Windows is on 90% of desktop computers, and is sold with most PC's by default.
Even if Vista becomes a dismal OS filled with security holes, it doesn't matter. Microsoft will continue to pump out Windows Vista for another 5 years and package it along every Dell, HP, Gateway, etc, computer sold.
Poor OS design has never stopped Microsoft in the past from being the number one sold OS. I mean, what do you think, Linux is actually going to win over Windows Vista? OSX and Mac's will grab more then 4% of the market once Vista is released? Delusions of grander because this hasn't happened after the last 10 years of wishing and hoping.
Your points are poorly thought and filled with too much bias and rage against Microsoft. Most of your points are not even based on facts.
UI is redesigned? So what? MS did this in the past between windows 3.11 and Windows 95, and the industry loved it. Have you even used Vista? Its more like XP then you think except for cosmetic changes and highly tasked based UI. Chances are in Vista, if you want to do something there is some icon or menu right next to the mouse cursor waiting to do what you want. You haven't realized, but each verson of Windows since 95 has been easier to use and more brainless to operate.
Who is going to buy Vista? Anyone buying a Dell, HP, Gateway, and a slew of other prefab computers will have some version of Vista installed, and this means MILLIONS of new Vista customers 3 months after it is released.
DRM'd HighDef DVD's? Sorry, I am not planning on watching High Def DVD's on my computer. I plan to use my 60" LCD projection television to watch movies in High Def.
Vista consumes too many resource? Since when did 1GB of ram break the bank, I can get a stick of it for $60 wholesale. Intel and AMD are both churning out multi-core CPU's every month. Vista is only taking advantage of the resources that are cheap and available now.
Not a lot of people had computers with Windows 98? What, were you born yesterday? I can see if your 10 years old that perhaps the good old days of the Nineties didn't have such technology as we have today, but anyone over the age of 15 was probably using a computer way back then too, as old and decrepit as we are. First version of OS to compete against itself? Sorry, Windows 98 competed against diehard 95 fans that could not let go, Millennium against diehard 98 fans, Windows 200 against 98 diehard fans, Windows XP against Windows 2000. Every version of Windows has had a huge installed based of people that saw no need to switch or upgrade, yet each next version prevailed. Now, those that used to only used 98, or Windows 2000 will claim that XP is their OS of choice and will refuse to run Vista. These are tired and trite statements.
Finally, Aero runs on the GPU, thus freeing up the CPU from UI. Vista is actually optimized to take advantage of all the power of a GPU at a time when your not using it. When you currently browse Windows your GPU is sitting there idling and doing nothing, your CPU and 2D video card functions are whirring away. Vista is actually more resource friendly by offloading a large chunk of OS UI operations on the GPU thus freeing up the CPU and system RAM to do other things.
Even if you don't buy or plan on buying Vista, Vista IS the next PC OS that millions of people will use. Microsoft will continue to make billions on the Vista platform.
This will be the saddest failure in all of video game history, if it isn't already. I mean, honestly, they are wasting time having the in game character EMAIL the player? If this is where they think video games are headed, everyone involved in the development of this game should be lined up and shot.
Why would anybody buy this game? This industry is quckly tiring of one vapid 3rd person shooter after another. Buy the time DNF ( Did Not Finish more like it ) comes out, 3rd person shooters will be fads long forgotten.
Can we say mismanagement? The amount of time and money invested in this game is astonishing, and anyone worth their salt in this industry would have either given up, or tied up the game a long time ago. By now, if they are still struggling to develop the game engine, then either use the engine from Halflife 2, Doom3 or Unreal Tournament. Give up trying to make your own engine, it ain't working.
It ain't rocket science, yet you think these guys are in the processed of making the most astonishing game in history. Its FREAKIN DUKE NUKEM. I mean, people didn't play this game for a transcendental mind blowing experience.
In the end, people just want to blow sh*t up. Not get spam from their video games.
OK, but Google needs to start doing better
on
Google Calendar
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
I mean, this is really a basic calendar application. Why not even let the person set a country or location so that local holidays would show up in the calendar?
Schedule and calendar applications are a dime a dozen. Heck, anybody with at least a year of programming skills can write their own appointment manager, I have. It does everything I want it to do, without superfluous extras, and if I want it to do something more, I can write my own support for it.
If this is what we can expect from Google, time management and I bet they will so release a Money or Quicken substitute, then I can start to see Google's stock drop quickly.
Surprised Google hasn't released Google Notepad, it would have about the same impact as a calendar application.
Or is Slashdot really having a slow news day. I almost feel like whipping up a quick website right now just to see how quickly it will get slashdotted, I could use 15 seconds of fame myself.
Games are the #1 reason people keep PC's around. I wouldn't worry about setting Windows on a Mac just for sh*ts-n-giggles (it is a $150 - $200 investment ). But if you are a gamer, or want to get into games, then Windows is a must. The only problem then is that the Mac platform isn't future proof, and you won't be able to keep up with PC gaming on the Mac in a year or two.
I think its still a gimmick, to run Windows on a Mac. Unless your developing web or applictions for both platforms, I can't honestly understand why someone needs both.
Having said that, one Windows application you might want to try that really gives iPhoto a run for its money, and is free, is Google's Picasa. It is a slick photo management tool with far better photo correction features then iPhoto. It has a one button "I'm Feeling Lucky" button whicn 9 times out of 10 color corrects and balances the highlights and shadows in a photo very well. What I like about it is rather then consolidating all your photos into one location (thus duplicating pictures) it just manages where photos are on your system. It also features a backup feature which saves to CD/DVD and if you insert that DVD again, it automatically launches the recovery tool.
I don't know, if your getting caught up in the hype of running a dual boot Mac, I think you will either stop using OSX in favour of Windows, or vice versa, but I doubt using both will weigh in heavily in the long run. It is one of those polar things where people either use one extensively over the other, or never consider the other an alternative.
Microsoft should simply stop selling Windows in the EU. I mean, honestly. When citizens in the EU suddenly realize they can't get their favourite OS, period, then they will pressure the EU to drop their stupid frickin petty lawsuit and let Microsoft sell their damned software with the features they want!
The EU simply wants Microsoft to hand over all their source code so some French or German company can rip it off and sell a competing product to cater to the "individualistic" needs of the EU. That is it, pure and simple. European software companies cannot compete against Microsoft, so they are using the EU to litigate against them in the hopes of getting enough source code to use in their own failed products.
I am frightened, and we all should be, by the apparent power EU has over software in Europe. They seem to be able to dictate every aspect of the software, and if they don't like some aspect of your software use the courts to force you to change. This is not Microsoft being anti-competitive, this is a government organization using strong arm tactics to force software developers to cater to their outrageous demands, all in an effort to try and get EU companies to compete and hopefully surpass foreign software imports. This is worse then anything Microsoft has done, because Microsoft has never hidden behind a government in the hopes to succeed through litigation rather then innovation.
Sorry, I have no respect for the EU in this case. While I feel Microsoft has brought a lot of this on themselves, when you look at the supposed "merits" of this case, it is analogous to some snobby euro trash turning up their nose at you because your trying to speak their language without any skill. The EU doesn't like Microsoft because they are not European, period.
Microsoft should fart in their general direction and blow Windows off the shelves of EU retailers. Then we will see how quickly the governing body of the EU sucks up to Microsoft when European customers revolt because they can't get their XP.
Still trying to figure out if this the the big 30th anniversary surprise everyone insists Apple is going to release? Or was it Boot Camp, or the recent OSX 10.4 update and iPod volume control. I can't tell. Did Apple even remember it was their Anniversary? Or, did they ignore it like everybody else and feverently working on their Invisi iPod?
Big brand game console developer 1: "We have hyped for 3 years now about a new game console, and delayed shipment to the end of the year, but we can't understand why people are no longer interested in buying our current generation consoles and software titles?"
Big brand game console developer 2: "We hyped about our new product for 2 years, released it too quickly with tons of flaws and lousy game support and we can't understand why nobody is buying our new console and software titles?"
