Somehow it seems that Nintendo has understood some basic truth about
computing: It's not processing power that sells. Consider this:

  Xbox 360: Triple-core CPU at 3.2 GHz, 512 MB of RAM.
  Units sold: 30 million.

  PS3: A 3.2 GHz Cell microprocessor, which consists of one PowerPC-based
core and six SPE cores, 256 MB of RAM.
  Units sold: 22 million.

  Nintendo Wii: A single-core CPU at 729 MHz, 88 MB of RAM.
  Units sold: 50 million.


  PlayStation Portable: 333 MHz CPU, 32 MB of RAM (plus 2 MB of GPU RAM).
  Units sold: 50 million.

  Nintendo DS: A 67 MHz main CPU and a 33 MHz coprocessor, 4 MB of RAM.
  Units sold: 100 million.


  On a different note, North-American release of:

NES: 1985 (1986 in Canada)
SNES: 1991
N64: 1996
GameCube: 2001
Wii: 2006

  Do we see a pattern here?-)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Somehow it seems that Nintendo has understood some basic truth about
> computing: It's not processing power that sells.

Depends who you're selling to.

A basic thruth might be that it's what you can do with the device that 
sells - and for "typical" uses, more processing power usually means you 
can do more stuff. But not always...

> Consider this:
> 
>   Xbox 360: Triple-core CPU at 3.2 GHz, 512 MB of RAM.
>   Units sold: 30 million.
> 
>   PS3: A 3.2 GHz Cell microprocessor, which consists of one PowerPC-based
> core and six SPE cores, 256 MB of RAM.
>   Units sold: 22 million.
> 
>   Nintendo Wii: A single-core CPU at 729 MHz, 88 MB of RAM.
>   Units sold: 50 million.
> 
> 
>   PlayStation Portable: 333 MHz CPU, 32 MB of RAM (plus 2 MB of GPU RAM).
>   Units sold: 50 million.
> 
>   Nintendo DS: A 67 MHz main CPU and a 33 MHz coprocessor, 4 MB of RAM.
>   Units sold: 100 million.

I would suggest cost might be a factor too. ;-)

A Fiat Punto is a rubbish car, but they sell way more of those than 
(say) the Ferrari Enzo. [The Enzo might also be rubbish, I don't know...]

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I would suggest cost might be a factor too. ;-)

> A Fiat Punto is a rubbish car, but they sell way more of those than 
> (say) the Ferrari Enzo. [The Enzo might also be rubbish, I don't know...]

  Except that the PSP and the DS cost about the same. I haven't followed
the pricing of the other consoles, though.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> I would suggest cost might be a factor too. ;-)
> 
>> A Fiat Punto is a rubbish car, but they sell way more of those than 
>> (say) the Ferrari Enzo. [The Enzo might also be rubbish, I don't know...]
> 
>   Except that the PSP and the DS cost about the same. I haven't followed
> the pricing of the other consoles, though.

Hmm, interesting.

Of course, being consoles, game availability is probably a big deal 
too... [I haven't followed this either.] A console with no games is a 
very expensive paper weight.

Post a reply to this message

>  Except that the PSP and the DS cost about the same.

I would imagine the 2nd screen in the DS cancels out with the higher spec 
CPU and memory in the PSP, which is why they are about the same price.

> I haven't followed
> the pricing of the other consoles, though.

Well when I got my consoles, the Wii was 250 euro and the PS3 was 400 euro. 
Now it seems the Wii is 235 and the PS3 is 370 euro.

I think one of the reasons the Wii has done so well is because it was aimed 
at people who wouldn't normally buy a console.  I don't think the Wii has 
taken much business away from the PS3 or XBOX, they just exploited a new 
market, a market where the people don't care about CPU specs at all, and 
Nintendo knew this.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Except that the PSP and the DS cost about the same. I haven't followed
> the pricing of the other consoles, though.

Are you talking retail price, or construction cost? A lot of these game 
consoles are very locked down because you don't pay the full price of the 
console up front. Same with phones, in the USA at least. A $500 phone is $50 
if you sign up for a 2-year contract.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> they just exploited a new 
> market, a market where the people don't care about CPU specs at all, and 
> Nintendo knew this.

  The graphical quality difference of games in the Nintendo consoles and
the others is quite large, but this might also be something which that
market doesn't care too much about. They want to play fun games, not games
which look awesome but which are often quite hard.

  For example, Wii graphics look like this:

http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/article/711/711723/the-legend-of-zelda-twilight-princess-wii-version-20060607043210052_640w.jpg

while xbox 360 graphics look like this:

http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/images/2006/331/936112_20061128_screen001.jpg

  DS graphics look like this:

http://nintendo-ds.allack.co.uk/Images/Buy_Mario_Kart_DS_6.jpg

while PSP graphics look like this:

http://freepspdemos.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/ridge-racer-21.jpg
http://www.shacknews.com/images/generated/478e9944ec7e6_featured_without_text_silenthill.jpg

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Features don't sell.  Benefits do.

Henry Ford made so much money, not because he sold cars that could go X 
miles an hour, or Y miles on one gallon, but because he toured the 
country talking about how great being able to drive was.  He basically 
sold the idea of a mobile society, and contrasted sitting at home 
without a neighbor for 10 miles, with being able to visit family and 
friends anytime you want.

