 a month for my cellphone (more if I use it too much), $25 a month for my DirecTV subscription, $10 a month for a basic "EasyNews" subscription so I can download binaries from Usenet reliably and quickly, and am doing a free trial of the $19.95 per month NetFlix service to rent DVD movies by mail. Of course, none of this includes the "essential" utilities like gas, electricity, water, sewer, and trash pickup -- which are still services that disappear as soon as you quit paying for them.

      Everything's always "only $10 a month!" or whatever, and before you know it - you're talking thousands a year in these non-essential services, chipping away at your income.

      IMHO, the PVR thing is a neat idea - but really, could have been implemented a lot better if they got "buy-in" from the TV/cable/satellite networks. They cold broadcast some hidden data along with their signals that PVRs pick up -- eliminating the need for a service run by the PVR makers to give them their "brains".

  20. Multi Function Devices never work... by Codex+The+Sloth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But what happens when you want the new XBox III -- time for a new PVR I guess. Sounds like the TV + VCR combo that everyone hates...

    --
    I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you ... oh wait, I'm #93427. Ha ha! In your face #93428!
  21. desperate attempt? by tezzery · · Score: 2

    with all the news of the poor xbox sales and the big lead that tivo has over microsoft's ultimateTV device, i have to admit this seems like a desperate attempt to boost their sales by combining both products. give it a couple of months and they'll want to throw in webtv with the package.

    1. Re:desperate attempt? by motardo · · Score: 2

      Nothing will ever unseat the almighty TiVo! But seriously, I love my TiVo. I played around with an UltimateTV device like a year ago, it sucked.

  22. Gimme more by duckpoopy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Add in a microwave oven and you've got a deal.

    --
    word.
  23. One way to validate the myth... by Cutriss · · Score: 2

    Include R&D costs in the price of the console. Most console build-prices only take into account the labor and parts that go into it, not the research and development efforts that have been conducted over at least two years prior to the launch of the console.

    On the other hand, Microsoft didn't exactly do any R&D on the console itself, so much as how to apply it. When it came down to designing the console, they probably could have just as easily had Dell build them ten million Xboxes...

    --
    "Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
  24. I like it, but... by EnglishTim · · Score: 2

    Wouldn't these two be better seperated? Will I be able to record while gaming? What if the game I am playing is making heavy use of the harddrive? even with two hardrives I would imagine that if both functions (gaming/dvr) are being maxxed out there could be a problem...

    Also, what happens if a game crashes the console? - it's not like crashes on console games are unheard of - on any platform...

    1. Re:I like it, but... by jlower · · Score: 2

      Hmmm - my TiVo has no trouble recording one show while playing back another. If there's a co-processor to handle the compression for the video it ought to be easily done.

      But ... that X-Box is going to need a MUCH bigger hard drive if it's going to be useful as a PVR.

  25. Microsoft should learn from Nintendo's example.... by Rahga · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While we had the NES, Nintendo had the Family Computer. During the 80's, Nintendo's Famicom could hook up to a disk reading system, a keyboard with a tape drive, microphones, digital punching bags, and typing tutors....

    The similarities between the Famicom and X-Box don't end there.

    Sharp partnered with Nintendo quite a bit before casting their lot with the X68000.... besides releasing a combination Disk System/Famicom (the Twin Famicom) and a TV with a Famicom built-in, they even released a combination Famicom/Video Titling unit. Of course, the coolest thing about this unit happened to be that it was the only Famicom with S-Video out.

    Anyway, Nintendo learned and evolved. Though they could do some amazing things with technology at the time, they learned that treating a video game system as a component of a constantly changing entertainment system was the way to go. They are sticking to this way of thinking with the gamecube. One box meant to do one thing. You should neve have to buy anything besides memory cards, controllers, and games for it, because the market simply won't support much more than that in the long run.

    I have a feeling Nintendo knows the game market much better than Microsoft does, and slightly better than Sony does.... if nothing else, they know that gameplay rules, and if Sony's developers don't keep producing games that match Nintendo's consistent level of quality, customers won't keep buying Playstation titles. Nintendo's in-house titles were matched in closest by Sega, and the Gamecube shows that Nintendo learned from Sega's mistakes in the hardware department.

  26. Console cost reduction... by aron_wallaker · · Score: 4, Informative

    Interesting - Sony & Nintendo designed their units from scratch so as they ramp up their production volume of custom chips they get sizable decreases in cost.

    Microsoft went with mostly standard parts which already had sizeable production volumes, so there wasn't nearly as much room for their cost to drop down. Even worse, their CPU speed is now lower than anything sold in the PC market, so Intel is seing overall volumes of that chip drop, meaning costs can't get any lower. Likewise the small (by PC standards) hard-drive they use. RAM prices were dropping but have slowed lately. Throw in the custom video/audio/system chip that NVidia did for them - for which NVidia & MS are in court over chip pricing - and that's the bulk of the cost.

    Maybe it's just me, but it looks like MS painted themselves into a corner. Because so many of their components were already "volume-discounted" from day one they have far less room to lower costs. Meanwhile Sony is supposed to combine the two main chips in the PS2 into a single chip to drive down costs even more - something I don't think MS could get NVidia & Intel to do - and I think MS has a lot more pain to come.

    1. Re:Console cost reduction... by Jason+Earl · · Score: 2

      A sane company would go back to the drawing board, sunk costs or no. Unfortunately, Microsoft has been telling investors that video games would be the next Microsoft growth market. My guess is that they are going to keep up this fiction long enough so that they can sell their Microsoft stock.

