HTML5 on consoles

[jeff_rigby]

I think it's easier for Sony to add GoogleTV capability without going full Android. Many apps are thin clients today. They don't need the entire Android software library per se, so no need to root the PS3 with WebOS. The only major work is the standalone web browser, and we know EA did it.

The question is: What is the vision for PS3 in Sony's mind ?

More importantly why would Sony want android apps on their lossy hardware? What's in it for them if they can't make money from it?

Edit: and here is where I respond to what Patsu started by assuming I ment Android on PS3 when I meant Android steaming or WebGL games from Android to the PS3 not Android running on the PS3.

1) To share IP with other Android platforms they are developing.
2) To open up the PS3 to third party applications that are self limiting (Android and Javascript are not as efficient as native applications; Linux applications were native language not interpreted.)
3) Since all Javascript or Android applications have to run on a Sony provided VM or Engine, Sony can control security and efficiency.

For games; Flash, Javascript and Android are not a threat to Sony's AAA games lock on the PS3; Linux was a threat

Android and the new webkit HTML5 Javascript can support applications like a professional multi-media front end for the PS3 that would make the PS3 more valuable.

Sony can sell applications (IP) across 40 million PS3s and millions of Android platforms. Consider the investment to support Android on the PS3 and the profit on one good Android title. It's the same model Sony used with the PS3; sell the PS3 at a loss to get the Software sales.

 

[NeoTechni]

Linux was also in a sandbox. It wasnt supposed to be a threat.

PS3's Java virtual machine by all definition is a sandbox too, it also was locked down when people discovered how to use it from memorystick.

Yes it makes sense to us for Sony to use it. But Sony does a lot of things that don't make sense. Take PSP Go. I even put out articles on a few sites before PSP Go was announced that Sony would be absolutely stupid to make a PSP that didn't play UMD and it would fail miserably, be boycotted by various retailers, have a limited library, etc. It was such a bad idea that I denied the existence of PSP Go. And here we are, and everything I predicted that'd go wrong, did.

 

[Arwin]

It was such a bad idea that I denied the existence of PSP Go. And here we are, and everything I predicted that'd go wrong, did.

At the same time, it may have been essential for Sony to show both internally and to publishers that this wouldn't work. This may have been vital to make the right decision and get publishers on board for whatever approach the PSP2 will take.

So at best we can say that something doesn't make sense to us. As a kid I was taught to assume that everyone has a good reason for doing something. It may in retrospect not always have been the best thing to do, and the reasons may not have been sound, but it's a good and useful assumption.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

1) To share IP with other Android platforms they are developing.

They'll create an Android platform on PS3 just for the sake of it, because they have on other platforms?

2) To open up the PS3 to third party applications that are self limiting (Android and Javascript are not as efficient as native applications; Linux applications were native language not interpreted.)

Why do they want 3rd party applications?! Surely it's in Sony's best interest to have applications go through Sony's AppStore instead of Google's.

3) Since all Javascript or Android applications have to run on a Sony provided VM or Engine, Sony can control security and efficiency.

That's not a reason to include Android! You aren't going to add an OS "because qwe can control security." the reason to add an OS is to provide a software platform. Why does Sony want Android apps from some non-Sony marketplace, for which they get paid nothing, on PS3? How does that make money directly, or help the PS3 brand to make money?

For games; Flash, Javascript and Android are not a threat to Sony's AAA games lock on the PS3; Linux was a threat

$50 million budgets prevents all AAA competition! Flash and Javascript would compete with thinks like smaller PSN titles and Mini's. There's no money at all in Flash and Javascript games, so again, why would Sony want to support them?

Android and the new webkit HTML5 Javascript can support applications like a professional multi-media front end for the PS3 that would make the PS3 more valuable.

Gosh, if only PS3's native SDK could support professional multi-media front ends for PS3 applications...

Sony can sell applications (IP) across 40 million PS3s and millions of Android platforms. Consider the investment to support Android on the PS3 and the profit on one good Android title. It's the same model Sony used with the PS3; sell the PS3 at a loss to get the Software sales.

