The problem is that not everything Seagate is protected by patents. There are TRADE SECRETS, the forgotten prong of IP, you know.
Seagate likely has trade secrets it is scared this ex-employee will divulge, which is why Seagate likely made 'em sign the non-compete in exchange for his Seagate job.
The Federal Trade Secret Act provides remedies for Seagate against this guy civally and criminally, but that won't be enough if he does divulge a TS to a competitor.
Seagate has a legitimate concern, but it will be up to the courts to see how reasonable the non-compete is. Many states allow courts to strike and rewrite unreasonable terms, usually relating to duration and geography limitations.
In most states, non-competes are valid, but are subject to the "blue pencil" rule. This means the court can strike (and rewrite) unreasonable terms. Usually these deal with duration (how long does it last) and geography (where can 'em be prevented from working).
What is unreasonable in this particular case is a question for the courts.
Non-competes are valid because they are given in consideration for employment. "Sign this to get the job" is valid consideration.
"Sign this or you'll get fired" is iffy.
It's not un-american because you are forgetting about a whole other body of law: TRADE SECRETS, which fall under IP. Many companies, especially tech companies, are worried about trade secret's getting leaked to competitiors. Although the Federal Trade Secret Act provides civil and criminal penalties for misappropriating trade secrets, that usually doesn't make the first company whole when their rival already learns their trade secrets. Thus non-competes are used to prevent trade secrets from being divulged.
Pappy97
Lawyer, Law School Class of 2003
Didn't we already try this, i.e., PC JR?
on
Disney Enters PC Market
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Wasn't IBM's "PC Jr." an attempt at making a computer for kids? What about the Tandy Color Computer 3 (my first "Computer" by the way)?
Full on computers geared for kids don't work...it's better having parents install kid-related software on regular PC's/Mac's...no point in buying another PC just for the tykes (instead, you could buy them educational electronic toys, but not full on computers)..
"MS has already figured some of this out and it wasn't by adopting linux or porting to linux. Look what they did in Thailand. They build a one-language (i.e. country specific) stripped down version of XP and sold it for cheap. They did this specifically to keep Linux out. If they did it in Thailand, they could do it in Brazil, India, China...etc. It's just a matter of how much money they will make on licensing the traditional way versus licensing the stripped down version."
Okay...but this doesn't explain why MS won't slash prices of Windows XP HERE in the USA...why won't they?
As many have said in this thread and threads in the past, if MS dropped the retail price of XP (Home) to $39.95 and perhaps XP Pro to $69.95, that would certainly stop many windows users from even trying to learn anything about any *NIX-based OS. That would kill the "Linux for mainstream idiots (read: Mandrake, j/k)" movement. Joe Schmo would never EVER think of buying a Wal-mart.com pc with a OS he's never heard of (Sun Java Desktop), if the same computer on wal-mart.com, only with WinXP, costs $40 more. He's say "Hmmm...just 40 bucks more and no hassles of linux because I am a computer dummy"
Even if MS won't embrace Linux, they know that dropping the price of XP can kill the linux market. They do this in the third-world, but why not here? Do they REALLY think that people will pay more than a $100 for an OS for years and years to come?
The thing is that Bill Gates needs to change his views if he wants to keep that market share. More and more entities are out to kill the MS share. Everyone is gunning for MS.
By the time MS is dying because of this anti-MS sentiment, it will be too late for him to salvage MS.
That's why MS should adapt to this open source movement by fighting fire with fire. One good idea is open source windows, but keep all the software is closed source.
Another is to build a good *NIX based OS like OS X. That way everyone gets a stable OS, and MS can still sell its closed source software, like Office, etc.
I think people will ease up, and perhaps embrace MS if they made changes to their OS (either open source it OR go to a *NIX based system). It's not like they have to open source office, or a game like Age of Empires (I think that's MS?).
Just open source windows OR go to a stable *NIX based system.
MS people, however, don't ever think the *NIX and Open Source revolutions will ever put a huge dent in their market share, so they will do as they do now until they crash and burn. I guess that is the MS way.
Exactly. If MS puts out their own brand of Linux, they could kill the open-source movement. Too bad (For them) that they don't have any business people who understand how to fight fire with fire.
