can they compete with X-Box or PS2+Hard Drive devices that will be hitting the market and doing many of the same things, but far less expensively?
Um, no. This unit is nothing more than a commercialized version of what hobbysits have been doing for several years: take standard equipment, spray paint a small case, Add IR, and set it next to your TV.
Contrast this with a PS2. You can play DVDs (with Optical Digital output). Upcoming games support DTS 5.1 for in-game sound (not just pre-recorded custscenes). It plays CDs (again, with nice Optical Digital out). Oh, and did I mention Linux? Sony announced that they would be releasing a version of Linux for the US PS2. So, $300 for the unit + ~$100-$150 for a 40GB HD + $39.99 for a NIC = Hell of a lot cheaper, but with all the features. You can plug in standard USB keyboards, mice, and Sony Cybershot Cameras. Hell, those ghetto USB ethernet adapters even work on it (The latest Tony Hawk skateboarding game supports online broadband play throughg them, even though Sony's official NIC hasn't been released yet). Oh, and I heard there are some cool games out for it, too...
Like everyone else hass said: I'll be surprised if they sell 10.
New games and consoles are the ONLY thing sold at a loss (and new games aren't sold at a loss, it's just a razor-thin margin; maybe $3-$8 after shipping).
We typically made 75-100% margin on used games (the bulk of income). We made about 50% margin on used consoles. We made around 40% margin on extra controllers, memory cards, and various other accessories. Most game stores sell posters, toys, and game cards (Magic, Pokemon, etc.). That is how any store that operates purely on games and game related material works their business model. The new games/consoles are designed to lure people in. Someone wants a new PS2, so they trade their PS1 and the 10 games they owned with it. We would "buy" their PS1 for, say $35, and mark it up to $55. We would "buy" each of their games for $5-$15, and mark them up to $10-$30 (depending upon popularity/rarity of the game). 'Buy' is in quotations because there was typically no exchange of actual US currency... people were trading these items for new games (which means there's actually less margin being made on a new game/console, since the profit won't actually be made until the used item is sold; plus, changes in the retail price of the new game will cause our price to be altered). The next person in may trade some of their old games for some of these old games, but eventually the games are sold for a healthy profit.
Even Electronics Boutique (The largest game/game-related only retailer, since they bought out babbages and software etc. a few years back) would go broke within a year stictly selling new games/consoles. Walk into an EB and tell me what you see. In addition to new games/consoles, you'll see extended warranties for the consoles (almost pure profit), game/sci-fi related toys (sold at 30-50% margin), game/sci-fi/anime-realted posters (sold at 100%+ margin), strategy guides for the latest games (sold at 50% margin), and a whole wall full of used games (sold at 75-100% margin). The difference? Sony doesn't get licensing on any of those products (well, maybe a tiny bit on toys/posters/guides relating to Sony developed games), so the margin is much higher.
Okay, here goes. First, my (sort of) credentials: I was assistant manager for nearly 2 years at a mom & pop videogame store. I handled inventory, pricing, and ordering issues. The owner/manager pretty much just paid the taxes (and my paycheck).
First, the issue of profit on the unit:
When the PS1 came out, it cost $299. Sony WAS selling that unit at a loss. No question. My cost (to purchase one to re-sell at my store) was about $297. Unless I was willing to purchase LARGE quantities of units, my store actually lost money on selling the units (after we paid shipping).
Flash forward a few years, and the PS1 prices at, say, $129. Now, it still costs my store about $127. However, by this time, the fact that Sony is using (pretty much) the same equipment means that thier cost has dropped. They are actually turning a mild profit on each unit (maybe $10). Also keep in mind that this is the point in a console's lifetime when the majority of the supporters jump on board. This means that the greater numbers of people purchasing these units is outweighing the people who purchased them when it was a loss-leader.
Now for the game pricing issue.
Take your typical PS2 game, pricing at $50. Some are DVDs, some are CDs (it's up to the developer if they need the additional space). My store would have to pay approximately $42 for one of those games. We would order them from a distributor, who typically made $2/unit. So the total money going back to the publisher is $40/unit. That would allow Sony to charge anywhere from $10 to $15 a unit, and still leave a publisher with a very profitable unit.
Your estimation of ~10/person is a ways off. A not-so-hardcore gamer will purchase 10 games in the lifetime of the system. Assuming $10/game, that means $100 total to console manufacturer for licensing alone. Most gamers will purchase 15-20 games in the life of their console, and many will purchase 30-50. I can't tell you how many people I whom I saw on a nearly weekly basis in my store. There are quite a few folks who purchase the new sports games each year. So we can figure that maybe 20% of Sony's installed base is far-and-away exceeding the ~10 game estimate.
Now consider the issue of add-ons. A Dual Shock 2 PS2 controller retails for $35. That's pretty much the price you'll find everywhere. The markup in those units is about $6 by the retailer. Now consider that Sony only packs the system with 1 controller; 90% of PS2 owners will purchase at least one additional controller. Chalk up another $10 in Sony's pocket.
Oh, wait... you want to save your games?!? Well, you'll need this memory card. It's 8MB of flash RAM, but it retails for $35. Again, 90% of owners will buy at least one of these. Chalk up another $10.
Wait, wait... you're hooking that up to the ancient television in Junior's bedroom?!? Well, unless his TV has composite input, you'll need to purchase this Sony-brand RF convertor: $20.
The bottom line: videogames are designed to make a profit for the manufacturer only. No store that I know of can survive on new game sales alone. EB, Funco, GameStop, and all the Mom & Pop shops depend on the ~$15 margin they make on their used games, and the ~$50 margin they make on extended warranties. Best Buy, Circuit City, Fry's, et. al. use videogames to lure customers into the store for bigger purchases ("say... I could use a new car stereo while I'm here"). So, basically, the lack of margin in the games and such allow maunfacturers to keep a lot of the money.