    2. Re:Console cost reduction... by guttentag · · Score: 3, Funny
      ...it looks like MS painted themselves into a corner
      Not to worry. When Bill Gates paints himself into a corner, he just knocks down the wall behind him and starts painting his neighbor's apartment.
    3. Re:Console cost reduction... by guttentag · · Score: 2

      Correction: When Bill Gates paints himself into a corner, he knocks some holes in the wall, calls them windows, and uses them to climb into his neighbor's apartment and keep painting.

    4. Re:Console cost reduction... by sean23007 · · Score: 2

      That makes me ask the question: what if Microsoft were to just use the bottom rung of Intel's production line at any given time, and put in the cheapest hard drive they can find? I mean, other than the fact that it might cause incompatibilities between the systems, but MS could probably figure out a software patch to fix that. Their costs would decrease at about the same rate they are now, and the Xbox would get more powerful at the same time. The biggest problem with this is that it would convince people not to buy an Xbox now, but instead wait until it gets that new processor.

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
  27. Doesn't include any profits by DinZy · · Score: 2

    If M$ sells alot of games then the hardware loss is moot because it is more than made up for. Unfortunatley for them people like me only want one to play DivX movies and other media files.

  28. The article makes it clear... by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "The product is controversial in part because it creates a conflict within the machine: will the game slow down so that the hard drive can record "BattleBots"?"

    A game machine is not a PC. It's a game machine. A game machine doesn't want to be $500. A game machine doesn't want to be interrupted by non-gaming experiences. Remember the CD-I (Phillips) or the 3DO? A game machine aspires to being played, that's it.

    Microsoft: Halt development of the combo unit, and pump the money into having games made for the XBOX. I don't have an XBOX today because I'm not wild about the game selection on it. Building a PVR into it will not save you, not for $500.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
    1. Re:The article makes it clear... by NanoGator · · Score: 2

      "Why do you think they care? They are developing a different market, of which 'game console' is just a part."

      That's an interesting question. Why would they care? Well let me ask you something: You're shopping for a PVR. Is the one that costs $50-$100 extra because it has some capability of playing games interesting to you? If you already have an XBOX, do you want to pay a higher price to play those games on it?

      Do you know anybody who bought a DVD player that has NUON hardware in it?

      Thanks for providing the alternative perspective, I hadn't thought of it from the non-gamer point of view. I think it's going to be a tough sell.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
  29. already been done by oliverthered · · Score: 2

    divx

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  30. Re:Xbox II out in 2006 by mickeyreznor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A better question would be whether shareholders will dump stock once they hear an announcement about another financial disaster.

    --

    Got Freedom?
    Thinking?

  31. Re:YEAH!! by ranulf · · Score: 2
    This seems like an excellent strategy on Microsoft's part. And your comment helps explain why:

    Microsoft loses money on every XBox they sell!

    Really? I heard they were losing around $100 on every X-box when the retail price was around $300.

    Solution: re-assign a bunch of programmers for a few months to develop some extra software at fixed cost, and now charge $500 per unit. So, even if you never buy any games, they're still making a profit on the initial sale. Smart move -- they can now market the combined product cheaper than another console + Tivo.

  32. Of course they are. by cryptochrome · · Score: 2

    When Microsoft was announcing the dissolution of the UltimateTV team back in January, and reassigning them to the Xbox team, it was pretty obvious what was going on. It was to me.

    --

    ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

  33. Aren't there laws agains dumping? by qweqwe · · Score: 2

    Aren't there laws against dumping?
    http://www.investorwords.com/d4.htm#dump ing

    All companies sell below cost from time to time to clear inventory and once and a while they sell things at or below cost for limited promotional periods. But when losses are expected to be extended for long periods of time so as to hurt the competition, you have a clear case of dumping.

    IANAL, so I don't know if the U.S. has domestic dumping laws, but they definitely have dumping laws on exports, as do many other countries. This has the beginnings of a very strong international case against Microsoft.

    1. Re:Aren't there laws agains dumping? by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      Doubt it'd be easy to enforce, even if there are laws against it... someone'd already have hit MS for giving away IE (unless IE cost them nothing to make)

  34. The Swiss Army Knife Effect by EXTomar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Black Aardvark is describing this problem exactly.

    The Swiss Army Knife Effect is when designers see a group of disparate things that have some sort of likeness and try to stick them together. The problem is when you stick them together you get a chimera instead of a value added tool. A Swiss Army Knife may have a screwdriver, a scissor, and a knife but none of them are really that good to use and often times you find yourself looking for the seperate tools to complish your task.

    Could you put together a computer with just your Swiss Army Knife? Sure...the tools are all there but they don't perform as well as finding them tools seperately. You'd be better off gathering the tools and leave the Swiss Army Knife to emergency usage(ie. think MacGyver).

    I am leary of spending $500 for a machine that is that is nearly as good as a Tivo and nearly as good as a console. For me to buy the machine it has to be just as good as both otherwise it is a waste of money.

    1. Re:The Swiss Army Knife Effect by Target+Drone · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Imagine, you can still play Halo even when your favorite show is on because its being recorded for you to watch after you've blown some shit up.

      I know the XBox is a nice stable platform but to get a PVR integrated into it will be difficult. The OS will have to guarantee that the PVR will get every time slice it needs. Otherwise when you load a new level in Halo and the PVR losses a couple time slices you'll end up with a hiccup in your recording. Plus the OS will have to be rock-solid so that on the off chance your game crashes it won't bring down the PVR as well.