Without phantom chicks, slashdotters would never even have the hope of getting a chick! We like to pretend, that for a split second, some hot chick is really saying, "Hey there big boy!"
" Why should MS embed the insecure services ontop of yet another perfectly good kernel? If anything, they should keep the NT / VMS kernel and bolt something more secure on top...not the other way around."
Because what I am suggesting is doing exactly what Apple did with OS X. In OS X, users have the ability to easily run Mac software while reaping the benefits of the Darwin kernel.
MS could easily create an OS in the spitting image of OS X, whereby users get to use Windows like they know how (with easy installs of games and other software), built on top of a stable SECURE BSD or Linux Kernel.
If Apple can do it, why not MS? Why the resistance to fight fire with fire? Instead of trying to teach people that *NIX is evil, it makes financial sense to embrace it and keep potential people who would drop Windows for Linux from making the switch.
Simply put, MS cannot afford to wait until a large chunk of their users dump their OS for Easy Linux, AKA Mandrake 20.0 and higher (I am assuming it will take a few years, but Mandrake is for the crossover people). MS could reap big time $$$ by putting together an awesome OS that even *nix geeks would enjoy (I know many *nix geeks who used to bash Apple the way they do AOL, but now love to play with OS X), but is designed for the masses (again, like OS X).
...by doing what Apple did: Build your wimpy OS on top of something strong, like BSD, Linux, or some other flavor of *NIX.
I keep saying this and I am surprised that MS is not going that route somehow. I thought for sure that this Longhorn project would be some sort of MS implementation of *NIX. (Not Xenix).
We all know MS can do it if they wanted. We also know they like to copy Apple (Look at WIN 95)....it makes so much sense, from MS' perspective, I cannot fathom why MS doesn't build it's next version of Windows on top of BSD, Linux, or some other *NIX variant.
Back in the day of early Mac OS's and MS-DOS (And Windows until 3.11), the PC [Windows] user had to know more than the Mac User to operate the computer.
Today it is the PC-Windows user who does not need to know anything, while the MAC (OS X) user should know something about how to operate the computer. Of course there are still many ignorant Mac Users (not the Slashdotters) who don't know that OS X is built on BSD, never see get into CLI, etc.
BUT, when you say PC users, you have to include Linux User. I'll guarantee that ANYONE that has any kind of Linux OS installed knows more than the average Mac user about computers. BUT, a BSD geek using OS X probably is smarter than the average linux user.
"The fact that a company could enter an industry with no prior experience and do better than the likes of Nintendo is really impressive, huge bankroll or no. They had a good strategy, good hardware, innovated in relevant areas, and managed to do pretty well. The simple fact that they stand a good chance of unseating Sony in the next round of consoles (which many analysts believe) is just evidence of their success. "
Exactly! Great point! 99% of these kinds of ventures fail, badly. Just look at the XFL. Vince Mcmahon (sp?) tried to create a pro football league to compete with the NFL and bombed, badly. The XBOX came out of nowhere and is a legit competitior to Nintendo and Sony.
Now if only the innovation used in the XBOX Department spread to Windows, etc, etc...we'd really have something...
"Honestly, the only MAC game that comes to mind was Oregon Trail and Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego that I played in grade school. That is sad. Somewhere things went terribly wrong for Jobs and company."
The sad thing is that you probably didn't play them on a Mac. You probably played them first on an Apple II e and then the (color!) IIgs.
In my grade school, us little kids were allowed to touch any macs, if they existed.
Has it crossed anyone's minds that perhaps MS's XBOX division does not exist to make money, but rather to increase the good will of the company, thereby increasing profits in other sectors?
For example: 14 year old XBOX maniacs, when faced with the choice of going Windows vs. Linux in a few years when they can buy their own PC, might go with Windows, because it comes from the same company who brought them the awesome XBOX.
Just as Wal-Mart offers groceries and loses money on it to bring you in the store, perhaps XBOX is an attempt by MS to get younger people into the family of MS products...
From that standpoint, I think MS's XBOX division makes perfect sense...
Yes, that's my point. When Halo came out, people bought XBOX's for Halo. Today people still buy XBOX's for a game released in 2001.