The PS3 is getting killed by the 360 in sales (and probably won't catch 
up before the next generation XBox comes along) partly because Sony 
focused on technical points, ie features, whereas MS actually focused on 
the entire user experience (ironic, isn't it?).  That doesn't just 
include one or two launch titles, but having games available in many 
genres, with the 360 also acting as a great media extender (I used it as 
one before I started using an LCD TV as my main computer monitor).

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> partly because Sony 
> focused on technical points, ie features, whereas MS actually focused on 
> the entire user experience (ironic, isn't it?). 

What's ironic about it? Sony has always focussed on features and MS has 
always focussed on the user experience. That's why technical people don't 
like MS products.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> partly because Sony focused on technical points, ie features, whereas 
>> MS actually focused on the entire user experience (ironic, isn't it?). 
> 
> What's ironic about it? Sony has always focussed on features and MS has 
> always focussed on the user experience. That's why technical people 
> don't like MS products.

Not ironic that they focused on it, but ironic that they got it so right.

Of course, that's just some of my latent MS bashing sneaking to the 
surface again.  I've been pretty good about treating them objectively 
lately, but every now and then I still aim a barb in their direction :)

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Chambers wrote:
>>> partly because Sony focused on technical points, ie features, whereas 
>>> MS actually focused on the entire user experience (ironic, isn't it?). 
>>
>> What's ironic about it? Sony has always focussed on features and MS 
>> has always focussed on the user experience. That's why technical 
>> people don't like MS products.
> 
> Not ironic that they focused on it, but ironic that they got it so right.
> 
> Of course, that's just some of my latent MS bashing sneaking to the 
> surface again.  I've been pretty good about treating them objectively 
> lately, but every now and then I still aim a barb in their direction :)
> 
Nah. Keep up the bashing. lol If they built space stations, for example, 
you could be sure to suffocate, freeze, or get sucked out a 
malfunctioning airlock, while fully satisfied that the "experience" was 
the best you had ever had. Seriously, if Vista taught us anything, its 
that MS' *only* experience is in user experience, and that trying to do 
"technical" correctly makes for some very *bad* interface decisions on 
their part, such that you both get sucked out the airlock, and have to 
look at the peeled paint on the way out. ;)

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 07/09/09 21:22, Chambers wrote:
> Features don't sell.  Benefits do.
>
> Henry Ford made so much money, not because he sold cars that could go X
> miles an hour, or Y miles on one gallon, but because he toured the
> country talking about how great being able to drive was. He basically
> sold the idea of a mobile society, and contrasted sitting at home
> without a neighbor for 10 miles, with being able to visit family and
> friends anytime you want.

	That doesn't sound like either features or benefits selling. The lesson 
I'm learning with this is "marketing sells".

	If you're in the US and you know any non-highly-technical people who 
use a VoIP line for their phone (one that isn't just some software on 
your PC), how many of them use Vonage? Ask them why they picked it, 
given the significantly cheaper alternatives.



-- 
Conscious is when you are aware of something and conscience is when you 
wish you weren't.


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

> Nah. Keep up the bashing. lol If they built space stations, for example, 
> you could be sure to suffocate, freeze, or get sucked out a malfunctioning 
> airlock,

...if it was running consumer Windows, maybe, but I doubt MS would do that 
for a space station.

BTW if you buy a Ford with the fancy bluetooth/USB connection, it will be 
running the Microsoft Auto OS which has been made to normal automotive 
software standards, and I've not heard any problems with it, in fact most 
people probably don't even realise MS made the software.

http://www.microsoft.com/auto/ma.mspx

Post a reply to this message

> If you're in the US and you know any non-highly-technical people who use a 
> VoIP line for their phone (one that isn't just some software on your PC), 
> how many of them use Vonage? Ask them why they picked it, given the 
> significantly cheaper alternatives.

A lot of the time people know that there might be cheaper alternatives out 
there, but they just can't be bothered to research it, or don't know how to. 
You could spend your whole life finding the cheapest of everything you want 
to buy, but then you'd have no time left to enjoy all the money you saved 
:-)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> Nah. Keep up the bashing. lol If they built space stations, for 
>> example, you could be sure to suffocate, freeze, or get sucked out a 
>> malfunctioning airlock,
> 
> ...if it was running consumer Windows, maybe, but I doubt MS would do 
> that for a space station.
> 
> BTW if you buy a Ford with the fancy bluetooth/USB connection, it will 
> be running the Microsoft Auto OS which has been made to normal 
> automotive software standards, and I've not heard any problems with it, 
> in fact most people probably don't even realise MS made the software.
> 
> http://www.microsoft.com/auto/ma.mspx
> 
So, they can do limited function, single task stuff well.. like DOS. lol


-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> So, they can do limited function, single task stuff well.. like DOS. lol

No, they can do something well if the requirements are strict enough.

MS makes their software good enough for the people who have to use it. 
That's one of the reasons the perception of Visual Studio is so much 
better than the perception of Windows in general... developers have 
higher standards than the average user, so MS makes a better product for 
them.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     That doesn't sound like either features or benefits selling. The 
> lesson I'm learning with this is "marketing sells".

Sure, it's benefits.  Ford didn't tell people they should get a car 
because it had X features; he told them they should get a car because of 
how it would improve their quality of life.

>     If you're in the US and you know any non-highly-technical people who 
> use a VoIP line for their phone (one that isn't just some software on 
> your PC), how many of them use Vonage? Ask them why they picked it, 
> given the significantly cheaper alternatives.

I've actually used Vonage; their prices are quite competitive.  In fact, 
I *tried* to research others, and I wasn't able to come up with anybody 
who had better prices.