Big brand game console developer 3: "We are nearing the release, but keeping it secret, of our revolutionary new video game console that is somewhat more powerful the the failed console we released 3 years ago, but hoping that gimmicks will make it a huge success. We know why nobody is buying our consoles and software titles (because they are all crap) but we hope that by applying the same concepts and rehashing the same crappy games we will succeed in our next generation game console!".
Video game enthusiast: "Ah f*ck it, just by a PC already! They do more, cost less and are available now with tons of great games, and I can upgrade in a year or two rather then waiting for those schmucks to get their act together and release something good!"
I mean, sure, Walmart is big, but would it be obvious that the combines sales of all retail outlets OUTSIDE of Walmart is greater?
If you want that must have game, and Walmart doesn't carry it, are you saying that people will not buy the game elsewhere?
I think it is pretty ridiculous to assume that Walmart has any control over software titles. I mean, I would easily agree that if you were making a brand of toilet paper, catering to Walmarts every whim makes sense because you want your toilet paper product in every Walmart. When people shop at Walmart, and they see your toilet paper there, they will buy it. More market exposure means more sales. People don't go out of their way to buy toilet paper, they buy it when they are at the store buying other things.
But can the same be said for video games? I am sorry, I don't feel that video games are impulse buy items, not these days. I don't wander into a Walmart (actually, I try to avoid them like the plague), and just happen to say, "Hey, there is a game that looks intersting, lets drop $56.97 on it thats just burning a hole in my pocket!"
How many times have I been screwed over with that mentality, dropping $40 - $80 on a video game only to bring it home and bored to tears 2 hours later. Or the game keeps me entertained for about a week before it gets old. I don't impulse buy video games any more. And I don't go to Walmart on the off chance there might be some new video game I haven't heard about sitting on the shelf.
With the Internet, I keep an eye out for new game titles and when they are released I either demo them or get reviews and user opinions about the game. I.e. I am making an informed choice about the games that I buy. When I decide to buy the game then I go out specifically to buy the video game, and usually Walmart isn't my destination. Sure, Walmart might be the cheapest place, but generally its because they sell something $0.97 cheaper then other retail stores. Hardly worth the nightmare of trying to park in a Walmart parking lot, weave my way through all the slow moving buggy people, and then stand in line for 2 hours to make my purchase.
So, I really can't see how software companies quiver in their boots if Walmart objects to one of their games. If the game is good, people will make a point to buy its regardless of where it is. There are still so many OTHER places then Walmart to buy video games.
Ultimately, if video game developers feel their innovation is being stifled by big box brand stores, then simply go the route of Valve and distribute your software via Steam or some other online service. Bypass the big box stores and their "family values" kind of crap mentality.
While I am sure that for some manufactures of many types of products losing Walmart as a retailer spells disaster, I can't see this being the case in the video game industry. F*ck Walmart if they don't like your game, its all about the customers, and if you actually make a decent game people will come to you to buy it, not Walmart.
The only game developers I can see pandering to Walmart are those crapmongers that come out with 40 lame titles a year and hope that people will look at the cover and impulse buy the game at Walmart. Few of those games ever succeed, so the more places they can fling their crap, the more chances people will get hit with it.
You also forgot about Corel's version of Linux, which was supposed to be the first real user friendly Linux that embedded WINE to allow native support of Windows applications (namely, Corel's CorelDRAW suite and WordPerfect).
True, I do agree, Linux distros come and go, but the OS never really takes off. They need one Distro to rule them all, but the Linux camp is so disorganized and filled with too many individuals trying to be the hero that Linux will never be an effective replacement or competitor to Windows. Until you get ALL linux developers concentrating on ONE Linux distro, the very fact that there are 100+ camps will mean Linux will never succeed as a workstation platform. Each distro has its unique claim to fame, but if you had one distribution with ALL these claims, then that would be impressive.
Honestly, I got caught up in the Apple hype a few years ago. With the release of the Aluminum PowerBooks, I started feeling that I really wanted a Mac. At the time, the Powerbooks were the best notebooks on the market. Perhaps not the quickest or most feature rich, but the slimmest and lightest and most stylish. After 6 months of agonizing over it, I bought a 12" PowerBook. What a waste of money.
As much as I enjoyed OSX and the simplicity of Apple and the beauty of the hardware, I have yet, after 3 years, found that I could truely switch to Apple hardware and give up my PC. I thought at the time that while I developed Windows software at work, I could easily give up the PC at home and use a Mac exclusively. Even after spending about 3 months forcing myself to use the Mac instead of the PC, for handling email, web browsing, watching multimedia on my home theater system by connecting the PowerBook to it, etc, I just could not get rid of the PC, mostly because Apple has not yet realized that video games are a multi billion industry they are ignoring by not supporting or getting developers to support their hardware. What few games I found I wanted on the Mac platform ran like crap on the PowerBook, which ended up sounding like a jet engine from the cooling fans going into overdrive and turned into a sauna from the heat radiating from it on all surfaces.
About a year after buying the PowerBook, I noticed that there were a slew of thin, light, and stylish PC notebooks with more features, more power, more screen, less weight and less cost then my PowerBook. They could burn DVD's without a $300 upgrade, had a wider, brighter, more crisp screen, more hard drive space with faster drives, and had more multimedia functions like 5.1 surround, remote controls and HD support. Remember, this was around 2 years ago, long before Apple finally added a multimedia front end and 5 button remote to their Mac lineup.
Currently, while I hate to admit it, my Mac is sitting in a corner most days, collecting dust. I still brush it off from time to time to update OSX and I use it almost exclusively to backup my iPod music and organize my digital pictures. My work got me a new PC notebook this year which I am using to connect to my home theater system to watch multimedia and it plays games decently without becomign excessively hot or deafening you with fan noise. Its running an AMD Turion after all. The bottom line is, OSX is nice, but it ain't Windows, and with Apple's arrogance, will never be a replacement.
So, why dual boot at all? Most people think they need an Apple because they are deluded into buying into the form and style of Apple computers. They think that OSX is their salvation, that buy having it they will find they can ditch Windows and never look back. They want to buy these stylized, expensive and over-hyped computers and now they can boot Windows, wow, the best of both worlds.
I have to say from experience that Mac's are not what they are hyped up to be. I would wager that in a dual boot environment most people currently using PC's will find that you will use Windows 70% or more of the time on the dual boot Mac. Mac OSX will become a novelty OS, and while some applications like iPhoto or iDVD are great and easy to use, and you will use them to burn a DVD of your vacation or manage your photos, you will work from Windows more often then naught. Whether its a force of habit, or simply because there are more entertainment titles then on the Mac platform, the bottom line is that you will eventually find out that you paid more for a stylish PC that is underpowered compared to more inexpensive Windows only PC's out there.
And obsoletion will happen quickly on current dual boot Mac's. You might find you can run Windows and play most PC game titles with decent performance on the MacBook and iMac platforms, but neither of these platforms will allow for video card upgrades. Mac Mini is woefully underpowered for anything, period. Even if they develop a Macintel Desktop to replace
I don't know how many times I have heard people complaining about iTunes selling television shows. How many people are in an uproar because ABC is making money first from commericals aired during their shows on television AND by selling the show on iTMS. Guess what, they also sell their shows on DVD AND make money off syndication.
What is the purpose of your complaining?
First, you don't have to buy the shows on iTMS, most of you complaining probably don't even own an iPod let alone the iPod that works with this service.
Second, many people actually enjoy the shows that are being sold on iTMS, that is, they want to watch it more then once. I would jump on the bandwagon with you if iTMS sold shows for $1.99 per view, but you are buying a video file you can watch over again. It may not be within the same month, or year, but many people do enjoy watching a full season of TV over a few days or weeks.
Why is it that some people are so jealous or fanatical about companies that make money? Why bother to complain. If a company or entity forced you to contribute to their profit, then that is reason for complaining (i.e. the government and taxes or gas companies). But some corporation that sells television shows is really no target for the kind of criticism and whining people are doing. Your just wasting your breath and straining your fingers.
When someone complains about a product or service they have no intention of buying or participating in, then that is just moronic. It is a classic definition of an idiot.
