What Apple gets, and what I think is the future, is making all these things together. The Newton syncs to your desktop at home. The Pippin can play content from your Mac at home. It's not about replacing your computer, it's about extending it.
Microsoft is very late to the game. Also, their implementation is crap, and they're stealing the paradigms, not innovating them.
Being first doesn't mean that you actually did get what you were doing:-P
How is doing what you claim you can do, but with a caveat, lying? It did what they said, you just filled in the blanks with your personal expectations. You're the one lying about Sony lying, and you say so right there in your post, moron.
They didn't "lie" they marketed. If you're too stupid to realize the difference, don't blame Sony blame your defective melon.
Hahaha. That's precious. "They didn't "lie" they marketed" (sic).
Come on. Just give it up already. Insulting me won't help your position. Everyone can see that you're either a Troll, paid by Sony, or a fanboy. Your wanking is getting kind of embarrassing, really. So if you have nothing new to add to the discussion (and I don't consider insults and angry rambling to be "new"), then I'll just accept that as proof that you're full of it. I will thus remove myself from this insane conversation.
Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.
(As an aside, I really think Sony should hire shills with at least marginal writing skills. I don't think the current batch is doing any good for Sony)
I would imagine because the fussy projector wouldn't work with the Mac for one (hard enough to get them working with what they claim to support officially).
You mean your projector does not have some kind of standard input? Like RGB or DVI? Who would buy something like this???
Hahaha, I hope you like it in ignorance land, because that's where you are. As for the game, as I already said, read the list. He explains why he includes Sketch Fighter.
When the PS2 came out, Sony was bragging about how it can can push 66 million polygons per second (reference). When the Cube came out, the specs Nintendo released were a fraction of that (12 million polygons per second, reference). So gamers everywhere thought the PS2 would simply own the Cube hardware-wise. Problem was, Sony lied. They implied that games could push that amount polygons, when in reality, the PS2 could only display that many polygons if they were untextured, unshaded, and if the PS2 did nothing else but display them.
I have no idea why you are even trying to dispute this.
Furthermore, the closing of Lik-Sang had nothing to do with Mod chips, at least directly. Sony didn't sue over Mod chips. They sued because Lik-Sang was importing Sony hardware from Japan. From Lik-Sang themselves:
Lik-Sang.com, the popular gaming retailer from Hong Kong, has today announced that it is forced to close down due to multiple legal actions brought against it by Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Limited and Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. Sony claimed that Lik-Sang infringed its trade marks, copyright and registered design rights by selling Sony PSP consoles from Asia to European customers
Do you have any clue or do you just reply because you like to insult others by implying that things only happened in their heads?
Yeah, Nintendo is dragging its feet with the Wii online component. That sucks. But really, you act as if Home was the second coming or something. It's a 3D online chat room. Seriously, who cares about this? Why in the world would I want to go into Home to play an arcade game if I can just click on it on my Wii? Why would I want to sell games in this fake world instead of in the easy-to-use Wii shopping channel? It makes no sense.
Little Big World, however, that is something that excites me about the PS3.
Aw, damn, now I'm starting to think that you're just another paid-by-Sony astroturfer:-/ I'm happy to see that you're finally taking Nintendo seriously, though.
I agree. I think somebody at Microsoft even plain said it after Sony announced the PS3's price: "We don't need to cut the price. Sony just gave us a price cut."
$600 IS too cheap if demand and supply are balanced.
As a consumer, I don't care about supply and demand. The PS3 isn't food or oil or water. It's a toy. I don't need it. I only care about one thing: Is this toy worth 600 bucks to me?
And it's definitely not. 300 bucks, maybe. More? Forget it.
If Sony really intends to price this based on demand, they'll end up pissing off both early adopters and latecomers. That would be a seriously bad move. And it's probably not what Sony is doing. This thing costs 600 bucks because Sony can't afford to lose even more money on it than they already do, not because of demand.
I don't have time to find references for the other stuff you ask (and if you can't remember the fake polygon claims which both Sony and Microsoft released, you're not much of a gamer), but this is just plain wrong:
If Lik-Sang failed because they couldn't sell modchips in the UK, then they had more issues than Sony.