Maybe the other companies need to work on their advertising.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

> So, they can do limited function, single task stuff well.. like DOS. lol

MS Auto is an automotive grade version of Windows CE with extra features 
needed for in-car use.  DOS wouldn't be suitable for use in a car, it needs 
to be multi-tasking and talk over several different networks.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> MS has 
> always focussed on the user experience. That's why technical people 
> don't like MS products.

Really?

People are often telling me that M$ spends millions on consumer 
research. But I have to ask... what escaped nutcase *wanted* Microsoft 
Bob? The annoying paperclip? The animated Find dog? That window that 
pops up every... single... time... you log into a Windows XP box for the 
first time? (Do I *look* like I want to take the God damned tour of 
XP?!) The incessent "there are unused icons on your desktop" whinging?

Which users wanted their PCs to get hacked just by being connected to 
the Internet? Who wanted a word processor that constantly crashes? Which 
people thought it was funny if a power cut results in permanent data 
loss and possible an unusable PC?

Seriously... WTF? Who in their right mind thinks M$ provides a good user 
experience? M$ is legendary for the *bad* experience they provide! It's 
certainly NOT just technical people who dislike their products...

Post a reply to this message

> People are often telling me that M$ spends millions on consumer research. 
> But I have to ask... what escaped nutcase *wanted* Microsoft Bob? The 
> annoying paperclip? The animated Find dog? That window that pops up 
> every... single... time... you log into a Windows XP box for the first 
> time? (Do I *look* like I want to take the God damned tour of XP?!) The 
> incessent "there are unused icons on your desktop" whinging?

I guess that's why they spent millions on consumer research and didn't just 
ask an IT professional :-)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> People are often telling me that M$ spends millions on consumer 
>> research. But I have to ask... what escaped nutcase *wanted* Microsoft 
>> Bob? The annoying paperclip? The animated Find dog? That window that 
>> pops up every... single... time... you log into a Windows XP box for 
>> the first time? (Do I *look* like I want to take the God damned tour 
>> of XP?!) The incessent "there are unused icons on your desktop" whinging?
> 
> I guess that's why they spent millions on consumer research and didn't 
> just ask an IT professional :-)

You're seriously suggesting that some people *want* this crap?!

Post a reply to this message

>> I guess that's why they spent millions on consumer research and didn't 
>> just ask an IT professional :-)
>
> You're seriously suggesting that some people *want* this crap?!

I'm suggesting that you should broaden your mind a bit, and realise that not 
everyone is a technical IT person who just wants to use their computer as a 
tool to get stuff done as quickly and efficiently as possible.  Have you 
ever worked in an office with lots of really non-technical people?  They 
don't care about efficiency or if Explorer takes 2 seconds or 1 second to 
open, they care about "cute" and "fun", and they'll have the cat office 
assistant selected, a crazy screen saver, a mouse pointer that wobbles like 
a jelly, a thing that plays a tune at 16:00 every day, a horrendous 
background to explorer windows, all just because it's fun.

Post a reply to this message

>> You're seriously suggesting that some people *want* this crap?!
> 
> I'm suggesting that you should broaden your mind a bit, and realise that 
> not everyone is a technical IT person who just wants to use their 
> computer as a tool to get stuff done as quickly and efficiently as 
> possible.  Have you ever worked in an office with lots of really 
> non-technical people?  They don't care about efficiency or if Explorer 
> takes 2 seconds or 1 second to open, they care about "cute" and "fun", 
> and they'll have the cat office assistant selected, a crazy screen 
> saver, a mouse pointer that wobbles like a jelly, a thing that plays a 
> tune at 16:00 every day, a horrendous background to explorer windows, 
> all just because it's fun.

OK. So remind me... who is it that wanted to be constantly nagged about 
the unused desktop icons? Who was it that thinks getting their PC 
infected with malware was a good idea?

Post a reply to this message

> OK. So remind me... who is it that wanted to be constantly nagged about 
> the unused desktop icons?

People who had lots of desktop icons and didn't know which ones were unused?

> Who was it that thinks getting their PC infected with malware was a good 
> idea?

Nobody?

Post a reply to this message

On 07/10/09 02:11, scott wrote:
> A lot of the time people know that there might be cheaper alternatives
> out there, but they just can't be bothered to research it, or don't know
> how to. You could spend your whole life finding the cheapest of
> everything you want to buy, but then you'd have no time left to enjoy
> all the money you saved :-)

	Yes - so why did they pick Vonage?

-- 
"Class, please! If you don't learn Roman numerals, you'll never know the 
dates certain motion pictures were copyrighted." -- Mrs. Krabappel in 
The Simpsons.


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

On 07/10/09 02:46, Chambers wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> That doesn't sound like either features or benefits selling. The
>> lesson I'm learning with this is "marketing sells".
>
> Sure, it's benefits. Ford didn't tell people they should get a car
> because it had X features; he told them they should get a car because of
> how it would improve their quality of life.

	I know, but I suspect people bought it because Ford marketed better. 
That they emphasized benefits over features may have played a role, but 
I'm willing to bet any company that markets the features well will outdo 
mediocre marketing of benefits.

	Good marketing works. Content of said marketing is not really that 
important.

> I've actually used Vonage; their prices are quite competitive. In fact,
> I *tried* to research others, and I wasn't able to come up with anybody
> who had better prices.

	When I got my VoIP line (4-5 years ago), there were lots of companies 
out there. And Vonage was probably the most expensive. They also were 
reputed to have the worst quality, because they had more customers they 
could handle (something I'm sure they have fixed). Even then, everyone 
was flocking to them.