When GTA was released, we were told it was a PS2-exclusive. Hoards of people bought PS2's to play GTA.
What is the GameCube equivalent? The Zelda franchise? Please. I don't know how many people were driven to buy a GC to play a Zelda game, but it cannot compare to Halo/XBOX and GTA/PS2. Not even close.
Check out another post I made on this subject. I suggest that MS doesn't mind losing money on it. They are trying to gain by getting younger people into MS, and thus those people are more likely to stick with MS products when they finally buy PC's. It makes perfect sense (get em hooked while they are young, just like the tobacco companies!).
Has it crossed anyone's minds that perhaps MS's XBOX division does not exist to make money, but rather to increase the good will of the company, thereby increasing profits in other sectors?
For example: 14 year old XBOX maniacs, when faced with the choice of going Windows vs. Linux in a few years when they can buy their own PC, might go with Windows, because it comes from the same company who brought them the awesome XBOX.
Just as Wal-Mart offers groceries and loses money on it to bring you in the store, perhaps XBOX is an attempt by MS to get younger people into the family of MS products...
From that standpoint, I think MS's XBOX division makes perfect sense...
Thanks for pointing out that GameCube has done pretty well so far,
Sure, if UTTERALY failing to tap into the ONLINE gaming market is "pretty well"...if failing to get support for HDTV monitors is "pretty well"...if failing to get games that cause players to buy the console (Halo, GTA, etc) is "pretty well"...if dropping the price of your console just to make sure you outsell your opponents (Although they can't play ONLINE worth cr@p) is "pretty well...then yes, GameCube has done pretty well...
"By releasing their console years ahead of Sony and Nintendo's next boxes"
Can you say Sega Dreamcast????
Frankly, I see MS's view here...the XBOX (and future MS consoles) are some kind of cross between PC's and Consoles...in that sense, why not XBOX 2 soon? Especially if the original XBOX is hurting MS...
I don't think cross-console games will be a problem...right now the XBOX version of any cross-console game looks best; with XBOX 2, it would be 100 times better...it would force people to buy the XBOX 2 version if they really want to play the game as intended (much like now with PC versions of games)
On the other hand, while MS is hurting with XBOX's, they are better off milking the Halo franchise on regular XBOX for what it's worth...5-6 years of XBOX (if you count back to the XBOX release date) makes perfect sense...too soon is bad, and too late you'll be toast
"Fair enough. 8, 4, whatever. I see movie prices rising over time, regardless of format (theatre ticket, rental price, etc.), so I picked a bleak 8. (Personnally, I get my movies from the local library and NetFlix. I'm cheap. The masses, though, it's amazing what they'll pay in ignorance.)"
Actually I pointed out the actual price disparity because there is a sizeable difference. EZ-D's do go for $7-8, while DVD rentals go for $4, or less.
"They'll have to be priced a little above what rentals are priced to generate equal margins."
Why can't a Wal-Mart use its typical evil powers to make EZ-D's so cheap that they literally run rental chains out of business? After all, Wal-Mart routinely takes losses (like with Groceries) to post profits in other departments...to me it makes perfect sense for an outlet like Wal-Mart, who likes to undercut competition, because no one can compete and stay in business.
Two solid years of promoting EZ-D's (assuming enough titles came out in EZ-D format) in the Walmart fashion, for $2, would kill Blockbuster/Hollywood Video. By "Walmart fashion," I mean gimmicks like: Buy the EZ-D of this hit film for 2 bucks. If you like the movie and want to own it, come back with your receipt and get $4 off the regular DVD of Hit Film.
I bet if enough studios were into EZ-D's (studios don't want to kill the rental market though, as Blockbuster created the ingenious scheme of getting free copies of movies to rent out while kicking back a share of the profits to the studios. This is why currently studios win if you buy, rent, or rent and then buy), they would team up with wal-mart for this kind of plan...
"That won't be hard to sell, though; for instance, no late fees and you can hold it for a few weeks before watching it (allowing it to be bought as a gift)."
