If they cut the prices down for the Xmas buying season, they should get a surge of sales followed by a bigger slump after January. But the increased number of consoles sold will increase the number of games being bought.
Gamecube has never been a major factor. They shipped 80,000 units this quarter. 80,000? The other two are projecting 20-24 million for the year, Nintendo will be lucky to get 3 million out the door. Hmm, "temporarily stopped production to clear excess inventory". Sound familiar Dreamcast fans?
My friend had one of the ugliest HP's I've ever seen. And you had to unscrew the power supply to get to the pci and ram slots. At least HP and Compaq have similarly draconian case designs. And it's uglier than yours, had tan plastic on beige+black? Wtf were they smoking? Obviously nothing good to come up with something so bland and yet so hideous. Ok computer though, as long as you don't have to open it, or look at it, or allow others to see it.
What happened with Sierra was very sad. Too bad Tsunami didn't work out, the company with the former Sierra employees (they made Blue Force, great game, Police Quest knockoff). Maybe someday we'll get a new Space Quest, King's Quest, and Leisure Suit Larry.
I knew it wouldn't stay off the Xbox forever. Funny how its coming out in November, which is the release date for a similar game, True Crime: Streets of LA, which actually looks great.
That box ain't so bad, compared to HP boxes from a couple years ago, which are f-ugly. They should have just fired all the HP box designers and used Compaq's after the merger.
Now that they've settled the charges, they're going into full anti-competitive mode. I'm glad my state (Massachusetts) didn't accept the settlement and is still pursuing charges.
This could backfire for Microsoft if more companies switch over to OpenOffice. China looks really smart now for dumping them earlier.
How about instead of blaming videogames, can we hold parents responsible for once? Leaving your kid in front of a tv for hours on end is bad parenting. Not keeping an eye on what your kids are doing is bad parenting. Letting your kid play an M rated game is like taking them to see an R rated movie. Who buys the videogames, the kids or the parents? We have parents using the TV and videogames as a babysitter, and when the kid does something wrong, who gets the blame? Don't buy a copy of Halo for young children. Don't leave them alone with their videogames and TV 8 hours a day. These games are not made for children. It says it right on the box. Even a lot of network television isn't meant for children.
When the Columbine shooting happened, the first thing I saw blamed was Doom. Is it a game's fault that they went out and shot people? Or is it the parents fault for allowing them to build a weapons cache in their bedroom, and ignoring their obvious anti-social behavior? Too often videogames are a scrapegoat and an excuse for bad parenting. I guess its not PC to blame parents. Raising kids is hard. Nobody does it perfectly, and I wish people would stop pretending that they do.
These days, everyone uses MSNM.
AIM has a comfortable lead, MSN and Yahoo are fighting it out for 2nd place. You complain about Microsoft putting MSN into Windows, but what about AOL bundling AIM with their service?
I can remember a few years ago, everyone used ICQ
Yeah, until AOL bought ICQ. Then ICQ started going down and AIM started going up. I used to use ICQ a lot. ICQ didnt go downhill because of MSN. It went away because didn't keep up with the competition in term of features. The other services kept getting better, and once AOL bought ICQ, not many resources were being put into it. Gee, you don't think AOL bought a rival service to slowly kill it off, do you?
Like anyone sending mail via an SMTP network?
Or anyone browsing the web using HTTP?
Or anyone reading news using NNTP?
I knew someone would say this. There is a huge, huge difference here. Microsoft does not own the entire internet. It does not own every http server or mail server. Microsoft owns the entire MSN network. They made it, they paid for it, they own it. You can send and recieve mail through an SMTP network, but you can't send and recieve mail through someone else's private mail servers (unless they're dumb, and many are, but you're still not supposed to). If you don't like what Microsoft does with its property, which they can rightfully do, use an open system like Jabber, which I encourage everyone to do.
The issue isn't if they'd be better served by allowing it or not, though that is very debatable. Though, I think you have it backwards - its not people on Trillian that attract people to use MSN - it's people who use MSN that attract people to both MSN and 3rd party clients on their network, like Trillian. If other people didn't use MSN exclusively, people wouldn't use Trillian for MSN.
What I don't understand is why they don't just send the banner ads to every client then still claim the revenue for it regardless on whether they can verify if the banner is being shown
If they did that, then companies would be very hesitant to buy ad space on MSN. The companies would realize they are paying for ads that are never seen eventually.
Your first point is more valid with a free client. Trillian has a pay version. If someone else is selling software that uses the network you own, you should get a cut of that.