	Look at ViaTalk. With their offer (which they almost always have had 
for the last few years), you'll effectively be paying less than $8/month 
for the first two years. Vonage has little that Viatalk doesn't (last 
time I checked).

	After the first two years, you pay double, which is still only 63% of 
what you have to pay for Vonage.

> Maybe the other companies need to work on their advertising.

	Precisely. It's not because of promoting either features or benefits. 
It's simply due to forming brand recognition. Good marketing.


-- 
"Class, please! If you don't learn Roman numerals, you'll never know the 
dates certain motion pictures were copyrighted." -- Mrs. Krabappel in 
The Simpsons.


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom_no_underscores> wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> > Chambers wrote:
> >> partly because Sony focused on technical points, ie features, whereas 
> >> MS actually focused on the entire user experience (ironic, isn't it?). 
> > 
> > What's ironic about it? Sony has always focussed on features and MS has 
> > always focussed on the user experience. That's why technical people 
> > don't like MS products.

> Not ironic that they focused on it, but ironic that they got it so right.

  Not as right as Nintendo, though, as Wii is selling almost as much as
Xbox 360 and PS3 combined...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     I know, but I suspect people bought it because Ford marketed better. 
> That they emphasized benefits over features may have played a role, but 
> I'm willing to bet any company that markets the features well will outdo 
> mediocre marketing of benefits.

The problem is, people don't *care* about features (outside of a core 
group that likes bragging rights, of course).  Features don't sell, and 
they don't convince.  *Benefits* do.  Nodoby really cares what clock 
rate a CPU runs at, they care how fast the processor is (the clock rate 
is an indicator, of course, so they still pay attention to it, but a 
fast chip with a slow clock still sells better than a slow chip with a 
fast clock).

That Ford marketed better than his competition is undisputed.  But a 
large part of what he did wasn't just selling Ford cars, but selling 
cars in general.

>     Good marketing works. Content of said marketing is not really that 
> important.

Ahem... good marketing works *because* of its content, doesn't it? ;)

>     Look at ViaTalk. With their offer (which they almost always have had 
> for the last few years), you'll effectively be paying less than $8/month 
> for the first two years. Vonage has little that Viatalk doesn't (last 
> time I checked).
> 
>     After the first two years, you pay double, which is still only 63% 
> of what you have to pay for Vonage.
> 
>> Maybe the other companies need to work on their advertising.
> 
>     Precisely. It's not because of promoting either features or 
> benefits. It's simply due to forming brand recognition. Good marketing.

Not just brand name recognition; I was literally unable to find a 
competitor that could match Vonage's prices when I shopped around.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> People are often telling me that M$ spends millions on consumer 
> research. But I have to ask... what escaped nutcase *wanted* Microsoft 
> Bob? The annoying paperclip? The animated Find dog?

Just because they do the research doesn't mean they always get it right.

 > Who wanted a word processor that constantly crashes?

You seem to be the only person with this problem.

> Which 
> people thought it was funny if a power cut results in permanent data 
> loss and possible an unusable PC?

Never had that problem, unless the hardware failed.

> Seriously... WTF? Who in their right mind thinks M$ provides a good user 
> experience? M$ is legendary for the *bad* experience they provide! It's 
> certainly NOT just technical people who dislike their products...

Uh, no. Sorry.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> OK. So remind me... who is it that wanted to be constantly nagged about 
> the unused desktop icons? 

You get offered once, and you click the box that says "stop asking."  It's 
only nagging if you can't read.

> Who was it that thinks getting their PC 
> infected with malware was a good idea?

Bugs aren't designed in.

People think getting some small number infected with malware is preferable 
to spending 30x as much for the software.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> given the significantly cheaper alternatives.

Me!  Because I had starsunmumble before that, paid them for a year of 
service, and had them go bankrupt out from under me two months later.

There's actually quality issues here, too.  Plus, arguing about which 
individual item is cheapest only works for commodity products. Products with 
a network effect are, by definition, those where the quality is affected by 
how many people use it.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On 07/10/09 10:07, Chambers wrote:
> The problem is, people don't *care* about features (outside of a core
> group that likes bragging rights, of course). Features don't sell, and

	The thing is, people don't care about either. They just want a *good* 
car. For many people, a good car is not about either - it's about what 
they think the world thinks is a good car.

>> Good marketing works. Content of said marketing is not really that
>> important.
>
> Ahem... good marketing works *because* of its content, doesn't it? ;)

	Not necessarily. Vonage has the market not because of the content of 
their ads, but because of the amount of ads and the places they advertised.

> Not just brand name recognition; I was literally unable to find a
> competitor that could match Vonage's prices when I shopped around.

	I can assure you that since _I_ got VoIP 4-5 years ago, there have 
*always* been similar providers who charged less than Vonage.

	But this whole line of argument wasn't my point. Most of the people I 
know who got Vonage got it because they wanted something reliable, and 
assumed that the cheaper competitors have poor experience, etc. Yet, 
perhaps unlike you, they didn't do a single bit of research to see if 
their assumptions had validity.

-- 
BASIC isn't; C stands for Confusing...


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

On 07/10/09 11:30, Darren New wrote:
> Me! Because I had starsunmumble before that, paid them for a year of
> service, and had them go bankrupt out from under me two months later.
>
> There's actually quality issues here, too. Plus, arguing about which
> individual item is cheapest only works for commodity products. Products
> with a network effect are, by definition, those where the quality is
> affected by how many people use it.

