It's also likely they realized that even if they fought and won and could expect to collect, their legal costs would be higher than the amount of the judgment. Large legal teams are expensive.
It didn't set a legal precedent. It may, however, have set a precedent in that once people hear about this, many more people will likely try to make similar offers.
Everyone in the chain is responsible. The customer demands satisfaction from the mobo vendor. The mobo vendor demands satisfaction from the capacitor vendor. It's very much like software written in layers. Each layer is a black box to the callers above it. The customer just knows the mobo vendor sold them shit, and so that's who they sue. The mobo vendor then has to figure out who under it screwed up. And, of course, at any layer, the suit can fail. Perhaps the capacitor vendor can show that they delivered to spec, in which case, they'll win the suit.
Blame has multiple sources. As a completely random example, if a company where to hire a company in China to make Thomas the Tank engine trains, and those trains turned out to be painted with lead paint, then *BOTH* companies would be responsible. The American company would be responsible, because the American company should have had the quality control to check for lead. The Chinese company would *ALSO* be responsible, as it put the lead there in the first place. Consumers should certainly sue to hold the American company responsible for poison-laden trains. The American company should also certainly sue to hold the Chinese company responsible for selling it poison-laden trains. If you have any set of people, any one of which could have prevented some bad thing, then all are equally responsible for that bad thing. Blame does not divide.
The situation here is entirely analogous.
(Example is real...those fuckers sold my kid poison. At least the RIAA only fucks up people's computers.)
One interesting bit is that the Sony still has that massive base of PS2 users. What is underappreciated is that the PS2 is currently outselling not only the PS3, but the XBox 360 as well. What is interesting is that Sony doesn't appear to be in any hurry at all to discontinue the PS2. They even released a new hardware update last month. One thing I've wondered is whether those PS2 sales would have been PS3 sales if Sony had simply discontinued the old console the way Microsoft did with the 360.
The other difference between Sony and Nintendo is that Sony can carry a losing division for years. Sony can do what Microsoft is still doing, selling a losing console at a significant loss just to stay in the market. The history of the PS3 looks remarkably familiar.
It is vary likely that if the PS3 hadn't been following the most successful console ever made, it'd not be considered a failure at all.
They say Rock Band will ship with "Enter Sandman". Weird. I've never heard of that song. I just hope it's as good as that awesome track I got off of Napster: "3ntar s4ndmn".
Fortunate because if Nintendo didn't manage to turn a profit in an industry where everyone else has to sell the base system at a loss, there'd be one fewer manufacturer in the industry, which would be bad.
Sega was making money until they suddenly weren't. My point was more than a Sony or a Microsoft can afford to push along a console. A Sega or a Nintendo can't. One poor selling machine puts them out of the market.
If the Wii had sold like the XBox, Nintendo would be out of business.
You know Sony as a whole made a profit last year, right? And that it's stock is up over the last year, right?
It's fortunate that Nintendo is managing to make a profit, because the other two console makers have proven that they have both the funds and the will to lose money for a very long time to attempt to dominate the market. Sony has likely lost a couple billion so far on the PS3, which is comparable to what Microsoft loses on the XBox. But with $67 billion in gross revenue, that is no where near a company killer.
I have a PSP...there's tons of new games for it every month. There was a big lack at launch, but that was resolved over a year ago. Currently, the new and exciting game on the PSP is "Crush". A couple months ago it was "Puzzle Quest". I wouldn't mind having a DS myself, but honestly I have more PSP games than I have time to play, so I don't bother.
For a game producer to make money, they need to mostly worry about the raw number of devices there are that can run their games. The PSP may be outsold by the DS, but it outsells the XBox, so from a game producer's standpoint, the PSP is a better bet than the XBox. I know you'll say "that's not the same market", but that doesn't matter. What matters is that the labor involved in making a PSP game is roughly equivalent to the labor involved in making an XBox game. This "market leader" crap is only something people say on slashdot. A game producer thinks more like "X units * percentage take-up - cost to develop". Who the market leader is only makes a difference for game producers who don't have resources to develop for more than one. (This is why a game like "Puzzle Quest", for example, was developed for both.)
In my experience, most people don't bother to close their browser when they are done browsing. It's even worse for people used to tabbed browsing. How many times do you shut down the computer at night with tabs containing something you looked at with your morning coffee? I know I do as often as not.
Extremely doubtful on a project with as tight constraints as a space probe, especially one where management is scientifically skilled enough to understand the engineering specs completely. Remember, the designers were more concerned with cramming as many scientific devices on the problem as they could then they were with going beyond 90 days. (Which, in fact, required something that they didn't expect, that is, the Martian winds cleaning off the panels.)
The much lower atmospheric pressure on Mars means that wind on that planet is at least a magnitude weaker, thus it's harder to imagine getting power from it.
Actually, no. It was designed for three months. They, of course, made any changes that might make it last longer that didn't effect the budget, but they very definitely avoided any design improvements intended to lengthen it beyond 90 days, unless those improvements cost no money. The budget was very tight and many potential design improvements to make the rovers last longer were specifically rejected. (See the book by the project lead.)
Slashdot Mirror
My brain said months and my fingers typed years.