"'We can't sustain multiple other people's businesses"
Like hell they can't.
$40b liquid in the bank, nothing but time to blow
Why the hell should they support other people's business without getting a cut of the profits? Doesn't matter if they have 40 billion or 40 dollars in the bank. They don't have to let Trilian get a free ride.
If i'm using MSN Messenger to chat to my friends, i'll be using the same resources as if i connect via trillian. So, the cost is EXACTLY the same. This therefore can NOT be the root of the decision.
Sorry, no. MSN gets revenues from the banner ads on their client. Trilian is taking money away from them, using the network MS built, supports, and pays for.
Solution? Use free* chat protocols, and give-up some of your time to help less computer savvy users migrate away from MSN.
I agree with this part. If we all use free protocols then we only need to use one client instead of 4, and we will be outside of their influence.
I don't see anything wrong with this. MS built the network and maintains it, its their property. If someone else is going to sell software that uses their network that they pay for, they should get some of that money. Yes, they complained the most about AOL's closed networks, but this is different. If you make AOL's network work with MSN's network and both work with Yahoo's network, then you can all use the network since you're all bringing something to the table, you're all contributing. What does Trilian do for them? I think asking Trilian for a cut of what they charge is more than fair. Don't like it? Build your own system, or use Jabber.
Transfer Payments... Welfare? I guess if you said, well, we're getting rid of the minimum wage, but everyone that makes under $x will get welfare, then they might go for it. But the welfare system is working so great right now, what with the new welfare reforms, thousands who geniunely need it are being kicked off the rolls. If something like this went through, I wouldn't be surprised if they kept the minimum wage gone, but took back the welfare checks, especially with a republican president.
Your plan isn't as out there as I thought it was (now that I caught the transfer payments), but I'm still not sure. A minimum wage sorta acts like a tax that goes to the poor already, that everyone pays.
If somebody cheats, and wins, who is liable? The cheater? The host? All I see are lawsuits from sore losers... How many times have you heard, oh he cheated, I didn't lose. Oh sorry, that was a practice, you didn't actually win. And of course, the 'do-over'.
Neither of those categories poses a big threat to an experienced C++ programmer with good communication skills and a good resume.
This makes it a lot harder on the people trying to break into the industry by getting an entry level job. It's those kind of jobs that go overseas.
Someone suggested moving overseas to get these jobs. You want someone that just got out of college, and probably has a good amount of debt racked up, to leave the country for an entry level job? Do you know how much it costs to move to another country?
It's been my experience that the only people who would suggest not having a minimum wage are people who have never lived at the bottom. You can't support yourself today making minimum wage, let alone a family. If you eliminated the minimum wage and allowed wages to get lower, yes it would reduce the cost of certain things. But they would lose more by making less money than they would save by having reduced costs. Cost of living would not go down proportionately. You argue that the flood of low paying jobs would cause companies to raise wages to compete for workers. Do you honestly think that it would even approach the minimum? They would do the same thing they do now - ship jobs overseas where people will work for even less. I will give you the fact that there would be more jobs - at the bottom. I don't think theres a problem finding jobs at the bottom right now, McDonalds seems to be perpetually hiring. There is a lack of jobs that pay a living wage. All this would do is increase the gap between rich and poor.
I bet the people that are defending companies moving jobs overseas haven't had their jobs moved to India. If you guys get laid off because your job is going overseas you'll be the first ones to cry foul.
Lets see you bag groceries for a few months, and tell me what your attitude is then.
Online adaptors ship with all new PS2's now. They still offer it without one for slightly cheaper but thats only until they run out.
And I do like Xbox's online system better, where you pay $50 yearly for all games (except one - PSO). With PS2 you pay per game, though some games are free, some are not. Though I can't see a game charge much less than Xbox Live does (4.17/month).
"more than 780,000 gamers with online connectivity."
What does this mean? Is it that 780,000 people have signed up, or that 780,000 people own PS2 online adaptors? I could say that 100% of Xbox's have "online connectivity" because every Xbox has an ethernet port built in. I think these numbers are very deceptive.
Take this with a gigantic grain of salt. This is a press release written by Sony. Of course the numbers are skewed in Sony's favor. Just like how Microsoft press releases say that Windows is a stable and secure operating system.
Slashdot Mirror
They've contacted customers offering licences for "protection" against any legal action.
"Thats a real nice operating system you've got there, it would be a shame if something happened to it."
Though I do agree a RICO suit may not be appropriate for SCO, but legal action is definitely in order (against SCO).