	Yes, but I wasn't saying price should be the only factor. When I signed 
up, Vonage was known to have poor quality. Yet people still flocked to 
it in those days.

-- 
BASIC isn't; C stands for Confusing...


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

Warp escreveu:
>   Somehow it seems that Nintendo has understood some basic truth about
> computing: It's not processing power that sells. Consider this:
> 
>   Xbox 360: Triple-core CPU at 3.2 GHz, 512 MB of RAM.
>   Units sold: 30 million.
> 
>   PS3: A 3.2 GHz Cell microprocessor, which consists of one PowerPC-based
> core and six SPE cores, 256 MB of RAM.
>   Units sold: 22 million.
> 
>   Nintendo Wii: A single-core CPU at 729 MHz, 88 MB of RAM.
>   Units sold: 50 million.
> 
> 
>   PlayStation Portable: 333 MHz CPU, 32 MB of RAM (plus 2 MB of GPU RAM).
>   Units sold: 50 million.
> 
>   Nintendo DS: A 67 MHz main CPU and a 33 MHz coprocessor, 4 MB of RAM.
>   Units sold: 100 million.

Nintendo has been about 2 generations out of the spotlights with the N64 
and GC.  They realized they couldn't compete hardware-wise and took the 
easy route with a gamble:  let's repackage a slightly beefed-up Gamecube 
hardware under new plastic plus a new motion sensing controller and 
launch it with a truly silly name, silly games and try to appeal to a 
new, familiar public rather than hardcore gamers.  Oh, and let's also 
make it the cheaper of the consoles, so that we profit a lot from our 
cheap, obsolete hardware while the competitors struggle with their 
expensive new anti-social machines for geeks.

Guess what?  The gamble worked out!  The competitors seemingly didn't 
see both an economic turmoil coming, nor the fact that running HD games 
on a conventional CRT TV wouldn't be worth the trouble so that apart 
from the expensive console you also need expensive HDTVs, nor the fact 
that a broad new public to videogames are ok with silly old 8-bit 
gameplay under N64-level graphics as long as it's fun and silly enough 
to play with friends and parents.  Wheee!!!

> NES: 1985 (1986 in Canada)
> SNES: 1991
> N64: 1996
> GameCube: 2001
> Wii: 2006
> 
>   Do we see a pattern here?-)

6 years is the typical useful life cycle of a console.  Useful in that, 
different from PC games, console developers benefit from many optimized 
techniques evolved through time and actually extract every last bit of 
power from the hardware -- some of the best games and swann songs for 
the console come that late.

BTW, I left Nintendo behind after FAIL 64 and its lack of variety in 
worthy games.  It's ok when people are ok with just Wii Sports, Wii 
Sports Resort, Wii Aqua Sports, Wii Beach Sports, Mario, Mario 2, New 
Mario Wii etc.  Not for me.

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

nemesis escreveu:
> Warp escreveu:
>>   Somehow it seems that Nintendo has understood some basic truth about
>> computing: It's not processing power that sells. Consider this:
>>
>>   Xbox 360: Triple-core CPU at 3.2 GHz, 512 MB of RAM.
>>   Units sold: 30 million.
>>
>>   PS3: A 3.2 GHz Cell microprocessor, which consists of one PowerPC-based
>> core and six SPE cores, 256 MB of RAM.
>>   Units sold: 22 million.
>>
>>   Nintendo Wii: A single-core CPU at 729 MHz, 88 MB of RAM.
>>   Units sold: 50 million.
>>
>>
>>   PlayStation Portable: 333 MHz CPU, 32 MB of RAM (plus 2 MB of GPU RAM).
>>   Units sold: 50 million.
>>
>>   Nintendo DS: A 67 MHz main CPU and a 33 MHz coprocessor, 4 MB of RAM.
>>   Units sold: 100 million.
> 
> Nintendo has been about 2 generations out of the spotlights with the N64 
> and GC.  They realized they couldn't compete hardware-wise and took the 
> easy route with a gamble:  let's repackage a slightly beefed-up Gamecube 
> hardware under new plastic plus a new motion sensing controller and 
> launch it with a truly silly name, silly games and try to appeal to a 
> new, familiar public rather than hardcore gamers.  Oh, and let's also 
> make it the cheaper of the consoles, so that we profit a lot from our 
> cheap, obsolete hardware while the competitors struggle with their 
> expensive new anti-social machines for geeks.
> 
> Guess what?  The gamble worked out!  The competitors seemingly didn't 
> see both an economic turmoil coming, nor the fact that running HD games 
> on a conventional CRT TV wouldn't be worth the trouble so that apart 
> from the expensive console you also need expensive HDTVs, nor the fact 
> that a broad new public to videogames are ok with silly old 8-bit 
> gameplay under N64-level graphics as long as it's fun and silly enough 
> to play with friends and parents.  Wheee!!!
> 
>> NES: 1985 (1986 in Canada)
>> SNES: 1991
>> N64: 1996
>> GameCube: 2001
>> Wii: 2006
>>
>>   Do we see a pattern here?-)
> 
> 6 years is the typical useful life cycle of a console.  Useful in that, 
> different from PC games, console developers benefit from many optimized 
> techniques evolved through time and actually extract every last bit of 
> power from the hardware -- some of the best games and swann songs for 
> the console come that late.
> 
> BTW, I left Nintendo behind after FAIL 64 and its lack of variety in 
> worthy games.  It's ok when people are ok with just Wii Sports, Wii 
> Sports Resort, Wii Aqua Sports, Wii Beach Sports, Mario, Mario 2, New 
> Mario Wii etc.  Not for me.