No one honestly cares! Now, before you dismiss this as "troll", let's take an honest look at the situation:
I have a Motorola StarTAC using Sprint's service. Now, outside of the occasional dropped calls, I don't have a complaint about the quality of the service. Guess what I use my phone for? That's right, sending and receiving phone calls, which is exactly what 90% of America uses their phone for.
My phone is "wireless web capable". I have never used it... it doesn't appeal to me. Everytime I've seen someone using "wireless web" it looks like a novelty. 4 lines with maybe 25 characters each... nothing particularly special.
I don't have a burning desire to check my e-mail from my mobile phone... the last thing I need is some damned electronic leash. If I'm not in front of my computer, it's because I'm not doing work; if I'm not doing work, the last thing I want is to be interrupted by e-mail.
My mobile phone has a PCMCIA interface to allow "dial-up" through the cell service. The attachment runs about $200, and the speed is 19.2Kbps. I would think that if you really needed to have a wireless internet connection, 19.2Kbps would be fine. Let's face it, if having an internet connection anywhere is THAT important to you, you're probably using it for business purposes. That means e-mail, possibly messaging co-workers. No, you can't VPN into the intranet at 19.2Kbps, but I wouldn't want to try it at the numbers 3G LIKELY produces ("see, you'll get 1Mbps, but only if you're standing still between these blocks during the vernal equinox...").
Most every mobile provider offers quick messaging, and several of them DO offer e-mail to the phone.
Instead of concentrating on videophones or MP3 trading or full-color sega produced videogames, how about improving the phones? My StarTAC is fairly small, but it's not as sturdy as I would have liked. Give me a a solid 2G phone with an aluminum or titanium skin that can take a beating, and a battery that gives me 8-10 hours talk time. I'll jump on that phone for $500 long before I'd buy a 3G videophone/e-mail device/Game Boy wannabe/MP3 player for $200.
IIRC, the first film with the Episode One trailer was Wing Commander. In the case of WC, a lot of Star Wars fans went for the first few minutes to see the trailer and then walked out to the lobby to demand a refund.
As far as Wing Commander is concerned, the Episode 1 trailer most likely did have an effect on the gross (although not much of one, Wing Commander failed horribly at the box office). In the case of Monsters Inc., though, I don't think it will be any effect at all. I had been planning to see that movie since I first saw previews. I own Toy Story 1, Toy Story 2, and A Bug's Life on DVD. Pixar simply does a wonderful job with their films. An Episode 2 trailer is just iceing on the cake.
For those of you not in the know, Matsushita is the Japanese parent company of Panasonic.
With all of the other fanciful storage media (FMD, anyone), we're talking about tiny start-up companies that are throwing (usually) empty promises out about their newest gizmo because, let's face it, they'll do anything to jack the stock price a little.
I would feel safe in making a bet that we would never, ever see widespread use of FMD (maybe something similar, but probably never FMD). I just don't think a company that small would have the financial resources to tangle with the big boys on something as big as a common media storage format.
Meanwhile I sit here looking at my Panasonic television. I saw their Home theater DVD-R unit at the electronics store today for $1K. Call me crazy, but I just find this claim a little more legit than most.
I can see your point, but as we all know, the web is very different.
I, for one, have seen plenty of Unrated films at theaters. It's just not at AMC-type super mega-plexes (think Yahoo, Go.com, etc.). It's always been at the local "arthouse" cinema (think the small-time website that earns maybe 1,000 to 5,000 hits in a month). Sure, those small-time film makers rarely earn Lucas or Michael Bay make, but their stuff DOES get shown.
And really, haven't all the major websites pretty much dumped "adult" material altogether (with the exception of maybe pulling them up in a search)?
(Please excuse US centered nature of post. I have no experience with foreign ratings systems)
Self-imposed rating systems have generally worked fairly well, with the bonus that they keep Congress off of the entertanment industry's backs.
Think about the Motion Picture Ratings Board. They're completely self-created. They rate the movies according to their standards. The movie theaters voluntarily choose whether they want to carry an NC-17 or Unrated film, and all goes well. As far as I know, the under 17 w/o parent at an 'R'-rated movie isn't a law, it's just something the theaters choose to follow.
Ditto for the ESRB (the guys that handle videogames). Completely voluntary, but it helps parents make a decision. I'd rather have 'M' slapped on the front of some Zombie game than Congress telling me there will be no zombie game.
I could see this working very well for Website rating. A simple HTML extension ([rating="13"]) could be picked up by the browser, and displayed/not displayed accordingly. Simple enough. And the pr0n sites can go on to advertise "Super XXX pr0n... there isn't a rating on the books bad enough for this stuff!!"
If each classroom spends ~$8,000 per year on the computers, that means that EVERY teacher can earn that $4,000. The money isn't spead across the entire district.
I graduated from high school not too long ago. I was one of the generation that was supposed to be propelled forward by the "computing revolution".
IMHO, computers have no place in schools, at least not until upper level classes where a computer is necessary (say, a basic computer literacy class, but more importantly, programming courses). My experience with computers in school consisted of the following:
1) "Educational games" that were neither fun nor particularly educational. Among the ones I remember were those I played during the monthly trek to the "math lab" in Junior High; stupid things where you added numbers and a correct answer would advance you closer to a goal. Whoop-de-do... I could have learned those fractions a lot easier in a classroom.
2) A few "multimedia" computers in the library playing movies of cheetahs. This was during the era when "multimedia" was first rearing its head. Each one of these 486s with a CD-ROM and monitor probably cost the district $3,000, and possibly more.
3) Computer "literacy", which taught basic point-and-click on ancient (even at that time) Apple IIe units. A wonderful waste of a semester.
Which left us with the one actually useful application (outside of CS): Writing lab, so that students who didn't have a computer at home could type their papers.
When I look at these massive expenditures, I can't help but think how angry the teachers must be. A fairly reasonable estimate (even for the dinky little CE machines) for purchase and maintenance of those units would be around $8,000 for a classroom of 28 students. Can you imagine the jump in the quality of teaching applicants a district would receive if even $4,000 of that amount were being given to the teacher?
