Mandrake Linux files for Bankruptsy

[Drake Tungsten]

Further, it's absurd to think a 30% marketshare now means a 30% one next term.

It is absurd. It's far more likely that your marketshare will rise, as the public will know your console's name, developers will be on board from the get go, and the media will hype your console for you...

I'd hate to think what you'd be classified as...

A realist?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
It is absurd. It's far more likely that your marketshare will rise, as the public will know your console's name, developers will be on board from the get go, and the media will hype your console for you...

You do realize that market share is zero-sum right...

What happens when Sony, Nintendo, and MS all launch a console in 2005-2006 like they say they will? Obviously your little hypothesis doesn't hold very well.

[Drake Tungsten]

Obviously your little hypothesis doesn't hold very well.

How would you know? You don't have any evidence available with which to disprove my hypothesis, since all of this will take place years in the future. A good thinker would've known that...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Asher
What happens when Sony, Nintendo, and MS all launch a console in 2005-2006 like they say they will?

Nintendo isn't out of the console game yet!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
How would you know? You don't have any evidence available with which to disprove my hypothesis, since all of this will take place years in the future. A good thinker would've known that...

I was referring to your comment about most likely increasing marketshare...

When all 3 consoles relaunch it's hard to increase marketshare for all of them isn't it.

In fact, if we took that comment and applied it to MS' competition, MS would lose marketshare in the next cycle.

A good thinker would've known that...

[Drake Tungsten]

When all 3 consoles relaunch it's hard to increase marketshare for all of them isn't it.

The three consoles that exist now will impart different levels of momentum onto their followups. The third place console probably won't help (and might hurt) its followup. The other two are less clear cut. The PS2 is obviously going to take this generation, but it might not give the PS3 the same momentum that the PS1 gave it. If the Xbox (or Gamecube) can become seen as the best console this time around, it is quite possible that it will impart more momentum to its followup than the somewhat disappointing PS2 will. Your argument only follows if you assume that each console will impart the same amount of momentum onto its followup, which is absurd.

Asher using an absurd argument? Imagine that...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The three consoles that exist now will impart different levels of momentum onto their followups. The third place console probably won't help (and might hurt) its followup. The other two are less clear cut.

This was PRECISELY MY POINT THE ENTIRE TIME!

"Momentum" carrying through is unpredictable and doesn't mean a damn thing to the corporations planning their next console. It'd be stupid for MS to rely on having carryover, even stupid for Sony to do so too. Which is why the Xbox2 will be loaded down with features again, making it expensive to make but the best value to the customer, in order to increase markethsare...

Your argument only follows if you assume that each console will impart the same amount of momentum onto its followup, which is absurd.

Asher using an absurd argument? Imagine that...

That wasn't my argument at all! What're you on, Drake?

My argument is it's entirely unpredictable for "momentum" to play a factor, and since all three consoles have momentum it doesn't mean a damn thing!

You're the one somehow stating MS can make a profit off the Xbox2 because it carries momentum from Xbox1, you're the one with the absurd argument...

Hello, is anybody there?

[Drake Tungsten]

"Momentum" carrying through is unpredictable and doesn't mean a damn thing to the corporations planning their next console. It'd be stupid for MS to rely on having carryover, even stupid for Sony to do so too. Which is why the Xbox2 will be loaded down with features again, making it expensive to make but the best value to the customer, in order to increase markethsare...

Are you Canadian or retarded? MS is spending billions of dollars on the Xbox right now to ensure that it will carry momentum over to the next generation! The immense resources being poured into this is meant to counteract the unpredictability of the market. In order to guarantee momentum, they have to spend the money to get good games on the Xbox so that they will build a reputation for quality that will carry over to the next generation. They want the Xbox to be a PS1, not a Saturn, so they're putting in enough resources to ensure that it doesn't fail. Failure of the Xbox would ruin their plans for the Xbox 2.

If MS was really only interested in stopping Sony and its digital hub strategies, there are easier and cheaper ways of going about it. MS is spending all of this cash because they want to control the console gaming industry. If you can't see that, fine, but I'm done making my points. If you can't figure it out by now, you're never going to...