I agree to a certain extent, why should we pay for cable AND watch the commercials too, but television shows are costing ten's of millions to make, and many of them are sad sad failures. I would rather watch some commercials that generate revenue to create both the good and bad television then to have to pay $500 a month for 100 commercial free channels that are still filled with lots of garbage and I can't possibly watch all the content anyways.
Also, ABC doesn't get a dime from your cable bill. Cable companies are making huge profits by charging you to view ABC in digital or HD. Only those specialty channels like HBO that you pay extra for get revenue from your cable bill. Again, I would prefer if MOST television was not a premium channel because I don't think 100 HBO like channels would survive or offer the same quality of content as HBO.
Do what I do. I never watch TV in real time anymore. I record all the shows I want to watch on my PVR, and this way I can fast forward through the commercials. It saves me time (up to 12 minutes per hour of programming), and I am not annoyed by all the advertising.
If you don't like commercials, then don't watch TV. Its almost hypocritical to complain about commercials but expect to still watch television for free or cheap. The two have gone hand in hand since the beginning. Pick up a book or rent movies or play video games if you want cheap commercial free entertainment.
Nintendo does have a habit of offering gimmicky features with their game systems. From light guns to interactive robots, to power gloves and two screen gameboys, Nintendo loves its gimmicks. But look at the market they are targeting.
Nintendo doesn't make Nintendo's for North America or Europe, they do it for Japan, an excessive fad/trend based society that spazzes out over anything novel and new by throwing heaping wads of money at it. The Japanese are quick adopters of new ideas (the good, the bad, and the absolute ridiculous), and Nintendo can pretty much bank roll the entire Revolution R&D costs within the first week of selling it in Japan. By the time the Revolution hits North America, its just gravy, pure profit for the company. Even if sales are slow for the Revolution in North America, Nintendo will just churn away at releasing regional games that are huge hits in Japan. If some of those trends make it to North America, then again, its icing on the cake.
Nintendo doesn't care if North Americans or Europeans thinks the new Revolution game controller is a joke, people in Japan are already planning their Revolution launch day activities, which will include lots of stretching before hours of epileptic gameplay with whatever cutesy Duck Hunt/Mario/Zelda creation Nintendo whips up for the system. Six months later, Japanese customers will still be twitching and jerking in front of a TV with the Revolution long after the rest of the world tires of the novelty of the new gaming remote.
Nintendo is a Japanese company that caters to the Japanese market, and they are largely unapologetic for it. If Japanese trends and fads like Sudoku or Pokemon make its way overseas, its just gravy, and easy way to earn more profit when the rest of the world follows Japan's lead in entertainment and novelty acts.
Nintendo won't die because Japan won't let them. Xbox hardly has any impact in Japan. Sony wants the world to accept its PlayStation, they invest way too much money into the technology behind the PS3, and they can't simply cater to Japan's fad based culture. Even if Nintendo continues to fail in markets outside of Japan, they will simply redouble their efforts to continue to create innovative and gimmicky entertainment products that appeal to Japan.
In the end, this guy misses the point completely. When did gaming every become serious or respectful. Why is it now that its all about the frame rates and number of polygons and vertex shaders? When did a beautifully rendered game take the place of pure fun? Nintendo knows how to entertain people, they have been in this business longer then Sony and Microsoft combined and while the Revolution may not be the MOST popular game console released in this next generation console war, it is looking to offer the most enjoyment for the money.
If the Xbox360 is any indicator of how the next generation consoles are supposed to be received (with its what, 150,000 in unit sales) and the PS3 might be pushed back to release end 2006/early 2007, I think Nintendo may be in the unique position to capture a large market of people looking for instant gratification out of a next generation system as opposed to waiting for one company to fix up their bugs, and another simply to release the product.
Apple is celebrating their 30th anniversary by fixing problems in a shipping product.
I thought that Apple's anniversary would pass with little excitement, but even this is a bit much.
There isn't even mention of their anniversary on Apple's website. I mean, you would at least expect a company that once created an entire computer based on their 20th anniversary to at least mention it.
But it is still early on Tuesday April 4, and Apple traditionally makes product announcments on Tuesdays, so one could always hope that someone at Apple was awake enough to remember to celebrate, or are they all just too busy counting their money over at Apple.
I have to agree, Dell does good LCD panels. Not sure who their suppliers are, but when I got a Dell Notebook 5 years ago, regardless of how much of a piece of junk it is now, I wish I could rip off the screen and use it as my monitor. It's a 15" LCD with 1400 * 1080 resolution and it was bright and crisp and had good contrast. Even by today's standards, you can't find a Desktop LCD screen at 15" with more then 1024 x 768 resolution. I have rarely seen PC notebooks with such good quality screens, and I would even say that Apple's PowerBook screens don't compare (at least not the 12" PowerBook I have which I have found always dark and slightly blurry). At least Dell does one thing right, and they don't skimp on the LCD technology they use.
Few people can really dedicate 90+ minutes to watch a full length movie. Sure, video podcasts, TV shows and music videos make sense, as people can watch them for 30 - 60 minutes without interruption, but movies are just too long for mobile formats.
Plus, I find that these small screens like PSP and iPod don't refresh fast enough, so the movies are often blurry and give me a headache. I also get a neck ache trying to bend over my PSP to watch the Spider-man 2 movie that came with it. I could only watch about 15 minutes before I gave it up as futile.
Sony's biggest mistake was offering no TV out connectivity for the PSP. UMD's might have been a marginal success (instead of a dismal failure) if Sony just decided to put a video out on the PSP. Actually, the PSP might have been a bigger success if you could play both movies and games on a TV. It doesn't have to by HD by a long shot, but standard Def playback is standard on the iPod, why not the PSP?
But Apple should pay attention before launching into full feature movie sales. At least Apple has the ability to connect to television, which may be their saving grace, but I think full length movies for portable players is a failed concept. Movies are not like music that is played in 5 minute intervals, nor are they like books you can stop and start at a later time. I prefer to watch a movie in its entirety in once sitting, and rarely do I find myself in a situation where I am spending 90+ minutes sitting down with free time on my hands, even at home.
If theaters are unhappy that 2 months after a movie release you can buy the DVD, what are they complaining about?
Usually if a movie has that quick a turn around, it did dismal at the box office. Theaters could keep a crappy movie in their cinemas for 2 or more months, but most theaters toss out low profit yield movies quickly.
I have found very few movies that are box office hits have a quick DVD turn around. Even then, I think that Theaters hold on to movies way too long. A 24 gigaplex doesn't need to be showing movies from 6 months ago.
In Canada, at least, there is a discount theater chain that offers movies that are a few months old for only $4.25 (or $3.00 matinees). I have often seen movies "released" in these chains that are already out on DVD, but people still go to them. Its cheaper then renting, even with two people, and people still enjoy seeing movies on the big screen, especially if they don't have a premium Home Theater system. I would be hard pressed to find this theater chain complaining about the fast turn around for DVD movies, considering they still make money after the DVD is released (the theaters are always about 3/4 full when I go).
If a movie doesn't do well at the box office, then you can't draw blood from a stone. Movie theaters won't make much more money after a few weeks if a movie sucks, and they will be losing money if they don't put a profit maker in its place. The movies that do very well have already made the movie theaters millions, so expecting them to hang around for 6 months is just ridiculous.
Overall, I think this is a moot argument. If movie theaters want to make more profit then stop charging $14 for these premium stadium like complexes with their $6 gallon of Coke and $8 popcorn. If the offered movies for cheaper box office prices, you will get people going back to the cinema. If you charge so much money that it is actually cheaper to buy the DVD then to spend a night at the movies, what the heck to you expect?
No honestly, I think people's expectations for what Apple will do is unfounded.
First, I can't see Apple coming out with a dramatically new iPod concept only 6 months after the last iPod generation. Apple can't keep releasing new iPods on quick cycles, it will affect consumer confidence (more like, consumers will stop buying iPods because they go obsolete in 6 months). Perhaps Apple was keeping something up their sleeves with iPod for the 30th, but I think it will backfire rather then impress consumers. I was considering the new 5th gen iPod to replace my 3rd gen, then I heard rumours about a newer video iPod. I basically won't be buying any iPod until Apple reveals their cards, as is the opinion of many people I know in the market for a new player.
