What the fuck are you talking about? My post was about your bullshit "razorblade model" theory, which has never worked in the video game industry. Your post is self-contradictory, to boot: first you state "most business (sic) blindly charge into a market strategy blindly (sic)", then later you state that the inconsistencies in your theory that I pointed out were "most likely researched". What. The. Fuck.
Sony has lost half its market value in the past six years, dumbass. This means that $150 million would be quite a bit less as a percentage of its revenue. Why don't you come back when you learn some basic arithmetic, k?
I didn't have any problems with Itunes 7 either. Of course, I don't touch that DRM-infected cesspool of bits, but I also haven't had any problems with it!
Cue the "Debian is teh politics!!1" morons. Yeah, WE GET IT. I mean it's obvious corporations can do everything better than democracy, just listen to pseudo-philosopher/cult leader Ayn Rand...
these are some big announcements and I haven't heard Sony coming with anything to match them yet.
It's true that Sony hasn't made an announcement with this many interesting bullet points. However, Halo is really the only ace Microsoft has. And seriously, an above-average FPS is not something I'd bet my entire console business on.
I have misunderstood nothing. You, however, have misunderstood the distinction between "fact" and "analysis". Microsoft losing 4 billion is a fact. What this means is a matter of analysis.
That said, your argument here doesn't make sense. It is true that theoretically, a company could sell a console at a loss and make it back through game royalties. However this means that they either have to sell more games per console, or charge higher royalty fees per game. Charging higher fees will drive developers and publishers away from your system, so that probably isn't a good idea. And good luck if you can find a way to make people buy more games, but for your system only.
Also, your supporting "factors" do not lend any help to your argument. The PS2 was profitable at launch. And the reason the PS2 had more million-selling games was because more people owned the system, and it was released earlier.
A good bunch of Linux kernel is licensed GPLv2 only
This gets repeated all the time. However, I have not seen any actual analysis that lends any proof to the statement. I've read in at least one article that a lot of code that's been submitted over the years did not specify exactly what terms the author was releasing it under. Legally speaking, this would (potentially) make the kernel a twisted minefield of licensing, as lots of different things could be argued, ranging from "this part is public domain" to "this part infringes my copyright".
He'd rather be coding or debugging than getting involved in legal debate.
Then why is he continually debating the legalese of the GPL3 draft? To me, it sounds more like he wants to be "right" but doesn't want to do anything that could put him in a position to look stupid. See also: pretty much every debate Linus gets involved in.
they've fscked up every single aspect of the publicity, popularity and launch of the PS3 through trying to make this system do everything.
Blah blah blah. Back in 2000, nerds on the Internet were saying the exact same shit about the PS2. I have seen no surveys, much less reputable ones, that indicate that the average video game buyer is pissy about the PS3. There's a reason Sony dropped the price in Japan but not the US. I honestly cannot grok why people think that they are making decisions about the PS3 at random.
Oh, and this survey was funded by the folks who own the rumble patent (Immersion). You might think it's a coincidence. However, a survey done by the same research company showed favorable results for another Immersion product.
United States v. Microsoft was filed by several States as well as the Department of Justice. The DoJ is part of the executive branch of government. The executive branch changed a bit around the time of January 2001.
I don't think you were paying attention in social studies class very well. If Wiis were distributed in a Communist fashion, areas that have bigger demand would receive more. So um, "to each according to his Wii". Or something.
So you have proof that Sony's losing money on PS3s? Oh wait, you'll probably pull out one of those bullshit prices made up by some "analyst" who knows nothing about manufacturing computer hardware.
If MS got "second place", that means somebody was behind them. So basically you're saying that either Nintendo or Sony lost more than 4 billion dollars over the past 5 years. Oh wait, you're using the bullshit "units sold" metric. Never mind.
Does anybody actually know that Sony is selling these consoles at a loss, or is this all just wild speculation?
Sony has not announced how much the console costs to make. The only estimates I've seen are from bullshit financial "analysts", and I say bullshit because a bunch of their component guesses were way off.
It seems most people have completely forgotten the PS and PS2. For both of these consoles, Sony spent a lot of money researching and building up infrastructure before the console launched. A financial statement from Sony after the PS2 launch stated that they could have made a lot more during that quarter had they been able to manufacture more machines.
The PS3 is mostly the same. Sony has spent a lot of money on research and infrastructure, and this will pay off. Of course, there have been huge shitstorms (on the Internet) about low yields on Cell and Blueray lasers, but without more data, there's no way anyone can make a real argument either way. Going by past events, however, I'd say that Sony knows what they're doing.
