where is the faux outrage about how soy is going to destroy the world?
There have been hysterical articles all over the news regarding the estrogenic effects of certain soy products. Although keep in mind genistein doesn't just occur in soy - it's also in other products, like beer.
In vitro studies have proven genistein to induce apoptosis of testicular cells at certain levels
At what levels? Just about anything will kill cells at high enough concentrations - even water.
just do it without the drama
What drama? I've seen a lot less drama regarding BPA than regarding, say, non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And I can guarantee you BPA is more dangerous than something which doesn't even exist.
The government (all levels) in 2008 accounted for about 5 1/2 Trillion out a total gross domestic product (that included that government spending as output) of 14 trillion and change.
True to a point, but it's also important to consider what that money is spent on.
Government spending in the US is around 40% of the GDP. However, we spend roughly 30% of our GDP on just a handful of government initiatives - pensions, healthcare, education, defense, welfare and interest payments on debt at various levels. A lot of that spending is highly stimulative - it flows right out into the private economy again, where anybody who works for a living stands a good chance of grabbing hold of those dollars.
That's in stark contrast to a big chunk of our private economy these days, where wealth has been increasingly sequestered in the hands of a few corrupt oligarchs who - as we've seen over the past year - promptly squandered it on absurd investment scams, destroying trillions of dollars of wealth in the process. They then followed up this idiocy not by going to Disneyland, but by coming to the very taxpayers they'd just screwed and demanding a bailout.
We'd have been better off if Congress had taxed that money away from rich idiots over the past 20 years and given it to more deserving recipients, like crack whores, winos and telemarketers. At least those three groups would be inclined to spend the money on goods and services the rest of us produce, instead of on Ponzi schemes the rest of us will have to pay something like $30,000 a household to bailout (and that's not even considering the trillions of dollars in losses on all the wrecked personal investment portfolios out there).
I think what the last year has shown us - pretty clearly - is that even the idiots in Congress would have a hard time blowing as much money as quickly as the private sector just did, with so little to show for it. Congress could have incinerated trillions of dollars in $20 bills just to generate electrical power for Washington and it would have been a more productive use of that money.
The moral of this story is that there is no real difference between the government and the private sector when it comes to wasting vast sums of money on dubious propositions. This shouldn't come as much of a surprise since they're both run by people (and, in many cases, the same people). One big advantage with the government is that it's at least somewhat transparent. With the kleptocratic private sector we've got, you really don't know how big the crater the elites are digging is until we all fall into it.
I don't see it improving the overall charge time of a car from a household plug, though.
Why not? Just install another battery pack at home, and keep it charged up at all times. It could then be used to quick-charge your car(s).
It could also be used as backup power during a blackout, or maybe even to supply home power during those times of day when electric rates are especially high. You could charge it from the grid (especially during those times of day when rates are low), from solar cells on your roof or from a wind turbine.
Your post seems to be just pulling data out of thin air and pushing it as fact. Could you link your sources? I'm unable to find anything close to the figure you give
See When Will Microsoft Own Up to the XBox Bomb As of the 1st quarter of 2007 they'd invested over $21 billion and had chalked up over $5 billion in operating losses on their "Home Entertainment" (read XBox) division since 2001.
the suggestion that Microsoft is still losing money on consoles, again this is outright false and hasn't been true since about Q3 2006
Microsoft's HE division turned a small profit starting a year or two ago - I don't know if they've recorded a consistent profit each quarter since - but according to this analysis they still aren't making any money on the consoles themselves (articles back in 2005 indicated MS might have been losing a staggering $500 a console). I guess the hope is they'll make the money back on games, but they'd have to move billions of titles to make up for the $30 billion or so they've dumped into the gaming business. (Don't forget, the "red ring of death" is going to cost them between another $1 to $5 billion, according to published reports. Ouch!)
Regarding the suggestion that Microsoft is possibly a bigger loser than the PS3, I'm trying to figure out how you can calculate that one.
Because Sony successfully used the PS3 to push Blu-Ray as a new standard. Even if they're never able to make much money off the consoles themselves, between the games and Blu-Ray licensing fees, Sony will probably eke out a tiny profit off of the PS3. With its more sophisticated hardware and its ability to be used as a Blu-Ray player (among other things), the PS3 will probably have a longer shelflife than either the 360 or the Wii, giving them more time to recoup their investment.
In contrast, the piddling earnings Microsoft's getting from its Home Entertainment division - a paltry $151 million for the most recent quarter - can't even hope to fill the $30 billion chasm that division has dug for itself over the past decade fighting the console wars. Worse, those reduced HE earnings came on increased HE revenues. What happens if the economy continues to slump and sales actually decline? Looks to me like their Home Entertainment division will promptly plunge back into the red again. Whoops.
Comparing to the likes of the iPhone and the Wii is rather ignorant of the long term goal here. Microsoft wanted to break into the home entertainment area because it believes having a box under the TV is important because that box will be called upon to play games, movies and offer countless other entertainment services within a few years.
If Microsoft does manage to get a box under every TV how do you think that's going to boost their profits?
You might as well ask what's gonna happen if Microsoft discovers a way to turn lead into gold, because they have as much of a chance at that as they do at getting a "box under every TV". Which, when you think about it, is a pretty useless strategy to begin with since that box is a worthless hunk of plastic and silicon without content. And Microsoft doesn't make content.
Does anyone in their right mind think Hollywood is gonna sit back and let the likes of Microsoft control a single point of access to the home (the only way Microsoft's massive investment in consoles could ever hope to pay off)? Good luck with that strategy, Redmond. Heck, even the game developers are smart enough to realize they're better off with two (or more) players competing against one another for dominance in the home.
Beyond that, as time passes it's only going to get easier - and cheaper - to create and market devices that
They've spent a LOT more than $5 billion on the Xboxen over the past decade or so. More like $25 - $30 billion, last I read. That's a truly staggering sum for a product line that's yet to earn them even a cool billion in profit over the same period.
It's even more embarrassing for Microsoft when you realize the Wii has forced them to cut the price of the Xbox 360 just to remain competitive saleswise - and they're still sliding into 2nd place in this generation for overall sales, in spite of having a year's headstart.
Even worse, Nintendo has been turning a profit on the Wii since very early on in its lifecycle. Microsoft just recently started turning any consistent profits at all on its videogame business, and last I read they're still losing money on every 360 they sell (they have to make it back on the games). In contrast, Nintendo is turning a profit both on their consoles and on the games.
In a lot of ways, I'd say Microsoft is an even bigger loser in this generation of the console wars than Sony. The PS3 is likely to have a longer lifespan in the market than the 360, giving Sony more of a chance to make money off the consoles (and games) in the long run. And by pushing Blu-Ray to some level of success at least Sony stands to make some money off that standard thanks to their enormous PS3 investment. In contrast, Microsoft has nothing to show for the whole Xbox investment besides - finally - an anemic quarterly profit for their gaming division.