Nothing says "I love you" like a degradable DVD of "Sleepless in Seattle" on Valentine's Day...hmmmm...get movie, watch one sitting of movie, get laid for movie, the next day the movie doesn't exist so you aren't forced to watch it 100 times (and not get laid after subsequent viewings, of course)...maybe this isn't so bad!:-)
"What self-degrading DVDs do is allow a whole bunch of retailers (Walmart, Target, gas-stations, etc.) to sell 1 viewing of a movie. That's a new product for them. That allows them to hit the $8 pricepoint for single viewings and the $30 pricepoint for durable DVDs. It's not like the durable retail DVDs we have now are going away any time soon. (All of which is bad for consumers, of course.)"
Okay, but why on Earth would someone in the USA buy one viewing for $8???? It makes no sense. It's basically paying double the cost of renting a flick (say at BlockB, for $3.99, simply for the convienence of not having to go to a video store)...PPV movies also cost about $4, I understand paying for some convienence, but double the cost to rent it at a video store? Please.
I like McD's idea they are piloting in the Denver area much better. Go eat there, and rent a flick (okay, only dumb mainstream movies) for $1 from a Kiosk...the movies they are likely to carry are probably only worthy of paying a buck, and it actually costs less, but is more convienent.
Of course rental shops should hate degradable DVD's, but until the price of these can actually compete with the average rental price of a DVD ($4), there is no concern. If EZ-D's and DVD-D's, etc, cost $2, then Blockbuster/Hollywood Video should panic. Right now it's bad enough when Best Buy and Wal-Mart slash prices on DVD's for the first week of their release (I just got Simpsons: Season 4 from BB for $29.99...it has a 40.99 sticker on it). This cuts into rentals and nobody I know of buys NEW DVD's from rental stores (they haven't tried the "discount the first week" method...they can't carry enough for sale copies)...but $8 degradable DVD's? Ha.
"it's simply cheaper to buy the DVD. When most DVDs come out, they are around $15 at Walmart and Best Buy. If my fiance and I both go to the theater it costs $18 for just the movie ($25 or more if we get food or drink)."
Here's a thought: You can RENT the movie for $3.99. 4 bucks to see a movie that you might not necessarily want to own. No need to buy the flix, unless of course you already know you want to own them.
"anamorphic DVD on a well calibrated HDTV is nearly as good as HDTV (especially from film-sourced materials)"
Uh, no it's not dude. It only looks good if you have a DVD player which UPCONVERTS to HD resolutions (you can buy them now for around $400) or are using an HTPC.
Watching a DVD with a crappy DVD player on a nice TV does not look ANYTHING like HDTV. Just compare any given movie, with a crappy DVD player, to an upconverted version of the same movie on HBO-HD, or using a DVD player which upconverts. HUGE DIFFERENCE.
You are right though, most people are ignorant. They think watching a DVD (480p) on a HDTV means you are watching HDTV. Idiots...
"but on my digital cable I have HBO on Demand. It's "free" for HBO subscribers, and gives you access to a whole load of on demand programming."
Surely you are mistake, I hope! On my cable, Time-Warner, I subscribe to HBO, but if I want HBO On Demand, I have to an ADDITIONAL $6.95/month. I'd like to have that without paying more, but for now, I'll stick to my dual tuner DVR as I wait for the Dual tuner HD-DVR (Recording HBO-HD will be awesome).
What is the point of these mp3 players with tiny storage?
Why can't more companies make mp3 players like that one you can get off tiger-direct.com, $120 for a 10GB mp3 player? Surely that technology can be refined, and I am willing to pay $150 for a good quality 10GB portable MP3 player.
I am not willing to pay $200+ for any MP3 player, nor do I want to buy crap (cheap could easily break 10GB mp3 players or tiny storage mp3 players).
"Ive been a gamer all my life, ive owned every console since NES so ive been a console gamer longer then PC. I like console gaming better, overall its more enjoyable to sit in front of my big tv with my suround sound in my recliner then it is to sit in front of my pc. But i do like pc games for their graphics and speed and i tend to buy both versions of games (xbox and pc)"
Every console since NES? Including Atari Jaguar? Sega Saturn CD? Turbo Graphix 16?
I seriously doubt you have bought every console since NES...prove me wrong if so...
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that not everything Seagate is protected by patents. There are TRADE SECRETS, the forgotten prong of IP, you know.
