VOD/PPV is not DD. I'm talking about XBL movies, PSN movies, etc. I know my mother-in-law uses her satellite on-demand stuff because she has to drive into town to get her mail, making Netflix a poor choice.
Analyst expects Sony losses to be six times higher than expected(1.6 billion dollars)
- Thread starter Brimstone
- Start date
VOD/PPV is not DD. I'm talking about XBL movies, PSN movies, etc. I know my mother-in-law uses her satellite on-demand stuff because she has to drive into town to get her mail, making Netflix a poor choice.
Plus VOD and PPV content selection is very limited.
They will only keep online the most popular titles and that selection is limited even more than a typical Blockbuster store.
True digital distribution, besides being on demand, will have to give you selection including the back catalog.
Who cares if they have 20 slots of the latest Lethal Weapon movie on PPV. What if you haven't seen the sequels and you want to view the earlier ones?
Most likely, you will have to look for the packaged media, unless the big services like iTunes pledges to keep older movies online indefinitely.
They will only keep online the most popular titles and that selection is limited even more than a typical Blockbuster store.
True digital distribution, besides being on demand, will have to give you selection including the back catalog.
Who cares if they have 20 slots of the latest Lethal Weapon movie on PPV. What if you haven't seen the sequels and you want to view the earlier ones?
Most likely, you will have to look for the packaged media, unless the big services like iTunes pledges to keep older movies online indefinitely.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
VOD is most definitely Digital Distribution, whether you want to define it differently or not because you do actually have a very good example of somebody taking advantage of digital distribution. In fact, somebody who happens to reside in a very interesting demographic, too.
Explain how getting a movie instantly from your cable / satellite box is any different than getting it from PSN or Live! or iTunes or streaming Netflix.
Wco - PPV has a limited selection, that is true. VOD can have huge selections, depending on your service provider. And that's exactly the battle we're all discussing here. Who will be that provider? MS? Sony? Netflix? Comcast, for example, has a tremendous selection of On-Demand titles, a library of free titles almost as large as Netflix's "instant" library. Others, such as Charter Cable, has such a small catalog it's ridiculous.
But yes, the services will have to maintain their catalogs. which is exactly what netflix is doing, Comcast is doing, and I expect iTunes and Live! and PSN (either themselves or through surrogates) in order to compete.
thatdude90210
Regular
I've playing with Playon the last few days. It's a $30 software that you install on a pc in your network that allows you to stream Hulu, Netflix, CBS and a couple of others, to your PS3 & 360. There are unofficial players that work just fine also, I use a SageTV HD theater 200.
I don't have a Netflix account, but with just Hulu and CBS, it's been pretty amazing already. I just watched an episode of Family ties and and an original Twilight zone at CBS classic tv. Between Hulu/CBS and my DVR recorded shows, there's always something interesting to watch. If they ever add ABC, it'll be hog heaven.
Netflix has already taken their step with the Roku player. I think we're just a Hulu-box (one that is stand alone - no need for PC at all) away from the next step in digital distribution mainstream penetration.
Currently the quality is not HD, but it will give dvd quality a run for it's money. And if Hulu ever get their own box, they will have the incentive to stream higher quality.
I don't have a Netflix account, but with just Hulu and CBS, it's been pretty amazing already. I just watched an episode of Family ties and and an original Twilight zone at CBS classic tv. Between Hulu/CBS and my DVR recorded shows, there's always something interesting to watch. If they ever add ABC, it'll be hog heaven.
Netflix has already taken their step with the Roku player. I think we're just a Hulu-box (one that is stand alone - no need for PC at all) away from the next step in digital distribution mainstream penetration.
Currently the quality is not HD, but it will give dvd quality a run for it's money. And if Hulu ever get their own box, they will have the incentive to stream higher quality.
Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the real problem with PS3's cost that Katuragi designed the machine without accounting for the cost to the rest of the company? My recollection is that Ken hid quite a bit about the PS3 from the rest of Sony and when he was done rolled it out the rest of Sony to deal with...