Apple's making far more money off of the iPhone than Microsoft's making off of the Xbox, and it cost Apple far less money and took Apple far less time.
I think folks criticizing Microsoft for their R&D investments are on the right track. Microsoft has blown a ton of money on R&D and on trying to get into other markets besides desktop PCs, and much of it has been completely wasted. Several of their competitors have done a far better job, spending a lot less money.
Research is great, but you have to be able to translate that research into products people want to buy (that's the "development" side of R&D). Microsoft risks becoming the next Xerox - a one-trick pony who dominated one market, but who could never translate their extensive R&D efforts into successful products in different markets. Remember, it was Xerox who pretty much invented the modern graphical user interface PCs sport today, along with things like Ethernet and laser printers. Where are they now?
There is a time to cut your losses, consolidate your position, and focus on what you do well.
Unfortunately for Microsoft, they do nothing well apart from exploiting their monopoly position on the desktop. Their primary function in this world for the past quarter-century has been to extract increasingly ridiculous fees (in light of plummeting hardware prices) for their increasingly bug-laden, resource-hungry and insecure operating system. It's worked so well for them for so long it's all they're now adapted for.
The huge problem looming up ahead is that all of the growth going forward in the personal computing space is likely to take place outside of their PC monopoly playground - on the Internet, on cell phones from RIM and Apple and Nokia, on portable and home gaming devices from Nintendo (and Apple, if the iPhone/iPod Touch continue making the kind of progress they've been making in handheld gaming) and quite probably on inexpensive computing devices in the developing world running Linux. If anything, the PC is likely to shrink in absolute revenue terms, and will eventually be dwarfed by these other computing devices.
Worse for Microsoft, it's likely that devices like the iPhone will eventually become replacement PC's as mobile processor technology advances. Wireless HDMI and Bluetooth keyboards and mice would make it possible to produce an iPhone that could pair with HD televisions and a keyboard and mouse to function as a full-fledged computer anywhere in the home or office. The iPhone already has the processing horsepower it takes to run the only applications the vast majority of users are interested in - web surfing, email and word processing. The more powerful mobile processors in the pipeline - like Intel's Atom - will open up a full range of desktop-level applications to handheld "PC phones" from Apple, RIM and others. At that point, who needs to pay the Microsoft tax for less-convenient devices you can't take with you?
The PC is the next Zune. And when that dies, Microsoft dies with it.
Microsoft hasn't been particularly successful with the XBox, either. The 360 itself is a decent piece of hardware, but they've dumped something like $30 billion into their home entertainment division this decade, the vast majority of that going to the XBoxen. To date they've made less than a billion in profit off that entire investment.
Their shareholders would have been far better-served by $30 billion in dividends than by blowing thru $30 billion only to become an also-ran to Nintendo, who are already turning billions in profit off of their far-smaller investment in machines like the DS and the Wii. Nintendo made an eye-popping $2.5 billion in profit in 2007 alone.
Microsoft is a one-trick pony, and that one-trick is the monopoly they inherited from IBM. Take that away from them and they'd be Lotus. As in, extinct.
(Actually, that's not entirely fair now that I think about it. They also released by far the best spreadsheet for windowing operating systems - Excel. And Word used to be a great word processing program prior to Word 6.0 back in the mid-'90s, when it became a bloated pile of crap. But they never would have had the money to develop and market either if it hadn't been for the DOS monopoly they inherited.)
Microsoft isn't making money, that's the problem. They've literally sunk about $22 billion into the videogame market according to articles I've read, and last I checked hadn't even made a billion in profit off of their videogame business total in going on a decade now. That's a horrific return on an enormous investment. They could have burned $20 billion in one dollar bills, used the heat to generate electricity and made more money than that.
Would have been a lot quicker, too!
As financial analyst Roger Ehrenberg said in his April, 2007 When Will Microsoft Own Up To The Xbox 360 Bomb? article at Seeking Alpha:
"After five years and over $21 billion invested all they've got to show for it is $5.4 billion of cumulative operating losses, and Xbox 360 doesn't appear to be the silver bullet to turn things around."
In contrast, I think Apple spent under a billion developing and rolling out the iPhone, and it's already turned a huge profit for them in under 2 years.
Microsoft has spent so much money trying to get into the videogame business, they could have almost *bought* Sony outright for the same amount of cash, and reaped huge profits from the PS/2 and from the PS/3, which would have been dominant during this generation without the Xbox 360 in the market. Not to mention all of Sony's other profitable businesses. Not that Sony would have actually allowed itself to be bought by Microsoft, but you get the idea. MS has spent a truly ridiculous amount of money on the Xboxen, for almost no return. At the rate they're going, it'll take them DECADES to recoup their investment, at best.
And that's assuming another generation of game consoles doesn't come along in 3 years and force them to spend another $10 billion designing yet another Xbox. It seems unlikely that the Xbox 360 won't see serious hardware competition from a new platform sometime in the next few years, especially since Nintendo is now flush with cash and will have plenty of money to design and build the successor to the Wii using the very latest technology. Even a "low-end" console in 2012 or 2013 would blow the doors off the by then ancient Xbox 360.
I won't even contemplate what might happen if a future, more capable iPhone really takes off as a gaming platform and personal media device. Microsoft could find itself doubly screwed, in both the home and mobile spaces.
Well, first off, in all the time the galaxy has existed, how long has most of it been remotely hospitable to the evolution of intelligent life, and how long does that process take, and how common is it? We don't have the answer to any of those variables, so it's entirely possible that intelligent life is exceedingly rare, and that we're one of the first if not the first intelligent life form to evolve, at least in this galaxy.
We do know that gamma ray bursts and other high-energy events may have served to sterilize the surfaces of many planets earlier in the history of our galaxy, essentially resetting the clock on the evolution of higher life forms. We also know if you go back far enough the elements weren't available in the kind of abundances you'd require to form terrestrial, earth-like planets. While it's possible life - and even intelligent life - could evolve on planets which aren't earth-like, it isn't at all clear that technological civilizations could evolve on such worlds. No technology = no space travel.
You also seem to be comparing the colonization of the remotest corners of the earth with the colonization of space, which is a poor analogy. The distances, energy and resource requirements involved in space travel vastly exceed those required by our ancestors to spread out over the face of the earth. Our ancestors did not for the most part have to haul their food, fuel, water and air with them - they were largely able to live off the land. That simply isn't possible in space, not without committing gobs of resources to setting up partially self-sustaining artificial environments. We still haven't effectively colonized the bottom of our own oceans, a far more hospitable and accessible environment than deep space.