[Asher]

Are you Canadian or retarded? MS is spending billions of dollars on the Xbox right now to ensure that it will carry momentum over to the next generation!

In what magical way can a company ensure momentum?

MS is spending billions of dollars on the Xbox right now to get marketshare. Yes, it will help when the Xbox is successful to make the Xbox 2 successful. This DOES NOT imply that the Xbox 2 will be profitable.

First of all, there's no way in hell Xbox will reach more than 30% marketshare before Xbox2. That's about 1/3 of what MS wants.

Obviously, MS is going to use the same tactics they used with Xbox1 to make Xbox2 go up even further in marketshare.

Eventually they will probably reach profitability, but this won't happen until marketshare is 60%+ at least, IMO. Which won't happen until Xbox2's end of life or maybe even Xbox3.

You've simply got no basis, at all, for thinking Xbox2 is profitable. All signs point to it NOT being profitable.

If MS was really only interested in stopping Sony and its digital hub strategies, there are easier and cheaper ways of going about it.

Bull**** -- list them!

MS is spending all of this cash because they want to control the console gaming industry. If you can't see that, fine, but I'm done making my points. If you can't figure it out by now, you're never going to...

You've changed your argument! It may be subtle to you, but it's a HUGE difference!

MS wants to control the console industry, I *COMPLETELY* agree. In fact, I've been saying this THE WHOLE TIME.

YOU were the one stating MS wanting to make tons of money off of it primarily. I was the one stating they want to control the market. The reason they want to control the market, of course, is to fend off the Sony threat -- after that's done, they can profit from it too!

Which is why I always said the Xbox is about:
1. Stopping Sony by gaining marketshare
2. Hopefully profit at some point too

[Drake Tungsten]

Eventually they will probably reach profitability, but this won't happen until marketshare is 60%+ at least, IMO.

That's the dumbest thing you've said yet. 60% before they'll become profitable? What a ridiculous figure.

Bull**** -- list them!

The easiest would be to support a proxy like Sega or Nintendo (or both) in the console wars. Cuts into the Playstation's marketshare without forcing MS to spend all the money needed to design, field, and promote a new console.

Which is why I always said the Xbox is about :
1. Stopping Sony by gaining marketshare
2. Hopefully profit at some point too

Again, Microsoft didn't need to get into the console business themselves in order to stop Sony's "threat". They got in because they see a growing industry and they want all the profits for themselves.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
That's the dumbest thing you've said yet. 60% before they'll become profitable? What a ridiculous figure.

Care to explain why you think it's ridiculous?

The easiest would be to support a proxy like Sega or Nintendo (or both) in the console wars. Cuts into the Playstation's marketshare without forcing MS to spend all the money needed to design, field, and promote a new console.

Been there, done that.
MS made the Operating System for Dreamcast. MS attempted to do a joint venture with Nintendo after Sega died, who refused.

Got any others?

Again, Microsoft didn't need to get into the console business themselves in order to stop Sony's "threat".

Again, they've tried that -- what else can they do?

Partnership with Sega? Tried that, Sega ****ed it up.
Partnership with Nintendo? Tried that, Nintendo's not interested.

What else can MS do but launch their own?

They got in because they see a growing industry and they want all the profits for themselves.

Perhaps you should look into MS' history.

When MS enters new market segments, it's because they feel threatened by them.
Example 1: Internet Explorer. MS saw Netscape's internet browser as a threat to Windows, launched Internet Explorer to counter it.
Example 2: MSN. MS saw AOL's network (which acquired Netscape) and looked at their future plans of web services (implemented with .NET) -- saw a threat. So they launched MSN to compete with AOL.
Example 3: Xbox. You know where this one is going...

After MS counters the threat (as they see it), they then work on making that business profitable. It's MS' MO. It's how they work.

If they were concerned about profit mostly, they would have entered the hand-held game market as well.

[Drake Tungsten]

Care to explain why you think it's ridiculous?

