Zig&Zag: Now Sony management change, layoffs

[Acert93]

10,000 Layoffs, 6% of workforce: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9434537/

TOKYO - Sony Corp. said Thursday it will cut 10,000 jobs globally, slash the number of factories and cut costs by $1.8 billion in an ambitious restructuring bid to revive its stumbling electronics business. The Japanese company — under new management since March — said it expected a group net loss of 10 billion yen ($90 million) in current fiscal year. Plunging prices of consumer electronics and missteps with its Walkman portable music players have taken a hefty toll on earnings.

The changes, to be put in place by the end of fiscal 2007, which runs through March 2008, would result in a reduction of 4,000 workers in Japan and 6,000 outside the country, while factories would be cut from the present 65 to 54, company officials said. With more than 151,000 employees worldwide, that amounts to about a 6 percent cut in its workforce
President Ryoji Chubachi, also head of the electronics division, conceded that his company wasn’t making products that people wanted to buy and that Sony’s technological prowess had declined. Sony said it would focus now on so-called “champion products” including the PlayStation 3, Bravia liquid crystal display televisions and the Walkman portable music players.
“There can be no revival for Sony without recovery in our TV business,” Chubachi said. “We are definitely feeling that the recovery is underway.”

Sony Europe chief will step down: http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050921_131454.html

GamesIndustry.biz is reporting that the man credited for establishing the PSP (http:///#) brand in Europe, Chris Deering, will retire from the presidency of Sony Europe, effective the end of this year.


Nnot huge changes overall, but still newsworthy.

[london-boy]

“There can be no revival for Sony without recovery in our TV business,” Chubachi said. “We are definitely feeling that the recovery is underway.”


At last they got that! What they need to do is stop pricing themselves out of the LCD/Plasma/whatever market, when the market is filled with better technology at lower prices to boot.

[one]

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200509/05-050E/
Sony Group Mid-Term Corporate Strategy FY2005-FY2007 Strengthening Group Performance through Revitalization of Electronics• Concentrating Investment on Semiconductors and Key Component Devices

Blu-ray Disc-Related Devices/Imagers/Cell

We will continue to strengthen our development programs in Blu-ray disc-related devices, such as blue-violet laser diodes that are at the heart of the realization of HD World. CCD and CMOS image sensors, which are already highly competitive, remain a focus for continuing enhancement.Establishment of Cell Development Center

Broadband infrastructure is rapidly expanding and the Cell processor, with its advanced functionality and compatibility across a range of products and applications, will be the key component device. Sony will establish the Cell Development Center under the direct supervision of Sony's CEO to promote development of Cell-based technology, products and applications.

[london-boy]

Establishment of Cell Development Center

Broadband infrastructure is rapidly expanding and the Cell processor, with its advanced functionality and compatibility across a range of products and applications, will be the key component device. Sony will establish the Cell Development Center under the direct supervision of Sony's CEO to promote development of Cell-based technology, products and applications.



Wow, so i guess they ARE taking Cell seriously and that it will be the centre of many appliances. PS3 Fridges are just around the corner!

[one]

Wow, so i guess they ARE taking Cell seriously and that it will be the centre of many appliances. PS3 Fridges are just around the corner!
Sorry it's a product domain covered by Toshiba :wink:
http://www.toshiba.co.jp/living/refrigerators/index_j.htm

[Titanio]

Playstation/Cell seems to have done well out of this, but it only makes sense given that videogames are Sony's best business right now.

Also, according to GameFront, Sony plans to start making greater use of their film collection for games conversions. Makes sense, internal Sony divisions are often very indifferent to one another, they need to start co-operating more.

http://img351.imageshack.us/img351/8695/ps3meeting12oi1nn.jpg

Sony has so much content across its divisions - PS3 could benefit a lot if they actually got their act together.

[Josh378]

I'm telling you guys...in 2012...Were all going to be under the control a self-awared 3,000,000 SPU CELL who creates machines to take over the world...... and a 512,000,000 MB or XDR ram to go with it!!!!

DOWN WITH SONY!!!!

-Josh378

[Bobbler]

I'm telling you guys...in 2012...Were all going to be under the control a self-awared 3,000,000 SPU CELL who creates machines to take over the world...... and a 512,000,000 MB or XDR ram to go with it!!!!

DOWN WITH SONY!!!!

-Josh378


I welcome our new master. All hail Cell!

[expletive]

Wow, so i guess they ARE taking Cell seriously and that it will be the centre of many appliances. PS3 Fridges are just around the corner!

They're actually going to release an inflatable pre-renedered fridge first, then the real one next year.

;)

J

[Carl B]

While we're on the Cell discussion:

Lastly, in a nod to the importance Cell may hold for Sony as a future product differentiator, Sony has indicated the intent to invest an additional $3 billion into the semiconductor division. One of the root causes for diminished margins at Sony of late has been the dependence on externally produced componentry, and it is Sony's intention to re-internalize key aspects of procurement in order to cut costs as well as regain technology leadership.

http://psinext.e-mpire.com/index.php?categoryid=17&m_articles_articleid=200

[dubyateeeff]

I'm telling you guys...in 2012...Were all going to be under the control a self-awared 3,000,000 SPU CELL who creates machines to take over the world...... and a 512,000,000 MB or XDR ram to go with it!!!!

DOWN WITH SONY!!!!

-Josh378

And they say PS3 wont be able to do Killzone in realtime :D

[avaya]

Looks like it's pretty certain that future Bravia's will be using CELLs too. Pretty good news.

[expletive]

Can someone explain how a cell processor in a TV or appliance is necessary or makes any sense whatsoever?

J

[MfA]

Well, it's a decent DSP ...

[london-boy]

What chipset is Sony using to do their Wega Engine image processing on those very overpriced TVs?
I think Cell would do that job just fine, and have a lot of juice left for other things.

[scooby_dooby]

Isn't that complete overkill? CELL can decode dozens of HDTV streams simultaneously, even a scaled down versiuon would see like totaly overkill.

One thing comes to mind, if CELL and BR both fail to achieve mass market success, Sony is in some big trouble it seems...

[Lazy8s]

The PlayStation business hasn't performed well for a while now. Weighing it with so much responsibility will be risky over the next several years.

[london-boy]

Isn't that complete overkill? CELL can decode dozens of HDTV streams simultaneously, even a scaled down versiuon would see like totaly overkill.

One thing comes to mind, if CELL and BR both fail to achieve mass market success, Sony is in some big trouble it seems...

Well a 7/8 SPEs Cell would be very overkill, but there are smaller versions. If not, i'm sure Sony's philosophy (cram everything in one piece of hardware) will be helped. You might see Cell powered TVs with online components, integrated BDROM, MS/SD/CF slots, 29 USB ports, 3 HDDs, 5" 1/4 Floppy disk drive (who remembers them?), and ice maker.

[london-boy]

The PlayStation business hasn't performed well for a while now. Weighing it with so much responsibility will be risky over the next several years.

:???: It hasn't? That's news to me... It certainly is their best performing division.

[Carl B]

Isn't that complete overkill? CELL can decode dozens of HDTV streams simultaneously, even a scaled down versiuon would see like totaly overkill.

One thing comes to mind, if CELL and BR both fail to achieve mass market success, Sony is in some big trouble it seems...

Cell doesn't have to achieve mass-market success per se on it's own in order to have been a success. Though it might seem like overkill due to it's capabilities, if Sony's expecting Cell to eventually cost less to put into it's electronics than chips that were procured from outside the company (which now constitutes a large percentage of the controller chips Sony uses) then Cell would have served an important purpose.

Since Toshiba is less constrained in terms of Cell applications (no console business), I think the ways in which they use Cell in the future will be indicative of business areas in which Cell makes sense from a performance/costs perspective, relative to alternatives.

[Shifty Geezer]

You're forgetting Cell's scalability. Sony would be daft to put a 1:8 BE into a TV, but they can use a 1:1 Cell chip, and print them off at 3x the density of the BE at 1/3rd the price. They can use the same software across all Cell platforms to perform the same task. eg. A scaling routine running on a TV can be used in a handheld with Cell. An image filtering process can be used on a TV, Cell editing suite (or video camera), and PS3's EyeToy. Cell based drawing functions (OpenGL presumably) can be used on Cell TVs, media players, and mobile phones providing a uniform interface, regardless of whether the hardware has 1, 2, 4 or 8 SPE's. In future Sony can improve manufacturing of Cell, lowering the price and providing much greater profitability than buying in components, and use the same software development strategies. In 10 or 20 years the code and systems used now on Cell will still be in operation, only the processors will just have more SPE's and run faster. Without needing to worry about developing new chips (just add some more SPE's) Sony can focus on the software that's driving these TV sets, mobile devices, media devices, holographics projectors and so forth.

The key point is scalability. Whereas in the past new tech has required new processors, Sony are betting on Cell being a universal solution, and in the long term they'll be able to make these cheaper then any other new scalable solution and have the headway in the software department too. That's where they hope to make back on these huge investments of their's.

[expletive]

So the main benefit of the cell in consumer electronics is a long-term cost savings one?

J

[Lazy8s]

The PlayStation division had been losing the company money in recent quarters.

[scooby_dooby]

If not, i'm sure Sony's philosophy (cram everything in one piece of hardware) will be helped. You might see Cell powered TVs with online components, integrated BDROM, MS/SD/CF slots, 29 USB ports, 3 HDDs, 5" 1/4 Floppy disk drive (who remembers them?), and ice maker.

lol
I was just thinking it seems like a mighty expensive chip for a TV, Even scaled down, you're still talking about a PowerPC with multiple slave processors...couldn't a simple specialized processor be used for much cheaper?

For example, does anyone know the size and cost of current proccessors in TV's?

[expletive]

Some of the best video processing available today is done on commoditzed FPGAs and the real competitive advantage is all in the proproetray software algortihms.

J

[Josh378]

Who do I have a feeling that when I watch televison with a Cell in it, I will have a sudden urge to buy everything "Sony" or "toshiba" products with a CELL in it.

Subliminal Messages...Rocks!!!!

( I think it is illegal to do that, but if not...it is the beginning of the end of my bank account)

-Jsoh378

[Titanio]

It'll be interesting to see how broad and deep co-operation between SCE and the movies and music divisions will be. I'd heard in the past that such co-operation was virtually non-existant (apparently many within other divisions resented how quickly SCE rose and gained influence in the company).

I mean, will this co-operation "simply" be about a few more movie conversions, and better game soundtracks and selling sony movie/music content through PS3/PSP etc. or will SCE start getting first refusal on all Sony movie-to-game rights, for example?

[dukmahsik]

sony knows they're too bloated as a company, they are going back to more of the roots which made them so successful, this is good news for the company but bad news for the employees

[Acert93]

You're forgetting Cell's scalability. Sony would be daft to put a 1:8 BE into a TV, but they can use a 1:1 Cell chip, and print them off at 3x the density of the BE at 1/3rd the price.

If what Intel has recently said is true, it would be even more cost effective. Intel noted that there is not a linear relation to die size reduction and yields. If you reduce the size of a die 10% the yields go up MORE than 10%.

So you may cut the die size down to 1/3, but get 4x as many chips. But yeah, for HD decoding another beyong a 1:2 CELL would seem overkill. Also, a large Cell would be expensive, draw a bit of power, produce heat, and possibly require active cooling. (On a side note, this is why the 2 die Xenos is a good idea. 332M transistors is a large chip. Breaking it up into to 2 smaller chips, while having some additional packaging costs, will be a perk in yields).

[expletive]

From jsut what ive read here, it seems Sony is confident of 2 things:

1. They will be able to produce cell chips cheaper they could buy specialized chips for their consumer electronics devices.

2. Their own video (and maybe audio) processing software/algorithms will be superior than what is available to license from another company. If its not superior it will be cheaper.

These seem like very bold predictions from my standpoint becuase i think its very risky to assume that:

1. A cell will be cheaper to produce than buying an application specific commoditized chip.

2. They will be able to keep up with advances in video processing technology internally. Companies that have IP in this space are profitiable because they sell to the entire industry, i dont see how Sony can be cutting edge when their only consumer is themselves. They can certainly create software that will perform the function but they count themselves out of the 'best of breed' solutions by doing this, negating other competitive advantages.

There's got to be more to the cell than this?

J

[Titanio]

There's got to be more to the cell than this?

Yes, it's called Playstation ;)

It's not unlike Sony to bet the farm JUST on Playstations. Getting more out of their investments is a bonus, relatively ;) But yeah, it's the smarter way to do it, and the way they should do it.

[Carl B]

Expletive, I think you're underestimating Cell's abilities as a media chip. The fact that it's fully programable just takes it one step further as being able to fill the roles of several chips that before may have taken several different specialized processors.

Like Shifty said, since Cell is - supposedly - here for the long haul, what you create is a base architecture with an ever expanding knowledge base familiar with it's utilization, such that many years from now Cell may have become the gold standard via which all other media chips are judged.