Instead, districts and states are forced to give in to "feel-good" programs like this. Parents think that these computers are giving their children a "head start" on the "high tech" world out there (buzzwords used for emphasis). What the system is really doing is (inadvertantly) discouraging quality teachers who would have made a far bigger influence on their child's life than ANY computer could have ever made.
Computers do have a place in schools, but that place should be very, very limited. Say, 10-20 computers in a library for research (ideally running linux on a lower end ~500mhz system to save money), a gang of 30 or so computers available in a writing lab for students before, after, and during school, and a classroom of computers for any programming course. Beyond that, I don't think districts or states should squander precious funds that could be paying teachers or repairing schools.
I get tired of hearing the same paranoid/. posts about campaign contributions.
Yes, there are some representatives out there who are in the back pocket of certain industy PACs. Yes, that's a pretty atorcious condition.
But to listen to a typical post on slashdot, you'd think that it was so horribly corrupt that nothing gets done.
Sure, it's naive to assume that nothing like this goes on, but I doubt that the RIAA/MPAA is buds with everyone in Congress. Hell, I doubt they're buds with even half of the folks in Washington (since they seem to like Democrats a whole lot more).
Take a look at John McCain. Sure, he's not perfect (no one really is), but McCain is pretty staunch in his refusal to bow down to campaign contributions. And while a lot of/.ers probably don't like Liebermann's (one 'n' or two?) stance on censorship, you can be pretty sure that he isn't too chummy with the music/movie industry.
But I'd bet that neither McCain nor Liebermann know enough about the issue to make a reasonably decent guess at it.
I'm sure that there are some congressional members who are just mouthpieces for their "interests", which is exactly why a scenario like this would help. The other representatives aren't saying, "This is just some crackpot idea he's pushing for his interests", they're using their limited knowledge of AOL (which they think is the internet) to augment the debate, and they're thinking, "Hey, that sounds like a reasonable idea".
A few weeks ago in my college government class, we were assigned the task of drafting a faux constitutional amendment, and arguing our position for that amendment. I chose "Fair Use" rights and argued for the revocation of any laws drafted which violated them.
So I get up in front of the class, and it's completely filled with non-geeks. But it really only took about 5 minutes for these folks to grasp some of the basic ideas. I touched on DMCA, and why it is dangerous. I explained the two ways of owning something (physically owning it, like a car, and licensing, like software), and how the Music/movie industry seems to want it both ways. I talked about Sklyarov and the sheer ridiculousness of his "crime" and the punishment.
5 minutes later everyone in the class understood. My "amendment" passed with a unanimous vote.
In a way, Congress is a lot like my class. I'd venture that probably 75% of congress is a lot like the proverbial "mother" we wouldn't let try to install linux. And that's to be expected. A lot of them are much older than the folks who have grown up with computers, and lot of them went into careers (legal) that wouldn't require a lot of computing knowledge.
Maybe all we need is one person with some computing experience and a good persona to go and explain to Congress what's going on. Maybe I'm being a bit too idealistic here, but I have a feeling that if they just understood some of the underlying concepts, things might go a little more smoothly.
they might have succeeded.
I remember hearing sprint ION ads non-stop on the radio about 2 or 3 months ago. I guess it must have been available in my area (Houston, TX).
Unfortunately, the ads made no mention of this 8mbps down/1mbps up. This was the first time I had heard of the speeds associated with this service. All the radio ads ever said were "faster than dial-up", which is an advertising phrase I tend to ignore as easily as "we'll pay off your old car!".
$100 sounds like a bargain for this sort of thing, and I would probably have snagged that service if I had known about the speed!
Of course I realize that none of the broadband services cites specific speeds, but even saying "up to 8mbps" would have immediately attracted my attention.
DirecTV is marginally better in quality than my digital cable. Several catches:
1) I have to have basic cable (~$10) in order to have a Cable Modem. So, I'm already devoting $10 plus the $40 for my cable modem. Once I calculate adding a DirecTV box to even 3 televisions, it becomes prohibitively expensive.
2) Until very recently, DirecTV didn't offer Fox Sports World. I love watching soccer.
3) DirecTV still doesn't provide WB or UPN in my area (I don't think they provide them anywhere). No WB means I can't watch my Friends and Seinfeld reruns in the evenings. No UPN means no Buffy (I'm not into Star Trek, but that's a motivating factor for quite a few people). I'm far enough out in the burbs that off-air reception is horrible.
Ultimate TV only supports satellite. It doesn't have MPEG-2 encoding capability, it simply stores the MPEG-2 stream from the satellite on the Hard Disk. This is exactly what kept me away from Ultimate TV; I use Digital Cable service because of the many televisions in my house (DirecTV charges $5 extra per TV, my cable company doesn't). Additionally, I am tied to my cable company because I use a cable modem, which I am very happy with.
So, Ultimate TV is positively worthless to me. Also, the capability to record two shows at once requires two drops from the satellite, something which a lot of people didn't think to pull behind their televisions.
The only other feature Ultimate TV boasts is a WebTV add-on, something which no serious/.er should ever consider.
I read that bit in one of those "spy" sections in a Road & Track-type magazine. Toyota has not made an official announcement about it.
Off the top of my head, I can think of several ways that this could be accomplished:
1) more powerful electric engine. Obviously, the less you fire up the IC engine, the better economy you will get. If Toyota increases the power of the electric engine, they could increase the economy proportionally. Of course the catch is that they have to figure out how to capture the increased amount of power required by the electric engine to function.
2) Put VVTL-i on the IC engine's head. For those not aware, VVTL-i is an improved version of Honda's VTEC system. If Toyota is able to put a weaker cam for the 0-4,000 rpm range, they could easily start to increase the efficiency of the engine; the hot cam could pop in at 4,000 rpms for high-speed freeway driving.
3) Manual transmission. IIRC, all of the Priuses (sp?) are equipped with a CVT automatic. While CVTs are more efficient than a standard 4 or 5-speed auto, a manual would definitely improve the economy of the engine.