I also have to say part of the success for the Nintendo brand again is 
the same reason for its demise during 2 generations:  its loyal fans 
during the NES and SNES grew older during the N64 and GC, had to get a 
work, house, marriage and are now back to gaming, thanks to their kids. 
  And they go to the store and see the brand for their childhood 
colored-tinted memories and go for it, without looking back.  They 
mostly complete ignore the Playstation generation anyway and, thus, 
16-bit, raw gameplay without sophisticated storylines and presentation 
is a non-issue.

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I also have to say part of the success for the Nintendo brand again is 
> the same reason for its demise during 2 generations:  its loyal fans 
> during the NES and SNES grew older during the N64 and GC, had to get a 
> work, house, marriage and are now back to gaming, thanks to their kids. 

  I have heard that many people complained about the N64 and GC controllers,
and that *might* be at least partially responsible for the lesser popularity
of those two consoles. If you look at those controllers, they look quite
painful to use:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:N64_controller.jpg

  Ok, it might be usable for the D-pad, but when you need to switch to the
analog stick, it looks really awkward. The D-pad and the analog stick seem
to basically be mutually exclusive: Either use one or the other, but not
both at the same time, or even in quick succession. Also the location of
the analog stick seems awkward.

  Sony's DualShock controller, while maybe slightly ascetic compared to
the more modern ergonomic versions of that controller type, has more the
right idea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DualShock.jpg

  It's easy to switch between the D-pad and the analog stick by simply
moving your thumb from one to the other. And while having *two* such sticks
might seem rather self-evident and obvious nowadays, it was actually quite
an ingenuous idea which helped the playability of many, many games.

  Nintendo tried to copy the idea for their GameCube controller, but did
it horribly wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NGC_Gamecube.jpg

  The D-pad is positioned in a really awkward place, and it's hard to use.
Likewise for the analog stick on the right. Also the X and Y buttons are
positioned awkwardly.

  I suppose Nintendo learned its lesson and instead of trying to copy
others' controller designs, they created their own for the Wii. It seems
to have been a success.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp escreveu:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> I also have to say part of the success for the Nintendo brand again is 
>> the same reason for its demise during 2 generations:  its loyal fans 
>> during the NES and SNES grew older during the N64 and GC, had to get a 
>> work, house, marriage and are now back to gaming, thanks to their kids. 
> 
>   I have heard that many people complained about the N64 and GC controllers,
> and that *might* be at least partially responsible for the lesser popularity
> of those two consoles. If you look at those controllers, they look quite
> painful to use:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:N64_controller.jpg

Low sales because of controller?!  First time I hear it.

I had a N64 from day 1.  The controller was very comfortable.  The 
analog stick is also a lot more precise than both analogs from the 
dual-shock.  I heard people saying the same from GC, but then, those are 
Nintendoids without hope.

What really spell FAIL to me was the too few games.  That I can see 
hurting sales of the platform overall.

>   I suppose Nintendo learned its lesson and instead of trying to copy
> others' controller designs, they created their own for the Wii. It seems
> to have been a success.

Hmm, it seems you got it wrong:  Nintendo is a trend setter, not the 
contrary.  They were the ones to come up with the d-pad, 4 buttons, 
shoulder buttons, analog stick and, now, motion sensing controller.  The 
others follow suit.  That said, I wish their games had evolved too.

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >   I suppose Nintendo learned its lesson and instead of trying to copy
> > others' controller designs, they created their own for the Wii. It seems
> > to have been a success.

> Hmm, it seems you got it wrong:  Nintendo is a trend setter, not the 
> contrary.  They were the ones to come up with the d-pad, 4 buttons, 
> shoulder buttons, analog stick and, now, motion sensing controller.  The 
> others follow suit.  That said, I wish their games had evolved too.

  I was talking about the GameCube controller, which was quite clearly
trying to copy the idea from the DualShock controller.

  Speaking of controllers, I own this one (for the PC):
http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/gaming/pc_gaming/gamepads/devices/264&cl=US,EN

  It's the most comfortable controller I have ever tried. It's also sturdy,
balanced and ergonomic. It feels quite good for games designed to be played
with a game controller.

  (Its only drawback is that it uses some special force feedback technology,
as it AFAIK has *two* motors inside, and there seems to often be compatiblity
issues with many games, meaning that force feedback just doesn't work with
many games no matter what you try to do. Well, it's only a minor issue.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> So, they can do limited function, single task stuff well.. like DOS. lol
> 
> No, they can do something well if the requirements are strict enough.
> 
> MS makes their software good enough for the people who have to use it. 
> That's one of the reasons the perception of Visual Studio is so much 
> better than the perception of Windows in general... developers have 
> higher standards than the average user, so MS makes a better product for 
> them.
> 
Well, true enough. Though, a note one VS.. One feature it has that no 
other editor suite for Windows really supports (or as extensively), is 
"design time", as in edit objects, in place. There is a reason for this. 
The code needed to "react to" design mode flags in a window or other 
object is well documented. The means by which to "turn on" design mode 
for a window... I spent 2 years looking for code, everyplace from their 
sites, to the official API manuals you can buy, to just about every 
other place you can think of. Its not documented in any discoverable sense.

