Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech

[liolio]

Agree...

No way,X86 will dominate desktop and notebook market unless Intel abandon it.Apple has proved PPC can't compete with X86 in these markets.

I didn't mean power PC , but literally power a pc ie what I said latter light OS on a PC
Thus I completely agree now ARM and X86 are the only two ISA worse supporting.
More on what I meant by competing with them-selves latter on.

They don't need a ”windows 7 mobile“ on PC,they just need develop such features in GFW.

I think MS "plan" could be like this:
Windows 7-----desktop,notebook and X86 netbook,no one can threaten MS

that's where I don't agree, I work in low level IT support (nothing fanzy... ) and the number of people I see that are bored by windows complexity, slowness, security issues, etc. is really impressive. Actually no matter those concerns/problem are legit...
On the other side phones tablets OS are way more visual AND reactive. Security is not an issue, not that they're secure it's more not attacked or simply users are not aware of it.
Users are impressively dumb, not matter the caveats they could buy something more reactive, new and shiny. Look at ChromeOS (Google landed a deal with Dell) I guess it will be super reactive, Google plans for users to use its cloud services (thus relieving the device in many ways when some networks are available which now happens quiet often).
Users won't be that concerned for their personal data. I think Google have a chance to capture quiet a share of the market. Apple already quiet a market share too.

Microsoft is still quiet confortable in the profesional world, they also have an important install based in the private realm, that's why I said competing with them-selves. They can't discontinue Windows in the professional realm and in the personal space they need to let costumers the time to shift (which can be quiet some years). But I believe they have to launch something new sooner than latter.

I don't think that hardware would be troublesome, GPUs are a dying species, there is no that many periphals as long as the requirements for Windows mobile on PC are set properly, basically: no discrete GPU/ PCI express ports, APU, not upgradeable aside of HDD, low (not embedded like but "low") power profile.
There would be a strict grading in perfs for games with devs aiming for a limited amount of performance profile (not speaking of locking perfs here , and profiles would be add and some discarded as technology progresses). Really I think that for most modern and personal use mobile OS are good enough.

But as I said the UI should not be considered the hearth of the system for PC. The idea is to change the perception of PC, its role: be what myst is to clouds
So the real underlying would have to be different than what we have now both in Windows and mobile realm.
It would have to run multiple sessions so I would see the thing relying on virtualization, and also super secured. once a tablet is connected and needs extra power a session is created running whatever program remotely.
When a user connect directly to the pc it would be the same minus the mobile OS would run in a completely virtualized fashion.
Actually the only application that would have direct access to the underlying hardware would be the real OS, the antivirus and games, all would be highly secure:
hardware solution?
Regular internet system check, would not be that long as it would light too.

Why I think it would help MS? because they could enforce (more or less) user to use their cloud/online services: office online, Bing,etc.
Actually the extra security as well as reactivity would be a real plus to end users.
It would be transparent to the big guys Intel and AMD as people who want more perfs, having more "instances" running as the time would go with faster chips more RAM multi-chips solutions
(think gaming on TV,playing Coop on the Tv and a tablet, supporting tablets doing video editing, having a session open on a dumb monitor, acting like a NAS to other devices,MS may adapt licensing cost accordingly too).

Windows Embedded Compact 7----ARM netbook and large hand-held devices like iPad,there is a big opportunity in a fast-growing market.
Windows phone 7-----smart phones,it will be a exceptionally hard battle against Apple and Google
Xbox------entertainment center in living room
All platforms will feature XBLA and Zune marketplace,GFW on PC and Xbox retail games will focus on hardcore gamers.

See above I've another opinion

 

[Squilliam]

I agree about 2012 being unlikely now but I think you are both missing my point (Rangers & Squilliam).
It's not about launch costs or possible revenue in the gran scheme of things they represent real real few in regard to the mobility and desktop market.

I haven't lost sight of the other segments in E+D.

My point (might be wrong on the time line or altogether) is about revolution mobile devices has started and how "computing devices" will fit in our everyday lives.
Apple sold 3millions ipad in 80days, I don't know how many iphone/pod have been sold but that's a lot. Numbers get even more impressive if you consider all the brands (for HTC to samsung, etc.).
It's an exploding market, the demand is only set to go higher.

