nVidia building the PS3 GPU in its "entirety"

[ultimate_end]

Well first your going to have to prove that a cell cpu can do things faster , cooler and less expensive than a chip to say ohhh put a menu on your tv screen.

It might. It might not. Too early to tell, I'm afraid.

But while we wait for the answer to this conundrum, maybe you might like to look into a couple of concepts. Have you heard of "economies of scale"? Or what about "scalable architecture"?. "Power saving features"? What was that I hear about Intel trying to get x86 into CE products? Sounds like "one size fits all" to me .

Once again, a topic is derailed.

I think you make a great addition to B3D and stick around for a long time (at the least, not get frustrated and leave).

Hey thanks for the kind words! But I think my posts can be a little long sometimes .

at some point, you have to realize that certain "characters" here will deliberately draw you out with inane digressions and irrelevance just for the sake of arguing

Lol. Don't worry. Me and PC-Engine are great friends!

 

[quest55720]

Why in the heck would go sony go with NVidia unless the NVidia GPU wiped the floor with sony's internal GPU? This deal is about last second as it can get as far as I can see.

Wiped the floor? That seems a little strong don't you think?

In my previous posts in this thread (which you still seem to not have read) I gave just a couple of examples of alternative explanations for the nVidia deal. There are probably others too.

That's just the problem In life, there are always alternative explanations to what is the first, most obvious one. People assumed that the world was flat, because they didn't know any better. We cannot assume that because an apple is red on the outside, this is also the case on the inside.

That would lead me to believe sony gave every opertunity to its internal team to improve its GPU to get with in the ball park of a NVIdia one and when it was apprent they could not they signed a deal with NVidia

Yes I agree with this in the sense that Sony may have ran out of time in the development of the GPU, considering that regardless of what BS Sony PR may say, they still realise that they must not allow Microsoft to get much of a head start. That would be a third explanation to "nVidia wiping the floor with the internal GPU". They may have run into delays.

Also if the Powervr team had access to the sony fabs and transitor buget the dreamcast would of wiped the floor with the PS2. If sony had to play with budget contrants everyone else does they would be dead in the water.

And this proves what exactly, other than you are a Dreamcast "enthusiast"?

I too would have liked to have seen what the Dreamcast would have been like if it had a PS2 vector unit and eDRAM. But it didn't, because it came out earlier than the PS2 and also because Sony and Toshiba developed their eDRAM process. You can't do what you can't do, son. That's exactly why lambasting the PS2 for not having pixel shaders and a 733MHz CPU is so rediculous.

Oh and BTW, how exactly is it that using a lot of transistors is Sony's fault? And FYI the PS2 is actually pretty darn transistor efficient compared to the Xbox. Don't forget that in terms of overall transistor count (including memory), the PS2 is actually pretty slim. Pretty good for a console that doesn't look that much worse than Xbox, wouldn't you agree?

And please don't bring Dreamcast into this, the whole point of PowerVR's technology was (and is) to make extremely efficient use resources that you have. Please come back and tell me when Microsoft or Nintendo announce they are using TBDR in their next-gen console.

Yes the NVidia design would have to wipe the floor to get the win. Lets say the PS3 sell as well as the PS2. 75million x 5 per unit is 375 million dollars. You don't give another company 375 million for a slightly better design. There is no way the internal GPU is not done. They have had 4 years something would be done. If it was not done we would of heard about it because heads would of rolled. Also if it was not done sony would of been over a barrel and NVIDIA would of gotten a lot more than 5 bucks per unit. The finished product was not up to par there is all no shame in that. The excuse of running out of money come on. If money was at all an issue this deal would of been done years ago with sony scrapping the internal GPU completely. I don't see sony getting cheap on the GPU when there are billions at stake. They have sunk billions into the PS3 they would of found the money some how to finish the internal GPU if the design was at all competive. This is sony they spend cash like it is going out of style. Billions in R&D billions on fabs and millions selling consoles at a loss.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Now, I also read people defending the PC paradigm. In the face of the media revolution, the lack of industry unity and the requirement for legacy software support has held back progress in the PC industry. The PC industry is not as fast moving and flexible as some people *cough*DaveBaumann*cough* seem to think. If it was so quick to react, then why are we stuck in some kind of archaic x86 dark ages. This is the media/entertainment era, but x86 is far from multi-media friendly. A common argument I see is that "but teh GPU cans do all da work!" And while yes, we will see everything move onto the GPU, why then will I want to fork out multiple hundreds of dollars for a useless x86 processor to sit on my motherboard? I don't need 500 million transistors of pentium what-the-hell-ever to run Microsoft Word!