Having a product that does something that no one else's does, because 
you intentionally prevent anyone else from doing it the same way, isn't 
a selling point, as far as I am concerned. That said, VS, on my install, 
had more than a few annoyances, not the least being that all its 
frakking documentation assumed that you where going to code stuff in 
either C++/C# or in VB, and that if you where using VB, you didn't need 
either headers for the API flags, at all, never mind documentation on 
them. And, it was hardly bugless...

But, yeah. Things that perform one, clear, and specific task, they do 
well with, sort of, except for the things they leave out, due to you not 
needing them, from their view, or don't work as expected, or don't work 
at all. How many versions of the XBox 360 cooling thing they go through 
before figuring out to a) leave the fans on until it cooled off, and b) 
it got hot enough to melt the solder points on the GPU? 3-4 I think.. 
But, otherwise, great machine. lol Just hope a car with the their tech 
in it doesn't have a similar issue. ;)

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Which users wanted their PCs to get hacked just by being connected to 
> the Internet? Who wanted a word processor that constantly crashes? Which 
> people thought it was funny if a power cut results in permanent data 
> loss and possible an unusable PC?
> 

Almost like the OneTouch 3. Standby (or shut down drives to save power) 
sometimes leaves the drive *unable* to power up again and access files. 
You have to unplug it, then plug it back in again (meaning the power 
cord), then wait for it to "unmangle" the 1-2 files that where in an 
open/unsaved state before it went into standby. Then there is its backup 
software. V2 backed up "everything". V3... only backs up documents, 
archives and executables, which doesn't include Firefox bookmarks, 
settings files, some save games, and a whole host of other things. So, 
if you had to restore, half your applications wouldn't work, since the 
"critical" files you actually need from them are all missing in the 
backup...

Yeah. Some companies seem to have their own internal logic, with respect 
to what they "define" as "user experience"... Oddly, it never seems to 
quite match my definition. :p


-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The code needed to "react to" design mode flags in a window or other 
> object is well documented. The means by which to "turn on" design mode 
> for a window... 

I don't understand what you mean. The code to implement visual studio isn't 
documented? No, of course not.

What is it you think isn't documented? I think you think things work 
differently than they do. There's no "design mode" for a window. The VS IDE 
is using the design-mode properties to draw the widgets into the window.

It's like complaining that Firefox renders standard HTML, but doesn't 
document the HTML you need to edit a web page.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Not as right as Nintendo, though, as Wii is selling almost as much as
> Xbox 360 and PS3 combined...

Yes, to a completely different group of people.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

>> OK. So remind me... who is it that wanted to be constantly nagged 
>> about the unused desktop icons? 
> 
> You get offered once, and you click the box that says "stop asking."  
> It's only nagging if you can't read.

So why does it ask me once a month?

>> Who was it that thinks getting their PC infected with malware was a 
>> good idea?
> 
> Bugs aren't designed in.

Depends on what you think a "bug" is.

Windows is fundamentally based on the concept that only one person is 
using the PC. This is very much "designed in". They're trying to change 
that now to make the thing actually secure, but it's hard to alter one 
of the fundamental design assumptions of a large system without 
completely redesigning it.

> People think getting some small number infected with malware is 
> preferable to spending 30x as much for the software.

And I think that if I have to pay hundreds and hundreds of pounds for a 
mere operating system, it should at least work properly. But apparently 
that's just me...

When Linux goes wrong, it's annoying. But given that I spent £0 on it, 
you can just say "ah well, you get what you pay for". But when you pay 
vast amounts of money for something, you expect it to work.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> OK. So remind me... who is it that wanted to be constantly nagged 
>>> about the unused desktop icons? 
>>
>> You get offered once, and you click the box that says "stop asking."  

>> It's only nagging if you can't read.
> 
> So why does it ask me once a month?

I can only assume it's because you didn't turn it off. I got asked exactl
y once.

> Windows is fundamentally based on the concept that only one person is 
> using the PC.

Not really.  Maybe 15 years ago that was true, but not now.

>> People think getting some small number infected with malware is 
>> preferable to spending 30x as much for the software.
> 
> And I think that if I have to pay hundreds and hundreds of pounds for a
 
> mere operating system, it should at least work properly. But apparently
 
> that's just me...

I dunno. Why are you getting virus infections? I've run for decades with 
no 
virus protection and I don't have problems. Actually, I've seen exactly o
ne 
  or maybe two machines with a virus on it in my career.  Heck, I've seen
 
more viruses on 8-bit machines than I've seen on Windows.

> When Linux goes wrong, it's annoying. But given that I spent £0 on
 it, 

No, you didn't pay $0 for it. You simply didn't pay *cash* for it. Most o
f 
the companies I worked for payed hundreds of thousands of dollars a year 
to 
the people keeping the Linux systems running.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

> And I think that if I have to pay hundreds and hundreds of pounds for a 
> mere operating system, it should at least work properly. But apparently 
> that's just me...

It's just you who thinks that a desktop OS needs to have zero bugs to "work 
properly".  FOr controlling a plane of nuclear reactor, sure, but for a 
desktop OS? No way - nobody would be willing to pay for it.

Post a reply to this message

>>   Not as right as Nintendo, though, as Wii is selling almost as much as
>> Xbox 360 and PS3 combined...
> 
> Yes, to a completely different group of people.

That's the genius of it, see?

Post a reply to this message

>> And I think that if I have to pay hundreds and hundreds of pounds for 
>> a mere operating system, it should at least work properly. But 
>> apparently that's just me...
> 
> It's just you who thinks that a desktop OS needs to have zero bugs to 
> "work properly".  FOr controlling a plane of nuclear reactor, sure, but 
> for a desktop OS? No way - nobody would be willing to pay for it.