Seagate likely has trade secrets it is scared this ex-employee will divulge, which is why Seagate likely made 'em sign the non-compete in exchange for his Seagate job.
The Federal Trade Secret Act provides remedies for Seagate against this guy civally and criminally, but that won't be enough if he does divulge a TS to a competitor.
Seagate has a legitimate concern, but it will be up to the courts to see how reasonable the non-compete is. Many states allow courts to strike and rewrite unreasonable terms, usually relating to duration and geography limitations.
In most states, non-competes are valid, but are subject to the "blue pencil" rule. This means the court can strike (and rewrite) unreasonable terms. Usually these deal with duration (how long does it last) and geography (where can 'em be prevented from working). What is unreasonable in this particular case is a question for the courts. Non-competes are valid because they are given in consideration for employment. "Sign this to get the job" is valid consideration. "Sign this or you'll get fired" is iffy. It's not un-american because you are forgetting about a whole other body of law: TRADE SECRETS, which fall under IP. Many companies, especially tech companies, are worried about trade secret's getting leaked to competitiors. Although the Federal Trade Secret Act provides civil and criminal penalties for misappropriating trade secrets, that usually doesn't make the first company whole when their rival already learns their trade secrets. Thus non-competes are used to prevent trade secrets from being divulged. Pappy97 Lawyer, Law School Class of 2003
Wasn't IBM's "PC Jr." an attempt at making a computer for kids? What about the Tandy Color Computer 3 (my first "Computer" by the way)?
Full on computers geared for kids don't work...it's better having parents install kid-related software on regular PC's/Mac's...no point in buying another PC just for the tykes (instead, you could buy them educational electronic toys, but not full on computers)..
"MS has already figured some of this out and it wasn't by adopting linux or porting to linux. Look what they did in Thailand. They build a one-language (i.e. country specific) stripped down version of XP and sold it for cheap. They did this specifically to keep Linux out. If they did it in Thailand, they could do it in Brazil, India, China...etc. It's just a matter of how much money they will make on licensing the traditional way versus licensing the stripped down version."
Okay...but this doesn't explain why MS won't slash prices of Windows XP HERE in the USA...why won't they?
As many have said in this thread and threads in the past, if MS dropped the retail price of XP (Home) to $39.95 and perhaps XP Pro to $69.95, that would certainly stop many windows users from even trying to learn anything about any *NIX-based OS. That would kill the "Linux for mainstream idiots (read: Mandrake, j/k)" movement. Joe Schmo would never EVER think of buying a Wal-mart.com pc with a OS he's never heard of (Sun Java Desktop), if the same computer on wal-mart.com, only with WinXP, costs $40 more. He's say "Hmmm...just 40 bucks more and no hassles of linux because I am a computer dummy"
Even if MS won't embrace Linux, they know that dropping the price of XP can kill the linux market. They do this in the third-world, but why not here? Do they REALLY think that people will pay more than a $100 for an OS for years and years to come?
As John Stossel would say, "Give me a break."
The thing is that Bill Gates needs to change his views if he wants to keep that market share. More and more entities are out to kill the MS share. Everyone is gunning for MS.
By the time MS is dying because of this anti-MS sentiment, it will be too late for him to salvage MS.
That's why MS should adapt to this open source movement by fighting fire with fire. One good idea is open source windows, but keep all the software is closed source.
Another is to build a good *NIX based OS like OS X. That way everyone gets a stable OS, and MS can still sell its closed source software, like Office, etc.
I think people will ease up, and perhaps embrace MS if they made changes to their OS (either open source it OR go to a *NIX based system). It's not like they have to open source office, or a game like Age of Empires (I think that's MS?).
Just open source windows OR go to a stable *NIX based system.
MS people, however, don't ever think the *NIX and Open Source revolutions will ever put a huge dent in their market share, so they will do as they do now until they crash and burn. I guess that is the MS way.
Exactly. If MS puts out their own brand of Linux, they could kill the open-source movement. Too bad (For them) that they don't have any business people who understand how to fight fire with fire.
Without phantom chicks, slashdotters would never even have the hope of getting a chick! We like to pretend, that for a split second, some hot chick is really saying, "Hey there big boy!"
" Why should MS embed the insecure services ontop of yet another perfectly good kernel?