I didn't say it was fast, I said it was adaptable and if you don't agree with that then I can't see how you can possibly think the thing has been around to 20 years and it is still a growing market (not as fast as it has been previously, but there is still growth), it also has the abilitiy to retarget its needs from the straight office PC to the home webbrowser, the games machine and more recently the media server. The platform is proving to be more media friendly with each cycle - this is part of the reason behind the P4 architecture and you'll soon start to see complete, CE quality MPEG2 encoders integrated on to motherboards and withing a few years they will be integrated into other elements of the PC.

No, it may not be the fastest moving platform, but thats partly down to the cost of implementation factor I mentioned earlier, but it has provend to be very versatile so far and while the vendors within it continue to see worth that will continue.

 

[j^aws]

...
This is sony they spend cash like it is going out of style. Billions in R&D billions on fabs and millions selling consoles at a loss.

LMFAO.

If you do not see the irony in that statement in the present console market then there is no hope for MANKIND.

 

[quest55720]

...
This is sony they spend cash like it is going out of style. Billions in R&D billions on fabs and millions selling consoles at a loss.

LMFAO.

If you do not see the irony in that statement in the present console market then there is no hope for MANKIND.

Well glad to know that if my arguments suck I can get people to laugh.

 

[j^aws]

...
This is sony they spend cash like it is going out of style. Billions in R&D billions on fabs and millions selling consoles at a loss.

LMFAO.

If you do not see the irony in that statement in the present console market then there is no hope for MANKIND.

Well glad to know that if my arguments suck I can get people to laugh.

Kudos for looking on the bright side...

 

[ultimate_end]

Yes the NVidia design would have to wipe the floor to get the win. Lets say the PS3 sell as well as the PS2. 75million x 5 per unit is 375 million dollars. You don't give another company 375 million for a slightly better design. There is no way the internal GPU is not done. They have had 4 years something would be done. If it was not done we would of heard about it because heads would of rolled. Also if it was not done sony would of been over a barrel and NVIDIA would of gotten a lot more than 5 bucks per unit. The finished product was not up to par there is all no shame in that. The excuse of running out of money come on. If money was at all an issue this deal would of been done years ago with sony scrapping the internal GPU completely. I don't see sony getting cheap on the GPU when there are billions at stake. They have sunk billions into the PS3 they would of found the money some how to finish the internal GPU if the design was at all competive. This is sony they spend cash like it is going out of style. Billions in R&D billions on fabs and millions selling consoles at a loss.

Whatever dude.

BTW, The only sensible thing you said here was "If money was at all an issue this deal would of been done years ago..." How do you know when the deal was done?
Please remember that the few examples that I have offered so far are not related to each other, so you can't use them to support your answer to this question.

 

[jvd]

future TV is online with internet connection with fast CPU

actually that was a good 6 years ago when microsoft first did it with webtv

WebTV was not targeted for broadband connection.

Where in your post did u say anything about broadband ?

Not only that but does it suddenly become the future because broadband (something that has been out and in wide spread use for a few years now) makes it the wave of the future or is it that sony is now thinking of it and its suddenly the wave of the future.

Lets face it. You can put an arm chip in there with a mbx core and be able to surf the web using a broad band connection .


As i said it becomes a question of it the cell chip will be cheaper ,faster and cooler than other companys offerings .

