How's this for an idea?

[Laa-Yosh]

Well by and far majority of home users would be using pre-installed systems. How many PC shops even offer the option of Linux OS on the machine?

Is there really a demand for it? I'd think that there would be a supply as well in that case... Yed, of course, if people don't know about it, there couldn't be a demand... but Linux had many years to get to be known.
Oh, I see there's already a post about this... anyway, I agree with you about professionals and their dislike for tinkering at home

 

[c0_re]

This is a novel idea and technically completely possible just make it powerful enough to surf the net\email various light weight high def multimedia\photo stuff(as fas as memory footprint)all that type of stuff.

Here's the trick Sony would have had to hire thousands of software developers 3 years ago to make it friendly\stable\capable enough for people who use windows to move onto easily(Like a MAC with windows like functionality) I mean make it as close to windows XP as legally possible, hell I would use it to surf the net well thats until I switch over to plasma and hook my PC up to my TV.

I mean there's very few companies that can challenge Microsoft on any hardware\software level Sony is one of them even you don't like Sony or Microsoft as a company you still have to appreciate having them around to make the competition work harder and spend more to make their product better.

 

[lip2lip]

ps3 with linux and bluetooth keyboard and mouse, plus linux firefox, I will never buy anouther wintel box again.

 

[scooby_dooby]

I think Sony will worry about creating a real online service for PS3 before it sinks all kinds of money into fighting a losing battle against MS for PC superiority.

XBLive cost MS an estimated 2 Billion dollars right? If Sony wants to maintain it's lead it will need something like XBLive, and that's alot of change, especially for a company who's not exactly rolling in money.

Everyone underestimates Live, I think it's going to be a huge driver over the next few year, 2007, 2008, 2009, online gaming on consoles will come into it's own, especially as people embrace XB-Arcade.

So, I think you'll see Sony concentrate it's efforts/money there, and leave the PS3-PC ideas for Kenny's interviews and self-motivated tech enthusiasts...

 

[Vince]

Is there really a demand for it? I'd think that there would be a supply as well in that case... Yed, of course, if people don't know about it, there couldn't be a demand... but Linux had many years to get to be known.

IMHO, the 'problem' with this thread is semantics; you're debating the wrong topic. There's no way Sony would want to take on Windows head-on, why would you want to? The question should not be can the PS3 replace the PC; but, rather, can the PS3 provide enough functionality to make the PC redundant?

And to that, my answer is yes. When you look at the set of functions I use my PC for at home, it's basically net-browsing (Firefox), email (Thunderbird) and music (SonicStage|Connect). I see no reason the PlayStation3 can't support these functions more than adequately, especially on a 1080i/p HDTV. I have a few applications that wouldn't cross over, Chicago uses FinchTV & Chromas for example. But the point of my laptop isn't for work related tasks, so this is outside of what I would expect a PS3 to run.

In closing, it was the threat of a PlayStation2 with an LCD screen, Linux and TimeWarner|AOL supported web browsing subsidized by advertising revenues in 2000 during the dot-com boom that scared Microsoft into building consoles. I see no reason a PlayStation3 can't do what the former couldn't.

And sign a revenue sharing deal with Google for search, both of the media stored on the PlayStation3/Cell infrastructure and on the internet via PS3, just to piss off Microsoft.

 

[TrungGap]

Why didn't MS want linux to run on the xbox? Simple, they were sell the console at a loss. If someone running linux on a xbox doesn't bring MS any revenue. The business model does not work.

For Sony to have a good business model using the Cell, they can not just take the PS3 and stuff it with linux and expect to make something of it. Who's going to pay for all the R&D Sony invested? Who's going to pay for the customer service? Where is Sony going to make money? Look, it's not like STI doesn't have a Cell based workstation business plan. They do, but it's definitely not as cheap as a PS3. They Look people, there's no free lunch.