As for the vulnerability of being confined to a single world, I should think being a nanotech civilization well-camouflaged on a single world, or perhaps a small number of isolated worlds, would make you far less vulnerable to detection and destruction by hostile civilizations with more advanced technology. Over the longterm, if there are other intelligences in the universe, this would represent far more of a threat to the homeworld than any potential natural catastrophe (most of which could be anticipated and prevented well in advance by any sufficiently advanced civilization).
It also doesn't follow that the more hostile a civilization is, the more likely it would be to expand. It may well be just the opposite. Advanced civilizations might find it far more efficient to explore the subatomic realm than fritter about the universe, just as we've found it more efficient. These civilizations would never need to expand off of their homeworld because their ever-advancing technology continues to make more and more efficient use of the resources possessed by their homeworld. They might only take notice of their unwelcome neighbors when one of them makes contact, either intentionally or accidentally.
Yes, all it would take is for one technological civilization to decide to do it. But there are likely a quite finite number of such civilizations in any galaxy to begin with, and assuming there's no way around the speed of light limit intergalactic travel would probably be pretty impractical, even for truly advanced. So even if it's technologically possible, it's entirely probable nobody has bothered to do it. There are, after all, many things which are technologically possible for our civilization to accomplish but which for one reason or another we haven't gotten around to.
Again, the biggest advances our technology has made in the past 50 years haven't involved space travel - they've involved machines on a much, much, much smaller scale. Assuming that trend continues, as seems likely, we may find there's a lot more to explore on the scale of the very small than there is on the scale of the very large, and that it can be explored and exploited for a fraction the cost, time and effort of, say, galactic colonization.
Also, if you were that one egotistical society that actually decided to colonize the galaxy, wouldn't you sign your work? There would be evidence.
No. In fact, I'd probably do just the opposite. You never know if the first civilization you encounter is gonna be friendly or not. I'd probably go out of my way not to attract attention - which argues for eschewing galactic colonization entirely and doing everything to make my civilization as invisible as possible.
Maybe the reason why we haven't been visited is because those civilizations which do attempt galactic colonization are promptly destroyed by hostile interstellar neighbors . . .
This assumes anybody ever bothers to go to the effort of colonizing the galaxy. It's entirely possible nobody bothers, or they do so in such a way that we're completely unaware of their presence. Our own technology seems to be progressing far more quickly on the scale of the very small than the very large - look at the recent advances in nanomachines and microprocessors. Advanced civilizations may spend more of their time exploring the universe inside every atom than they do exploring the larger universe. Indeed, they may pass thru a technological singularity, convert their physical form into nanomachines and nanoprocessors and leave the physical world as we know it behind.
There's no need to explore the universe if you can simulate it in a device the size of a sugarcube, and if your whole civilization would fit on the average desktop.
Pfft. So 'increasing miniaturization and decreasing power requirements' mean that pc hardware is becoming so cheap that we will have an iphone as convergence device and buy a load of dumb terminals, docking stations or whatever you want to call them to plug our iphones into?
Yeah, that makes sense(sarcasm-o-meter explodes).
Every office I've been into in the past 5 years has been festooned with docking stations, monitors, keyboards and mice, for use with their laptops (the docking stations usually come with the laptop). So for business, buying similar devices for the iPhone would be absolutely no different from what they're doing already - except that the iPhone could reduce by two the number of devices they have to buy for their employees, as it could function as both a cell phone (when disconnected from the company network) as well as an IP phone (when docked).
Longterm, high speed wireless connectivity could eliminate the need for docking stations entirely, even to connect to nearby monitors.
Or maybe more computing power will be built into electrical products, so the TV will have an integrated PVR and maybe web browser and other services.
Maybe, but that's not as useful as being able to take whatever you've got wherever you go. Why strand last night's episode of Mad Men on the PVR in your tee vee at home, when you could watch it over your lunch hour on your iPhone at work? Or take it with you to your friend's house and watch it together on her 50" flat panel set?
There's a huge challenge for Apple to manage -- how to monetise this future, as it clearly erodes the value of their current computer lineup
Yeah, I was gonna point this out. Apple's been giving guidance for awhile stating that their margins are gonna erode going forward - this is the reason why. Still, I don't think they have any longterm alternative. If they didn't jump into the "smartphone" market now, they'd likely be pushed in a year or two by Samsung or Nokia or Blackberry, as other vendors either intentionally (or unintentionally) release phones that can function as full-fledged PCs (because they are little PCs).
These little PCs are really going to be a disruptive technology. Companies are either going to embrace them, or die.
One interesting revenue stream that's going to open up for Apple now though is a cut of third-party software sales, via the iTunes store. This is the kind of model Nintendo pioneered back in the '80s - others develop the software, but only Nintendo gets to release and distribute it (and gets a cut of the purchase price). It may ultimately allow them to sell the iPhone at a loss, even after carrier subsidies, and make the money back (and then some) on 3rd party software sales.
I don't think the lack of a keyboard will matter. You could always release a portable "docking station" with its own keyboard, monitor and battery, for those road warriors who need a keyboard and larger screen on the go. And for high-end users - graphics professionals and the like - traditional laptops will still be available, along with desktop workstations and the like. I just think we're going to see average users migrate away from systems like that - these desktop and portable workstations will only account for 5-10% of the total "PC" market, tops (in volume, not dollars - the margins on these systems will remain much higher). Everybody else will be using their "phone" as a PC.
If "smartphones" evolve to become the dominant computing platform over the next decade - as I think is likely - Apple has the potential to grow until it dwarfs Microsoft . . . and everybody else in the business. Looking at the market as it stands right now, Apple is in a position to become a sort of Microsoft on steroids over the next 10 years.
For years the tech press has been nattering on about "convergence" devices. Microsoft and Sony sank tens of billions of dollars into their game console business in part because they'd hoped their devices would become a ubiquitous digital hub, a move I always found questionable, since many households would never purchase a game machine and neither company has shown any skill in providing interfaces users enjoy working with.
Unfortunately for them, in the meantime increasing miniaturization and decreasing power requirements made it practical to produce full-fledged personal computers you could fit in your pocket. The iPhone is a tiny Macintosh with a built-in touchscreen that just happens to come with an integrated cell phone, and as such represents a far better bet as an ideal convergence device than a videogame machine.
