Ken Kutaragi:" I can produce the PS3 anytime"

[scooby_dooby]

Maybe you should put the 360 behind glass so you're toddler is not moving the 8lb system around. A toddler could just as easily drop the system from it's vertical position and as heavy as this thign is that would not be pretty.

I have no idea why you would even let them close to a $500 piece of equipment like the xbox360. Not to mention it's heavy enough to cause some serious injury if it ever fell.

 

[Sethamin]

No, I'm sorry but you are wrong. Monopolies are illegal in most cases. The only time they are not illegal is if a "natural monopoly" is deemed necessary for an industry to properly carry out business--like utility companies, and even then, they are closely monitored by a regulatory body such as the government. It would not make sense to have middlemen that would have to lease out an infrustructure owned by one company...it would just add costs that would have to be passed on to the consumer and the quality of product delivered would basically be the same regardless who of who delivered it. Deregulation of power companies has generally failed for this reason.

Microsoft is not involved in an industry where a "natural" monopoly has been deemed necessary by the government and/or other regulatory agencies. If there was no competition, MS could very well be classified as an illegal monopoly.

No, I'm sorry, but you are wrong. You are referring to a government sanctioned monopoly, or de jure monopoly, like AT&T used to be. That's not what I'm referring to when I say monopoly. MS is just in a market that has monopolistic conditions, in other words, a near monopoly where it can supply most of the market and has a downward sloping demand curve (but not a horizontal demand curve that a total monopoly would have). And no, it's not illegal; it arises when you best your competition to the point that MS has in the OS market.

Anyway, all of this is besides the point. I just can't stand the constant MS-hate and bashing that goes on here. Some people (you and Nesh in particular) can't just seem to get over your MS bias. You think Sony has worked hard for their position, and that MS hasn't. Or that Sony plays fair, but MS doesn't (in the console market). None of these have any basis in reality, and it gets really old. All you're doing is trying to avoid admitting that MS is a valid competitor, and somehow delegitimizing their presence in the VG market. That's just silly; VGs are a $20 billion* market these days that's mostly about sotware, and MS is a software company. They have every right to be there.

*Not sure the exact number, but it's probably in that range.

 

[ROG27]

No, I'm sorry, but you are wrong. You are referring to a government sanctioned monopoly, or de jure monopoly, like AT&T used to be. That's not what I'm referring to when I say monopoly. MS is just in a market that has monopolistic conditions, in other words, a near monopoly where it can supply most of the market and has a downward sloping demand curve (but not a horizontal demand curve that a total monopoly would have). And no, it's not illegal; it arises when you best your competition to the point that MS has in the OS market.

Anyway, all of this is besides the point. I just can't stand the constant MS-hate and bashing that goes on here. Some people (you and Nesh in particular) can't just seem to get over your MS bias. You think Sony has worked hard for their position, and that MS hasn't. Or that Sony plays fair, but MS doesn't (in the console market). None of these have any basis in reality, and it gets really old. All you're doing is trying to avoid admitting that MS is a valid competitor, and somehow delegitimizing their presence in the VG market. That's just silly; VGs are a $20 billion* market these days that's mostly about sotware, and MS is a software company. They have every right to be there.

*Not sure the exact number, but it's probably in that range.

I hate to burst your bubble on a technicality...but total/full monopolies are illegal in fair market competion...a monopoly being a full monopoly which MS is not (not some crap you utter just for the sake of being correct...i never said virtual/near monopolies were illegal and you never explicitely said you were referring to a near monopoly)...but being a borderline or virtual monopoly is just as annoying to the consumer as being a total/full monopoly would be. I mean I don't work for MS, nor do I own any of their shares, but I am a consumer of products in an industry I feel would be better without the monopoly-like by-products that come from a company like MS. They are so aggressive with their tactics, they dump, and they utilize their incredible asset/cash pool to play nasty. I'm not saying any other company wouldn't do the same had they the chance...but that's just it--they don't have the chance. If they did have the chance, and they did the same...I would be ragging on them just as much as I'm ragging on MS. Also, just because you have the chance to act like a monopoly and you can do it, doesn't mean you should. Bad business ethics. In fact, this whole discussion just showcases your business ethics if anything. If you read the newest interview with Bill Gates you would know what I mean. It went something like this:

Q:XBOX was an unprofitable venture that lost alot of money for MS the first time around...If XBOX360 lost MS more money...would you continue to make consoles in the future.

