Stop being an idiot. Where is the money for Sony? What are they going to profit on? Sony spends millions of dollars on designing the PS 3 for a reason. Not so you can run some other game manufactures titles on your mac.
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
The difference here is that Sony can trust Apple to make a version of the software that is fairly safe (i.e. will not play pirated playstation games), which was their objection to Connectix.
Also, Sony lost the connectix lawsuit and bought the emulator. The Xbox 2 will also be powerpc - maybe we could get emulation for that as well...
Ugh, I always get annoyed with arguments about business alliances. The bottom line is whether an alliance is profitable and you would damn well think someone would know. Let's see if I can sum up the arguments-
Pro-
Sony makes money on games. If Apple can run PS3, then sony could sell more games. Apple can be trusted to enforce PS3 DRM.
Con-
Sony needs bragging rights about number of consoles to encourage developers. Most game developers already develop for mac and PS, so they don't care if there is a bigger market for PS.
Personally, I think the questions that need answering are...
1. If Sony can sell a PS3 for $300 or less and it runs on Cell which is a derivative of the powerPC, why wouldn't Apple use it in a mini?
2. If the PS3 is aimed at being more than a game playing machine, capable of Blu-ray High Def playback and possibly DVR features, why would they partner with a company that's stated purpose is to compete for the position as the digital hub in the house?
The reason is that if every Mac could emulate PS3 games then the number of active PS3 games customers would be Totally Unquantifiable which would mean Sony couldn't even bluff the numbers effectively.
That's also assuming that the mac sales are substantial in comparison.. someone said 70 million PS2s were sold.. do you really think macs would substitute more than 5 or 6% of that?
Moreover, I would hardly assume that companies chose the platform to publish their games based on how many units have been sold of the platform. I think it would have more to do with the demographics of the people who buy the games demonstrated by nothing less than the success of similar games in that genre.
For instance, FPSs might sell crappy on the game cube because mostly little kids use them. Whether or not the Cube has sold 500 times more than any other system is irrelevant to EA games when they're thinking if porting BF1942 to the platform.
Quote:
Originally posted by webmail
Stop being an idiot.
Well that's just uncalled for. The fact that you resort to name calling means we could all just start ignoring you now, but I'm bored so I'll go on.
Quote:
Originally posted by webmail
Where is the money for Sony?
That's what we're saying: where is the money for sony?
Is it in the PS3? Well, it never has been, and I doubt they're going to sell the PS3 for $600 to get some sort of margin out of it, so it's obviously in the games.
Quote:
Originally posted by webmail
What are they going to profit on? Sony spends millions of dollars on designing the PS 3 for a reason.
The reason is: to have a better platform to sell their games. The reason is not to sell more PS3s alone, it's to sell a compliment to their games.
Quote:
Originally posted by webmail
Not so you can run some other game manufactures titles on your mac.
I assure you, people who would buy macs to utilize the PS3 capability would not be nearly as numerous as those who buy the PS3.
People buy consoles because they're cheap, and because Windows is annoying and crappy. PCs are infinitely better at gaming in any reasonable aspect--that is, when you have a fast PC that's not bogged down with spyware and mismatched OS/driver versions.
Consoles are a solid medium, usually with 1 predominant model number per company: PS 2, XBox, Game Cube, genesis (hah). Simple, fast enough, solid.
The use of the games IS quantifiable based on sales of the games, which is updated every week by all the console companies (they do this now). Console companies don't often mention the sales of their consoles because their investors would be pointing to the losses and smaller margins due to the small or negative margins on console sales.
The bottom line is: since game sales are all that matters to Sony, would giving mac users a reason to buy PS3 games increase game sales? The answer is yes. Would Apple do most of the work and reap most of the benefits? The answer is also yes.
Moreover, I would hardly assume that companies chose the platform to publish their games based on how many units have been sold of the platform. I think it would have more to do with the demographics of the people who buy the games demonstrated by nothing less than the success of similar games in that genre.
For instance, FPSs might sell crappy on the game cube because mostly little kids use them. Whether or not the Cube has sold 500 times more than any other system is irrelevant to EA games when they're thinking if porting BF1942 to the platform.
This is another reason why the combination is useless. Console gamers are not PC gamers, and vise versa. The markets are largely mutually exclusive. And we already know that Mac users surely aren't gamers.