Consider also that Cell had the R&D opportunity that few other chips enjoy. It was created jointly by three companies that each have something to gain from it, there is a minimum volume that can be expected due to it's placement in PS3 (which will improve familiarity with the manufacture of the chips and grant economies of scale right off the bat), and the size of the companies allowed for a large expenditure to reach their objective.

For one of the smaller firms that specialize in DSP's to undertake that sort of effort would likely burden them beyond what they could endure, and the fact that any sort of massive effort of the sort would have no guaranteed ROI would likely leave them reticent to attempt it.

I think Cell will fill it's role well - the only question is whether it's cost per chip will be worth it compared to cheaper alternatives. I imagine though that it will, and of course Sony and Toshiba hope the costs per chip will fall significantly as time goes on, to say nothing of the comments in above posts on yields and reduced SPE-counts.

[MfA]

They can certainly create software that will perform the function but they count themselves out of the 'best of breed' solutions by doing this, negating other competitive advantages.You might have a point here if the big players weren't already using their own motion compensated deinterlacing, which at the moment represents the most complex algorithm in TVs (the next big thing is multi-frame super-resolution).

[expletive]

You might have a point here if the big players weren't already using their own motion compensated deinterlacing, which at the moment represents the most complex algorithm in TVs (the next big thing is multi-frame super-resolution).

So youre saying that companies like Samsung, Panasonic, Mitsubish are all using proprietary scaling/deinterlacing solutions on the hardware and software side?

J

[Phil]

I'd like to add to xbdestroya's post that CELL will enable Sony as a company to so much more than what those cheaper "dedicated" chips are doing now. There's a shift occuring, the shift that information is going to be sold via broadband networks - and with that, you have much more possibilities to market your product - AND - offer more.

Sony believes there will be a shift in content distribution - CELL will play a key point in tihs.

[expletive]

I'd like to add to xbdestroya's post that CELL will enable Sony as a company to so much more than what those cheaper "dedicated" chips are doing now. There's a shift occuring, the shift that information is going to be sold via broadband networks - and with that, you have much more possibilities to market your product - AND - offer more.

Sony believes there will be a shift in content distribution - CELL will play a key point in tihs.

Ive heard this before Phil but have yet to hear a real example of what in the world theyre talking about. I'm not saying there isnt one, just that no one has been able to produce one for me yet.

Shift in content distribution? Meaning what?

My feeling is that if there is a consumer need, or desire, there will be a cheaper 'dedicated' chip to meet it.

J

[Shifty Geezer]

Here's some examples of where I think Cell could/might end up.

1) PS3. A lot of media work will happen here. A lot of algorithms will be broken in with this flagship developemnt environment

2) Professional Media equipment. Sony are big suppliers of professional AV equipment. Cameras, TVs, and all sorts of gear. Cell is ideally suited to realtime special effects which'll speed up development and cost a lot less then alternative multiprocessor solutions.

3) TVs. TV's no longer just take an image and show it. They can do all sorts of tidy-up, especially important working on compressed signals. There'll be different source resolutions that'll need scaling to the screen's native resolution, and effective scaling algorithms can be very demanding yet ideally suited to Cell it would seem. There's also audio decoding to be done, and a general purpose solution like Cell could be software upgraded to new standards where a hardware solution cannot.

4) Audio work. Software synthesizers are another area Cell would be fantastic at, and Cell would offer a cheap and very powerful synthesizer that'll perform at least as well as any custom hardware solution. A to that digital sound processing and you'll have a one chip solution that can handle any effects you throw at it. Rather then needing several boxes each with custom hardware a one box solution would be cheaper and probably better too.

A key point of the above is that developments in one area can benefit another. Audio effects running on a Cell Audio Mixer can be incorporated into your TV's audio decoder and used in PS3 games. Image processing like background removal will be developed and used in EyeToy and professional video equipment where blue-screening can be replaced with easier-to-work-with props and markers. The idea is that processes can be copied and dropped into other appliances. At the moment if someone develops an audio filtering algorithm, it needs to be rewritten for a dozen different processors to use. A single uniform hardware platform elliminates that, focusses on maximum production enhancement as you are only producing one line of chips, not dozens, and provides developers with a predictable future hardware base. If you can write for Cell in PS3, you can write for Cell in a mobile phone, Cell in a TV, Cell in an audio mixer. Instead of umpteen segregated hardware industries all developing individually, all those advances could be concentrated onto one platform.

Certainly I rate it a good idea with some very long term vision behind it.

[Phil]

Expletive,

Ive heard this before Phil but have yet to hear a real example of what in the world theyre talking about. I'm not saying there isnt one, just that no one has been able to produce one for me yet.

Shift in content distribution? Meaning what?

This was actually a very heated topics back around 2, 3 years ago and I remember quite well how a member here described the fundemental shift in consumer demands the best. Since it's so much better worded, let me allow to quote some of the relevant points our member vince pointed out (I only found these but I might find some more at a later time, but this should definetly get you started):


--------------------------

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=32735&postcount=47

Sony's already been rearanging itself since their Sony Meeting in Summer 2001 where they disguessed the new corperate strategy under Ando:

"Using graphs and diagrams to drive home his point, Ando insisted that Sony, the world's premier gizmo maker, was better positioned to triumph in this broadband world than any of its rivals. He went on to argue that nobody--not Samsung (SSNLF ), not Microsoft (MSFT )--had a sharper vision of how consumers would navigate superfast networks in which a single fat wire, or a sliver of radio frequency, would handle multiple layers of voice, data, and video. Already, he noted, Sony's violet-gray Vaio laptops were hits with the digerati, who liked to edit their own photos and music files and exchange them over the Web. Once broadband networks were ubiquitous, all of Sony's cameras and audio devices would meld into a seamless distribution network for Sony's movies, music, and games, supported by the company's own online shopping and financial services. "Ando's message was clear and aggressive," says Hiro Uchida, Sony's general manager for strategic ventures. "Sony faces big challenges, but Ando showed us that we're getting activated."

You know, if you guys actually did some research and used some intelligence, they're would be no fighting here....

I won't even talk of Conrgressional oversight when talking about an alliance of rivals of Microsoft who are supporting Open Source projects like Linux and OGSA.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?p=58515&highlight=digital#post58515

Thats definatly a cool aspect. The whole idea behind using a cellular architecture was an excellent choice IMHO. I've talked about it before and people just shruged me off, but starting in 2004/2005 Sony and perhaps even Toshiba and Matsushita, will begin making products based around Cell and the era of truely pervasive computing will begin.

One of my favorite books is Visions by the string physicist Michio Kaku, and was taken back at his predictions of the future and just how prevelent computing will be. Fast forward 6 years and I'm sitting here, seeing the beginning of this forming - and at a pace thats far outstripped what he thought was even possible.

Thats what I see as the true revolution, that a single ISA/Core, ect will flawlessly be the backbone of a networking faric that connects our PDAs, PCs, TVs, Cell Phones, and can distribute digital content flawlessly. The limit for this type of thing is only the human imagination... and Cell is barely a first step, but it's a start.

IMHO, thats whats impressive. I'd much rather buy a Sony PS3 thats less powerful than a Xbox Next or Cube2, but allows me to seemlessly interact with all my other little gadgets and get digital content (movies, music, ect).

This is important because I beleive, as Kutaragi has stated and Kaku has written about, that the future will be one of pervasive computing. Where almost every item we use will in someway be networked together and contain low-cost processing elements. It seems alien today, but all truely forward looking staements do. The problem, as Kutaragi talked about in that one interview, is that the internet of today is more like a bunch of stand alone islands with their own ISA, OS, procesing elements, ect. Cell, atleast for Sony and anyone who adopts this, will eliminate those burdens - without software thats costly in it's incompatability problems and/or preformance sacrifices.

So, what’s going to happen is - Sony will start releasing products with Cell and a way to communicate; Wireless, Broadband, et al. People will buy them. People will want other electronic products. People and Salesman says, "Wow, If I buy the Sony product, it'll work with my other one and allow me to do this.. Or that... Easily." People buy more Sony products. Sony makes more money. Other companies want to make more money. Other companies see Sony Advantage (eg. Trinitron). Other companies license Cell from Sony. Sony makes more money.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=92296&postcount=334

As many here have been saying for damn-near 2 years now - Cell is an architecture designed under the aegis of Kutaragi that will allow for a synergy of Sony's future products in a broadband world where pervasive computing is commonplace. Go attand any lecture at any top-10 university in the United States on computing and your bound to hear of a form of pervasive computing and the necessary requirments.

Cell, in one incarnation or another, will be the base of allmost all future Sony products and will allow threw wireless, power and/or broadband for the Sony Group to controll the entire Digitial Media and Content pipeline. By seemlessly allowing all their devices to interact threw one architecture, one ISA - they simplify grately the interconnectivity of they're devices. They day is approaching where you'll buy a PS3 powered by the Cell architecture, and download Digital Content (eg. Spiderman2) created in a Sony Cinema Production House or Music (eg. Pete Yorn's latest album) and using some sort of DRM software like Sony's OpenMG save it to a Blue-Ray disc and/or send it to your Cell powered Clie, or your Cell powered 50" WEGA Plasma, or your Cell powered Sony Shelf-Audio system to play... all with one or two clicks on a remote.

Or take what you can already do using the Infared Port/MagicGate to the next level and take your Digital Pictures and/or Video on a Sony device of your ass pounding down the Tequilla and licking your friend's "chest" clean of salt and lime juice and send it anywhere... either saved on a R-Media or send it threw the 'net - just without the typical PC problems inherient to the very nature of a PC, OS and HAL.

To say that PS3 doesn't fit into this scheme - when the Cell project was initiated under the guise of SCE to power PS3 and only in 2001 when the project was sufficiently proven did Sony Group sign on - is insane. This man's an idiot, he deserves to be chained to a chair and put in a room with Chappers.

I think it was Ken Kutaragi himself who said that Sony to survive in the 21st century needs to differentiate itself from its competition - otherwise it will become another Toshiba or Mashushita that's profits are influenced by the endless productivity wars because they use 3rd party chips. The man's not as stupid as many here make him out to be... I'd say he borders on the brilliant, not "Witten" brilliant, but above most.

Personally, I think this last quote answers your question best - the key words being digital content distribution and pervasive computing.

CELL is a key point in this strategy - a strategy that can combine all CELL powered products and allow for immense content distribution. Sony owns the ISA (CELL) while they also have a large stake in the backend (Sony Pictures, Sony Music, PlayStation). This could mean Sony could control the flow of information in one go -> from the studios right directly into the livingroom through their products - all by the touch of a button for the customer.

[dskneo]

The PlayStation division had been losing the company money in recent quarters.

actualy, at the end of the 4 quarters SOny is winning money, not losing.

they are losing money in the first quarters because of the next gen system stuff. (it happen the same in 1999/2000), by christimas time they win all the money back.

i'm not gonna even bother to search again and post here the figures. go google.

sony its not losing money. Quarters are just that, quarters.

[Shifty Geezer]

Tye've been taking record profits from hardware and software sales last I read, but not making as much net operational profit because they keep spending all of it!

[Vince]

You're forgetting Cell's scalability. Sony would be daft to put a 1:8 BE into a TV, but they can use a 1:1 Cell chip, and print them off at 3x the density of the BE at 1/3rd the price.
Actually, it would be prudent (not daft) for Sony to put a 1:8 (eg. 1:8 implying the 250mm2 IC) Cell IC in their CE products. As a semiconductor manufacturer, they pay per SOI wafer for their ICs, not per yieldable IC as you can do with some foundries (like IBM did).

With this in mind, they need to produce N quantity of ASICs for PlayStation3 -- they must output N 7:1 capable Cell's per wafer. Cell is a larger chip, over 50% of it's surface is composed of redundant structures. Crank through the probability and it's favorable (eg. off the top of my head... ) that there will be some sort of characteristic size distribution applicable to errors per die, perhaps a power-law distribution.

As a corollary to the above, it's obvious that the more products they can use Cell in, the more diluted the fixed costs become. As stated, if it's some sort of power-law distribution, they will have many more yieldable ICs (eg. those without fatal errors) that have 1 working SPE than 2, and much, much more that have 2 working than 7.

So, the costs are already on Sony's balance sheet due to PlayStation3. It's in their best interest to stick a 1:8 Cell into everything they can. But, while it is a super-linear increase in yield as you decrease die size, you then have to incurr costs to redesign the entire back-end of the IC and you have recurrent costs in both having divergent manufacturing lines as well as the opportunity costs that's lost. Just sell the ones with 8 working SPEs for servers at immense mark-up, the 7 working ones go to PS3. The 6 working ones are CMPed into Home Servers or HDTVs, etc.

It has occurred to me that my Linksys router is nothing but a MIPS computer and as such is basically future-proof when to comes to computing the closed-set of functions possible under the 802.11g standards and the hardwired functions.

