This is starting to remind me of Intel, circa 1990 or early 2000, i.e. an industry leader with impressive marketshare caught off guard by an innovative, nimble competitor. Back then, when the O.G. Athalon was released and broke the Ghz barrier first, it became a case of Intel resorting to a chronic (and until recently, long running) case of me-too-ism where the former leader was forced to watch that competitor announce new breakthroughs, and come up with some response. Sony has made many of the same mistakes, perhaps even worse. Intel at least saw AMD as a viable threat and accellerated its development roadmap to get out of its funk. Sony, on the other hand, sees fit to pretend that the competition isn't there.
Sony really needed to define this generation's fight on its own terms to maintain their market share lead. The boys in Tokyo failed miserably, despite a slight theoretical technological advantage and a copious amount of extra time they gained by not launching in the same time window as Microsoft. Coming in a day late and a c-note or two more than your closest competitor, and having a performance lead generally regarded as negligible is bad enough. When coupled with the fact that your new electornic wunderkind has a new-fangled HD-DVD player that most television owners in the U.S. and Europe can't fully take advatage of (but have to pay for anyway) compounds the issue. The fanboy predictions of that the Xbox would be Dreamcast 2 were pointless. Microsoft isn't Sega, and probably won't be with a multi-billion warchest and a hunger for new revenue sources in untapped markets. Remember, Microsoft's business plan upon entering any market is to dip your toe in the water with V1.0, examine the competition, make your tweaks to be competitive, and take market share incrimentally as you make improvements thorugh VX.X. It worked with web browsers, office suites, and database software...
The other 800 pound gorilla in the room is Old Man Nintendo, who has successfully proven with the D.S. that an old dog can learn new tricks. The Wii itself can't be ignored, as Kutaragi has more or less implied. Regardless of what Sony and Nintendo would like to belive, the two systems will butt heads directly. As defined, Wii is a small, non-portable entertainment device that provides interactive entertainment via a television, just like PS3. The big difference outside of performace is their price. Every Wii purchased will likely amount to one less PS3 purchased, at least initially. Ditto with Wii games.
At last. Some sign that established Christianity realizes that this ID crap is utter bullshit, and as offensive to mainstream christian doctrine than it is to science. I guess the vatican (correctly) realizes that the "theory" of ID waters down their message as much as it does to that of evolution and rational science.
I think the reason why ID "works" (for lack of a better word) for some people in the US is that it looks, smells, and tastes like good ol' American compromise; a way for evangelical pseudo-neo-luddite christians to have their cake and eat it too. Slap a lab-coat on creationism, and all of a sudden, it gets a strange, albeit sort of legitimacy. In fact, that compromise is perfect for the powers that be. We have a president who, irregardless of what you think of his policies, has to return the reach-around he regularly gets from the evangelical right, and do without compromising the facade that he is a president who rules by consensus. Slipping ID into a speech here or there serves that purpose wonderfully.
Slashdot Mirror
This is starting to remind me of Intel, circa 1990 or early 2000, i.e. an industry leader with impressive marketshare caught off guard by an innovative, nimble competitor. Back then, when the O.G. Athalon was released and broke the Ghz barrier first, it became a case of Intel resorting to a chronic (and until recently, long running) case of me-too-ism where the former leader was forced to watch that competitor announce new breakthroughs, and come up with some response. Sony has made many of the same mistakes, perhaps even worse. Intel at least saw AMD as a viable threat and accellerated its development roadmap to get out of its funk. Sony, on the other hand, sees fit to pretend that the competition isn't there. Sony really needed to define this generation's fight on its own terms to maintain their market share lead. The boys in Tokyo failed miserably, despite a slight theoretical technological advantage and a copious amount of extra time they gained by not launching in the same time window as Microsoft. Coming in a day late and a c-note or two more than your closest competitor, and having a performance lead generally regarded as negligible is bad enough. When coupled with the fact that your new electornic wunderkind has a new-fangled HD-DVD player that most television owners in the U.S. and Europe can't fully take advatage of (but have to pay for anyway) compounds the issue. The fanboy predictions of that the Xbox would be Dreamcast 2 were pointless. Microsoft isn't Sega, and probably won't be with a multi-billion warchest and a hunger for new revenue sources in untapped markets. Remember, Microsoft's business plan upon entering any market is to dip your toe in the water with V1.0, examine the competition, make your tweaks to be competitive, and take market share incrimentally as you make improvements thorugh VX.X. It worked with web browsers, office suites, and database software... The other 800 pound gorilla in the room is Old Man Nintendo, who has successfully proven with the D.S. that an old dog can learn new tricks. The Wii itself can't be ignored, as Kutaragi has more or less implied. Regardless of what Sony and Nintendo would like to belive, the two systems will butt heads directly. As defined, Wii is a small, non-portable entertainment device that provides interactive entertainment via a television, just like PS3. The big difference outside of performace is their price. Every Wii purchased will likely amount to one less PS3 purchased, at least initially. Ditto with Wii games.
At last. Some sign that established Christianity realizes that this ID crap is utter bullshit, and as offensive to mainstream christian doctrine than it is to science. I guess the vatican (correctly) realizes that the "theory" of ID waters down their message as much as it does to that of evolution and rational science. I think the reason why ID "works" (for lack of a better word) for some people in the US is that it looks, smells, and tastes like good ol' American compromise; a way for evangelical pseudo-neo-luddite christians to have their cake and eat it too. Slap a lab-coat on creationism, and all of a sudden, it gets a strange, albeit sort of legitimacy. In fact, that compromise is perfect for the powers that be. We have a president who, irregardless of what you think of his policies, has to return the reach-around he regularly gets from the evangelical right, and do without compromising the facade that he is a president who rules by consensus. Slipping ID into a speech here or there serves that purpose wonderfully.