When you account for the relatively small percentage of gamers that would go for the cross-over... let's use PS2 as an example and theorize a GENEROUS 20% of 70 million, which is 14 million. Cut that down to Apple's theoretical 5% marketshare, you have 700,000 *potential* customers left. Now cut out any of the Apple hardware that would not be able to support the platform because of the system's hardware requirements (something equivalent to a theoretical G6 and current high-end NVidia card would be a base.) Divide that number by 5 for the typical 5 year life cycle of the console, and you've got a forumla for relatively few sales in any given year.
THEN factor in that people aren't going to buy these Macs just because they can play PS3 games. That's the DNA for a platform that is very lax in driving game sales, which you say is the only thing Sony cares about.
If you want to, for kicks, it may be safe to assume that there won't be as many PS3's sold as there were PS2's, since the competition is going to be more fierce next time around (though I would still bet on PS3 having the largest piece of the pie). The numbers shrink even more.
Again you might as well just get a PS3. An emulator is an answer to a question nobody asked, from even a practical standpoint.
The marriage is not natural just because both platforms use PPC chips. Consumers don't care about that. The question is how many would want to? The numbers don't justify the means.
Quote:
Originally posted by slughead
The bottom line is: since game sales are all that matters to Sony, would giving mac users a reason to buy PS3 games increase game sales? The answer is yes. Would Apple do most of the work and reap most of the benefits? The answer is also yes.
Who are you to say that Sony cares about nothing but game sales? It's been explained a few times already that that alone is not true. There are a number of reasons why controlling the platform is important and desireable.
The bottom line is Sony needs to make sure the PS3 is the hardware of choice for games. If people start playing them on Mac emulators, it opens to precedent PC emulators (you can argue technically harder but executives aren't that literate) and then the fear is developers will say "well, x percentage of our customers will play on their PC emulation, why not just make a PC version," because after all no matter how good the emulator it always performs better native, even if it just means it's engineered to the environment and there is no emulation hit. And the game developers prefer a PC sale to a console sale because they don't have to pay a kickback on the PC sale.
And if there is a PC version and a console version, Sony makes less money on kickbacks.
btw your 70million figure is irrelevent. the day Sony starts selling PS3's there will be 0 consoles + whatever they sell that day. It will take years to get back to an installed base of 70million.
I suspect, however, that reality is not your concern and you just want to play PS3 games on a Mac so badly that you will distort reality to convince yourself it will happen. There are many reasons why all the console manufacturers work damn hard to keep their console systems locked down tight, most of which outsiders probably don't even know.
I'm giving up here. You have more than enough at this point and to continue would be nuerotic
The difference here is that Sony can trust Apple to make a version of the software that is fairly safe (i.e. will not play pirated playstation games), which was their objection to Connectix.
Also, Sony lost the connectix lawsuit and bought the emulator. The Xbox 2 will also be powerpc - maybe we could get emulation for that as well...
you forget that this may indeed happen if sony is looking at the OS X for its compputers and Remember Sony is one of the three involved with Cell. Perhaps apple gets the chips, sony gets the os, users get the games sony gets the itms compatability, apple gets the fairplay license, the list goes on and on....
you forget that this may indeed happen if sony is looking at the OS X for its compputers and Remember Sony is one of the three involved with Cell. Perhaps apple gets the chips, sony gets the os, users get the games sony gets the itms compatability, apple gets the fairplay license, the list goes on and on....
You know, after you mentioned the iTMS thing, it struck a bell as to how sony admitted that they missed the boat on internet music. I'll revise my summation-
Pros
1. Sony gets sweet deal on ITMS outlet for it's content and licenses for it's players to play fairplay DRM'd music.
2. Apple gains cred as a gaming platform.
3. Sony gets software for making the playstation a media hub
4. Apple makes a cell mac mini that has the added market appeal of playing PS3 games.
5. PS3 developers see the market for their games expand without having to develop for seperate platform.
6. Switcher effect increases
Cons
1. Sony loses control over it's platform and sells less PS3.
2. Apple loses control over fairplay and sells less ipods.
3. Apple and sony have to share dominance in the emerging media hub/broadband content market.
4. Nearsighted developers focus only on console sales and develop less for sony, despite the larger market for their games.
5. Apple may already get more games developed for it just because both X-box and PS3 are powerPC based, thus nullifying some of the pros.
I don't know, if I had to call it I would say that it's probably unlikely because Steve doesn't seem to like to make partnerships unless the company is bleeding.
apple really wanted to control the creation of content market. Sony partnership would give itms the movie aspect and apple would step out in front for content creation/delivery this is a huge market and the next big leap in the inernet. If QT becomes the dominant force driving content delivery from Sony HDTV to SonyErricson phones to the next gen video players, this market would surely be as lucrative and monopolistic as the
desktop OS market.