A: [Bill Gates] - Yes, we are in this for the long haul---this is a long term investment [read we will dump for however long it takes before our competition strangles itself in debt...cash will never be a problem for us because we will subsidize this new market we are trying to take over using the constant inflow of revenue from the PC OS market which we have a stranglehold on/ virtual monopoly in. It will only be a matter of time before they slip up and you are forced to by our products as the only viable/functionally useful alternative again in the console market. In fact, we are going to start moving into other related entertainment markets as well, steamrolling over everything in our path as we go until we full control over the platform, the content, and the content delivery system.]

Trust me....I know alot about MS. I worked very closely with them in several joint projects in the past--you learn alot when you are a consultant.

 

[patsu]

That is correct, every company should be held responsible for the ineptitude of its consumers.

Regardless of what people want to say. The fact remains that kids and adults do move a console while the disc is spinning at one point or another (e.g., The disc is still spinning when you paused a game). Otherwise, why would the bad news broke out so early in its lifecycle ?

Also, when was the last report of the power supply overheating issue (I know that doesn't mean it doesn't happen anymore).

I'm still wondering what MSFT enforced in the average consumers mind, while people were paying $800 on ebay for a 360.

There will be people who are particular about it. A segment of users buying from eBay does not mean everyone does not care. BTW, a constrained supply does not imply good branding.

I truly hope you buy a PS3 as well, and then watch/listen to all of the reports about issues for a month or so after release. However, once more games start to roll out, like magic, all of those reports will go away.

Perhaps none of us have enough information to talk about PS3 yet ? It's an open invite for people like Consumer Reports and the competition to make a case out of. The cost for taking incoming support calls also will not disappear by magic.

What perception did Sony enforce in peoples minds when the DVD crapped out on the PS2, I would say nothing juding by the hundred million consoles they have shipped...

Different caliber of problems. XB360 has damaged people's and rental companies' discs. PS2 DVD player "just" malfunctioned prematurely. It also does not bode well for MS that it takes the heat alone and upfront now.

Bottom Line: Once the games come no one seems to care anymore

As long as the problem does not go away, branding will suffer. On the average 1 bad experience will get to about 10-15 people's ears by word of mouth (On the other hand, 1 ecstatic experience will spread to only 5).

Maybe you should put the 360 behind glass so you're toddler is not moving the 8lb system around. A toddler could just as easily drop the system from it's vertical position and as heavy as this thign is that would not be pretty.

I have no idea why you would even let them close to a $500 piece of equipment like the xbox360. Not to mention it's heavy enough to cause some serious injury if it ever fell.

My game consoles are at the bottom most shelf (1 inch off the ground) so that it's reachable by the kids too.

I don't have to be around for a toddler to flip a console. My wife, cousin or anyone could have started the console without me. Exactly because it's a game console, so everyone should get to have fun. I generally do not lock up a game console. The option is to delay the purchase or not to buy at all. I'll have to see what PS3 and Revolution are up to.

 

[mckmas8808]

MS lost Japan because its American.

In a nutshell.

So that means that MS will never get close to capturing Japan right?

 

[Sethamin]

I hate to burst your bubble on a technicality...but total/full monopolies are illegal in fair market competion...a monopoly being a full monopoly which MS is not (not some crap you utter just for the sake of being correct...i never said virtual/near monopolies were illegal and you never explicitely said you were referring to a near monopoly)...but being a borderline or virtual monopoly is just as annoying to the consumer as being a total/full monopoly would be.

