Slashdot Mirror
A History of the Xbox Red Ring of Death Fiasco
VentureBeat has a lengthy story about the situation surrounding the Xbox 360's "Red Ring of Death." It starts with the developmental phases for the 360, looks at the marketing decisions that drove Microsoft to aim for a release ahead of the PS3, and talks with sources and engineers within Microsoft about what could have been done to prevent the problems. Quoting:
"Leading up to the launch in the fall of 2005, the number of defective units would soon grow to tens of thousands. Any other consumer electronics company would likely have postponed a launch with such low yields. But Microsoft had more money in the bank than anyone else. The decision this time would fall to Bach and Moore. The costs of launching with low yields -- where you take big losses on every product sold -- could bankrupt other companies. But Microsoft could afford to do so. Microsoft did delay the launch date from October until November. But some inside the company still believed returns would be out of control."
I'd appreciate it very much if someone could please explain to me, how is it possible that one company sells something at a loss and it's called "dumping" (which you can get in trouble for, IIUC), and another company sells something at a loss and it's called a "loss leader?" Wtf? It's especially clear in this case, when you have orange rings of death and whatnot, that the purpose is to bankrupt the competition by selling yours for less. By the time someone spent their Christmas money on one product, they won't buy the other. Hence, dumping.
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
Thankfully the average consumer is well-enough informed to boycott such a deeply-flawed product, thus preventing Microsoft from profiting off of this business model! I mean, can you imagine if they were selling millions of 360s, taking broken units back, and still making money?
"now with the 360 they have taken on the reputation of having created the worst console in the history of gaming."
Can't say I agree with that. In terms of defect rate, absolutely. But if you have a working 360, it does a lot of things well.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
I do not want to host family parties (nor play mario #122 or other kiddie games)
First off: Mario is not a "kiddie" game. It's a platformer, but that doesn't make it childish.
Second: Zelda, Smash Bros, Super Paper Mario, Metroid Prime 3, and Mario Kart are kiddie games? Damn, why didn't someone tell me?
Are you one of those gamers who defines "kiddie" to be "doesn't include lots of gore and/or swearing"?
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Microsoft's problem is pretty simple, hubris. It's illustrated quite well when you look at the kind of management practices taken by Ballmer and to a lesser extent Gates.
Microsoft has been so enamored of their own success that they believe that they cannot go wrong, simply because of who they are. They are also more than willing to pursue business with the kinds of principles and ethics that you'd expect from a used car salesperson. They really don't care what the customer experience is, they care about making money and believe that no matter what they do, they will succeed regardless.
Well to some extent that's true, or was true in the past, as mass and momentum are real. However it's also very clear that eventually momentum decreases and customer loyalty is a fickle thing. MS is already seeing the fruits of their poor judgement. Apple is selling more Mac's than ever, and I'd argue that Vista has played a big part in that success. I for one don't own an Xbox 360, I own a PS3. I probably won't ever buy a 360.
I'm sure Microsoft will recover, but to what extent remains to be seen. But unless they change their principles and work toward attracting the kind of loyalty through quality and connecting with your customers that Apple has enjoyed they will continue to see, if nothing else, a customer base that will be willing to jump ship at the first opportunity.
"It would, however, be interesting if XBOX dropped out and left only Sony and Nintendo."
Everyone should be thanking MS for jumping into the console market. Whether you like the XBox or not, the competition has made the market better.
Bash MS all you want, but they introduced more versatility in the XBox than Sony did with the PS2 (ie. harddrive, online multiplayer, custom soundtracks). Sony had a virtual monopoly in the console market and MS forced them to work harder. That only benefits the consumer.
Sure MS has lost a ton of money breaking into this market. Did anyone actually think it would be easy wrestling market share from a monopoly??? (If it were, Linux would have a much larger share of the PC platform. Yeah, yeah...mod me down. I'm writing this from a "Hardy" box.)
The RRoD is a serious goof by MS. Still, they have made great strides in establishing a position in the market considering this is their 2nd gen. and they are just now getting some of the franchise titles that were previously exclusive to Sony. Not to mention the benefit of having the enormous library of games Sony built up with the PS and PS2.
Whether you prefer the 360 or the PS3, you should want MS to stay in this market for the long haul. The competition will only improve the consumers experience.
TFA says that that Xbox 1 has 90% yields from start to finish. How surprising is that? MS simply built a practically industry standard PC. It had a hard drive, an Intel processor, an NVIDIA chip, a DVD-ROM and a power supply. These components were so standard, time tested, and widespread that combining these components into a machine with high yields was child's play. Add to that, the fact that MS was willing to hemorrhage cash with some presumably going towards for build quality on each unit sold, and it's no wonder the Xbox 1 was reliable. What's more, the PCBs and heat sinks had plenty of open air around then to encourage heat dissipation and removal through the fan at the rear.
Many people complain about how incredibly hot their electronic devices become during use, and laptops get the most complaints. Why? Because everything is packed into a nearly air-tight space, hampering heat removal. The 360 designers sabotaged the 360's reliability by building a small and sexy machine that can't dissipate heat from the internal components fast enough to keep the running reliably.
The 360 designers dug themselves a deeper hole by rushing unique hardware elements, in contrast to the Xbox 1, which had industry standard components. Intel had its Celeron's for the Xbox 1s "dialed in" at its factories: yields should have been in the nineties. Likewise, the SDRAM chips were industry-standard, along with the DVD drives. As far as I know, the NVIDIA GPU was neither new nor groundbreaking. Microsoft commissioned IBM to build a custom chip--who's IP would be owned by MS, so no skin off of IBM's nose if the custom processor failed due to MS's unrealistic usage in production--based on a fledgling microprocessor technology. This was a big risk that hasn't paid off because the 360s physical dimensions seem to belie an overly optimistic idea of heat production from the CPU. With the Xbox 1, any veteran engineer could say, "Look, here's a Celeron, here's its heat production, we NEED a heat sink of such and such size, we need open space around it, and this much airflow." With the custom 360 CPU, engineers may have been afraid to speak up about the thermal requirements because the CPU was so new and unfamiliar. Then, there's the ATI GPU, again custom. MS went ahead and crammed it into the system while telling themselves it wouldn't overheat, would perform admirably, and, if not, they could make it work reliably. Well, they should have been more cautious and properly spec'ed and tested the GPU. After taking the time to test and establish the GPU's operating conditions, only then should they they begun design on a case that would be small and still allow adequate heat dissipation.
In the end, the Xbox 1 was a great console because of three things: one, MS didn't innovate: they simply built a Wintel PC based on reliable, time-tested, industry standard components. Two, MS used its position in the software market to cover its losses for producing a high-powered, high quality PC. Three, MS built the Xbox 1 with more regard for function than form. The case was huge, but was great for thermal management.