With a partnership with sony and IBM
IBM gets - $ for every chip they make and $for every apple terminal they sell.
in the PC end with lenovo they lost money. here it is a positive revenue stream
I think something really big could be happening with Apple and Sony. Both companies have problems with the current wintel computer market - Apple are searching hard for new markets to sell into, Sony dont want to be paying the Microsoft tax.
Apple need Sony, as a content provider, to drive itms, and in the future to drive the movie store.
Sony need Apple to provide a compelling alternative to Microsoft.
I predict that Sony are going to use OS X as the operating system for the playstation 3, and the cell workstation they are going to produce. I also predict that the Mac Mini is a first step testing the market for a really new Mac, the playstation compatible Mac. It will look just like a mini, but use a cell cpu, and play PS3 games.
[edit] whoops, hadnt read the posts since last night that say exactly the same thing.
[pps] Apple could start a game download service. They could actually be successful at the 'phantom' business model. Dont forget that the cell cpu has built in DRM hardware, I think piracy will be tricky.
It doesn't, but having a fair amount of inside knowledge does. I'll bet anyone on this forum $500 that sony will not release PS3 games to run on mac in emulation or in any playstation form. Any takers?
Quote:
Originally posted by admactanium
how does attending macworld with the other thousands of people who have attended make one an expert on the internal workings of apple and sony?
It doesn't, but having a fair amount of inside knowledge does. I'll bet anyone on this forum $500 that sony will not release PS3 games to run on mac in emulation or in any playstation form. Any takers?
The Xbox has a Pentium processor, Hard Drive, Windows Operating system, N-Vidia graphics card etc. IT'S A PC, but you can't play Xbox games on a PC...Why?
Because consoles are sold cheap, console makers get their money from licensing fees paid by developers anxious to gain access to the console's audience...Which, by the way, is larger, more stable (all the same platform), and easier to market/sell to (you only compete with other games) than the PC or Mac.
Games on the PC are cheaper than the Xbox...Why? because the developers DO NOT pay a licensing fee to either Windows (MS) or the computer maker, those companies actually make money selling the hardware/peripherals and their own software.
PS3 games on a Mac would leave a develop asking: Why am I now paying Sony a licensing fee to reach the Mac audience? They wouldn't. Sony wouldn't be interested either, since they lose their market (to convince developers) since they would not be able to effectively prove the size of the audience (counting consoles is a LOT easier than counting the % of Mac users who might also play games), and there fixed platform (all machines of the same spec) in favor of "dear developer, there are 5,321,000 possible Mac configurations: make a game that supports all of them without sacfricing the quality of the actual PS3-hardware version.
Is any of this making sense?
Now, I do believe that Sony and Apple will partner, and that it could include the PS3, but it's more likely that Apple will license a specialized version of OSX for media center apps to drive the PS3. Think about it. Sony's biggest console competitor is Microsoft (maker of Home Media software), and MS will be releasing a multi-function Home Media Xbox Next. Sony won't want to use MS, because they would actually be giving money, credence, and visibility to a direct competitor. They could make their own, but it's not their strength and there is a HUGE Mac audience (surrounding the Mac Mini and iPod) that might love the idea of a PS3/Mac Media center.
1. If Sony can sell a PS3 for $300 or less and it runs on Cell which is a derivative of the powerPC, why wouldn't Apple use it in a mini?
The first PS3s will probably be loss leaders (most consoles are), as Sony make most of their Playstation related profit money from software. Only later are they likely to make money from console sales. Apple, on the other hand, make most of their profit from hardware sales and iMac mini (and future relatives) aren't prime candidates for juicy additional revenue from software sales.
If this were possible (in a business sense), we would have been playing GameCube games long before now. Nintendo would sell more games and make more money, etc., etc. Yet it has not happened, and probably won't.
Folks, the console market is growing, and the personal computer market is shrinking. The console makers want to move more computer functions to the consoles, such as email, web, word processing - not the other way around.
Keep that dream alive cubist. I do not see the PC ever going away. Unless there is a better way to interact with a computer for everything the PC will always be there.