My guess is that this 125mpg Prius will probably be a "Show" car for a while (meaning it makes the auto show rounds, not that it's going to have chrome wheels and airbrushed paint or anything). From what I've read, the Prius is a loss leader; Toyota is treating it a lot like some manufacturers treat their sports cars (they use it to drum up excitement, and lose money on the vehicle overall). If this were indeed the case, they could take this fact many steps further. Replace the wheels with hollow magnesium-alloys to cut weight down, replace suspension components with lighter weight alloys, etc. I don't doubt that 125mpg would be feasible, but the question might be if Toyota could afford to sell it.
The "Oil Light" on my BMW is not an oil warning light like most other cars have.
When I turn the ignition, before the electronic odometer/trip odometer is displayed, a "service meter" pops up for about 3 seconds. It has a red section at the far left, two yellow sections to the right of the red, and (I think) 4 or 5 green sections that continue all the way to the right. The Bimmer displays a bar above one of the sections; you are instructed to bring the car in when the bar hits the first yellow, and when it hits the second yellow things start to get very important. The first time I brought my Bimmer in, 3,000 miles had elapsed since I had purchased it (I purchased it as a demo with 8K on the odometer); the service guys told me, "Oh, it's nowhere near needing a service/oil change. You're still only on the second bar".
I've been told that the system measures not only elapsed time/miles, but also measures load placed on the engine. If you like to wind it out at every stop light (like I do), then you get significantly less time on the service than other people (say, some old lady with an Automatic transmission who never takes the engine above 3500 RPMs).
Actually, I'm quite out of the loop on European cars (unless we're talking about the stuff that makes it to the States).
Of course, the US Department of Transportation may measure fuel economy in a completely different manner than it is measured in Europe, so either side's numbers may sound greatly inflated.
Honda goes about achieving their economy numbers through their VTEC system, which is a bit misleading. They quote a particular horsepower number (say, 160hp in the older Civic Si), but that horsepower doesn't translate through the RPM range... until the "hot" cam kicks in, the car behaves and performs like a seriously underpowered economy car...
For this reason, they are able to easily skirt the fuel economy numbers. Because freeway/city tests don't involve a whole lot of winding the engine out, they're actually testing an engine which is probably pushing more like 110hp, and thus, is pulling far better economy. In the case of the low-end civics, the engine is probably being tested with about 70hp, which can easily explain the 41mpg (highway) claim. Of course, Honda still gets to advertise the higher horsepower number which comes once the engine is near redline and has the hotter cam swapped in.
I've seen a few other ideas proposed... GM is tinkering with the idea of only running 4 of the 8 cylinders in some of their SUV engines (during low load/stops) in order to increase economy. I don't really understand how they plan to pull it off, since a V8 is balanced much differently from an L4. The only engine this would be feasible with would be a V12, since an L6 is naturally balanced, and requires no counterweight.
I've also seen some companies experimenting with using a hydraulic system to physcially adjust the angle of certain components in a constant manner. They haven't had very good luck with it, though.
Diesel is pretty much overlooked in the states. Outside of the TDI, the only other Diesel I know of are large trucks. Probably the best selling diesel in the US is the 7.3 L "Power-Stoke" V8 diesel found in Ford's heavy duty pickups and the Excursion. How's that for efficency?:-)
Toyota has their Prius pulling about 50mpg. Honda has their Insight pulling about 65mpg.
The Europeans have the VW Lupo, which in specially modified form can pull ~70mpg
Toyota has announced that they will have the Prius doing 125mpg within a few years. The current Prius costs about $20,000, which isn't a lot on the car market of today. And I'd trust Toyota to make a car that Consumer Reports would smile upon.
My Subaru service guy recommends changing the oil on the Subaru every 7500 miles. You *should* be rotating the tires more frequently than that.
My BMW tells me when it needs the oil changed, and I've heard stories of it going as long as 12,000 miles between changes (which is good, b/c BMW charges a ridiculous amount, and the tool to reset the oil light costs a pretty penny).
So, really, take a look around. The TDI Golf gets 48mpg, and the TDI Jetta gets a little less. And if I had to choose an engine to last me forever, I'd go for a German Diesel over anything else. Some of the Honda Civics get 41mpg (and cost about $13K), and the ~20-year-old beater Honda is a pretty common sight around here, so they must hold up fairly well. Not everything out there is an 8mpg Excursion or a $60,000 luxury Barge.
I don't really understand how much this could help NASA. Ask the average Joe-on-the-street when the next Shuttle launch is and I doubt he could answer you. Shit, I can't answer you.
NASA started losing its appeal to the everyman around the late 80's, following the Challenger explosion. Everyone knows Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, but I doubt the average Joe could tell you the name of any of the people crewing the shuttle right now. I know I can't without a little Google searching.
So really, how effective a marketing scheme will this be? Who's turning on the television to see the ads plastered on the side of the Shuttle prior to launch? What Newspaper prints a front page story about the shuttle launch? What kind of exposure would a Playstation 2 ad get on the Shuttle versus the kind of exposure it would get during the Superbowl, or the World Series, or a "Very Special Episode of 'Felicity'"?
I think it's wonderful that NASA is seeking out private funding, since the powers that be are no longer interested in the space program. I just have to wonder what kind of revenue a space shuttle advertisement would bring, and if that revenue would be any more than a drop in the bucket compared to the total cost of operating the shuttle.
I e-mailed my Senators and Congressman (Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Phil Gramm, and Kevin Brady) twice each. Not a single response. When I took the time to snail mail a letter to each of them, I got a form letter response from Hutchinson and Gramm, and a real response from Brady. The fact is true... they simply don't read e-mail. Sad but true.
I doubt that my single letter would have an effect, but I would bet that 100 letters on paper would have a much greater effect than 10,000 e-mails.
Slashdot Mirror
can they compete with X-Box or PS2+Hard Drive devices that will be hitting the market and doing many of the same things, but far less expensively?
Um, no. This unit is nothing more than a commercialized version of what hobbysits have been doing for several years: take standard equipment, spray paint a small case, Add IR, and set it next to your TV.