Using the same paradigm, I'd love to see Sony put Cell into their ES series receivers; a Cell with 2 or 4 SPEs can easily decode any audio standard that's physically feasible. Put an Gigabit Ethernet port on it and do the same with their Blu-Ray recorders, HDTVs, DVRs, etc.

[avaya]

OK say they put a PS3 redundant CELL; 4-6SPE’s, in a Bravia W-Series LCD TV. We know they could leverage its power to improve picture quality and audio fidelity while decode multiple streams for preview. However could they not also use the extensive processing horsepower that would be left over to implement some sort of innovations in the TV space?

Maybe some form of voice command/recognition ability? Although I assume the software elements involved would likely complicate that idea.

Another idea could be the ability to browse the internet via the TV, after all at HD resolutions this is now a feasible idea.

This is all conjecture on my part.

[Shifty Geezer]

Leveraging the power is something that's been on the cards from the off. The Cell partners have spoken of networking Cell based equipment and sharing resources. It's hard to imagine this in action given the available power and the rather limited scope for applying it, but an imaginary use might be...

On a TV a program is transmitted with a digital content page that incorporates a realtime 3D model. Say an archaeology program with a 3D skeleton. On your TV it updates at 15 fps when you view it. Connect up your PS3 and it's rendered at 60 fps (or 30, or 59.94, or interleaved 30 half-frame, 60 fields per second, depending on what magic these screens use). One of the designs of Cell software was on the principle of Apulets that are sent to any available SPE's to process on the network. Add more SPE's and you can use them. That's the reason for one of those gigabit network ports. I imagine a Cell TV will come with a Gigabit port as that'll be the communications highway for Cell processors in different devices.

But as I say, it's hard to imagine what processing a TV or HiFi will be doing that'll require more processing power than a 1:6 Cell where you'll actually see a benefit with adding another Cell device on the network.

[ihamoitc2005]

CELL development cost = $400 Million

[ecliptic]

The entire Cell thing is a gimmick. There is absolutely nothing it can do that some other processor cannot do.

[AlphaWolf]

The PlayStation business hasn't performed well for a while now. Weighing it with so much responsibility will be risky over the next several years.

Well this (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/22/business/worldbusiness/22cnd-sony.html) times article disagrees.

The falling prices have created an unusual situation where former bread-and-butter products like televisions and computer chips have become money losers. The biggest earners are now the popular PlayStation 2 video console and nonelectronics operations: films, music, insurance companies and a bank that Sony runs in Japan.

[gokickrocks]

what happens when IBM develops an enhanced version of CELL without Sony

[AlphaWolf]

CELL development cost = $400 Million

For Sony alone? or split 3 ways with IBM and Toshiba.

[Bobbler]

The entire Cell thing is a gimmick. There is absolutely nothing it can do that some other processor cannot do.

That is a rather silly thing to say...

There is nothing an Athlon64x2 can do that a Pentium 100 can't, but it doesn't mean I'd consider getting a Pentium 100 when I could get an A64 -- There are some things the Cell is exceptionally good at (streaming type applications), that's what it was made for... I'd bet that a Cell would cream an A64/P4 in HD decoding situations, yet an A64/P4 would probably destroy it in other situations.

[Bobbler]

CELL development cost = $400 Million

I have heard much higher numbers than that for the entire cell development cost (a couple billion) -- where did you get that number?

[Bobbler]

what happens when IBM develops an enhanced version of CELL without Sony


Well Cell is by STI (Sony, Toshiba, IBM), so I imagine IBM can't just create a suped up version without talking to STI first. Not sure why IBM would want to just go behind the backs of Toshiba and Sony for something that IBM probably wouldn't be in a position to use very well.

[randycat99]

Just sell the ones with 8 working SPEs for servers at immense mark-up, the 7 working ones go to PS3. The 6 working ones are CMPed into Home Servers or HDTVs, etc.

I tell ya- that whole tiered usage scheme just brings a friggen tear to my eye! ;) Just pulling a number out of thin air, but the idea of a chip getting an effective yield of over 90% right out of the gate, across the entire range of targeted end-use products, is just breathtaking. It's great for the environment, great for the bottomline. It takes the idea of scaleability to a whole new level (not just scaling a design to meet a wide range of targets, but exploiting yield effects to make one design meet a wide range of targets).

As exciting a future PS3 looks to have, I have to admit it is equally exciting (for me) to anticipate how well this tiered yield strategy will take Cell...

[Shifty Geezer]

The entire Cell thing is a gimmick. There is absolutely nothing it can do that some other processor cannot do.Mmmm, I love the smell of flamebait in the morning!

No there's nothing Cell can do that other processors can't. Any processor can perform an 256 point FFT. Just that it's strengths in certain areas mean it can do things faster and cheaper. Any processor can perform an FFT, whereas how many other than Cell can perform an FFT with 42 GFlops useable power in an affordable single-chip solution with inherant scalability? And you're point that 'some other processor cannot do' flies in the face of everything thus far said inthis thread. Yeah you can grab a custom chip to perform video work, a different processor to drive a mobile phone, another processor for you TV and a fourth for your console, but you'll need different chips for different jobs with the high overheads of different development platforms. And that's the way the industry currently is. Sony's buying in different components for different uses. Cell overcomes this with a single chip solution that they can potentially attain incredible cost reductions if it's be used in such vast numbers.

Regards Cell RnD, there has been figures of Billions to date, but AFAIK that's for fabrication plants. I've heard elsewhere RnD of the chip alone was $400 million but don't know where an official figure comes from.

[avaya]

I have heard much higher numbers than that for the entire cell development cost (a couple billion) -- where did you get that number?

The $400million is the initial R&D costs, including the research centre in Austin TX

The billions are for the fabs at East Fishkill and Nagasaki.

[PC-Engine]

Mmmm, I love the smell of flamebait in the morning!

No there's nothing Cell can do that other processors can't. Any processor can perform an 256 point FFT. Just that it's strengths in certain areas mean it can do things faster and cheaper. Any processor can perform an FFT, whereas how many other than Cell can perform an FFT with 42 GFlops useable power in an affordable single-chip solution with inherant scalability? And you're point that 'some other processor cannot do' flies in the face of everything thus far said inthis thread. Yeah you can grab a custom chip to perform video work, a different processor to drive a mobile phone, another processor for you TV and a fourth for your console, but you'll need different chips for different jobs with the high overheads of different development platforms. And that's the way the industry currently is. Sony's buying in different components for different uses. Cell overcomes this with a single chip solution that they can potentially attain incredible cost reductions if it's be used in such vast numbers.

Regards Cell RnD, there has been figures of Billions to date, but AFAIK that's for fabrication plants. I've heard elsewhere RnD of the chip alone was $400 million but don't know where an official figure comes from.

A fridge doesn't need 46 GFLOPS of computing power. It doesn't even need a 1PPE 1SPE CELL...

It only needs a cheap $3 8-bit IC you can get at Radio Shack and even those are the smart fridges. CELL is a nice concept, but concepts don't always work out as expected.

[Shifty Geezer]

Please link me to the article saying a 47 Gflop Cell is being incorporated into a fridge.

[PC-Engine]

Please link me to the article saying a 47 Gflop Cell is being incorporated into a fridge.

Please link me to an article where it says a mass market device needs a CELL chip instead of a cheap dedicated IC other than a game console.

[Shifty Geezer]

I haven't a link to hand, and admit maybe I just imagined all those announcements from Sony and Toshiba about wanting to include Cell in CE good like TVs. Perhaps Cell will only ever be used in PS3 then, and Toshiba just wasted loads of resources on it and are never going ot use the technology themselves?

I don't see why anyone would look at a programmable media processor like Cell and want to use it in a fridge though and don't know anyone but yourself who even suggested such a ridiculous notion.

[epicstruggle]

The PlayStation division had been losing the company money in recent quarters.
anyone have info on the breakdown of divisions and their revenue/loss over at sony? I find it hard to believe that their playstation division is losing money recently.

thanks in advance.

epic

[Shifty Geezer]

Just Google up Sony's financial reports. You'll get quarterly reviews if not an annual summary.

[PC-Engine]

I haven't a link to hand, and admit maybe I just imagined all those announcements from Sony and Toshiba about wanting to include Cell in CE good like TVs. Perhaps Cell will only ever be used in PS3 then, and Toshiba just wasted loads of resources on it and are never going ot use the technology themselves?

I don't see why anyone would look at a programmable media processor like Cell and want to use it in a fridge though and don't know anyone but yourself who even suggested such a ridiculous notion.

Talk is nice, but lets see how widespread this CELL vision turns out...

Let's see if it's cheaper than processors based on MIPS, ARM, TI, etc.

[Shifty Geezer]

Yes, wait and see is the right approach. Look at possibilities and discuss what may or may not happen, always appreciating that anything may happen. Making ridiculous statements about using Cell in totally inappropriate places doesn't really make for any intelligent discussion though, does it?

[PC-Engine]

Yes, wait and see is the right approach. Look at possibilities and discuss what may or may not happen, always appreciating that anything may happen. Making ridiculous statements about using Cell in totally inappropriate places doesn't really make for any intelligent discussion though, does it?

I was just talking about the people who've been talking about how CELL could be used in all kinds of device when in reality, it really has limited uses. TVs don't require a CELL. Receivers don't require a CELL. HD DVD players don't require a CELL. Mobile phones don't require a CELL. MP3 players don't require a CELL. Computers don't require a CELL. The list goes on and on. As Randycat99 would say, CELL is a solution looking for a problem. SONY is just blaming their floundering CE business on ICs purchased from others which is a poor excuse. Look at any of the other successful CE companies out there, are their CE business floundering because of outsourced ICs?

[Shifty Geezer]

Why not? They all need a processor of some sort. What's so bad about using Cell? The only obvious concern would be cost, but Sony and Toshiba seem convinced they can save money using their own processors then buying in others. And do you disagree that a uniform processor across different devices woud have benefits in development as has been discussed (mostly by me!) already in this thread?

[london-boy]

I was just talking about the people who've been talking about how CELL could be used in all kinds of device when in reality, it really has limited uses. TVs don't require a CELL. Receivers don't require a CELL. HD DVD players don't require a CELL. Mobile phones don't require a CELL. MP3 players don't require a CELL. Computers don't require a CELL. The list goes on and on. As Randycat99 would say, CELL is a solution looking for a problem.

They don't require it, fair enough, but maybe, by putting Cell in those kind of devices (not all of those!), those devices will be able to do "more". And maybe provide a better overall experience. Escpecially when the same chip is used for all kinds of devices, i'd think communication would be much easier.

Is it "needed"? No. Will some devices become better devices by including a very powerful processor for all kinds of things that they are not doing now? Most probably.

Is HDTV "needed"? No. But it sure looks pretty.

[BlueTsunami]

I was just talking about the people who've been talking about how CELL could be used in all kinds of device when in reality, it really has limited uses. TVs don't require a CELL. Receivers don't require a CELL. HD DVD players don't require a CELL. Mobile phones don't require a CELL. MP3 players don't require a CELL. Computers don't require a CELL. The list goes on and on. As Randycat99 would say, CELL is a solution looking for a problem.

lol very true. I'm wondering where exactly CELL will fall into place. It truly seems tailored for the gaming sector (obviously) but its being marketed as more broad then that. I personally find it being used a a computers CPU a bit of a stretch on Sony's and IBM's part (haven't heard to much from Toshiba). Maybe with revisions to CELL (years down the road) it will be optimized to work better with hand made OSs but as far as dramatic changes to CELL..what else can be done.

[PC-Engine]

Why not? They all need a processor of some sort. What's so bad about using Cell? The only obvious concern would be cost, but Sony and Toshiba seem convinced they can save money using their own processors then buying in others. And do you disagree that a uniform processor across different devices woud have benefits in development as has been discussed (mostly by me!) already in this thread?

I don't think the cost of development is a good excuse at all. I've talked to real people who work for companies who make ICs for different types of workloads and they've told me it's very cheap and the development environment is very mature and very fast.

Is HDTV "needed"? No. But it sure looks pretty.

HDTV is needed because people want it and are asking for it.

[london-boy]

I don't think the cost of development is a good excuse at all. I've talked to real people who work for companies who make ICs for different types of workloads and they've told me it's very cheap and the development environment is very mature and very fast.



HDTV is needed because people want it and are asking for it.

So we only need what we ask for? We should not get anything that we don't ask for?

[PC-Engine]

So we only need what we ask for? We should not get anything that we don't ask for?

Don't put words into other's mouths. People don't care if their TV has a CELL or a TI DSP which is totally differrent from whether or not they care if it's SDTV or HDTV. You brought up the retarded analogy so I simply replied.

[MfA]

I don't think the cost of development is a good excuse at all. I've talked to real people who work for companies who make ICs for different types of workloads and they've told me it's very cheap and the development environment is very mature and very fast.Sure, but those aren't 11 FO4 pipelined designs. Sticking to a single architecture still saves them some money, and their sophistication means they can get away with being less application specific without necessarily needing more mm2.