Sony's existing PC division doesn't sell a PC with a spec like PS3 for a reason (G70 with 256MB would cost you more than $200). They could have stuff linux on those PC instead of Windows. They could bundle bunch of open source apps. They could make it a closed system, if they wanted. Nobody is forcing them to sell Windows with those PC. Nobody is forcing them to use Intel CPU instead of AMD or IBM's PowerPC. Nobody is forcing them to use an open architecture. If they wanted a revolution, they would have done it along time ago. Linux isn't the silver bullet. Linux hasn't reach a critical mass, where it matters. Open source? Would you rather use GIMP or Photoshop? OpenOffice or MS Office?

Why do you want to wait for PS3 with Linux? You can install Linux on your PC, PowerMac or whatnot. Is waiting for a PS3 with Linux going to make it better? No. Unless you planning to tap into the power of the Cell, then in that case mind as well get a real Cell workstation. You'll get more support. More memory, more speed and more options. You could already run Linux on PS2 and xbox. Did it change the world? Are you using it as your primary computer?

 

[Laa-Yosh]

This is a very important distinction indeed... I've already mentioned that it should be about enhancing console functionality, and that does not require Linux IMHO.
But in this case, the result probably wouldn't please the kind of enthusiasts like the topic starter, nor would it seriously endanger the PC. Communication and media functionality are cool, and might as well have a better place in the living room - but you still couldn't make spreadsheats about the family budget, write an essay for school, not to mention more complex tasks like image or video editing.
Taking over part of the PCs functionality would probably hurt quite a lot of hardware manufacturers though, no wonder Nvidia and Ati are both going for the consoles. Surprisingly, it'd still need an OS and applications like Office

Now, Sony hasn't talked about related plans yet, only MS, right? I wonder what they're cooking up to go against the Xbox.

 

[TrungGap]

IMHO, the 'problem' with this thread is semantics; you're debating the wrong topic. There's no way Sony would want to take on Windows head-on, why would you want to? The question should not be can the PS3 replace the PC; but, rather, can the PS3 provide enough functionality to make the PC redundant?

PS2 and xbox can do that, already. Eh, even a modded dreamcast could do that...

In closing, it was the threat of a PlayStation2 with an LCD screen, Linux and TimeWarner|AOL supported web browsing subsidized by advertising revenues in 2000 during the dot-com boom that scared Microsoft into building consoles. I see no reason a PlayStation3 can't do what the former couldn't.

MS wasn't scared into building a console. MS already had a plan going to your living room long before that. They brought out WebTV for ~$400M in 1997. They invested a lot of money before doing the xbox taht was geared toward them entering your living room (like invested $1B in comcast cable).

 

[TrungGap]

PS2 and xbox can do that, already. Eh, even a modded dreamcast could do that...

I wanted to clarify/expand on my first point that PS2/xbox/dc could already provide all the functionality of a PC.

Console already have enough power to run mainstream OS. By doing so, it could do everything that a mainstream PC could do. So arguing on that point is...eh...pointless. The question is, "is it viable for a business to do so?" Because a console business model is different than that of PC business model. My stance is that it's not.

We already had a couple of attempt from companies that offers free computer (almost like the console business model). You get a really free (or almost free) PC. The company would make money by having you watch ads or subscribe to ISP, etc. We don't see them around anymore. We can blame their failures on a lot of different factors, however their business model is such a delicate balance it would be really tough to juggle. I think it's too risky for Sony to enter this business.

 

[Vince]

PS2 and xbox can do that, already. Eh, even a modded dreamcast could do that...

I have a PlayStation2 sitting in my livingroom, it can't do that. Actually, all it can do it play games, DVD and CDs. As an average consumer, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Again, I'm not arguing about a Windows alternative/replacement, I'm talking about a Playstation3 having enough functionality to make a windows PC unnecessary for the vast majority of users.

MS wasn't scared into building a console. MS already had a plan going to your living room long before that. They brought out WebTV for ~$400M in 1997. They invested a lot of money before doing the xbox taht was geared toward them entering your living room (like invested $1B in comcast cable).