They still need programming, they need... Ah forget it. It's a freaking huge long list that I'm not going to write, but the only thing that's going to take a keyboard, mouse, and desktop away from me is a better way to interact with every possible thing I do on a computer, and there is one easy way to do it universally, and that is the keyboard, and the mouse. The desk is still the preferred chosen workspace after 100's of years in existence. It has moved right in with grace to the computing age. Console do it all systems for the home I'm sure will exist within the next 50 years, but they'll never be a complete replacement for the PC.
Comments
Originally posted by e1618978
The difference here is that Sony can trust Apple to make a version of the software that is fairly safe (i.e. will not play pirated playstation games), which was their objection to Connectix.
Also, Sony lost the connectix lawsuit and bought the emulator. The Xbox 2 will also be powerpc - maybe we could get emulation for that as well...
Pro-
Sony makes money on games. If Apple can run PS3, then sony could sell more games. Apple can be trusted to enforce PS3 DRM.
Con-
Sony needs bragging rights about number of consoles to encourage developers. Most game developers already develop for mac and PS, so they don't care if there is a bigger market for PS.
Personally, I think the questions that need answering are...
1. If Sony can sell a PS3 for $300 or less and it runs on Cell which is a derivative of the powerPC, why wouldn't Apple use it in a mini?
2. If the PS3 is aimed at being more than a game playing machine, capable of Blu-ray High Def playback and possibly DVR features, why would they partner with a company that's stated purpose is to compete for the position as the digital hub in the house?
Originally posted by ChevalierMalFet
The reason is that if every Mac could emulate PS3 games then the number of active PS3 games customers would be Totally Unquantifiable which would mean Sony couldn't even bluff the numbers effectively.
That's also assuming that the mac sales are substantial in comparison.. someone said 70 million PS2s were sold.. do you really think macs would substitute more than 5 or 6% of that?
Moreover, I would hardly assume that companies chose the platform to publish their games based on how many units have been sold of the platform. I think it would have more to do with the demographics of the people who buy the games demonstrated by nothing less than the success of similar games in that genre.
For instance, FPSs might sell crappy on the game cube because mostly little kids use them. Whether or not the Cube has sold 500 times more than any other system is irrelevant to EA games when they're thinking if porting BF1942 to the platform.
Originally posted by webmail
Stop being an idiot.
Well that's just uncalled for. The fact that you resort to name calling means we could all just start ignoring you now, but I'm bored so I'll go on.
Originally posted by webmail
Where is the money for Sony?
That's what we're saying: where is the money for sony?
Is it in the PS3? Well, it never has been, and I doubt they're going to sell the PS3 for $600 to get some sort of margin out of it, so it's obviously in the games.
Originally posted by webmail
What are they going to profit on? Sony spends millions of dollars on designing the PS 3 for a reason.
The reason is: to have a better platform to sell their games. The reason is not to sell more PS3s alone, it's to sell a compliment to their games.
Originally posted by webmail
Not so you can run some other game manufactures titles on your mac.
I assure you, people who would buy macs to utilize the PS3 capability would not be nearly as numerous as those who buy the PS3.
People buy consoles because they're cheap, and because Windows is annoying and crappy. PCs are infinitely better at gaming in any reasonable aspect--that is, when you have a fast PC that's not bogged down with spyware and mismatched OS/driver versions.
Consoles are a solid medium, usually with 1 predominant model number per company: PS 2, XBox, Game Cube, genesis (hah). Simple, fast enough, solid.
The use of the games IS quantifiable based on sales of the games, which is updated every week by all the console companies (they do this now). Console companies don't often mention the sales of their consoles because their investors would be pointing to the losses and smaller margins due to the small or negative margins on console sales.
The bottom line is: since game sales are all that matters to Sony, would giving mac users a reason to buy PS3 games increase game sales? The answer is yes. Would Apple do most of the work and reap most of the benefits? The answer is also yes.
Originally posted by slughead
Moreover, I would hardly assume that companies chose the platform to publish their games based on how many units have been sold of the platform. I think it would have more to do with the demographics of the people who buy the games demonstrated by nothing less than the success of similar games in that genre.
For instance, FPSs might sell crappy on the game cube because mostly little kids use them. Whether or not the Cube has sold 500 times more than any other system is irrelevant to EA games when they're thinking if porting BF1942 to the platform.
This is another reason why the combination is useless. Console gamers are not PC gamers, and vise versa. The markets are largely mutually exclusive. And we already know that Mac users surely aren't gamers.