If they cut the prices down for the Xmas buying season, they should get a surge of sales followed by a bigger slump after January. But the increased number of consoles sold will increase the number of games being bought. Gamecube has never been a major factor. They shipped 80,000 units this quarter. 80,000? The other two are projecting 20-24 million for the year, Nintendo will be lucky to get 3 million out the door. Hmm, "temporarily stopped production to clear excess inventory". Sound familiar Dreamcast fans?
My friend had one of the ugliest HP's I've ever seen. And you had to unscrew the power supply to get to the pci and ram slots. At least HP and Compaq have similarly draconian case designs. And it's uglier than yours, had tan plastic on beige+black? Wtf were they smoking? Obviously nothing good to come up with something so bland and yet so hideous. Ok computer though, as long as you don't have to open it, or look at it, or allow others to see it.
What happened with Sierra was very sad. Too bad Tsunami didn't work out, the company with the former Sierra employees (they made Blue Force, great game, Police Quest knockoff). Maybe someday we'll get a new Space Quest, King's Quest, and Leisure Suit Larry.
I knew it wouldn't stay off the Xbox forever. Funny how its coming out in November, which is the release date for a similar game, True Crime: Streets of LA, which actually looks great.
That box ain't so bad, compared to HP boxes from a couple years ago, which are f-ugly. They should have just fired all the HP box designers and used Compaq's after the merger.
Now that they've settled the charges, they're going into full anti-competitive mode. I'm glad my state (Massachusetts) didn't accept the settlement and is still pursuing charges.
This could backfire for Microsoft if more companies switch over to OpenOffice. China looks really smart now for dumping them earlier.
How about instead of blaming videogames, can we hold parents responsible for once? Leaving your kid in front of a tv for hours on end is bad parenting. Not keeping an eye on what your kids are doing is bad parenting. Letting your kid play an M rated game is like taking them to see an R rated movie. Who buys the videogames, the kids or the parents? We have parents using the TV and videogames as a babysitter, and when the kid does something wrong, who gets the blame? Don't buy a copy of Halo for young children. Don't leave them alone with their videogames and TV 8 hours a day. These games are not made for children. It says it right on the box. Even a lot of network television isn't meant for children.
When the Columbine shooting happened, the first thing I saw blamed was Doom. Is it a game's fault that they went out and shot people? Or is it the parents fault for allowing them to build a weapons cache in their bedroom, and ignoring their obvious anti-social behavior? Too often videogames are a scrapegoat and an excuse for bad parenting. I guess its not PC to blame parents. Raising kids is hard. Nobody does it perfectly, and I wish people would stop pretending that they do.
It's given away but its not free. Advertising pays for your service. Advertising money that they lose when people use other clients.
These days, everyone uses MSNM. AIM has a comfortable lead, MSN and Yahoo are fighting it out for 2nd place. You complain about Microsoft putting MSN into Windows, but what about AOL bundling AIM with their service? I can remember a few years ago, everyone used ICQ Yeah, until AOL bought ICQ. Then ICQ started going down and AIM started going up. I used to use ICQ a lot. ICQ didnt go downhill because of MSN. It went away because didn't keep up with the competition in term of features. The other services kept getting better, and once AOL bought ICQ, not many resources were being put into it. Gee, you don't think AOL bought a rival service to slowly kill it off, do you?
Like anyone sending mail via an SMTP network? Or anyone browsing the web using HTTP? Or anyone reading news using NNTP? I knew someone would say this. There is a huge, huge difference here. Microsoft does not own the entire internet. It does not own every http server or mail server. Microsoft owns the entire MSN network. They made it, they paid for it, they own it. You can send and recieve mail through an SMTP network, but you can't send and recieve mail through someone else's private mail servers (unless they're dumb, and many are, but you're still not supposed to). If you don't like what Microsoft does with its property, which they can rightfully do, use an open system like Jabber, which I encourage everyone to do.
The issue isn't if they'd be better served by allowing it or not, though that is very debatable. Though, I think you have it backwards - its not people on Trillian that attract people to use MSN - it's people who use MSN that attract people to both MSN and 3rd party clients on their network, like Trillian. If other people didn't use MSN exclusively, people wouldn't use Trillian for MSN.
What I don't understand is why they don't just send the banner ads to every client then still claim the revenue for it regardless on whether they can verify if the banner is being shown
If they did that, then companies would be very hesitant to buy ad space on MSN. The companies would realize they are paying for ads that are never seen eventually.