They never had a chance to defend themselves because Sony started so many lawsuits that they could not afford fighting them, even if they had a chance of winning. I don't care what you think, that's just plain evil.
I think FPS are actually somewhat more forgiving than sidescrollers. With sidescrollers, level design is 99% of the gameplay experience. With shooters, especially multiplayer shooters, it's more like 50%, so even mediocre levels can be fun.
Yes, that is very cool. However, it is extremely likely that 99% of these levels will suck. Level design is one of the most important parts of designing a good game. If you look at most 2D jump-n-run games, almost all of them have the tech correct. You can move the character, make him jump, attack enemies, no issues there. The difference between the good games and the bad games is level design. Sonic the Hedgehog and Super Mario World were great games because the level design is awesome. The crappy games are crappy because the level design is boring or unfair or annoying.
I think it's great to let users design levels, and good things have come out of this, but for sidescrollers, good level design requires a lot of skill and experience, and most people don't have that.
Dunno, the difference between Sunsine and and 64 is a lot bigger than between a typical N64 platformer and a typical Cube-era platformer. It's also a lot bigger than the difference between most FPS games, or between versions of most sports franchises. In fact, other than Mario jumping around in a 3D world, Mario 64 and Sunshine aren't all that similar... The Water thing in Sunshine kinda changes the game mechanics quite a bit.
There is an utter lack of objectivity in gaming related discussions on Slashdot.
You get what you sow. Sony used to be great, but they have constantly fucked with their customers for a few years now. Nintendo used to censor their games and be generally jackasses, but in recent years, they've put out great, fresh hardware and fun, innovative software, and they've shown that they've changed for the better.
People are annoyed at Sony, and they are happy with Nintendo.
So we have a so-so new product announcement from Sony, basically copying Miis, Achievements, Second Life, and adding an unhealthy dose of Micropayments. Big suprise, people don't fall for it.
Then, we have some developer basically explaining that the Wii is shit. Big surprise, people don't agree.
Both companies get what they deserve right now. So, what's your point?
Re:News At 11, Industry Insider Hates Nonconformis
on
Spore Dev Down On the Wii
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Do you seriously want to play the same games you played since the SNES over and over
As an owner of pretty much all of Nintendo's consoles, I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about. Are you telling me that Twilight Princess is the same game as A Link to the Past? Or that Super Mario Sunshine is the same game as Super Mario World?
Or are you implying that there are no artistic, fresh games on the DS? Kind of... absurd. The Wii will go the path of the DS: Some movie licenses, sure, but also a ton of innovative games you simply can't get on any other console.
Seriously, if anyone can be accused of constantly rehashing old ideas, it's certainly not Nintendo. Ever looked at the games available for Xbox, Xbox 360, PS2 or PS3? Frankly, I feel like I'm living in some kind of bizarro alternate universe.
Micropayments. I'm sorry I forgot these. And now I'm off buying some fancy new horse armor to impress my virtual friends. And I'm sure there's lots of DRM involved, too. But at least you can buy Sony's music and movies and watch them in virtual cinemas.
Most people don't buy Apple's stuff due to the marketing.
I disagree. We wouldn't see nearly as much Apple ads and billboards as we currently see (in the US, at least) if this were true.
That's an interesting thing to say. I'm not quite sure what the logic is, but I think you're saying that Apple only advertises because it knows that most people would not buy Apple's products if it did not advertise.
That does not contradict what I said.
I said that the ads aren't the reason why people buy Apple's products. They are, however, one of the reasons why people consider buying Apple's products. That is, coincidentially, the case with most marketing. Let me try to explain what I mean:
As far as I can tell, Apple's main advantage is word-of-mouth. People don't suddenly run out and buy an iPod just because they see one on TV. Most ads don't make people want to buy a product. They do something else: Ads help establishing a product or a manufactureer (Apple, in this case) as a credible company. If I tell people that they should buy the MP3 player from some random no-name manufacturer, they will tell me that they've never heard of it and thus won't trust the brand enough to invest money into it.
If people see ads from a company, they learn that it's a legitimate business. That is the main reason why we see ads. Not to sell products, but to establish a brand as a legitimate option for buyers.