      It would seem a lot easier to just create two separate devices:

      • A simple but rock-solid PVR
      • A complex and almost rock-solid game console.
    2. Re:The Swiss Army Knife Effect by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 2

      Imagine, you can still play Halo even when your favorite show is on because its being recorded for you to watch after you've blown some shit up.

      Imagine losing both the new episode of "The Sopranos" and your high score in Halo because the XBox decided it needed a reboot.

      If the damned thing were reliable, maybe your argument would hold water.

      - A.P.

      --
      "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
  35. Not without my TV!!! by TheLoneCabbage · · Score: 3, Insightful


    Look, I'm rather happy about the fact that my TV doesn't have a "boot time". It always works. Really, every day. It doesn't need extra memmory if I want to watch the latests Star Wars, and it NEVER CRASHES! As a matter of fact, the only things more reliable than my TV in my house is my carpet and toilet paper. (seriously, even a door knob breaks more often than a TV!)

    I DO NOT WANT M$ ON MY TV!!! It works great people, it does everything it was ever intended to do! Don't F#CK with it!!

    --
    I would rather be ashes than dust!
    1. Re:Not without my TV!!! by Raptor+CK · · Score: 2

      You're clearly not on Time-Warner cable. The TV itself is reliable, it's the damn signal over the wire that decides that it doesn't need to come over. Which of course makes my TV a large box of plastic and glass, and my TiVo useless.

      Somehow, for $55 a month (Basic cable and TiVo) I'd expect more than the ability to timeshift static.

      --
      Raptor
      "Procrastination is great. It gives me a lot more time to do things that I'm never going to do."
  36. Gives Sony a legitimate trade beef, doesn't it? by dpbsmith · · Score: 2

    If a U. S. company is selling for substantially less than the cost of goods, and keeps doing it for an extended period of time (so it's obvious that it's a strategy and not just a mistake or a fluke)... and the U. S. doesn't stop Microsoft from doing it... doesn't this give Sony a totally legitimate grievance against the United States?

    Going to make it harder to complain when Japan does the same thing to us, isn't it?

    --

    "How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!

  37. stil waiting... by paradesign · · Score: 2
    im stil waiting for a reason to get an x box. i havent seen a game that i just must have. to tell you the truth im content with my Dreamcast, because frankly it has better games than any of the three "current" systems, although there are a few exceptions. as for "h4x0r" add ons go to dcemulation.com. the only reason im getting a PS2 this weekend is so i can have a DVD player other than my computer.

    the xbox hasnt sold me yet, let me know when theres something game related that comes up that might change my mind.

    --
    I want 2D games back.
  38. The tech can work with any digital service by cryptochrome · · Score: 2

    The system should be easily adaptable to digital satellite, digital cable, and video on demand. In fact AFAIK they all use the same MPEG2 video standards as DVDs, just different transmission mediums, and coordinating the service with a single satellite broadcast is much easier than with a host of terrestrial ones. It could even be used with analog, although that would require an expensive converter or two. Ultimately this could be used to help push digital broadcasts into the mainstream (though it'd be a lot faster to just lower the damn prices).

    --

    ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

    1. Re:The tech can work with any digital service by cryptochrome · · Score: 2

      You can't, probably because those boxes are currently being used as revenue streams (and thus impeding the adoption of digital tech) and also subject to petty attempts at monopolization by their manufacturers cutting deals with the cable monopolies. But the underlying chips and tech are the same, and if they ever got their asses together it would be trivial to make a box that would support any of the various standards, or standardize them all. A big but relatively independent player like microsoft could make it happen. They could even consolidate billing and lump together services. They could also maintain different options - a series of game consoles that maintain backwards pvr capability, and cheaper pvr-only consoles that are upgraded much less frequently, both of which include digital reciever/converter functions.

      Plus if you're using comcast like me (not that I have another option) you'd know that they're pushing digital like crazy. If it weren't so much more expensive it might even catch on, and if they wanted to they could force a digital upgrade since a) they have a local monopoly on cable b)broadcast reception 'round here is a total joke, and c)the guvmn't is trying to push digital broadcast and HDTV too.

      --

      ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

  39. What, are you high? by joshamania · · Score: 2

    http://www.bestbuy.com/detail.asp?e=11122313&m=1&c at=1551&scat=245

    Bestbuy.com...tivo, $399. What kinda crack are you anti-pvr types smoking? PVR is the coolest thing in the world.

    If you're going to say stupid shit like the PVR market is in trouble, you better be able to back it up.

  40. XBox: How long can it defy the laws of economics? by bryanbrunton · · Score: 5, Interesting


    The XBox really really is amazing. Here we have a product that defies the laws of economics. At this point its just a matter of how much money Gates and Ballmer can stand to lose. Its an ego thing. Every other company on the face of the planet would drop a money losing project like the XBox as fast as possible. The world is filled with companies that are not named Microsoft which have stock holders and corporate boards that actually have influence over the decisions of executive management. Not so with Microsoft.

    We all know that XBox is finished in Japan. If Microsoft is lucky they will manage to sell their original shipment of 250,000 Japanese XBoxes before the end of this year.

    http://www.the-magicbox.com

    The XBox is in the process of dying in Europe. Just look at the European software charts. The XBox has just one exclusive game in the top 20:

    http://www.elspa.com

    And now one of MS game developer partners has pressured MS into allowing it to publish title for the Nintendo GameBoy:

    http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/020625/tech_thq_microsof t_ 1.html

    Is there anyone out there who will force Gates and Ballmer to come to their senses? Or would dropping the XBox at this point be such a face losing position for Microsoft that they have no choice but to keep throwing money at it?

