360 one of Endgadget's "10 gadgets that defined the decade"

[Shifty Geezer]

I'm starting to get confused by your arguments.

I didn't go into much detail, and this topic doesn't interest me that much to go into a great deal of detail anyhow! I watched the Gadget Shows top ten gadgets of the decade and haven't done a study...

You're talking about mobile phones as the gadget of the decade, but they really took off in a big way in the 90's.

On the Gadget Show, they mentioned a particular mainstream Nokia. I don't even own a mobile so I may be wrong, but I don't recall everyone including 8 year olds oening mobiles back in the 90s. Of course for best gadget there needs to be a particular model, and I'd cite the Gadget Shows choice, assuming they did their homework.

You mention the iPhone as a great contender, but its strength is in the software and apps such as iTunes.

Which wouldn't exist without the touchscreen and design. A gadget is the sum of it's parts. A gadget without software is rubbish. Software without a good gadget is rubbish. iPhone has them both.

You talk GPS, but GPS is a service and not a gadget.

?? GPS requires a gadget to run. You can't just use it! So the 'gadget' would be whatever popular TomTom or whatever make made it 'the thing to own'.

In an earlier post you mentioned the PS2 due to the sales figures, but then talk iPhone and conveniently ignore that it has sold around 6-7 million units. Surely, by your reckoning, the Nokia 3310 or Razr3, each with over 100 million units sold in the decade, far better derserve a place as gadget of the decade? And the iPhone hasn't done anything that wasn't already in place. Music on mobiles? Check. Games on mobiles? Check. Apps on mobiles? Check.

Of course, the iPhone has done it better, in a neater, more desirable, package.

There is nothing unique in this world. Everything has been done before, often and surprisingly back in the 50-70s when you go to the roots of technology! The fact someone else may have done something first doesn't mean it was a worthwhile gadget. The awards are 'best gadget' and not 'best innovations'. They are for gadgets people want to own or which have greatly influenced the market.

Live and the 360 go hand in hand in the same way that the iPhone does with iTunes and the app store, that GPS does with the various receivers and software and that mobile phones do with the mobile networks.

That's a fair point. In that respect it could be argued XB360 is a worthwhile gadget as the 'online gaming' gadget, while iPhone is the 'portable music' gadget.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Personally I was totally surprised to see the 360 in this list, not just because of being a console that has to compete in this decade with the PS2, PS3, Wii and so on, but simply because I have trouble finding a definition of gadget that includes the 360.

Take the following free online dictionary definitions:

I think the language is evolving to mean a high-tech product, and the dictionaries are just lagging. Certainly in the case of the Gadget Show, they cover a lot of non-gadgetry, and are really just a consumer show with an eye on technology. But I still hold onto a less generalised definition!

 

[obonicus]

Gadget is shorthand for 'product for nerds'.

 

[patsu]

Anyone who has used Xbox Live knows what he's talking about when he refers to Xbox Live as the reason. The meltdowns seem to be coming form those with no XBL experience or perhaps a very limited exp in countries where XBL feature is watered down.

Unless he intends his article to be read by only XBL subscribers (not even Xb360 owners), then he has a case. Otherwise, his explanation is off. Like I said, the stuff he mentioned can be done on PC and PS3. He sounds clueless... and he wants to tell us what gadgets define this decade ? What are the criteria ? That would be what's on the critics' mind -- especially when gamers are involved. Good thing Blu-ray and HD-DVD were not mentioned (or rather filed under 'dishonorable mention'), otherwise, they have to deal with another camp of notorious supporters.

If they want to make risky choice(s), then they should give good explanations. Especially products for nerds.

 

[Carl B]

For me it's an internal New Year's awards thing over at Engadget - it's not like an official trophy or anything... or anything that matters. The guy that wrote it is probably more concerned with what he's doing tonight than with what victors he chose for his piece. I know I am! Why are folk getting so worked up?

I think a viable argument could be made for any of the consoles mentioned thus far, be it DS, Wii, PS2, PS3, or 360. As Devil's advocate for the 360, obviously if it weren't for Live, widely adopted or not, I would expect my PSN experience to be significantly worse than it is. So if you consider online gaming the defining console hallmark going into the next decade, well, I think 360 deserves some recognition. If you think that the defining console characteristic lies elsewhere though, then 360 probably doesn't deserve it.

But... it's just one guy over at Engadget either way. He has an opinion just as the rest of us do. When you are responsible for the content of a site, you can indulge yourself with plastering your own choices on the Internet.

 

[obonicus]

Official trophies don't matter either (gasp! GOTYs!), but it's still a subject to discuss. Also, if we were arguing about influence in the following decade (that is, if the Sun wasn't going to boil the earth's crust by 2012) I'd be much more willing to give the 360 a nod -- the next generation of consoles will probably try and match all of the 360's important online features. But we're not. It's about products that defined this decade. Which is why I think that if Live is reason to give a console the nod, then the original Xbox is a more fitting recipient. I still think the DS is the best choice from anything gamer -- it revealed the 'expanded' audience as something worth approaching, inspired the Wii's approach to this market, which in turn was the basis for Natal and PS-whatever-it's-called.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

...it revealed the 'expanded' audience as something worth approaching, inspired the Wii's approach to this market, which in turn was the basis for Natal and PS-whatever-it's-called.