Now this is an actual valid incentive, but the problem is it's placing Sony as a software company, writing apps for PS3 and Android phones, in competition with other software companies targetting Android phones who'll also be able to target PS3. Do you feel Sony has what it takes to become a dominant force in the App market and gain more from a larger market than they'd lose to competition? I don't. Their software is generally poor and awkward, save their more professional stuff which isn't App level. Unless you see the likes of Naughty Dog going Android and selling their gamse across mobiles and PS3, there seems little reason to think Sony are wanting to position themselves as more of a software company writing for open platforms.

 

[jeff_rigby]

Edit: And here is where Shifty and I have a disagreement where we both are correct on some issues, circling around the reasons for PS Suite.

They'll create an Android platform on PS3 just for the sake of it, because they have on other platforms?

No, they will provide support for Android on the PS3 to allow applications they write for other Sony Android OS platforms to also run on the PS3.

There will be money in smaller games for Handhelds and when those become popular they will be available on the PS3 also. A small $5 game that sells 50 million copies at $5 with a 30% profit margin for Sony is a significant $$$. Multiply that by about 20 titles and that's my minimum guess for the next two years for Sony.

Why do they want 3rd party applications?! Surely it's in Sony's best interest to have applications go through Sony's AppStore instead of Google's.

There are more than 70,000 Android applications and most are garbage (like consumers feel about Wii games, too much to wade through so they stop buying). Sony can use a team to insure only the best application are sold in a Sony Store. The Sony name then reinforces #1 quality applications which insures they sell more applications. Facebook is going to do the same with Javascript and Android applications.

Ultraviolet DRM will be used to encrypt Javascript applications otherwise they could be pirated. Usage rights will echo those of Media in that a "owner" can use the application or game on all hardware platforms he owns.

Gosh, if only PS3's native SDK could support professional multi-media front ends for PS3 applications...

This is a significant observation that many have had. It's obvious that the media front end on the PS3 is very unprofessional. Why hasn't this been addressed?

Seriously looking at the XMB without colored glasses and you one can see there is nothing there. As a UI it's very simple with none of the support modern desktops have, why? One theory could be that it's not finished. You would not want to provide anything but stand alone applications until support for a true front end for the PS3 is finalized.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Ultraviolet DRM will be used to encrypt Javascript applications otherwise they could be pirated. Usage rights will echo those of Media in that a "owner" can use the application or game on all hardware platforms he owns.

Which means they can shop at other places and buy through other portals, making no money for Sony, no?

This is a significant observation that many have had. It's obvious that the media front end on the PS3 is very unprofessional. Why hasn't this been addressed?

Seriously looking at the XMB without colored glasses and you one can see there is nothing there. As a UI it's very simple with none of the support modern desktops have, why?

Coloured glasses? It's a very simple solution because you don't need super-swanky visuals to have an interface. The actual XMB interface is capable of overlaying video and audio with rendered visuals and 3D dynamic backdrops. Just because they don't do that, doesn't mean it can't. And any PS3 SDK developed application can gain full control of the hardware to have whatever interface you want on it. There is absolutely no application you can do in Javascript that you can't do in C++ throguh native API's if you want. The only advantage to Javascript is cross-platform portability. If Sony want portability it makes sense, but looking at the OS, deciding it's plain, and deducing from that that it's underfeatured and incapable of multimedia interfaces is, frankly, naive.

 

[upnorthsox]

They'll create an Android platform on PS3 just for the sake of it, because they have on other platforms?

To unify their diverse offerings under one platform and expose that to a larger market.

Why do they want 3rd party applications?! Surely it's in Sony's best interest to have applications go through Sony's AppStore instead of Google's.

Are you saying that Sony doesn't currently cater to 3rd parties now? Of course they'd like/want everyone to use their AppStore instead of Google's but that doesn't mean that being part of a larger market isn't beneficial nor have you quoted anything that precludes them from selling apps in their AppStore either. The value to their devices of being able to access this expanded market shouldn't be discounted.