[london-boy]

Don't put words into other's mouths. People don't care if their TV has a CELL or a TI DSP which is totally differrent from whether or not they care if it's SDTV or HDTV. You brought up the retarded analogy so I simply replied.

Welcome back PC-Engine... :roll:

People don't care if TVs have Cell, but that's not the point. They don't need TO KNOW that Cell is there, but the advantages that Cell might bring to the TV (for example) will still be there! That's IF Cell will bring anything new to the table, which we still don't know.

Anyway, me being the HDTV freak i am, i think you guys should see this, it's pretty cool:

http://www.cornbread.org/FOTRCompare/index.html (take the mouse on and off the pictures to see the difference between the HD version and the DVD version)

[PC-Engine]

Sure, but those aren't 11 FO4 pipelined designs. Sticking to a single architecture still saves them some money, and their sophistication means they can get away with being less application specific without necessarily needing more mm2.

I don't think the money they will save is as much as they make it out to be, let alone turn their CE business around. It's more of a way to try and market the CELL architecture to sell to other companies like what the EE was supposed to have done.


Anyway, me being the HDTV freak i am, i think you guys should see this, it's pretty cool:


You'd be surprised how even an upscaling DVD player can improve a 480p movie. Upscaling a standard DVD movie from 480p to 1080i gives the picture a noticable improvement. I'd expect true HD movies would look even better than upscaled DVDs.:cool:

[Shifty Geezer]

I don't think the cost of development is a good excuse at all. I've talked to real people who work for companies who make ICs for different types of workloads and they've told me it's very cheap and the development environment is very mature and very fast.Yes it worlks fine now. The industry has grown up around custom and generic IC's of all sorts of different flavours. However a single unified hardware would mean portability of code. As I said elsewhere, if you develop an audio enhancement filter for a Cell hifi, you can port it directly to PS3 and TVs.

I believe Cell is lookng forward to a different way of doing things, and offering a solution to fulfil problems that aren't very apparent at the moment. It's akin to 3D graphics cards. We got by playing games without 3D graphics cards but once the hardware came along 2D died the death. Right now people can get by without 3D accelerators in their mobile phones and megacomplex DSPs in their home entertainment kit, but in the future we'll have found all sorts of uses for that power. Once upon a time someone rather famous said computers would never need more than 640k of memory. Do you REALLY want to say future CE goods aren't going to ever use more than current levels of processing power? And in that future do you really think developers would prefer to work with 4 different complex chip designs then 1 complex chip design?

Of course Cell might flunk out, and be too costly, and rivals may find another solution. But the concept at least of a scalable unified platform seems valid.

[expletive]

Yes it worlks fine now. The industry has grown up around custom and generic IC's of all sorts of different flavours. However a single unified hardware would mean portability of code. As I said elsewhere, if you develop an audio enhancement filter for a Cell hifi, you can port it directly to PS3 and TVs.

I believe Cell is lookng forward to a different way of doing things, and offering a solution to fulfil problems that aren't very apparent at the moment. It's akin to 3D graphics cards. We got by playing games without 3D graphics cards but once the hardware came along 2D died the death. Right now people can get by without 3D accelerators in their mobile phones and megacomplex DSPs in their home entertainment kit, but in the future we'll have found all sorts of uses for that power. Once upon a time someone rather famous said computers would never need more than 640k of memory. Do you REALLY want to say future CE goods aren't going to ever use more than current levels of processing power? And in that future do you really think developers would prefer to work with 4 different complex chip designs then 1 complex chip design?

Of course Cell might flunk out, and be too costly, and rivals may find another solution. But the concept at least of a scalable unified platform seems valid.

In theory, Sony could have invented a chip that runs x86 code and still accomplish the same thing. I'm not sure why portability of code is being trumpeted as a revolutionary idea.

My question remains, aside from Sony being able to cut costs, what about the cell is beneficial to the consumer? What can the cell do, that no other chip can do, that me as the consumer will be thinking 'wow this cell processor is for real'?

My conention with sony on the cell is the marketing claims that the cell can deliver something that no other chip can deliver (broadband content, yadda, yadda).

Yes a unified chip with portable code makes sense so they can scale their IP across multiple product lines, that part i get. But why it can only be a "cell" to do these things doesnt make any sense and doesnt have me convinced that in the end it will provide any technological advantage to their products or benefit to the consumer other than price (and Sony competing on price is something i'll believe when i see)

J

[Shifty Geezer]

My question remains, aside from Sony being able to cut costs, what about the cell is beneficial to the consumer? What can the cell do, that no other chip can do, that me as the consumer will be thinking 'wow this cell processor is for real'?Anything 'media' related. It can do, more effectively than any other processor I know of, image processing, audio processing, audio synthesis, DSP work, and host an OS to provide a GUI. An x86 isn't going to make an effective software synthesizer. A DSP isn't going to powerful a graphical front-end for a media centre. A custom IC for a TV based on a MIPS core isn't going to be any use in a mobile phone with audio, video and 3D gaming features. There's other solutions to do all these things but i doubt any will be as cost effective as an ideally deveoped Cell solution. Let's take 1 million TVs, 1 million handhelds, 1 million consoles and 1 million TiVo like devices. If they all use different chips economies of scale will be on 1 million chips. If they all use Cell economies of scal are on 4 milion chips. In Sony's greatest dream, if everything that could be Cell was Cell, the economies of scale would be enormous (and so would Sony's share price!)

For the consumer it potentially offers lower priced, better performance CE goods.

[expletive]

Anything 'media' related. It can do, more effectively than any other processor I know of, image processing, audio processing, audio synthesis, DSP work, and host an OS to provide a GUI. An x86 isn't going to make an effective software synthesizer. A DSP isn't going to powerful a graphical front-end for a media centre. A custom IC for a TV based on a MIPS core isn't going to be any use in a mobile phone with audio, video and 3D gaming features. There's other solutions to do all these things but i doubt any will be as cost effective as an ideally deveoped Cell solution. Let's take 1 million TVs, 1 million handhelds, 1 million consoles and 1 million TiVo like devices. If they all use different chips economies of scale will be on 1 million chips. If they all use Cell economies of scal are on 4 milion chips. In Sony's greatest dream, if everything that could be Cell was Cell, the economies of scale would be enormous (and so would Sony's share price!)

For the consumer it potentially offers lower priced, better performance CE goods.

Dont you think its a little premature to think that companies whose core competency is multimedia dedicated chips wont be making products that can do all the things youve already talked about the cell being able to do?

Multiple HD streams, audio processing, etc. There are companies BUILT around these technologies (and big companies too) and products. You think they dont know where the market is going and what the needs are going to be over the next 5 years?

Youre hung up on the cell being able to work in various devices. You know what, as a consumer, I DONT CARE that the same chip is in my DVD player, TV, toaster, blender, i just want the thing to perform well.

Sony isnt marketing the cell as 'a chip that will lower prices' they are marketing it as a chip that will 'change the world of multimedia.'

If they were saying to the public 'this chip will allow us to maintain quality at a lower price' great, no problem with that.

But this whole 'cells working in harmony with broadband content that will make air obsolete' hype is just too much.

I'm happy to be wrong on this i just dont see the technological/performance advantage at all. I'd love for air to be obsolete :)

J

[PC-Engine]

Anything 'media' related. It can do, more effectively than any other processor I know of, image processing, audio processing, audio synthesis, DSP work, and host an OS to provide a GUI. An x86 isn't going to make an effective software synthesizer. A DSP isn't going to powerful a graphical front-end for a media centre. A custom IC for a TV based on a MIPS core isn't going to be any use in a mobile phone with audio, video and 3D gaming features. There's other solutions to do all these things but i doubt any will be as cost effective as an ideally deveoped Cell solution. Let's take 1 million TVs, 1 million handhelds, 1 million consoles and 1 million TiVo like devices. If they all use different chips economies of scale will be on 1 million chips. If they all use Cell economies of scal are on 4 milion chips. In Sony's greatest dream, if everything that could be Cell was Cell, the economies of scale would be enormous (and so would Sony's share price!)

For the consumer it potentially offers lower priced, better performance CE goods.

MIPS cores can be used with a variety of different devices. A TV using a MIPS core with built-in SGX 3D core for fancy GUI can be used in a cellphone. How is this different from a CELL in a TV vs a CELL in a cellphone?

[Carl B]

Ok guys, cool party.

Anyway so the battle lines are drawn as far as opinion goes - let's just wait and see how the next couple of years go.

I think Cell has the opportunity to be revolutionary in the CE space; some others don't. But the points we're using to argue with each other are all valid, so I think we're just going to have to wait to see who was 'right.'

[randycat99]

As Randycat99 would say, CELL is a solution looking for a problem.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said this- EVER. You really deserve another 1 week ban for this unnecessary remark.

[PC-Engine]

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said this- EVER. You really deserve another 1 week ban for this unnecessary remark.

I didn't say you said CELL specifically so don't get your panties in a knot.

[JF_Aidan_Pryde]

I didn't say you said CELL specifically so don't get your panties in a knot.

What is this BS personal insult mixed in style of posting? Mods, would you ban this poster already? Thank you.

[wco81]

As bullish as I am about the Cell for gaming, I'm skeptical about the Cell for CE.

Yes the vision they have is of multiple Cell-enabled devices contributing idle resources to enhance performance and functionality. But this kind of transparent, scalable parallelism seems to be like one of those CS concepts that people forecast for a long time but never comes to pass.

Examples would include the supposed third-wave of computing where we all transition to PDAs or other mobile devices and computing becomes pervasive in our lives throughout the day (the previous waves would be first mainframe and other large systems, then the move towards personal computers). Or how about going from personal computers to thin clients because the network is the computer (didn't work out too well for Sun). Or platform-agnosticism provided by Java. Computer scientists have been coming up with these new paradigms for decades but few come to pass.

Now remember that when the EE was introduced, it was also accompanied with a lot of hype about how dramatic a change it would make to electronics products. The only uses of the EE in CE products are in a handful of TVs and the ill-fated PSX where the EE is used to generate on-screen displays for the UI. They're not being used AFAIK for something fancy like decoding MPEG streams or doing fancy image processing.

Already, companies like Sigma and Broadcom were at least close to sampling ASICs to decode H.264 AVC and VC-1 content, as well as process all the new audio codecs expected to be used in next-generation media players. These chips would presumably use a fraction of the silicon of the 1:8 Cell and be relatively cheap.

However, Sony doesn't seem to use third-party media processor chips. While Panasonic DVD players or Samsung DLPs are using Sage-Faroudja silicon, Sony seems to prefer to roll their own and give them monikers like Digital Reality Creation and MID.

Whether Sony takes this route because of cost efficiencies or product differentiation is unknown. As in the case of the PSP, they seem to be able to produce seemingly expensive chips like the Broadband Engine in the PSP and still deliver at surprising price levels. Of course, their CE products at least start out with a price premium.

It's highly unlikely that the Cell in CE products will entice consumers. When they shop for TVs or media players, they look for demonstrable things like image quality, features, design rather than look at paper advantages like the potential to do all kinds of image enhancement (what Sony alluded to at E3 with things like Cell Storage). Unless Cell-branded CE products can show demonstrable advantages in picture quality that other CE products can't match, I think most CE consumers will be indifferent to whether the internal components represent the pinnacle of CPU design.

[Shifty Geezer]

Examples would include the supposed third-wave of computing where we all transition to PDAs or other mobile devices and computing becomes pervasive in our lives throughout the day (the previous waves would be first mainframe and other large systems, then the move towards personal computers). Or how about going from personal computers to thin clients because the network is the computer (didn't work out too well for Sun). Or platform-agnosticism provided by Java. Computer scientists have been coming up with these new paradigms for decades but few come to pass.Though these things may not have come to pass as quickly as some experts anticipated, I don't think anyone can confidently say it'll never happen. In the main there's been technical bottlenecks preventing technology. eg. In EE I think Ken had a vision (that shared by Cell) but the reality was the tech level of humanity just wasn't up to it. Cell represents another attempt at the same goal. Maybe it'll hit, maybe it'll miss. But it seems a significant step in the right direction on paper.

And as for the third-wave of computing we're definitely halfway there with mobile phones becoming all and sundry devices + portable media players + GPS systems etc. No-one's quite managed to consolidate them all into a single perfect device but sooner or later it's got to be a certainty. I'm shocked how dependant people are on portable technologies already and it's only really taken off this past 5 with pretty basic tech. If in 20 years time 1st world societies don't have a very strong presence of a portable personal computing device I'll be very shocked. And likewise in 20 years time I'll be very shocked if Cell or something similar hasn't managed to create a uniform programmable hardware base for accomplishing electronic tasks and sharing resources.

[expletive]

Though these things may not have come to pass as quickly as some experts anticipated, I don't think anyone can confidently say it'll never happen. In the main there's been technical bottlenecks preventing technology. eg. In EE I think Ken had a vision (that shared by Cell) but the reality was the tech level of humanity just wasn't up to it. Cell represents another attempt at the same goal. Maybe it'll hit, maybe it'll miss. But it seems a significant step in the right direction on paper.