The Blueray players out now are expensive for several reasons. One is simple economics, where we have a very small supply of players, driving up the price. Another reason is that the players you can buy today are basically "rough drafts", as Samsung et al basically slapped together a bunch of components to get them out the door as soon as possible. They now can refine their process, removing unneeded or overpowered components, and taking advantage of things like Moore's law and improvements in different aspects of the manufacturing process.
Now contrast this with Sony. They have spent millions already, researching components and building the infrastructure required to produce the PS3. This drives down the cost per unit substantially, and it isn't "super secret". This is the same reason the PS2 was profitable at launch.
take into account that those shiny Cell processors, video chips, etc. that will push up the cost of producing the PS3
Push up the cost? Compared to what? These components will replace most of the chips used in a standalone player, just like the PS2 did with DVDs. If you don't remember, the PS2 launch in Japan was huge because it was one of the cheapest DVD players available at the time.
Dear god. Why do people keep using this acronym? I mean, other than the fact that it just rolls off the tongue, and makes written text simply flow with elegance.
Sony knew it would be expensive to include the Blu Ray drive and so they are going to pay through the nose to get it into millions of households.
What? When did Sony say they were selling the system at a loss? Oh wait, that's right, they didn't.
Holy shit, did you just get off the phone with Sony? Wait, you didn't? Oh, ok.
Newsflash: Sony has not said how much each unit costs to make. The only prices ever mentioned when talking about the PS3 are ones that bullshit "analysts" pull out of their asses, with no knowledge of what's actually going on inside Sony. The *real* article that Gamasutra links to says:
"Sony forecast costs of developing the PlayStation 3 will widen the games division's losses this quarter and may take five years to recoup."
This is different from each unit costing $800 to manufacture. The "instant loss" comment comes from some financial/business moron, and the comment may also have been mistranslated.
Slashdot Mirror
What the fuck are you talking about? My post was about your bullshit "razorblade model" theory, which has never worked in the video game industry. Your post is self-contradictory, to boot: first you state "most business (sic) blindly charge into a market strategy blindly (sic)", then later you state that the inconsistencies in your theory that I pointed out were "most likely researched". What. The. Fuck.
Sony has lost half its market value in the past six years, dumbass. This means that $150 million would be quite a bit less as a percentage of its revenue. Why don't you come back when you learn some basic arithmetic, k?
I didn't have any problems with Itunes 7 either. Of course, I don't touch that DRM-infected cesspool of bits, but I also haven't had any problems with it!
Cue the "Debian is teh politics!!1" morons. Yeah, WE GET IT. I mean it's obvious corporations can do everything better than democracy, just listen to pseudo-philosopher/cult leader Ayn Rand...
these are some big announcements and I haven't heard Sony coming with anything to match them yet.
It's true that Sony hasn't made an announcement with this many interesting bullet points. However, Halo is really the only ace Microsoft has. And seriously, an above-average FPS is not something I'd bet my entire console business on.
Oh, I didn't realize that DS hacking tools worked on the Wii too. Cool.
Hey guys, since we can't achieve Utopia RIGHT NOW, we might as well not try.
Good luck signing those binaries.
I have misunderstood nothing. You, however, have misunderstood the distinction between "fact" and "analysis". Microsoft losing 4 billion is a fact. What this means is a matter of analysis.
That said, your argument here doesn't make sense. It is true that theoretically, a company could sell a console at a loss and make it back through game royalties. However this means that they either have to sell more games per console, or charge higher royalty fees per game. Charging higher fees will drive developers and publishers away from your system, so that probably isn't a good idea. And good luck if you can find a way to make people buy more games, but for your system only.
Also, your supporting "factors" do not lend any help to your argument. The PS2 was profitable at launch. And the reason the PS2 had more million-selling games was because more people owned the system, and it was released earlier.
A good bunch of Linux kernel is licensed GPLv2 only
This gets repeated all the time. However, I have not seen any actual analysis that lends any proof to the statement. I've read in at least one article that a lot of code that's been submitted over the years did not specify exactly what terms the author was releasing it under. Legally speaking, this would (potentially) make the kernel a twisted minefield of licensing, as lots of different things could be argued, ranging from "this part is public domain" to "this part infringes my copyright".
He'd rather be coding or debugging than getting involved in legal debate.
Then why is he continually debating the legalese of the GPL3 draft? To me, it sounds more like he wants to be "right" but doesn't want to do anything that could put him in a position to look stupid. See also: pretty much every debate Linus gets involved in.
largest consumer of McDonald's food
heh heh heh...
they've fscked up every single aspect of the publicity, popularity and launch of the PS3 through trying to make this system do everything.