I'd rather see you prove your 60% figure. I'm not the one throwing out numbers with no basis in reality.

Been there, done that.
MS made the Operating System for Dreamcast. MS attempted to do a joint venture with Nintendo after Sega died, who refused.

The Sega deal was a half-assed attempt, at best. The Windows CE environment was utter crap and all the games that used it performed horribly. And what did MS do besides that? Why didn't they lean on some developers (like EA) to encourage them to support the Dreamcast? MS gave Sega weak support all around. Either MS didn't see Sony as much of a threat, or they were already planning on going into the console biz for themselves...

If they were concerned about profit mostly, they would have entered the hand-held game market as well.

And go up against the Nintendo monopoly? Hell no. The chances for success are too low.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I'd rather see you prove your 60% figure. I'm not the one throwing out numbers with no basis in reality.

Wow.
I said "60% IMHO", it's just my estimate. There is no "proof" of it, and there is no "basis in reality" for it, it's my estimate.

And the reason I said 60% is, because after MS gains a majority at all (50%+) they'll start focusing more on profit. It's the transition period between market-dominance and profit that they've historically had.

The Sega deal was a half-assed attempt, at best. The Windows CE environment was utter crap and all the games that used it performed horribly. And what did MS do besides that? Why didn't they lean on some developers (like EA) to encourage them to support the Dreamcast? MS gave Sega weak support all around. Either MS didn't see Sony as much of a threat, or they were already planning on going into the console biz for themselves...

Sony wasn't much of a threat until they unveiled the PlayStation 2's plans. That's perhaps why MS' support was "half-assed". It doesn't matter at all though, that's in the past.

After Sega withdrew from the hardware market, MS had two options: Work with Nintendo, or enter the market themselves.

Nintendo wouldn't work with them at all, so they entered the market themselves.

Ironically, Nintendo has now made that mistake twice, and it toppled their monopoly.

And go up against the Nintendo monopoly? Hell no. The chances for success are too low.

Hardly. Sony toppled Nintendo's monopoly handily with the PSX. MS could have easily done the same thing with the GBA: The GBA itself was really poorly designed.

Poor battery life, no back-light, fairly weak StrongARM processor, very aged RAM technology (albeit very cheap). Nintendo didn't have any real competition so they cheaped out on it.

If MS came in with a backlit, Li-Ion battery, more comfortable GBA with an Intel XScale chip in it, it would have spanked the GBA all over. Or at least made a huge dent in Nintendo's marketshare.

[Drake Tungsten]

Sony toppled Nintendo's monopoly handily with the PSX.

What Nintendo monopoly? The SNES was the best seller of that generation, but only barely. Sega was a huge competitor to Nintendo with the Genesis.

If MS came in with a backlit, Li-Ion battery, more comfortable GBA with an Intel XScale chip in it, it would have spanked the GBA all over.

Sega thought they could do the same thing with the GameGear, which ended up being a disaster. The fact of the matter is that Nintendo has a choke hold on all the 2-D developers who are left, as none of them are going to give up the assured profitability of the Gameboy to develop for the Xboy. Would people buy a Microsoft handheld with no games on it?

[Asher]

Sega thought they could do the same thing with the GameGear, which ended up being a disaster. The fact of the matter is that Nintendo has a choke hold on all the 2-D developers who are left, as none of them are going to give up the assured profitability of the Gameboy to develop for the Xboy.

The GameGear flopped simply because it was huge, it took a ton of batteries, its' battery life SUCKED.

If MS went with a backlit screen and LiIon battery (like Nintendo's GBA-SP now uses) a couple years before Nintendo got to it, they would have made a big splash. They'd end up being the same weight or lighter, much longer battery life, way better screen visibility, and more powerful components...

The reason Nintendo did such a poor GBA design was because this way they made the most profit off each unit.

Would people buy a Microsoft handheld with no games on it?

Obviously they would have got game developers to do Xboy games just like they did to get Xbox games.

I'm still anxious for you to tell me some of the ways MS could have fended off the Sony threat without entering the market themselves, by the way...