For comparisons sake, Microsoft sold more than 50M copies of Windows 7 in the same timespan. Its an exploding market but it will forever only explode into a niche unless they get power consumption down or battery performance up. Furthermore its such a fast paced market that progress now can be erased in 2-3 years when people replace their phones. So even if they fail with Win Mobile 7 somewhat, they can still score a home run with 7.1 or 8.

Maybe it's difficult for tech people to realize this but the number of people willing to give altogether on Windows and bulky PC is crazy high. They only wait for a viable alternative, it's coming. When I don't know but sooner than most expect.

What viable alternative? Linux has apparently been inviable for years and thats free. Android has a long way to go to become a viable desktop OS and thats stealing limited resources away from Chrome development.

The expected growth for desktop and laptop is completely dwarfed by the mobile revolution. This will impact MS (even-though they are pretty safe in the professional segment). It's actually worse even on this segment Ms will be threatened sooner than latter by Google, they already landed a deal with Dell for some laptop.
Ms needs to reinvent it-self and reinvent the place for computer in our every day life. If they don't do it other will do. Everybody knows the proper location for a computer in nowadays life styles it's next to the TV (central place in people entertainment/everyday life). So whether PC becomes consoles or console becomes PC.

Thats because you're comparing a mature and less exciting market segment to one which is considered to be an up and coming big segment and experiencing massive growth. In any case you should consider the fact that Microsoft is already making headway in the non computer, computer segments of the market. They are closing in on 40M Xbox 360s in the home which again dwarfs the install base of the iPad and clones.

Squilliam I don't know how much data people working on xbox OS and those working on Windows mobile share but I think that the way MS sees it business has to go through a major change, think of the thing that happen at Xerox back in time.
Ms is losing to Google in regard to search engines, they're losing in the smart-phone tablet area which both are critical sectors. They are so late in those area that is questionable if marketing and good products would be able to reverse the trend. What MS needs to reverse this trend and become more relevant in those fields in a more unified offering for their costumers for their pocket to their living room.

MS are already working on this. They are linking their Windows Mobile, Windows CE, Xbox Live and all the various sub businesses together. In any case its such a young market that its not too late for them to smite both Google and Apple and anyone else at the same time by targeting the lower end higher volume segments. Because the smart phones are so screen/interface restricted it may be the killer application to allow people to interface between their Windows 7 phone and their Xbox 360 console. Don't write them off, they have advantages which the other players do not have because of their Xbox 360 business especially.

 

[liolio]

For comparisons sake, Microsoft sold more than 50M copies of Windows 7 in the same timespan. Its an exploding market but it will forever only explode into a niche unless they get power consumption down or battery performance up. Furthermore its such a fast paced market that progress now can be erased in 2-3 years when people replace their phones. So even if they fail with Win Mobile 7 somewhat, they can still score a home run with 7.1 or 8.

In regard to Ms mobile efforts may be they can still catch up as the market is not consolidated and they aren't doing that bad (early 2010 should be bad till 7 mobile device really ship) here some data:
http://gigaom.com/2010/03/18/the-mobile-os-market/
http://www.blackberrycool.com/2010/02/23/gartner-release-breakdown-of-mobile-os-market-share/
Androïd and iOS are gaining market shares in 2010. Androïd at a pretty impressive rate. I think the market is close to consolidation between Androïd, iPhone, RIM (for real smart-phone) windows mobile 7 has to be successful or I think Ms will have a hard time on the market. I don't think that advantages can be reset simply when people change their phones, the software environment is pretty important.

More on iPad. I took iPad as an example not because I think Apple is a threat to any of Ms activities, just to show how public is receptive to new that kind of approach of computing. 3 millions for such an unproven concept is a lot. Apple doesn't really want to compete with any body they will always limit them-selves to "high end" and proprietary approach that ensure them high margins. So as the fight is on OS an actor that limits its Os to proprietary hardware and aim for the goals I gave above can't be a threat to any body. Speaking of OS Apple sold ~11/12 millions (3+~8) devices running iOS. As the numbers I posted above show Apple is not the only actor, overall sales for are impressive. So iPad will have competitors, the tablet market will expand and at a pretty fast rate, it won't eat on smart-phone market, it will eat in net-book first and then laptop market which means mobile OS invading MS almost private market. Point is laptop sales are more important than desktop and the gap is likely to increase.
You see the pattern Ms "private" market size is shrinking.