Not entirely in agreement here. PS-whatever-it's-called has been in development since before Wii. Sony were the first to introduce the world to the New Casual World Order in the EyeToy, only they didn't properly support and market and expand it so it fizzled out. But they carried on developing new tech, and if Wii never existed, I'm sure Sony would have produced something eventually. Wii probably sped them up a fair bit, but I don't think DS is the basis for the future. DS is worthwhile on what it achieved, rather than what it set up for the future, IMO. It was the handheld gaming platform of the decade, and a real gadget to boot.

 

[Carl B]

but it's still a subject to discuss.

No doubt. I think it's a sort of fun topic for the New Year, which is probably why it hasn't been locked otherwise, since under normal times it might be considered under the 'PR' thread guidelines. I'm not against the discussion by any means, just so long as people don't get nasty with each other.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

We should also have a GOTY thread to satisfy our annual argumentations!

 

[obonicus]

Not entirely in agreement here. PS-whatever-it's-called has been in development since before Wii.

Sure, but there's no indication that Sony would have brought it out if not for the Wii's success. Just look at how badly Sony blundered with EyeToy.

Sony were the first to introduce the world to the New Casual World Order in the EyeToy, only they didn't properly support and market and expand it so it fizzled out. But they carried on developing new tech, and if Wii never existed, I'm sure Sony would have produced something eventually. Wii probably sped them up a fair bit, but I don't think DS is the basis for the future. DS is worthwhile on what it achieved, rather than what it set up for the future, IMO. It was the handheld gaming platform of the decade, and a real gadget to boot.

That's sorta my point. I don't think the DS was approachable because of its tech, but because Nintendo knew how to create compelling software to reach new audiences and most importantly, knew how to sell it. It seems to me like Nintendo followed their own example pretty closely with the Wii. The DS was influential because of how it established the need to actually sell your innovative tech, which Sony seemed unable to do. It's the whole 'hey, there's a whole audience past the 18-34-year-olds' thing that Sony and Microsoft are hoping to reach with PSthingie and Natal (well, MS' intent is clearer, Sony's more murky, but everyone wants a slice of that pie).

We should also have a GOTY thread to satisfy our annual argumentations!

And GOTD.

 

[SG79]

Anyone who has used Xbox Live knows what he's talking about when he refers to Xbox Live as the reason. The meltdowns seem to be coming form those with no XBL experience or perhaps a very limited exp in countries where XBL feature is watered down.

Let's not generalize or dismiss opinions by claiming that disagreements are stemming from ignorance. I've had my fill of XBL (I'm in Canada) and I still don't think it makes the console one of the gadgets that defined the decade. It's my opinion and differs from yours or the editor who picked it. It's an excellent, robust console online experience, that's all.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, the PS2 and Wii are more worthy of that spot. Particularly the Wii, which introduced a whole new interface with the controller that hasn't been done since Nintendo's own introduction of the d-pad.

 

[BadTB25]

For me it's an internal New Year's awards thing over at Engadget - it's not like an official trophy or anything... or anything that matters. The guy that wrote it is probably more concerned with what he's doing tonight than with what victors he chose for his piece. I know I am! Why are folk getting so worked up?

I think a viable argument could be made for any of the consoles mentioned thus far, be it DS, Wii, PS2, PS3, or 360. As Devil's advocate for the 360, obviously if it weren't for Live, widely adopted or not, I would expect my PSN experience to be significantly worse than it is. So if you consider online gaming the defining console hallmark going into the next decade, well, I think 360 deserves some recognition. If you think that the defining console characteristic lies elsewhere though, then 360 probably doesn't deserve it.

But... it's just one guy over at Engadget either way. He has an opinion just as the rest of us do. When you are responsible for the content of a site, you can indulge yourself with plastering your own choices on the Internet.

Well said.

It's weird that no one really argues the Ipod Touch/Iphone being on the list. Weren't there devices that had a touch screen, played music, had apps, etc on it before the device?

But as you've indicated, it's just one guy or sites opinion after all. Thanks to this generation, nex generation should truly be awesome. I can't wait to see what innovations are brought to the table.

 

[Toaddio]

It's weird that no one really argues the Ipod Touch/Iphone being on the list. Weren't there devices that had a touch screen, played music, had apps, etc on it before the device?

They opened the door to mass market acceptance. Mass market acceptance of an online community or feature existed well before the Xbox.

 

[BadTB25]

They opened the door to mass market acceptance. Mass market acceptance of an online community or feature existed well before the Xbox.