  41. Microsoft math....ugh by dackroyd · · Score: 2, Informative

    First up here's a Karma-whoring link to an in depth article about the profit/loss of each company selling games consoles:

    http://www.actsofgord.com/Proclamations/chapter0 2. html

    Secondly I don't really believe either Microsofts maths for the Xbox, or Dean Takahashi's (he was the author of 'Opening the Xbox', which is alledgedly an outside view of the Xbox development process, but is actually really only about glorifying Seamus Blackley, one of the original xbox designers).

    The article claims that each Xbox cost $325 (which is below the $375 that other analysts have come up with), and that each Xbox is sold to retail at $175, leaving a massive margin of $24 or 12% for the shop, which is much below the 15-20% that shops expect.

    Also none of Mr Takahashi's articles (or any others) mention the huge bribes^H^H^H, joint marketing schemes that Microsoft makes available to companies that want to develop Xbox games. I've heard rumours from a company that I used to work for (codemaster.com) that Microsoft would give up to $3 million for a game to be ported to the xbox, mulitply that by 100 games that they want, and you've got a whole load of cash.

    But anyway I doubt real figures for how much the Xbox costs microsoft will ever come out, as they have enough accountants to obsure the real figure, from their shareholders, who ought to be asking why Microsoft are willing to spend $4-6 billion, when most of the games industry have always said that they never had a chance to beat Sony.

    --
    "Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
  42. Pinching Microsoft's Wallet by Tarindel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I see a lot of comments here saying "Buy an Xbox and cost Microsoft $150! This is great! We get a cool machine and hurt Microsoft!". Let's do a little math here. Now that you have a cool machine, you're probably going to buy a few games for it (and maybe a 2nd controller), cutting Microsoft's losses a little.

    Since Microsoft has sold between 3.5 and 4 million XBoxes to date, let's assume that we get 4 million evil Slashdotters to buy Xboxes. Lets also say that all of your slashdotters are SO evil that you're not even going to buy any games for your XBoxes. 4 Million consoles * $150 loss/console = $600 million loss for Microsoft. While this seems like a lot in pure monetary terms, this is a drop in the bucket for a company with $42 billion in cash reserves.

    Continuing our scenario, game companies are going to see the number of consoles sold increase. They're also going to see that each console buyer is purchasing many fewer games on average, but since some of you are going to end up buying a few games for your new XBoxes the overall raw volume of games sold is going to increase. That means they're going to have more incentive to produce games for the Xbox, which is going to fuel legitimate sales.

    If you really want to see Microsoft out of the console-space, buy a PS2 or Gamecube instead. Give game developers incentive to develop for the other machines instead of the Xbox and the Xbox will wilt.

  43. not a good idea by asv108 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    All these convergence ideas sound great at first but after awhile they don't make any sense. The problem with having a PVR and the Xbox put together is that the parents usually put the video games in another room so the kids won't bother them while they are watching TV. I don't know how this will work but if you can't record tv and play video games at the same time, they might as well toss this idea. The second thing is I realize PVR's are great and lots of people on here have them, but I have yet to see one person I know in the flesh buy a PVR. Maybe I just have white trash friends or maybe people think PVR's + a monthly subscription are way too much to watch the crap on TV. So that brings me to my third point, most of the people who have PVR's now will not buy this device because they will always want the latest and greatest technology or they already have an Xbox+PVR in the house.

    Personally, I have a Netflix membership that lets me take out 5 DVD's at a time for $30 a month. I would rather watch 15 DVD movies a month for $2/DVD than record a limited selection of movies off HBO coupled with some crappy sitcoms. I think this device is just an attempt by M$ to bring life back in to machine that appears to be dying less than a year after it was released.

    1. Re:not a good idea by Tazzy531 · · Score: 2

      If you look at the market, the demographics of the people that buy XBox and PS2s are late teens to early 30s. These are people in college, or just out of college and in a small apartment of some sorts. Video games have come a long way since the Nintendo that 8 year olds used to play back in my younger days..

      --


      _______________________________
      "I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
  44. U turn by John+Ineson · · Score: 2, Informative

    Six months ago The Guardian asked Xbox's general manager, J Allard, about the XBox including PVR technology in the future. His response:

    "We are not confused: this is a single-function device entirely focused on the games market. We have to focus on creating great games."

    I assume they thought twice when they saw the sales figures ;)

  45. Maybe... by Codex+The+Sloth · · Score: 2

    The problem that I had always heard about was that when the VCR broke, you needed to buy a new TV (nobody gets anything repaired these days...) or vice versa.

    A few years back there was a big push to have copier / scanner / fax machine. Those didn't sell well either. I'm also reminded of looking at a digital camera for my handspring. At some point I realized that for 1/2 the price of the handspring plugin I could get an actual digital camera of better quality.

    But to each his own...

    --
    I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you ... oh wait, I'm #93427. Ha ha! In your face #93428!
  46. Lotsa Money by fm6 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Jeez, look at those figures. MS has $40 Billion in cash and $30 billion in annual revenue -- one-third of which is profit! At that rate, they can sustain the losses of the X-Box division forever.

    And in fact they sort of need to spend money. It might sound nice to have so much cash lying around, but for a big corporation it can be a nightmare. In the current money market, that $40 Bil will not stay $40 Bil for long. And since they follow the "recycle the profits" model (MS stock does not pay dividends), it's only going to get worse. Better to throw the money at a Blue Sky project and tell the stockholders they're generating long-term growth. Which might even be true.