Contrast this with a PS2. You can play DVDs (with Optical Digital output). Upcoming games support DTS 5.1 for in-game sound (not just pre-recorded custscenes). It plays CDs (again, with nice Optical Digital out). Oh, and did I mention Linux? Sony announced that they would be releasing a version of Linux for the US PS2. So, $300 for the unit + ~$100-$150 for a 40GB HD + $39.99 for a NIC = Hell of a lot cheaper, but with all the features. You can plug in standard USB keyboards, mice, and Sony Cybershot Cameras. Hell, those ghetto USB ethernet adapters even work on it (The latest Tony Hawk skateboarding game supports online broadband play throughg them, even though Sony's official NIC hasn't been released yet). Oh, and I heard there are some cool games out for it, too...
Like everyone else hass said: I'll be surprised if they sell 10.
New games and consoles are the ONLY thing sold at a loss (and new games aren't sold at a loss, it's just a razor-thin margin; maybe $3-$8 after shipping).
We typically made 75-100% margin on used games (the bulk of income). We made about 50% margin on used consoles. We made around 40% margin on extra controllers, memory cards, and various other accessories. Most game stores sell posters, toys, and game cards (Magic, Pokemon, etc.). That is how any store that operates purely on games and game related material works their business model. The new games/consoles are designed to lure people in. Someone wants a new PS2, so they trade their PS1 and the 10 games they owned with it. We would "buy" their PS1 for, say $35, and mark it up to $55. We would "buy" each of their games for $5-$15, and mark them up to $10-$30 (depending upon popularity/rarity of the game). 'Buy' is in quotations because there was typically no exchange of actual US currency... people were trading these items for new games (which means there's actually less margin being made on a new game/console, since the profit won't actually be made until the used item is sold; plus, changes in the retail price of the new game will cause our price to be altered). The next person in may trade some of their old games for some of these old games, but eventually the games are sold for a healthy profit.
Even Electronics Boutique (The largest game/game-related only retailer, since they bought out babbages and software etc. a few years back) would go broke within a year stictly selling new games/consoles. Walk into an EB and tell me what you see. In addition to new games/consoles, you'll see extended warranties for the consoles (almost pure profit), game/sci-fi related toys (sold at 30-50% margin), game/sci-fi/anime-realted posters (sold at 100%+ margin), strategy guides for the latest games (sold at 50% margin), and a whole wall full of used games (sold at 75-100% margin). The difference? Sony doesn't get licensing on any of those products (well, maybe a tiny bit on toys/posters/guides relating to Sony developed games), so the margin is much higher.
Okay, here goes. First, my (sort of) credentials: I was assistant manager for nearly 2 years at a mom & pop videogame store. I handled inventory, pricing, and ordering issues. The owner/manager pretty much just paid the taxes (and my paycheck).
First, the issue of profit on the unit:
When the PS1 came out, it cost $299. Sony WAS selling that unit at a loss. No question. My cost (to purchase one to re-sell at my store) was about $297. Unless I was willing to purchase LARGE quantities of units, my store actually lost money on selling the units (after we paid shipping).
Flash forward a few years, and the PS1 prices at, say, $129. Now, it still costs my store about $127. However, by this time, the fact that Sony is using (pretty much) the same equipment means that thier cost has dropped. They are actually turning a mild profit on each unit (maybe $10). Also keep in mind that this is the point in a console's lifetime when the majority of the supporters jump on board. This means that the greater numbers of people purchasing these units is outweighing the people who purchased them when it was a loss-leader.
Now for the game pricing issue.
Take your typical PS2 game, pricing at $50. Some are DVDs, some are CDs (it's up to the developer if they need the additional space). My store would have to pay approximately $42 for one of those games. We would order them from a distributor, who typically made $2/unit. So the total money going back to the publisher is $40/unit. That would allow Sony to charge anywhere from $10 to $15 a unit, and still leave a publisher with a very profitable unit.
Your estimation of ~10/person is a ways off. A not-so-hardcore gamer will purchase 10 games in the lifetime of the system. Assuming $10/game, that means $100 total to console manufacturer for licensing alone. Most gamers will purchase 15-20 games in the life of their console, and many will purchase 30-50. I can't tell you how many people I whom I saw on a nearly weekly basis in my store. There are quite a few folks who purchase the new sports games each year. So we can figure that maybe 20% of Sony's installed base is far-and-away exceeding the ~10 game estimate.
Now consider the issue of add-ons. A Dual Shock 2 PS2 controller retails for $35. That's pretty much the price you'll find everywhere. The markup in those units is about $6 by the retailer. Now consider that Sony only packs the system with 1 controller; 90% of PS2 owners will purchase at least one additional controller. Chalk up another $10 in Sony's pocket.
Oh, wait... you want to save your games?!? Well, you'll need this memory card. It's 8MB of flash RAM, but it retails for $35. Again, 90% of owners will buy at least one of these. Chalk up another $10.
Wait, wait... you're hooking that up to the ancient television in Junior's bedroom?!? Well, unless his TV has composite input, you'll need to purchase this Sony-brand RF convertor: $20.
The bottom line: videogames are designed to make a profit for the manufacturer only. No store that I know of can survive on new game sales alone. EB, Funco, GameStop, and all the Mom & Pop shops depend on the ~$15 margin they make on their used games, and the ~$50 margin they make on extended warranties. Best Buy, Circuit City, Fry's, et. al. use videogames to lure customers into the store for bigger purchases ("say... I could use a new car stereo while I'm here"). So, basically, the lack of margin in the games and such allow maunfacturers to keep a lot of the money.
Linus
RMS
Steve Jobs
We'll take care of this monopoly business in no time.
No one honestly cares! Now, before you dismiss this as "troll", let's take an honest look at the situation:
I have a Motorola StarTAC using Sprint's service. Now, outside of the occasional dropped calls, I don't have a complaint about the quality of the service. Guess what I use my phone for? That's right, sending and receiving phone calls, which is exactly what 90% of America uses their phone for.