If anything, they should keep the NT / VMS kernel and bolt something more secure on top...not the other way around."
Because what I am suggesting is doing exactly what Apple did with OS X. In OS X, users have the ability to easily run Mac software while reaping the benefits of the Darwin kernel.
MS could easily create an OS in the spitting image of OS X, whereby users get to use Windows like they know how (with easy installs of games and other software), built on top of a stable SECURE BSD or Linux Kernel.
If Apple can do it, why not MS? Why the resistance to fight fire with fire? Instead of trying to teach people that *NIX is evil, it makes financial sense to embrace it and keep potential people who would drop Windows for Linux from making the switch.
Simply put, MS cannot afford to wait until a large chunk of their users dump their OS for Easy Linux, AKA Mandrake 20.0 and higher (I am assuming it will take a few years, but Mandrake is for the crossover people). MS could reap big time $$$ by putting together an awesome OS that even *nix geeks would enjoy (I know many *nix geeks who used to bash Apple the way they do AOL, but now love to play with OS X), but is designed for the masses (again, like OS X).
...by doing what Apple did: Build your wimpy OS on top of something strong, like BSD, Linux, or some other flavor of *NIX.
I keep saying this and I am surprised that MS is not going that route somehow. I thought for sure that this Longhorn project would be some sort of MS implementation of *NIX. (Not Xenix).
We all know MS can do it if they wanted. We also know they like to copy Apple (Look at WIN 95)....it makes so much sense, from MS' perspective, I cannot fathom why MS doesn't build it's next version of Windows on top of BSD, Linux, or some other *NIX variant.
Back in the day of early Mac OS's and MS-DOS (And Windows until 3.11), the PC [Windows] user had to know more than the Mac User to operate the computer.
Today it is the PC-Windows user who does not need to know anything, while the MAC (OS X) user should know something about how to operate the computer. Of course there are still many ignorant Mac Users (not the Slashdotters) who don't know that OS X is built on BSD, never see get into CLI, etc.
BUT, when you say PC users, you have to include Linux User. I'll guarantee that ANYONE that has any kind of Linux OS installed knows more than the average Mac user about computers. BUT, a BSD geek using OS X probably is smarter than the average linux user.
Make sense? I didn't think so.
"The fact that a company could enter an industry with no prior experience and do better than the likes of Nintendo is really impressive, huge bankroll or no. They had a good strategy, good hardware, innovated in relevant areas, and managed to do pretty well. The simple fact that they stand a good chance of unseating Sony in the next round of consoles (which many analysts believe) is just evidence of their success. "
Exactly! Great point! 99% of these kinds of ventures fail, badly. Just look at the XFL. Vince Mcmahon (sp?) tried to create a pro football league to compete with the NFL and bombed, badly. The XBOX came out of nowhere and is a legit competitior to Nintendo and Sony.
Now if only the innovation used in the XBOX Department spread to Windows, etc, etc...we'd really have something...
"Honestly, the only MAC game that comes to mind was Oregon Trail and Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego that I played in grade school. That is sad. Somewhere things went terribly wrong for Jobs and company."
The sad thing is that you probably didn't play them on a Mac. You probably played them first on an Apple II e and then the (color!) IIgs.
In my grade school, us little kids were allowed to touch any macs, if they existed.
Has it crossed anyone's minds that perhaps MS's XBOX division does not exist to make money, but rather to increase the good will of the company, thereby increasing profits in other sectors?
For example: 14 year old XBOX maniacs, when faced with the choice of going Windows vs. Linux in a few years when they can buy their own PC, might go with Windows, because it comes from the same company who brought them the awesome XBOX.
Just as Wal-Mart offers groceries and loses money on it to bring you in the store, perhaps XBOX is an attempt by MS to get younger people into the family of MS products...
From that standpoint, I think MS's XBOX division makes perfect sense...
"Isn't Halo a Microsoft only game?"
Yes, that's my point. When Halo came out, people bought XBOX's for Halo. Today people still buy XBOX's for a game released in 2001.
When GTA was released, we were told it was a PS2-exclusive. Hoards of people bought PS2's to play GTA.
