Actually if for Sony or Microsoft there are many reasons to pull money from their warchests.
Mircrosoft: If MS can keep the XBox unit afloat and build relationships with both hardware and content developers then they win. MS has long been trying to move into the living room and the XBox with the media extensions is their most successful attempt so far. This is building relationships with content developers from all segments. Notice how the XBox Live is becoming Windows Live and XBox games are also Windows games. The XBox even if it loses money during its entire life will still provide a positive feedback for MS that gets them close to their goal of running the living room.
Sony: Basically its the same argument. They want to sell more hardware and content. On the hardware side they use the PS3 to make Blu-Ray the choice for HD movies and then earn royalties for 10 years. At the same time they hedge their bets and make the system capable of downloading movies if optical media goes away.
Obviously no company wants to support a division that is bleeding money; but, if that division helps out all of the other divisions in the long run then it is worth it.
Who marked this insightful? It is not insightful, it is wrong. The article says 100k shipped in the US. The free movies are in PAL areas and is closer to the 500k figure if I remember correctly how many Sony promised to give away.
While I understand your frustration and anger I cannot help but disagree with you.
>> It's too damned expensive and I don't have the money to blow on HD toys.
Then don't buy it. Keep your tube television as long as it works; then replace it. Unless your TV is failing now there is no reason to worry about it.
Because the industry is pushing HD to people with more disposable income than you have means that when you do finally replace your current TV you will get more for your money. The reality is that SD tube and projection televisions had reached a flat price point about 1995. The biggest tubes topped out at about 36 inches and the price fell to commodity level. There was some fluctuations in price based on features and name brand but by 1995 you could buy the largest tube for $500 and a "top-of-the-line" tube television for $1400. Compare this to the prices when these big tubes first came out. $2800 for a 36 inch unit was not uncommon for quite a while. History will repeat itself and prices on HD will fall to commodity prices. The same thing has happened during every major change in television: Color, Remote Control, Cable, Big Tubes, Flat Tubes, etc.
In the end the prices come down and everyone gets a better product.
>> it's just so damned obvious that the players involved don't give a damn about what the customers want, they just want to line thier pockets at our expense
If the consumers did not want it then they would not buy it. Simple truth. The first HD televisions were super expensive. Obviously some consumers wanted this technology and wanted it bad enough to pay those very high price points or it would have never sold the first one. I paid more for my first DVD player than a 60GB PS3 costs now. I also know three people who just last year paid over $1000 for a Denon DVD player. What the consumer wants is up to the individual consumer.
As an example: I think that iPods are over-priced pieces of techo-bling. Obviously I am not the average consumer considering that Apple has sold about 100 million iPods. However because Apple has sold so many iPods there are some really nifty pieces of hardware and software available. Consider the entire industry that has grown around that little white gadget and the influence that it has had on other pieces of hardware. In a similar way there is an entire industry growing around HD that, given time, will generate some really cool stuff - heck - you might even like some of it in a few years.
"......but there's a 360 and possibly a Revolution there in stock there's probably going to be at least some temptation to get one or both of them instead"
Yes there is that possible temptation but its not likely nor a very strong temptation. For the people that are unsure as to which one to buy that walk into a store and see three displays they will go with the one that has sold the most. The thinking is that "well if everyone else is buying that one then I need too also". Obviously this is not always the case but humans want what other humans have. I think that the number of people that will be unsure is small in comparison to the ones that "need" a specific console.
Christmas is an insane time and if you "need" a PS3 and Store A does not have one it is very unlikely that you will just buy a Wii instead. Likely what will happen is you will ask the clerk who will tell you that "...the PS3 is in very short supply and is the hottest item of the year..." This perceived scarcity will add to the insanity and the "need" for that console. This mentality could be true for either the Wii or the PS3. If one or the other becomes the hot item then you will see news stories about people standing in lines to buy "the hottest item of the year". We see something like this every year.
