Mandatory governmental ratings = chilling effect = violation of First amendment
Mandatory third party ratings = violation of due process = violation of Fourth amendment
1st - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
4th - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Allow me to supply another equation:
constitutional amendment + missenterpretation = outrage
Might I suggest this as a starting point.
It can be as simple as a countdown clock on the confirmation dialog: "The system will shut down in xx seconds".
I'm confused, when I shut down my mac I get a window like the one you are talking about you are talking about, though it starts at 2 minutes not 25 seconds.
Maybe you miss the point. Not of the article but of movies. But that's beside the point.
The Article it self was inaccurate and not thought through. I mean if you are going to pick on something pick on War Games were Every Computer not only can speak, but they do speak and uses the exact same voice. This is far more unrealistic than 8 year old hackers, reading code on a scrolling screen, accessing a computer through a mono-crome terminal, or writing cross compilable code.
Most of your arguments say that these things happen but it is rare. Movies often represent rare circumstance, often trying to portray hackers as the ultra elite developers (which is sometimes true and sometimes not). These are the people that refuse to use a mouse, spend most of their time in a terminal coding through vi or some other text only editor possibly in perl (I have seen perl programs written without spaces or line breaks).
Remember the article was titled "What code DOESN'T do in real life", not "what code DOESN'T always do in real life." Most people that coded over 20 years ago are not surprised by these representations since they probably had there hands on assembly on mono-cromatic monitors on systems without scroll back ability and which made beeps when typing (which back then I never understood but sometimes miss it today), which is not so different from a lot of the things represented in the movies.
Beyond a small number of those things mentioned, these things do happen in real life, obviously more often than most people think.
Sorry I only looked at the list from the US Site not the international site(American arrogance I guess).
Either way My original point stands that you "Everyone" statement is still far from true, though I guess a tad closer than my original statement made it out to be. Either way You really should admit you gross overstatement, since after all the International HD-DVD list contains 136 members (including associates) and the Blu-ray list contains 171(members, contributors and Board members).
Might I also point out that the patent holder of the current DVD technology (Philips) happens to sit on the Blu-Ray board and is not associated with HD-DVD.
Believe what you want about HD-DVD and spread all the FUD you want about Blu-Ray, but the fact is that there is more support for Blu-Ray, heck there are more blu-ray players in homes than there are HD-DVD and HD-DVD had a head start. Plus the best selling of the players can't stay on the shelves for even hours.
No, Sony decided that it wants everyone using its proprietary format instead of the format that most of the other industry players out there agreed to...
By everyone I assume you mean "An exceptionally small subset of the media and technology industry" that includes, and only includes, according to Official HD-DVD site:
HP, Intel, Microsoft, Paramount, Toshiba, Universal, Warner, HBO and Newline.
This is as opposed to the companies that are part of the Blu-Ray Consortium:
Apple,
Dell,
HP,
Hitachi,
LG,
Mitsubishi Electric,
Panasonic,
Pioneer,
Philips,
Samsung,
Sharp,
Sony,
Sun Microsystems,
TDK,
Thomson,
Twentieth Century Fox,
Walt Disney,
Warner Bros.,
Adobe Systems,
Almedio Inc.,
Alticast,
Aplix Corporation,
ArcSoft, Inc.,
ATI Technologies Inc.,
Atmel Corporation,
AudioDev AB,
Broadcom Corporation,
Canon Inc.,
CMC Magnetics Corporation,
Coding Technologies GmbH,
Cryptography Research Inc.,
CyberLink Corp.,
DATARIUS Technologies GmbH,
DCA Inc.,
Deluxe Media Services Inc.,
Dolby Laboratories Inc.,
DTS, Inc.,
Electronic Arts Inc.,
Esmertec,
Fuji Photo Film Co. Ltd.,
Fujitsu Ltd.,
Gibson Guitar Corp.,
Horizon Semiconductor,
Imation Corp.,
InterVideo Inc.,
Kenwood Corporation,
Lionsgate Entertainment,
LITE-ON IT Corporation,
LSI Logic,
MediaTek Inc.,
Meridian Audio Ltd.,
Metta Technology,
Mitsubishi Kagaku Media Co.Ltd.,
Mitsui Chemicals Inc.,
Moser Baer India Limited,
NEC Electronics Corporation,
Nero,
Optodisc Technology Corporation,
Paramount Pictures Corporation,
Pixela Corporation,
Prodisc Technology Inc.,
Pulstec Industrial Co., Ltd.,
Ricoh Co., Ltd.,
Ritek Corporation,
ShibaSoku Co. Ltd.,
Sigma Designs Inc.,
Sonic Solutions,
Sonopress,
Sony BMG Music Entertainment,
ST Microelectronics,
Sunext,
Taiyo Yuden Co., Ltd.,,
Texas Instruments, Inc.,
Universal Music Group,
Victor Company of Japan, Ltd.,
Visionare Corporation,
Zentek Technology Japan, Inc.,
ZOOtech Ltd. ,
Zoran Corporation,
Alpine Electronics Inc.,
Asahi Kasei Microsystems Co., Ltd.,
ashampoo GmbH & Co. KG,
Bandai Visual Co. Ltd.,
BASF AG,
Basler Vision Technologies,
BenQ Corporation,
B.H.A. Corporation,
Bose Corporation,
B&W Group,
The Cannery,
Cheertek Inc.,
Cinram Manufacturing Inc.,
D&M holdings, Inc.,
Daewoo Electronics Corporation,
Daikin Industries, Ltd.,
Daxon Technology Inc.,
Degussa,
Eclipse Data Technologies,
Elpida Memory, Inc.,
ESS Technology Inc.,
Expert Magnetics Corp.,
Fujitsu Ten Ltd.,
Funai Electric Co., Ltd.,