And as for the third-wave of computing we're definitely halfway there with mobile phones becoming all and sundry devices + portable media players + GPS systems etc. No-one's quite managed to consolidate them all into a single perfect device but sooner or later it's got to be a certainty. I'm shocked how dependant people are on portable technologies already and it's only really taken off this past 5 with pretty basic tech. If in 20 years time 1st world societies don't have a very strong presence of a portable personal computing device I'll be very shocked. And likewise in 20 years time I'll be very shocked if Cell or something similar hasn't managed to create a uniform programmable hardware base for accomplishing electronic tasks and sharing resources.

Does anyone else feel that this is another example of the differences between the approaches of MS and Sony, both in the console gaming and other spaces?

I have this overall perception that MS tends to ask customers (i.e. 'gather requirements' ) what they want and then goes off and designs the best version of that. OTOH, it seems Sony is always telling customers what they NEED and uses marketing to make what theyve built BECOME the customers needs.

I dont have a list of examples beyond the obvious Minidisc/memory stick stuff, but thats just the perception thats been built over time.

J

[wco81]

Not saying these things won't happen. But they've been talking about it for 10-15 years. If they keep saying it for long enough, it probably will happen.

Cell phones are ubiquitous and they're becoming more complicated devices. But the bulk of them are basic and people consistently say they're not interested in the rich media features, just more reliable voice.

Certainly things like Blackberries and iPods have hit a chord with some segment of the market. But these are application-specific devices (as are phones), not things which are meant to replicate or replace computers. In fact, a lot of portable devices work better in a complementary fashion with PCs than as standalone devices.

Remember those old AT&T commercials about 5-10 years ago where they promised things like people doing "work" from a beach through a portable tablet? Well it turns out it took good old laptops and the ubiquity of Wifi to more or less deliver on that promise and AT&T wasn't involved at all (even though they at the time owned some pen computing startups).

In one sense, digital appliances have started to proliferate (market analysts for example are keen to point out that only 1% of the population has iPods or digital audio players). But these are application-specific things like phones or digital cameras.

Maybe that's a lesson that the Cell will succeed in application-specific products like game consoles rather than in every other kind of digital appliance or CE products.

[one]

I have this overall perception that MS tends to ask customers (i.e. 'gather requirements' ) what they want and then goes off and designs the best version of that. OTOH, it seems Sony is always telling customers what they NEED and uses marketing to make what theyve built BECOME the customers needs.

I dont have a list of examples beyond the obvious Minidisc/memory stick stuff, but thats just the perception thats been built over time.Could you clarify what's 'obvious' about Minidisc/memory stick? Also 'MS tends to ask customers what they want'... what example do you have in your mind?

[expletive]

Could you clarify what's 'obvious' about Minidisc/memory stick? Also 'MS tends to ask customers what they want'... what example do you have in your mind?


Minidisc and memory stick were two formats that were proprietary to Sony and provided no benefit to the customer. If there were benefits to the customer, they werent benefits that were important to the user experience.

There were flash memory formats that were superior to memory stick when it was released both in terms of cost and capacity, yet Sony chose to introduce this new format anyway instead of utilizing and of the existing ones.

I'm sure if you would ahve asked customers which they would have preferred:

1. An inexpensive, existing flash format that would be interchangeable with other flash devices you may own.

2. A new propriietary foramt that will be more pricey per MB and will ONLY work in Sony devices.

...

Same thing with minidisc. Sony paid the price dearly for this because instead of benefitting from the MP3 boom by selling a flash device based on a more ubiquitous flash format or an HD based player, they stuck to the MD format and spent most of the wave on the sidelines. An event that cost a few Sony execs their jobs.

From working with Microsoft and their relationship managers, they are always trying to understand exactly where our users will be in the coming years. They take our feedback and actually roll it up into requirements. We've actually seen some of our concerns and issues make it into their products (of course it wasnt just my company that did this, there was likely a much larger groundswell at work there).

I think the thing with MS is, being in the software business, they HAVE to operate this way becasue its intrinsic to software development. "Gathering requirements" is the starting point for any development effort so it seems theyve grown using that model in all their businesses. Unfortunately while it seems obvious to some that asking your customer what they want should be #1 (or at least 1A), for some reason ive been a lot places where it isnt obvious to everyone. I cant see how Sony comes up with the MD or memory stick if they btohered to ask their customers. Or worse, did ask, but just didnt care.

J

[Crazyace]

I believe the MiniDisc were aimed at replacing the audio tape ... ( They competed more with phillips's DCC than flash memory/mp3 players )
The 'advantage' of a minidisc was that each disc was extremely cheap compared to the equiv. memory card.. but the convenience of the small solid state memory was much better..

Memory stick was just another player in the camera/market - your comment is a bit like telling Microsoft not to bother with a console as there is estabilished technology out there...

( My problem with Minidisc wasn't the disc format - or even the Atrac/mp3 issue... The software tools on PC often let things down )

[Phil]

I'd also like to add that MiniDisc is fairly old and came out when mp3 didn't even exist yet. If my memory doesn't fail me, we actually got the very first portable MiniDisc walkman in the early 90s. (I think it was 1991).

[one]

Minidisc and memory stick were two formats that were proprietary to Sony and provided no benefit to the customer.No benefit... in 1992? :roll: It's small, it's rewritable, it's digital, and it's more shock-proof than a CD player.
From working with Microsoft and their relationship managers, they are always trying to understand exactly where our users will be in the coming years. They take our feedback and actually roll it up into requirements. We've actually seen some of our concerns and issues make it into their products (of course it wasnt just my company that did this, there was likely a much larger groundswell at work there).Oh really? Haven't you heard horror stories about MS product support for servers? Slow patching? Microsoft can ship sh!t products with plenty of bugs, which can be in no way tolerated in embedded consumer products.
I think the thing with MS is, being in the software business, they HAVE to operate this way becasue its intrinsic to software development. "Gathering requirements" is the starting point for any development effort so it seems theyve grown using that model in all their businesses.Are you kidding? Sony has been working with ILM for recent Star Wars movies. No business can work without "gathering requirements" of customers, period.

[wco81]

I think MS is known more for marketing requirements driven, especially in products like Office where they do focus groups to refine the feature set between releases. They draw on their big customers a lot since they need these big customers to upgrade.

Sony on the other hand has always had a R&D development focus where they follow the technology. For instance, there was no wide customer requirement for a product like the CD (or for that matter MD) before they were introduced to the market. The CD obviously succeeded because customers saw advantages over previous formats. The MD didn't succeed, at least globally. Similarly, there was no great clamor for the DVD before it came out but once it did, adoption took off.

You can't always do product development based on market expectations or limited knowledge of what's possible.

People chide Sony for being proprietary but they've probably invested more over the years in R&D. But their strategy is to offer differentiation at a premium, always staying ahead of the commoditization curve. It worked with the Trinitron and for awhile with the Walkman but it obviously didn't work with the Memory Stick.

Another company which bucks the trend of focus groups is Apple. Or rather, their focus group is limited to one man. So far, it's really worked on one Apple product line (but a series of models).

[Titanio]

You need a mix, but I think Sony definitely does appreciate that people aren't always going to know what they want before they see it. Innovation is often about "push". And Sony isn't afraid to try that, even when it doesn't always work. But it has worked very well for them too (e.g. the walkman, eyetoy - did anyone ask for these?).

[Shifty Geezer]

I think MS is known more for marketing requirements driven, especially in products like Office where they do focus groups to refine the feature set between releases.

Another company which bucks the trend of focus groups is Apple.No large company is daft enough to release into the world a product without having scoped out public perception through focus groups and research agencies. A $100,000 on market research is nothing compared to the losses of a bombed product. Yu have ideas and try them out. Of course focus groups aren't infallable, and it's amazing what junk manages to pass through with thumbs up from the focus groups!

[wco81]

Microsoft obviously has a lot of distinguished CS researchers on its payroll. Not sure what has come out of all this however. The tablet PC, a pet project of Gates, really hasn't taken off. Nor has Media Center Edition, although they will continue to emphasize it, to complement the X360 and as a Vista SKU. Nor did Portable Media Center.

Product initiatives like IPTV and their phone and PDA OSes do seem designed to fill a perceived market need. IOW, the technology didn't lead to these products, it was just to jump into new markets and possible sources of revenues.

It was interesting that in the wake of E3, MS trotted out people from its Advanced Technology Group to explain the advantages of the X360 vis a vis PS3. Not sure if this ATG is part of their pure research arm or more of a product development organization.

But I seem to recall that they showcased how their pure research people were working on graphics, new kinds of displays, etc.

[Shifty Geezer]

Product initiatives like IPTV and their phone and PDA OSes do seem designed to fill a perceived market need. IOW, the technology didn't lead to these products, it was just to jump into new markets and possible sources of revenues.Some of these products are speculative, both to test the waters and to start building a name. A lot of this tech might be 10 years from mainstream, but setting it up now sets the building blocks to gradually work up to stronger brand when the mainstream starts to think about it.

Though I will add that a lot of these technologies seem to ignore the fact that most people aren't rich! Most people haven't much money left over from paying for house, food, transport, clothes, kids upkeep and such.

[mckmas8808]

It worked with the Trinitron and for awhile with the Walkman but it obviously didn't work with the Memory Stick.




Not to take a cheap shot at you but I hear that Pro duo sticks are selling out everywhere now after the PSP came out. Point being maybe Sony memory stick will look a little better in the long run. Maybe not better than the others, but it could be within the competition.

[wco81]

Well when you're as rich as Microsoft, they can make bets on everything.

Regarding focus groups, I'm sure Apple has marketing and they do focus groups. But look at how MS is pushing hard for portable video and media players (they're pushing for managed copies or legalized rips of HD-DVDs for home media servers and presumably portable video players as well). Yet at the same time, Jobs has resisted calls from Wall Street to try to repeat the iPod for some kind of video player/video download service.

At least for the time being, since rumors are, they're working on something along these lines.

But a bunch of other players are pushing portable video players now.

[expletive]

Memory stick was just another player in the camera/market - your comment is a bit like telling Microsoft not to bother with a console as there is estabilished technology out there...

I think its a little different. An alternate analogy might be Microsoft saying if you want to run Windows, you can only run Office as busines productivity suite.

J

[expletive]

Not to take a cheap shot at you but I hear that Pro duo sticks are selling out everywhere now after the PSP came out. Point being maybe Sony memory stick will look a little better in the long run. Maybe not better than the others, but it could be within the competition.

It wont look any better for the consumer unless you own all Sony products. :)

Also, why, on my Sony DCR-HC90 minidv camcorder, can i not use industry standard hot-show accessories? This includes the ones made by Sony, with the new shoe you must buy Sony hot-shoe acessories.

In the end this is why i was reluctant to get very descriptive regarding this with Sony becuase unless you measure your words carefully youre setting youreself up for flaming.

Also, my original post was more a question than a statement and this is an overall perception that i have, based on a series of non-specific events filed away in my head.

J

[expletive]

You need a mix, but I think Sony definitely does appreciate that people aren't always going to know what they want before they see it. Innovation is often about "push". And Sony isn't afraid to try that, even when it doesn't always work. But it has worked very well for them too (e.g. the walkman, eyetoy - did anyone ask for these?).

Agreed, I think there is a component of Sony's strategy that is innovation.

J

[ihamoitc2005]

It wont look any better for the consumer unless you own all Sony products. :)

Also, why, on my Sony DCR-HC90 minidv camcorder, can i not use industry standard hot-show accessories? This includes the ones made by Sony, with the new shoe you must buy Sony hot-shoe acessories.

In the end this is why i was reluctant to get very descriptive regarding this with Sony becuase unless you measure your words carefully youre setting youreself up for flaming.

Also, my original post was more a question than a statement and this is an overall perception that i have, based on a series of non-specific events filed away in my head.

J

Sony mindset is a little like Apple.

[Shifty Geezer]

LOTS of companies do that. Many years ago if you bought certain brand name PCs you'd pay twice as much for a memory upgrades because they used proprietary memory. Same chips as normal memory but in a custom package so they could overcharge. MS themselves have tried all sorts of ways to introduce proprietary software tech to promote an MS way of doing things, including messing around with open standards.

By using MemoryStick Sony are promoting a Sony deivce family. Say you've got a MemStick for PSP and are looking for a digital camera. Buying a Sony camera means you can use the MemStick directly. And then when looking for a TV maybe a TV with MemStick support to show your pics will add extra value. And if you don't like that way of doing things, you can buy alternative products. Sony don't have a monopoly (which is why they're not being taken to court under unfair competition laws all the time like MS :p)

Cell as a proprietary tech adds this 'added value' to Sony and Cell compatible devices, if it's every implemented as such.