I also don't expect any great innovations from their computer lines. G5 is still a solid desktop workstation, and I don't see Apple wanting to rush G5's away for Intel's Duo Core. Largely, Intel's Duo Core can't compete with a quad G5 system, and until I see Intel looking to make dual Duo Core chipsets, I don't see Apple coming out with a new desktop system to replace the G5. New iBook's, MacBooks's, Mac Mini's or iMacs will be underwhelming as a 30th Anniversary release as they will only be configuration tweaks, not all out redesigns. I don't think Apple will make the mistake of another Anniversary edition Mac. We can only handle 1 overpriced dud a decade, and Apple already came out with the G4 cube this past decade.
Whats left? A cellphone or tablet device? These have been rumored for years, I don't see why Apple would have left them as 30th anniversary surprises. Apple can't compete in the cell phone market, honestly. This market changes frequently (like monthly), while Apple doesn't. Apple can't release one style of cellphone to fit all consumers. Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, Sony all make a slew of different models because consumers of cellphones are fickle. An Apple based cellphone will only appeal to a small market segment and thus could not dominate the way iPod did. Apple helped to define the digital music player market, the cell phone market is already well established and has many leaders. Apple would be competing against equals (which they seldom have don't well with). Unless Apple dominates a market like with the iPod, Apple typically struggles (like with 30 years of computers).
A tablet device will also be unexpected and underwhelming. Who would buy a tablet device? Students. But any tablet device from Apple will be too expensive for most students to afford, and it will be a novelty item for many non-students.
What Apple SHOULD release for their 30th anniversary is a TV set-top device that connects Mac's or even PC's to your home theater system. This will launch Apple into the home theater market which is largely undefined. Something with Apple's panache with multimedia handling in a box that can be used as a PVR and full digital media support over networks. Apple could do with Home Theater what they did for iPod, take a bunch of ideas that other companies are poorly implementing and consolidate them into one superior device. But then, Steve Jobs says that HTPC's are a novelty and fad that will wain quickly. It's not surprising for Steve Jobs to renege on his comments, but I doubt Apple has any big plans for Home Theater consumer electronics. They don't even support 5.1 surround in most of their computers and Apple's one foray into newtworked multimedia ( AirTunes ) was a disaster in my opinion.
Apple blew their wad too early this year with new "video" iPods, iTunes services and introducing the Macintels. I would have left introducing the Macintels until the 30th anniversary to give people something to talk about.
While it is impossible to predict what Apple will actually do, I won't get my hopes up for too much. By anticipating the least, if Apple does something truly wonderful, then it will be surprising and exciting. But getting your hopes up too much will just leave you disappointed when Apple announces some new word processing applications, revision to an iPod, or a larger 17" MacBook, which is all I am banking on.
If you noticed too, The teraflops is a composite number. In implies that the multiple CPU cores along with the GPU's all add up to 1 teraflop of performance. So, you have 3 cores running at 200 GFlops and 1 GPU running at 400 GFlops, you have 1 teraflop of performance, right?
This is false advertising at its worse because, even for gaming, it is doubtful that you will ever get ALL CPU core's and GPU's running at maximum performance. Instead, load balance will be spread across the CPU cores and GPU, and you will probably never see peak performance exceeding 200 GFlops, and that really depends on how well the games are written for multi-threading.
If any of these systems had ONE GPU or CPU that was capable of 1 Teraflop of performance, then I would be impressed, but that isn't the case. Supercomputers can achieve composite performance values because their applications are specifically designed to spread across multiple CPU's and thus can achieve maximum performance. Game design isn't as efficient, or even can make use of multiple cores as effectively as dedicated scientific calculations or modeling.
So, I agree, that teraflop claim is a marketing gimmick. Its like saying my thing is bigger then your thing, its juvenile, and in the end, I respect Nintendo more then Sony or Microsoft for not buying into this performance envy crap.
Honestly, there are too many email options out there. Once someone gets set up with a hotmail, gmail, yahoo, etc service, what motivation is there to switch?
Like changing home addresses, phone numbers, bank accounts and credit cards, changing emails service providers is like pulling teeth. It is a painful affair in which you have to be on the ball to contact ANYBODY that knows of your existing information and then let them know the new information. For a while, people will be out of contact with you because they keep sending you email to your old account (because they didn't update their contact information). Even worse is when you try and keep both accounts active, then people forget which one is your newer one and start sending email to both. Honestly, if you have had an email address for more then a few years, you probably have tonnes of contacts to notify if you change that address.
Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo, etc, these companies are not selling you on email services. They are selling you on using their site as a portal to your email service. Google liberally peppers their GMail with GAds, same with Yahoo and Hotmail. They want people to show up, not because of the @whatever.com extension, but because they can indoctrinate you with advertising earning their site revenue.
Hotmail saying "we don't expect you to switch your email provider, just use our software as a portal" is a big step in the right direction. I may not like hotmail, and I will reserve judgement on hotmail's new service until I have tried it out, but Microsoft is realizing that people are not going to switch their gmail or yahoo accounts simply to get a new email address with @hotmail.com at the end of it. But if Hotmail offers a desktop software that allows me to see my Gmail account more easily, or even offers additional features that GMail doesn't offer, then I am all for it.
Consequently, this will inspire Google and Yahoo to offer support for 3rd party email as well which undoubtedly will offer better, more competitive services.
Just like with universal IM integration, email integration into one central app will be beneficial on the whole. It allows a person to set up ONE email account and then they can decide which app/web service they want to access that email through. It means people don't have to go through the hassle of changing email accounts simply because Yahoo or Hotmail or Gmail offers a fancier interface or bigger storage capacity.
Its the beginning of the end of switching email providers like underwear. People can select an email address and then keep it indefinitely, regardless of which companies software they are using to access that email. Don't dump on Microsoft just because they are Microsoft, Microsoft is still innovating the future. Celebrate the fact that by Microsoft doing it first, more will follow, and that is overall beneficial.
For the most part, Nintendo has always strives to make game affordable. They were the first to offer "Best Of" games, those popular titles that sold over a million or more copies that they started to discount from their original price, usually in the $30 CDN range. But I ask, if you know your next Legend of Zelda is going to sell millions, why launch it with a $60 price tag?
Its not like Nintendo has to guess what will be a hit and what won't. A Zelda, Mario, Metroid, etc incarnation will always sell like hotcakes, so why not just offer them at a discount price to begin with.
I hope this isn't just all talk and no action, which has been very typical of Nintendo for the last 10 years. The Revolution name should be more then just a marketing gimmick. If it doesn't offer dramatically different game play, more features and lower costs then where is the Revolution except on the label. If its just another vehicle for more Pokemon and Mario and Zelda derivative titles, then I think Nintendo might be in big trouble.
The licensing costs of Bluetooth are the reason for its slow adoption.
There is no reason for a Bluetooth wireless headphones to cost $200 or more, other good quality wireless headphones with proprietary wireless technology could be purchased for $80.
Bluetooth mice and keyboards are like 50% - 100% more expensive then those wireless mice and keyboards with proprietary wireless technology. In fact, I heard it was cheaper for a company to developer their own wireless technology rather then licence Bluetooth for their products.
With wireless USB entering the market this year, I would be reluctant to buy anything Bluetooth until we see how Wireless USB will handle and how inexpensive it will be to license and use the product. My guess is that most companies using a proprietary wireless connection will adopt Wireless USB quickly.
For now, the only niche market that Bluetooth is succeeding in is in cell phone headsets. When it comes to general computing, Bluetooth's days are numbered.
The 18 - 22 year olds are a fickle bunch that will try anything once, and then ADHD will set it and it will get old and boring very soon. A $2 billion investment today will most surely mean a dried out resource 6 - 12 months from now as some new internet fad of the week rips through colleges and universities. Trends come and go on campus faster then Wall Street can figure out what they were in the first place.
Think MP3.com, Napster, Kazaa, Limewire, Morpheus, Skype, etc, etc, etc. All once overhyped fads that went nowhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Vista will fail?
How, I mean, you listed points, but ignored one.
Windows is on 90% of desktop computers, and is sold with most PC's by default.