Please. Just because I never explicitly said it, doesn't mean it wasn't perfectly clear what I referring to. I said monopoly when I was in the context of referring to MS, so even if you didn't pick that up, I'm pretty sure anyone else reading the same thread did. So please don't try to feign some high ground like I just pulled a switch on you and changed what I was talking about.

I mean I don't work for MS, nor do I own any of their shares, but I am a consumer of products in an industry I feel would be better without the monopoly-like by-products that come from a company like MS. They are so aggressive with their tactics, they dump, and they utilize their incredible asset/cash pool to play nasty. I'm not saying any other company wouldn't do the same had they the chance...but that's just it--they don't have the chance. If they did have the chance, and they did the same...I would be ragging on them just as much as I'm ragging on MS. Also, just because you have the chance to act like a monopoly and you can do it, doesn't mean you should. Bad business ethics.

They are an aggressive company no doubt, and I won't whitewash any of the things they've done in the past, but this discussion is about their behavior in the console and VG market and nothing else. And I don't think they've done anything wrong there. In fact, despite your assertions to the contrary, I think they've provided some much needed competition and new blood to the market. Xbox 360 is a fantastic product, and it will force Sony to keep on their toes and putting out equally good products. While I can't predict alternate realities, I think it's fair to say that Sony wouldn't be nearly as aggressive with the PS3 if MS wasn't right there breathing down their neck.

In fact, this whole discussion just showcases your business ethics if anything. If you read the newest interview with Bill Gates you would know what I mean. It went something like this:

Q:XBOX was an unprofitable venture that lost alot of money for MS the first time around...If XBOX360 lost MS more money...would you continue to make consoles in the future.

A: [Bill Gates] - Yes, we are in this for the long haul---this is a long term investment [read we will dump for however long it takes before our competition strangles itself in debt...cash will never be a problem for us because we will subsidize this new market we are trying to take over using the constant inflow of revenue from the PC OS market which we have a stranglehold on/ virtual monopoly in. It will only be a matter of time before they slip up and you are forced to by our products as the only viable/functionally useful alternative again in the console market. In fact, we are going to start moving into other related entertainment markets as well, steamrolling over everything in our path as we go until we full control over the platform, the content, and the content delivery system.]

Trust me....I know alot about MS. I worked very closely with them in several joint projects in the past--you learn alot when you are a consultant.

Thank you proving my point about bias. I couldn't have illustrated it any better myself.

 

[drpepper]

MS lost Japan because its American.

In a nutshell.

I said this before and I'll say it again. the iPod and iTMS proved this wrong. Hideo Kojima loves his green iPod mini. If Apple can make a product that appeals to Japanese consumers (despite the fact that the iPod itself was not designed to the Japanese consumers specifically) than any company can.

Funny blog entry BTW, wrt the missing owner of the iPod.

 

[blakjedi]

So that means that MS will never get close to capturing Japan right?

probably not... but I cant hate on em for trying... I think Japan is the Holy Grail of dominance for MS. I would rather they take control of Europe and the US fully.

See to me it goes like this:

Europe has the most people in their market ~ 400 million - Go get them! Culture simliar enough to North America that making games that are instantly recognizable is easy. With the careful distinction of making sure it has great soccer games they should be easy.

NA spends the most on videogames ~7-8 billion dollars and has a market of roughly 370 million people - Go get them - Home Turf!

Japan - spends probably 3-4 billion on VG and has a market of roughly 120 million people... fairly xenophobic and nationally supportive of their own vendors why spend a lot of money there?

Which markets do you think are worth it for MS?

IMHO Japan is last in priority. Really.

 

[ROG27]

Thank you proving my point about bias. I couldn't have illustrated it any better myself.

Of course I'm bias. If you knew how things really worked with them, you would be too.