If I tell people to buy an iPod, they know that Apple is a trustworthy brand, thus they are more likely to follow my advice.
So, my point remains: Most people don't buy Apple's products due to the ads. Apple's products are generally easier to use than its competitors' products. That leads to satisfied customers, which leads to them telling others about their experience. Here, ads come in: If people had never heard of Apple, word-of-mouth alone would often not be enough to shell out hundreds of bucks for an MP3 player, or potentially thousands of bucks for a computer.
Selling retail versions of operating systems has never worked. Not once. NeXT couldn't do it. Be couldn't do it. Hell, even IBM couldn't do it. And actually, Microsoft can't do it either, if you check out retail sales of Vista. Even if the OS is essentially free, most people don't want it, see Linux.
PC owners would not buy OS X even if they could. The only people who would buy this (apart from us geeks) are current Mac owners which want to buy hardware from other manufacturers than Apple. And guess what, Apple makes more money if it sells these people hardware.
Apple would essentially cannibalize its own hardware sales without being able to make it up due to a higher volume of software sales.
Here's a fun fact: Most people don't buy Apple's stuff due to the marketing. They buy Apple's stuff because it works and because it's easy to use. Guess what, installing a third-party OS on a generic PC quite often doesn't work and never ends up being easy to use. Macs work because Apple controls the software as well as the hardware. Apple is able to leapfrog Microsoft with a comparably tiny budget because they don't have to be compatible with DOS software or include drivers for 10-years-old hardware and hundreds of different computer manufacturers.
Apple does not compete directly with Microsoft and won't do until they release an OS that run on industry-standard x86-boxes instead of just Apple-proprietary x86-boxes.
RTFA:-)
The article's main point is that Apple competes with the likes of Dell and Lenovo, and is in a very good situation since it can offer a fully integrated solution.
That actually also answers the second part of your post: Since Apple's competitive advantage is that they make "the whole widget" (as Jobs likes to call it), selling an unbundled retail version of OS X for "generic" PCs kinda destroys that advantage. Not to mention that this strategy has never been successfull: It didn't work for NeXT, IBM, or Be, and in fact, it didn't even work for Microsoft. People don't buy Vista, they get Vista when they buy a new Computer.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Palm does not have an operating system at all. They either license Palm OS from Access, or Windows Mobile from Microsoft.
And by the way, most people don't care about installing third party apps, and you only need to tweek setting if they were wrong to begin with.
What are you saying... Are you poor or something??? :-P
What Apple gets, and what I think is the future, is making all these things together. The Newton syncs to your desktop at home. The Pippin can play content from your Mac at home. It's not about replacing your computer, it's about extending it.
:-P
Microsoft is very late to the game. Also, their implementation is crap, and they're stealing the paradigms, not innovating them.
Being first doesn't mean that you actually did get what you were doing
Hahaha. That's precious. "They didn't "lie" they marketed" (sic).
Come on. Just give it up already. Insulting me won't help your position. Everyone can see that you're either a Troll, paid by Sony, or a fanboy. Your wanking is getting kind of embarrassing, really. So if you have nothing new to add to the discussion (and I don't consider insults and angry rambling to be "new"), then I'll just accept that as proof that you're full of it. I will thus remove myself from this insane conversation.
Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.
(As an aside, I really think Sony should hire shills with at least marginal writing skills. I don't think the current batch is doing any good for Sony)
You mean your projector does not have some kind of standard input? Like RGB or DVI? Who would buy something like this???
Hahaha, I hope you like it in ignorance land, because that's where you are. As for the game, as I already said, read the list. He explains why he includes Sketch Fighter.
Have you even read the freaking list? It's obviously a top-20 list for sysadmins.
When the PS2 came out, Sony was bragging about how it can can push 66 million polygons per second (reference). When the Cube came out, the specs Nintendo released were a fraction of that (12 million polygons per second, reference). So gamers everywhere thought the PS2 would simply own the Cube hardware-wise. Problem was, Sony lied. They implied that games could push that amount polygons, when in reality, the PS2 could only display that many polygons if they were untextured, unshaded, and if the PS2 did nothing else but display them.
