So what? Who spends all day looking at their game console? It's probably tucked out of the way some where.
In some ways, this is what Apple TV should have been. Apple was positioned to do the "one box to control them all" game a long time ago, but fell short. With only minor modifications, Apple TV could have been the center of your entertainment system and done all the things that XBox 1 does (gaming, music, movies, TV, Internet, etc).
It's not a bad product in concept. It will be interesting to see how well they've actually met their goals.
From XBox 360 to XBox 1.. sounds like a step backwards in the marketing department.
I am amused however that Microsoft will be paying Sony royalites by using Blu-Ray.
Xbox 720 would sound like a step backwards since it's the poor-man's HD. I quite like the chosen name, the look of the device, and it's stated functionality. What it will be able to offer may be a different issue altogether.
And that list doesn't include the patent pools for the MPEG4/H.264 video encoding and AACS data encryption technologies. Here too, MS will wind up paying royalties to Apple, which holds several of the H.264 patents.
As does Apple to Microsoft since each of them are both licensors and licensees of the patent pool. What a silly statement. Also HD DVD, of which Microsoft made a drive for the 360, supported H.264 and used AACS so neither of those are something new. The 360 also natively supports playing H.264 video. Lastly, Microsoft has also shipped an H.264 decoder in Windows since Vista. So to try to act like them licensing the H.264 as being something new is silly and even more so when you try to use it as some sort of pro-Apple victory.
Just watched the entire presentation. I'm sorry, but is there a massive amount of people desperate to play games and watch live TV simultaneously with a split screen, or watch TV and skype? It just seems a very small percentage of people would be even mildly interested in this. The voice control looks cool. Games wise, all we saw are graphical updates to existing franchises. The console also looks like an ugly HTPC that one can build from newegg, also looks massive. It also doesn't seem to me like the market for people who will buy an xbox are the ones that will be watching live tv.
For all those that hate the black box design what do you think looks and works better for the HEC? I think the Nexus Q, Asus Qube, and Boxee Box, and Playstation 3 are horrible designs for an HEC.
Xbox 720 would sound like a step backwards since it's the poor-man's HD. I quite like the chosen name, the look of the device, and it's stated functionality. What it will be able to offer may be a different issue altogether.
If it can handle it, maybe XBox 4k. But that might lead to people thinking it's not for them if they don't have 4kTV.
Hopefully Microsoft has learned and will build better hardware. Xbox's to date have been POS's. Previous versions were loud and croaked because they ran so hot.
A large part of the package is the integrated TV functionality, which in turn relies on an integrated program guide. I wonder how or if they plan to offer that outside the US. Is that what the 300 K servers worldwide are for? Outside the US, a lot of TV comes via satellite, how is this device going to integrate and work that - if at all - given I suspect it's TV integration is reliant on cable fed TV as seems common in the US.
I don't suppose your TV content will actually be coming via Xbox live from those servers in a sort of on-demand basis?
Hopefully Microsoft has learned and will build better hardware. Xbox's to date have been POS's. Previous versions were loud and croaked because they ran so hot.
Ah yes. The infamous Red Ring of Death. The main reason why Xbox lost $$$ billions for years.
The division is finally above a break-even run rate, but they're still deep in the hole.
Looking forward to it. I've had my Xbox 360 so long that all of my controllers are onto their second or third rechargeable battery pack. Gaming is one of the few areas where Microsoft is doing well.
has anyone on the web noticed that, with its typical marketing flim flam, MS has named it XBox One when it's really XBox 3?
There's a reason why they named it ONE just like they named Xbox 2 the Xbox 360.
Think of it this way. If an Xbox 2 and PS3 were sitting on displays in a store next to each other ....to the unknowing consumer the Xbox 2 would seem inferior by name
Alone.
I realized there would be a naming problem before the announced the 360.
This is why the named it Xbox 360 vs PS3. Sure they have there little Moto and their metaphorical explanations but the real drive is to avoid a disadvantage name wise.
Now we have the PS4, and obviously you can't name the new Xbox ...Xbox 3 ...so naturally they intelligently named it Xbox ONE....
Errrrrr......wait what?
Huh?
Well at least it's not a numerical branding of 1.
Maybe they should name it Xbox alONE?
After all 90% of the time that's what we are when playing games.
The secret to TV is finding what you (the user) wants to watch.