That's blatently untrue. Gabe Newell's (Microsoft exec, former) commented about Sony in early 2000 to CGW. I think Newell's comment was along the lines of, 'They [Sony] scared the shit out of [Intel's] Andy Grove; they scared the shit out of [Microsoft's] Ballmer and Gates.'

Your hypothesis also doesn't fit in with the known XBox timelime when back in late 1999, early 2000 they were shopping around for IHVs to produce a PC with fixed specs; the leap to becoming a hardware vendor is such a departure for them (and their profit margins) it's extrordinary. I happen to believe Gabe and my version a bit over yours.

 

[Fafalada]

Is there really a demand for it? I'd think that there would be a supply as well in that case... Yes, of course, if people don't know about it, there couldn't be a demand... but Linux had many years to get to be known.

Oh come now - MS didn't get where they did with Win3x/Win9x by word of mouth - they had massive advertising machine behind it.
If you want to reach the masses you aren't going to do it by letting geeks talk about your product, no matter how popular it is with them.
If that worked Warp would have stopped Win9x before it even got started. And that was a perfect example of an OS that wasn't really any less friendly then MS offering, ran the SAME software (for the first year anyway), was more stable and offered superior functionality in several areas, yet it still failed miserably, courtesy of IBM's incompetent marketing department.

Mass market demand isn't going to materialize out of nowhere - and I see little vested interest from any of the big Linux backers in advertising it as viable home PC OS.

 

[aaaaa00]

If that worked Warp would have stopped Win9x before it even got started. And that was a perfect example of an OS that wasn't really any less friendly then MS offering, ran the SAME software (for the first year anyway), was more stable and offered superior functionality in several areas, yet it still failed miserably, courtesy of IBM's incompetent marketing department.

Well to be fair, it wasn't all roses on OS/2 Warp either. The WPS was still kinda flaky, driver support was still kinda spotty, and the system requirements were still a notch above Win9x.

It was definitely a better OS than Win9x, but for other than the hardcore users, it really wasn't better enough to make the average joe go to the effort of switching to it.

 

[Fafalada]

It was definitely a better OS than Win9x, but for other than the hardcore users, it really wasn't better enough to make the average joe go to the effort of switching to it.

MS didn't start with a Win9x userbase - average Joes had to go through the effort of switching to IT from Dos.
And there was zero sense of familiarity to the new OS except for the Microsoft Logo on bootup - this was entirely up to marketting and iniative to get software support.
And there's no need to debate who won that battle.

Well to be fair, it wasn't all roses on OS/2 Warp either. The WPS was still kinda flaky, driver support was still kinda spotty, and the system requirements were still a notch above Win9x.

Indeed - but they both started with plenty of same problems - MS just got around improving things that mattered the most, faster (such as driver support). IBM meanwhile seemed more interested in competing with NT with new features and upgrades (especially if you look at the way version 4.0 went).

 

[TrungGap]

I have a PlayStation2 sitting in my livingroom, it can't do that. Actually, all it can do it play games, DVD and CDs. As an average consumer, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Again, I'm not arguing about a Windows alternative/replacement, I'm talking about a Playstation3 having enough functionality to make a windows PC unnecessary for the vast majority of users.

Linux for the PS2 has been available for a while now. It's not an underground hack. It's an official product. My point is that it isn't in Sony best interest to support such business model. They want you to play games (and buy games), they make money on the royalities.

As for dumbing down the app for the mass...it depends on how you define what sort of app the vast majority of users use. Which I belive is still a lot. Browser, word processor, spreadsheet, email, simple photo editing...but still how do they plan to make money?

That's blatently untrue. Gabe Newell's (Microsoft exec, former) commented about Sony in early 2000 to CGW. I think Newell's comment was along the lines of, 'They [Sony] scared the shit out of [Intel's] Andy Grove; they scared the shit out of [Microsoft's] Ballmer and Gates.'