I have no idea why you are even trying to dispute this.
Furthermore, the closing of Lik-Sang had nothing to do with Mod chips, at least directly. Sony didn't sue over Mod chips. They sued because Lik-Sang was importing Sony hardware from Japan. From Lik-Sang themselves:
Do you have any clue or do you just reply because you like to insult others by implying that things only happened in their heads?
Yeah, Nintendo is dragging its feet with the Wii online component. That sucks. But really, you act as if Home was the second coming or something. It's a 3D online chat room. Seriously, who cares about this? Why in the world would I want to go into Home to play an arcade game if I can just click on it on my Wii? Why would I want to sell games in this fake world instead of in the easy-to-use Wii shopping channel? It makes no sense.
:-/ I'm happy to see that you're finally taking Nintendo seriously, though.
Little Big World, however, that is something that excites me about the PS3.
Aw, damn, now I'm starting to think that you're just another paid-by-Sony astroturfer
I agree. I think somebody at Microsoft even plain said it after Sony announced the PS3's price: "We don't need to cut the price. Sony just gave us a price cut."
As a consumer, I don't care about supply and demand. The PS3 isn't food or oil or water. It's a toy. I don't need it. I only care about one thing: Is this toy worth 600 bucks to me?
And it's definitely not. 300 bucks, maybe. More? Forget it.
If Sony really intends to price this based on demand, they'll end up pissing off both early adopters and latecomers. That would be a seriously bad move. And it's probably not what Sony is doing. This thing costs 600 bucks because Sony can't afford to lose even more money on it than they already do, not because of demand.
I don't have time to find references for the other stuff you ask (and if you can't remember the fake polygon claims which both Sony and Microsoft released, you're not much of a gamer), but this is just plain wrong:
Not being able to sell modchips in the UK is not what killed Lik Sang. Lik Sang was not able to defend against multiple lawsuits started by Sony all over Europe and was thus forced to go out of business.
They never had a chance to defend themselves because Sony started so many lawsuits that they could not afford fighting them, even if they had a chance of winning. I don't care what you think, that's just plain evil.
Hahahaha! Even without your own admission that you work for MS, this sentence would have so made you.
I think FPS are actually somewhat more forgiving than sidescrollers. With sidescrollers, level design is 99% of the gameplay experience. With shooters, especially multiplayer shooters, it's more like 50%, so even mediocre levels can be fun.
Yes, that is very cool. However, it is extremely likely that 99% of these levels will suck. Level design is one of the most important parts of designing a good game. If you look at most 2D jump-n-run games, almost all of them have the tech correct. You can move the character, make him jump, attack enemies, no issues there. The difference between the good games and the bad games is level design. Sonic the Hedgehog and Super Mario World were great games because the level design is awesome. The crappy games are crappy because the level design is boring or unfair or annoying.
I think it's great to let users design levels, and good things have come out of this, but for sidescrollers, good level design requires a lot of skill and experience, and most people don't have that.
Haha, thanks. That was funny. I'd mod you up if I could :-)
Dunno, the difference between Sunsine and and 64 is a lot bigger than between a typical N64 platformer and a typical Cube-era platformer. It's also a lot bigger than the difference between most FPS games, or between versions of most sports franchises. In fact, other than Mario jumping around in a 3D world, Mario 64 and Sunshine aren't all that similar... The Water thing in Sunshine kinda changes the game mechanics quite a bit.
You get what you sow. Sony used to be great, but they have constantly fucked with their customers for a few years now. Nintendo used to censor their games and be generally jackasses, but in recent years, they've put out great, fresh hardware and fun, innovative software, and they've shown that they've changed for the better.
People are annoyed at Sony, and they are happy with Nintendo.
So we have a so-so new product announcement from Sony, basically copying Miis, Achievements, Second Life, and adding an unhealthy dose of Micropayments. Big suprise, people don't fall for it.
Then, we have some developer basically explaining that the Wii is shit. Big surprise, people don't agree.
Both companies get what they deserve right now. So, what's your point?