If I want to watch hockey or basketball playoffs, I shouldn't have to hunt around to find what "station" it's on. I shouldn't have to know that on Time Warner, TNT is 1302 and on Uverse it's 1412. I should just be able to tell it to turn on "Red Wings hockey"
This is the biggest obstacle that the user must overcome - finding what's on (or what I want to watch) quickly and easily. If XBox 1 doesn't do that, it's just another gimmick.
Hopefully Apple knows this.
Notably missing from the article is any mention of content partnerships, and this is where the cable/satellite companies keep things under lock and key. Without content, the Xbox One will merely add to the balkanized clutter that typifies most living rooms.
Sports in particular is where cable/satellite providers have setup their beachhead. The pro leagues and college conferences have gotten in bed with the content providers, who demand exclusivity in return for the huge checks they write; and the outcome of these ten-figure carriage deals is that any streaming platforms need to go through the cable/satellite providers. This is why all of the streaming sports services still blackout local teams.
If the Xbox One limits the content to streaming video, then its role as a home entertainment hub won't go much further than the other set top boxes. Content is king, and unless MS announces a major breakthrough or partnership of some kind, the Xbox One will remain a gaming console that replicates some functionality found in other set top boxes.
In much the same way that Apple had to make their veritable deal with the devil (AT&T) in order for the iPhone to gain a market foothold, I think any breakthrough Apple TV product will also need to carry along some sort of deal with the cable/satellite providers. If Apple gains access to the full slate of content from those providers, combines this with their existing content ecosystem, and wraps it into a sleek UHDTV with an intuitive interface (which isn't a high hurdle compared to the crap interfaces used by most set top boxes and TVs), then that could well be a game-changing product.
Notably missing from the article is any mention of content partnerships, and this is where the cable/satellite companies keep things under lock and key. Without content, the Xbox One will merely add to the balkanized clutter that typifies most living rooms.
Sports in particular is where cable/satellite providers have setup their beachhead. The pro leagues and college conferences have gotten in bed with the content providers, who demand exclusivity in return for the huge checks they write; and the outcome of these ten-figure carriage deals is that any streaming platforms need to go through the cable/satellite providers. This is why all of the streaming sports services still blackout local teams.
If the Xbox One limits the content to streaming video, then its role as a home entertainment hub won't go much further than the other set top boxes. Content is king, and unless MS announces a major breakthrough or partnership of some kind, the Xbox One will remain a gaming console that replicates some functionality found in other set top boxes.
In much the same way that Apple had to make their veritable deal with the devil (AT&T) in order for the iPhone to gain a market foothold, I think any breakthrough Apple TV product will also need to carry along some sort of deal with the cable/satellite providers. If Apple gains access to the full slate of content from those providers, combines this with their existing content ecosystem, and wraps it into a sleek UHDTV with an intuitive interface (which isn't a high hurdle compared to the crap interfaces used by most set top boxes and TVs), then that could well be a game-changing product.
MS has had a deal with AT&T for years now where the xbox 360 can act as the cable box. live TV is streamed. I think the same for FIOS as well.
i've read stuff over the last year that cable companies don't want to buy a new generation of cable boxes and are going the route of the customer buying the device and streaming live TV
except for sports, news and other live events all TV is streamed so its not that big a deal
Notably missing from the article is any mention of content partnerships, and this is where the cable/satellite companies keep things under lock and key. Without content, the Xbox One will merely add to the balkanized clutter that typifies most living rooms.
I don't follow. If the device has an HDMI passthrough then it can be always connected and ready to overlay on your cable/sat feed or take over completely with a touch of a button. This is what I've been saying Apple should have done with the Apple TV from day one to specifically avoid being an ignored device that requires an input change on the monitor before it can be utilized.
As does Apple to Microsoft since each of them are both licensors and licensees of the patent pool. What a silly statement. Also HD DVD, of which Microsoft made a drive for the 360, supported H.264 and used AACS so neither of those are something new. The 360 also natively supports playing H.264 video. Lastly, Microsoft has also shipped an H.264 decoder in Windows since Vista. So to try to act like them licensing the H.264 as being something new is silly and even more so when you try to use it as some sort of pro-Apple victory.
HD-DVD, nice.
How does pointing out that including Blu-ray with the Xbox One will generate royalty payments to a whole consortium of companies other than Sony equate to "some sort of pro-Apple victory"? Help me out because I'm obviously not as good at trolling as you purport to be.