[mckmas8808]

LOTS of companies do that. Many years ago if you bought certain brand name PCs you'd pay twice as much for a memory upgrades because they used proprietary memory. Same chips as normal memory but in a custom package so they could overcharge. MS themselves have tried all sorts of ways to introduce proprietary software tech to promote an MS way of doing things, including messing around with open standards.

By using MemoryStick Sony are promoting a Sony deivce family. Say you've got a MemStick for PSP and are looking for a digital camera. Buying a Sony camera means you can use the MemStick directly. And then when looking for a TV maybe a TV with MemStick support to show your pics will add extra value. And if you don't like that way of doing things, you can buy alternative products. Sony don't have a monopoly (which is why they're not being taken to court under unfair competition laws all the time like MS :p)

Cell as a proprietary tech adds this 'added value' to Sony and Cell compatible devices, if it's every implemented as such.

QFT.

[expletive]

LOTS of companies do that. Many years ago if you bought certain brand name PCs you'd pay twice as much for a memory upgrades because they used proprietary memory. Same chips as normal memory but in a custom package so they could overcharge. MS themselves have tried all sorts of ways to introduce proprietary software tech to promote an MS way of doing things, including messing around with open standards.

By using MemoryStick Sony are promoting a Sony deivce family. Say you've got a MemStick for PSP and are looking for a digital camera. Buying a Sony camera means you can use the MemStick directly. And then when looking for a TV maybe a TV with MemStick support to show your pics will add extra value. And if you don't like that way of doing things, you can buy alternative products. Sony don't have a monopoly (which is why they're not being taken to court under unfair competition laws all the time like MS :p)

Cell as a proprietary tech adds this 'added value' to Sony and Cell compatible devices, if it's every implemented as such.

I understand the concept of promoting the product family, but to me its not promotion, its "once you buy the first one we're going to make it more difficult to use anything but our products". Its like joining Amway. I'm sure there is other subtle 'coersion' in the CE industry, it just hasnt been as blatantly obvious (to me at least) with any other brand of anything ive ever owned.

I know we've touched on this already but how does it benefit the consumer if they own a cell-based DVD player, to buy a cell based camcorder or TV? If that is, in fact, your point.

As far as the MS litigation, i think in the software industry it is much easier "steal" IP and also much easier to claim it was "stolen". Not saying MS are a bunch of choirboys (i'm sure not by a long shot) but lots of the larger software/IP companies spend lots of time in court (e.g. the whole RAMBUS/JEDEC mess) both justly and unjustly.

J

[Sis]

Microsoft obviously has a lot of distinguished CS researchers on its payroll. Not sure what has come out of all this however. The tablet PC, a pet project of Gates, really hasn't taken off. Nor has Media Center Edition, although they will continue to emphasize it, to complement the X360 and as a Vista SKU. Nor did Portable Media Center.

Product initiatives like IPTV and their phone and PDA OSes do seem designed to fill a perceived market need. IOW, the technology didn't lead to these products, it was just to jump into new markets and possible sources of revenues.

It was interesting that in the wake of E3, MS trotted out people from its Advanced Technology Group to explain the advantages of the X360 vis a vis PS3. Not sure if this ATG is part of their pure research arm or more of a product development organization.

But I seem to recall that they showcased how their pure research people were working on graphics, new kinds of displays, etc.Some decent points here, but to clarify:

Media Center is taking off:

http://www.currentanalysis.com/news/detail.asp?id=100307

For the week ending August 20, 2005, Media Center PCs accounted for 43% of all desktop personal computers sold in the U.S. retail market, based on data from a sampling of U.S. retailers.

Table PCs are doing strong in vertical markets. Just struggling to find a leg in the consumer and business market. But give them time, just like with PDA:

http://www.internetnews.com/stats/article.php/3525706

The leading OS on PDAs, according to Gartner, is Microsoft (Quote, Chart), with a 46 percent market share, which was fuelled by 64 percent growth in the quarter vs. the same period last year.
.Sis

[mckmas8808]

I know we've touched on this already but how does it benefit the consumer if they own a cell-based DVD player, to buy a cell based camcorder or TV? If that is, in fact, your point.

That unfortuntely we will have to wait until a later date to fully understand.

[ihamoitc2005]

I have heard much higher numbers than that for the entire cell development cost (a couple billion) -- where did you get that number?

An IBM presentation. Should be available on web try google. This is just the devepment cost for the chip including design for STI. Another $325M was spent by Sony to help IBM refine a 65nm process. Will PS3 have 65nm CELL? Interesting question no?

[Phil]

I understand the concept of promoting the product family, but to me its not promotion, its "once you buy the first one we're going to make it more difficult to use anything but our products". Its like joining Amway. I'm sure there is other subtle 'coersion' in the CE industry, it just hasnt been as blatantly obvious (to me at least) with any other brand of anything ive ever owned.

Entirely subjective. It's in the interest of all companies to promote their own products and make it less easy for customers to switch to other products. It always has been that way. Best example is Microsoft and Windows. If you don't want the added experience of Sony products, don't buy them.

I know we've touched on this already but how does it benefit the consumer if they own a cell-based DVD player, to buy a cell based camcorder or TV? If that is, in fact, your point.

I, for one, have already posted on this (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=574738&postcount=38), to which you merely replied to "it's a gimmick". I suggest you read it again and then come back before asking something that already has been answered. There's also a search function you can use - this has been debated and discussed before (you can find interviews and articles about CELL and Kutaragi talking about possibilities what CELL in the CE space could achieve).

[one]

I understand the concept of promoting the product family, but to me its not promotion, its "once you buy the first one we're going to make it more difficult to use anything but our products". Its like joining Amway. I'm sure there is other subtle 'coersion' in the CE industry, it just hasnt been as blatantly obvious (to me at least) with any other brand of anything ive ever owned.Why do you always ignore product value per se and stick to the 'big picture'? For most casual users, it doesn't matter what the future plan of a company is. They buy things that just work. Also, there are people who buy new products no matter how much that cost.

Anyway, as I repeat it, subtle 'coersion' you want to find in CE industry is the most obvious in Microsoft Windows which is the software compatibility controlled by Microsoft. You see it in Win16 -> Win32 -> Win64 thunk, you see it in ActiveX, you see it in .NET, and you see it in Word .doc format.

Now, aside from this unproductive discussion about corporate strategy, it's interesting that Sony adopts Memstick/SD card/CompactFlash in PS3 while MS adopted strictly proprietary memory unit for Xbox 360 (and proprietary HDD, of course). SD card is just the de facto standard and it's proprietary too though it has more companies behind it (Matsushita, Sandisk, Toshiba).

[Shifty Geezer]

I know we've touched on this already but how does it benefit the consumer if they own a cell-based DVD player, to buy a cell based camcorder or TV? If that is, in fact, your point.As these things don't exist yet who can say? It all depends on what Sony and Toshiba manage to do with the tech whether it offers something people want. And if not those people will go buy different brands.

[PC-Engine]

An IBM presentation. Should be available on web try google. This is just the devepment cost for the chip including design for STI. Another $325M was spent by Sony to help IBM refine a 65nm process. Will PS3 have 65nm CELL? Interesting question no?

65nm will come and go just like the others before it. PS3 will use it when it's ready and it's not exclusive to STI or CELL either.

[Vince]

PS3 will use it when it's ready and it's not exclusive to STI or CELL either.

You are in no position to make such a statement, how do you know the specific process technology developed under agreement at IBM's SRDC isn't restricted towards use affiliated with STI?

As an aside, you don't have to try and downplay everything Sony does. Seriously, it's ok...

[PC-Engine]

You are in no position to make such a statement, how do you know the specific process technology developed under agreement at IBM's SRDC isn't restricted towards use affiliated with STI?

Whoah Vince how you doing buddy? Anyway I was referring to 65nm process technology in general which many fab companies will have up and running next year including TMSC, UMC, Fujitsu, etc. You can bet MS will be shrinking both the GPU and CPU within two years.


As an aside, you don't have to try and downplay everything Sony does. Seriously, it's ok...


Well it's a nice counter balance to you praising SONY at every corner...

[darkblu]

Anyway, me being the HDTV freak i am, i think you guys should see this, it's pretty cool:

http://www.cornbread.org/FOTRCompare/index.html (take the mouse on and off the pictures to see the difference between the HD version and the DVD version)

wow, somebody is playng a bad joke. the dvd material looks damn undersampled. it was either intrelaced originally, or whoever grabbed it from the mpeg2 stream did not know what he was doing, or both. as a final option, the dvd may have been crappily mastered, which i doubt though. btw, what was that guy saying about 'bicubically scaling dvd to hd res'..?

[expletive]

I, for one, have already posted on this (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=574738&postcount=38), to which you merely replied to "it's a gimmick". I suggest you read it again and then come back before asking something that already has been answered. There's also a search function you can use - this has been debated and discussed before (you can find interviews and articles about CELL and Kutaragi talking about possibilities what CELL in the CE space could achieve).

From what i can see my response was:

"Ive heard this before Phil but have yet to hear a real example of what in the world theyre talking about. I'm not saying there isnt one, just that no one has been able to produce one for me yet.

Shift in content distribution? Meaning what?"

And you paraphrased that into me saying "its a gimmick"? (did i say the gimmick thing somwhere else?)

All those responses you copied into your post, while nicely worded, still dont explain what is intrinsic about the architecture of the cell that will enable any of these things to happen.

For example, you quoted this piece:
"So, what’s going to happen is - Sony will start releasing products with Cell and a way to communicate; Wireless, Broadband, et al. People will buy them. People will want other electronic products. People and Salesman says, "Wow, If I buy the Sony product, it'll work with my other one and allow me to do this.. Or that... Easily." People buy more Sony products. Sony makes more money."

What does the cell have to do with it? Sony can implement this model today without the cell, and i think we've already covered that they are.

J

[mckmas8808]

Is that the real difference between DVD and HD-DVD? If so then wow.

[expletive]

As these things don't exist yet who can say? It all depends on what Sony and Toshiba manage to do with the tech whether it offers something people want. And if not those people will go buy different brands.


I just find it interesting that people are buying into the idea that the cell will somehow change the face and interactivity/interoperability of CE, yet have no idea, in practice, how.

Again, i'm not saying there isnt something groundbreaking on the horizon here, i just dont see it - and would like to.

J

[expletive]

Why do you always ignore product value per se and stick to the 'big picture'? For most casual users, it doesn't matter what the future plan of a company is. They buy things that just work. Also, there are people who buy new products no matter how much that cost.

Anyway, as I repeat it, subtle 'coersion' you want to find in CE industry is the most obvious in Microsoft Windows which is the software compatibility controlled by Microsoft. You see it in Win16 -> Win32 -> Win64 thunk, you see it in ActiveX, you see it in .NET, and you see it in Word .doc format.

Now, aside from this unproductive discussion about corporate strategy, it's interesting that Sony adopts Memstick/SD card/CompactFlash in PS3 while MS adopted strictly proprietary memory unit for Xbox 360 (and proprietary HDD, of course). SD card is just the de facto standard and it's proprietary too though it has more companies behind it (Matsushita, Sandisk, Toshiba).

Has sony said you will be able to save games on all of those memory formats? If so, thats cool and i give them credit. If theyre just allowing you to plug them in to view pics and listen to music, thats still cool but not as big a deal, and not any better or worse than the 360 mem card.

The proprietary HD thing i can udnerstand tho, if youre going to have one i think you need to have control over how that device is going to behave in the system for compatibility/performance's sake. Being a closed box system where some developers are going to use the HD for caching, etc, it should be standardized.

I agree most consumers dont care about strategy and for all my concerns here, i own a Sony minidv camcorder, PSP, and 2 memory stick duos. :)

J

[Shifty Geezer]

But we've covered this ground. I gave some examples of where I think Cell can be used earlier in this thread (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=574698&postcount=37) and interoperability would allow a device to share the resources of another. I posted an example on this too but don't know if it's in this thread or not. The example was a digital 3D rendering during an archaeology TV program. We had Teletext, and now digital text and info and our Red Button for digital content (in the UK). In the future it's likely this extra content will have expanded to included more media stuff, in the same way the web has expanded from just text and pictures to embedded media and interactive content. So on this TV programme there's the option to press your Red Button and have an interactive model of say Tutankhamun taken through a new scanning technology. On your 1:2 Cell TV you can interact with it at 15 fps. Connect up your Cell PS3 or Audio Decoder and the frame rate improves. Your Cell 1:4 HDR digital camcorder can encode a 720p+depth film at a rate of 1 minute processing for each five minutes of footage. Connect it to your TV and its Cell get's that up to 1 minute processing for 7 minutes film. With the PS3 switched on too you get 15 minutes of film encoded every minute.

At the moment it's hard to think of applications that can use that much power, but the same has been true of computing since it's inception, back to the days when it was theorised the world would only ever need 3 computers. People couldn't imagine then myriad of uses we have now or where it would lead. Interactive high definition 3D media is going to need massive processing at some point, such as powering your 3D holographic projector. Setting the ground work now is pretty forward thinking IMO (though maybe a little prematurely forward!)