As an owner of pretty much all of Nintendo's consoles, I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about. Are you telling me that Twilight Princess is the same game as A Link to the Past? Or that Super Mario Sunshine is the same game as Super Mario World?
Or are you implying that there are no artistic, fresh games on the DS? Kind of... absurd. The Wii will go the path of the DS: Some movie licenses, sure, but also a ton of innovative games you simply can't get on any other console.
Seriously, if anyone can be accused of constantly rehashing old ideas, it's certainly not Nintendo. Ever looked at the games available for Xbox, Xbox 360, PS2 or PS3? Frankly, I feel like I'm living in some kind of bizarro alternate universe.
Micropayments. I'm sorry I forgot these. And now I'm off buying some fancy new horse armor to impress my virtual friends. And I'm sure there's lots of DRM involved, too. But at least you can buy Sony's music and movies and watch them in virtual cinemas.
What do you get when you take Second Life, Xbox Live, Achievements, Miis, youtube, MySpace and Animal Crossing and stick them all together?
I'm guessing you'll end up with the worst parts of all of the elements, and none of the things that make them great.
Yeah, if you only look at one factor and ignore everything else that influences the end result, you can "prove" anything quite simply.
That's an interesting thing to say. I'm not quite sure what the logic is, but I think you're saying that Apple only advertises because it knows that most people would not buy Apple's products if it did not advertise.
That does not contradict what I said.
I said that the ads aren't the reason why people buy Apple's products. They are, however, one of the reasons why people consider buying Apple's products. That is, coincidentially, the case with most marketing. Let me try to explain what I mean:
As far as I can tell, Apple's main advantage is word-of-mouth. People don't suddenly run out and buy an iPod just because they see one on TV. Most ads don't make people want to buy a product. They do something else: Ads help establishing a product or a manufactureer (Apple, in this case) as a credible company. If I tell people that they should buy the MP3 player from some random no-name manufacturer, they will tell me that they've never heard of it and thus won't trust the brand enough to invest money into it.
If people see ads from a company, they learn that it's a legitimate business. That is the main reason why we see ads. Not to sell products, but to establish a brand as a legitimate option for buyers.
If I tell people to buy an iPod, they know that Apple is a trustworthy brand, thus they are more likely to follow my advice.
So, my point remains: Most people don't buy Apple's products due to the ads. Apple's products are generally easier to use than its competitors' products. That leads to satisfied customers, which leads to them telling others about their experience. Here, ads come in: If people had never heard of Apple, word-of-mouth alone would often not be enough to shell out hundreds of bucks for an MP3 player, or potentially thousands of bucks for a computer.
Selling retail versions of operating systems has never worked. Not once. NeXT couldn't do it. Be couldn't do it. Hell, even IBM couldn't do it. And actually, Microsoft can't do it either, if you check out retail sales of Vista. Even if the OS is essentially free, most people don't want it, see Linux.
PC owners would not buy OS X even if they could. The only people who would buy this (apart from us geeks) are current Mac owners which want to buy hardware from other manufacturers than Apple. And guess what, Apple makes more money if it sells these people hardware.
Apple would essentially cannibalize its own hardware sales without being able to make it up due to a higher volume of software sales.
Here's a fun fact: Most people don't buy Apple's stuff due to the marketing. They buy Apple's stuff because it works and because it's easy to use. Guess what, installing a third-party OS on a generic PC quite often doesn't work and never ends up being easy to use. Macs work because Apple controls the software as well as the hardware. Apple is able to leapfrog Microsoft with a comparably tiny budget because they don't have to be compatible with DOS software or include drivers for 10-years-old hardware and hundreds of different computer manufacturers.
RTFA :-)
The article's main point is that Apple competes with the likes of Dell and Lenovo, and is in a very good situation since it can offer a fully integrated solution.
That actually also answers the second part of your post: Since Apple's competitive advantage is that they make "the whole widget" (as Jobs likes to call it), selling an unbundled retail version of OS X for "generic" PCs kinda destroys that advantage. Not to mention that this strategy has never been successfull: It didn't work for NeXT, IBM, or Be, and in fact, it didn't even work for Microsoft. People don't buy Vista, they get Vista when they buy a new Computer.