Apart from the appeal of the cell phone as a convergence device, the other problem for the remaining players in the market, like Dell, HP and Microsoft, is that margins on dedicated personal computers are crashing. The same technology which makes it possible to cram a fully-functional (if not state-of-the-art) personal computer into your pocket has also slashed the price of even relatively high-end desktop PCs to well under $1000. At these low prices - you can get a fully capable desktop these days for around $300, and a laptop for $200 more - the devices are becoming commodities with little if any margin left. Low PC prices are also making it increasingly difficult for Microsoft to justify its outrageous software prices - on a PC loaded with Vista and MS Office, the cost of the Microsoft software can easily exceed the cost of the hardware itself.
Apple has the advantage of producing and selling both the hardware and the software. As such, the declining cost of hardware won't necessarily erode their product margins, or at least won't erode them as much as it will their competitors. They can also have the cost of the unit subsidized by the carriers themselves, allowing them to charge consumers more for their products than rivals like Dell and Microsoft, who either don't have access to such subsidization (Dell and their PCs) or who have to split it with the hardware manufacturers (MS and the smartphone makers themselves). While Apple's overall margins are likely to decrease as most customers migrate away from more expensive, traditional desktop and laptop PCs, their market share and overall number of units sold will explode. And their margin situation will still be vastly superior to that enjoyed by the likes of Dell and HP in the (dying) dedicated personal computer business.
Apple's other advantage is their focus on the customer experience. Whereas Microsoft has spent the past 20 years trying to lock customers inside the Windows jail, Apple's focus has been on trying to lure customers onto its Macintosh platform. It shows with the iPhone, which has an interface that puts the jumbled, klunky Windows smartphone interface to shame. The iPhone sports an interface consumers are willing to pay a substantial premium to enjoy.
I suspect at some point in the next 2-5 years Apple will move to make the iPhone a true PC. They'll make some kind of docking station available, so you can connect it to a full-sized monitor and keyboard and wired network when you're at home or at the office, the way laptop docking stations currently allow users to connect. It'll have the advantage of allowing corporations to replace not only their existing desktop and laptop PCs, but also their telephones and employee cell phones, since the iPhone will be able to function as all of these devices. Mobile users who require a keyboard and larger mon
If you think the Faux News clowns are stupid, check out their audience. They're two tacos and an enchilada short of a combination platter.
The Faux News goons sure have smarm down to an art, though. They remind me exactly of the newsthugs the government installed at ISN following President Clark's little coup on Babylon 5. Life imitates art.
When you want access to the web without lugging around a larger device, like a laptop, it's perfectly acceptable. And as I said, there's nothing to stop Apple from selling a docking station for the iPhone, allowing it to use whatever monitor or keyboard you want.
Eventually, it'll probably even be able to connect wirelessly to keyboards or monitors. So you could use the 50" HDTV in your living room as a monitor, or the 27" monitor at your desk.
The only way Apple could get any kind of toe-hold in the average household is if their stuff is cheaper than anyone else's.
Yeah, just look how successful eMachines was. Why, they blew Dell and HP away!
When you get down under the $1000 price level, some piddling little savings isn't going to do much to differentiate you from the competition. Most customers still have plenty of anxiety when it comes to buying a PC. They aren't worried about the price (within reason) - they want something that's going to be easy to use, and that won't break down or leave them flailing around trying to resolve cryptic errors.
I have no idea why the media is so in love with Apple and it's products - the real world just seems to ignore them.
Right. Which is why they're now the #1 retail vendor of consumer PC's. Clearly, this is all just a media plot. I'm sure that's why their market cap is 3.5 times that of Dell.
It's like saying Chevy has vendor lock in based on there Auto parts When ANYONE can make them as sell them.
No, it's like saying that Chevy has customer lockin based on the fact that the majority of garages are only configured to allow Chevy's to park in them, and the vast majority of tires only fit Chevy's propriteary wheels. Buy a Ford and you can't park it most places, and don't have the same range of accessories to chose from.
That's the situation with the iPod - from car stereos to clock radios, Apple's iPod connector is the only interface available for a vast array of products. If users choose some other portable media player, they're locked out of using all those other gadgets.
I'm not blaming Apple for this - that's what happens when you totally dominate a market, the way the iPod dominates its market.
No, if Apple were to produce a game system, it would cost 20%+ more than the competition,
Who cares? We aren't talking $10,000 systems here, we're talking about something that would sell for maybe $300. Even if they sell the hardware for "20%" more than it's supposedly "worth", that's $60. If they can make it easy to use and market it successfully, they'll have no trouble commanding a $60 premium - that's dinner for two at a decent restaurant in Los Angeles. And if they can keep the games to $20, parents will be able to quickly determine that the total cost of ownership for the console would be a lot lower than a Playstation, with its $60 games.
The Wii has already shown us that the bulk of customers don't give a crap about "cutting edge" gaming hardware - they're more interested in the interface, and the games. Apple gets interfaces, and they'd certainly attract plenty of games developers. Leverage the iPhone, the iPod, their AppleTV / iTunes store and sell a moderately-powerful game / media receiver console for $300. Since they wouldn't need to sink billions into developing such a device, any sales they get would be pure profit, and any sales they steal away from rivals would be a nice bonus.
The console developers have been trying to convert their gaming machines into successful digital media hubs for quite a few years now, with little success. My guess is Apple will have better luck converting its digital media hub into a gaming system. You get people to buy with the promise of movies on demand, music in every room and an easy-to-use interface - a "serious" device - and then you peddle the games. That's how Commodore moved millions of 64's and ate Atari's lunch.
Exactly. People don't get it, yet. They treat it like a phone that just happens to run OS-X. Wrong. It's a tiny Mac with phone functionality and a (by default) custom phone interface. There's no reason why you couldn't add a monitor and keyboard and have a full-fledged "desktop" PC. It's already more powerful than many PCs were a decade ago - this year's revision and next year's revision should shave that gap down to as little as 5 years.
Apple's brought the first practical, popular Dynabook to market. If they play their cards right, they could dominate personal computing within 10 years, going way beyond Microsoft in terms of customer impact.
It's already happening, and it's got nothing to do with Apple per se - it's just that the cost of the technology in general has dropped to the point where any price differential between Apple and its rivals amounts to pocket change. A good example would be the iPod - yeah there are cheaper rivals, but c'mon, we're talking about a $200 - $300 gadget here, tops. Few people are gonna care about a $20 savings. They're gonna be more concerned about whether they can get a clock radio that works with it.
Likewise, with Intel's design help game machine / digital media receiver combo devices could easily get churned out for $200 - $300. And since Apple wouldn't be spending billions to develop and launch these devices - the way Sony and Microsoft did - they'd be able to sell software for less than half the price of their rivals and still turn a tidy profit.
Slashdot Mirror
where is the faux outrage about how soy is going to destroy the world?
There have been hysterical articles all over the news regarding the estrogenic effects of certain soy products. Although keep in mind genistein doesn't just occur in soy - it's also in other products, like beer.
