Steve Case resigns as AOL Chairman

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
My arguments aren't made illogical just because you don't agree with them. People can logically come to two different conclusions. It would be nice if you figured that out...

Your arguments are illogical because they're based off of false assumptions.

You seem to think MS is in the market for the Xbox for a profit. If so, why didn't they OK the Xboy too? If so, why did they load the Xbox down with so much hardware that it'd be impossible to turn a profit?

At this point you're bound to say "because then they'd make profits off the Xbox 2!" which still doesn't make sense. Having a predecessor doesn't guarantee you an equal-or-greater marketshare for the next console, it never did and it never will in the game console world. It's happened sometimes, sometimes it doesn't. It's not reliable to predict it will happen.

It doesn't make any sense based off of the information and the results of what happened so far for anyone to believe MS is in the console market for profit. The only argument anyone could have would be "you CAN make lots of money in it". Which is true. But it's not how MS has been playing the game, which is kinda the point, isn't it?

I asked for internet sources, so I hardly think that I plugged my ears to your evidence. I just don't want to run out to buy and read a book I have no interest in simply to debate you on Poly. I guess I don't feel guilty about that...

Don't you have libraries?
It was a NYT Best Seller, I'm sure a library in your city will have it.

I don't have any internet sources because I've never bothered looking. The evidence is out there, whether you wanna spend the $17 to read about it or find your local library and loan it is up to you.

It's out there if you ever wanna read it, and I think you should read it if you're going to get into an argument about it, don't you think?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Mac OS X kicks ass, partially because it's built on FreeBSD and Apache.

It's based on an archaic build of the Mach kernel that's from the early 90s (NeXT played with it a bit and modified it), not really FreeBSD.

And it's not based off of Apache. Just comes with it. There's a difference.

[Drake Tungsten]

Have you used Mac OS yet Drake?

I have no experience with it, but even people that don't like Macs seem to like it. Though I heard the original release was deathly slow because of the GUI that sits on top of FreeBSD, while graphically amazing, grinds along.

I'm using it right now.

I love it. The initial release was sluggish because of Aqua (the GUI), but later releases have fixed that. All in all it's a superb OS, with all the next gen features you could want put into a stunning package. Apple's done a great job with it.

[Ted Striker]

So are you a Mac user or did you switch to it?

Do you ever use the UNIX commands on there?

[Drake Tungsten]

Don't you have libraries?

I like to spend my library time on more fulfilling reading. There's foreign policy books to be read...

Your arguments are illogical because they're based off of false assumptions.

You win, Fez. I disagree with you, so my arguments must be illogical. Revel in your victory...

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
So are you a Mac user or did you switch to it?

Do you ever use the UNIX commands on there?

I've always been a Mac user. And I do use the command line on occasion, but I tend to be extremely careful when using it. I don't know much about UNIX, so I let the more experienced UNIX gurus explain the things before I try them. You don't really need to use the UNIX commands if you don't want to, but then again you could run the whole thing off the command line if that's what you like. The best of both worlds...

[Asher]

You win, Fez. I disagree with you, so my arguments must be illogical. Revel in your victory...

That's not my logic at all, that's not what I'm saying at all.
Did you even bother reading the damn posts?

You know, you've called me Fez and said I'm the one constructing strawmen here...you're the one refusing to read the book which backs up everything I'm saying from first-person accounts of the people involved making the decisions, and you're the one constantly using strawmen as a way of trying to make MY arguments illogical, and you mixed in some ad hominems in there too...who does that sound like?

[Drake Tungsten]

I've never said that your arguments are illogical, Asher. We simply disagree. You're the one accusing others of being illogical, not me. If that makes you sound like Fez, then so be it. I can't control your behavior.

[Asher]

Fez calls posters illogical, I call illogical arguments illogical.

Do you know the difference?

We may disagree, Drake, but the reason we disagree is because knowing the facts, your conclusion doesn't follow. What do we say when this happens?

[Drake Tungsten]

What facts? You're assuming that the Xbox 2 won't make a profit, therefore Microsoft can't be in it for the money. I'm assuming the Xbox 2 could make a profit and Microsoft is in it for the money. We're both working off of unsubstantiated assumptions, yet you claim mine are false and your's are true. I don't think you have a crystal ball handy, so your assumptions are no more true than mine. Yet you persist in calling my arguments "illogical" when they are not. You sound like a little kid who can't tell the difference between something being "wrong" and something being "illogical". You can claim that my conclusions are wrong all you want; I sure think you're wrong. But to claim that I'm being illogical is absurd and Fez-like. Get a clue.

[Asher]

You wanna explain to me how the Xbox2 can outperform a PS3 and not cost a fortune to make?

And it is patently illogical to think MS got into the console market mainly for profit, mainly because they've publically stated they intend to lose money on it!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sony's "move" on the home computer market is nothing but rumors and grandiose talk.

So you've never heard of the Sony Vaio, I see?

Oh, and I find it laughable that you actually think that monopolies follow from console to console. All you've shown is NES/SNES and Playstation/Playstation2. So the question is why didn't N64 continue the NES monopoly? Because there is no monopoly transfer in the console market. It simply doesn't exist. SNES was on top because it's only competition was Sega and Sega, while making good games, has a legendary aptitute for ****ing up consoles. Look at the history after the Genesis. Sega CD? Dreamcast?

Playstation 2 was #1 because it was the first out there by a span of a few years. We have to see what MS does with it's XBox in the near future, and especially with XBox2.

[Drake Tungsten]

So the question is why didn't N64 continue the NES monopoly?

Because of a flawed cartridge format and an arrogant attitude towards developers by Nintendo. Pretty obvious to anyone who knows anything about console history...

That would be the "collosal blunder" I mentioned in my post.

[Asher]

Because of a flawed cartridge format and an arrogant attitude towards developers by Nintendo. Pretty obvious to anyone who knows anything about console history...

So what you're saying is there are many variables and it doesn't make sense to assume a console can continue on a "monopoly"?

Even Sony doesn't ever assume that. They know how easily they waltzed in and took it away from Nintendo, and now they're worried about MS doing the same to them.

[Drake Tungsten]

You wanna explain to me how the Xbox2 can outperform a PS3 and not cost a fortune to make?

First of all, why would the Xbox 2 have to outperfrom the PS3? They could be exactly equal in power and MS would still come out on top if they attracted the better games to their system.

Secondly, you know damn well that all the profits in the game industry are made off of software sales, not hardware. If MS sells enough Xbox 2 software, they can afford a big hit on the hardware.

But please, continue with your prophetic statements. I'm really enjoying this...