GalleryPlayer Media Networks,
Gear Software,
Hie Electronics, Inc.,
Hoei Sangyo Co., Ltd.,
IMAGICA Corp.,
INFODISC Technology Co., Ltd.,
Infomedia Inc.,
Intersil Corporation,
Kadokawa Holdings Inc.,
Kaleidescape, Inc.,
Kitano Co., Ltd.,
Konica Minolta Opto Inc.,
Laser Pacific Media Corp.,
Lauda Co. Ltd.,
Lead Data Inc.,
LEADER ELECTRONICS CORP,
Lenovo,
Linn Products Ltd.,
LINTEC Corporation,
M2 Engineering AB,
MainConcept AG,
Mitsumi Electric Co., Ltd.,
Must Technology Co., Ltd.,
MX Entertainment,
Netflix Inc.,
Newtech Infosystems Inc.,
NEXAPM Systems Technology Inc.,
Nichia Corporation,
Nikkatsu Corporation,
NTT Electronics Corporation,
nVidia Corporation,
OC Oerlikon Balzer AG,
Omnibus Japan Inc.,
Onkyo Corporation,
Online Media Technologies Ltd.,
Ono Sokki Co., Ltd.,
OPT Corporation,
Orbit Corp.,
Origin Electric Co., Ltd.,
Osmosys SA,
Pinnacle Systems,
PoINT Software & Systems GmbH,
Pony Canyon Enterprise,
PowerFile,
Primera Technology, Inc.,
Quanta Storage Inc.,
Realtek Semiconductor Corp.,
Rimage Corporation,
Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.,
Dr. Schwab Inspection Technology GmbH,
Shinano Kenshi Co. Ltd.,
Singulus Technologies,
STEAG ETA-OPTIK GmbH,
Sumitomo Bakelite,
Tao Group Limited,
Targray Technology International Inc.,
TEAC Corporation,
Teijin Chemicals Ltd.,
THX Ltd.,
Toei Video Company Ltd.,
Toho Company, Ltd.,
Toppan Printing Co., Ltd.,
TOPTICA Photonics AG,
Trailer Park,
UmeDisc Ltd.,
Vivendi Universal Games,
Yamaha Corporation,
Yokogawa Electric Corporation,
1K Studios, LLC,
Now would you like to retract your obviously inaccurate statement?
I have coded in Hex but never in binary. Yes Writing direct Hex representations of Machine instructions. Early on it was the fastest way to Hack by changing the values on disk with out having to disassemble and reassemble. But Hex wouldn't be as obviously computer related as binary is.
Personally I think the guy who wrote the article about what code doesn't do, is either a "Web Developer" or just wanted to try and irritate some old school hackers.
1) Code does move, especially when interactively debugging. Having watched machine instructions be executed command by command I will testify to this one. It just might not move as fast as it does in the movies
2) Alot of Code "WAS" green text on a black background and I even have some of my current IDE's configured that way (preference plus easier on the eyes), when I'm not using white on blue that is.
3) Code has Structure. The only thing I can do about this one is Laugh. Most code might have structure but not one most people, developers included, could ever understand.
5) Code "can" make blip noises and can actually make coding easier because it is easier to know if you hit multiple keys at once by accident, or skipped a key press.
6) Code "can" be broken by an eight year old in seconds, would you like to meet some.
8) I think we already covered binary representations of code
9) Good developers avoid the mouse at all costs. It's slow and mostly useless.
10) Good code can be compiled to many different machine codes, you just have to assume the wrote a good C compiler for the alien technology in Independents Day I mean they had the ship long enough.
Thanks for the insightful information. I like what you have to say and you hit the nail on the head in a round about way. Working effectively with architectures such as the PS2 and PS3 does require a change in though, but interestingly enough it's a reversion back to older thought process rather than a newer one. I am a software engineer, though I have not worked on any game development in many years, but these newer architectures do get me interested again. If you look at the early PCs you will see that working with processes executing on seperate processors was actually very common.
I recall the need to write portions of programs so that they could run on the SPUs of the main system or the CPUs of a Peripheral(This is when certain manufactures, like commodore, had specialized CPUs in their peripherals) such as the sound processor or even and external drive. This code was not always specific to the processor in question, such as running small logic code on a drives CPU during times when no disk access was happening so that the main CPU could be free for other purposes. This was when you tried to get the absolute most out of the system you were working on and programs were considerably more efficiet than they are today. I really doubt modern programming is as difficult, even on these "new" architectures as it was when the developer had to directly manipulate memory by address, atleast not for your average developer.
My point is that the serial vs. parallel problem is often, but not always, a mater of the way the problem is thought about, not just how it is coded.
That all being said, as a bit of a side.
And you're going to tell me that some "magic lib" is going to make it easy on the PS3?!
I'm not saying that it will be done, but I am saying that it could and should be done. Remember that the reason alot of developers don't understand the issue you brought up is because they don't need to know them since there are libraries that hide those complexities. It is very possible, since it is done, to write complex games, cross platform compilable through the use of common libraries, APIs and languages such as OpenGL or Cg.
The only issue here is if the Cell processor will have enough longevity and popularity to make this happen. If Sony, or another manufacturer were to use the Cell processor in the next Generation we would certainly see some of these libaries and tools become available.