    But damnit, it's time to drop all the Reagan-era cliches and face facts. That much economic clout in the hands of one company is bad for the whole software industry. Including Microsoft. This is not a free market. Pretending otherwise is like saying Al Capone was just another illicit beer vendor.

    1. Re:Lotsa Money by gmhowell · · Score: 2

      Reinvesting the cash is nice and all, but it would totally kick ass if M$ would pay some dividends. According to classical stock valuation, M$ should go through the roof.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  47. I was just at the mall by LennyDotCom · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't remeber wich store in the mall it was but they had a sign in the window that said xbox $99 with trade in of old game system. When I asked about details they said you have to trade in a dreamcast,N64 or playstaion plus 10 old games. I wonder if this is M$ is giving them a kick back to get the old systems out of circulation.

    --
    http://Lenny.com
    1. Re:I was just at the mall by mh_tang · · Score: 2, Informative

      The store is Electronics Boutique. I just took advantage of this deal and picked up an XBox. However, I'm pretty sure it's not part of the "Evil MS Conspiracy".

      The deal is that you trade an old N64, Dreamcast or PS1 for $30 of trade-in value. Then each N64, DC, or PS game (up to 10) you trade in with the bundle will be worth at least $7.00. This is nice because if you have a lot of old games which are normally worth $1-$2 in their database, they will bump up the value of each game to $7. Games need boxes/cd cases and instructions, but the consoles themselves don't need anything except the necessary cables and controllers.

      You could theoretically go to Gamestop or Funcoland and pick up lots of old crappy games for a few dollars each and trade them in for $7.00 each. You can trade in more than 10 games, but they'll only bump up the value of the first ten.

      This promotion is for credit towards ANY new console. You do not have to buy an XBox. You can choose a Gamecube or a Playstation 2 if you prefer. From what I've heard, this deal lasts until June 30th. If interested, call your local Electronics Boutique.

      Check Fatwallet for details. Personally, I got rid of my old PSX since I already have a backwards-compatible PS2. I also dumped a bunch of really cheap PSX games, and some free Dreamcast games that I got through promotions.

  48. Re:So what you ARE saying is... by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

    only one per person per company allowed per year

    So you're gonna fine Microsoft $200 a year? I'm sure they're shaking in their boots...

  49. No longer a myth by brokeninside · · Score: 2
    This time it is not a myth.

    Prior to the large price cuts this past spring, you were probably correct. Given that the Red Herring reports that it is estimated that it costs Sony $185 to build a PS/2, it is pretty reasonable that to figure that they are selling it at a loss when it retails for $199.

    Similarly, Nintendo was planning to sell the GameCube at a slight loss at $199 and planned to eventually be profitable due to economies of scale. With the cut to $149, the road to profitability for Nintendo hardware, that road just got a lot longer.

    Blame it all on Sega. According to the Gord, Sega was the first console maker to regularly sell their console at a loss.

    -l

    1. Re:No longer a myth by brokeninside · · Score: 2
      The $185 cost to build a playstation 2 that Red Herring reported is before the cost to fab went down. From what I hear Sony is still selling the PS2 at a profit. I believe that the article mis-stated the facts here. Sony greatly reduced the price of the PS2 when it combined some of the core chips in to one chip.


      From the article, I didn't get any indication that the $185 number was for the latest model with the reduced cost to build. If that is what Dean Takahashi intended to get across, he failed. If you know of any sources that report that Sony is currently making a profit on PS2 sales, I'd be appreciative if you could supply it.

      It is also quite possible that Dean Takahashi could also be wrong in his numbers and conclusion. Personally, I have no reason to believe that he is wrong. Neither do I have any great reason to believe that he is right.

      I completely agree with your remarks on Intel and Nvidia. They certainly want to get their margins and are not interested in selling to Microsoft at a loss. Unlike Microsoft, Nvidia and Intel don't stand to gain from royalties on software if they pay for marketshare by subsidizing their profit.

      Also, IBM will be aiding Sony in the latter's R&D for the PS3. Not to mention that Sony certainly has the deep pockets to go the distance.

      Coincidentally, Nintendo uses a version of IBM's PPC chip for the Game Cube. Perhaps IBM is going to be the sleeper in the game.

      In the meanwhile, I'll continue to buy used games at $5 to $10 bucks a pop for my Dreamcast.

      Regards,

      -l

  50. Unusually Profitable? by pmz · · Score: 2

    Does this quote in the article seem unusual to anyone?

    ...[Microsoft] is expected to report a net profit of about $10 billion and revenues of $28.25 billion.

    I don't know a great deal about business, but how many companies as big as Microsoft get 1/3 of revenue as profit? That, along with the 40 or so billion in the bank, makes it seem unethical for them to not pay dividends back to their shareholders. Do any other big companies horde their wealth like this?

    --
    Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
    1. Re:Unusually Profitable? by Radical+Rad · · Score: 2

      About 5-6 years ago I read that both MS and Intel were making about 65% profit margins. That was back when their stock was doubling and tripling every year. So no, a 1/3 margin today doesn't surprise me. Bill and Co. still view themselves as a growth company and that is how they are running their business. If you don't like it don't buy their stock. Evidently a lot of people don't like it though since investors have lost more than half their investment over about the last three years.

  51. Re:Fantastic idea. by NanoGator · · Score: 2

    Curious: Wouldn't get you get sticker shock at the $500 price tag?

    The reason I ask is that right now, you could buy an XBOX and 6 new games for the same price as the PVR Combo. Not to mention that there will likely be some sort of subscription charge to get the most out of the PVR half.