What is the GameCube equivalent? The Zelda franchise? Please. I don't know how many people were driven to buy a GC to play a Zelda game, but it cannot compare to Halo/XBOX and GTA/PS2. Not even close.
Check out another post I made on this subject. I suggest that MS doesn't mind losing money on it. They are trying to gain by getting younger people into MS, and thus those people are more likely to stick with MS products when they finally buy PC's. It makes perfect sense (get em hooked while they are young, just like the tobacco companies!).
"or Ybox, or why bother?"
Has it crossed anyone's minds that perhaps MS's XBOX division does not exist to make money, but rather to increase the good will of the company, thereby increasing profits in other sectors?
For example: 14 year old XBOX maniacs, when faced with the choice of going Windows vs. Linux in a few years when they can buy their own PC, might go with Windows, because it comes from the same company who brought them the awesome XBOX.
Just as Wal-Mart offers groceries and loses money on it to bring you in the store, perhaps XBOX is an attempt by MS to get younger people into the family of MS products...
From that standpoint, I think MS's XBOX division makes perfect sense...
Thanks for pointing out that GameCube has done pretty well so far,
...if failing to get support for HDTV monitors is "pretty well" ...if failing to get games that cause players to buy the console (Halo, GTA, etc) is "pretty well" ...if dropping the price of your console just to make sure you outsell your opponents (Although they can't play ONLINE worth cr@p) is "pretty well ...then yes, GameCube has done pretty well...
Sure, if UTTERALY failing to tap into the ONLINE gaming market is "pretty well"
"By releasing their console years ahead of Sony and Nintendo's next boxes"
Can you say Sega Dreamcast????
Frankly, I see MS's view here...the XBOX (and future MS consoles) are some kind of cross between PC's and Consoles...in that sense, why not XBOX 2 soon? Especially if the original XBOX is hurting MS...
I don't think cross-console games will be a problem...right now the XBOX version of any cross-console game looks best; with XBOX 2, it would be 100 times better...it would force people to buy the XBOX 2 version if they really want to play the game as intended (much like now with PC versions of games)
On the other hand, while MS is hurting with XBOX's, they are better off milking the Halo franchise on regular XBOX for what it's worth...5-6 years of XBOX (if you count back to the XBOX release date) makes perfect sense...too soon is bad, and too late you'll be toast
"Fair enough. 8, 4, whatever. I see movie prices rising over time, regardless of format (theatre ticket, rental price, etc.), so I picked a bleak 8. (Personnally, I get my movies from the local library and NetFlix. I'm cheap. The masses, though, it's amazing what they'll pay in ignorance.)"
:-)
Actually I pointed out the actual price disparity because there is a sizeable difference. EZ-D's do go for $7-8, while DVD rentals go for $4, or less.
"They'll have to be priced a little above what rentals are priced to generate equal margins."
Why can't a Wal-Mart use its typical evil powers to make EZ-D's so cheap that they literally run rental chains out of business? After all, Wal-Mart routinely takes losses (like with Groceries) to post profits in other departments...to me it makes perfect sense for an outlet like Wal-Mart, who likes to undercut competition, because no one can compete and stay in business.
Two solid years of promoting EZ-D's (assuming enough titles came out in EZ-D format) in the Walmart fashion, for $2, would kill Blockbuster/Hollywood Video. By "Walmart fashion," I mean gimmicks like: Buy the EZ-D of this hit film for 2 bucks. If you like the movie and want to own it, come back with your receipt and get $4 off the regular DVD of Hit Film.
I bet if enough studios were into EZ-D's (studios don't want to kill the rental market though, as Blockbuster created the ingenious scheme of getting free copies of movies to rent out while kicking back a share of the profits to the studios. This is why currently studios win if you buy, rent, or rent and then buy), they would team up with wal-mart for this kind of plan...
"That won't be hard to sell, though; for instance, no late fees and you can hold it for a few weeks before watching it (allowing it to be bought as a gift)."
Nothing says "I love you" like a degradable DVD of "Sleepless in Seattle" on Valentine's Day...hmmmm...get movie, watch one sitting of movie, get laid for movie, the next day the movie doesn't exist so you aren't forced to watch it 100 times (and not get laid after subsequent viewings, of course)...maybe this isn't so bad!