Why does everybody think it's expensive to design and test software 
properly? There's plenty of non-M$ software which works reliably enough 
to not cause a problem. (And let's face it, M$ isn't exactly short of 
cash...)

Post a reply to this message

>>>> OK. So remind me... who is it that wanted to be constantly nagged 
>>>> about the unused desktop icons? 
>>>
>>> You get offered once, and you click the box that says "stop asking."  
>>> It's only nagging if you can't read.
>>
>> So why does it ask me once a month?
> 
> I can only assume it's because you didn't turn it off. I got asked 
> exactly once.

On every PC I set up at work, it asks once, waits 30 seconds, asks 
again, and then goes away for a while. I don't know if it comes back 
after a month; I'm usually only there for the initial setup. But my PC 
had some does. (Interestingly, Vista seems to have fixed this bug...)

>> Windows is fundamentally based on the concept that only one person is 
>> using the PC.
> 
> Not really.  Maybe 15 years ago that was true, but not now.

Sure, they're slowly changing it. But it still does stuff like (for 
example) setting the first user as administrator so you can constantly 
run your PC in admin mode. But hey, piles and piles of old software 
fails to work unless you do this.

(To some extent I have sympathy with M$ here; before networks existed, 
"security" was a non-issue. If you want your computer to be secure, put 
it in a locked room. So the original insecure designs were appropriate. 
But now M$ can't really break backwards compatibility too horribly, 
which does somewhat limit what they can do with security - even if it is 
debatable how much they actually care...)

>>> People think getting some small number infected with malware is 
>>> preferable to spending 30x as much for the software.
>>
>> And I think that if I have to pay hundreds and hundreds of pounds for 
>> a mere operating system, it should at least work properly. But 
>> apparently that's just me...
> 
> I dunno. Why are you getting virus infections?

I'm not, but other people certainly are.

> Heck, I've seen more viruses on 8-bit machines than I've seen on Windows.

Interestingly, I've never seen a virus on an 8-bit machine. But then, 
I've seen few on Windows machines, to be honest. (In particular, I've 
never seen any of the Word macro viruses rumoured to exist.)

>> When Linux goes wrong, it's annoying. But given that I spent £0 on it, 
> 
> No, you didn't pay $0 for it. You simply didn't pay *cash* for it. Most 
> of the companies I worked for payed hundreds of thousands of dollars a 
> year to the people keeping the Linux systems running.

Sure, if you want to use it for serious work, it's going to cost you 
something. It always does. My actual *point* is that when something 
cheap breaks, it's annoying, but when something astronomically expensive 
breaks... it makes me very frustrated, to say the least.

Post a reply to this message

> Why does everybody think it's expensive to design and test software 
> properly?

Umm, because if MS spent another 6 months designing certain parts of Windows 
better and testing it more thoroughly, that would cost 6 months of salaries 
(plus all the other costs to run those departments) and also 6 months of 
lost sales.  In short, they have to decide when to release the product for 
maximum profit, and it will always be before they've fixed all bugs.

> There's plenty of non-M$ software which works reliably enough to not cause 
> a problem.

Sure, there's also apples that taste different to pears.

> (And let's face it, M$ isn't exactly short of cash...)

Did you ever stop to think that if they designed and tested more thoroughly 
they might have *less* cash?  I'm sure MS has already stopped and though 
about exactly this, and TBH I think they are in a much better position to 
decide how much (re)design and testing to do than you are.

Post a reply to this message

>> Why does everybody think it's expensive to design and test software 
>> properly?
> 
> Umm, because if MS spent another 6 months designing certain parts of 
> Windows better and testing it more thoroughly, that would cost 6 months 
> of salaries (plus all the other costs to run those departments) and also 
> 6 months of lost sales.  In short, they have to decide when to release 
> the product for maximum profit, and it will always be before they've 
> fixed all bugs.

Well, sure, it's almost impossible to make completely bug-free software. 
You could sit forever removing bugs, but as you say, eventually you have 
to release a product.

My problem is this: M$ doesn't even bother *trying* to produce 
high-quality software. They just release the most bug-ridden lump of 
junk they think they can possibly get away with. Their whole business 
model is about chucking out software as cheaply as possible, and then 
charging vast sums of money for it as if it were some premium-grade product.

I dislike people charging a fortune for crap. I have no problem with 
people charging lots of money for a product that's actually *good*, but 
I resent being charged a fortune for crap. (Hell, I don't even mind so 
much when cheap stuff breaks - it was cheap, after all...)

>> There's plenty of non-M$ software which works reliably enough to not 
>> cause a problem.
> 
> Sure, there's also apples that taste different to pears.

Yeah, that's true. I mean, it's not like OpenOffice Writer is anything 
like Microsoft Word. Not like they do the exact same function and even 
read the precise same file format. And hey, what Writer does it way 
easier, because it runs on multiple platforms, not just one, right?

> Did you ever stop to think that if they designed and tested more 
> thoroughly they might have *less* cash?  I'm sure MS has already stopped 
> and though about exactly this, and TBH I think they are in a much better 
> position to decide how much (re)design and testing to do than you are.

Except that they're not interested in how to make a better product. 
They're interested in how to screw the customer out of more money for 
the least possible effort. They're parasites.

As if that wasn't bad enough, then they try to claim that they're these 
visionary leaders of innovation and technical advancement, when they 
can't even produce a word processor that works properly - something that 
existed decades ago...

Post a reply to this message