    Me personally, if I had that kind of money, I'd buy the units seperately. My main concern is that the features of the XBOX PVR may not be as interesting as a competing product for only a little bit more. Know what I mean?

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  52. Oh my Gawd, you're right! by drew_kime · · Score: 5, Funny

    Imagine, you can still play Halo even when your favorite show is on because its being recorded for you to watch after you've blown some shit up.

    Holy crap, I wish I could do that today. I mean, if I could go out and buy some kind of product that would let me record what's coming in over the cable while I'm using the TV to play games. Something that I could connect inline before the cable goes in to the TV. Something like maybe a freakin' VCR.

    --
    Nope, no sig
  53. Re:warm fuzzy feeling by vidarh · · Score: 2

    Except that if you buy as little as a single game for it, Microsoft lose less than 150 USD. It won't take many games sold to you before Microsoft makes money on you.

  54. One reason it is kind of interesting... by NanoGator · · Score: 2

    Okay, I think most of us think an XBOX/PVR combo is pretty silly.

    There are a few positives I see. I dunno if they're enough to make me buy it, but it's fun to think about:

    It would be nice to have a DVD Player and a PVR in one box. Hook it up to the network and you've got a net connection. Imagine watching TV and getting a little icon saying you have message from somebody you're interested in hearing from. Pause the TV like Tivo, fire off a quick response via IR keyboard, then unpause and continue to watch. This'd be a neat feature during a game as well.

    Actually, having a DVD/PVR combo by itself is pretty cool.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  55. Might see some countries ban the Xbox... by Ewann · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It seems that the US is pretty fond of heavily taxing or banning imports of products that are sold "below cost"- they call it "dumping". (Think steel, DRAM, etc). I wonder why Japan hasn't banned or put a stiff tariff on the Xbox since Microsoft is "illegally dumping" the Xbox in order to steal market share from Sony's PS2.

    Could be an interesting tactic if X-box starts winning some significant share...

    1. Re:Might see some countries ban the Xbox... by Tazzy531 · · Score: 2

      FYI: Everyone does this, including PS2 and Gamecube. Both of those are sold below cost. In addition, this happens in a number of other industries. Cellphones in particular are sold WAY below cost so that that can make it up on the service agreement. Razor handles are also sold below cost and made up on the razor blades. MS isn't the only ones to do this. This isn't something new.

      --


      _______________________________
      "I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
  56. Re:XBox: How long can it defy the laws of economic by ronfar · · Score: 2
    Here's a quote from Robert X. Cringely that may help....

    But I have to wonder why Microsoft would engage in such foolishness. They could have bought Burst.com at any point, and never even been able to detect a level change in Microsoft's corporate bank account. Why risk so much just to screw (allegedly) a little company from Santa Rosa?

    If there is a reason, it has to come from the competitive nature of Bill Gates as Microsoft's spiritual and ethical leader. Everything is a competition to Bill, and every competition has a winner and a loser. Microsoft people have always been encouraged to see the game, not the consequences, and to win the game even if winning this way makes no sense.

    Let me give an example of this behavior. In the early days of Microsoft, one of the popular games was to see how late the boys could leave work for the airport and still make their flights. These weren't people who were habitually late, they were playing a game. The eventual winner was Bill Gates, of course, but to win he had to abandon his car at the departures curb. -- from the article, Is a Little Broadband Enough? Covad Seems to Think So. Also, Why Microsoft Keeps Getting Sued by Robert X. Cringely

    --
    All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
  57. Difference between 'new' and 'innovation' by Muggs+McGinnis · · Score: 2, Interesting
    For years I have heard 'innovation' and 'Microsoft' linked in the press as though Microsoft were some how responsible for the very concept of innovation. It is generally accepted in the world that Microsoft has produced many computing innovations. I am led to the question, "such as?"

    I'm not a Microsoft employee but I do contracting work for them in Redmond. On four occassions I have offered Microsoft employees (a Project Manager, an Windows Server architect, and two Resource Kit technical writers) $100 if they could find a single, significant computing innovation that originated with Microsoft and made it to market. This wasn't a bet... I would just pay each $100 if they could find an example.

    So far none of them have claimed to find one or asked for their $100. I gave each a week or two (one guy 2 months so he could ask around).

    Admittedly this started out as a way to tweek Microsoft's arrogance. But, I'm REALLY curious now. Has anyone heard of a single significant computing innovation attributable to Microsoft?

  58. Evidence is RIGHT HERE. by oGMo · · Score: 2

    Time to trot out Chapter Two in the Book of Proclamations written by The Gord. This is the insight of someone actually in the industry. You may wish to check out some of his other writings about the XBOX to see the accuracy of other predictions he has made. Quite interesting, and great fun to read.

    In short, while it may "make sense" to use consoles as a loss leader, this isn't how things are usually done in the industry. When the Gord wrote the article above, both Nintendo and Sony were already making profits on their consoles. This was last year sometime. Today, Microsoft still isn't making a profit.

    --

    Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

    1. Re:Evidence is RIGHT HERE. by binaryDigit · · Score: 2

      In short, while it may "make sense" to use consoles as a loss leader, this isn't how things are usually done in the industry

      I think that the quote is somewhat correct (and so are you). What the quote really is referring to is initial costs. Almost all manufacturers take an initial hit on the hardware to create market share and thereby push software. The Herring article says that each PS2 costs Sony $185, which at an absolute is cheaper than their $199 MSRP. But when you consider that even if they sold it to their dealers for $190 to eek out some profit, we're still only talking $5 per box, not exactly a bounty (though still better than a loss). Now this is one area that Nintendo definitely has their sh*t together. They specifically designed the cube to be underpowered but easy/cheap to manufacture and are "reaping" the benefits.