Not to say I'm too much of a fan of anything in particular. I'd much rather be a hater for a legitamate reason than try to fool everyone into believing I'm 100% objective.

And even though I rag on MS...doesn't mean I don't enjoy the xbox to some degree...I mean I own it to be able to play the full spectrum of IPs available in the market.

It's the possibilities of what can (and very well might) happen in the future that gets me worried.

 

[blakjedi]

Of course I'm bias. If you knew how things really worked with them, you would be too.

Not to say I'm too much of a fan of anything in particular. I'd much rather be a hater for a legitamate reason than try to fool everyone into believing I'm 100% objective.

Again... Xbox is technically "better" than PS2 but people bought PS2 anyway. OSX (I've heard) is technically better than XP but people buy XP anyway... Why is that?

 

[ROG27]

Again... Xbox is technically "better" than PS2 but people bought PS2 anyway. OSX (I've heard) is technically better than XP but people buy XP anyway... Why is that?

Content, of course. But I never said anything about anything being technically better.

What we were discussing were monopolistic business practices. If you secure deals with the right people....choices are not really left up to the consumer at a certain level. If your choice as a consumer is between content available and no content available...you choose content. If one company secures content exclusivity by leveraging its ability to buy everything out...it's not really fair is it.

It is our duty as consumers, business people, and the like to ensure the business world operates on the basis of meritocracy and not on the level of a monarchy/dictatorship.

MS almost bought out Nintendo...you know what their intentions are. You know you would have been pissed if that would have materialized.

 

[Nesh]

I hate to burst your bubble on a technicality...but total/full monopolies are illegal in fair market competion...a monopoly being a full monopoly which MS is not (not some crap you utter just for the sake of being correct...i never said virtual/near monopolies were illegal and you never explicitely said you were referring to a near monopoly)...but being a borderline or virtual monopoly is just as annoying to the consumer as being a total/full monopoly would be. I mean I don't work for MS, nor do I own any of their shares, but I am a consumer of products in an industry I feel would be better without the monopoly-like by-products that come from a company like MS. They are so aggressive with their tactics, they dump, and they utilize their incredible asset/cash pool to play nasty. I'm not saying any other company wouldn't do the same had they the chance...but that's just it--they don't have the chance. If they did have the chance, and they did the same...I would be ragging on them just as much as I'm ragging on MS. Also, just because you have the chance to act like a monopoly and you can do it, doesn't mean you should. Bad business ethics. In fact, this whole discussion just showcases your business ethics if anything. If you read the newest interview with Bill Gates you would know what I mean. It went something like this:

Q:XBOX was an unprofitable venture that lost alot of money for MS the first time around...If XBOX360 lost MS more money...would you continue to make consoles in the future.

A: [Bill Gates] - Yes, we are in this for the long haul---this is a long term investment [read we will dump for however long it takes before our competition strangles itself in debt...cash will never be a problem for us because we will subsidize this new market we are trying to take over using the constant inflow of revenue from the PC OS market which we have a stranglehold on/ virtual monopoly in. It will only be a matter of time before they slip up and you are forced to by our products as the only viable/functionally useful alternative again in the console market. In fact, we are going to start moving into other related entertainment markets as well, steamrolling over everything in our path as we go until we full control over the platform, the content, and the content delivery system.]

Trust me....I know alot about MS. I worked very closely with them in several joint projects in the past--you learn alot when you are a consultant.

Atlast a person that shares the same views as mine.

Oh and you are not biased.Its just a fact.

I dont know what the hell is this about being biased.I mean whoever notices this fact is necessarilly biased?

 

[Sethamin]

Content, of course. But I never said anything about anything being technically better.

What we were discussing were monopolistic business practices. If you secure deals with the right people....choices are not really left up to the consumer at a certain level. If your choice as a consumer is between content available and no content available...you choose content. If one company secures content exclusivity by leveraging its ability to buy everything out...it's not really fair is it.