In vitro studies have proven genistein to induce apoptosis of testicular cells at certain levels
At what levels? Just about anything will kill cells at high enough concentrations - even water.
just do it without the drama
What drama? I've seen a lot less drama regarding BPA than regarding, say, non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And I can guarantee you BPA is more dangerous than something which doesn't even exist.
The government (all levels) in 2008 accounted for about 5 1/2 Trillion out a total gross domestic product (that included that government spending as output) of 14 trillion and change.
True to a point, but it's also important to consider what that money is spent on.
Government spending in the US is around 40% of the GDP. However, we spend roughly 30% of our GDP on just a handful of government initiatives - pensions, healthcare, education, defense, welfare and interest payments on debt at various levels. A lot of that spending is highly stimulative - it flows right out into the private economy again, where anybody who works for a living stands a good chance of grabbing hold of those dollars.
That's in stark contrast to a big chunk of our private economy these days, where wealth has been increasingly sequestered in the hands of a few corrupt oligarchs who - as we've seen over the past year - promptly squandered it on absurd investment scams, destroying trillions of dollars of wealth in the process. They then followed up this idiocy not by going to Disneyland, but by coming to the very taxpayers they'd just screwed and demanding a bailout.
We'd have been better off if Congress had taxed that money away from rich idiots over the past 20 years and given it to more deserving recipients, like crack whores, winos and telemarketers. At least those three groups would be inclined to spend the money on goods and services the rest of us produce, instead of on Ponzi schemes the rest of us will have to pay something like $30,000 a household to bailout (and that's not even considering the trillions of dollars in losses on all the wrecked personal investment portfolios out there).
I think what the last year has shown us - pretty clearly - is that even the idiots in Congress would have a hard time blowing as much money as quickly as the private sector just did, with so little to show for it. Congress could have incinerated trillions of dollars in $20 bills just to generate electrical power for Washington and it would have been a more productive use of that money.
The moral of this story is that there is no real difference between the government and the private sector when it comes to wasting vast sums of money on dubious propositions. This shouldn't come as much of a surprise since they're both run by people (and, in many cases, the same people). One big advantage with the government is that it's at least somewhat transparent. With the kleptocratic private sector we've got, you really don't know how big the crater the elites are digging is until we all fall into it.
Wait 'till it sits on a giant space jar!
I don't see it improving the overall charge time of a car from a household plug, though.
Why not? Just install another battery pack at home, and keep it charged up at all times. It could then be used to quick-charge your car(s).
It could also be used as backup power during a blackout, or maybe even to supply home power during those times of day when electric rates are especially high. You could charge it from the grid (especially during those times of day when rates are low), from solar cells on your roof or from a wind turbine.
Your post seems to be just pulling data out of thin air and pushing it as fact. Could you link your sources? I'm unable to find anything close to the figure you give
See When Will Microsoft Own Up to the XBox Bomb As of the 1st quarter of 2007 they'd invested over $21 billion and had chalked up over $5 billion in operating losses on their "Home Entertainment" (read XBox) division since 2001.
the suggestion that Microsoft is still losing money on consoles, again this is outright false and hasn't been true since about Q3 2006
Microsoft's HE division turned a small profit starting a year or two ago - I don't know if they've recorded a consistent profit each quarter since - but according to this analysis they still aren't making any money on the consoles themselves (articles back in 2005 indicated MS might have been losing a staggering $500 a console). I guess the hope is they'll make the money back on games, but they'd have to move billions of titles to make up for the $30 billion or so they've dumped into the gaming business. (Don't forget, the "red ring of death" is going to cost them between another $1 to $5 billion, according to published reports. Ouch!)
Regarding the suggestion that Microsoft is possibly a bigger loser than the PS3, I'm trying to figure out how you can calculate that one.
Because Sony successfully used the PS3 to push Blu-Ray as a new standard. Even if they're never able to make much money off the consoles themselves, between the games and Blu-Ray licensing fees, Sony will probably eke out a tiny profit off of the PS3. With its more sophisticated hardware and its ability to be used as a Blu-Ray player (among other things), the PS3 will probably have a longer shelflife than either the 360 or the Wii, giving them more time to recoup their investment.
In contrast, the piddling earnings Microsoft's getting from its Home Entertainment division - a paltry $151 million for the most recent quarter - can't even hope to fill the $30 billion chasm that division has dug for itself over the past decade fighting the console wars. Worse, those reduced HE earnings came on increased HE revenues. What happens if the economy continues to slump and sales actually decline? Looks to me like their Home Entertainment division will promptly plunge back into the red again. Whoops.
Comparing to the likes of the iPhone and the Wii is rather ignorant of the long term goal here. Microsoft wanted to break into the home entertainment area because it believes having a box under the TV is important because that box will be called upon to play games, movies and offer countless other entertainment services within a few years.
If Microsoft does manage to get a box under every TV how do you think that's going to boost their profits?
You might as well ask what's gonna happen if Microsoft discovers a way to turn lead into gold, because they have as much of a chance at that as they do at getting a "box under every TV". Which, when you think about it, is a pretty useless strategy to begin with since that box is a worthless hunk of plastic and silicon without content. And Microsoft doesn't make content.
Does anyone in their right mind think Hollywood is gonna sit back and let the likes of Microsoft control a single point of access to the home (the only way Microsoft's massive investment in consoles could ever hope to pay off)? Good luck with that strategy, Redmond. Heck, even the game developers are smart enough to realize they're better off with two (or more) players competing against one another for dominance in the home.
Beyond that, as time passes it's only going to get easier - and cheaper - to create and market devices that
They've spent a LOT more than $5 billion on the Xboxen over the past decade or so. More like $25 - $30 billion, last I read. That's a truly staggering sum for a product line that's yet to earn them even a cool billion in profit over the same period.
It's even more embarrassing for Microsoft when you realize the Wii has forced them to cut the price of the Xbox 360 just to remain competitive saleswise - and they're still sliding into 2nd place in this generation for overall sales, in spite of having a year's headstart.
Even worse, Nintendo has been turning a profit on the Wii since very early on in its lifecycle. Microsoft just recently started turning any consistent profits at all on its videogame business, and last I read they're still losing money on every 360 they sell (they have to make it back on the games). In contrast, Nintendo is turning a profit both on their consoles and on the games.
In a lot of ways, I'd say Microsoft is an even bigger loser in this generation of the console wars than Sony. The PS3 is likely to have a longer lifespan in the market than the 360, giving Sony more of a chance to make money off the consoles (and games) in the long run. And by pushing Blu-Ray to some level of success at least Sony stands to make some money off that standard thanks to their enormous PS3 investment. In contrast, Microsoft has nothing to show for the whole Xbox investment besides - finally - an anemic quarterly profit for their gaming division.