No it won't, because to take advantage of the Cell you have to write parallel code.
Incorrect. Your program must compile to parallel instructions, important and not very subtle difference. This can be hidden by a good library. The most you should be expected to be able to do is manage threading, which exist in most architectures out there. The fact that a thread would be run on an SPE rather than a general purpose CPU should be transparent with the right APIs. The SPEs are turing complete and so should be able to execute any code (in it's instruction set), and the compiler should determine which code is appropriate for the PPE rather than an SPE. Compiler writers and select Library developers will need to know how to use the lower level details, but the average developer should not.
As I software developer with out a license to an existing Dev Kit or The money to set up a Cell Based server (the only other Cell development options) I could see the use in it as a learning tool. Oh plus it plays 3 generation on Console games, DVDs, CDs and BluRay disks, etc...
But the problem is, for all the power increase you get, you have to spend that much more time and money to actually take advantage of it.
This is only true in the sense that unified libraries or processes need to be conceived and/or developed before it becomes easy to take advantage of the more complex architectures. This can be seen in the history of GPUs where originally it took specialized knowledge of the specific GPU to get the most out of it, but now standardized APIs have been developed which allow one to make effective use of the GPU (though not necessarily maximum) with out need to understand the specific hardware. The same thing will happen with the Cell Processor, in that common libraries will be converted to effectively use the power of the processor (or more specifically it's SPEs). In the end developing for the Cell will be as easy as developing for any processor, and yes something will be better on the cell (single precision floating point intensive applications) and some not(double precision floating point intensive applications, though I assume a good library will get around this as well by using single precision operations when ever possible even if they have to do more total calculations).
The question is, are game companies ready and willing to take advantage of this power to its full extent?
Ready? Probably not, but some are certainly willing. Insomniac (Ratchet and Clank), Naughty Dog (Jak), and SCEI(Ico) are just a few that I am fairly confident we will see some amazing works from.
don't ask me why they're selling Cell-based blade servers
They are selling Cell based servers, blade or otherwise, because the cell processor was designed with Scientific Computing in mind. For those that don't know this is the category of computing that is done on all Super Computers at this time. IBM is hoping to replace the current generation of x86/Power based super computers, and super clusters, with Cell based clusters. The current top rank Supercomputer is capable of 367 teraflops peak using 131072 IBM PowerPC CPUs. This configuration could, in theory, be replaced with 896 cell processors. This is a massive savings in power consumption, physical space and cooling requirements. This could also be used to scale up to even faster Supercomputers using thousands of cell processors, which where built for distributed computing as well as the scientific aspect.
I'm not going to argue most of the points, only because they would require more time than I'm interested in putting into this, but I will address a few.
While it's certainly possible to have another Depression, it would take a large number of events all happening wrong at a precise time to allow it. It's not likely, and certainly not a good basis for an argument as you're presenting.
One of those situations nearly happened 5 years ago in the United States. If it were not for massive increase in deficit spending used to fund, of all things, war, the US would have entered into a Depression following the largest stock market drop in history. One of the catalyst being an assault on the country, but this would have been negligible if it were not for the situation set up by the uncontrolled waste of capital that happened in the prior 5 years. Yes I'm talking about the IT Bubble and the Recession of 2001.
The parallel with an aristocracy is not even remotely applicable here, as the subjects of a monarchy have no recourse against their government other than force.
In my years of hearing these arguments, as I associate freely with people of all different economic and political views, no one has ever been able to clearly define the difference between Monarchy and Corporate Monopoly. In both situations a group (as small as a single person) has complete control of a set of resources (with the set potentially being as broad as all resources) and in both cases the enforcement of this control is through manipulation of the controlled resources (force if you will). This becomes most easily understood if the Monopoly in question is a Monopoly over natural resources (Like a monopoly of the energy production of the Sun). Good luck with your innovation if you do not have to access to the natural resources required to realize it.
Capitalism is the ferocity of nature ensconced in economic principles. You either thrive (profit) or your die (go bankrupt). And you can never stagnate, because there's always a predator (competitor) out there willing to steal the meal you spent time hunting and killing (sales pitch).
(emphasis mine.)
The only good thing I got out of this thread so far is that there is at least one supporter of Free Market Capitalism that is willing to openly admit that it is analogous to theft. But also, from this quote, you most certainly can stagnate once your are powerful enough that no other predator, or group of predators, poses any real threat to you and your power.
The exploitation of any economic and/or political system is possible, the problem is that Capitalism is based on the idea of exploitation and is rooted in it.
If they were doing it strictly to make a higher profit, why aren't they making a higher profit?
Interestingly enough it is the free market economists that answer this question for us. US Automakers provide an inferior product and refuse to compete on service and warranty (or at least that is the common perception). When you outsource to laborers and provide them less than a subsistence wage then you take the risk of making an lower quality product. I'm not sure about you but if my company decided to pay me half as much as they do now I would work half as hard (or go somewhere else). Many so called foreign automobiles are assembled in the United States (for tariff reasons I believe) and somehow using domestic labor has not hurt their cost.
So, what's the Linux thing that's causing them no end of grief?... entirely new business paradigm!
Linux is no threat to Microsoft, it's not even a threat to Apple. Linux is not a competitor since it is free, that would be like calling Graffiti a competitor to Commercial art. It's nice to have alternatives but an alternative is not always a competitor. Giving things away for free is hardly a Business paradigm and hardly new. This approach will help promote a product but does not make a profit and wealth is entirely relative. So it may be that MS makes a few million less on one product than they would if there was no linux, but it's not as if those millions are going to someone else.