[Shifty Geezer]

Has sony said you will be able to save games on all of those memory formats? A quote from a Sony exec was something like 'of course you're going to want to be able to save to all those formats aren't you!' when asked about their inclusion. It's certainly heavily implied.

[expletive]

But we've covered this ground. I gave some examples of where I think Cell can be used earlier in this thread (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=574698&postcount=37) and interoperability would allow a device to share the resources of another. I posted an example on this too but don't know if it's in this thread or not. The example was a digital 3D rendering during an archaeology TV program. We had Teletext, and now digital text and info and our Red Button for digital content (in the UK). In the future it's likely this extra content will have expanded to included more media stuff, in the same way the web has expanded from just text and pictures to embedded media and interactive content. So on this TV programme there's the option to press your Red Button and have an interactive model of say Tutankhamun taken through a new scanning technology. On your 1:2 Cell TV you can interact with it at 15 fps. Connect up your Cell PS3 or Audio Decoder and the frame rate improves. Your Cell 1:4 HDR digital camcorder can encode a 720p+depth film at a rate of 1 minute processing for each five minutes of footage. Connect it to your TV and its Cell get's that up to 1 minute processing for 7 minutes film. With the PS3 switched on too you get 15 minutes of film encoded every minute.

At the moment it's hard to think of applications that can use that much power, but the same has been true of computing since it's inception, back to the days when it was theorised the world would only ever need 3 computers. People couldn't imagine then myriad of uses we have now or where it would lead. Interactive high definition 3D media is going to need massive processing at some point, such as powering your 3D holographic projector. Setting the ground work now is pretty forward thinking IMO (though maybe a little prematurely forward!)

Yes we did cover this, and my response was that theres nothing about the cell that dedicated audio/video processing chips cant, or wont be able to, accomplish.

"On your 1:2 Cell TV you can interact with it at 15 fps. Connect up your Cell PS3 or Audio Decoder and the frame rate improves. Your Cell 1:4 HDR digital camcorder can encode a 720p+depth film at a rate of 1 minute processing for each five minutes of footage. "

Again, what about this example says that you couldnt replace any instance of "Cell" with another dedicated processor?

EDIT: yes i do remember the point on SOny being able to re-use code for codecs across all devices and that is a benefit to them but im looking more for how the cell architecture improves the customer experience.

J

[expletive]

A quote from a Sony exec was something like 'of course you're going to want to be able to save to all those formats aren't you!' when asked about their inclusion. It's certainly heavily implied.

He did imply savegames right, not just copying music and photos around to each other or from an online media service?

J

[Vince]

Whoah Vince how you doing buddy? Anyway I was referring to 65nm process technology in general which many fab companies will have up and running next year including TMSC, UMC, Fujitsu, etc. You can bet MS will be shrinking both the GPU and CPU within two years.

First of all, it was implicit in his statement that it was concerning Sony's investment with IBM which resulted in their work on 65nm and, later, 45nm, process technologies at the SRDC. It's clear that all process technologies aren't the same; this is such a case. Sony was the first to liecense IBM's highend xS SOI process. AFAIK, Chartered and Infineon both don't have access to the xS series of process technologies. AMD is the likely exception to this; when you look at IBM's recent advancements like their strained-silicon technology accounced at IEEE2004, the credit was given to the SDRC team from IBM, Sony, Toshiba and AMD.

Second, not a single one of the fab companies you listed is even close to being on the same level as STI, AMD or Intel when it comes to process technologies, integration and TTM.

Thirdly, don't attempt to brush aside your blatent attempts at downplaying an action of Sony due to the necessity of counter-balancing me. Not only is this ridiculous in the absolute, but by your own admission I haven't been posting often. So, please....

[Vince]

Again, what about this example says that you couldnt replace any instance of "Cell" with another dedicated processor?

Because it's infeasible, as shown by the inability of any company (or sets of companies) to do the same up to this point. Microsoft's attempts at an OS-lvl solution are all failures, Sun's Java is a great solution which is infeasible to implement in reality.

Cell provides a singular and efficient solution based around a contemporary and efficient ISA that sits somewhere between the extremities of an inefficient catch-all, do-all x86 and the absolute static nature of a DSP. It provides a targeted solution for a specific problem set at the semiconductor level, the hardware and - as we shall see - the software level.

[AlphaWolf]

Because it's infeasible, as shown by the inability of any company (or sets of companies) to do the same up to this point. Microsoft's attempts at an OS-lvl solution are all failures, Sun's Java is a great solution which is infeasible to implement in reality.

Cell provides a singular and efficient solution based around a contemporary and efficient ISA that sits somewhere between the extremities of an inefficient catch-all, do-all x86 and the absolute static nature of a DSP. It provides a targeted solution for a specific problem set at the semiconductor level, the hardware and - as we shall see - the software level.

Well I have my hip waders on, but I am still going to back away from that pile.

[expletive]

Because it's infeasible, as shown by the inability of any company (or sets of companies) to do the same up to this point. Microsoft's attempts at an OS-lvl solution are all failures, Sun's Java is a great solution which is infeasible to implement in reality.

Cell provides a singular and efficient solution based around a contemporary and efficient ISA that sits somewhere between the extremities of an inefficient catch-all, do-all x86 and the absolute static nature of a DSP. It provides a targeted solution for a specific problem set at the semiconductor level, the hardware and - as we shall see - the software level.

Yeah i get it, its a new, flexible chip that solves Sony's problem of product differentiation and having to pay other vendors for task-specific chips. However, this still doesnt answer my question. Thanks for the in-thread infomercial though. :)

J

[MfA]

Again, what about this example says that you couldnt replace any instance of "Cell" with another dedicated processor?Not that I think sharing processor power is at all realistic, but as I said before ... 11 FO4 pipeline stages. As long as the problem fits Cell decently then why develop another processor? This isn't your average ASIC design, and other companies dont have a console to amortize the development costs.

[expletive]

Not that I think sharing processor power is at all realistic, but as I said before ... 11 FO4 pipeline stages. As long as the problem fits Cell decently then why develop another processor? This isn't your average ASIC design, and other companies dont have a console to amortize the development costs.

I'm not saying there isnt a benefit to Sony for developing a universal chip or portable software that works across devices, that just plain makes sense and lots of companies do it.

My question is, aside from possibly cheaper products (Sony, of course, would pass their economies-of-scale savings on to customers), how will the cell processor used across Sony CE products benefit the consumer in ways that dedicated, task-specific chips wouldnt.

J

[randycat99]

This is like "proving a negative". In some situations, it will. In other situations, it won't. Either way hardly constitutes a justification for it to not be utilized. Why have any new processor design since the late 80's? It's an utterly pointless question. You really think demanding forum goers here to define an entire product family ahead of Sony themselves, just to give you a warm-fuzzy feeling for Cell, really accomplishes something???

You ask, but is there any answer whatsoever that you would deem "relevant"? Of course not. You've already decided your stance on the matter. Hence, your "asking" is merely an overture to make us believe only what you believe. So that brings us to the very obvious realization that bothering to answer your question is pointless.

...and don't take that as a flame or me shouting at you. This is posted to you in a completely calm and logic manner, in realization of the true nature of the discussion which is not inquisitive in nature, at all.

[AlphaWolf]

This is like "proving a negative". In some situations, it will. In other situations, it won't. Either way hardly constitutes a justification for it to not be utilized. Why have any new processor design since the late 80's? It's an utterly pointless question. You really think demanding forum goers here to define an entire product family ahead of Sony themselves, just to give you a warm-fuzzy feeling for Cell, really accomplishes something???

You ask, but is there any answer whatsoever that you would deem "relevant"? Of course not. You've already decided your stance on the matter. Hence, your "asking" is merely an overture to make us believe only what you believe. So that brings us to the very obvious realization that bothering to answer your question is pointless.

...and don't take that as a flame or me shouting at you. This is posted to you in a completely calm and logic manner, in realization of the true nature of the discussion which is not inquisitive in nature, at all.

I don't think he was ever suggesting it wouldn't be utilized, only that there was nothing new or exciting about the prospect. I don't really see any ways in which consumer electronics will benefit on the consumer end. Is there is a big demand for more 'intelligent' consumer electronics? Certainly not in my house. I expect my fridge to keep my stuff cold, I don't want it to order milk for me. I doubt there is a situation where they are saying 'OMG now we have cell we can do all that stuff with TV's we couldn't do before'.

[randycat99]

The technological future or the performance demands in a future device is very difficult to predict. That is why a lot of new product debuts are simply testing the waters to see if something "clicks" in the consumer and it takes off like hotcakes, or the consumer drops it like a cold potato because they just didn't get it.

Probably, people in the not so distant past never realized that someone could "need" a 10 GFLOP CPU for a desktop computer, either. Such would seem like ridiculous overkill and a waste of resources, given what they knew as standard in their era.

[Trawler]

Cell is a processor architecture that Sony hope to use throughout their product line. Sony hope the design is flexible enough for it to use it as their sole solution for processing, thus minimizing the costs involved with designing dedicated processing components in future.

What it is not is a new form of distributed computing. That is in the realm of software layers, such as web services and the like which allow greater flexibility when it comes to client hardware components. Everything published on this matter by Sony is pure marketing speak and makes little practical sense.

Apologies for going so OT.

[MfA]

My question is, aside from possibly cheaper products (Sony, of course, would pass their economies-of-scale savings on to customers), how will the cell processor used across Sony CE products benefit the consumer in ways that dedicated, task-specific chips wouldnt.Well you asked why other processors couldnt share processing power in the same way as Cell (which as I said is not something I expect to see happen). To do it the processor needs to be general purpose programmable, and few such processors are as sophisticated as Cell.

[expletive]

This is like "proving a negative". In some situations, it will. In other situations, it won't. Either way hardly constitutes a justification for it to not be utilized. Why have any new processor design since the late 80's? It's an utterly pointless question. You really think demanding forum goers here to define an entire product family ahead of Sony themselves, just to give you a warm-fuzzy feeling for Cell, really accomplishes something???

You ask, but is there any answer whatsoever that you would deem "relevant"? Of course not. You've already decided your stance on the matter. Hence, your "asking" is merely an overture to make us believe only what you believe. So that brings us to the very obvious realization that bothering to answer your question is pointless.

...and don't take that as a flame or me shouting at you. This is posted to you in a completely calm and logic manner, in realization of the true nature of the discussion which is not inquisitive in nature, at all.

I'm not demanding anything of anyone. All ive ever asked is how this technology benefits me, the consumer, by using it across their CE product line (aside from MAYBE cheaper stuff).

Relevnat has ntohing to do with it, at this point i'll settle for anything thats PLAUSIBLE, much less relevant.

Its only pointless to you becuase you have no answer. This isnt some subversive commentary to secretly make a point. Its a legitmate question that no one has been able to answer, sorry it bothers you so much.

J

[AlphaWolf]

The technological future or the performance demands in a future device is very difficult to predict. That is why a lot of new product debuts are simply testing the waters to see if something "clicks" in the consumer and it takes off like hotcakes, or the consumer drops it like a cold potato because they just didn't get it.

That really has nothing specifically to do with Cell.

Probably, people in the not so distant past never realized that someone could "need" a 10 GFLOP CPU for a desktop computer, either. Such would seem like ridiculous overkill and a waste of resources, given what they knew as standard in their era.

There is always segments of the PC market that need more power. Saying some people are short sighted doesn't suddenly create some niche for Cell. Thats not to say that Cell won't be used to good use in CE(perhaps because of cost/scalability/power requirements), I just don't think its creating a new frontier for CE.

[expletive]

The technological future or the performance demands in a future device is very difficult to predict. That is why a lot of new product debuts are simply testing the waters to see if something "clicks" in the consumer and it takes off like hotcakes, or the consumer drops it like a cold potato because they just didn't get it.

Probably, people in the not so distant past never realized that someone could "need" a 10 GFLOP CPU for a desktop computer, either. Such would seem like ridiculous overkill and a waste of resources, given what they knew as standard in their era.


Its not the power of the cell that i'm questioning, its the claims that somehow theres a benefit to me that if i have multiple products that use the cell, that somehow the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

Not only that, but using a cell processor is the ONLY way to achieve that.

Ok so lets say my cell-equipped DVD player talks to my cell-equipped microwave and starts popcorn when i put in a movie, great. Value add right there.

Only a cell processor being in each device could make that happen?


J

[randycat99]

That really has nothing specifically to do with Cell.

Of course it's not specific. It does apply to myraid processors, including Cell.

There is always segments of the PC market that need more power. Saying some people are short sighted doesn't suddenly create some niche for Cell. Thats not to say that Cell won't be used to good use in CE(perhaps because of cost/scalability/power requirements), I just don't think its creating a new frontier for CE.

The same goes for CE. Do you think the processor that powered the first mobile phone is in any way adequate to power the decently featured cellphone of today? Things change, needs change. It is just as relevant a strategy to simply be out there to fall into a niche as needs and trends dictate, by chance, than to "predict" or identify a niche and design something to fill it. There is no "wrong" or illegitimate way to this.