Even if Vista becomes a dismal OS filled with security holes, it doesn't matter. Microsoft will continue to pump out Windows Vista for another 5 years and package it along every Dell, HP, Gateway, etc, computer sold.
Poor OS design has never stopped Microsoft in the past from being the number one sold OS. I mean, what do you think, Linux is actually going to win over Windows Vista? OSX and Mac's will grab more then 4% of the market once Vista is released? Delusions of grander because this hasn't happened after the last 10 years of wishing and hoping.
Your points are poorly thought and filled with too much bias and rage against Microsoft. Most of your points are not even based on facts.
UI is redesigned? So what? MS did this in the past between windows 3.11 and Windows 95, and the industry loved it. Have you even used Vista? Its more like XP then you think except for cosmetic changes and highly tasked based UI. Chances are in Vista, if you want to do something there is some icon or menu right next to the mouse cursor waiting to do what you want. You haven't realized, but each verson of Windows since 95 has been easier to use and more brainless to operate.
Who is going to buy Vista? Anyone buying a Dell, HP, Gateway, and a slew of other prefab computers will have some version of Vista installed, and this means MILLIONS of new Vista customers 3 months after it is released.
DRM'd HighDef DVD's? Sorry, I am not planning on watching High Def DVD's on my computer. I plan to use my 60" LCD projection television to watch movies in High Def.
Vista consumes too many resource? Since when did 1GB of ram break the bank, I can get a stick of it for $60 wholesale. Intel and AMD are both churning out multi-core CPU's every month. Vista is only taking advantage of the resources that are cheap and available now.
Not a lot of people had computers with Windows 98? What, were you born yesterday? I can see if your 10 years old that perhaps the good old days of the Nineties didn't have such technology as we have today, but anyone over the age of 15 was probably using a computer way back then too, as old and decrepit as we are. First version of OS to compete against itself? Sorry, Windows 98 competed against diehard 95 fans that could not let go, Millennium against diehard 98 fans, Windows 200 against 98 diehard fans, Windows XP against Windows 2000. Every version of Windows has had a huge installed based of people that saw no need to switch or upgrade, yet each next version prevailed. Now, those that used to only used 98, or Windows 2000 will claim that XP is their OS of choice and will refuse to run Vista. These are tired and trite statements.
Finally, Aero runs on the GPU, thus freeing up the CPU from UI. Vista is actually optimized to take advantage of all the power of a GPU at a time when your not using it. When you currently browse Windows your GPU is sitting there idling and doing nothing, your CPU and 2D video card functions are whirring away. Vista is actually more resource friendly by offloading a large chunk of OS UI operations on the GPU thus freeing up the CPU and system RAM to do other things.
Even if you don't buy or plan on buying Vista, Vista IS the next PC OS that millions of people will use. Microsoft will continue to make billions on the Vista platform.
Get over it, your wasting your breath.
This will be the saddest failure in all of video game history, if it isn't already. I mean, honestly, they are wasting time having the in game character EMAIL the player? If this is where they think video games are headed, everyone involved in the development of this game should be lined up and shot.
Why would anybody buy this game? This industry is quckly tiring of one vapid 3rd person shooter after another. Buy the time DNF ( Did Not Finish more like it ) comes out, 3rd person shooters will be fads long forgotten.
Can we say mismanagement? The amount of time and money invested in this game is astonishing, and anyone worth their salt in this industry would have either given up, or tied up the game a long time ago. By now, if they are still struggling to develop the game engine, then either use the engine from Halflife 2, Doom3 or Unreal Tournament. Give up trying to make your own engine, it ain't working.
It ain't rocket science, yet you think these guys are in the processed of making the most astonishing game in history. Its FREAKIN DUKE NUKEM. I mean, people didn't play this game for a transcendental mind blowing experience.
In the end, people just want to blow sh*t up. Not get spam from their video games.
I mean, this is really a basic calendar application. Why not even let the person set a country or location so that local holidays would show up in the calendar?
Schedule and calendar applications are a dime a dozen. Heck, anybody with at least a year of programming skills can write their own appointment manager, I have. It does everything I want it to do, without superfluous extras, and if I want it to do something more, I can write my own support for it.
If this is what we can expect from Google, time management and I bet they will so release a Money or Quicken substitute, then I can start to see Google's stock drop quickly.
Surprised Google hasn't released Google Notepad, it would have about the same impact as a calendar application.
Or is Slashdot really having a slow news day. I almost feel like whipping up a quick website right now just to see how quickly it will get slashdotted, I could use 15 seconds of fame myself.
Sorry, force fields are fields made of energy that can repel matter. Anyone watching one episode of Star Trek understands this.
Call it protective field or simply coutermeasure device, but don't bastardize the concept of force field to sensationalize this story.
You get all us Trekkie geeks excited over nothing.
Games are the #1 reason people keep PC's around. I wouldn't worry about setting Windows on a Mac just for sh*ts-n-giggles (it is a $150 - $200 investment ). But if you are a gamer, or want to get into games, then Windows is a must. The only problem then is that the Mac platform isn't future proof, and you won't be able to keep up with PC gaming on the Mac in a year or two.
I think its still a gimmick, to run Windows on a Mac. Unless your developing web or applictions for both platforms, I can't honestly understand why someone needs both.
Having said that, one Windows application you might want to try that really gives iPhoto a run for its money, and is free, is Google's Picasa. It is a slick photo management tool with far better photo correction features then iPhoto. It has a one button "I'm Feeling Lucky" button whicn 9 times out of 10 color corrects and balances the highlights and shadows in a photo very well. What I like about it is rather then consolidating all your photos into one location (thus duplicating pictures) it just manages where photos are on your system. It also features a backup feature which saves to CD/DVD and if you insert that DVD again, it automatically launches the recovery tool.
I don't know, if your getting caught up in the hype of running a dual boot Mac, I think you will either stop using OSX in favour of Windows, or vice versa, but I doubt using both will weigh in heavily in the long run. It is one of those polar things where people either use one extensively over the other, or never consider the other an alternative.
Microsoft should simply stop selling Windows in the EU. I mean, honestly. When citizens in the EU suddenly realize they can't get their favourite OS, period, then they will pressure the EU to drop their stupid frickin petty lawsuit and let Microsoft sell their damned software with the features they want!
The EU simply wants Microsoft to hand over all their source code so some French or German company can rip it off and sell a competing product to cater to the "individualistic" needs of the EU. That is it, pure and simple. European software companies cannot compete against Microsoft, so they are using the EU to litigate against them in the hopes of getting enough source code to use in their own failed products.
I am frightened, and we all should be, by the apparent power EU has over software in Europe. They seem to be able to dictate every aspect of the software, and if they don't like some aspect of your software use the courts to force you to change. This is not Microsoft being anti-competitive, this is a government organization using strong arm tactics to force software developers to cater to their outrageous demands, all in an effort to try and get EU companies to compete and hopefully surpass foreign software imports. This is worse then anything Microsoft has done, because Microsoft has never hidden behind a government in the hopes to succeed through litigation rather then innovation.
Sorry, I have no respect for the EU in this case. While I feel Microsoft has brought a lot of this on themselves, when you look at the supposed "merits" of this case, it is analogous to some snobby euro trash turning up their nose at you because your trying to speak their language without any skill. The EU doesn't like Microsoft because they are not European, period.
Microsoft should fart in their general direction and blow Windows off the shelves of EU retailers. Then we will see how quickly the governing body of the EU sucks up to Microsoft when European customers revolt because they can't get their XP.
Still trying to figure out if this the the big 30th anniversary surprise everyone insists Apple is going to release? Or was it Boot Camp, or the recent OSX 10.4 update and iPod volume control. I can't tell. Did Apple even remember it was their Anniversary? Or, did they ignore it like everybody else and feverently working on their Invisi iPod?
Big brand game console developer 1: "We have hyped for 3 years now about a new game console, and delayed shipment to the end of the year, but we can't understand why people are no longer interested in buying our current generation consoles and software titles?"
Big brand game console developer 2: "We hyped about our new product for 2 years, released it too quickly with tons of flaws and lousy game support and we can't understand why nobody is buying our new console and software titles?"