That's not a reason to include Android! You aren't going to add an OS "because qwe can control security." the reason to add an OS is to provide a software platform. Why does Sony want Android apps from some non-Sony marketplace, for which they get paid nothing, on PS3? How does that make money directly, or help the PS3 brand to make money?

Not everything has a direct monetary payoff, and who says they won't make money off of Android apps? Obviously they won't enter into an agreement that isn't beneficial to them or that only benefits Google but where is that scenerio being proposed? Not in anything you've quoted.

$50 million budgets prevents all AAA competition! Flash and Javascript would compete with thinks like smaller PSN titles and Mini's. There's no money at all in Flash and Javascript games, so again, why would Sony want to support them?

There's no money in cross game chat either, and who know's, maybe Sony will find a way to monetize them.

Now this is an actual valid incentive, but the problem is it's placing Sony as a software company, writing apps for PS3 and Android phones, in competition with other software companies targetting Android phones who'll also be able to target PS3. Do you feel Sony has what it takes to become a dominant force in the App market and gain more from a larger market than they'd lose to competition? I don't. Their software is generally poor and awkward, save their more professional stuff which isn't App level. Unless you see the likes of Naughty Dog going Android and selling their gamse across mobiles and PS3, there seems little reason to think Sony are wanting to position themselves as more of a software company writing for open platforms.

So they're not a software company but then they are, but you don't think what they are not offering is good enough but they are too good to offer it anyhow, so why even try. Correct?

The crux of the matter is, is their product line more valuable with the access to another 70,000 apps? If so, then what jeff_rigby has been going on and on and on and on about may make it possible to bring it with the flip of a switch or at least a small development effort. How you best monetize a new market is always a realistic question that needs an answer but expecting to go into it in a monopoly position is unrealistic.

 

[jeff_rigby]

Which means they can shop at other places and buy through other portals, making no money for Sony, no?

Coloured glasses? It's a very simple solution because you don't need super-swanky visuals to have an interface. The actual XMB interface is capable of overlaying video and audio with rendered visuals and 3D dynamic backdrops. Just because they don't do that, doesn't mean it can't. And any PS3 SDK developed application can gain full control of the hardware to have whatever interface you want on it. There is absolutely no application you can do in Javascript that you can't do in C++ throguh native API's if you want. The only advantage to Javascript is cross-platform portability. If Sony want portability it makes sense, but looking at the OS, deciding it's plain, and deducing from that that it's underfeatured and incapable of multimedia interfaces is, frankly, naive.

There are multiple processes in a modern desktop missing on the PS3 XMB screen. You can not have desktop widgets, true cross platform Javascript applications are impossible from outside a browser or shell. You can not have resize-able windows or windows, there is no ability for the OS to tell an application that it's window has been topped. And on and on.

The XMB you are describing is not a UI or desktop it is an application and very rigid. The "super-swanky visuals" you mentioned and I believe you are referencing Android application Icons are only part of the Android OS or any modern desktop windows environment. Multiple windows on screen, resizing windows, topping windows, multi-tasking with windows, copy and paste information between windows is impossible on the PS3 because we do not have those processes built into the PS3 OS.

If Sony plans to implement a "desktop" for the PS3, applications that use features of a desktop would have to be written AFTER "processes and standards" have been developed. I'm not saying that this will be done but it's a possible reason for delaying XMB applications that would need or use those processes.

 

[patsu]

Shifty is saying there are many ways to skin the cat. FWIW, the existing PS3 SDK can already do fancy UI. The UI shortfalls you see today are a matter of product design, not technical limitations.

Are Android apps full multitasked ? I think it is entirely possible for device apps to not offer general, pre-emptive multitasking; and no multiple windows opened. That type of UI (with heavy window management) is for the desktop environment. Moving forward, Mac OSX is going to offer full screen app mode too.

PS3 is for the living room.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Are you saying that Sony doesn't currently cater to 3rd parties now?

Not without direct agreements. No 3rd party can get anything substantial on PS3 without Sony's involvement. Things like Netflix and BBC iPlayer are agreed between Sony and those companies. Netflix and the Beeb can't just decided to release a product in direct competition to Sony's media and games services. An open Android platform would allow that.

