Look, Dave, we all know you're the world's biggest Apple fanboy, so if it gets you excited that the Xbox 360 uses an IBM processor from the same family as the one in the G5, that's great. Seriously, why does the rest of the world care? Apple doesn't make the processors in Macs, nor does Microsoft make the processors in PCs.
Is it ironic? I guess so, but I'm not sure it's quite the watershed moment you think it is. MS went with the company that could give them the fastest multicore processor for the least money. It was IBM. The only major company using those processors is Apple. So they used Apples to develop on. End of story.
Why does everything to be some kind of schlongs-and-rulers war with Mac types?
I know what you said, but you can't say that "PCs are loud and Macs are quiet (with some exceptions)" and not expect someone to call your bluff when the "exceptions" are at least half of the product line. My point is that it isn't a platform thing -- there are quiet PCs and there are quiet Macs and loud PCs and loud Macs. All friends here.
Can someone enlighten me on which "innovations" the Xbox is responsible for? Its hardware was standard. Its games were largely ports, and its online service is a 'pay' version of what PC users take for granted.
Xbox is by far the most innovative console of this generation. Built-in HDD, custom soundtracks, HD output, 5.1 output. There's nothing on the PC like Xbox Live -- the ability to have cross-game invitations, stats, voice messaging and voice communication is far more evolved than what's on the PC right now (I play both PC games and Xbox games and the online experience can't be compared).
Looking at the specs for both the PS3 and the early specs for the Revolution, it looks like they're trying to emulate the best parts of what the Xbox 1 did. That sounds like innovation to me.
Live is definitely an innovation in the console world, but to PCs, it's nothing new. In fact, I would argue that Live only exists because things like it already existed on the PC side.
Clearly you've never used Live before. I've played PC games forever and Live is a much richer experience. Pervasive invites, stats and voice chat are a huge leap forward for online gaming. You can be playing a single-player game like Fable or the Halo 2 campaign or Jade Empire or whatever, and your friends can still invite you into an online game. It's a huge leap forward from IMing your IP address around or joining random server X and whatever time. Standardized voice chat is really sweet too.
Nintendo on the other hand, tends to use established characters (the Italian plumber you disparaged) as a gateway to get people to buy games that try new things.
The examples you go on to list don't make any sense. You're saying that vacuuming ghosts is innovative? Or jetpacks? Or cell shading? Or a nautical theme? All of this has been done before many times over.
Nintendo phoned it in this gen and now they're paying the price. They let MS innovate on the online front and Sony dominate with software selection (and EyeToy as a hardware doodad, I guess).
There's nothing wrong with the GameCube, but it's hardly the best console of this generation, and probably not even the second best. Not surprising though, because all 3 consoles kicked ass.
With Apple's model, there's no dependence on Apple's success for your music to play.
That's not at all true. If Apple goes out of business (or decides that the iTMS isn't worth running anymore), all they have to do is turn off your ability to activate iTunes and presto -- your music no worky.
(Yes, yes, you can burn them to CD, but only if iTunes lets you. Apple still has your pecker in their collective pocket.)
This is true, which is why I don't buy DRM music. But given the current state of affairs, I think the WMA DRM is the more reasonable of the two (which isn't saying much) because it's much more device independent and Apple could do the same thing you describe.
I think the bigger issue is that the Windows DRM gives you a choice of hundreds of different players by dozens of different vendors. If you invest in the iPod/iTunes infrastructure, you better be happy with what Apple offers for the foreseeable future (as long as you want to put your purchased music on an MP3 player). If your iRiver player gets old and you want the the new Samsung or Rio or Dell, all of your DRM WMA music will still play.
Don't get me wrong -- I think buying DRM music is stupid and I won't do it, but I think there's going to be a lot of people in the next five years who spent a lot of money at iTMS and end up regretting it when they realize what a black box it is.
(Yes, yes, I know you can burn and rerip CDs if you don't mind recompressing and retagging. I mind that.)
There's nothing particularly interesting about making the party line voice versus text.
There's a world of difference between being able to talk to everyone on your team and having to type it. It completely changes the way you play team games.
Sure, it's an "evolution," but XBL takes all of the best things from a bunch of different online gaming services and put them into one cohesive package. I'm not sure there's been a bigger innovation this generation.