On perfs and battery, well some smart-phones are a bit too much that's true, but it will get better and they're close to sweet point in regard to perfs. Tablets are different beasts, they don't have the same constrains. an iPad while not a laptop has healthy dimension it's not something you always carry with you all the time, will use all the time etc. Battery life is a bit less important. You can use it at home for watching moving, surfing, with a keyboard, at work for presentations, etc.
It's just something more flexible and convenient than laptop in many ways.

What viable alternative? Linux has apparently been inviable for years and thats free. Android has a long way to go to become a viable desktop OS and thats stealing limited resources away from Chrome development.

Well Google is pretty much a try everything company and see what is successful. We will see how well or bad Chrome does at a windows alternative for laptop. And I don't think Androïd has a long way too go to be viable desktop OS. Intel entering the embedded market with X86 works against MS best interest for once. So Androïd will run better and better on X86.
The main point anyway is that we disagree on what is a viable OS for desktop, almost every single person I know (family, friends) use computers for e-mail, internet, media few text processing. We have the fake assumption that requirement for a viable OS on desktop are high, it's wrong consumers couldn't care less. PC/laptop in their eyes are really the commodity part of the commodity part, they care more for their phones, mp3 players, etc They have PC/laptop because they have (had) no choice.

Thats because you're comparing a mature and less exciting market segment to one which is considered to be an up and coming big segment and experiencing massive growth. In any case you should consider the fact that Microsoft is already making headway in the non computer, computer segments of the market. They are closing in on 40M Xbox 360s in the home which again dwarfs the install base of the iPad and clones.

It's not mature it simply has nothing to do with most people everyday uses (non professional realm). See above for my beliefs about where the market is heading.
As you say Ms sold ~50millions Seven in a quarter, almost as much "real" smart-phones have been sold in the same time too.

MS are already working on this. They are linking their Windows Mobile, Windows CE, Xbox Live and all the various sub businesses together. In any case its such a young market that its not too late for them to smite both Google and Apple and anyone else at the same time by targeting the lower end higher volume segments. Because the smart phones are so screen/interface restricted it may be the killer application to allow people to interface between their Windows 7 phone and their Xbox 360 console. Don't write them off, they have advantages which the other players do not have because of their Xbox 360 business especially.

I don't agree, when people will realize choice exist (more tablets, gen two or three, more accessories) they will a lot more willing to give up on Ms products than you think.
They won't smite Google acting as follower and there is no need to smite Apple.
I think they have to distinguish them-self from Google by rethink "desktop" as I said in my previous post. They should also adopt a slightly different business model Google is about gratuity and ads, MS could be content (extend live which is one of their neat advantage, closed and secure platform) and continuity from your hand (phones) to your tv. They are still a crazy strong company, have a lot of traction on many markets, one of the strongest brand in the world. they managed to get games back from Sony (I mean most games are no longer exclusives) having them develop for "re thunk" PC or Xbox would not be an issue.
You're write about the variety in MS offering, the quality but adding interface to already sluggish interface won't make it. I think that a unified experience would be such a strong selling point.
As I said to PC could be also in charge to insure security of all the Ms devices you bought.
They may also take very strong engagement in regard to personal data, etc.

 

[NRP]

I think MS "plan" could be like this:

This acutally makes a lot of sense.

 

[TheChefO]

liolio, you bring up some really good points and while they may not be directly tech related, they indirectly hint at where tech might go for the next generation. Or at least outline some potential roadblocks to typical console progression.

The push of Apple growth in the past few years has also come out of nowhere. The ipod was at the time an unthinkable success but it was dwarfed by the outrageous growth of the iPhone. I don't think MS saw this coming at all and the future implications that mobile devices bring to their bottom line.

The future is obviously pushing toward cloud computing, but at the same time, cloud concepts are nothing new. That infrastructure was tried and dumped previously when local computing needs surpassed the ability of a central device to supply them either due to computing deficiencies at the central device or issues with network bandwidth.

The same could repeat with a heavy computational need at the POS. What could that new dynamic be? Personal interaction. Graphics tech can be very bandwith intensive, but the cap is what is actually delivered to the screen which is determined by resolution. Optimal Human interaction will require hi resolution cameras (the higher the better), hi res 3d camera (or a secondary hi res camera to generate 3d data) and multiple microphones to determine sound location.