Apple's making far more money off of the iPhone than Microsoft's making off of the Xbox, and it cost Apple far less money and took Apple far less time.
I think folks criticizing Microsoft for their R&D investments are on the right track. Microsoft has blown a ton of money on R&D and on trying to get into other markets besides desktop PCs, and much of it has been completely wasted. Several of their competitors have done a far better job, spending a lot less money.
Research is great, but you have to be able to translate that research into products people want to buy (that's the "development" side of R&D). Microsoft risks becoming the next Xerox - a one-trick pony who dominated one market, but who could never translate their extensive R&D efforts into successful products in different markets. Remember, it was Xerox who pretty much invented the modern graphical user interface PCs sport today, along with things like Ethernet and laser printers. Where are they now?
After threatening litigation, the city reached a $5 million settlement with the original vendor, Maximus, and may seek another vendor."
That's what happens when you buy your network from a vendor just because you liked their SimCity games.
If they think something is important, they'll stick with it and improve it with each release.
Yeah, the way they "improved" Windows XP with Vista.
There is a time to cut your losses, consolidate your position, and focus on what you do well.
Unfortunately for Microsoft, they do nothing well apart from exploiting their monopoly position on the desktop. Their primary function in this world for the past quarter-century has been to extract increasingly ridiculous fees (in light of plummeting hardware prices) for their increasingly bug-laden, resource-hungry and insecure operating system. It's worked so well for them for so long it's all they're now adapted for.
The huge problem looming up ahead is that all of the growth going forward in the personal computing space is likely to take place outside of their PC monopoly playground - on the Internet, on cell phones from RIM and Apple and Nokia, on portable and home gaming devices from Nintendo (and Apple, if the iPhone/iPod Touch continue making the kind of progress they've been making in handheld gaming) and quite probably on inexpensive computing devices in the developing world running Linux. If anything, the PC is likely to shrink in absolute revenue terms, and will eventually be dwarfed by these other computing devices.
Worse for Microsoft, it's likely that devices like the iPhone will eventually become replacement PC's as mobile processor technology advances. Wireless HDMI and Bluetooth keyboards and mice would make it possible to produce an iPhone that could pair with HD televisions and a keyboard and mouse to function as a full-fledged computer anywhere in the home or office. The iPhone already has the processing horsepower it takes to run the only applications the vast majority of users are interested in - web surfing, email and word processing. The more powerful mobile processors in the pipeline - like Intel's Atom - will open up a full range of desktop-level applications to handheld "PC phones" from Apple, RIM and others. At that point, who needs to pay the Microsoft tax for less-convenient devices you can't take with you?
The PC is the next Zune. And when that dies, Microsoft dies with it.
Microsoft hasn't been particularly successful with the XBox, either. The 360 itself is a decent piece of hardware, but they've dumped something like $30 billion into their home entertainment division this decade, the vast majority of that going to the XBoxen. To date they've made less than a billion in profit off that entire investment.
Their shareholders would have been far better-served by $30 billion in dividends than by blowing thru $30 billion only to become an also-ran to Nintendo, who are already turning billions in profit off of their far-smaller investment in machines like the DS and the Wii. Nintendo made an eye-popping $2.5 billion in profit in 2007 alone.
Microsoft is a one-trick pony, and that one-trick is the monopoly they inherited from IBM. Take that away from them and they'd be Lotus. As in, extinct.
(Actually, that's not entirely fair now that I think about it. They also released by far the best spreadsheet for windowing operating systems - Excel. And Word used to be a great word processing program prior to Word 6.0 back in the mid-'90s, when it became a bloated pile of crap. But they never would have had the money to develop and market either if it hadn't been for the DOS monopoly they inherited.)
If this can save so much money why isn't the health care industry already doing it?
Because in the short term it would divert money away from the really important things, like executive bonuses.
Microsoft isn't making money, that's the problem. They've literally sunk about $22 billion into the videogame market according to articles I've read, and last I checked hadn't even made a billion in profit off of their videogame business total in going on a decade now. That's a horrific return on an enormous investment. They could have burned $20 billion in one dollar bills, used the heat to generate electricity and made more money than that.
Would have been a lot quicker, too!
As financial analyst Roger Ehrenberg said in his April, 2007 When Will Microsoft Own Up To The Xbox 360 Bomb? article at Seeking Alpha:
"After five years and over $21 billion invested all they've got to show for it is $5.4 billion of cumulative operating losses, and Xbox 360 doesn't appear to be the silver bullet to turn things around."
In contrast, I think Apple spent under a billion developing and rolling out the iPhone, and it's already turned a huge profit for them in under 2 years.
Microsoft has spent so much money trying to get into the videogame business, they could have almost *bought* Sony outright for the same amount of cash, and reaped huge profits from the PS/2 and from the PS/3, which would have been dominant during this generation without the Xbox 360 in the market. Not to mention all of Sony's other profitable businesses. Not that Sony would have actually allowed itself to be bought by Microsoft, but you get the idea. MS has spent a truly ridiculous amount of money on the Xboxen, for almost no return. At the rate they're going, it'll take them DECADES to recoup their investment, at best.
And that's assuming another generation of game consoles doesn't come along in 3 years and force them to spend another $10 billion designing yet another Xbox. It seems unlikely that the Xbox 360 won't see serious hardware competition from a new platform sometime in the next few years, especially since Nintendo is now flush with cash and will have plenty of money to design and build the successor to the Wii using the very latest technology. Even a "low-end" console in 2012 or 2013 would blow the doors off the by then ancient Xbox 360.
I won't even contemplate what might happen if a future, more capable iPhone really takes off as a gaming platform and personal media device. Microsoft could find itself doubly screwed, in both the home and mobile spaces.
Well, first off, in all the time the galaxy has existed, how long has most of it been remotely hospitable to the evolution of intelligent life, and how long does that process take, and how common is it? We don't have the answer to any of those variables, so it's entirely possible that intelligent life is exceedingly rare, and that we're one of the first if not the first intelligent life form to evolve, at least in this galaxy.
We do know that gamma ray bursts and other high-energy events may have served to sterilize the surfaces of many planets earlier in the history of our galaxy, essentially resetting the clock on the evolution of higher life forms. We also know if you go back far enough the elements weren't available in the kind of abundances you'd require to form terrestrial, earth-like planets. While it's possible life - and even intelligent life - could evolve on planets which aren't earth-like, it isn't at all clear that technological civilizations could evolve on such worlds. No technology = no space travel.