 

[ultimate_end]

Now, I also read people defending the PC paradigm. In the face of the media revolution, the lack of industry unity and the requirement for legacy software support has held back progress in the PC industry. The PC industry is not as fast moving and flexible as some people *cough*DaveBaumann*cough* seem to think. If it was so quick to react, then why are we stuck in some kind of archaic x86 dark ages. This is the media/entertainment era, but x86 is far from multi-media friendly. A common argument I see is that "but teh GPU cans do all da work!" And while yes, we will see everything move onto the GPU, why then will I want to fork out multiple hundreds of dollars for a useless x86 processor to sit on my motherboard? I don't need 500 million transistors of pentium what-the-hell-ever to run Microsoft Word!

I didn't say it was fast, I said it was adaptable and if you don't agree with that then I can't see how you can possibly think the thing has been around to 20 years and it is still a growing market (not as fast as it has been previously, but there is still growth)

OK. Speed is relative. You are still implying that it is fast enough. This I disagree with. I don't for a minute suggest that the industry doesn't adapt. I say it adapts too slowly.I still don't see any reason why it has lasted as long as it has other than its shear size and Microsoft's strangle hold on the global market.

It also has the abilitiy to retarget its needs from the straight office PC to the home webbrowser, the games machine and more recently the media server.

So does Apple Mac. So will Cell if we believe the hype and the patents. The PC and Cell share something in common: they both try to be everything to everyone. This can be a recipe for disaster, I admit. But the difference is that Cell was designed from the ground up to achieve this multi-purpose goal, whereas the PC has far too much baggage weighing it down. Yes, the PC will eventually evolve away from x86. But by then we may find that our lives no longer revolve around the PC.

The platform is proving to be more media friendly with each cycle - this is part of the reason behind the P4 architecture and you'll soon start to see complete, CE quality MPEG2 encoders integrated on to motherboards and withing a few years they will be integrated into other elements of the PC.

Yes and how long has it taken to reach that point? Also, just how much life is left in it, if we don't break the shackles of an outdated x86 CPU architecture? If we do break it, how long will that take? Yes the PC industry adapts, but it adapts too slowly to keep up with consumer demand and it stifles technological advancement. In nature, sometimes if you are too slow, you perish. Most assuredly also, an elephant might be large, but it will succumb to millions of fire ants if it ever found itself in that situation. It remains to be seen whether the PC elephant can evolve fast enough to avoid becoming an extinct fossil in the history of computing.

No, it may not be the fastest moving platform, but thats partly down to the cost of implementation factor I mentioned earlier, but it has provend to be very versatile so far and while the vendors within it continue to see worth that will continue.

Yes, "the cost of implementation". I think that tells a lot of stories right there. In fact, I think you have summed up a good portion of my argument. Thank you for your help.

And yes, the vendors will continue to see worth, wont they?

 

[Dave Baumann]

This I disagree with. I don't for a minute suggest that the industry doesn't adapt. I say it adapts too slowly.

In relation to what? Something that adapts too slowly would have already died by now.

So does Apple Mac.

Apples are an abject failure as gaming machines and home media servers. These are classic examples of the PC adapting where others fail - whilst we we playing our MegaDrives the PC was dicking around with 2D strategy games, since then MS and the IHV's have produce a viable gaming platform that has many cross-platform titles as well as titles that were solely developed for the PC and often end up being hacked down to be achieved on consoles (yes, that’s relative dependant on when they are released in relation to the lifecycle of the console). Is this an example of the PC evolving too slowly?

Media Servers / HTPC's / Media Centers are another case of the PC evolving into a more consumer centric device - personally I'm still not convinced that it'll work in the exact format its in, but then there isn't much difference between this and the Thompson TiVo unit that's sitting on my HiFi rack, other than the TiVo is nowhere near as versatile as a media center unit can be.

Yes, the PC will eventually evolve away from x86. But by then we may find that our lives no longer revolve around the PC.

I'm not sure I see what the fascination or issue with "x86" actually is myself, a P4 or Athlon 64 has evolved to the demands of the modern PC and they will continue to do so. I'm really not sure whether breaking out or not of "x86" is really going to be an issue, and frankly I don't really care.