Your first point is more valid with a free client. Trillian has a pay version. If someone else is selling software that uses the network you own, you should get a cut of that.
"'We can't sustain multiple other people's businesses" Like hell they can't. $40b liquid in the bank, nothing but time to blow Why the hell should they support other people's business without getting a cut of the profits? Doesn't matter if they have 40 billion or 40 dollars in the bank. They don't have to let Trilian get a free ride.
If i'm using MSN Messenger to chat to my friends, i'll be using the same resources as if i connect via trillian. So, the cost is EXACTLY the same. This therefore can NOT be the root of the decision. Sorry, no. MSN gets revenues from the banner ads on their client. Trilian is taking money away from them, using the network MS built, supports, and pays for. Solution? Use free* chat protocols, and give-up some of your time to help less computer savvy users migrate away from MSN. I agree with this part. If we all use free protocols then we only need to use one client instead of 4, and we will be outside of their influence.
I don't see anything wrong with this. MS built the network and maintains it, its their property. If someone else is going to sell software that uses their network that they pay for, they should get some of that money. Yes, they complained the most about AOL's closed networks, but this is different. If you make AOL's network work with MSN's network and both work with Yahoo's network, then you can all use the network since you're all bringing something to the table, you're all contributing. What does Trilian do for them? I think asking Trilian for a cut of what they charge is more than fair.
Don't like it? Build your own system, or use Jabber.
Transfer Payments... Welfare? I guess if you said, well, we're getting rid of the minimum wage, but everyone that makes under $x will get welfare, then they might go for it. But the welfare system is working so great right now, what with the new welfare reforms, thousands who geniunely need it are being kicked off the rolls. If something like this went through, I wouldn't be surprised if they kept the minimum wage gone, but took back the welfare checks, especially with a republican president. Your plan isn't as out there as I thought it was (now that I caught the transfer payments), but I'm still not sure. A minimum wage sorta acts like a tax that goes to the poor already, that everyone pays.
If somebody cheats, and wins, who is liable? The cheater? The host? All I see are lawsuits from sore losers... How many times have you heard, oh he cheated, I didn't lose. Oh sorry, that was a practice, you didn't actually win. And of course, the 'do-over'.
Neither of those categories poses a big threat to an experienced C++ programmer with good communication skills and a good resume. This makes it a lot harder on the people trying to break into the industry by getting an entry level job. It's those kind of jobs that go overseas. Someone suggested moving overseas to get these jobs. You want someone that just got out of college, and probably has a good amount of debt racked up, to leave the country for an entry level job? Do you know how much it costs to move to another country?
It's been my experience that the only people who would suggest not having a minimum wage are people who have never lived at the bottom. You can't support yourself today making minimum wage, let alone a family. If you eliminated the minimum wage and allowed wages to get lower, yes it would reduce the cost of certain things. But they would lose more by making less money than they would save by having reduced costs. Cost of living would not go down proportionately. You argue that the flood of low paying jobs would cause companies to raise wages to compete for workers. Do you honestly think that it would even approach the minimum? They would do the same thing they do now - ship jobs overseas where people will work for even less. I will give you the fact that there would be more jobs - at the bottom. I don't think theres a problem finding jobs at the bottom right now, McDonalds seems to be perpetually hiring. There is a lack of jobs that pay a living wage. All this would do is increase the gap between rich and poor.
I bet the people that are defending companies moving jobs overseas haven't had their jobs moved to India. If you guys get laid off because your job is going overseas you'll be the first ones to cry foul. Lets see you bag groceries for a few months, and tell me what your attitude is then.
Warning: Use of this game may cause undesired learning and uncontrolled thought in children. Parental guidance is advised.
Does this mean anti-aliasing will work this time?
Online adaptors ship with all new PS2's now. They still offer it without one for slightly cheaper but thats only until they run out. And I do like Xbox's online system better, where you pay $50 yearly for all games (except one - PSO). With PS2 you pay per game, though some games are free, some are not. Though I can't see a game charge much less than Xbox Live does (4.17/month).
"more than 780,000 gamers with online connectivity."
What does this mean? Is it that 780,000 people have signed up, or that 780,000 people own PS2 online adaptors? I could say that 100% of Xbox's have "online connectivity" because every Xbox has an ethernet port built in. I think these numbers are very deceptive.
Take this with a gigantic grain of salt. This is a press release written by Sony. Of course the numbers are skewed in Sony's favor. Just like how Microsoft press releases say that Windows is a stable and secure operating system.
...not just a girl's best friend anymore.