I'd argue that there was already mass market appeal for these devices prior to the Touch/Iphone. What really opened it up to the non-tech savy was its interface and ease of use.
Blackberry, Palm and others did exist prior to the Touch/Iphone.

Really, on consoles? Which one???? If you're talking about PCs, of course they existed before the Xbox. But think about how many people are playing games now that never played games on-line are doing so because of Live and PSN. I'd wager that crowd to be roughly 1/3 of its userbase.

 

[vazel]

The PS2 is the console of the decade not just for sales but for its better support from developers and variety of genres and its bc with the psone's also big and diverse game library. Nearly every big game on the 360 are shooters. Xbox Live is all well and good(I was a subscriber for over a year) but online is a feature that you can safely ignore and still enjoy your console. Live may have sped up features of online gaming like a single username and easy to use friends list but online was always going to be the future of consoles and is a process that started with the Dreamcast's built-in modem. Online lagged with the PS2 because Sony sold the modem separately but this gen was always going to have built-in modems even without Live.

If not the PS2 then even the Wii deserves that honor more than the 360 for reaching out to a wider audience and control innovation even if its software lineup and sales is lacking. Or even handhelds for becoming so huge and taking a lot of the focus away from console gaming in Japan. And genres are still widely diverse in handhelds.

 

[Dregun]

First and foremost, I hate the Wii; I hate pretty much everything about it and everything I feared about Nintendo releasing an under powered for profit console came true with the games being released. However with that said I believe the Wii should have been ahead of the 360 based on how much impact it has and will have next generation and I still think the 360 is a better console!

When I think of what Console had the MOST impact this past generation and will have the MOST impact in the future, I have to give the nod to the PS3. Mind you this isn't because of the games, CELL, Home, PSN or anything like that; but because it ushered in Blu-Ray.

IMHO; without the PS3 the HD media that would be the standard would be HD-DVD. This ONE gadget settled the biggest media format war we have had since Beta vs VHS. The PS3 has done the most to shape what disc based media format will be used for future movie purchases and possibly the media used to store games with.

There is a VERY good chance that the next Xbox is going to have a BD-ROM drive, therefore the PS3 has dictated what major technology their competitor will have to use in the future! If HD-DVD would have been the winner then the 360 in my opinion would have garnered the title it was bestowed. However the PS2, Xbox and Wii in my opinion did more for gaming then the 360 did, the 360 is a great console and Live is a great service but it didn't have an impact like the others did.

Like I said I think the 360 is a great console, even being a PS3 fanboy I would say this generation its 360, PS3 and then the Wii when it comes to "Consoles you should own" but that doesn't change the fact that to me it really didn't "define" or "shape" anything nearly as much as the PS3 or Wii.

I agree the title is meaningless and very objective; but when I think of what console will have a rippling effect amongst not only future consoles but other "gadgets" as well the PS3 ushering in Blu-Ray comes to my mind.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Optical storage is already obsolete technology for the current dataset sizes, BR is okay for distribution but it's not going to be fast enough for the next gen machines to load 2GB of data to RAM in a reasonable amount of time. Current systems already have to spend at least 30-60 seconds on initial loading with just ~400MB of free memory to fill, and this amount would at least quadruple. 3-4 minutes before you can play are just way too much and ruin one of the good things about owning a console for gaming.

BR is okay for movies, seems like it can even support stereoscopic 3D - but nextgen consoles are going to need something else as their main storage device; an HDD as default with installs, or perhaps SSD.

 

[Arwin]

Well don't forget that the PS3's BD runs at 2x now. Quadrupling the amount of RAM would require 8x BD player to keep up with the current gen's ratio. In fact, right now PC slot BD players are already at 12x for 199$. There are even BD-RW drives that manage to write at 12x I think. A BD 12x or higher in combination with a HDD could work just fine for a next-gen console, especially in about two years time, and it would have the automatic advantage of being able to be at least potentially backwards compatible with DVD and BD formats and games.

That said, there is of course definitely also potential for a much cheaper download only device. Maybe if they ever make multiple configurations, then like I suggested earlier they could make versions with and without BD players.

Optical storage is already obsolete technology for the current dataset sizes, BR is okay for distribution but it's not going to be fast enough for the next gen machines to load 2GB of data to RAM in a reasonable amount of time. Current systems already have to spend at least 30-60 seconds on initial loading with just ~400MB of free memory to fill, and this amount would at least quadruple. 3-4 minutes before you can play are just way too much and ruin one of the good things about owning a console for gaming.

BR is okay for movies, seems like it can even support stereoscopic 3D - but nextgen consoles are going to need something else as their main storage device; an HDD as default with installs, or perhaps SSD.

 

[Teasy]

The XBox 360 has defined the last 10 years? What a bizarre choice.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

We all know the X360's DVD drive isn't really near its claimed top speed either, so why should we expect the same from a BR drive? Optical storage is just too slow and it's about time to find a better alternative.