"What self-degrading DVDs do is allow a whole bunch of retailers (Walmart, Target, gas-stations, etc.) to sell 1 viewing of a movie. That's a new product for them. That allows them to hit the $8 pricepoint for single viewings and the $30 pricepoint for durable DVDs. It's not like the durable retail DVDs we have now are going away any time soon. (All of which is bad for consumers, of course.)"
Okay, but why on Earth would someone in the USA buy one viewing for $8???? It makes no sense. It's basically paying double the cost of renting a flick (say at BlockB, for $3.99, simply for the convienence of not having to go to a video store)...PPV movies also cost about
$4, I understand paying for some convienence, but double the cost to rent it at a video store? Please.
I like McD's idea they are piloting in the Denver area much better. Go eat there, and rent a flick (okay, only dumb mainstream movies) for $1 from a Kiosk...the movies they are likely to carry are probably only worthy of paying a buck, and it actually costs less, but is more convienent.
Of course rental shops should hate degradable DVD's, but until the price of these can actually compete with the average rental price of a DVD ($4), there is no concern. If EZ-D's and DVD-D's, etc, cost $2, then Blockbuster/Hollywood Video should panic. Right now it's bad enough when Best Buy and Wal-Mart slash prices on DVD's for the first week of their release (I just got Simpsons: Season 4 from BB for $29.99...it has a 40.99 sticker on it). This cuts into rentals and nobody I know of buys NEW DVD's from rental stores (they haven't tried the "discount the first week" method...they can't carry enough for sale copies)...but $8 degradable DVD's? Ha.
Cali is trying to legislate about Gmail??
I don't see what the big deal is...
if you want 1GB e-mail, and no invasion of privacy, you can get that now.
Just go to http://www.spymac.com/
Google is nice, but who needs gmail when better 1GB e-mail services exist??
"it's simply cheaper to buy the DVD. When most DVDs come out, they are around $15 at Walmart and Best Buy. If my fiance and I both go to the theater it costs $18 for just the movie ($25 or more if we get food or drink)."
Here's a thought: You can RENT the movie for $3.99. 4 bucks to see a movie that you might not necessarily want to own. No need to buy the flix, unless of course you already know you want to own them.
"anamorphic DVD on a well calibrated HDTV is nearly as good as HDTV (especially from film-sourced materials)"
Uh, no it's not dude. It only looks good if you have a DVD player which UPCONVERTS to HD resolutions (you can buy them now for around $400) or are using an HTPC.
Watching a DVD with a crappy DVD player on a nice TV does not look ANYTHING like HDTV. Just compare any given movie, with a crappy DVD player, to an upconverted version of the same movie on HBO-HD, or using a DVD player which upconverts. HUGE DIFFERENCE.
You are right though, most people are ignorant. They think watching a DVD (480p) on a HDTV means you are watching HDTV. Idiots...
"but on my digital cable I have HBO on Demand. It's "free" for HBO subscribers, and gives you access to a whole load of on demand programming."
Surely you are mistake, I hope! On my cable, Time-Warner, I subscribe to HBO, but if I want HBO On Demand, I have to an ADDITIONAL $6.95/month. I'd like to have that without paying more, but for now, I'll stick to my dual tuner DVR as I wait for the Dual tuner HD-DVR (Recording HBO-HD will be awesome).
What is the point of these mp3 players with tiny storage?
Why can't more companies make mp3 players like that one you can get off tiger-direct.com, $120 for a 10GB mp3 player? Surely that technology can be refined, and I am willing to pay $150 for a good quality 10GB portable MP3 player.
I am not willing to pay $200+ for any MP3 player, nor do I want to buy crap (cheap could easily break 10GB mp3 players or tiny storage mp3 players).
"Ive been a gamer all my life, ive owned every console since NES so ive been a console gamer longer then PC. I like console gaming better, overall its more enjoyable to sit in front of my big tv with my suround sound in my recliner then it is to sit in front of my pc. But i do like pc games for their graphics and speed and i tend to buy both versions of games (xbox and pc)"
Every console since NES? Including Atari Jaguar? Sega Saturn CD? Turbo Graphix 16?
I seriously doubt you have bought every console since NES...prove me wrong if so...