Blah blah blah. Back in 2000, nerds on the Internet were saying the exact same shit about the PS2. I have seen no surveys, much less reputable ones, that indicate that the average video game buyer is pissy about the PS3. There's a reason Sony dropped the price in Japan but not the US. I honestly cannot grok why people think that they are making decisions about the PS3 at random.
Oh, and this survey was funded by the folks who own the rumble patent (Immersion). You might think it's a coincidence. However, a survey done by the same research company showed favorable results for another Immersion product.
United States v. Microsoft was filed by several States as well as the Department of Justice. The DoJ is part of the executive branch of government. The executive branch changed a bit around the time of January 2001.
I don't think you were paying attention in social studies class very well. If Wiis were distributed in a Communist fashion, areas that have bigger demand would receive more. So um, "to each according to his Wii". Or something.
So you have proof that Sony's losing money on PS3s? Oh wait, you'll probably pull out one of those bullshit prices made up by some "analyst" who knows nothing about manufacturing computer hardware.
If MS got "second place", that means somebody was behind them. So basically you're saying that either Nintendo or Sony lost more than 4 billion dollars over the past 5 years. Oh wait, you're using the bullshit "units sold" metric. Never mind.
Well if they lose $300 per console
Did Sony just send out a press release saying this? No? Ok, then.
FACT: Nobody knows how much the PS3 costs to make. Well, except Sony. Bullshit "financial analysts" do not count.
Does anybody actually know that Sony is selling these consoles at a loss, or is this all just wild speculation?
Sony has not announced how much the console costs to make. The only estimates I've seen are from bullshit financial "analysts", and I say bullshit because a bunch of their component guesses were way off.
It seems most people have completely forgotten the PS and PS2. For both of these consoles, Sony spent a lot of money researching and building up infrastructure before the console launched. A financial statement from Sony after the PS2 launch stated that they could have made a lot more during that quarter had they been able to manufacture more machines.
The PS3 is mostly the same. Sony has spent a lot of money on research and infrastructure, and this will pay off. Of course, there have been huge shitstorms (on the Internet) about low yields on Cell and Blueray lasers, but without more data, there's no way anyone can make a real argument either way. Going by past events, however, I'd say that Sony knows what they're doing.
Or, maybe something else is going on.
The Blueray players out now are expensive for several reasons. One is simple economics, where we have a very small supply of players, driving up the price. Another reason is that the players you can buy today are basically "rough drafts", as Samsung et al basically slapped together a bunch of components to get them out the door as soon as possible. They now can refine their process, removing unneeded or overpowered components, and taking advantage of things like Moore's law and improvements in different aspects of the manufacturing process.
Now contrast this with Sony. They have spent millions already, researching components and building the infrastructure required to produce the PS3. This drives down the cost per unit substantially, and it isn't "super secret". This is the same reason the PS2 was profitable at launch.
take into account that those shiny Cell processors, video chips, etc. that will push up the cost of producing the PS3
Push up the cost? Compared to what? These components will replace most of the chips used in a standalone player, just like the PS2 did with DVDs. If you don't remember, the PS2 launch in Japan was huge because it was one of the cheapest DVD players available at the time.
Oh wow, that's horrible. I assumed malice, when the real culprit is either incompetence or laziness.
SKU ... SKUs
Dear god. Why do people keep using this acronym? I mean, other than the fact that it just rolls off the tongue, and makes written text simply flow with elegance.
Sony knew it would be expensive to include the Blu Ray drive and so they are going to pay through the nose to get it into millions of households.
What? When did Sony say they were selling the system at a loss? Oh wait, that's right, they didn't.
Sony subsidizes the PS3 & wants to sell content...
Um, sure. Too bad Sony has said absolutely nothing about how much each unit costs to produce.
Holy shit, did you just get off the phone with Sony? Wait, you didn't? Oh, ok.
Newsflash: Sony has not said how much each unit costs to make. The only prices ever mentioned when talking about the PS3 are ones that bullshit "analysts" pull out of their asses, with no knowledge of what's actually going on inside Sony. The *real* article that Gamasutra links to says:
This is different from each unit costing $800 to manufacture. The "instant loss" comment comes from some financial/business moron, and the comment may also have been mistranslated.
Interface is very similar to Aqua Apple GUI, at least on the ideas behind. ... And Aqua is born in 2000.
Um, the ideas behind Aqua come from the Macintosh and Nextstep. And these systems are like 20 years old.
Also, I should note that I'm not supporting your assertion that the PS3 interface is a "ripoff" of Aqua.