Your hypothesis also doesn't fit in with the known XBox timelime when back in late 1999, early 2000 they were shopping around for IHVs to produce a PC with fixed specs; the leap to becoming a hardware vendor is such a departure for them (and their profit margins) it's extrordinary. I happen to believe Gabe and my version a bit over yours.

I don't think MS was scared into building a console. Granted, xbox may not be what they had envisioned intitially, but it's always MS plan to expand into the living room. They were caught off guard. MS is known for their paranoida, and having aquired WebTV and to have any form of competition would throw them into a frenzy.

They started looking into video games console market in 1999. Their first plan was not to build console, but have dell and other manufacturers build and sell. They would market and develope games for it, somewhat like the MCE now. Unfortunately when that plan didn't work, they had to use their plan b, which is build the console themselves. Inititially they wanted to release the xbox in 2000. But it was changed for a more powerful version, so the schedule slipped til end of 2001. Wasn't PS2 with Linux announcement in may 2001 (how cleaver of Sony) and the released was in may 2002?

The reason xbox was ~rushed (debatable point) is because of the perceived success of the PS2. They know the business, they saw how Sony killed Sega (I guess this point is debatable). MS may not have the experience of Sony, but this market isn't totally new for them. But saying MS was scared into building a console is pretty like saying Sony was scared into building PS3, because MS announced 360 in 2005.

 

[fireshot]

IMHO, the 'problem' with this thread is semantics; you're debating the wrong topic. There's no way Sony would want to take on Windows head-on, why would you want to? The question should not be can the PS3 replace the PC; but, rather, can the PS3 provide enough functionality to make the PC redundant?

And to that, my answer is yes. When you look at the set of functions I use my PC for at home, it's basically net-browsing (Firefox), email (Thunderbird) and music (SonicStage|Connect). I see no reason the PlayStation3 can't support these functions more than adequately, especially on a 1080i/p HDTV. I have a few applications that wouldn't cross over, Chicago uses FinchTV & Chromas for example. But the point of my laptop isn't for work related tasks, so this is outside of what I would expect a PS3 to run.

In closing, it was the threat of a PlayStation2 with an LCD screen, Linux and TimeWarner|AOL supported web browsing subsidized by advertising revenues in 2000 during the dot-com boom that scared Microsoft into building consoles. I see no reason a PlayStation3 can't do what the former couldn't.

And sign a revenue sharing deal with Google for search, both of the media stored on the PlayStation3/Cell infrastructure and on the internet via PS3, just to piss off Microsoft.

Did it occur to you that you're are debating anecdotal evidence?

Vince, I like to know which school of marketing you graduated from.

 

[Phil]

Linux for the PS2 has been available for a while now. It's not an underground hack. It's an official product. My point is that it isn't in Sony best interest to support such business model. They want you to play games (and buy games), they make money on the royalities.

You're not reading what he's saying. The average user doesn't even know that you can get Linux on PS2, let alone the fact that it's entirely sold through one single website. Not as if the average joe would care anyway, since the majority of people don't know how to use Linux in the first place! The Linux kit is targeted at a very different market segment (hobby programmers and developers), in other words a niche product.

What Vince is talking about is if PS3 can provide built in functionality with PS3 that could make a PC redundant for many of those average users.

 

[Platon]

I don't get the rationale with many people here.

So if there is a PS3 that has Linux and you can do webbrowsing, write some word documents and some spredsheets you will abandon your PC? Why haven't you done it already, Linux has been out there for years? Why do you need a PS3 to run it?

And I am certain that it is after all much nicer to do those tasks on a desk, infront of a PC screen, instead on the coutch even if you have HDTV.

And exactly where would Sony make money with this little adventure? To me it sounds extremely much to loose and even less to win. I think that Sony would rather spend the money on enhancing its own bussines, rather than spending money just to hurt MS. The only way this would be profitable would be through a monopoly. Is that where we want to go? So we will go from a software monopoly (MS) to a hardware (and software?) monopoly by Sony? hmmmm... I think that people fail to realise that even holy Sony wants to make money as well, just like evil MS.