When you account for the relatively small percentage of gamers that would go for the cross-over... let's use PS2 as an example and theorize a GENEROUS 20% of 70 million, which is 14 million. Cut that down to Apple's theoretical 5% marketshare, you have 700,000 *potential* customers left. Now cut out any of the Apple hardware that would not be able to support the platform because of the system's hardware requirements (something equivalent to a theoretical G6 and current high-end NVidia card would be a base.) Divide that number by 5 for the typical 5 year life cycle of the console, and you've got a forumla for relatively few sales in any given year.
THEN factor in that people aren't going to buy these Macs just because they can play PS3 games. That's the DNA for a platform that is very lax in driving game sales, which you say is the only thing Sony cares about.
If you want to, for kicks, it may be safe to assume that there won't be as many PS3's sold as there were PS2's, since the competition is going to be more fierce next time around (though I would still bet on PS3 having the largest piece of the pie). The numbers shrink even more.
Again you might as well just get a PS3. An emulator is an answer to a question nobody asked, from even a practical standpoint.
The marriage is not natural just because both platforms use PPC chips. Consumers don't care about that. The question is how many would want to? The numbers don't justify the means.
Originally posted by slughead
The bottom line is: since game sales are all that matters to Sony, would giving mac users a reason to buy PS3 games increase game sales? The answer is yes. Would Apple do most of the work and reap most of the benefits? The answer is also yes.
Who are you to say that Sony cares about nothing but game sales? It's been explained a few times already that that alone is not true. There are a number of reasons why controlling the platform is important and desireable.
And if there is a PC version and a console version, Sony makes less money on kickbacks.
btw your 70million figure is irrelevent. the day Sony starts selling PS3's there will be 0 consoles + whatever they sell that day. It will take years to get back to an installed base of 70million.
I suspect, however, that reality is not your concern and you just want to play PS3 games on a Mac so badly that you will distort reality to convince yourself it will happen. There are many reasons why all the console manufacturers work damn hard to keep their console systems locked down tight, most of which outsiders probably don't even know.
I'm giving up here. You have more than enough at this point and to continue would be nuerotic
Originally posted by e1618978
Your argument is a little disingenuous - Apple ships 2 million computers a year - Sony ships 8 million playstations.
... Apple ships over 1 million machines per quarter.
Originally posted by e1618978
The difference here is that Sony can trust Apple to make a version of the software that is fairly safe (i.e. will not play pirated playstation games), which was their objection to Connectix.
Also, Sony lost the connectix lawsuit and bought the emulator. The Xbox 2 will also be powerpc - maybe we could get emulation for that as well...
you forget that this may indeed happen if sony is looking at the OS X for its compputers and Remember Sony is one of the three involved with Cell. Perhaps apple gets the chips, sony gets the os, users get the games sony gets the itms compatability, apple gets the fairplay license, the list goes on and on....
Originally posted by TednDi
you forget that this may indeed happen if sony is looking at the OS X for its compputers and Remember Sony is one of the three involved with Cell. Perhaps apple gets the chips, sony gets the os, users get the games sony gets the itms compatability, apple gets the fairplay license, the list goes on and on....
You know, after you mentioned the iTMS thing, it struck a bell as to how sony admitted that they missed the boat on internet music. I'll revise my summation-
Pros
1. Sony gets sweet deal on ITMS outlet for it's content and licenses for it's players to play fairplay DRM'd music.
2. Apple gains cred as a gaming platform.
3. Sony gets software for making the playstation a media hub
4. Apple makes a cell mac mini that has the added market appeal of playing PS3 games.
5. PS3 developers see the market for their games expand without having to develop for seperate platform.
6. Switcher effect increases
Cons
1. Sony loses control over it's platform and sells less PS3.
2. Apple loses control over fairplay and sells less ipods.
3. Apple and sony have to share dominance in the emerging media hub/broadband content market.
4. Nearsighted developers focus only on console sales and develop less for sony, despite the larger market for their games.
5. Apple may already get more games developed for it just because both X-box and PS3 are powerPC based, thus nullifying some of the pros.
I don't know, if I had to call it I would say that it's probably unlikely because Steve doesn't seem to like to make partnerships unless the company is bleeding.
apple really wanted to control the creation of content market. Sony partnership would give itms the movie aspect and apple would step out in front for content creation/delivery this is a huge market and the next big leap in the inernet. If QT becomes the dominant force driving content delivery from Sony HDTV to SonyErricson phones to the next gen video players, this market would surely be as lucrative and monopolistic as the
desktop OS market.