  59. Worse then that.... by Steveftoth · · Score: 2

    Yeah, they really screwed the pooch on that one. They also decided that losing money on the x-box was a good idea. Well guess what? it wasn't. Sony, Nintendo and Sega never really LOST money on their boxes, they always just BROKE EVEN. Which in the world of business is bad, you can't make any money when you're selling something for the same price you paid for it.
    MS is losing amost 200 dollars on every box. That means that you have to buy 4 or 5 games for them to break even. Most playstation owners only own 5 or 6 games. Thus you can expect that X-Box owners will own less just because there are less games available for it. So MS is losing money on every box sold, even if you buy games for it.

    1. Re:Worse then that.... by Jason+Earl · · Score: 2

      It's even worse than that. Royalties on third-party games amount to less than $10 per game, so third party games don't hardly count against the $200 total. Not to mention that Microsoft has to pay the developers, the marketers, and everyone else. In other words Microsoft is going to have to sell a lot more than 5 or 6 games per XBox to break even.

      The numbers could work out if their online gaming network becomes hugely possible, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

  60. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  61. PS2 fans should not want the X-Box to disappear by dbug78 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    time and again i see PS2 fans getting way too excited over the xbox's financial problems. are they all totally oblivious to the benefits that have come to them due to the xbox being on the market? PS3's target release has been pushed up a year, and i suspect the recent PS2 price drop wouldn't have happened without the xbox on the market. like the xbox or not, sony is taking care to keep it from gaining a foothold, and that means better things for the consumer. if i were a PS2 fanatic, i'd want the xbox to linger on the market for as long as possible.

  62. First thing to realize about Best Buy employees. by joshamania · · Score: 2

    The employees in the store have both no control and no idea about delivery of product to their individual stores. I worked there for a while...we were all clueless and as full of it as any other salesperson. :-)

  63. A Puzzle Solved by fm6 · · Score: 2

    I was wondering why UltimateTV was only being sold in connection with satellite or cable subscriptions. Thanks for clearing that up!

  64. And for everything else, Mac OS X by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 2

    Because personal information is priceless.

    :P

    --

    GPL Deconstructed
  65. Gotta love that higher math... by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

    Why lose a little money on two different projects when you can combine the two and lose twice as much!

    While I admit that I'm not looking at the video game market as much as I used to, it seems that Xbox sales are mediocre or so and the recent opening shots in the price war hasn't done much to change their sales figures. While they may or may not be ahead of Nintendo at this point in time, I don't see anything in Xbox's present or future that could hope to stand up to the onslaught that Metroid Prime and cel-shaded Zelda will create later this year. And that's even before we start noticing that it's just about time to announce a Pokemon game for the GBA. Come Christmas, I can't see the Xbox being anywhere but dead last and slipping fast.

    On the other hand we have UltimateTV, in direct competition with TiVo, who gets bonus points for name recognition (I've seen a heck of a lot more TiVo ads than UltimateTV). Of course that really doesn't matter because PVRs are still a niche market today, with a slightly broader customer base than HDTV. I don't know anything about PVR sales figures comparing Microsoft vs. TiVo, but I imagine that Microsoft sales are hurting a bit due to consumers remembering the WebTV fiasco and a long history of patches and bugs (Yes, UltimateTV has had its share of patches already). Microsoft may or may not be making money off of UltimateTV, but I doubt it's enough to sustain itself.

    Alright, so we have the Xbox and UltimateTV, two products with timid customers who probably had to be coaxed a little into buying to begin with (they had to be steered away from the PlayStation 2 and TiVo respectively). And they somehow think combining the two will actually help sales?

    OK, all you people that own both an Xbox and an UltimateTV box please raise your hand. Anyone?

    And I haven't even gotten into whether or not this may give their competitors ideas. What if TiVo signed up with Sony or Matsushita? Imagine Panasonic touting how their GameQ2 or whatever can not only play Pokemon games and Pokemon DVDs but also record Pokemon episodes while doing so...

  66. kdjfksjfkljfljsfljslfjs by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 2

    Don't support Microsoft. They're stupid. Instead, take a PS2 and a bunch of other game consoles, TV parts, stereo components, and stuff, and build a huge box that plays a bunch of games, runs a bunch of operating systems, and performs a bunch of operations. It'll be like a home-built supercomputer. Dude, you could use the parts out of disposable cameras too! Make it run UNICOS or something, in an emulator compiled for the Macintosh, that's run in an emulator compiled for the Alpha processor, that runs in an emulator that does the job. That'll slow it down enough that it'll work at about the same speed as the original tanks that ran UNICOS. So it'll be just like back in the old days.

  67. They'll hang on until version 3 (XXX) by crovira · · Score: 2

    Hey Gates' is richer that the countries he trying to sell the X-Box crap in.

    He'll keep in floggin it just like he did with:
    - M$ Word (knock-off of AES Word Processing system,)
    - M$ Multiplan (acquisitions morphed it into) Excell,
    - M$ IE (we know where he got that idea from,)
    - M$ VisualStudio (bad copy of the Smalltalk-80/VisualWorks IDE,),
    - M$ Windows (Puh-leez "Make More Mac Like Make More Mac Like").