Another often overlooked aspect of XBL is "Live Aware" games -- even games that aren't online can advertise themselves on the service, so that if you're playing a single player game, your friends can still invite you in. It's very cool.
Rebel Strike? C'mon... that game looked pretty good at launch, but it doesn't stand up to the best of the best today (even on GameCube, RE4 looks much better). The AI is piss-poor and the gameplay is shallow. Not sure about the "record for most polygons/sec in-game," but even if it's true (which I doubt), it's still only a good game.
You can't look at Doom 3, Ninja Gaiden, Rallisport, Project Gotham, Splinter Cell 3, etc. and tell me that the GameCube is on par. It's close, but I'm telling you -- read the head-to-heads on IGN. The GameCube has almost never won the best version of any multiplatform game. In nearly every case, the Xbox does.
Also, the lack of Dolby 5.1 hurts, as does the compressed FMV and sound often required by the smaller disc size.
Not trying to fanboy out on you here. The GameCube is a great piece of hardware, but it's not the best out there.
I've been playing PC games online for a long time, and there's nothing like Xbox Live. See what your friends are playing, invite them into games, pervasive voice chat. The individual pieces had been done before, but never as a cohesive package.
My personal favorite GameCube innovation: Best graphics this generation, lowest price of the three consoles, and Nintendo still makes a profit on it.
Sure, low price is great, but not sure how innovative that is. And the GameCube has very good graphics, but in nearly every instance, the Xbox beats it (sometimes not by a whole lot, but the Xbox is a more powerful unit -- check out the gaming Head-to-Heads at ign.com).
There is a reason why the XBOX 360 is using an IBM processor and ATI graphics this time around. They are trying to ape the GameCube.
That's not really accurate, unless you're suggesting that the GameCube is what it is because of the processor and graphics chipset. MS, I'm sure, is going with the company that can offer the best technology at the best price in the greatest volume. I don't think they're trying to race the GameCube.
Don't get me wrong -- I have nothing against the GameCube. It's a perfectly fine console. It's just that, outside of Donkey Konga (which is a fun little gimmick), I don't see a lot of technical innovation coming from Nintendo these days.
That is unfortunately why Nintendo has a hard time these days. They are actually trying to innovate and "revolutionize" gaming, which should theorically be a good thing, but just like you said, people don't like what is innovative...
I always ask this when it comes up, but I never get much of an answer. What has Nintendo done this generation that's particularly innovative? I think that Sony's work with the EyeToy or Microsoft's Xbox Live infrastructure has had much more of an impact than anything Nintendo's done in some time.
The GameCube is a very competent (and inexpensive) game console, no doubt, but what's so innovative about it? Maybe Nintendo's problem isn't that it's too "revolutionary," but that its customer base is outgrowing its offerings.
Oh, and more importantly, Nintendo MADE MONEY on the Gamecube.
More importantly for whom? Unless you're a stockholder, what difference does it make to you who's making money on system sales? Xbox game sales are well above Nintendo's -- that's why it's getting third party support and Nintendo, more and more, isn't.
Wavebird's a great controller (and cheap, which is all good), but I think the market has proven out that two analog sticks is the way to go.
Wireless-ness aside, what's so great about the GC controller? It doesn't work well for fighters; it doesn't work well for shooters; it's only so-so for sports games. I'm not sure this is progress. And the triggers that turn into buttons when you press down all the way is an idea that just doesn't work.
What about the Gamecube was remotely innovative? It's a good game system in a solid formfactor, but Sony's out there with the EyeToy and the HDD add-on and MS is out there with the Live service and a built-in HDD.
Nintendo makes some fun games, but how have they tried to "move the games industry on" this generation?
On the other hand, if you bought XP Pro in 2001 for $189 or XP Home for $99, you'd still be up to date. On the Mac side, you'd have spent $129 (OS X) + $129 (10.2) + $129 (10.3) + $129 (10.4) to keep your OS up to date in the same time period.
"Oh yes, they were 'on display' in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the leopard.'"
Having read the books again recently, that was one of the lines that stuck out as trying way too hard to be clever. The bit about the stairs and the light being out is funny; "Beware of the leopard" pushes it too far.