Big brand game console developer 3: "We are nearing the release, but keeping it secret, of our revolutionary new video game console that is somewhat more powerful the the failed console we released 3 years ago, but hoping that gimmicks will make it a huge success. We know why nobody is buying our consoles and software titles (because they are all crap) but we hope that by applying the same concepts and rehashing the same crappy games we will succeed in our next generation game console!".
Video game enthusiast: "Ah f*ck it, just by a PC already! They do more, cost less and are available now with tons of great games, and I can upgrade in a year or two rather then waiting for those schmucks to get their act together and release something good!"
I mean, sure, Walmart is big, but would it be obvious that the combines sales of all retail outlets OUTSIDE of Walmart is greater?
If you want that must have game, and Walmart doesn't carry it, are you saying that people will not buy the game elsewhere?
I think it is pretty ridiculous to assume that Walmart has any control over software titles. I mean, I would easily agree that if you were making a brand of toilet paper, catering to Walmarts every whim makes sense because you want your toilet paper product in every Walmart. When people shop at Walmart, and they see your toilet paper there, they will buy it. More market exposure means more sales. People don't go out of their way to buy toilet paper, they buy it when they are at the store buying other things.
But can the same be said for video games? I am sorry, I don't feel that video games are impulse buy items, not these days. I don't wander into a Walmart (actually, I try to avoid them like the plague), and just happen to say, "Hey, there is a game that looks intersting, lets drop $56.97 on it thats just burning a hole in my pocket!"
How many times have I been screwed over with that mentality, dropping $40 - $80 on a video game only to bring it home and bored to tears 2 hours later. Or the game keeps me entertained for about a week before it gets old. I don't impulse buy video games any more. And I don't go to Walmart on the off chance there might be some new video game I haven't heard about sitting on the shelf.
With the Internet, I keep an eye out for new game titles and when they are released I either demo them or get reviews and user opinions about the game. I.e. I am making an informed choice about the games that I buy. When I decide to buy the game then I go out specifically to buy the video game, and usually Walmart isn't my destination. Sure, Walmart might be the cheapest place, but generally its because they sell something $0.97 cheaper then other retail stores. Hardly worth the nightmare of trying to park in a Walmart parking lot, weave my way through all the slow moving buggy people, and then stand in line for 2 hours to make my purchase.
So, I really can't see how software companies quiver in their boots if Walmart objects to one of their games. If the game is good, people will make a point to buy its regardless of where it is. There are still so many OTHER places then Walmart to buy video games.
Ultimately, if video game developers feel their innovation is being stifled by big box brand stores, then simply go the route of Valve and distribute your software via Steam or some other online service. Bypass the big box stores and their "family values" kind of crap mentality.
While I am sure that for some manufactures of many types of products losing Walmart as a retailer spells disaster, I can't see this being the case in the video game industry. F*ck Walmart if they don't like your game, its all about the customers, and if you actually make a decent game people will come to you to buy it, not Walmart.
The only game developers I can see pandering to Walmart are those crapmongers that come out with 40 lame titles a year and hope that people will look at the cover and impulse buy the game at Walmart. Few of those games ever succeed, so the more places they can fling their crap, the more chances people will get hit with it.
You also forgot about Corel's version of Linux, which was supposed to be the first real user friendly Linux that embedded WINE to allow native support of Windows applications (namely, Corel's CorelDRAW suite and WordPerfect).
True, I do agree, Linux distros come and go, but the OS never really takes off. They need one Distro to rule them all, but the Linux camp is so disorganized and filled with too many individuals trying to be the hero that Linux will never be an effective replacement or competitor to Windows. Until you get ALL linux developers concentrating on ONE Linux distro, the very fact that there are 100+ camps will mean Linux will never succeed as a workstation platform. Each distro has its unique claim to fame, but if you had one distribution with ALL these claims, then that would be impressive.
Honestly, I got caught up in the Apple hype a few years ago. With the release of the Aluminum PowerBooks, I started feeling that I really wanted a Mac. At the time, the Powerbooks were the best notebooks on the market. Perhaps not the quickest or most feature rich, but the slimmest and lightest and most stylish. After 6 months of agonizing over it, I bought a 12" PowerBook. What a waste of money.
As much as I enjoyed OSX and the simplicity of Apple and the beauty of the hardware, I have yet, after 3 years, found that I could truely switch to Apple hardware and give up my PC. I thought at the time that while I developed Windows software at work, I could easily give up the PC at home and use a Mac exclusively. Even after spending about 3 months forcing myself to use the Mac instead of the PC, for handling email, web browsing, watching multimedia on my home theater system by connecting the PowerBook to it, etc, I just could not get rid of the PC, mostly because Apple has not yet realized that video games are a multi billion industry they are ignoring by not supporting or getting developers to support their hardware. What few games I found I wanted on the Mac platform ran like crap on the PowerBook, which ended up sounding like a jet engine from the cooling fans going into overdrive and turned into a sauna from the heat radiating from it on all surfaces.
About a year after buying the PowerBook, I noticed that there were a slew of thin, light, and stylish PC notebooks with more features, more power, more screen, less weight and less cost then my PowerBook. They could burn DVD's without a $300 upgrade, had a wider, brighter, more crisp screen, more hard drive space with faster drives, and had more multimedia functions like 5.1 surround, remote controls and HD support. Remember, this was around 2 years ago, long before Apple finally added a multimedia front end and 5 button remote to their Mac lineup.
Currently, while I hate to admit it, my Mac is sitting in a corner most days, collecting dust. I still brush it off from time to time to update OSX and I use it almost exclusively to backup my iPod music and organize my digital pictures. My work got me a new PC notebook this year which I am using to connect to my home theater system to watch multimedia and it plays games decently without becomign excessively hot or deafening you with fan noise. Its running an AMD Turion after all. The bottom line is, OSX is nice, but it ain't Windows, and with Apple's arrogance, will never be a replacement.
So, why dual boot at all? Most people think they need an Apple because they are deluded into buying into the form and style of Apple computers. They think that OSX is their salvation, that buy having it they will find they can ditch Windows and never look back. They want to buy these stylized, expensive and over-hyped computers and now they can boot Windows, wow, the best of both worlds.
I have to say from experience that Mac's are not what they are hyped up to be. I would wager that in a dual boot environment most people currently using PC's will find that you will use Windows 70% or more of the time on the dual boot Mac. Mac OSX will become a novelty OS, and while some applications like iPhoto or iDVD are great and easy to use, and you will use them to burn a DVD of your vacation or manage your photos, you will work from Windows more often then naught. Whether its a force of habit, or simply because there are more entertainment titles then on the Mac platform, the bottom line is that you will eventually find out that you paid more for a stylish PC that is underpowered compared to more inexpensive Windows only PC's out there.
And obsoletion will happen quickly on current dual boot Mac's. You might find you can run Windows and play most PC game titles with decent performance on the MacBook and iMac platforms, but neither of these platforms will allow for video card upgrades. Mac Mini is woefully underpowered for anything, period. Even if they develop a Macintel Desktop to replace
I don't know how many times I have heard people complaining about iTunes selling television shows. How many people are in an uproar because ABC is making money first from commericals aired during their shows on television AND by selling the show on iTMS. Guess what, they also sell their shows on DVD AND make money off syndication.
What is the purpose of your complaining?
First, you don't have to buy the shows on iTMS, most of you complaining probably don't even own an iPod let alone the iPod that works with this service.
Second, many people actually enjoy the shows that are being sold on iTMS, that is, they want to watch it more then once. I would jump on the bandwagon with you if iTMS sold shows for $1.99 per view, but you are buying a video file you can watch over again. It may not be within the same month, or year, but many people do enjoy watching a full season of TV over a few days or weeks.
Why is it that some people are so jealous or fanatical about companies that make money? Why bother to complain. If a company or entity forced you to contribute to their profit, then that is reason for complaining (i.e. the government and taxes or gas companies). But some corporation that sells television shows is really no target for the kind of criticism and whining people are doing. Your just wasting your breath and straining your fingers.
When someone complains about a product or service they have no intention of buying or participating in, then that is just moronic. It is a classic definition of an idiot.