Yes, "the cost of implementation". I think that tells a lot of stories right there. In fact, I think you have summed up a good portion of my argument. Thank you for your help.

Cost of implementation will always be a factor and you'll always end up paying for it in one method or another - with the PC you end up paying the upfront hardware / software fee, with consoles you pay it through the media fees. When you start leveraging technology into other consumer platforms that same issue has to rear its head and I for one hope that we continue to pay in a transparent way rather than through hidden media fees - this is the primary reason why DiVX never took off in a consumer implementation and I thank god that it didn't.

 

[Cryect]

Yes the PC industry adapts, but it adapts too slowly to keep up with consumer demand and it stifles technological advancement.

Of anything at the moment its advancing faster than consumer demand. The average consumer doesn't see much reason in having faster computers anymore hence the slowdown in sales.

So if anyone is stiffling technological advancement its the consumers themselves.

 

[Vince]

In relation to what? Something that adapts too slowly would have already died by now.

That's fallicious at it's core (argumentum ad ignorantiam) and you know it. Why do you keep making arguments which are logically incoherent? Do you not understand that by making such a comment, it undermines anything you say?

Obviously, as I've been saying since the beginning of this thread, the PC marketplace sits at an equilibrium point that maximizes return on investment and consumer demand. Nowhere is it intrinsic that it sits on the point of greastest relative preformance, and as I've done several times, it's easy to show that it doesn't.

 

[Vince]

Sony = PS3. IBM = licensing and semi revenue. Toshiba = still maintains some relevancy.

And you're telling me to get out of my hole? Welcome back to 2000 with that thinking.

Cell chip is key to Toshiba plans, says president[/url]]Toshiba's forthcoming Cell processor will lead to a "Cell World" of new products, Masashi Muromachi, president and chief executive officer of Toshiba's semiconductor company, said on Thursday. Toshiba will boost its capital spending so it can produce the most advanced chips to help make superior networked digital consumer products through the end of the decade, Muromachi said in speech at Ceatec Japan 2004....

Toshiba is working on developing a Cell World of products and is pouring cash into development programs towards this end, Muromachi said. The chip is expected to provide high-speed graphics processing for Sony Computer Entertainment's PlayStation 3. The slides from Toshiba also showed next-generation TVs, DVD players and portable electronics products using the processor.

Dr. Frank Soltis, PDF of Cell Processor's use in future IBM Servers: http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/uk/consultants/pdfs/Dr_Frank_Soltis_Interview.PDF

I can keep going... or you can shut up and do it yourself.

 

[nelg]

Cell chip is key to Toshiba plans, says president[/url]]Toshiba's forthcoming Cell processor will lead to a "Cell World" of new products, Masashi Muromachi, president and chief executive officer of Toshiba's semiconductor company, said on Thursday. Toshiba will boost its capital spending so it can produce the most advanced chips to help make superior networked digital consumer products through the end of the decade, Muromachi said in speech at Ceatec Japan 2004....

Toshiba is working on developing a Cell World of products and is pouring cash into development programs towards this end, Muromachi said. The chip is expected to provide high-speed graphics processing for Sony Computer Entertainment's PlayStation 3. The slides from Toshiba also showed next-generation TVs, DVD players and portable electronics products using the processor.

Did nVidia change names to Toshiba?

 

[j^aws]

....
whilst we we playing our MegaDrives the PC was dicking around with 2D strategy games, since then MS and the IHV's have produce a viable gaming platform that has many cross-platform titles as well as titles that were solely developed for the PC and often end up being hacked down to be achieved on consoles (yes, that’s relative dependant on when they are released in relation to the lifecycle of the console). Is this an example of the PC evolving too slowly?
....

I don't understand why people do not see this closed vs open, PC vs console as a symbiotic relationship? Chicken and egg conundrum?

I don't care what anyone says but December 1994, Ridge Racer launched on the humble PS1 ~$300, that game and 3D graphics blew away any f@Ck&ng PC remotely near that price! A catalyst for this chicken and egg 3D scene on the PC? You decide...