The value to their devices of being able to access this expanded market shouldn't be discounted.

For devices like mobiles you have to to stay competitive, and the hardware is profitable. That's not true of consoles. The whole point of a console, and the reason successful ones make money, is because they are closed platforms where the console creators gets paid for content. The whole point for wanting to control the living-room media-convergence was to get a slice of every bit of media through the console's own media portal. If you're going to give up those rights to support other people's platforms, where's the money in consoles? PS3 is doing badly enough as it is!

There's no money in cross game chat either...

Cross-game chat is a value-add feature. Omission means the rival platform becomes more appealing. It's part of being a decent online games console. Android is not necessary to be a decent online media entertainment system as videos, music, games, and webbrowsing can be served without Android.

So they're not a software company but then they are, but you don't think what they are not offering is good enough but they are too good to offer it anyhow, so why even try. Correct?

No. That doesn't make sense. Sony has a poor track record as a software company outside of their professional production software. Nothing suggests their consumer-level Android apps would be particularly good and competitive, so it makes no sense for Sony to look to including Android in the hope of selling lots of $5 Android apps.

The crux of the matter is, is their product line more valuable with the access to another 70,000 apps?

Of course it is. It'd also be better value if all their games were $20, or if you could run PS2 games because PS2 hardware was included. This added values would be added costs, and in the costs/benefits equation, it doesn't pan out that this is worth doing. PS3 already offers more value than made financial sense, unless BRD really pays off. The real cruz is how will having 70,000 Android apps affect users of PS3? Will they spend their time and dollars in ways that don't benefit Sony instead of buying Sony content?

There are multiple processes in a modern desktop missing on the PS3 XMB screen. You can not have desktop widgets, true cross platform Javascript applications are impossible from outside a browser or shell. You can not have resize-able windows or windows, there is no ability for the OS to tell an application that it's window has been topped. And on and on.

Why does PS3 need a full desktop UI?! I have never yet missed the ability to copy and paste between the music player and Uncharted 2! PS3 is an entertainment box. You use it to watch films, play music, and play games, with a bit of internet to look up IMDB to see what else that actor has been in, or look up a guide to complete that game. If you want a box that allows GPS apps and calorie counter apps and Twitter apps and shake-and-paint apps and goodness knows what else, you either want a mobile phone or a PC. You can get a netbook for less than a PS3 that'll let you cut-and-paste between Wordpad and Facebook and Google to your heart's content, and be portable to boot. Maybe because I don't own a mobile I don't appreciate how all these apps are necessary to PS3 and it lacks as an entertainment device because of it, but I see nothing wrong with the current setup where it does what it's supposed to do, and Sony can roll out more apps as needed to support things like Qriocity and a unified media platform, letting it play all your music, programmes and films alongside PS3's licensed games.

 

[upnorthsox]

Not without direct agreements. No 3rd party can get anything substantial on PS3 without Sony's involvement. Things like Netflix and BBC iPlayer are agreed between Sony and those companies. Netflix and the Beeb can't just decided to release a product in direct competition to Sony's media and games services. An open Android platform would allow that.

This is not a black and white issue, Sony would want some ground rules as to their participation. My point was that Sony already allows 3rd parties to compete directly with their offerings so this is not new for them or unheard of.

For devices like mobiles you have to to stay competitive, and the hardware is profitable. That's not true of consoles. The whole point of a console, and the reason successful ones make money, is because they are closed platforms where the console creators gets paid for content. The whole point for wanting to control the living-room media-convergence was to get a slice of every bit of media through the console's own media portal. If you're going to give up those rights to support other people's platforms, where's the money in consoles? PS3 is doing badly enough as it is!

Again, Not everything has a direct monetary payoff, and who says they won't make money off of Android apps?

Cross-game chat is a value-add feature. Omission means the rival platform becomes more appealing. It's part of being a decent online games console.

Exactly my point

No. That doesn't make sense.

Exactly.

The real cruz is how will having 70,000 Android apps affect users of PS3? Will they spend their time and dollars in ways that don't benefit Sony instead of buying Sony content?