It is our duty as consumers, business people, and the like to ensure the business world operates on the basis of meritocracy and not on the level of a monarchy/dictatorship.

MS almost bought out Nintendo...you know what their intentions are. You know you would have been pissed if that would have materialized.

Xbox was a better product than PS2, but the PS2 won out anyway because of content. Why? Bigger install base, so more publishers are going to target that base.

OS X was a better product than XP (or so many people say, I like WinXP better), but XP still dominates because of content. Why? Bigger install base, so more ISVs are going to target that base.

Methinks I detect a whiff of inconsistency here.

 

[Nesh]

Xbox was a better product than PS2, but the PS2 won out anyway because of content. Why? Bigger install base, so more publishers are going to target that base.

OS X was a better product than XP (or so many people say, I like WinXP better), but XP still dominates because of content. Why? Bigger install base, so more ISVs are going to target that base.

Methinks I detect a whiff of inconsistency here.

PS2 was released before XBOX so it concentrated content.When XBOX finally launched the PS2 was overally better as a product.Add the fact that the PS2 had also concentrated userbase and it secured itself.If both were released at the same time things might have been very diffeent.

Now about Operating Systems things arent that different, most people are being taught on windows, most people used windows before, some dont even know the existence of other operating systems ,and we are talking about a market that was set for MS's products for decades.It is easier for the consumer to keep using something he is accustomed to.

Time frame also defines "quality"

 

[Sethamin]

PS2 was released before XBOX so it concentrated content.When XBOX finally launched the PS2 was overally better as a product.Add the fact that the PS2 had also concentrated userbase and it secured itself.If both were released at the same time things might have been very diffeent.

Now about Operating Systems things arent that different, most people are being taught on windows, most people used windows before, some dont even know the existence of other operating systems ,and we are talking about a market that was set for MS's products for decades.It is easier for the consumer to keep using something he is accustomed to.

Time frame also defines "quality"

Sure, it's not going to be exactly the same, but they both have analgous situations - lead time to market, established brand name, huge install base lead.

 

[blakjedi]

Sure, it's not going to be exactly the same, but they both have analgous situations - lead time to market, established brand name, huge install base lead.

Rog and nesh get the fine point I think anything else and they are needling to explain why in MS' case "its just different, theyre a monopoleeeee!"

 

[scooby_dooby]

I don't know what fantasy land you guys live in where the XBOX was an unsuccessful product. It's been a huge success, suplanted nintendo as the #2 console and is only about 15 points behind PS2 in marketshare i the US.

Consumers like the product, it's been a success, give it up. Profit is not the only measure of success, and furthermore, in order to assess profit, you must wait until the investments a company has made have had a chance to pay off.

In other words, come back in 5 years, if MS is still losing money then your point will have much more credibility. Right now they haven't even had time for their investments to pay off...

 

[ROG27]

I don't know what fantasy land you guys live in where the XBOX was an unsuccessful product. It's been a huge success, suplanted nintendo as the #2 console and is only about 15 points behind PS2 in marketshare i the US.

Consumers like the product, it's been a success, give it up. Profit is not the only measure of success, and furthermore, in order to assess profit, you must wait until the investments a company has made have had a chance to pay off.

In other words, come back in 5 years, if MS is still losing money then your point will have much more credibility. Right now they haven't even had time for their investments to pay off...

As of right now, I don't mind the XBOX competing...but if things start slipping their way just like they did the OS on the PC....you heard it here first people.

I hope my fears don't materialize because it will just be bad for everyone.

 

[blakjedi]

As of right now, I don't mind the XBOX competing...but if things start slipping their way just like they did the OS on the PC....you heard it here first people.

I hope my fears don't materialize because it will just be bad for everyone.

So its better for all of us that Sony simply rule the console market...

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Pretty hypocritical if you ask me. People don't want MS in any form of monopoly, but it's fine if Sony monopolizes the console market. i.e., some people are just fan-boys and will say anything to rationalize their position.