 

[darkblu]

Cost of implementation will always be a factor and you'll always end up paying for it in one method or another - with the PC you end up paying the upfront hardware / software fee, with consoles you pay it through the media fees. When you start leveraging technology into other consumer platforms that same issue has to rear its head and I for one hope that we continue to pay in a transparent way rather than through hidden media fees - this is the primary reason why DiVX never took off in a consumer implementation and I thank god that it didn't.

i hope you'll excuse me for playing on your fears, Dave.

yesterday i bought a dvd player. a philips one. at a price positioning it among the lower-middle-market consumer dvd players. btw, i bought it from a big electronics shop, i could have saved at least 10-15% by bying it from a smaller/online merchant. aside from the region-free, both NTSC and PAL DVD playback this player plays recordable DVDs and CDs with anything from mpeg1 through DivX5, through jpegs and mp3s. much to my own surprise it has been able to play every single divx file i've thrown at it from my CDR collection. i consider myself an average video consumer. now, if you care you can guess which platform satisfies better my video needs - my >$600 mediocre PC or my <$400 (absolutely-decent-quality, 27") tv + dvd/divx player combo? afterwards we can continue with discussing visions of "media-centic, utterly-adaptable" wintel pc.

 

[ultimate_end]

In relation to what? Something that adapts too slowly would have already died by now.

In relation to the needs placed upon it. Just because you reach your goal in the end eventually, it does not mean that you couldn't have done much quicker and therefore with (in the PC industry) less cost. I don't buy this "just good enough" approach. The PC can play games for example, but those games would be much better if more of the money that I payed for my PC actually went into useful silicon and I didn't have to wait five years for standards to be approved or fought over.

As for the PC having died already? As I have already mentioned, The industry is simply too large and entrenched to have suffered such a fate. There hasn't exactly been a lot of competition for it either has there? Certainly nothing that could compete with a complex monolthic entity such as the PC industry, that's for sure.

Apples are an abject failure as gaming machines and home media servers.Apples are an abject failure as gaming machines and home media servers. These are classic examples of the PC adapting where others fail - whilst we we playing our MegaDrives the PC was dicking around with 2D strategy games, since then MS and the IHV's have produce a viable gaming platform that has many cross-platform titles as well as titles that were solely developed for the PC and often end up being hacked down to be achieved on consoles (yes, that’s relative dependant on when they are released in relation to the lifecycle of the console). Is this an example of the PC evolving too slowly?

I only used Apple as an example that of something that can do what the PC can do. Yes it isn't currently a superior alternative, that's true. But Apple has always been a niche market product. Ofcourse the PC will evolve faster than Mac, when the PC at that point had already long since begun its march of mass appeal (strictly on the back of Windows I might add). Fast forward a couple of years to a more media/entertainment-centric time and you say Mac is an abject failure. Come on Dave, now is that really the fault of the hardware? The only blame I a could apportion to Apple would be somehow inferior media server software supplied by Apple themselves. Or if they didn't supply it themselves, then remember that software is hard to find for Mac because most software companies write software for Windows and most can't find it economically viable to support the rather small installed base that Mac provides. As a games machine, the Mac may have succeeded if the games were written specifically and en masse for the architecture (especially altivec), with some decent graphics API support from apple. Apple's incompetence as the platform controller is to blame for this, not the inherant superiority of the PC. In any case, as a closed platform, Mac isn't viable to PC because it is too closed and even if it were more open, again the Shear size and self-perpetuating nature of the PC industry would prevent much competition anyway.

I'm not sure I see what the fascination or issue with "x86" actually is myself, a P4 or Athlon 64 has evolved to the demands of the modern PC and they will continue to do so. I'm really not sure whether breaking out or not of "x86" is really going to be an issue, and frankly I don't really care.

I hope you have read my reply to aaronspink on this matter. In any case, we will have to agree to disagree over whether the x86 architecture holds up progress and whether it has kept up with the pace of requirements placed upon it.