I agree to a certain extent, why should we pay for cable AND watch the commercials too, but television shows are costing ten's of millions to make, and many of them are sad sad failures. I would rather watch some commercials that generate revenue to create both the good and bad television then to have to pay $500 a month for 100 commercial free channels that are still filled with lots of garbage and I can't possibly watch all the content anyways.
Also, ABC doesn't get a dime from your cable bill. Cable companies are making huge profits by charging you to view ABC in digital or HD. Only those specialty channels like HBO that you pay extra for get revenue from your cable bill. Again, I would prefer if MOST television was not a premium channel because I don't think 100 HBO like channels would survive or offer the same quality of content as HBO.
Do what I do. I never watch TV in real time anymore. I record all the shows I want to watch on my PVR, and this way I can fast forward through the commercials. It saves me time (up to 12 minutes per hour of programming), and I am not annoyed by all the advertising.
If you don't like commercials, then don't watch TV. Its almost hypocritical to complain about commercials but expect to still watch television for free or cheap. The two have gone hand in hand since the beginning. Pick up a book or rent movies or play video games if you want cheap commercial free entertainment.
Nintendo does have a habit of offering gimmicky features with their game systems. From light guns to interactive robots, to power gloves and two screen gameboys, Nintendo loves its gimmicks. But look at the market they are targeting.
Nintendo doesn't make Nintendo's for North America or Europe, they do it for Japan, an excessive fad/trend based society that spazzes out over anything novel and new by throwing heaping wads of money at it. The Japanese are quick adopters of new ideas (the good, the bad, and the absolute ridiculous), and Nintendo can pretty much bank roll the entire Revolution R&D costs within the first week of selling it in Japan. By the time the Revolution hits North America, its just gravy, pure profit for the company. Even if sales are slow for the Revolution in North America, Nintendo will just churn away at releasing regional games that are huge hits in Japan. If some of those trends make it to North America, then again, its icing on the cake.
Nintendo doesn't care if North Americans or Europeans thinks the new Revolution game controller is a joke, people in Japan are already planning their Revolution launch day activities, which will include lots of stretching before hours of epileptic gameplay with whatever cutesy Duck Hunt/Mario/Zelda creation Nintendo whips up for the system. Six months later, Japanese customers will still be twitching and jerking in front of a TV with the Revolution long after the rest of the world tires of the novelty of the new gaming remote.
Nintendo is a Japanese company that caters to the Japanese market, and they are largely unapologetic for it. If Japanese trends and fads like Sudoku or Pokemon make its way overseas, its just gravy, and easy way to earn more profit when the rest of the world follows Japan's lead in entertainment and novelty acts.
Nintendo won't die because Japan won't let them. Xbox hardly has any impact in Japan. Sony wants the world to accept its PlayStation, they invest way too much money into the technology behind the PS3, and they can't simply cater to Japan's fad based culture. Even if Nintendo continues to fail in markets outside of Japan, they will simply redouble their efforts to continue to create innovative and gimmicky entertainment products that appeal to Japan.
In the end, this guy misses the point completely. When did gaming every become serious or respectful. Why is it now that its all about the frame rates and number of polygons and vertex shaders? When did a beautifully rendered game take the place of pure fun? Nintendo knows how to entertain people, they have been in this business longer then Sony and Microsoft combined and while the Revolution may not be the MOST popular game console released in this next generation console war, it is looking to offer the most enjoyment for the money.
If the Xbox360 is any indicator of how the next generation consoles are supposed to be received (with its what, 150,000 in unit sales) and the PS3 might be pushed back to release end 2006/early 2007, I think Nintendo may be in the unique position to capture a large market of people looking for instant gratification out of a next generation system as opposed to waiting for one company to fix up their bugs, and another simply to release the product.
Apple is celebrating their 30th anniversary by fixing problems in a shipping product.
I thought that Apple's anniversary would pass with little excitement, but even this is a bit much.
There isn't even mention of their anniversary on Apple's website. I mean, you would at least expect a company that once created an entire computer based on their 20th anniversary to at least mention it.
But it is still early on Tuesday April 4, and Apple traditionally makes product announcments on Tuesdays, so one could always hope that someone at Apple was awake enough to remember to celebrate, or are they all just too busy counting their money over at Apple.
I have to agree, Dell does good LCD panels. Not sure who their suppliers are, but when I got a Dell Notebook 5 years ago, regardless of how much of a piece of junk it is now, I wish I could rip off the screen and use it as my monitor. It's a 15" LCD with 1400 * 1080 resolution and it was bright and crisp and had good contrast. Even by today's standards, you can't find a Desktop LCD screen at 15" with more then 1024 x 768 resolution. I have rarely seen PC notebooks with such good quality screens, and I would even say that Apple's PowerBook screens don't compare (at least not the 12" PowerBook I have which I have found always dark and slightly blurry). At least Dell does one thing right, and they don't skimp on the LCD technology they use.
Movies on micro screens just don't work, period.
Few people can really dedicate 90+ minutes to watch a full length movie. Sure, video podcasts, TV shows and music videos make sense, as people can watch them for 30 - 60 minutes without interruption, but movies are just too long for mobile formats.
Plus, I find that these small screens like PSP and iPod don't refresh fast enough, so the movies are often blurry and give me a headache. I also get a neck ache trying to bend over my PSP to watch the Spider-man 2 movie that came with it. I could only watch about 15 minutes before I gave it up as futile.
Sony's biggest mistake was offering no TV out connectivity for the PSP. UMD's might have been a marginal success (instead of a dismal failure) if Sony just decided to put a video out on the PSP. Actually, the PSP might have been a bigger success if you could play both movies and games on a TV. It doesn't have to by HD by a long shot, but standard Def playback is standard on the iPod, why not the PSP?
But Apple should pay attention before launching into full feature movie sales. At least Apple has the ability to connect to television, which may be their saving grace, but I think full length movies for portable players is a failed concept. Movies are not like music that is played in 5 minute intervals, nor are they like books you can stop and start at a later time. I prefer to watch a movie in its entirety in once sitting, and rarely do I find myself in a situation where I am spending 90+ minutes sitting down with free time on my hands, even at home.
If theaters are unhappy that 2 months after a movie release you can buy the DVD, what are they complaining about?
Usually if a movie has that quick a turn around, it did dismal at the box office. Theaters could keep a crappy movie in their cinemas for 2 or more months, but most theaters toss out low profit yield movies quickly.
I have found very few movies that are box office hits have a quick DVD turn around. Even then, I think that Theaters hold on to movies way too long. A 24 gigaplex doesn't need to be showing movies from 6 months ago.
In Canada, at least, there is a discount theater chain that offers movies that are a few months old for only $4.25 (or $3.00 matinees). I have often seen movies "released" in these chains that are already out on DVD, but people still go to them. Its cheaper then renting, even with two people, and people still enjoy seeing movies on the big screen, especially if they don't have a premium Home Theater system. I would be hard pressed to find this theater chain complaining about the fast turn around for DVD movies, considering they still make money after the DVD is released (the theaters are always about 3/4 full when I go).
If a movie doesn't do well at the box office, then you can't draw blood from a stone. Movie theaters won't make much more money after a few weeks if a movie sucks, and they will be losing money if they don't put a profit maker in its place. The movies that do very well have already made the movie theaters millions, so expecting them to hang around for 6 months is just ridiculous.
Overall, I think this is a moot argument. If movie theaters want to make more profit then stop charging $14 for these premium stadium like complexes with their $6 gallon of Coke and $8 popcorn. If the offered movies for cheaper box office prices, you will get people going back to the cinema. If you charge so much money that it is actually cheaper to buy the DVD then to spend a night at the movies, what the heck to you expect?
No honestly, I think people's expectations for what Apple will do is unfounded.
First, I can't see Apple coming out with a dramatically new iPod concept only 6 months after the last iPod generation. Apple can't keep releasing new iPods on quick cycles, it will affect consumer confidence (more like, consumers will stop buying iPods because they go obsolete in 6 months). Perhaps Apple was keeping something up their sleeves with iPod for the 30th, but I think it will backfire rather then impress consumers. I was considering the new 5th gen iPod to replace my 3rd gen, then I heard rumours about a newer video iPod. I basically won't be buying any iPod until Apple reveals their cards, as is the opinion of many people I know in the market for a new player.