I am not saying that this buzz is going to happen for the new consoles but it could and if it does then no other product will satisfy those people. Last xmas people that were looking to buy a 360 did not say "..oh well, I will just get them a GameCube or XBox or PS2.." They were either buying a 360 or they were buying something very different - like a television or an iPod.
It should be 10,000 (10k) kWh per year. The actual number from the DOE is 888 kWh per month or about 30 kWh per day per house. Air conditioning and refrigeration account for about 15% of that.
The fact remains that wind turbines are certainly viable energy sources in some areas and cost is not a huge limiting factor.
The average American home only uses about 10kW per year. So, yes you are correct that paying $40K for a turbine to set in your back yard does not make sense. However, having one or two for your community does make sense and is very financially viable. Consider the big turbines in use in Germany that are rated at 2000kW, these units produce enough power for over 150 homes.
There is a Vestas 660kW wind turbine at Windmill Point in Hull, Massachusetts that was installed in 2001. The total cost of installing it was $750k. Using a conservative figure this would power 50 homes. Dividing the cost by 50 gives you a total cost per home of $15k. Using your $80/month electricity bill then you would pay off your share of that turbine in 15 years. Clearly this is a feasible "break-even" number.
There are problems with wind generated power but the cost is not really one.
You do NOT need an HDMI cable/connection to view high def (1080p).
Your statement is not actually correct. You should continue reading Wikipedia but maybe this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDCP article instead.
Or to get all the information together here is a nice summary on DRM Blog.
You will need HDMI in the not too distant future to be able to watch High Def. The movie houses are not going to let you watch 1080p on analog, unprotected outputs.
Actually, I don't care about a company that wants to try some crazy DRM scheme.
Actually, you should. You mention the DMCA in your post and then say that you are worried about the government stepping in to protect it. The DMCA explicitly does this.
If a company puts DRM in place on a file and then you remove the DRM you are in violation of the law. It does not matter how crazy the DRM scheme is or how easy it is to break. The DMCA is the legal extension of DRM and is how you and I will be prosecuted if we break the DRM law.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually if for Sony or Microsoft there are many reasons to pull money from their warchests.
Mircrosoft:
If MS can keep the XBox unit afloat and build relationships with both hardware and content developers then they win. MS has long been trying to move into the living room and the XBox with the media extensions is their most successful attempt so far. This is building relationships with content developers from all segments. Notice how the XBox Live is becoming Windows Live and XBox games are also Windows games. The XBox even if it loses money during its entire life will still provide a positive feedback for MS that gets them close to their goal of running the living room.
Sony:
Basically its the same argument. They want to sell more hardware and content. On the hardware side they use the PS3 to make Blu-Ray the choice for HD movies and then earn royalties for 10 years. At the same time they hedge their bets and make the system capable of downloading movies if optical media goes away.
Obviously no company wants to support a division that is bleeding money; but, if that division helps out all of the other divisions in the long run then it is worth it.
Who marked this insightful? It is not insightful, it is wrong. The article says 100k shipped in the US. The free movies are in PAL areas and is closer to the 500k figure if I remember correctly how many Sony promised to give away.
While I understand your frustration and anger I cannot help but disagree with you.
>> It's too damned expensive and I don't have the money to blow on HD toys.
Then don't buy it. Keep your tube television as long as it works; then replace it. Unless your TV is failing now there is no reason to worry about it.
Because the industry is pushing HD to people with more disposable income than you have means that when you do finally replace your current TV you will get more for your money. The reality is that SD tube and projection televisions had reached a flat price point about 1995. The biggest tubes topped out at about 36 inches and the price fell to commodity level. There was some fluctuations in price based on features and name brand but by 1995 you could buy the largest tube for $500 and a "top-of-the-line" tube television for $1400. Compare this to the prices when these big tubes first came out. $2800 for a 36 inch unit was not uncommon for quite a while. History will repeat itself and prices on HD will fall to commodity prices. The same thing has happened during every major change in television: Color, Remote Control, Cable, Big Tubes, Flat Tubes, etc.
In the end the prices come down and everyone gets a better product.