With a partnership with sony and IBM
IBM gets - $ for every chip they make and $for every apple terminal they sell.
in the PC end with lenovo they lost money. here it is a positive revenue stream
Apple gets huge foray into enterprise market
Sony gets - see above
Apple need Sony, as a content provider, to drive itms, and in the future to drive the movie store.
Sony need Apple to provide a compelling alternative to Microsoft.
I predict that Sony are going to use OS X as the operating system for the playstation 3, and the cell workstation they are going to produce. I also predict that the Mac Mini is a first step testing the market for a really new Mac, the playstation compatible Mac. It will look just like a mini, but use a cell cpu, and play PS3 games.
[edit] whoops, hadnt read the posts since last night that say exactly the same thing.
[pps] Apple could start a game download service. They could actually be successful at the 'phantom' business model. Dont forget that the cell cpu has built in DRM hardware, I think piracy will be tricky.
Originally posted by e1618978
I predict that Sony will buy Apple.
if anything it would be a merger not an aquisition. Apple and sony are roughly the same in size and price.
aapl ~2,514,000 shares at $80 per share
sny ~ 4,525,000 shares at ~$37.00 per share.
my guess is that there will be strategic partnerships announced.
Originally posted by admactanium
how does attending macworld with the other thousands of people who have attended make one an expert on the internal workings of apple and sony?
Originally posted by webmail
It doesn't, but having a fair amount of inside knowledge does. I'll bet anyone on this forum $500 that sony will not release PS3 games to run on mac in emulation or in any playstation form. Any takers?
As long as that's 500:1 ....
Because consoles are sold cheap, console makers get their money from licensing fees paid by developers anxious to gain access to the console's audience...Which, by the way, is larger, more stable (all the same platform), and easier to market/sell to (you only compete with other games) than the PC or Mac.
Games on the PC are cheaper than the Xbox...Why? because the developers DO NOT pay a licensing fee to either Windows (MS) or the computer maker, those companies actually make money selling the hardware/peripherals and their own software.
PS3 games on a Mac would leave a develop asking: Why am I now paying Sony a licensing fee to reach the Mac audience? They wouldn't. Sony wouldn't be interested either, since they lose their market (to convince developers) since they would not be able to effectively prove the size of the audience (counting consoles is a LOT easier than counting the % of Mac users who might also play games), and there fixed platform (all machines of the same spec) in favor of "dear developer, there are 5,321,000 possible Mac configurations: make a game that supports all of them without sacfricing the quality of the actual PS3-hardware version.
Is any of this making sense?
Now, I do believe that Sony and Apple will partner, and that it could include the PS3, but it's more likely that Apple will license a specialized version of OSX for media center apps to drive the PS3. Think about it. Sony's biggest console competitor is Microsoft (maker of Home Media software), and MS will be releasing a multi-function Home Media Xbox Next. Sony won't want to use MS, because they would actually be giving money, credence, and visibility to a direct competitor. They could make their own, but it's not their strength and there is a HUGE Mac audience (surrounding the Mac Mini and iPod) that might love the idea of a PS3/Mac Media center.
1. If Sony can sell a PS3 for $300 or less and it runs on Cell which is a derivative of the powerPC, why wouldn't Apple use it in a mini?
The first PS3s will probably be loss leaders (most consoles are), as Sony make most of their Playstation related profit money from software. Only later are they likely to make money from console sales. Apple, on the other hand, make most of their profit from hardware sales and iMac mini (and future relatives) aren't prime candidates for juicy additional revenue from software sales.
Folks, the console market is growing, and the personal computer market is shrinking. The console makers want to move more computer functions to the consoles, such as email, web, word processing - not the other way around.
Originally posted by cubist
Folks, the console market is growing, and the personal computer market is shrinking.
Nope! absolutely wrong!
Both markets are expanding, it's just that consoles are expanding faster.
There is absolutely NO reason why both can't coexist and expand the general market for computing devices.
Even the PC gaming market has been expanding for 20 years straight.
They still need programming, they need... Ah forget it. It's a freaking huge long list that I'm not going to write, but the only thing that's going to take a keyboard, mouse, and desktop away from me is a better way to interact with every possible thing I do on a computer, and there is one easy way to do it universally, and that is the keyboard, and the mouse. The desk is still the preferred chosen workspace after 100's of years in existence. It has moved right in with grace to the computing age. Console do it all systems for the home I'm sure will exist within the next 50 years, but they'll never be a complete replacement for the PC.