That's true entering any new market, which is again my point, that doesn't mean it's best not to try.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's true entering any new market, which is again my point, that doesn't mean it's best not to try.

You don't try without very goodness and expectations of a degree of success. A decision like this should be taken having made proper evaluations of some form. What are the likely outcomes, what's the theoretical best case situation and how likely is that? What's the worst case and how likely is that? I'm not punching any figures so may be well out, but I don't see the outcome in terms of benefits and costs favouring inclusion of Android in all but the most optimsitic and unlikely situations. With millions of Android enabled devices out there already, wouldn't it make more sense for Sony, if they want to become Android developers, to produce and sell to this market prior to investing in a port of Android for PS3? And what sort of apps are we even talking about here?! Anything PS3 users actually want that isn't already covered by the movie player, muisic player, etc.?

 

[JPT]

The business "reality" recognized by most of us is that Sony must port a WebGL webkit browser to the PS3 to stay relevant. It must port a WebGL browser to support 3-D inside the browser, it must port a webkit browser to support applications like the Xbox did, it must port a webkit browser to support ultraviolet and it must port a WebGl browser to support webgames.

I can't say I follow you on this, why are these things so important for the PS3?

3D inside the browser, why is that important, if youtube goes 3D then you just have to update what ever that plays back the youtube videos, because that is not the browser.

Applications on the PS3, why do they need to, its not like there already aren't applications on the PS3, are you talking 3rd party application with no pre-approval by Sony?

Webgames, is that not in direct competition with PS3/PSN/Mini games, if so why do they want that?

As for Ultraviolet, is that not just another "standard" DRM and in competition with Marlin that Sony uses to some degree? And why do they need webkit to use Ultraviolet as DRM?

 

[upnorthsox]

You don't try without very goodness and expectations of a degree of success. A decision like this should be taken having made proper evaluations of some form. What are the likely outcomes, what's the theoretical best case situation and how likely is that? What's the worst case and how likely is that? I'm not punching any figures so may be well out, but I don't see the outcome in terms of benefits and costs favouring inclusion of Android in all but the most optimsitic and unlikely situations. With millions of Android enabled devices out there already, wouldn't it make more sense for Sony, if they want to become Android developers, to produce and sell to this market prior to investing in a port of Android for PS3? And what sort of apps are we even talking about here?! Anything PS3 users actually want that isn't already covered by the movie player, muisic player, etc.?

Absolutely agree on the first part. On the second, it's important to look at this as more than just the ps3 but as something available to the whole Sony product line. Not everything will be relevant to every product but it the product line as a whole is better by having it available.

 

[jeff_rigby]

3D inside the browser, why is that important, if youtube goes 3D then you just have to update what ever that plays back the youtube videos, because that is not the browser.

Currently it's the browser, that's the point. The current browser can not display 3-D, only a new WebGL browser could.

Applications on the PS3, why do they need to, its not like there already aren't applications on the PS3, are you talking 3rd party application with no pre-approval by Sony?

Yes, third party applications available from other sources. Javascript and possibly Android/Java.

Webgames, is that not in direct competition with PS3/PSN/Mini games, if so why do they want that?

So Sony can have Webgames on the PS3, PC and Handhelds (cellphones) that they can make money providing that service.

As for Ultraviolet, is that not just another "standard" DRM and in competition with Marlin that Sony uses to some degree?

No ultraviolet is more. It's a product identifier, it allows you to buy media and have it streamed to all ultraviolet certified platforms you own Free. It is a universal DRM that will work on all Ultraviolet certified hardware. It is Ultraviolet applications that will work on all ultraviolet certified platforms.

And why do they need webkit to use Ultraviolet as DRM

New webkits are where the ultraviolet cross platform application language comes from. Ultraviolet DRM relies on web connections and cloud computing.

 

[JPT]

I just do not agree with you here.

Currently it's the browser, that's the point. The current browser can not display 3-D, only a new WebGL browser could.

And I thought it was flash that did the playback of the video.. And there is nothing saying you can not do it in a native app, like you do on iStuff and Android devices without Flash.
So in my opinion its not the browser that plays the video, it just loads up a player/plugin.