Not to say I like the movie version, but I don't think Lawrence Olivier could have pulled that line off and made it sound credible, much less funny.
Can't argue with that, I guess, although the argument against IE vs. Netscape wasn't that IE was a crappy product pushing out a better one -- it was that the competing product wouldn't have the chance to get a foothold because of bundling. I'm not saying that's the argument you're making, but that's the usual one.
Your argument of "whatever makes the best product" is actually a really logical one, but not the argument most people make. You only get into trouble if there's something you want to do that Apple's products won't let you do (like, say, play WMA files in iTunes). Without competition, you're kinda SOL if you want to push outside of their products. For most of their customers, though, that's probably not a major issue because they're products tend to be solid.
In my case, I don't like Windows Media Player and I'm not enthusiastic about iTunes, so it's nice to have an option from a smaller company in Media Center.
The conversation, though, was about the impact of bundling. Office isn't bundled with WinXP. You're right that outside of the WordPerfect Suite and OpenOffice, there's not a lot out there, but at least the product doesn't come in the same box.
Apple doesn't prevent other people from developing products. Their file formats are relatively open (except for the proprietary codecs like Sorensen that they pay lots of money to license), and their dev tools are really good.
You're right, but, again, that's always been the argument made against MS bundling products -- if they bundle WMP, no one will buy, say, MusicMatch. My point was that the opposite seems to be happening. Instead of WMP taking over the market, there's a thriving market for media players (I use J. River's Media Center myself) -- everything from iTunes to WinAmp to MusicMatch to Media Center to FooBar to many more. On the Mac, pretty much everyone uses iTunes.
Seriously, though: What's not to like about iMovie? What doesn't it do that you want it to do? I'd rather have one really good tool, than a bunch of half-assed ones (which is often the case with Windows solutions).
Don't get me wrong -- iMovie is a really nice product. What I'm saying, though, is that Apple has actually done what lots of people were afraid that Microsoft would do: kill the market for competing third-party software on its platform. There are lots of video editors on the Windows side, some good, some bad, but at this point, not much other than iMovie on the Mac. Most of the third-parties are making their money with add-on packs rather than competing products.
If you don't like monopolies and monocultures, it's something to think about -- I'm not saying it's horrible or anything.
The kinda funny (and often ignored) sidestory is here that, despite bundling and monopoly, the markets for multimedia products is much more competitive on Windows than on the Mac. Who in their right mind is making a jukebox for the Mac anymore? Or a video editor? Or a photo organizer? Apple, whether good or bad, has really put the kibosh on development of those types of utilities by bundling them with their OS.
On Windows, there are tons of good media players, video editors, photo organizers, etc. If anything, there are so many that there's no clear leader.
While Apple's not a monopoly, they're developing into a monoculture. The products are very good, but if you want something else (say you don't like iMovie), your choice of competing products is extremely limited.
No they haven't. It's not illegal to be a monopoly (and it'd be hard to argue that they're a monopoly with Apple and Linux in the picture).
But at work, I'm forced to have a windows machine.
OMG, get Upton Sinclair on the line. In other news, I hear there are some people who don't get to choose what brand of telephone they use at work. Somehow, they manage.
I've got to say that they DON'T have a right. I was a victim of their DR-DOS isn't compatible trick. I was forced to go buy Dos 6.0 and then it ATE MY DATA! I became rather negative towards this convicted monopolist when I found out they had done that on purpose!
Oh - did you notice that last sentence - CONVICTED MONOPOLIST. They have to play by a different set of rules.
This post becomes (5, Funny) when read in Comic Book Guy voice. But then again, so does most of Slashdot.
Can we get a new form of Godwin's Law for when people start throwing around "convicted monopolist"?
Slashdot Mirror
Wow... pottymouth, yo.
Look, Dave, we all know you're the world's biggest Apple fanboy, so if it gets you excited that the Xbox 360 uses an IBM processor from the same family as the one in the G5, that's great. Seriously, why does the rest of the world care? Apple doesn't make the processors in Macs, nor does Microsoft make the processors in PCs.