Cost of implementation will always be a factor and you'll always end up paying for it in one method or another - with the PC you end up paying the upfront hardware / software fee, with consoles you pay it through the media fees. When you start leveraging technology into other consumer platforms that same issue has to rear its head and I for one hope that we continue to pay in a transparent way rather than through hidden media fees - this is the primary reason why DiVX never took off in a consumer implementation and I thank god that it didn't.

I agree that we will always have to end up paying one way or another. But I'm not sure what it is you are referring to exactly when you say hidden media fees. Do you mean recovering costs from a low-margin/loss-making model? Consumer electronics are high margin enough that companies such as Matsushita can sustain themselves soley on such products alone. As for the media itself, "software" of all kinds is typically a high margin product and we end up paying through the nose for it regardless of what platform it may be delivered on. I for one am not happy that I have to subsidise the profits of twenty different IHV (and that's even if I DIY) just to get my PC running. I for one am not happy that I have to constantly keep upgrading that PC with more profit yeilding parts just because Intel wants to release yet another incremental step in processor power. I for one am not happy that I have to pay for transistors that don't directly benefit me.

There is also the other "cost of implementation", Dave. That is the cost of time and money it takes for members of the industry to agree on anything and then implement it into their manufacturing etc. This is a cost that inevitably gets passed on to the consumer.

Just face it, the PC industry is one enormous consumer cash cow. The really sad thing is that we as consumers are powerless to do anything about it. The sooner everyone gets off this gravy train, the better.

 

[ultimate_end]

Yes the PC industry adapts, but it adapts too slowly to keep up with consumer demand and it stifles technological advancement.

Of anything at the moment its advancing faster than consumer demand. The average consumer doesn't see much reason in having faster computers anymore hence the slowdown in sales.

So if anyone is stiffling technological advancement its the consumers themselves.

Well I can't dispute much of this. At the moment maybe there is a slow down in demand for performance (mainly in non media/entertainment applications BTW). That has not been the case in the past and that certainly will not be the case in the future, as we move towards home servers etc. In addition, consumer demand is somewhat driven by the development of new applications. which means what? Well I guess that shows Microsoft's been slacking off a bit lately haven't they?

 

[Dave Baumann]

i hope you'll excuse me for playing on your fears, Dave.

What fears would these be?

yesterday i bought a dvd player. a philips one. at a price positioning it among the lower-middle-market consumer dvd players. btw, i bought it from a big electronics shop, i could have saved at least 10-15% by bying it from a smaller/online merchant. aside from the region-free, both NTSC and PAL DVD playback this player plays recordable DVDs and CDs with anything from mpeg1 through DivX5, through jpegs and mp3s.

Curiously my wife and I went shopping for my Christmas present yesterday which happened to be a Pioneer DV-575 DVD player with pretty much the same functionality – the old 515 has been here for several years and I figured it was time to put it out for pasture.

i consider myself an average video consumer. now, if you care you can guess which platform satisfies better my video needs - my >$600 mediocre PC or my <$400 (absolutely-decent-quality, 27") tv + dvd/divx player combo? afterwards we can continue with discussing visions of "media-centic, utterly-adaptable" wintel pc.

Where have I suggested that this isn’t the case? Equally is a driven by a Cell like platform going to be anymore worthwhile?

Even though I’ve bought this player that still doesn’t mean that a Media Center PC isn’t attractive to me though – when the TiVo gives up the ghost it’ll be something that I’ll give some more serious thought to as with a nice high performance wireless network it can become a multimedia server for the rest of the house. Not everyone wants or needs that, but I don’t suggest that to be the case.

Now, turn around your comments: why do you think your $200 DVD player has all that functionality? If it wasn’t for the easy connectivity of PC’s would digital camera’s have taken off as quickly as they have thus there being a desire to have JPEG playback on consumer DVD players? Would CD/DVD-R/RW playback be as an attractive selling feature (yes, we’ve not got HD/DVD-RW combos, but long after PC’s were burning video to optical disks)? Would DiVX still even vaguely be here if it now hadn’t become an open source Codec that has become very popular in (a certain segment ) PC life? No, PC’s aren’t the sole driving factors in these, but they have most certainly been an acceleration factor.