I'm losing track here. Just how many times has Microsoft released a product intended to "become the center of a consumer's living room entertainment experience" now exactly?
Comments
So what? Who spends all day looking at their game console? It's probably tucked out of the way some where.
In some ways, this is what Apple TV should have been. Apple was positioned to do the "one box to control them all" game a long time ago, but fell short. With only minor modifications, Apple TV could have been the center of your entertainment system and done all the things that XBox 1 does (gaming, music, movies, TV, Internet, etc).
It's not a bad product in concept. It will be interesting to see how well they've actually met their goals.
Xbox 720 would sound like a step backwards since it's the poor-man's HD. I quite like the chosen name, the look of the device, and it's stated functionality. What it will be able to offer may be a different issue altogether.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
And that list doesn't include the patent pools for the MPEG4/H.264 video encoding and AACS data encryption technologies. Here too, MS will wind up paying royalties to Apple, which holds several of the H.264 patents.
As does Apple to Microsoft since each of them are both licensors and licensees of the patent pool. What a silly statement. Also HD DVD, of which Microsoft made a drive for the 360, supported H.264 and used AACS so neither of those are something new. The 360 also natively supports playing H.264 video. Lastly, Microsoft has also shipped an H.264 decoder in Windows since Vista. So to try to act like them licensing the H.264 as being something new is silly and even more so when you try to use it as some sort of pro-Apple victory.
Just watched the entire presentation. I'm sorry, but is there a massive amount of people desperate to play games and watch live TV simultaneously with a split screen, or watch TV and skype? It just seems a very small percentage of people would be even mildly interested in this. The voice control looks cool. Games wise, all we saw are graphical updates to existing franchises. The console also looks like an ugly HTPC that one can build from newegg, also looks massive. It also doesn't seem to me like the market for people who will buy an xbox are the ones that will be watching live tv.
If it can handle it, maybe XBox 4k. But that might lead to people thinking it's not for them if they don't have 4kTV.
Or maybe XBox Unity.
Hopefully Microsoft has learned and will build better hardware. Xbox's to date have been POS's. Previous versions were loud and croaked because they ran so hot.
Looks like NT to me. As in "Nice Try."
Typical Microsoft mash-up-features-into-a-product approach.
Microsoft: "The early bird gets the worm."
Apple: "The second mouse gets the cheese."
A large part of the package is the integrated TV functionality, which in turn relies on an integrated program guide. I wonder how or if they plan to offer that outside the US. Is that what the 300 K servers worldwide are for? Outside the US, a lot of TV comes via satellite, how is this device going to integrate and work that - if at all - given I suspect it's TV integration is reliant on cable fed TV as seems common in the US.
I don't suppose your TV content will actually be coming via Xbox live from those servers in a sort of on-demand basis?
Originally Posted by rgmenke
Hopefully Microsoft has learned and will build better hardware. Xbox's to date have been POS's. Previous versions were loud and croaked because they ran so hot.
Ah yes. The infamous Red Ring of Death. The main reason why Xbox lost $$$ billions for years.
The division is finally above a break-even run rate, but they're still deep in the hole.
Looking forward to it. I've had my Xbox 360 so long that all of my controllers are onto their second or third rechargeable battery pack. Gaming is one of the few areas where Microsoft is doing well.
There's a reason why they named it ONE just like they named Xbox 2 the Xbox 360.
Think of it this way. If an Xbox 2 and PS3 were sitting on displays in a store next to each other ....to the unknowing consumer the Xbox 2 would seem inferior by name
Alone.
I realized there would be a naming problem before the announced the 360.
This is why the named it Xbox 360 vs PS3. Sure they have there little Moto and their metaphorical explanations but the real drive is to avoid a disadvantage name wise.
Now we have the PS4, and obviously you can't name the new Xbox ...Xbox 3 ...so naturally they intelligently named it Xbox ONE....
Errrrrr......wait what?
Huh?
Well at least it's not a numerical branding of 1.
Maybe they should name it Xbox alONE?
After all 90% of the time that's what we are when playing games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrboba1
The secret to TV is finding what you (the user) wants to watch.