Yes, third party applications available from other sources. Javascript and possibly Android/Java.

But why would they want to do that? As mentioned before Sony makes money on licensing the right to deploy content on their device. Why would the let people then do it for free? It looks like it does not take much to port mobile games from iPhone etc to a Mini from what has been shown.

So Sony can have Webgames on the PS3, PC and Handhelds (cellphones) that they can make money providing that service.

I just dont get this, why introduce competition to your own products. Unless you expect that Sony lets loose their dev studios on making webgames instead of big AAA titles for the console.

No ultraviolet is more. It's a product identifier, it allows you to buy media and have it streamed to all ultraviolet certified platforms you own Free. It is a universal DRM that will work on all Ultraviolet certified hardware. It is Ultraviolet applications that will work on all ultraviolet certified platforms.

New webkits are where the ultraviolet cross platform application language comes from. Ultraviolet DRM relies on web connections and cloud computing.

I see the positive as an end-user of buying once and playing on anything, I just do not buy that Ultraviolet is the end all solution that you seem to push it as. Widewine competitor Verimatrix got Multirights which seems similar and it works with Ultraviolet and Marlin and MS PlayreadyDRM etc.

And in the light of Sony being a big content provider, I'd guess they could get Ultraviolet or what ever they go with, in any shape or size and form they want.

But I digress, I'm just not agreeing with your points

 

[jeff_rigby]

And I thought it was flash that did the playback of the video.. And there is nothing saying you can not do it in a native app, like you do on iStuff and Android devices without Flash.
So in my opinion its not the browser that plays the video, it just loads up a player/plugin.

Holding the view that a browser plugin, Flash which is currently being used to display YouTube web sites, is not a part of the browser is disingenuous. Google considers Flash such an integral part of a browser that they include it as part of Chrome and when Chrome is updated, Flash if needed is updated also. There is no longer a plugin for Flash in Chrome browsers.

Currently there is NO player or application that can display 3-D from a Web site except for the Firefox and Chrome 7 browser. Your argument that someone could create one is possible but to do so would require considerable effort almost duplicating the back end of a WebGL browser. So you are in favor of 1 million applications to access sites on the internet rather than one application that can properly display them all?

WEB Application have their place when special features not provided by a browser are needed like DRM, the special feature for media provided by the Widevine application or when you have a platform with an old and broken browser so you must provide services in an application that are not supported by the browser. Webkit browsers can also provide special support for sites like Ebay by running a javascript application provided by a third party or in this case Ebay; this type of javascript file is also called an application. Just about any language can be used to call routines out of Adobe AIR or a webkit and with proper OS support can be outside the browser. They still all require a newer webkit or webGL browser.

If you visit http://www.3df33d.tv/ you will find 3-D pictures, movie clips, web pages and a live 3-D camera feed that will work now if you have a Firefox browser and the proper hardware. Multiple formats for display are supported and are generated inside the browser. It appears ALL popular formats are supported even DLP checkerboard which Sony does not currently support.

The site above is part of an effort to set a standard for 3-D on web sites using HTML5 and WebGL. Only if Google or someone with the clout of Google sets a different standard that can not use HTML5 and WebGL to display 3-D from websites will there be a need for a plugin for 3-D on browsers and a separate application for 3-D would only then be practical. The chances of this happening = 0.

Given all the above there is still a chance that Sony would have a separate application to view 3-D web sites. The only reason for doing this would be lack of memory in the PS3.

It appears that a webGL browser could use less memory on a platform like the PS3 which has native support for OpenGL ES. Currently to support some of the older 2-D web pages using the CPU rather than Open GL or accelerated graphics, there are three sets of display routines in a WebGL browser: 1) One using just the CPU, 2) one using a combination of CPU and accelerated graphics with direct calls to the GPU and 3) Open GL calls. The later being faster and using fewer system resources. With intelligent programming a special mode could swap routines in and out of memory as needed allowing webGL more memory.

But why would they want to do that? As mentioned before Sony makes money on licensing the right to deploy content on their device. Why would the let people then do it for free? It looks like it does not take much to port mobile games from iPhone etc to a Mini from what has been shown.