My phone is "wireless web capable". I have never used it... it doesn't appeal to me. Everytime I've seen someone using "wireless web" it looks like a novelty. 4 lines with maybe 25 characters each... nothing particularly special.
I don't have a burning desire to check my e-mail from my mobile phone... the last thing I need is some damned electronic leash. If I'm not in front of my computer, it's because I'm not doing work; if I'm not doing work, the last thing I want is to be interrupted by e-mail.
My mobile phone has a PCMCIA interface to allow "dial-up" through the cell service. The attachment runs about $200, and the speed is 19.2Kbps. I would think that if you really needed to have a wireless internet connection, 19.2Kbps would be fine. Let's face it, if having an internet connection anywhere is THAT important to you, you're probably using it for business purposes. That means e-mail, possibly messaging co-workers. No, you can't VPN into the intranet at 19.2Kbps, but I wouldn't want to try it at the numbers 3G LIKELY produces ("see, you'll get 1Mbps, but only if you're standing still between these blocks during the vernal equinox...").
Most every mobile provider offers quick messaging, and several of them DO offer e-mail to the phone.
Instead of concentrating on videophones or MP3 trading or full-color sega produced videogames, how about improving the phones? My StarTAC is fairly small, but it's not as sturdy as I would have liked. Give me a a solid 2G phone with an aluminum or titanium skin that can take a beating, and a battery that gives me 8-10 hours talk time. I'll jump on that phone for $500 long before I'd buy a 3G videophone/e-mail device/Game Boy wannabe/MP3 player for $200.
IIRC, the first film with the Episode One trailer was Wing Commander. In the case of WC, a lot of Star Wars fans went for the first few minutes to see the trailer and then walked out to the lobby to demand a refund.
As far as Wing Commander is concerned, the Episode 1 trailer most likely did have an effect on the gross (although not much of one, Wing Commander failed horribly at the box office). In the case of Monsters Inc., though, I don't think it will be any effect at all. I had been planning to see that movie since I first saw previews. I own Toy Story 1, Toy Story 2, and A Bug's Life on DVD. Pixar simply does a wonderful job with their films. An Episode 2 trailer is just iceing on the cake.
I dunno, Man... My 486/66 wiped the floor with IBM's PS/2.
Oh, oh, wait... you mean Sony's PS2.
For those of you not in the know, Matsushita is the Japanese parent company of Panasonic.
With all of the other fanciful storage media (FMD, anyone), we're talking about tiny start-up companies that are throwing (usually) empty promises out about their newest gizmo because, let's face it, they'll do anything to jack the stock price a little.
I would feel safe in making a bet that we would never, ever see widespread use of FMD (maybe something similar, but probably never FMD). I just don't think a company that small would have the financial resources to tangle with the big boys on something as big as a common media storage format.
Meanwhile I sit here looking at my Panasonic television. I saw their Home theater DVD-R unit at the electronics store today for $1K. Call me crazy, but I just find this claim a little more legit than most.
Heard in the Senate the following day:
"Wow, that bill SURE must be popular! Look at how many hits the web version of the detailed summary got LAST NIGHT ALONE!"
I can see your point, but as we all know, the web is very different.
I, for one, have seen plenty of Unrated films at theaters. It's just not at AMC-type super mega-plexes (think Yahoo, Go.com, etc.). It's always been at the local "arthouse" cinema (think the small-time website that earns maybe 1,000 to 5,000 hits in a month). Sure, those small-time film makers rarely earn Lucas or Michael Bay make, but their stuff DOES get shown.
And really, haven't all the major websites pretty much dumped "adult" material altogether (with the exception of maybe pulling them up in a search)?
(Please excuse US centered nature of post. I have no experience with foreign ratings systems)
Self-imposed rating systems have generally worked fairly well, with the bonus that they keep Congress off of the entertanment industry's backs.
Think about the Motion Picture Ratings Board. They're completely self-created. They rate the movies according to their standards. The movie theaters voluntarily choose whether they want to carry an NC-17 or Unrated film, and all goes well. As far as I know, the under 17 w/o parent at an 'R'-rated movie isn't a law, it's just something the theaters choose to follow.
Ditto for the ESRB (the guys that handle videogames). Completely voluntary, but it helps parents make a decision. I'd rather have 'M' slapped on the front of some Zombie game than Congress telling me there will be no zombie game.
I could see this working very well for Website rating. A simple HTML extension ([rating="13"]) could be picked up by the browser, and displayed/not displayed accordingly. Simple enough. And the pr0n sites can go on to advertise "Super XXX pr0n... there isn't a rating on the books bad enough for this stuff!!"
Has AMD unfairly optimized the processor for Quake 3?
[/sarcasm]
If each classroom spends ~$8,000 per year on the computers, that means that EVERY teacher can earn that $4,000. The money isn't spead across the entire district.
I graduated from high school not too long ago. I was one of the generation that was supposed to be propelled forward by the "computing revolution".
IMHO, computers have no place in schools, at least not until upper level classes where a computer is necessary (say, a basic computer literacy class, but more importantly, programming courses). My experience with computers in school consisted of the following:
1) "Educational games" that were neither fun nor particularly educational. Among the ones I remember were those I played during the monthly trek to the "math lab" in Junior High; stupid things where you added numbers and a correct answer would advance you closer to a goal. Whoop-de-do... I could have learned those fractions a lot easier in a classroom.
2) A few "multimedia" computers in the library playing movies of cheetahs. This was during the era when "multimedia" was first rearing its head. Each one of these 486s with a CD-ROM and monitor probably cost the district $3,000, and possibly more.
3) Computer "literacy", which taught basic point-and-click on ancient (even at that time) Apple IIe units. A wonderful waste of a semester.
Which left us with the one actually useful application (outside of CS): Writing lab, so that students who didn't have a computer at home could type their papers.