The PS3 always had a bit of arrogance surrounding it and that started with the hardware guys. They made all the big decisions that the software, marketing and CFO have all had to deal with.
There really is a difference in the approach that MS, Nintendo took to developing their systems versus Sony. Sony doesn't seem to have a well thought out central philosophy/theme that they build their system around.
I think MS and Nintendo are much better prepared for to deal with the shift that the digital entertainment experiencing at the moment. MS because they have almost 30 years of designing integrated systems which interconnect and Nintendo because they they have really adapted well to the economics of the video game industry and innovated.
I guess you could argue that Nintendo was lucky this generation but I think that both Wii and DS show a well thought out strategy that they have executed on extremely well. In some ways you could argue that they took a page out of MS's playbook by designing something new learning from the mistakes and releasing new platforms. Analog control begat touch screen begat motion controls - just like MS they released platforms got feedback and innovated.
The point here is that if we are talking about what sort of impact todays losses will have on futur Sony hardware it is my opinion that Sony has a lot more to be concerned with than just hardware - they need to begin to develope a core set of values that can be integrated across all their divisions for better results andget them quicker. How is it that MS gets movies streaming on 360 before Sony a company that actually makes movies........ How is it that home took this long to develop and is this bad? How is it that Sony releases a motion controller that almost nobody knows how to use? I think the next Playstation will more than likely involve people outside of the hardware deparment: marketing, software, accounting, you name it.
Didn't Hulu already work in the PS3 browser?
thatdude90210
Regular
I heard there were some issues (picture quality, dropped frames) on fullscreen mode.
Overall, I'm pretty happy with PS3's browser. However, Hulu isn't working well with PS3's browser. Fullscreen would lock up the browser that would require me to reboot my PS3. However, I have used fullscreen Flash video with sites like CrunchyRoll.com.
However, the overall experience with PS3's browser isn't very snappy. Everything seems slow/sluggish, where as on my PC, it would snappy/fast. I also wish there's a right-mouse click for the PS3 (I'm using DS3 controller) as some of the Flash content requires right-click context menu.
Picture quality is pretty good for CrunchyRoll.com. I haven't managed to get Hulu working...I'll try again over the holidays before my vacation.
Off-topic, I'm really impressed with Sony support of divx. As of now, I can play back more of my divx videos than my 360; it wasn't like this a couple of months ago. Picture quality is also better than 360 overall, though I find the scaling options on the PS3 video less than ideal comparing to 360.
Unless there's some hidden menu somewhere, I can't seem to do zoom on the PS3. It seems to support only native, automatic and stretch. Some of my videos are 16:9 with black bars on the top and bottom are played back in 4:3 on PS3. On the 360, it would detect the black bars and zoom the video width would match width of the tv.
Hmm... might be netcode related. Hulu full screen works rather well when I access it from the office network. Will try from home.
Right mouse click is currently mapped to the web browser's main menu. They will need to remap it to another key-button combination (or have it override the default menu behaviour).
Main menu? I would love it if you provide more info on how to access right click on flash content, as some of the flash content requires right click to enable some functionality. IE to enable subtitles with right click.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
I think the only issues at this point are licensing and software related. The hardware is available and mature enough to be mass-marketed.
The distribution channels are there, either internet based or satellite / cable based, and honestly... I don't know about you, but physically my internet is cable based. It's the same pipe. There's no physical restrictions on bandwidth, not for 90% of the population in the US.
The day that I think MS wanted when they got into this business, the day that you pay $50 extra to your cable or satellite provider to get an Xbox converter instead of a basic converter or $10 extra for the DVR converter is right around the corner.
Um, funny you should say that. Comcast has imposed a 250 GB monthly cap, which there is no real way to monitor.
And in the past week, their service has degraded so much. I'm getting 4300/300 speeds and last night, for a couple of hours, the latency to the gateway was ridiculous.
Now, if there are boxes to do to cable TV service what VOIP has done to landline business, you think the ISPs are going to take that lying down, especially if they're also video providers?