I just dont get this, why introduce competition to your own products. Unless you expect that Sony lets loose their dev studios on making webgames instead of big AAA titles for the console.

Sony will sell applications making a 30% profit. They loose a small part of the PS3 market, more only if someone can do it better. They gain access to a market 3-5 times larger.

I see the positive as an end-user of buying once and playing on anything, I just do not buy that Ultraviolet is the end all solution that you seem to push it as. Widewine competitor Verimatrix got Multirights which seems similar and it works with Ultraviolet and Marlin and MS PlayreadyDRM etc.

Again, Sony is looking to expand it's market beyond the PS3 and Sony TVs and Blu-ray players; Ultraviolet plays a large part in this.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Sony will sell applications making a 30% profit. They loose a small part of the PS3 market, more only if someone can do it better. They gain access to a market 3-5 times larger.

Then why don't they just abandond PlayStations and develop software for PCs and mobile with a 20x larger market? They'll gain software sales and lose the lossy hardware market.

 

[jeff_rigby]

Then why don't they just abandond PlayStations and develop software for PCs and mobile with a 20x larger market? They'll gain software sales and lose the lossy hardware market.

Why abandon the 20-30% of the market where they have an advantage when trying for the larger share.

"Lossy Hardware" You keep using that term. I assume you are referring to the performance issues the PS3 has because of the copy protection/DRM and security routines in the OS that rob the PS3 of about (guess) 20-30% of the true PS3 performance.

You can't be referring to the PS3 Hardware sold at a loss as that has not been true for months. Remember Sony is selling PCs and will be selling multiple other platforms based on Android. The advantage they have is similar to what Apple is trying to provide, an infrastructure of personal products that all share software and media. One connected to your TV, one in your PC and then multiple Handhelds like PSP-Cellphones, Tablets, Cameras and Walkman. I'd double the size of "an Infrastructure of personal products" bold it and color it red if you would allow it.

Your view appears to be different from my view in that I am looking at the "big picture" (above) not just a small part of the market like the PS3. I keep mentioning Ultraviolet plays a big part in Sony's vision but no-one seems to understand what I mean. The Sony stockholder meeting of the last two years spell this out and articles have been mentioning Apple and Sony infrastructure plans. Apple is not supporting Ultraviolet for a reason and it's related to Apple seeing it is necessary to Sony plans and gives Apple no advantage. Sony requires Ultraviolet for cross platform applications but Apple has iOS and does not need ultraviolet for anything other than DRM and Apple is providing their own DRM. Apple wants a lock on their platforms and Sony is apparently unlocking their platforms.

Back to webkit and WebGL; these are required as the "infrastructure" is web based. The "infrastructure" will have custom features shared by Sony products like drag and dropping a web address from a handheld device to the PS3 or dragging a location from a web page on the PS3 and dropping it in a GPS enabled PSP-Cellphone. Videophone from cellphones to the PS3 or PS3 to cellphones-PCs and other Sony products. Edit: drag and drop is supported by HTML5 API calls for javascript and other languages.


Thinking about what I said above and what it would require to implement the infrastructure brought up the following:

Imagine a "cloud based" web page supported by Sony that would have all registered web platforms/ devices displayed on the page including contacts. This web page could be used to provide the special features I outlined above. The drag and drop not currently supported by the PS3 could be provided by this web page rather than requiring a substantial rewrite to the PS3 OS. This would requires minor changes to the webkit browser which may already be included as some of the features I outlined are in the Google TV Chrome browser.

Current Sony laptop PCs have a WEB browser button that can be activated without the OS being loaded. I assume that's a flash memory based mini-chrome OS application. With the above cloud based web page, all special Sony infrastructure features could be supported by a non-OS version of a browser including remote play.

 

[jeff_rigby]

Absolutely agree on the first part. On the second, it's important to look at this as more than just the ps3 but as something available to the whole Sony product line. Not everything will be relevant to every product but it the product line as a whole is better by having it available.

That's the point that has been missed! Its a larger business model than just the profits from the PS3.