    He's hoping that M$ can get it right by version 3 and that he still has a big enough choke hold on the PC market to coerce all the manufacturers to shill it for him (consumers don't buy an OS. They buy a box. He just ILLEGALLY arm-twists the OEM into selling HIS OS. [Tony Soprano would be so proud.])

    WHAT'T THAT YOU SAY? THERE AIN'T GOING TO BE A XXX-BOX? (Check it out at the video store. The girls there will gladly rent you the video/CD-ROM for $3.95 a day. If you go downtown, you can get the real thing @ $100 for an hour-of-power. :-)

    You're right though. There ain't gonna be any XXX-Box. X-Box was a stupid idea. This ain't the PC market. M$ doesn't have a lock on this market.

    M$s reputation on the PC side is that his software is buggy, virus prone and eats upgrades for breakfast. People (MIS people,) are sick of it. Consumers DON'T upgrade if they can help it. Upgrades just break the stuff you curently have running.

    People don't want the same crap on their own boxes.

    M$ has competition and they're not standing still.

    Sony can eat M$ raw on vinegared rice and some soy sauce and not even burp. They actually make products and sell them, lots of them, to consumers. Not strong arm them to OEMs. Sell them.

    Nintendo ain't a whole lot smaller.

    M$ ISN'T GONNA WIN THIS ONE! Its a matter of national Japanese pride.

    I like the Linux-en making mod chips to convert X-Boxen into cheap Linux PCs. Must give "Big Bully" Gates and "Monkey Boy Ballmer" heartburn.

    I'll be happy when he pulls the plug on this just like he did with "Bob" and that awful "Paper Clip"

    Lets hope he wastes some more money before the CPA in his heart yanks out the catheter.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  68. How about we throw in a Pentium IV? by crovira · · Score: 2

    You'll be able to heat your coffee on it.

    If you're locky, it'll boil over and fry the chip, the box and any pet nearby. (Think: "Hmm... Fluffy Dead... Bad burnt fur [lawsuit] smell. I'm getting a new Lexus. Yay!")

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  69. Re:Xbox II out in 2006 by Thag · · Score: 2
    Question is, would they have enough market share by then ? Enough to ponder a new version ?


    "By then?" I didn't know their market share was increasing. I would have thought that it would be decreasing, due to poor performance overseas relative to the other consoles, but I confess I have seen no hard numbers.

    Also would they take a hit in terms of cost as they did with the original Xbox?


    They will if they follow the same design path as the current XBox. Their problem is that they don't get the same economies of scales as Sony or Nintendo, since the components they assemble into an XBox are already at their volume-discounted prices, and the XBox is a lot more complicated than a PS2 or GameCube.

    The real problem is, with the XBox selling poorly, and its software therefore also selling poorly, how will they get developers without having to pay them off up front?

    Jon Acheson
    --
    All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
  70. Re:defy economics? why complain? by bryanbrunton · · Score: 2


    Wrong. I said XBox exclusives. Games that run on all three systems don't count. And don't actually make Microsoft very much money.

  71. Re:Microsoft should learn from Nintendo's example. by Rahga · · Score: 2

    My point was simply to state that Nintendo has (and Sega had) quality in-house game development talent. Sony currently relies on great third-party developers, but it is MUCH easier to loose those than it would be to loose a consistent, happy, dedicated set of development teams. Ever notice how Capcom and Konami constantly jump platforms to the one that can meet their own intrests the best? Capcom went from Super Nintendo to PSX, and as soon as Sega introduced the Naomi/Dreamcast setup, they dumped all of their efforts into that platform, and made some good money by developing for two platforms as if they were one. Capcom has not settled on a new home system yet, but once they do, it'll be all over ;)

  72. Re:Xbox II out in 2006 by Latent+IT · · Score: 2

    "By then?" I didn't know their market share was increasing. I would have thought that it would be decreasing, due to poor performance overseas relative to the other consoles, but I confess I have seen no hard numbers.

    Well, remember they're new players in this market. Anything above 0% for them is an "increase". =)

  73. heh... by Sj0 · · Score: 2

    X-Box + TiVO : 500 dollars US.
    MSI G4MX460 w/TV-IN&OUT: 250 dollars CDN.

    Sticking it to da' man: Priceless.

    --
    It's been a long time.
  74. Over $15 bn annual losses since 1999? by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 2
    I'd have to call $3.3 bn a massive loss no matter how you slice n dice the bookkeeping. Aside from Xbox tanking in Europe and Japan, it's not doing so well in the U.S. And since that oft-cited $50 bn is not actually cash in the bank, but partially consists of inflated stock prices, the Xbox losses may actually hurt. Reporting a "net" profit is very different that actually having one. Just ask Enron, or perhaps Chairman Bill himself ...

    If a large amount of Microsoft's money comes from OEMs and that depends on sales of new PCs and sales of new PCs have been pretty low, then Microsoft's revenues are probably low, too, and ups and downs will lag a quarter or two after the PC sales.

    If, aside from not giving out dividends, Microsoft seems like it might be cooking the books slightly since 1999 to hide losses, then it may acutally be running in the red.

    1999 was economically a good year compared to more recent ones. If Microsoft has needed any such accounting "errors" prior to the economic resession, then the recession has been a real slam-dunk and a proper audit would show them uncomfortably far from being a profitable corporation.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  75. Re:cable splitters... by NanoGator · · Score: 2

    Heh. Well, speaking practically, you could just record a demo file of Halo and send him that. It'd be much smaller and heaps quicker than burning any CD's.

    Other than that, I understand your point.

    --
    "Derp de derp."