You also seem to be comparing the colonization of the remotest corners of the earth with the colonization of space, which is a poor analogy. The distances, energy and resource requirements involved in space travel vastly exceed those required by our ancestors to spread out over the face of the earth. Our ancestors did not for the most part have to haul their food, fuel, water and air with them - they were largely able to live off the land. That simply isn't possible in space, not without committing gobs of resources to setting up partially self-sustaining artificial environments. We still haven't effectively colonized the bottom of our own oceans, a far more hospitable and accessible environment than deep space.
As for the vulnerability of being confined to a single world, I should think being a nanotech civilization well-camouflaged on a single world, or perhaps a small number of isolated worlds, would make you far less vulnerable to detection and destruction by hostile civilizations with more advanced technology. Over the longterm, if there are other intelligences in the universe, this would represent far more of a threat to the homeworld than any potential natural catastrophe (most of which could be anticipated and prevented well in advance by any sufficiently advanced civilization).
It also doesn't follow that the more hostile a civilization is, the more likely it would be to expand. It may well be just the opposite. Advanced civilizations might find it far more efficient to explore the subatomic realm than fritter about the universe, just as we've found it more efficient. These civilizations would never need to expand off of their homeworld because their ever-advancing technology continues to make more and more efficient use of the resources possessed by their homeworld. They might only take notice of their unwelcome neighbors when one of them makes contact, either intentionally or accidentally.
Yes, all it would take is for one technological civilization to decide to do it. But there are likely a quite finite number of such civilizations in any galaxy to begin with, and assuming there's no way around the speed of light limit intergalactic travel would probably be pretty impractical, even for truly advanced. So even if it's technologically possible, it's entirely probable nobody has bothered to do it. There are, after all, many things which are technologically possible for our civilization to accomplish but which for one reason or another we haven't gotten around to.
Again, the biggest advances our technology has made in the past 50 years haven't involved space travel - they've involved machines on a much, much, much smaller scale. Assuming that trend continues, as seems likely, we may find there's a lot more to explore on the scale of the very small than there is on the scale of the very large, and that it can be explored and exploited for a fraction the cost, time and effort of, say, galactic colonization.
Also, if you were that one egotistical society that actually decided to colonize the galaxy, wouldn't you sign your work? There would be evidence.
No. In fact, I'd probably do just the opposite. You never know if the first civilization you encounter is gonna be friendly or not. I'd probably go out of my way not to attract attention - which argues for eschewing galactic colonization entirely and doing everything to make my civilization as invisible as possible.
Maybe the reason why we haven't been visited is because those civilizations which do attempt galactic colonization are promptly destroyed by hostile interstellar neighbors . . .
This assumes anybody ever bothers to go to the effort of colonizing the galaxy. It's entirely possible nobody bothers, or they do so in such a way that we're completely unaware of their presence. Our own technology seems to be progressing far more quickly on the scale of the very small than the very large - look at the recent advances in nanomachines and microprocessors. Advanced civilizations may spend more of their time exploring the universe inside every atom than they do exploring the larger universe. Indeed, they may pass thru a technological singularity, convert their physical form into nanomachines and nanoprocessors and leave the physical world as we know it behind.
There's no need to explore the universe if you can simulate it in a device the size of a sugarcube, and if your whole civilization would fit on the average desktop.
Pfft. So 'increasing miniaturization and decreasing power requirements' mean that pc hardware is becoming so cheap that we will have an iphone as convergence device and buy a load of dumb terminals, docking stations or whatever you want to call them to plug our iphones into?
Yeah, that makes sense(sarcasm-o-meter explodes).
Every office I've been into in the past 5 years has been festooned with docking stations, monitors, keyboards and mice, for use with their laptops (the docking stations usually come with the laptop). So for business, buying similar devices for the iPhone would be absolutely no different from what they're doing already - except that the iPhone could reduce by two the number of devices they have to buy for their employees, as it could function as both a cell phone (when disconnected from the company network) as well as an IP phone (when docked).
Longterm, high speed wireless connectivity could eliminate the need for docking stations entirely, even to connect to nearby monitors.
Or maybe more computing power will be built into electrical products, so the TV will have an integrated PVR and maybe web browser and other services.
Maybe, but that's not as useful as being able to take whatever you've got wherever you go. Why strand last night's episode of Mad Men on the PVR in your tee vee at home, when you could watch it over your lunch hour on your iPhone at work? Or take it with you to your friend's house and watch it together on her 50" flat panel set?
There's a huge challenge for Apple to manage -- how to monetise this future, as it clearly erodes the value of their current computer lineup
Yeah, I was gonna point this out. Apple's been giving guidance for awhile stating that their margins are gonna erode going forward - this is the reason why. Still, I don't think they have any longterm alternative. If they didn't jump into the "smartphone" market now, they'd likely be pushed in a year or two by Samsung or Nokia or Blackberry, as other vendors either intentionally (or unintentionally) release phones that can function as full-fledged PCs (because they are little PCs).
These little PCs are really going to be a disruptive technology. Companies are either going to embrace them, or die.
One interesting revenue stream that's going to open up for Apple now though is a cut of third-party software sales, via the iTunes store. This is the kind of model Nintendo pioneered back in the '80s - others develop the software, but only Nintendo gets to release and distribute it (and gets a cut of the purchase price). It may ultimately allow them to sell the iPhone at a loss, even after carrier subsidies, and make the money back (and then some) on 3rd party software sales.
I don't think the lack of a keyboard will matter. You could always release a portable "docking station" with its own keyboard, monitor and battery, for those road warriors who need a keyboard and larger screen on the go. And for high-end users - graphics professionals and the like - traditional laptops will still be available, along with desktop workstations and the like. I just think we're going to see average users migrate away from systems like that - these desktop and portable workstations will only account for 5-10% of the total "PC" market, tops (in volume, not dollars - the margins on these systems will remain much higher). Everybody else will be using their "phone" as a PC.
If "smartphones" evolve to become the dominant computing platform over the next decade - as I think is likely - Apple has the potential to grow until it dwarfs Microsoft . . . and everybody else in the business. Looking at the market as it stands right now, Apple is in a position to become a sort of Microsoft on steroids over the next 10 years.
For years the tech press has been nattering on about "convergence" devices. Microsoft and Sony sank tens of billions of dollars into their game console business in part because they'd hoped their devices would become a ubiquitous digital hub, a move I always found questionable, since many households would never purchase a game machine and neither company has shown any skill in providing interfaces users enjoy working with.
Unfortunately for them, in the meantime increasing miniaturization and decreasing power requirements made it practical to produce full-fledged personal computers you could fit in your pocket. The iPhone is a tiny Macintosh with a built-in touchscreen that just happens to come with an integrated cell phone, and as such represents a far better bet as an ideal convergence device than a videogame machine.