>> it's just so damned obvious that the players involved don't give a damn about what the customers want, they just want to line thier pockets at our expense
If the consumers did not want it then they would not buy it. Simple truth. The first HD televisions were super expensive. Obviously some consumers wanted this technology and wanted it bad enough to pay those very high price points or it would have never sold the first one. I paid more for my first DVD player than a 60GB PS3 costs now. I also know three people who just last year paid over $1000 for a Denon DVD player. What the consumer wants is up to the individual consumer.
As an example: I think that iPods are over-priced pieces of techo-bling. Obviously I am not the average consumer considering that Apple has sold about 100 million iPods. However because Apple has sold so many iPods there are some really nifty pieces of hardware and software available. Consider the entire industry that has grown around that little white gadget and the influence that it has had on other pieces of hardware. In a similar way there is an entire industry growing around HD that, given time, will generate some really cool stuff - heck - you might even like some of it in a few years.
"......but there's a 360 and possibly a Revolution there in stock there's probably going to be at least some temptation to get one or both of them instead"
Yes there is that possible temptation but its not likely nor a very strong temptation. For the people that are unsure as to which one to buy that walk into a store and see three displays they will go with the one that has sold the most. The thinking is that "well if everyone else is buying that one then I need too also". Obviously this is not always the case but humans want what other humans have. I think that the number of people that will be unsure is small in comparison to the ones that "need" a specific console.
Christmas is an insane time and if you "need" a PS3 and Store A does not have one it is very unlikely that you will just buy a Wii instead. Likely what will happen is you will ask the clerk who will tell you that "...the PS3 is in very short supply and is the hottest item of the year..." This perceived scarcity will add to the insanity and the "need" for that console. This mentality could be true for either the Wii or the PS3. If one or the other becomes the hot item then you will see news stories about people standing in lines to buy "the hottest item of the year". We see something like this every year.
I am not saying that this buzz is going to happen for the new consoles but it could and if it does then no other product will satisfy those people. Last xmas people that were looking to buy a 360 did not say "..oh well, I will just get them a GameCube or XBox or PS2.." They were either buying a 360 or they were buying something very different - like a television or an iPod.
Yes, I left out a k and I used kW instead of kWh.
It should be 10,000 (10k) kWh per year. The actual number from the DOE is 888 kWh per month or about 30 kWh per day per house. Air conditioning and refrigeration account for about 15% of that.
The fact remains that wind turbines are certainly viable energy sources in some areas and cost is not a huge limiting factor.
The average American home only uses about 10kW per year. So, yes you are correct that paying $40K for a turbine to set in your back yard does not make sense. However, having one or two for your community does make sense and is very financially viable. Consider the big turbines in use in Germany that are rated at 2000kW, these units produce enough power for over 150 homes.
There is a Vestas 660kW wind turbine at Windmill Point in Hull, Massachusetts that was installed in 2001. The total cost of installing it was $750k. Using a conservative figure this would power 50 homes. Dividing the cost by 50 gives you a total cost per home of $15k. Using your $80/month electricity bill then you would pay off your share of that turbine in 15 years. Clearly this is a feasible "break-even" number.
There are problems with wind generated power but the cost is not really one.
You do NOT need an HDMI cable/connection to view high def (1080p).
Your statement is not actually correct. You should continue reading Wikipedia but maybe this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDCP article instead.
Or to get all the information together here is a nice summary on DRM Blog.
You will need HDMI in the not too distant future to be able to watch High Def. The movie houses are not going to let you watch 1080p on analog, unprotected outputs.
Actually, I don't care about a company that wants to try some crazy DRM scheme.
Actually, you should. You mention the DMCA in your post and then say that you are worried about the government stepping in to protect it. The DMCA explicitly does this.
If a company puts DRM in place on a file and then you remove the DRM you are in violation of the law. It does not matter how crazy the DRM scheme is or how easy it is to break. The DMCA is the legal extension of DRM and is how you and I will be prosecuted if we break the DRM law.
You can find more on this at: http://eff.org/ and http://www.drmblog.com/