9 is more than half of 10. More to the point, it is extremely likely that the Wii will overtake total 360 sales in the next couple years.
Of course, virtually any article of clothing can weigh 300lbs or more somewhere in the universe.
It's also likely they realized that even if they fought and won and could expect to collect, their legal costs would be higher than the amount of the judgment. Large legal teams are expensive.
It didn't set a legal precedent. It may, however, have set a precedent in that once people hear about this, many more people will likely try to make similar offers.
Yeah, Microsoft has to worry more about the fact that their game division has never done anything but bleed cash.
Everyone in the chain is responsible. The customer demands satisfaction from the mobo vendor. The mobo vendor demands satisfaction from the capacitor vendor. It's very much like software written in layers. Each layer is a black box to the callers above it. The customer just knows the mobo vendor sold them shit, and so that's who they sue. The mobo vendor then has to figure out who under it screwed up. And, of course, at any layer, the suit can fail. Perhaps the capacitor vendor can show that they delivered to spec, in which case, they'll win the suit.
The situation here is entirely analogous.
(Example is real...those fuckers sold my kid poison. At least the RIAA only fucks up people's computers.)
The other difference between Sony and Nintendo is that Sony can carry a losing division for years. Sony can do what Microsoft is still doing, selling a losing console at a significant loss just to stay in the market. The history of the PS3 looks remarkably familiar.
It is vary likely that if the PS3 hadn't been following the most successful console ever made, it'd not be considered a failure at all.
They say Rock Band will ship with "Enter Sandman". Weird. I've never heard of that song. I just hope it's as good as that awesome track I got off of Napster: "3ntar s4ndmn".
I keep a spare PSP battery for long flights.
Sega was making money until they suddenly weren't. My point was more than a Sony or a Microsoft can afford to push along a console. A Sega or a Nintendo can't. One poor selling machine puts them out of the market.
If the Wii had sold like the XBox, Nintendo would be out of business.
You know Sony as a whole made a profit last year, right? And that it's stock is up over the last year, right?
It's fortunate that Nintendo is managing to make a profit, because the other two console makers have proven that they have both the funds and the will to lose money for a very long time to attempt to dominate the market. Sony has likely lost a couple billion so far on the PS3, which is comparable to what Microsoft loses on the XBox. But with $67 billion in gross revenue, that is no where near a company killer.
Yes. And the iPod still doesn't have an FM receiver or voice recording.
And yet it still dominates the market.
Someday the tech pundits will learn that ease of use trumps features.
5) The emperor has clothes! Really! He does! He has to! If he doesn't, I'm out of a job!!!
I have a PSP...there's tons of new games for it every month. There was a big lack at launch, but that was resolved over a year ago. Currently, the new and exciting game on the PSP is "Crush". A couple months ago it was "Puzzle Quest". I wouldn't mind having a DS myself, but honestly I have more PSP games than I have time to play, so I don't bother.
For a game producer to make money, they need to mostly worry about the raw number of devices there are that can run their games. The PSP may be outsold by the DS, but it outsells the XBox, so from a game producer's standpoint, the PSP is a better bet than the XBox. I know you'll say "that's not the same market", but that doesn't matter. What matters is that the labor involved in making a PSP game is roughly equivalent to the labor involved in making an XBox game. This "market leader" crap is only something people say on slashdot. A game producer thinks more like "X units * percentage take-up - cost to develop". Who the market leader is only makes a difference for game producers who don't have resources to develop for more than one. (This is why a game like "Puzzle Quest", for example, was developed for both.)
In my experience, most people don't bother to close their browser when they are done browsing. It's even worse for people used to tabbed browsing. How many times do you shut down the computer at night with tabs containing something you looked at with your morning coffee? I know I do as often as not.
Is it a "problem"? The PSP may not outsell the DS, but they've sold 23 million of them, so it's hardly any sort of marketplace failure.
Extremely doubtful on a project with as tight constraints as a space probe, especially one where management is scientifically skilled enough to understand the engineering specs completely. Remember, the designers were more concerned with cramming as many scientific devices on the problem as they could then they were with going beyond 90 days. (Which, in fact, required something that they didn't expect, that is, the Martian winds cleaning off the panels.)
The much lower atmospheric pressure on Mars means that wind on that planet is at least a magnitude weaker, thus it's harder to imagine getting power from it.
Actually, no. It was designed for three months. They, of course, made any changes that might make it last longer that didn't effect the budget, but they very definitely avoided any design improvements intended to lengthen it beyond 90 days, unless those improvements cost no money. The budget was very tight and many potential design improvements to make the rovers last longer were specifically rejected. (See the book by the project lead.)
I'm not sure it's good to honor statues that a society essentially destroyed itself to build.
In Arthurian Britain, the "ideal woman", as extensively described in various epic poems/myths, had pale skin, red lips and black hair.
Yes, of course, because with the kamakazi attacks ("Kamakazi" == " Divine Wind"), there was no religion involved.
These machines were designed to last three months. They've lasted over three years. They never expected them to last long enough for it to matter.
It's probably wise not to second-guess engineers who built something that lasted more than ten times longer than anyone expected.