You forget about the inherent self-balancing of a free economy.
And you know this is inherent from what historic record. The closest the world has seen to free market economy was in the United States in the late 1920s. This was the time of rampant organized crime (the pinnacle of free market economy) and, I'm sure coincidentally, this was right before the great depression were unemployment reach the "impossible" level you mentioned. Only with radical wealth redistribution in the form of the New Deal was the US able to recover.
...the laws of nature.
You mean the laws that say only the strongest and most powerful can breed. I mean when people talk about the "laws of nature" the only thing I can do is look to the animals that have not been corrupted by civilization. All laws (beyond scientifc laws such as the laws of physics) are entirely made up by the animals in a civilization, or in our case, people. A law is something that can not be broken with out consequence, and the only consequence of breaking so called "Natural Laws" are the punishments enforced by other people. If you haven't yet figured it out "Natural Law" is a joke, it has been refuted enough times that I don't need to waste my breath on it here.
This is a bizarre exaggeration that isn't even remotely connected to reality.
This is because no sane organization of people (or other intelligent animals) has allowed Free Markets to exist. The example I give is certainly not outside the realm of Capitalism. The common argument is that the Free Market Capitalists would never allow such things to happen, much like the Aristocracies of the past would never have allowed their followers to become so disgruntled as to over throw them. But what you forget is that there is no incentive to care about the world after you are deceased in a Free Market society, so the best thing a Free Market Capitalist can do is exploit as much as they can until the day they day and to hell with the rest of the world. Is this cruel and insensitive? Sure it is. But it is not our place to judge these effects.
According to census.gov, the 95th percentile in the US was $150K [in 2001], so there are probably several hundred thousand people making more than a quarter million here alone.
How exactly do you come to those numbers? Just because 15 million people make 150k or more does not equate to "several hundred thousand" making 250k or more. Your statistics don't show if 14.99 million make 100k or 1 makes 100k. You can't prove anything with that. The site you are arguing against puts 39 million people making 100k or more which generously puts more than half of those in countries out side of the US (if your 95th percentile number holds true to the current 300 million US residents). The fact that the number drops by 19 million when the income levels goes to 150k shouldn't be shocking at all. Making 100k is much easier to do than making 150, which is much easier than making 250k. This is the same as the number dropping by over 100 million when the income changes from 12k (full time minimum wage) to 25k, only 13k in difference not the 150k in difference you are concerned about.
If your car is built in Mexico or China -- where labor is much cheaper -- instead of in Detroit, the car is cheaper for you to obtain.
I don't want to deny this as a possibility but could you point at a reference that backs this up as opposed to the concept that reduction in labor cost increase profit margin while having no effect on retail price.
Able to offer lower prices and better quality, the overseas firms could put GM/Ford/Dodge out of business, leading to the loss of millions of jobs, pensions, stock holdings, and more.
But doesn't outsourcing lead to the exact same thing as you are suggesting it fixes, loss of jobs, pensions, etc? Plus in many industries outsourcing has lead to lower quality rather than you suggested higher quality.
While that's certainly possible (and it does happen), you are again ignoring the power of a free market economy. If someone like Nike is making a killing by selling third-world-made shoes, a competitor can use that same labor (thus saving labor costs) but undercut Nike in retail pricing (by taking a lower profit margin) and muscle in on Nike's turf.
I don't think the parent commenter is missing anything more than you are in your one sided view of free market economy (which the US does not have and would fall apart if we did which I would be happy to get into in further detail if needed). There are two important things that you miss out on. To become a competitor a person, or company, would need comparable resources to enter into the same business. I'm not saying this happens but it would be cheaper to pay people to not produce goods for a competitor than it would to allow them to do so and then lose market share, free market economy would allow such a thing to take place. Second, there is no reason to take market share from a competitor by creating a product at a lower price when the amount you are paying for labor is going to people who could not afford to buy you product. If all US companies began outsourcing all work to third world countries then there would be no US citizens with the money to purchase these products. Free market economy, or any economy is a complex thing, and focusing on any one "side" is a good way to lose sight of the actual situation.
There are more than enough factors other than previous generation sales and the fact that your sample size is so small to make this fact trivially unimportant. My point was that sales of the PS2 will not play a significant role in how well or poorly the PS3 does.
Sales of the PS2 will certainly signify factors that will have significant impact of the sales of the PS3. Brand recognition is an extremely powerful and well documented signifier of future success, both positive and negative. The fact that all the major consoles are backward compatible also brings into play previous console sales since they have a direct correlation with previous game sales. The 100 million previous PS2 owners (assuming each person only bought one, which is probably only a little off from actuality) already have a library of games that they would like to be able to continue using, driving them towards a PS3. All of this was clearly shown with the transition from PS1 to PS2 with their almost identical market penetration each selling just over 100 million units.
You are writing a lot but proving nothing because there is no analysis behind your text. I said the numbers didn't matter because I don't believe there is any causation between past sales and current sales. You have shown correlation (to a very limited extent due to the incredibly small number of console releases, statistically speaking) but not causation.
I won't say that prior market sales are direct causation of future sales but are at the bare minimum a factor. This is true of all products not just consoles and is one of the driving factors behind why automobile manufacturers drop or continue specific lines. In the end the only definable causation of a products success or failure is the markets willingness to pay for the product, but that should not negate the viability of creating market estimates based on advertising, word of month or even past experience which all, along with many other things, are factors involved in the success or failure of a product.