I also don't expect any great innovations from their computer lines. G5 is still a solid desktop workstation, and I don't see Apple wanting to rush G5's away for Intel's Duo Core. Largely, Intel's Duo Core can't compete with a quad G5 system, and until I see Intel looking to make dual Duo Core chipsets, I don't see Apple coming out with a new desktop system to replace the G5. New iBook's, MacBooks's, Mac Mini's or iMacs will be underwhelming as a 30th Anniversary release as they will only be configuration tweaks, not all out redesigns. I don't think Apple will make the mistake of another Anniversary edition Mac. We can only handle 1 overpriced dud a decade, and Apple already came out with the G4 cube this past decade.
Whats left? A cellphone or tablet device? These have been rumored for years, I don't see why Apple would have left them as 30th anniversary surprises. Apple can't compete in the cell phone market, honestly. This market changes frequently (like monthly), while Apple doesn't. Apple can't release one style of cellphone to fit all consumers. Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, Sony all make a slew of different models because consumers of cellphones are fickle. An Apple based cellphone will only appeal to a small market segment and thus could not dominate the way iPod did. Apple helped to define the digital music player market, the cell phone market is already well established and has many leaders. Apple would be competing against equals (which they seldom have don't well with). Unless Apple dominates a market like with the iPod, Apple typically struggles (like with 30 years of computers).
A tablet device will also be unexpected and underwhelming. Who would buy a tablet device? Students. But any tablet device from Apple will be too expensive for most students to afford, and it will be a novelty item for many non-students.
What Apple SHOULD release for their 30th anniversary is a TV set-top device that connects Mac's or even PC's to your home theater system. This will launch Apple into the home theater market which is largely undefined. Something with Apple's panache with multimedia handling in a box that can be used as a PVR and full digital media support over networks. Apple could do with Home Theater what they did for iPod, take a bunch of ideas that other companies are poorly implementing and consolidate them into one superior device. But then, Steve Jobs says that HTPC's are a novelty and fad that will wain quickly. It's not surprising for Steve Jobs to renege on his comments, but I doubt Apple has any big plans for Home Theater consumer electronics. They don't even support 5.1 surround in most of their computers and Apple's one foray into newtworked multimedia ( AirTunes ) was a disaster in my opinion.
Apple blew their wad too early this year with new "video" iPods, iTunes services and introducing the Macintels. I would have left introducing the Macintels until the 30th anniversary to give people something to talk about.
While it is impossible to predict what Apple will actually do, I won't get my hopes up for too much. By anticipating the least, if Apple does something truly wonderful, then it will be surprising and exciting. But getting your hopes up too much will just leave you disappointed when Apple announces some new word processing applications, revision to an iPod, or a larger 17" MacBook, which is all I am banking on.
If you noticed too,
The teraflops is a composite number. In implies that the multiple CPU cores along with the GPU's all add up to 1 teraflop of performance. So, you have 3 cores running at 200 GFlops and 1 GPU running at 400 GFlops, you have 1 teraflop of performance, right?
This is false advertising at its worse because, even for gaming, it is doubtful that you will ever get ALL CPU core's and GPU's running at maximum performance. Instead, load balance will be spread across the CPU cores and GPU, and you will probably never see peak performance exceeding 200 GFlops, and that really depends on how well the games are written for multi-threading.
If any of these systems had ONE GPU or CPU that was capable of 1 Teraflop of performance, then I would be impressed, but that isn't the case. Supercomputers can achieve composite performance values because their applications are specifically designed to spread across multiple CPU's and thus can achieve maximum performance. Game design isn't as efficient, or even can make use of multiple cores as effectively as dedicated scientific calculations or modeling.
So, I agree, that teraflop claim is a marketing gimmick. Its like saying my thing is bigger then your thing, its juvenile, and in the end, I respect Nintendo more then Sony or Microsoft for not buying into this performance envy crap.
Honestly, there are too many email options out there. Once someone gets set up with a hotmail, gmail, yahoo, etc service, what motivation is there to switch?
Like changing home addresses, phone numbers, bank accounts and credit cards, changing emails service providers is like pulling teeth. It is a painful affair in which you have to be on the ball to contact ANYBODY that knows of your existing information and then let them know the new information. For a while, people will be out of contact with you because they keep sending you email to your old account (because they didn't update their contact information). Even worse is when you try and keep both accounts active, then people forget which one is your newer one and start sending email to both. Honestly, if you have had an email address for more then a few years, you probably have tonnes of contacts to notify if you change that address.
Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo, etc, these companies are not selling you on email services. They are selling you on using their site as a portal to your email service. Google liberally peppers their GMail with GAds, same with Yahoo and Hotmail. They want people to show up, not because of the @whatever.com extension, but because they can indoctrinate you with advertising earning their site revenue.
Hotmail saying "we don't expect you to switch your email provider, just use our software as a portal" is a big step in the right direction. I may not like hotmail, and I will reserve judgement on hotmail's new service until I have tried it out, but Microsoft is realizing that people are not going to switch their gmail or yahoo accounts simply to get a new email address with @hotmail.com at the end of it. But if Hotmail offers a desktop software that allows me to see my Gmail account more easily, or even offers additional features that GMail doesn't offer, then I am all for it.
Consequently, this will inspire Google and Yahoo to offer support for 3rd party email as well which undoubtedly will offer better, more competitive services.
Just like with universal IM integration, email integration into one central app will be beneficial on the whole. It allows a person to set up ONE email account and then they can decide which app/web service they want to access that email through. It means people don't have to go through the hassle of changing email accounts simply because Yahoo or Hotmail or Gmail offers a fancier interface or bigger storage capacity.
Its the beginning of the end of switching email providers like underwear. People can select an email address and then keep it indefinitely, regardless of which companies software they are using to access that email. Don't dump on Microsoft just because they are Microsoft, Microsoft is still innovating the future. Celebrate the fact that by Microsoft doing it first, more will follow, and that is overall beneficial.
For the most part, Nintendo has always strives to make game affordable. They were the first to offer "Best Of" games, those popular titles that sold over a million or more copies that they started to discount from their original price, usually in the $30 CDN range. But I ask, if you know your next Legend of Zelda is going to sell millions, why launch it with a $60 price tag?
Its not like Nintendo has to guess what will be a hit and what won't. A Zelda, Mario, Metroid, etc incarnation will always sell like hotcakes, so why not just offer them at a discount price to begin with.
I hope this isn't just all talk and no action, which has been very typical of Nintendo for the last 10 years. The Revolution name should be more then just a marketing gimmick. If it doesn't offer dramatically different game play, more features and lower costs then where is the Revolution except on the label. If its just another vehicle for more Pokemon and Mario and Zelda derivative titles, then I think Nintendo might be in big trouble.
The licensing costs of Bluetooth are the reason for its slow adoption.
There is no reason for a Bluetooth wireless headphones to cost $200 or more, other good quality wireless headphones with proprietary wireless technology could be purchased for $80.
Bluetooth mice and keyboards are like 50% - 100% more expensive then those wireless mice and keyboards with proprietary wireless technology. In fact, I heard it was cheaper for a company to developer their own wireless technology rather then licence Bluetooth for their products.
With wireless USB entering the market this year, I would be reluctant to buy anything Bluetooth until we see how Wireless USB will handle and how inexpensive it will be to license and use the product. My guess is that most companies using a proprietary wireless connection will adopt Wireless USB quickly.
For now, the only niche market that Bluetooth is succeeding in is in cell phone headsets. When it comes to general computing, Bluetooth's days are numbered.
One thing you forget:
The 18 - 22 year olds are a fickle bunch that will try anything once, and then ADHD will set it and it will get old and boring very soon. A $2 billion investment today will most surely mean a dried out resource 6 - 12 months from now as some new internet fad of the week rips through colleges and universities. Trends come and go on campus faster then Wall Street can figure out what they were in the first place.
Think MP3.com, Napster, Kazaa, Limewire, Morpheus, Skype, etc, etc, etc. All once overhyped fads that went nowhere.