Is it ironic? I guess so, but I'm not sure it's quite the watershed moment you think it is. MS went with the company that could give them the fastest multicore processor for the least money. It was IBM. The only major company using those processors is Apple. So they used Apples to develop on. End of story.
Why does everything to be some kind of schlongs-and-rulers war with Mac types?
I know what you said, but you can't say that "PCs are loud and Macs are quiet (with some exceptions)" and not expect someone to call your bluff when the "exceptions" are at least half of the product line. My point is that it isn't a platform thing -- there are quiet PCs and there are quiet Macs and loud PCs and loud Macs. All friends here.
Er... yeah, tell that to the wind tunnels I've had under my desk for the past couple years -- first an MDD, now a G5. Nice, yes, but quiet they ain't.
PC's engineered to be quiet are quiet. My Dell is nearly silent. Macs engineered to be quiet are also quiet. It has nothing to do with the platform.
Can someone enlighten me on which "innovations" the Xbox is responsible for? Its hardware was standard. Its games were largely ports, and its online service is a 'pay' version of what PC users take for granted.
Xbox is by far the most innovative console of this generation. Built-in HDD, custom soundtracks, HD output, 5.1 output. There's nothing on the PC like Xbox Live -- the ability to have cross-game invitations, stats, voice messaging and voice communication is far more evolved than what's on the PC right now (I play both PC games and Xbox games and the online experience can't be compared).
Looking at the specs for both the PS3 and the early specs for the Revolution, it looks like they're trying to emulate the best parts of what the Xbox 1 did. That sounds like innovation to me.
Live is definitely an innovation in the console world, but to PCs, it's nothing new. In fact, I would argue that Live only exists because things like it already existed on the PC side.
Clearly you've never used Live before. I've played PC games forever and Live is a much richer experience. Pervasive invites, stats and voice chat are a huge leap forward for online gaming. You can be playing a single-player game like Fable or the Halo 2 campaign or Jade Empire or whatever, and your friends can still invite you into an online game. It's a huge leap forward from IMing your IP address around or joining random server X and whatever time. Standardized voice chat is really sweet too.
Nintendo on the other hand, tends to use established characters (the Italian plumber you disparaged) as a gateway to get people to buy games that try new things.
The examples you go on to list don't make any sense. You're saying that vacuuming ghosts is innovative? Or jetpacks? Or cell shading? Or a nautical theme? All of this has been done before many times over.
Nintendo phoned it in this gen and now they're paying the price. They let MS innovate on the online front and Sony dominate with software selection (and EyeToy as a hardware doodad, I guess).
There's nothing wrong with the GameCube, but it's hardly the best console of this generation, and probably not even the second best. Not surprising though, because all 3 consoles kicked ass.
Why is Microsoft making it difficult to write games that run on both PC (Windows XP) and XBox 360?
Read up on XNA -- they have a new architecture they're pushing that'll do just that.
With Apple's model, there's no dependence on Apple's success for your music to play.
That's not at all true. If Apple goes out of business (or decides that the iTMS isn't worth running anymore), all they have to do is turn off your ability to activate iTunes and presto -- your music no worky.
(Yes, yes, you can burn them to CD, but only if iTunes lets you. Apple still has your pecker in their collective pocket.)
This is true, which is why I don't buy DRM music. But given the current state of affairs, I think the WMA DRM is the more reasonable of the two (which isn't saying much) because it's much more device independent and Apple could do the same thing you describe.
I think the bigger issue is that the Windows DRM gives you a choice of hundreds of different players by dozens of different vendors. If you invest in the iPod/iTunes infrastructure, you better be happy with what Apple offers for the foreseeable future (as long as you want to put your purchased music on an MP3 player). If your iRiver player gets old and you want the the new Samsung or Rio or Dell, all of your DRM WMA music will still play.
Don't get me wrong -- I think buying DRM music is stupid and I won't do it, but I think there's going to be a lot of people in the next five years who spent a lot of money at iTMS and end up regretting it when they realize what a black box it is.
(Yes, yes, I know you can burn and rerip CDs if you don't mind recompressing and retagging. I mind that.)
Does Microsoft offer bounties to those who find, and alert them to, security problems? Not as far as I know.
I understand that they do: they call them salaries.
There's nothing particularly interesting about making the party line voice versus text.