[randycat99]

Ok so lets say my cell-equipped DVD player talks to my cell-equipped microwave and starts popcorn when i put in a movie, great. Value add right there.

Only a cell processor being in each device could make that happen?


J

It certainly provides a common development base that is "friendly" to make that happen. Sometimes commonality and universality are the spark factor that actually makes something worthwhile to do.

[AlphaWolf]

Of course it's not specific. It does apply to myraid processors, including Cell.

So?

The same goes for CE. Do you think the processor that powered the first mobile phone is in any way adequate to power the decently featured cellphone of today? Things change, needs change. It is just as relevant a strategy to simply be out there to fall into a niche as needs and trends dictate, by chance, than to "predict" or identify a niche and design something to fill it. There is no "wrong" or illegitimate way to this.

Are you going to put Cell in a brick phone? I don't really see that as benefitting the consumer.

You're basically saying that there is no way I can predict what future advancement or technology Sony might bring using Cell. You're right. That doesn't mean it won't be copied by someone else, not using Cell.

[expletive]

So?



Are you going to put Cell in a brick phone? I don't really see that as benefitting the consumer.

You're basically saying that there is no way I can predict what future advancement or technology Sony might bring using Cell. You're right. That doesn't mean it won't be copied by someone else, not using Cell.

Right, yet its being marketed that these things, which have yet to be named, can only NOW be realized becuase we (STI) invented the Cell processor.

J

[randycat99]

I don't know what sort of answer you are really looking for (actually I do, in that it wasn't an "answer" you were seeking, in the first place). You've logically reached a point where it should be evident that there is no great necessity to doubt its usefulness, anyway. The potential is there to go into a lot of stuff for a lot of uses. It may do it, or it may not. There's really no great reason to have such a negative stance on it, barring some pathological loathing of anything "Sony".

[expletive]

I don't know what sort of answer you are really looking for (actually I do, in that it wasn't an "answer" you were seeking, in the first place). You've logically reached a point where it should be evident that there is no great necessity to doubt its usefulness, anyway. The potential is there to go into a lot of stuff for a lot of uses. It may do it, or it may not. There's really no great reason to have such a negative stance on it, barring some pathological loathing of anything "Sony".


My camcorder is a DCR-HC90, i own a PSP with 4 games, i have a Gig worth of memory stick duos, and a Sony DVD burner in my pc. I dont loathe Sony. Do i think they can sometimes be TOO self serving at the consumer's expense? Yeah. Are they worse than any other large company in any industry? Probably not.

I dont have a negative stance on the cell, i just want some idea on how the claims thrown around by Sony are going to be implemented. It seems at this point no one has any idea what Sony means, thats ok, i was jsut trying to understand their master plan.

I dont doubt its uselfulness, just to whom it is useful.

J

[randycat99]

I dont have a negative stance on the cell, i just want some idea on how the claims thrown around by Sony are going to be implemented.

This remark may have been believable had it been taken in a vacuum. Unfortunately, we have your entire posting history in recent weeks to weigh against your claim here. It's really no question of whether or not you are so negative, but why are you so negative (a rhetorical one for me, as I don't really care, personally). It matters little if you own a few Sony trinkets of your own or you buy $10k of stuff. The theme of your post history speaks far more in volume. Sorry.

[expletive]

This remark may have been believable had it been taken in a vacuum. Unfortunately, we have your entire posting history in recent weeks to weigh against your claim here. It's really no question of whether or not you are so negative, but why are you so negative (a rhetorical one for me, as I don't really care, personally). It matters little if you own a few Sony trinkets of your own or you buy $10k of stuff. The theme of your post history speaks far more in volume. Sorry.

When you sober up, maybe you can explain what youre talking about.

J

[randycat99]

No shortage of material here to formulate an observation...

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/search.php?searchid=53587

I think others can continue the topic, as needed, from here.

EDIT: Link to search provided with posts back to front, for your pleasure:

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/search.php?searchid=53598

[expletive]

No shortage of material here to formulate an observation...

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/search.php?searchid=53587

I think others can continue the topic, as needed, from here.

Wow a list of posts from a single thread where i have an opinion on one of Sony's practices. Good work.

J

[randycat99]

(just a little, whittle hint- pay mind to the little multi-page links towards the bottom of the page?...but this is more for everyone else, rather than you. Obviously "you" don't need to verify to yourself why you are here.)

[expletive]

(just a little, whittle hint- pay mind to the little multi-page links towards the bottom of the page?...but this is more for everyone else, rather than you. Obviously "you" don't need to verify to yourself why you are here.)

Ok, i'm out of this one. I have no idea what youre talking about and now youre borderline 'creeping me out.'

J

[london-boy]

When you two have finished your marital counselling, let us know so we can proceed with the topic's discussion. No pressure.

[Shifty Geezer]

Expletive asks for ideas, and when I give them he says they don't count? :???:

I just find it interesting that people are buying into the idea that the cell will somehow change the face and interactivity/interoperability of CE, yet have no idea, in practice, how.

Helping one Cell product achieve it's work faster. Two examples given were helping a Cell based TV render 3D content faster, and helping a video device encode data faster.

Yes we did cover this, and my response was that theres nothing about the cell that dedicated audio/video processing chips cant, or wont be able to, accomplish.
Really?! :shock: You're saying it's easy for...I dunno, a MIPS based portable digital camcorder running PalmOS to interact with a PPC based Linux based console so the both work on the encoding simulataneously to speed it up? And a TV with a custom IC to interface with an XB360 to help it render 3D content faster? Perhaps yo don't understand how Cell's scalability works.

If your processes are written as Apulets, they can be distributed among available SPE's. In the TV example, you've an apulet that says 'take a batch of vertex data and render it to a back-buffer held in the TV's RAM'. In a 1:2 TV Cell two of these Apulets are running concurrently. Attach any Cell device and the TV's PPE should say 'woohoo, some more SPE's' and farm of some more workload. So attach your PS3 and the SAME PROGRAM, the Apulet, that the TV is using is passed to the PS3's SPE's, and they fetch data from the TV over the network, process it, and send it back, addressing the TV's memory and working as though they are components in the TV. So you get 9 SPE's doing the work instead of 2.

No other solution can manage this. You can't mix and match different processors and have them share processing, share the same software. The same could be managed through virtual machines, and a standard for EC software could be developed to share programs on totally different hardware, but that's an overhead and doesn't exist yet. Cell offers a hardware solution.

So there you have it. At least one person does have ideas how 'Cell will somehow change the face and interactivity/interoperability of CE', and it does it in a way that other ICs can't. Hardware level compatibility and code sharing across multiply devices.

Also it's worth noting this DOESN'T mean you HAVE to buy Sony goods. Toshiba will be supplying Cell goods, and AFAIK the idea is to introduce the Cell as a platform bought into by other CE goods manufacturers, just as they buy processors from other processor manufacturers. It's not to be an exclusive tech to Sony+Toshiba; they want it to become a standard and make a killing selling the chips.

[expletive]

Expletive asks for ideas, and when I give them he says they don't count? :???:




Really?! :shock: You're saying it's easy for...I dunno, a MIPS based portable digital camcorder running PalmOS to interact with a PPC based Linux based console so the both work on the encoding simulataneously to speed it up? And a TV with a custom IC to interface with an XB360 to help it render 3D content faster? Perhaps yo don't understand how Cell's scalability works.

If your processes are written as Apulets, they can be distributed among available SPE's. In the TV example, you've an apulet that says 'take a batch of vertex data and render it to a back-buffer held in the TV's RAM'. In a 1:2 TV Cell two of these Apulets are running concurrently. Attach any Cell device and the TV's PPE should say 'woohoo, some more SPE's' and farm of some more workload. So attach your PS3 and the SAME PROGRAM, the Apulet, that the TV is using is passed to the PS3's SPE's, and they fetch data from the TV over the network, process it, and send it back, addressing the TV's memory and working as though they are components in the TV. So you get 9 SPE's doing the work instead of 2.

No other solution can manage this. You can't mix and match different processors and have them share processing, share the same software. The same could be managed through virtual machines, and a standard for EC software could be developed to share programs on totally different hardware, but that's an overhead and doesn't exist yet. Cell offers a hardware solution.

So there you have it. At least one person does have ideas how 'Cell will somehow change the face and interactivity/interoperability of CE', and it does it in a way that other ICs can't. Hardware level compatibility and code sharing across multiply devices.

Also it's worth noting this DOESN'T mean you HAVE to buy Sony goods. Toshiba will be supplying Cell goods, and AFAIK the idea is to introduce the Cell as a platform bought into by other CE goods manufacturers, just as they buy processors from other processor manufacturers. It's not to be an exclusive tech to Sony+Toshiba; they want it to become a standard and make a killing selling the chips.

Apologies if i missed your post, my intention was not to ignore it nor dismiss it.

I see your point but why does the TV need 9 SPEs to beign with? Why dont they just design it to do what it needs to right out of the box?

J

[Shifty Geezer]

Because a TV doesn't know what it's future requirements will be. Something like web browsing has gone from just being text and pictures to being Flash movies and Java programs. 6 years ago you could have made a portable web-browser or TV with web-browser, that could read text and show pictures. It'd only need a very simple processor and graphics system. But as the format grew the hardware couldn't grow with it. That simple machine that showed text and pictures couldn't run the current Flash and Java applications. But when they first built that browser handheld or TV no-one would have anticipated how the HTML format was to expand.

There currently isn't any real standard for embedded 3D content in TV teletext or digital pages, but it might (and probably will) happen. Those 2 SPE's needed for picture and audio processing may well one day be used for new content. And if it's not enough power, the scalability of Cell would allow you to access more demanding content without needing to buy a new TV.

For me a single scalable hardware platform with software solution is the ultimate electronic hardware system. If the same hardware can be used for any software, I can buy Cell devices that use their Cell processor for specific tasks, and then call on them to help with other tasks. I could run a raytracer on my Cell PC and have any Cell chips in the house help out. I could run an accoustic synthesis modeller in a Roland Cell keyboard, upgrade the software to get new features and modelling algorithms, and when I start using lots of instruments and the inbuilt Cell isn't enough, I can connect up another Cell box to help out. To me this makes a lot more sense in use of resources then a dozen different seperate computers. At the moment any processors I have in my keyboards, PC, TV, and other gadgets, do their own thing and never help each other. Okay, a lot of the processing power of these devices is virtually insignificant to the demands modern software solutions can make, but in the future algorithms and processes are going to be super complex and you'll never have too much power.

[expletive]

Because a TV doesn't know what it's future requirements will be. Something like web browsing has gone from just being text and pictures to being Flash movies and Java programs. 6 years ago you could have made a portable web-browser or TV with web-browser, that could read text and show pictures. It'd only need a very simple processor and graphics system. But as the format grew the hardware couldn't grow with it. That simple machine that showed text and pictures couldn't run the current Flash and Java applications. But when they first built that browser handheld or TV no-one would have anticipated how the HTML format was to expand.

There currently isn't any real standard for embedded 3D content in TV teletext or digital pages, but it might (and probably will) happen. Those 2 SPE's needed for picture and audio processing may well one day be used for new content. And if it's not enough power, the scalability of Cell would allow you to access more demanding content without needing to buy a new TV.

For me a single scalable hardware platform with software solution is the ultimate electronic hardware system. If the same hardware can be used for any software, I can buy Cell devices that use their Cell processor for specific tasks, and then call on them to help with other tasks. I could run a raytracer on my Cell PC and have any Cell chips in the house help out. I could run an accoustic synthesis modeller in a Roland Cell keyboard, upgrade the software to get new features and modelling algorithms, and when I start using lots of instruments and the inbuilt Cell isn't enough, I can connect up another Cell box to help out. To me this makes a lot more sense in use of resources then a dozen different seperate computers. At the moment any processors I have in my keyboards, PC, TV, and other gadgets, do their own thing and never help each other. Okay, a lot of the processing power of these devices is virtually insignificant to the demands modern software solutions can make, but in the future algorithms and processes are going to be super complex and you'll never have too much power.

Well i asked for an example and youve certainly provided one, thanks.

Now to discuss the actual possibility or practicality, well thats another thread entirely. Wanna start it? :)

J

[AlphaWolf]

The problem with interacting benefits (TV + recorder = faster encoding etc) is you need both ends to make it work. Toshiba + Sony won't be enough to make something like that work, they would need to sell Cell to the rest of the CE manufacturers or it just winds up being a consumer cost burden with no benefit. You have to sell the consumer on why Cell makes his TV better, not why it might make something else he may or not purchase better.

[randycat99]

To be facetious, I think there is no shortage of persons here to cite that "Cell Hype" is already quite adequate to inspire people to buy stuff. What stuff?...why that would be "Cell stuff", if you want to be "in" on all the "action". :D So no need to worry if the stuff will have a "good reason" to the buyer to be bought.