Apart from the appeal of the cell phone as a convergence device, the other problem for the remaining players in the market, like Dell, HP and Microsoft, is that margins on dedicated personal computers are crashing. The same technology which makes it possible to cram a fully-functional (if not state-of-the-art) personal computer into your pocket has also slashed the price of even relatively high-end desktop PCs to well under $1000. At these low prices - you can get a fully capable desktop these days for around $300, and a laptop for $200 more - the devices are becoming commodities with little if any margin left. Low PC prices are also making it increasingly difficult for Microsoft to justify its outrageous software prices - on a PC loaded with Vista and MS Office, the cost of the Microsoft software can easily exceed the cost of the hardware itself.
Apple has the advantage of producing and selling both the hardware and the software. As such, the declining cost of hardware won't necessarily erode their product margins, or at least won't erode them as much as it will their competitors. They can also have the cost of the unit subsidized by the carriers themselves, allowing them to charge consumers more for their products than rivals like Dell and Microsoft, who either don't have access to such subsidization (Dell and their PCs) or who have to split it with the hardware manufacturers (MS and the smartphone makers themselves). While Apple's overall margins are likely to decrease as most customers migrate away from more expensive, traditional desktop and laptop PCs, their market share and overall number of units sold will explode. And their margin situation will still be vastly superior to that enjoyed by the likes of Dell and HP in the (dying) dedicated personal computer business.
Apple's other advantage is their focus on the customer experience. Whereas Microsoft has spent the past 20 years trying to lock customers inside the Windows jail, Apple's focus has been on trying to lure customers onto its Macintosh platform. It shows with the iPhone, which has an interface that puts the jumbled, klunky Windows smartphone interface to shame. The iPhone sports an interface consumers are willing to pay a substantial premium to enjoy.
I suspect at some point in the next 2-5 years Apple will move to make the iPhone a true PC. They'll make some kind of docking station available, so you can connect it to a full-sized monitor and keyboard and wired network when you're at home or at the office, the way laptop docking stations currently allow users to connect. It'll have the advantage of allowing corporations to replace not only their existing desktop and laptop PCs, but also their telephones and employee cell phones, since the iPhone will be able to function as all of these devices. Mobile users who require a keyboard and larger mon
If you think the Faux News clowns are stupid, check out their audience. They're two tacos and an enchilada short of a combination platter.
The Faux News goons sure have smarm down to an art, though. They remind me exactly of the newsthugs the government installed at ISN following President Clark's little coup on Babylon 5. Life imitates art.
When you want access to the web without lugging around a larger device, like a laptop, it's perfectly acceptable. And as I said, there's nothing to stop Apple from selling a docking station for the iPhone, allowing it to use whatever monitor or keyboard you want.
Eventually, it'll probably even be able to connect wirelessly to keyboards or monitors. So you could use the 50" HDTV in your living room as a monitor, or the 27" monitor at your desk.
The only way Apple could get any kind of toe-hold in the average household is if their stuff is cheaper than anyone else's.
Yeah, just look how successful eMachines was. Why, they blew Dell and HP away!
When you get down under the $1000 price level, some piddling little savings isn't going to do much to differentiate you from the competition. Most customers still have plenty of anxiety when it comes to buying a PC. They aren't worried about the price (within reason) - they want something that's going to be easy to use, and that won't break down or leave them flailing around trying to resolve cryptic errors.
I have no idea why the media is so in love with Apple and it's products - the real world just seems to ignore them.
Right. Which is why they're now the #1 retail vendor of consumer PC's. Clearly, this is all just a media plot. I'm sure that's why their market cap is 3.5 times that of Dell.
It's like saying Chevy has vendor lock in based on there Auto parts When ANYONE can make them as sell them.
No, it's like saying that Chevy has customer lockin based on the fact that the majority of garages are only configured to allow Chevy's to park in them, and the vast majority of tires only fit Chevy's propriteary wheels. Buy a Ford and you can't park it most places, and don't have the same range of accessories to chose from.
That's the situation with the iPod - from car stereos to clock radios, Apple's iPod connector is the only interface available for a vast array of products. If users choose some other portable media player, they're locked out of using all those other gadgets.
I'm not blaming Apple for this - that's what happens when you totally dominate a market, the way the iPod dominates its market.
No, if Apple were to produce a game system, it would cost 20%+ more than the competition,
Who cares? We aren't talking $10,000 systems here, we're talking about something that would sell for maybe $300. Even if they sell the hardware for "20%" more than it's supposedly "worth", that's $60. If they can make it easy to use and market it successfully, they'll have no trouble commanding a $60 premium - that's dinner for two at a decent restaurant in Los Angeles. And if they can keep the games to $20, parents will be able to quickly determine that the total cost of ownership for the console would be a lot lower than a Playstation, with its $60 games.
The Wii has already shown us that the bulk of customers don't give a crap about "cutting edge" gaming hardware - they're more interested in the interface, and the games. Apple gets interfaces, and they'd certainly attract plenty of games developers. Leverage the iPhone, the iPod, their AppleTV / iTunes store and sell a moderately-powerful game / media receiver console for $300. Since they wouldn't need to sink billions into developing such a device, any sales they get would be pure profit, and any sales they steal away from rivals would be a nice bonus.
The console developers have been trying to convert their gaming machines into successful digital media hubs for quite a few years now, with little success. My guess is Apple will have better luck converting its digital media hub into a gaming system. You get people to buy with the promise of movies on demand, music in every room and an easy-to-use interface - a "serious" device - and then you peddle the games. That's how Commodore moved millions of 64's and ate Atari's lunch.
Exactly. People don't get it, yet. They treat it like a phone that just happens to run OS-X. Wrong. It's a tiny Mac with phone functionality and a (by default) custom phone interface. There's no reason why you couldn't add a monitor and keyboard and have a full-fledged "desktop" PC. It's already more powerful than many PCs were a decade ago - this year's revision and next year's revision should shave that gap down to as little as 5 years.
Apple's brought the first practical, popular Dynabook to market. If they play their cards right, they could dominate personal computing within 10 years, going way beyond Microsoft in terms of customer impact.
It's already happening, and it's got nothing to do with Apple per se - it's just that the cost of the technology in general has dropped to the point where any price differential between Apple and its rivals amounts to pocket change. A good example would be the iPod - yeah there are cheaper rivals, but c'mon, we're talking about a $200 - $300 gadget here, tops. Few people are gonna care about a $20 savings. They're gonna be more concerned about whether they can get a clock radio that works with it.
Likewise, with Intel's design help game machine / digital media receiver combo devices could easily get churned out for $200 - $300. And since Apple wouldn't be spending billions to develop and launch these devices - the way Sony and Microsoft did - they'd be able to sell software for less than half the price of their rivals and still turn a tidy profit.