There's a world of difference between being able to talk to everyone on your team and having to type it. It completely changes the way you play team games.
Sure, it's an "evolution," but XBL takes all of the best things from a bunch of different online gaming services and put them into one cohesive package. I'm not sure there's been a bigger innovation this generation.
Another often overlooked aspect of XBL is "Live Aware" games -- even games that aren't online can advertise themselves on the service, so that if you're playing a single player game, your friends can still invite you in. It's very cool.
Rebel Strike? C'mon... that game looked pretty good at launch, but it doesn't stand up to the best of the best today (even on GameCube, RE4 looks much better). The AI is piss-poor and the gameplay is shallow. Not sure about the "record for most polygons/sec in-game," but even if it's true (which I doubt), it's still only a good game.
You can't look at Doom 3, Ninja Gaiden, Rallisport, Project Gotham, Splinter Cell 3, etc. and tell me that the GameCube is on par. It's close, but I'm telling you -- read the head-to-heads on IGN. The GameCube has almost never won the best version of any multiplatform game. In nearly every case, the Xbox does.
Also, the lack of Dolby 5.1 hurts, as does the compressed FMV and sound often required by the smaller disc size.
Not trying to fanboy out on you here. The GameCube is a great piece of hardware, but it's not the best out there.
I've been playing PC games online for a long time, and there's nothing like Xbox Live. See what your friends are playing, invite them into games, pervasive voice chat. The individual pieces had been done before, but never as a cohesive package.
My personal favorite GameCube innovation: Best graphics this generation, lowest price of the three consoles, and Nintendo still makes a profit on it.
Sure, low price is great, but not sure how innovative that is. And the GameCube has very good graphics, but in nearly every instance, the Xbox beats it (sometimes not by a whole lot, but the Xbox is a more powerful unit -- check out the gaming Head-to-Heads at ign.com).
There is a reason why the XBOX 360 is using an IBM processor and ATI graphics this time around. They are trying to ape the GameCube.
That's not really accurate, unless you're suggesting that the GameCube is what it is because of the processor and graphics chipset. MS, I'm sure, is going with the company that can offer the best technology at the best price in the greatest volume. I don't think they're trying to race the GameCube.
Don't get me wrong -- I have nothing against the GameCube. It's a perfectly fine console. It's just that, outside of Donkey Konga (which is a fun little gimmick), I don't see a lot of technical innovation coming from Nintendo these days.
That is unfortunately why Nintendo has a hard time these days. They are actually trying to innovate and "revolutionize" gaming, which should theorically be a good thing, but just like you said, people don't like what is innovative...
I always ask this when it comes up, but I never get much of an answer. What has Nintendo done this generation that's particularly innovative? I think that Sony's work with the EyeToy or Microsoft's Xbox Live infrastructure has had much more of an impact than anything Nintendo's done in some time.
The GameCube is a very competent (and inexpensive) game console, no doubt, but what's so innovative about it? Maybe Nintendo's problem isn't that it's too "revolutionary," but that its customer base is outgrowing its offerings.
Gamecube outsold Xbox in worldwide totals
Uh... source? No, it didn't.
Oh, and more importantly, Nintendo MADE MONEY on the Gamecube.
More importantly for whom? Unless you're a stockholder, what difference does it make to you who's making money on system sales? Xbox game sales are well above Nintendo's -- that's why it's getting third party support and Nintendo, more and more, isn't.
Wavebird's a great controller (and cheap, which is all good), but I think the market has proven out that two analog sticks is the way to go.
Wireless-ness aside, what's so great about the GC controller? It doesn't work well for fighters; it doesn't work well for shooters; it's only so-so for sports games. I'm not sure this is progress. And the triggers that turn into buttons when you press down all the way is an idea that just doesn't work.
Okay, I'll bite.
What about the Gamecube was remotely innovative? It's a good game system in a solid formfactor, but Sony's out there with the EyeToy and the HDD add-on and MS is out there with the Live service and a built-in HDD.
Nintendo makes some fun games, but how have they tried to "move the games industry on" this generation?
Speaking of niggling details, I don't see anything here that says anything about Office file formats.