Aside from the cap, they will make sure you're not getting the same quality as you would paying for TV service. Otherwise, they couldn't charge $60 and up for HDTV with a decent selection of channels.
I'd like to get rid of my DirecTV service and bills but a Netflix and Hulu box isn't going to cover it. Especially if you have any interest in watching sports.
Console makers should not forget their core competency. All these media features are sideshows, not the main program.
And in the past week, their service has degraded so much. I'm getting 4300/300 speeds and last night, for a couple of hours, the latency to the gateway was ridiculous.
Now, if there are boxes to do to cable TV service what VOIP has done to landline business, you think the ISPs are going to take that lying down, especially if they're also video providers?
Aside from the cap, they will make sure you're not getting the same quality as you would paying for TV service. Otherwise, they couldn't charge $60 and up for HDTV with a decent selection of channels.
I'd like to get rid of my DirecTV service and bills but a Netflix and Hulu box isn't going to cover it. Especially if you have any interest in watching sports.
Console makers should not forget their core competency. All these media features are sideshows, not the main program.
I don't think there's a way. Could you PM me a URL to the Flash content ? Would like to check it out.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Hmmm? Sorry, I missed your point. I was putting forth the idea of a MS licensed & branded cable/satellite box that you bought from your cable company (which is often the same company as your IP), which not only provided the basic cable box functions, but also VOD/PPV/etc and played Xbox games. For a premium, of course.
Cable companies already subsidize the cable boxes.. they get some money back by charging you for DVR upgrades, but doesn't it make sense to push that subsidy onto Microsoft? Combine the cable box with the cable modem into a single unit? MS gets its money back through game licenses and software fees, because the software running the boxes and connecting the cable and IP networks will be made by MS.
I still really believe MS isn't in this business to sell hardware. The profit margins are simply too small, it's not their business model. Software requires a large initial investment and then virtually no COGS.
I see a singular console maker that even has a core competency, and that's Nintendo. I see only one company that tried to produce a device that provided GAMES. MS wants to be a media distribution center, and control the portal to the living room digitally, and Sony wants to be a media distribution center with the focus on controlling the living room physically.
Nintendo is the only one here that has a business plan that relies on being profitable through games. Which is why they are the most successful at it. It's also why they are the least successful at acquiring digital distribution profit streams.
Each console here has really accomplished what they set out to do, regardless of who wins this imaginary 'war'.
Report: Stringer wants Sony focusing on software, 'old guard' resisting
I'm not sure how this'd work.
I'm not sure how this'd work.
Well TVs have options or as standard features on higher-end models the ability to stream Internet video and stream your media from your computers.
Kind of like having something like AppleTV for example built-in to the TV.
Or a Netflix box, like some manufacturers are doing.
It's not clear that people are willing to pay a premium for these things.
Kind of like having something like AppleTV for example built-in to the TV.
Or a Netflix box, like some manufacturers are doing.
It's not clear that people are willing to pay a premium for these things.
Stringer held a conference to pre-announce some earnings. Net loss of 150 billion yen, and on an operating basis a loss of 260 billion yen. I definitely expect gaming sites throughout the day to be confused by the differences in operating and net losses, but whatever. Note I gave it in yen vs dollars because for all those that haven't made the mental conversion to 'home' currency comparisons, everything is about the exchange rate vs frozen in time dollar snapshots. And the yen's near a new multi-year high lately at ~88/dollar.
Stringer's reiterating some of what's been hinted at, plant closures and deeper restructuring - which IMO is good - but I question his ideas of what Sony is vs what he'd like it to become. And that has nothing to do with the 'old guard' referenced above, since they're not the ones to know either, but just that I doubt Stringer's ability to lead the company towards the vision he would like, which is more Apple-esque a design/software house apparently with a greater OEM reliance on the manufacturing side.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123260539695705487.html?mod=MKTW
Stringer's reiterating some of what's been hinted at, plant closures and deeper restructuring - which IMO is good - but I question his ideas of what Sony is vs what he'd like it to become. And that has nothing to do with the 'old guard' referenced above, since they're not the ones to know either, but just that I doubt Stringer's ability to lead the company towards the vision he would like, which is more Apple-esque a design/software house apparently with a greater OEM reliance on the manufacturing side.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123260539695705487.html?mod=MKTW
That'd be a catastrophic failure IMO. Sony got where they are by building superior quality hardware. They need to keep that side and add to it superior software, instead of their awkward software that they've lumbered with for years. To be a software frontend on generic hardware would be the end of Sony as the original company, and be to Sony what Atari is now - a name alone.