 

[Dave Baumann]

I don't buy this "just good enough" approach. The PC can play games for example, but those games would be much better if more of the money that I payed for my PC actually went into useful silicon and I didn't have to wait five years for standards to be approved or fought over.

This comment has me absolutely baffled, especially in relation to consoles since they spend several years creating the standard and then you are left with only that standard until the next one comes out. With the console environment you are stuck for 5 years and then they often end up bashing out an entirely new standard for the next one, leaving developers another couple of years scratching their head trying to get the best out of it (Sony anyone?). One the otherhand every single cent you pay for the PC is going directly into the pockets of the silicon vendors – you also have more of a choice to tailor the PC towards your needs.

As for standards taking multiple years to bash out, that may well be the case, but, using DirectX as an example, the standards that are being hammered out now aren’t actually possible now, on current silicon processes, with any level of performance – they are generally timed such that the new features are available in a timeframe when they can sensibly be implemented at the same, or higher performance than the previous iteration. Whats wrong with that?

I recently sat through a technology presentation with ATI and one of the things they were discussing is the latest high definition video formats and how they were going to resolve the quality and battery life issues for laptops with these new movie formats. Now, they know that the standards are either going to be Blue Ray or HD-DVD or both, but frankly they don’t care which it is since the platform is immaterial to the actual issues – they’ll be drives available for both on the PC pretty much as soon as either are available in consumer devices. What they are doing is looking at the issues of how to ensure that a laptop can play a HD movie at HD quality still on a battery charge, much as they can on current laptops. By the time HD players actually start hitting shelve with any great popularity these issues will more than likely be solved. This doesn’t look like its not a forward looking industry.

There hasn't exactly been a lot of competition for it either has there? Certainly nothing that could compete with a complex monolthic entity such as the PC industry, that's for sure.

There hasn’t been a lot of competition or just that the rest has failed? If you believe there hasn’t been competition before how do you know how quick or slow the the PC industry will adapt in the face of competition?

Apple's incompetence as the platform controller is to blame for this, not the inherant superiority of the PC.

Its is Apples inability, or lack of desire, to tackle the PC component vendors within the industry on such fronts – it’s the vendors and drivers of the PC industry that we’re really talking about when we’re talking about the future of the platform.

There is also the other "cost of implementation", Dave. That is the cost of time and money it takes for members of the industry to agree on anything and then implement it into their manufacturing etc. This is a cost that inevitably gets passed on to the consumer.

This is the case wherever you go – look at the mess of the DVD specifications, now they really took years to hammer out and they they are full of specification wholes (the spec didn’t even decide on a single method of lay changing!) and we have a whole litany of license fees going from one vendor to the next. Are you happy that every disk has a Dolby soundtrack on there, whether its needed or not, freezing out some DTS translations, and that every disk is paying Dolby some IP?

When you start looking at it from the consumer direction things are no different, especially when you have consortiums driving the groups and then competing consortiums trying to get the better standard (look at the HD Video format I mentioned earlier). In fact, frankly it can be worse in these scenarios since you have multiple vendors trying to compete in the same grounds; at least with PC’s there are actually only a few competing groups within each sector so there can actually be less infighting and each of the different areas generally trying to pull in the similar direction. PC vendors can equally be very flexible in the technologies that they support – they just make the platform scalable enough to support the general needs of future technology; again using the HD Video format the actual technology settled on, be it one or both, is immaterial to the companies in the industry as, if they have a high enough bandwidth platform already in place, they can support either.

But we’re not talking about that, we’re talking about a closed standard driven by a few vendors and manufacturing companies with a vision to a widescale devices utilisation – in that scenario you can either end up with the situation of the other consumer vendors having to pay large IP fees to license the technology or they’ll end up fighting both other CE vendors as well as the PC industry.