On the other hand, if you bought XP Pro in 2001 for $189 or XP Home for $99, you'd still be up to date. On the Mac side, you'd have spent $129 (OS X) + $129 (10.2) + $129 (10.3) + $129 (10.4) to keep your OS up to date in the same time period.
"Oh yes, they were 'on display' in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the leopard.'"
Having read the books again recently, that was one of the lines that stuck out as trying way too hard to be clever. The bit about the stairs and the light being out is funny; "Beware of the leopard" pushes it too far.
Not to say I like the movie version, but I don't think Lawrence Olivier could have pulled that line off and made it sound credible, much less funny.
Can't argue with that, I guess, although the argument against IE vs. Netscape wasn't that IE was a crappy product pushing out a better one -- it was that the competing product wouldn't have the chance to get a foothold because of bundling. I'm not saying that's the argument you're making, but that's the usual one.
Your argument of "whatever makes the best product" is actually a really logical one, but not the argument most people make. You only get into trouble if there's something you want to do that Apple's products won't let you do (like, say, play WMA files in iTunes). Without competition, you're kinda SOL if you want to push outside of their products. For most of their customers, though, that's probably not a major issue because they're products tend to be solid.
In my case, I don't like Windows Media Player and I'm not enthusiastic about iTunes, so it's nice to have an option from a smaller company in Media Center.
The conversation, though, was about the impact of bundling. Office isn't bundled with WinXP. You're right that outside of the WordPerfect Suite and OpenOffice, there's not a lot out there, but at least the product doesn't come in the same box.
Apple doesn't prevent other people from developing products. Their file formats are relatively open (except for the proprietary codecs like Sorensen that they pay lots of money to license), and their dev tools are really good.
You're right, but, again, that's always been the argument made against MS bundling products -- if they bundle WMP, no one will buy, say, MusicMatch. My point was that the opposite seems to be happening. Instead of WMP taking over the market, there's a thriving market for media players (I use J. River's Media Center myself) -- everything from iTunes to WinAmp to MusicMatch to Media Center to FooBar to many more. On the Mac, pretty much everyone uses iTunes.
Seriously, though: What's not to like about iMovie? What doesn't it do that you want it to do? I'd rather have one really good tool, than a bunch of half-assed ones (which is often the case with Windows solutions).
Don't get me wrong -- iMovie is a really nice product. What I'm saying, though, is that Apple has actually done what lots of people were afraid that Microsoft would do: kill the market for competing third-party software on its platform. There are lots of video editors on the Windows side, some good, some bad, but at this point, not much other than iMovie on the Mac. Most of the third-parties are making their money with add-on packs rather than competing products.
If you don't like monopolies and monocultures, it's something to think about -- I'm not saying it's horrible or anything.
The kinda funny (and often ignored) sidestory is here that, despite bundling and monopoly, the markets for multimedia products is much more competitive on Windows than on the Mac. Who in their right mind is making a jukebox for the Mac anymore? Or a video editor? Or a photo organizer? Apple, whether good or bad, has really put the kibosh on development of those types of utilities by bundling them with their OS.
On Windows, there are tons of good media players, video editors, photo organizers, etc. If anything, there are so many that there's no clear leader.
While Apple's not a monopoly, they're developing into a monoculture. The products are very good, but if you want something else (say you don't like iMovie), your choice of competing products is extremely limited.
They have been convicted as monolopists.
No they haven't. It's not illegal to be a monopoly (and it'd be hard to argue that they're a monopoly with Apple and Linux in the picture).
But at work, I'm forced to have a windows machine.
OMG, get Upton Sinclair on the line. In other news, I hear there are some people who don't get to choose what brand of telephone they use at work. Somehow, they manage.
Courage.
I've got to say that they DON'T have a right. I was a victim of their DR-DOS isn't compatible trick. I was forced to go buy Dos 6.0 and then it ATE MY DATA! I became rather negative towards this convicted monopolist when I found out they had done that on purpose!
Oh - did you notice that last sentence - CONVICTED MONOPOLIST. They have to play by a different set of rules.
This post becomes (5, Funny) when read in Comic Book Guy voice. But then again, so does most of Slashdot.
Can we get a new form of Godwin's Law for when people start throwing around "convicted monopolist"?