Apple invests in hardware R&D too (material, battery, CPU, etc.). The OEMs are responsible to make some parts and assemble them. Key components can still be manufactured in-house. It is not impossible for Sony to follow similar model.
It is not about hardware vs software. It's about how to build a great product and business using both hardware and software.
It is not about hardware vs software. It's about how to build a great product and business using both hardware and software.
No I don't think there's anything fundamental preventing Sony from going that route, but again I just don't see Stringer as being capable of it should they travel that road. For me, Stringer is a great manager and excellent PR face for the company, but the impression I get is that he is reliant on his lieutenants in terms of understanding the technology, and making operational decisions concerning the future course of the business. He seems a great student/listener also so I don't want to be selling him short in the least, but Apple has been driven by the singular vision on Steve Jobs, who eats/lives/breathes the technology his company puts out.
I mean I know that I'm a rare individual to be a Kutaragi loyalist, but if Sony is now going post-conciliatory in the way it's going to handle its divisions, I just think a man with a macro sense of the technology realm - whether 100% correct or not - would be better equipped to take Sony along a value-add model vs a superior hardware model. KK was anti-proprietary, pro-software, and willing to make cross-industry alliances. And though it was a negative at the time for him, he didn't care about beating down other division heads if he disagreed with them. I always felt he should have ascended to the helm, but certainly Stringer was a fine choice as well.
For Sony to go the Apple route I think will see a sort-of hydra take shape in the executive ranks in terms of individuals pushing and pulling on Stringer. The focus right now is on cost-cutting to become profitable in the bleakest of environments, but I am unsure - and this is all advance speculation, since truly nothing's happened yet - but I'm unsure of the forward positioning were Sony to ratchet down in its areas of strength to concentrate on areas where it has been traditionally weak, with a reticent executive corps to boot.
Stringer could do it, and accomplish all these goals and more. We talk about Apple today, we might talk about Sony tomorrow. But a transformation along those lines requires a clear vision and understanding about what's going on, and if Stringer himself doesn't have it (and he might, who knows), I hope that he is able to divine the noise from the wisdom among his top execs, and act accordingly (and decisively).
I mean I know that I'm a rare individual to be a Kutaragi loyalist, but if Sony is now going post-conciliatory in the way it's going to handle its divisions, I just think a man with a macro sense of the technology realm - whether 100% correct or not - would be better equipped to take Sony along a value-add model vs a superior hardware model. KK was anti-proprietary, pro-software, and willing to make cross-industry alliances. And though it was a negative at the time for him, he didn't care about beating down other division heads if he disagreed with them. I always felt he should have ascended to the helm, but certainly Stringer was a fine choice as well.
For Sony to go the Apple route I think will see a sort-of hydra take shape in the executive ranks in terms of individuals pushing and pulling on Stringer. The focus right now is on cost-cutting to become profitable in the bleakest of environments, but I am unsure - and this is all advance speculation, since truly nothing's happened yet - but I'm unsure of the forward positioning were Sony to ratchet down in its areas of strength to concentrate on areas where it has been traditionally weak, with a reticent executive corps to boot.
Stringer could do it, and accomplish all these goals and more. We talk about Apple today, we might talk about Sony tomorrow. But a transformation along those lines requires a clear vision and understanding about what's going on, and if Stringer himself doesn't have it (and he might, who knows), I hope that he is able to divine the noise from the wisdom among his top execs, and act accordingly (and decisively).