My point was that past sales do not mean future sales in the console industry.
My point was that past sales do have an bearing on future sales we just don't have a directly comparable historic instance to make assumptions or analysis about sales of the current video game consoles. The only historical data we have shows that no prior market share leader, when there were ample competitors, has sold less than one half the previous generations sales. The only examples that meet the criteria, limited as it may be, would be the NES(60 million) to SNES (49 million), SNES(49 million) to N64(32 million) and the PS1 (100+ million) to PS2 (100+ million), since Atari, the previous market leader, had the video game crash of '83 to contend with. So from these numbers we can show that the worst any market leader has done was to lose 35% of sales and drop to 2nd place. In this generation if Sony were to lose 35% of sales, dropping them to around 65 million, one of their competitors would need to increase by over 300% (or plus 200% depending how you look at it) which, again historically, has never happened for an established manufacturer (Sega came close with the Genesis).
I'm not saying what we should expect in the current console generation (as I am not an analyst and am not trying to be one), only trying to show that your falsely inflated example brings no value to the conversation and was merely the game saying of the previous posters, historically supported (even though there are no obvious direct correlations), post and thought you, and other readers, might actually be interested in seeing what we can learn from the true historic data.
The HDTV market share will increase, yes, but it's still several years away from becoming the dominant format, and a lot of people still watch TV on 15 year old Trinitrons, with no incentive to upgrade.
I would bet that a fair share of non-HDTV owners will not be purchasing any next generation game consoles in the next couple years, and I would not blame them since it would be a waste of money. The Game Cube, PS2 and XBox all have extensive libraries with a number of very good games, and PS2 games will continue to be made for the next couple years. This basically means if you don't need/want HD output there is no reason to purchase a current generation console (since you can pick up the prior generation for less than $150). You even said it yourself that these people have no incentive to upgrade, so either the current generation consoles will be the incentive, or they probably don't have any incentive to purchase a current generation console by any manufacturer (with the biggest change being higher resolution capability).
Lastely, HDTV market share is growing faster than you may think, with the Number one selling TVs being currently all HDTVs (be it online or at retail outlets). At amazon, 26 of the top 30 sellers are HDTVs (with the non HDTVs being very small TVs which would probably not be suitable for gaming anyway).
The fact is previous generation domination in no way guarantees a company will do well in the next generation.
I don't think that history shows us this. The N64, the follow up to the SNES, was successful (with approx. 40% of market share, selling 32.93 million units), but that may be irrelevant to the current situation. The SNES/Genesis Generation had two primary players splitting the majority of market share with Sega's console holding 65% market share at a point and falling to 35% by the end of that generation (the inverse can be deduced for Nintendo's SNES). Sega, not nintendo, did take a significant slide following that particular generation but that was only after the failure of two major accessories (Sega CD and 32x which both could be considered an attempt at next generation) before slowly sliding into obscurity with the release of the saturn and the dreamcast. You would also need to look at the prior generation where Nintendo held a far more dominant market share. The SNES/Genesis generation was a balanced battle with no single console being dominant the entire generation which makes it significantly different from the PS2/XBox/Game Cube generation.
From the the first year of it's release (took them a few months to build market share over previous generation) until today the PS2 has never had lower than 50% market share while at the same time being up against 2 strong competitors each sharing around 20% market share (the rest of the market being held by prior generation consoles). The PS2 was a follow up to another console which was also the predominant system of the previous generate, after making an amazing rise of the previous generations two dominant players. Because of backward compatibility (which was also show to be a smart move by Sega when they made the genesis backward compatible with the master system) the PS2 was launched with the largest game library in history, something sony is repeating with the release of the PS3. When Nintendo released the N64, and Sega the Saturn, owners were forced to buy new games to build up a decent library, and as we know launch titles are notoriously bad. Sony is able to maintain market share through it's backward compatibility, something no one has be capable of previously (Sega's backward compatibility came after launch).
It may not be clear, but the point is that there are no historic comparisons between the current generation and prior generations in regards to market dominance and future analysis. Even the Atari era has enough significant differences that you can't really use it for this generations projections.
The numbers aren't important
I'm not sure how you can make future estimations or market analysis without usage of previous and current statistics (a.k.a Numbers). The numbers are very important since market share and profit are determined by numbers and success is normally rated by market share or profitability. I'm sure it is easier to say that the numbers don't mater than than it is to actually get your facts straight, but that doesn't make it a valid argument.
I wouldn't agree that it will take a PS4 to kill off the PS line- there's a lot of press out in all media that's already declaring the Wii as the winner over the PS3...
Both the PS3 and the Wii have sold out all available units, with the Wii actually having a slightly longer average shelf life than the PS3 (probably due to supply rather than actual demand).
the $600 price tag is daunting... there's still a perceived price ceiling with consoles that the 360 seemed to actually push against, and Sony has jumped completely over.
This again is based on misleading information. No previously high priced console had a marketed predecessor let alone a market dominant one, which should only be seen to mean that there is a price ceiling for entry into the console market, which is why no respectable analyst has mentioned the price ceiling issue. Second in real/relative cost the PS3 is cheaper than any of the examples commonly used to illustrate the price ceiling.
The average person... looks at a game console, sees a $600 price tag,... then look next door, see a $400 or a $250 price tag
Or the average person looks at High Definition Video players and sees $1000 price tag, then looks next door and sees $500 or $600, plus gets the ability to play the most extensive line up of video games currently available.