And another thing, why would this PS3 Linux stuff be so much better than maybe an xbox360 PC variant, which I have to say I find much closer to be a realistic plan...

 

[rabidrabbit]

I don't get the rationale with many people here.

So if there is a PS3 that has Linux and you can do webbrowsing, write some word documents and some spredsheets you will abandon your PC? Why haven't you done it already, Linux has been out there for years? Why do you need a PS3 to run it?

Becaause who would need to buy another PC just to replace Windows with Linux, or remove the Windows from exsisting PC and replace with Linux. If Windows gets the job done for them, why should they migrate?
It's not that people hate Windows so much they want to get rid of it and replace it with something, now.

But as those people who may own a Windows PC buy a PS3 for their console gaming, and if the PS3 will have extensive PC features, then it has a chance to replace some of the use that people used to do with their WIndows based PC.
You know, that "Trojan Horse" effect that they keep telling us.

I don't think the mainstream buyer will be getting a PS3 thinking "Now I can finally get rid of my PC and do my stuff with PS3",
nor do I think people will be buying the PS3 just for the sole reason they can run "that Linux".
They'll buy it for the games, the extra functionality and if that extra functionality proves to be working well for them maybe they'll use them (also) on livingroom PS3 (betweentimes) instead of their bedroom PC.

 

[Phil]

And exactly where would Sony make money with this little adventure? To me it sounds extremely much to loose and even less to win. I think that Sony would rather spend the money on enhancing its own bussines, rather than spending money just to hurt MS. The only way this would be profitable would be through a monopoly. Is that where we want to go? So we will go from a software monopoly (MS) to a hardware (and software?) monopoly by Sony? hmmmm... I think that people fail to realise that even holy Sony wants to make money as well, just like evil MS.

The problem is, you're arguing two different things at the same time. You can't argue one companies desire (to have a monopoly) with what the consumer thinks about it. You should decide what you want to argue:

- Shall we argue the benefits for a company such as Sony to control the livingroom and perhaps grab a bit of share from the PC segment by people that won't need to upgrade their PC anymore to satisfy their basic computer needs (basically email & internet access).

- or shall we argue what's best for the consumer?

 

[Platon]

Becaause who would need to buy another PC just to replace Windows with Linux, or remove the Windows from exsisting PC and replace with Linux. If Windows gets the job done for them, why should they migrate?
It's not that people hate Windows so much they want to get rid of it and replace it with something, now.

But as those people who may own a Windows PC buy a PS3 for their console gaming, and if the PS3 will have extensive PC features, then it has a chance to replace some of the use that people used to do with their WIndows based PC.
You know, that "Trojan Horse" effect that they keep telling us.

I don't think the mainstream buyer will be getting a PS3 thinking "Now I can finally get rid of my PC and do my stuff with PS3",
nor do I think people will be buying the PS3 just for the sole reason they can run "that Linux".
They'll buy it for the games, the extra functionality and if that extra functionality proves to be working well for them maybe they'll use them (also) on livingroom PS3 (betweentimes) instead of their bedroom PC.

My responce was more towards those were it atleast "sounded" that the PS3+Linux = goodbye PC+MS

Sure it couls act as a trojan horse, the question is, how much will it cost?

You see if they sell it, they will have to support it. They will have to see that the programs are all working OK. Especially with free software, that everyone has been touting as the savior of mankind, I really don't expect any form of support from the software manufacturer. So when little Jonny (or whatever his name is) downloads some free program and installes it and messes up the system who to call? Sony, and they will be like :"wtf, we haven't even heard of that program"

And what happens when viruses come out for this thing, because if there is one thing that is certain, is that if it becomes successful, virus will come like flies to honey.

And once again who will be the market? And how would you be able to make money out of them?

The thing is I see a lot of problems associated with this with minisicule benefits for Sony, because in the end of the day, what is the benefit for Sony?

It will be extremely interesting to see after the launch of PS3, how many in this forum will be doing their posting on a their PS3s rather than their PCs...