When I look at these massive expenditures, I can't help but think how angry the teachers must be. A fairly reasonable estimate (even for the dinky little CE machines) for purchase and maintenance of those units would be around $8,000 for a classroom of 28 students. Can you imagine the jump in the quality of teaching applicants a district would receive if even $4,000 of that amount were being given to the teacher?
Instead, districts and states are forced to give in to "feel-good" programs like this. Parents think that these computers are giving their children a "head start" on the "high tech" world out there (buzzwords used for emphasis). What the system is really doing is (inadvertantly) discouraging quality teachers who would have made a far bigger influence on their child's life than ANY computer could have ever made.
Computers do have a place in schools, but that place should be very, very limited. Say, 10-20 computers in a library for research (ideally running linux on a lower end ~500mhz system to save money), a gang of 30 or so computers available in a writing lab for students before, after, and during school, and a classroom of computers for any programming course. Beyond that, I don't think districts or states should squander precious funds that could be paying teachers or repairing schools.
I get tired of hearing the same paranoid /. posts about campaign contributions.
/.ers probably don't like Liebermann's (one 'n' or two?) stance on censorship, you can be pretty sure that he isn't too chummy with the music/movie industry.
Yes, there are some representatives out there who are in the back pocket of certain industy PACs. Yes, that's a pretty atorcious condition.
But to listen to a typical post on slashdot, you'd think that it was so horribly corrupt that nothing gets done.
Sure, it's naive to assume that nothing like this goes on, but I doubt that the RIAA/MPAA is buds with everyone in Congress. Hell, I doubt they're buds with even half of the folks in Washington (since they seem to like Democrats a whole lot more).
Take a look at John McCain. Sure, he's not perfect (no one really is), but McCain is pretty staunch in his refusal to bow down to campaign contributions. And while a lot of
But I'd bet that neither McCain nor Liebermann know enough about the issue to make a reasonably decent guess at it.
I'm sure that there are some congressional members who are just mouthpieces for their "interests", which is exactly why a scenario like this would help. The other representatives aren't saying, "This is just some crackpot idea he's pushing for his interests", they're using their limited knowledge of AOL (which they think is the internet) to augment the debate, and they're thinking, "Hey, that sounds like a reasonable idea".
Like I said: 5 minutes.
A few weeks ago in my college government class, we were assigned the task of drafting a faux constitutional amendment, and arguing our position for that amendment. I chose "Fair Use" rights and argued for the revocation of any laws drafted which violated them.
So I get up in front of the class, and it's completely filled with non-geeks. But it really only took about 5 minutes for these folks to grasp some of the basic ideas. I touched on DMCA, and why it is dangerous. I explained the two ways of owning something (physically owning it, like a car, and licensing, like software), and how the Music/movie industry seems to want it both ways. I talked about Sklyarov and the sheer ridiculousness of his "crime" and the punishment.
5 minutes later everyone in the class understood. My "amendment" passed with a unanimous vote.
In a way, Congress is a lot like my class. I'd venture that probably 75% of congress is a lot like the proverbial "mother" we wouldn't let try to install linux. And that's to be expected. A lot of them are much older than the folks who have grown up with computers, and lot of them went into careers (legal) that wouldn't require a lot of computing knowledge.
Maybe all we need is one person with some computing experience and a good persona to go and explain to Congress what's going on. Maybe I'm being a bit too idealistic here, but I have a feeling that if they just understood some of the underlying concepts, things might go a little more smoothly.
they might have succeeded. I remember hearing sprint ION ads non-stop on the radio about 2 or 3 months ago. I guess it must have been available in my area (Houston, TX). Unfortunately, the ads made no mention of this 8mbps down/1mbps up. This was the first time I had heard of the speeds associated with this service. All the radio ads ever said were "faster than dial-up", which is an advertising phrase I tend to ignore as easily as "we'll pay off your old car!".
$100 sounds like a bargain for this sort of thing, and I would probably have snagged that service if I had known about the speed!
Of course I realize that none of the broadband services cites specific speeds, but even saying "up to 8mbps" would have immediately attracted my attention.
DirecTV is marginally better in quality than my digital cable. Several catches:
1) I have to have basic cable (~$10) in order to have a Cable Modem. So, I'm already devoting $10 plus the $40 for my cable modem. Once I calculate adding a DirecTV box to even 3 televisions, it becomes prohibitively expensive.
2) Until very recently, DirecTV didn't offer Fox Sports World. I love watching soccer.
3) DirecTV still doesn't provide WB or UPN in my area (I don't think they provide them anywhere). No WB means I can't watch my Friends and Seinfeld reruns in the evenings. No UPN means no Buffy (I'm not into Star Trek, but that's a motivating factor for quite a few people). I'm far enough out in the burbs that off-air reception is horrible.
Ultimate TV only supports satellite. It doesn't have MPEG-2 encoding capability, it simply stores the MPEG-2 stream from the satellite on the Hard Disk. This is exactly what kept me away from Ultimate TV; I use Digital Cable service because of the many televisions in my house (DirecTV charges $5 extra per TV, my cable company doesn't). Additionally, I am tied to my cable company because I use a cable modem, which I am very happy with.
/.er should ever consider.
So, Ultimate TV is positively worthless to me. Also, the capability to record two shows at once requires two drops from the satellite, something which a lot of people didn't think to pull behind their televisions.
The only other feature Ultimate TV boasts is a WebTV add-on, something which no serious
I read that bit in one of those "spy" sections in a Road & Track-type magazine. Toyota has not made an official announcement about it.
Off the top of my head, I can think of several ways that this could be accomplished:
1) more powerful electric engine. Obviously, the less you fire up the IC engine, the better economy you will get. If Toyota increases the power of the electric engine, they could increase the economy proportionally. Of course the catch is that they have to figure out how to capture the increased amount of power required by the electric engine to function.
2) Put VVTL-i on the IC engine's head. For those not aware, VVTL-i is an improved version of Honda's VTEC system. If Toyota is able to put a weaker cam for the 0-4,000 rpm range, they could easily start to increase the efficiency of the engine; the hot cam could pop in at 4,000 rpms for high-speed freeway driving.