...and the semi-negative press about the PS3 being mainly for "true gamers" with HDTV's, and I would expect Sony's market share to fall considerably.
The HDTV market share is rising and a significant rate and will continue to do so until it is the dominant format. There is no doubt in anyones mind that HDTV will eventually be the dominant format. As the HDTV market share increases so will the desire for peripherals capable of High Definition output. Secondly the difference between "true gamers" and casual gamers shrinks every year, but that is just an opinion (from a casual gamer) so take it how ever you like.
...the explosive sales of DSs among non-gaming adults and the relative failure of the PSP...
If you consider selling 1 million more units a failure, or if you prefer 8% less in world wide sales, let alone the fact that the PSP is the 36th and 40th best seller in Amazon's computer & video games category (all be it well behind the DS, but certainly not a failure). The Idea that the PSP is a failure is yet another fallacy which is commonly passed.
And worse-case scenario for Sony, if they lose enough in system sales, and don't recoup the amount, the entire company may fail or at least downsize drastically, considering the problems they've had in other areas, such as laptop batteries and digital cameras
Beyond my previous comments, which fairly debunk the argument, I would like someone to give me examples of a $72 Billion in revenue company (30th world wide), or even close, that has failed catastrophically without the involvement of illegal activity. I mean look how bad the Valdez global catastrophe did to Exxon (#1 rank, $370 billion in revenue company).
It's nice to think that a company we don't like is going to fail or if our preferred manufacture and products ar
"Sony will get 1st place because they can lose half their market from the SNES and still move 50+ million units and well they won't lose half their followers."
Here's a statement just as foolish (hopefully, it will illustrate a point for you.)
"Nintendo will get 1st place because they can lose half their market from the SNES and still move 50+ million units and well they won't lose half their followers."
Not trying to fuel and wars here but your are incorrect in comparing these two statements since your contrived example is incorrect. If the SNES had lost half of it's followers they would have moved less than 25million units (49 million Super NES units were sold worldwide where as the PS 2 has sold over 100 million). The N64 (which lost 33% market share over the SNES) had no strong 3rd competitor (sony being dominant in that generation and sega barely moving 10 million units) where as in this generate there are 3 strong competitors (Both nintendo and Microsoft moved 20+ million last gen.) If you do the math, and assume last gen capped out the market (I am only using this for hypothetical reasons) then there are about 150 million units to sell. If Sony maintains only half their install base then they will sell over 50 million units leave 100 million units to split among last generations 2nd and 3rd place manufacturers. This means it is possible, assuming sony screws the pooch royally (like Sega who by the way who had only a 35% market share as opposed to well over 50% for Sony ), but unlikely. Sony is the first console manufacturer to dominate for two solid generations, so I am going to speculate that it will take at least until the PS4 before any possibility of true failure on the PS line (though I doubt it will be a failure even then).
I don't see how the above example illustrates anything since Both Historian A and B in the above example are at best highly incomplete and at worst significantly wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
4th - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Allow me to supply another equation:
constitutional amendment + missenterpretation = outrage Might I suggest this as a starting point.
My sentiments exactly.
The Article it self was inaccurate and not thought through. I mean if you are going to pick on something pick on War Games were Every Computer not only can speak, but they do speak and uses the exact same voice. This is far more unrealistic than 8 year old hackers, reading code on a scrolling screen, accessing a computer through a mono-crome terminal, or writing cross compilable code.
Most of your arguments say that these things happen but it is rare. Movies often represent rare circumstance, often trying to portray hackers as the ultra elite developers (which is sometimes true and sometimes not). These are the people that refuse to use a mouse, spend most of their time in a terminal coding through vi or some other text only editor possibly in perl (I have seen perl programs written without spaces or line breaks).
Remember the article was titled "What code DOESN'T do in real life", not "what code DOESN'T always do in real life." Most people that coded over 20 years ago are not surprised by these representations since they probably had there hands on assembly on mono-cromatic monitors on systems without scroll back ability and which made beeps when typing (which back then I never understood but sometimes miss it today), which is not so different from a lot of the things represented in the movies.
Beyond a small number of those things mentioned, these things do happen in real life, obviously more often than most people think.
Sorry I only looked at the list from the US Site not the international site(American arrogance I guess).
Either way My original point stands that you "Everyone" statement is still far from true, though I guess a tad closer than my original statement made it out to be. Either way You really should admit you gross overstatement, since after all the International HD-DVD list contains 136 members (including associates) and the Blu-ray list contains 171(members, contributors and Board members).
Might I also point out that the patent holder of the current DVD technology (Philips) happens to sit on the Blu-Ray board and is not associated with HD-DVD.
Believe what you want about HD-DVD and spread all the FUD you want about Blu-Ray, but the fact is that there is more support for Blu-Ray, heck there are more blu-ray players in homes than there are HD-DVD and HD-DVD had a head start. Plus the best selling of the players can't stay on the shelves for even hours.
HP, Intel, Microsoft, Paramount, Toshiba, Universal, Warner, HBO and Newline.