If I want to watch hockey or basketball playoffs, I shouldn't have to hunt around to find what "station" it's on. I shouldn't have to know that on Time Warner, TNT is 1302 and on Uverse it's 1412. I should just be able to tell it to turn on "Red Wings hockey"
This is the biggest obstacle that the user must overcome - finding what's on (or what I want to watch) quickly and easily. If XBox 1 doesn't do that, it's just another gimmick.
Hopefully Apple knows this.
Notably missing from the article is any mention of content partnerships, and this is where the cable/satellite companies keep things under lock and key. Without content, the Xbox One will merely add to the balkanized clutter that typifies most living rooms.
Sports in particular is where cable/satellite providers have setup their beachhead. The pro leagues and college conferences have gotten in bed with the content providers, who demand exclusivity in return for the huge checks they write; and the outcome of these ten-figure carriage deals is that any streaming platforms need to go through the cable/satellite providers. This is why all of the streaming sports services still blackout local teams.
If the Xbox One limits the content to streaming video, then its role as a home entertainment hub won't go much further than the other set top boxes. Content is king, and unless MS announces a major breakthrough or partnership of some kind, the Xbox One will remain a gaming console that replicates some functionality found in other set top boxes.
In much the same way that Apple had to make their veritable deal with the devil (AT&T) in order for the iPhone to gain a market foothold, I think any breakthrough Apple TV product will also need to carry along some sort of deal with the cable/satellite providers. If Apple gains access to the full slate of content from those providers, combines this with their existing content ecosystem, and wraps it into a sleek UHDTV with an intuitive interface (which isn't a high hurdle compared to the crap interfaces used by most set top boxes and TVs), then that could well be a game-changing product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
Notably missing from the article is any mention of content partnerships, and this is where the cable/satellite companies keep things under lock and key. Without content, the Xbox One will merely add to the balkanized clutter that typifies most living rooms.
Sports in particular is where cable/satellite providers have setup their beachhead. The pro leagues and college conferences have gotten in bed with the content providers, who demand exclusivity in return for the huge checks they write; and the outcome of these ten-figure carriage deals is that any streaming platforms need to go through the cable/satellite providers. This is why all of the streaming sports services still blackout local teams.
If the Xbox One limits the content to streaming video, then its role as a home entertainment hub won't go much further than the other set top boxes. Content is king, and unless MS announces a major breakthrough or partnership of some kind, the Xbox One will remain a gaming console that replicates some functionality found in other set top boxes.
In much the same way that Apple had to make their veritable deal with the devil (AT&T) in order for the iPhone to gain a market foothold, I think any breakthrough Apple TV product will also need to carry along some sort of deal with the cable/satellite providers. If Apple gains access to the full slate of content from those providers, combines this with their existing content ecosystem, and wraps it into a sleek UHDTV with an intuitive interface (which isn't a high hurdle compared to the crap interfaces used by most set top boxes and TVs), then that could well be a game-changing product.
MS has had a deal with AT&T for years now where the xbox 360 can act as the cable box. live TV is streamed. I think the same for FIOS as well.
i've read stuff over the last year that cable companies don't want to buy a new generation of cable boxes and are going the route of the customer buying the device and streaming live TV
except for sports, news and other live events all TV is streamed so its not that big a deal
I don't follow. If the device has an HDMI passthrough then it can be always connected and ready to overlay on your cable/sat feed or take over completely with a touch of a button. This is what I've been saying Apple should have done with the Apple TV from day one to specifically avoid being an ignored device that requires an input change on the monitor before it can be utilized.
OMG, lol.. Sony's stock shot up 8% after the XBox One announcement.
Kid "I have a 30 kill streak let me finish this map"
Mom "Xbox Off!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applelunatic
As does Apple to Microsoft since each of them are both licensors and licensees of the patent pool. What a silly statement. Also HD DVD, of which Microsoft made a drive for the 360, supported H.264 and used AACS so neither of those are something new. The 360 also natively supports playing H.264 video. Lastly, Microsoft has also shipped an H.264 decoder in Windows since Vista. So to try to act like them licensing the H.264 as being something new is silly and even more so when you try to use it as some sort of pro-Apple victory.
HD-DVD, nice.
How does pointing out that including Blu-ray with the Xbox One will generate royalty payments to a whole consortium of companies other than Sony equate to "some sort of pro-Apple victory"? Help me out because I'm obviously not as good at trolling as you purport to be.
Microsoft will be listening in on our family room conversations? Cool!