3) Manual transmission. IIRC, all of the Priuses (sp?) are equipped with a CVT automatic. While CVTs are more efficient than a standard 4 or 5-speed auto, a manual would definitely improve the economy of the engine.
My guess is that this 125mpg Prius will probably be a "Show" car for a while (meaning it makes the auto show rounds, not that it's going to have chrome wheels and airbrushed paint or anything). From what I've read, the Prius is a loss leader; Toyota is treating it a lot like some manufacturers treat their sports cars (they use it to drum up excitement, and lose money on the vehicle overall). If this were indeed the case, they could take this fact many steps further. Replace the wheels with hollow magnesium-alloys to cut weight down, replace suspension components with lighter weight alloys, etc. I don't doubt that 125mpg would be feasible, but the question might be if Toyota could afford to sell it.
The "Oil Light" on my BMW is not an oil warning light like most other cars have.
When I turn the ignition, before the electronic odometer/trip odometer is displayed, a "service meter" pops up for about 3 seconds. It has a red section at the far left, two yellow sections to the right of the red, and (I think) 4 or 5 green sections that continue all the way to the right. The Bimmer displays a bar above one of the sections; you are instructed to bring the car in when the bar hits the first yellow, and when it hits the second yellow things start to get very important. The first time I brought my Bimmer in, 3,000 miles had elapsed since I had purchased it (I purchased it as a demo with 8K on the odometer); the service guys told me, "Oh, it's nowhere near needing a service/oil change. You're still only on the second bar".
I've been told that the system measures not only elapsed time/miles, but also measures load placed on the engine. If you like to wind it out at every stop light (like I do), then you get significantly less time on the service than other people (say, some old lady with an Automatic transmission who never takes the engine above 3500 RPMs).
Wow...
:-)
Actually, I'm quite out of the loop on European cars (unless we're talking about the stuff that makes it to the States).
Of course, the US Department of Transportation may measure fuel economy in a completely different manner than it is measured in Europe, so either side's numbers may sound greatly inflated.
Honda goes about achieving their economy numbers through their VTEC system, which is a bit misleading. They quote a particular horsepower number (say, 160hp in the older Civic Si), but that horsepower doesn't translate through the RPM range... until the "hot" cam kicks in, the car behaves and performs like a seriously underpowered economy car...
For this reason, they are able to easily skirt the fuel economy numbers. Because freeway/city tests don't involve a whole lot of winding the engine out, they're actually testing an engine which is probably pushing more like 110hp, and thus, is pulling far better economy. In the case of the low-end civics, the engine is probably being tested with about 70hp, which can easily explain the 41mpg (highway) claim. Of course, Honda still gets to advertise the higher horsepower number which comes once the engine is near redline and has the hotter cam swapped in.
I've seen a few other ideas proposed... GM is tinkering with the idea of only running 4 of the 8 cylinders in some of their SUV engines (during low load/stops) in order to increase economy. I don't really understand how they plan to pull it off, since a V8 is balanced much differently from an L4. The only engine this would be feasible with would be a V12, since an L6 is naturally balanced, and requires no counterweight.
I've also seen some companies experimenting with using a hydraulic system to physcially adjust the angle of certain components in a constant manner. They haven't had very good luck with it, though.
Diesel is pretty much overlooked in the states. Outside of the TDI, the only other Diesel I know of are large trucks. Probably the best selling diesel in the US is the 7.3 L "Power-Stoke" V8 diesel found in Ford's heavy duty pickups and the Excursion. How's that for efficency?
Toyota has their Prius pulling about 50mpg. Honda has their Insight pulling about 65mpg.
The Europeans have the VW Lupo, which in specially modified form can pull ~70mpg
Toyota has announced that they will have the Prius doing 125mpg within a few years. The current Prius costs about $20,000, which isn't a lot on the car market of today. And I'd trust Toyota to make a car that Consumer Reports would smile upon.
My Subaru service guy recommends changing the oil on the Subaru every 7500 miles. You *should* be rotating the tires more frequently than that.
My BMW tells me when it needs the oil changed, and I've heard stories of it going as long as 12,000 miles between changes (which is good, b/c BMW charges a ridiculous amount, and the tool to reset the oil light costs a pretty penny).
So, really, take a look around. The TDI Golf gets 48mpg, and the TDI Jetta gets a little less. And if I had to choose an engine to last me forever, I'd go for a German Diesel over anything else. Some of the Honda Civics get 41mpg (and cost about $13K), and the ~20-year-old beater Honda is a pretty common sight around here, so they must hold up fairly well. Not everything out there is an 8mpg Excursion or a $60,000 luxury Barge.
I don't really understand how much this could help NASA. Ask the average Joe-on-the-street when the next Shuttle launch is and I doubt he could answer you. Shit, I can't answer you.
NASA started losing its appeal to the everyman around the late 80's, following the Challenger explosion. Everyone knows Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, but I doubt the average Joe could tell you the name of any of the people crewing the shuttle right now. I know I can't without a little Google searching.
So really, how effective a marketing scheme will this be? Who's turning on the television to see the ads plastered on the side of the Shuttle prior to launch? What Newspaper prints a front page story about the shuttle launch? What kind of exposure would a Playstation 2 ad get on the Shuttle versus the kind of exposure it would get during the Superbowl, or the World Series, or a "Very Special Episode of 'Felicity'"?
I think it's wonderful that NASA is seeking out private funding, since the powers that be are no longer interested in the space program. I just have to wonder what kind of revenue a space shuttle advertisement would bring, and if that revenue would be any more than a drop in the bucket compared to the total cost of operating the shuttle.
I e-mailed my Senators and Congressman (Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Phil Gramm, and Kevin Brady) twice each. Not a single response. When I took the time to snail mail a letter to each of them, I got a form letter response from Hutchinson and Gramm, and a real response from Brady. The fact is true... they simply don't read e-mail. Sad but true.
I doubt that my single letter would have an effect, but I would bet that 100 letters on paper would have a much greater effect than 10,000 e-mails.