This is as opposed to the companies that are part of the Blu-Ray Consortium:
Apple, Dell, HP, Hitachi, LG, Mitsubishi Electric, Panasonic, Pioneer, Philips, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, Sun Microsystems, TDK, Thomson, Twentieth Century Fox, Walt Disney, Warner Bros., Adobe Systems, Almedio Inc., Alticast, Aplix Corporation, ArcSoft, Inc., ATI Technologies Inc., Atmel Corporation, AudioDev AB, Broadcom Corporation, Canon Inc., CMC Magnetics Corporation, Coding Technologies GmbH, Cryptography Research Inc., CyberLink Corp., DATARIUS Technologies GmbH, DCA Inc., Deluxe Media Services Inc., Dolby Laboratories Inc., DTS, Inc., Electronic Arts Inc., Esmertec, Fuji Photo Film Co. Ltd., Fujitsu Ltd., Gibson Guitar Corp., Horizon Semiconductor, Imation Corp., InterVideo Inc., Kenwood Corporation, Lionsgate Entertainment, LITE-ON IT Corporation, LSI Logic, MediaTek Inc., Meridian Audio Ltd., Metta Technology, Mitsubishi Kagaku Media Co.Ltd., Mitsui Chemicals Inc., Moser Baer India Limited, NEC Electronics Corporation, Nero, Optodisc Technology Corporation, Paramount Pictures Corporation, Pixela Corporation, Prodisc Technology Inc., Pulstec Industrial Co., Ltd., Ricoh Co., Ltd., Ritek Corporation, ShibaSoku Co. Ltd., Sigma Designs Inc., Sonic Solutions, Sonopress, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, ST Microelectronics, Sunext, Taiyo Yuden Co., Ltd.,, Texas Instruments, Inc., Universal Music Group, Victor Company of Japan, Ltd., Visionare Corporation, Zentek Technology Japan, Inc., ZOOtech Ltd. , Zoran Corporation, Alpine Electronics Inc., Asahi Kasei Microsystems Co., Ltd., ashampoo GmbH & Co. KG, Bandai Visual Co. Ltd., BASF AG, Basler Vision Technologies, BenQ Corporation, B.H.A. Corporation, Bose Corporation, B&W Group, The Cannery, Cheertek Inc., Cinram Manufacturing Inc., D&M holdings, Inc., Daewoo Electronics Corporation, Daikin Industries, Ltd., Daxon Technology Inc., Degussa, Eclipse Data Technologies, Elpida Memory, Inc., ESS Technology Inc., Expert Magnetics Corp., Fujitsu Ten Ltd., Funai Electric Co., Ltd., GalleryPlayer Media Networks, Gear Software, Hie Electronics, Inc., Hoei Sangyo Co., Ltd., IMAGICA Corp., INFODISC Technology Co., Ltd., Infomedia Inc., Intersil Corporation, Kadokawa Holdings Inc., Kaleidescape, Inc., Kitano Co., Ltd., Konica Minolta Opto Inc., Laser Pacific Media Corp., Lauda Co. Ltd., Lead Data Inc., LEADER ELECTRONICS CORP, Lenovo, Linn Products Ltd., LINTEC Corporation, M2 Engineering AB, MainConcept AG, Mitsumi Electric Co., Ltd., Must Technology Co., Ltd., MX Entertainment, Netflix Inc., Newtech Infosystems Inc., NEXAPM Systems Technology Inc., Nichia Corporation, Nikkatsu Corporation, NTT Electronics Corporation, nVidia Corporation, OC Oerlikon Balzer AG, Omnibus Japan Inc., Onkyo Corporation, Online Media Technologies Ltd., Ono Sokki Co., Ltd., OPT Corporation, Orbit Corp., Origin Electric Co., Ltd., Osmosys SA, Pinnacle Systems, PoINT Software & Systems GmbH, Pony Canyon Enterprise, PowerFile, Primera Technology, Inc., Quanta Storage Inc., Realtek Semiconductor Corp., Rimage Corporation, Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., Dr. Schwab Inspection Technology GmbH, Shinano Kenshi Co. Ltd., Singulus Technologies, STEAG ETA-OPTIK GmbH, Sumitomo Bakelite, Tao Group Limited, Targray Technology International Inc., TEAC Corporation, Teijin Chemicals Ltd., THX Ltd., Toei Video Company Ltd., Toho Company, Ltd., Toppan Printing Co., Ltd., TOPTICA Photonics AG, Trailer Park, UmeDisc Ltd., Vivendi Universal Games, Yamaha Corporation, Yokogawa Electric Corporation, 1K Studios, LLC,
Now would you like to retract your obviously inaccurate statement?
I have coded in Hex but never in binary. Yes Writing direct Hex representations of Machine instructions. Early on it was the fastest way to Hack by changing the values on disk with out having to disassemble and reassemble. But Hex wouldn't be as obviously computer related as binary is.
Personally I think the guy who wrote the article about what code doesn't do, is either a "Web Developer" or just wanted to try and irritate some old school hackers.
1) Code does move, especially when interactively debugging. Having watched machine instructions be executed command by command I will testify to this one. It just might not move as fast as it does in the movies
2) Alot of Code "WAS" green text on a black background and I even have some of my current IDE's configured that way (preference plus easier on the eyes), when I'm not using white on blue that is.
3) Code has Structure. The only thing I can do about this one is Laugh. Most code might have structure but not one most people, developers included, could ever understand.
5) Code "can" make blip noises and can actually make coding easier because it is easier to know if you hit multiple keys at once by accident, or skipped a key press.
6) Code "can" be broken by an eight year old in seconds, would you like to meet some.
8) I think we already covered binary representations of code
9) Good developers avoid the mouse at all costs. It's slow and mostly useless.
10) Good code can be compiled to many different machine codes, you just have to assume the wrote a good C compiler for the alien technology in Independents Day I mean they had the ship long enough.
I recall the need to write portions of programs so that they could run on the SPUs of the main system or the CPUs of a Peripheral(This is when certain manufactures, like commodore, had specialized CPUs in their peripherals) such as the sound processor or even and external drive. This code was not always specific to the processor in question, such as running small logic code on a drives CPU during times when no disk access was happening so that the main CPU could be free for other purposes. This was when you tried to get the absolute most out of the system you were working on and programs were considerably more efficiet than they are today. I really doubt modern programming is as difficult, even on these "new" architectures as it was when the developer had to directly manipulate memory by address, atleast not for your average developer.
My point is that the serial vs. parallel problem is often, but not always, a mater of the way the problem is thought about, not just how it is coded.
That all being said, as a bit of a side. I'm not saying that it will be done, but I am saying that it could and should be done. Remember that the reason alot of developers don't understand the issue you brought up is because they don't need to know them since there are libraries that hide those complexities. It is very possible, since it is done, to write complex games, cross platform compilable through the use of common libraries, APIs and languages such as OpenGL or Cg.
The only issue here is if the Cell processor will have enough longevity and popularity to make this happen. If Sony, or another manufacturer were to use the Cell processor in the next Generation we would certainly see some of these libaries and tools become available.
As I software developer with out a license to an existing Dev Kit or The money to set up a Cell Based server (the only other Cell development options) I could see the use in it as a learning tool. Oh plus it plays 3 generation on Console games, DVDs, CDs and BluRay disks, etc...
The only good thing I got out of this thread so far is that there is at least one supporter of Free Market Capitalism that is willing to openly admit that it is analogous to theft. But also, from this quote, you most certainly can stagnate once your are powerful enough that no other predator, or group of predators, poses any real threat to you and your power.
The exploitation of any economic and/or political system is possible, the problem is that Capitalism is based on the idea of exploitation and is rooted in it.
I'm not saying what we should expect in the current console generation (as I am not an analyst and am not trying to be one), only trying to show that your falsely inflated example brings no value to the conversation and was merely the game saying of the previous posters, historically supported (even though there are no obvious direct correlations), post and thought you, and other readers, might actually be interested in seeing what we can learn from the true historic data.
Lastely, HDTV market share is growing faster than you may think, with the Number one selling TVs being currently all HDTVs (be it online or at retail outlets). At amazon, 26 of the top 30 sellers are HDTVs (with the non HDTVs being very small TVs which would probably not be suitable for gaming anyway).
From the the first year of it's release (took them a few months to build market share over previous generation) until today the PS2 has never had lower than 50% market share while at the same time being up against 2 strong competitors each sharing around 20% market share (the rest of the market being held by prior generation consoles). The PS2 was a follow up to another console which was also the predominant system of the previous generate, after making an amazing rise of the previous generations two dominant players. Because of backward compatibility (which was also show to be a smart move by Sega when they made the genesis backward compatible with the master system) the PS2 was launched with the largest game library in history, something sony is repeating with the release of the PS3. When Nintendo released the N64, and Sega the Saturn, owners were forced to buy new games to build up a decent library, and as we know launch titles are notoriously bad. Sony is able to maintain market share through it's backward compatibility, something no one has be capable of previously (Sega's backward compatibility came after launch).
It may not be clear, but the point is that there are no historic comparisons between the current generation and prior generations in regards to market dominance and future analysis. Even the Atari era has enough significant differences that you can't really use it for this generations projections. I'm not sure how you can make future estimations or market analysis without usage of previous and current statistics (a.k.a Numbers). The numbers are very important since market share and profit are determined by numbers and success is normally rated by market share or profitability. I'm sure it is easier to say that the numbers don't mater than than it is to actually get your facts straight, but that doesn't make it a valid argument.
And vice versa if you look around such as this one which was referenced in What Analysts Will Be Buying For Christmas
Both the PS3 and the Wii have sold out all available units, with the Wii actually having a slightly longer average shelf life than the PS3 (probably due to supply rather than actual demand).
This again is based on misleading information. No previously high priced console had a marketed predecessor let alone a market dominant one, which should only be seen to mean that there is a price ceiling for entry into the console market, which is why no respectable analyst has mentioned the price ceiling issue. Second in real/relative cost the PS3 is cheaper than any of the examples commonly used to illustrate the price ceiling.
Or the average person looks at High Definition Video players and sees $1000 price tag, then looks next door and sees $500 or $600, plus gets the ability to play the most extensive line up of video games currently available.
The HDTV market share is rising and a significant rate and will continue to do so until it is the dominant format. There is no doubt in anyones mind that HDTV will eventually be the dominant format. As the HDTV market share increases so will the desire for peripherals capable of High Definition output. Secondly the difference between "true gamers" and casual gamers shrinks every year, but that is just an opinion (from a casual gamer) so take it how ever you like.
If you consider selling 1 million more units a failure, or if you prefer 8% less in world wide sales, let alone the fact that the PSP is the 36th and 40th best seller in Amazon's computer & video games category (all be it well behind the DS, but certainly not a failure). The Idea that the PSP is a failure is yet another fallacy which is commonly passed.
Beyond my previous comments, which fairly debunk the argument, I would like someone to give me examples of a $72 Billion in revenue company (30th world wide), or even close, that has failed catastrophically without the involvement of illegal activity. I mean look how bad the Valdez global catastrophe did to Exxon (#1 rank, $370 billion in revenue company).
It's nice to think that a company we don't like is going to fail or if our preferred manufacture and products ar
I don't see how the above example illustrates anything since Both Historian A and B in the above example are at best highly incomplete and at worst significantly wrong.