While this data could then be transmitted via the net, processed along with imagery data, and then sent back to the user, I don't think this model works very well for current network infrastructure.

As is, there is already notable lag on local machines. There is also notable lag in onlive delivery along with lower image quality. This may end up being the future, however it will not be until the widespread availability of even higher bandwidth and lower latency networks are available to enough homes to abandon the current console biz model.

I'd say we are safe for at least another generation.

The same can be said for media delivery. Currently, not all consoles are connected to the net. 50% for Wii (the cheapest console) and 80% for ps3 (the most expensive) with xb360 in between.

The reason imo is pretty simple. Broadband internet access isn't free and while some people might be able to afford a Wii, they may not afford or may not want broadband. Limiting the userbase to only those that can afford or only have broadband is foolish. Especially as the console price decreases and new markets are being sold to.

Simple way to attack this for next gen consoles might be to include local storage and not include a optical drive. Of course an optical drive could be an add-on, and a way for manufacturers to make up some cost for those that prefer optical media.

For the rest, it is a streamlined delivery medium which encourages connected consoles and plays into what console manufacturers have in mind in the long run.

Consequences of these and many other business decisions will ultimately decide console tech more so than the latest gpu by AMD or Nvidia.

Sad as that is, it's the truth.

The bottom line for these companies (especially ones with stagnant or shrinking growth) is ultimately going to direct the future of the industry. Now one might assume this to mean lower tech ala Wii. It may, or it may lead to a desperation move to grab more marketshare and deliver more for less and attempt to push out the competition with an unmatched funding edge.

An example may be something along the lines of:
$100 xbox720 with 3 year live subscription!

The intent of this is obviously to not only get adoption of the new console into homes, but to also ensure that every one of these consoles is net connected. And while such an endeavor would be extremely costly, it would also ensure mass adoption at a rapid rate. Others that could not compete on such a cost basis would be forced to either accept dramatically reduced marketshare, or to exit the market altogether.

The second part of this equation is why would they want to take such a hit on hardware? Same reason that many website provide services for free.

Advertising.

Advertising works best when it is targeted. If advertisers know their target demographic, they can have a much easier time trying to sell product to them.

A games machine as an advertisement medium may sound ridiculous, but the intent of these boxes was never simply games.

"A box in every home"

That was the intent. These companies will try their best to reach this goal.

Now if this box becomes a portal for all media needs (tv, games, social networking, internet access) then ad space can become very valuable.

Especially if one important aspect is introduced:

Direct Human interaction.

I don't mean a mouse and keyboard. I mean a single point of access for all in the family. Interacting with the device as one would interact with a concierge.

"What new movies are coming out this week?"
"I'm going grocery shopping, are there any ads at the local grocer?"
"I'm hungry, order a pizza"
"we're going school shopping whats the latest fashions for teens?"
"we're all out of these *holds product box up* who's got the best price?"

or pro-active advertising:

With HD cameras, the device can scan the room and find products which already exist in the home such as coke cans, or magazines, or brands of clothing, etc.

Upon scanning along with a tag for date and time, the device can better gauge buying habits of the demographic and target ads at load times or dashboards etc. Also another waiting period is while waiting for online matches to start or spawn points.

This type of interaction is valuable. In fact, id say if also tied to a mobile device via an app, this type of interaction is even more powerful and influential than google.com or android.

While android/iphone mobile devices are a threat, they are also limiting. Their screens are small and though high res, they still cannot replicate the desktop experience. The ipad addresses this somewhat, however it is too bulky to tag along and too expensive and fragile to just have them lying around the house for everyone to just grab and use for whatever purpose. Leaving its use about equivalent to a laptop or tablet pc as we've had for many years.

This leaves the desktop, however, as we know, it is tied to the desk. Putting it in the living room has been a mixed bag mostly due to the interface. A mouse doesn't play well with a couch and a keyboard is very bulky for a coffee table.

Solution:

Phone.

Especially, a droid type device with a slide keyboard.

Having such a device linked via your tv gives users the best of both worlds. The mobility of a phone, and the readability of the family TV.

How does this relate to consoles? That's for Sony and MS to figure out.

 

[Squilliam]

In regard to Ms mobile efforts may be they can still catch up as the market is not consolidated and they aren't doing that bad (early 2010 should be bad till 7 mobile device really ship) here some data:
http://gigaom.com/2010/03/18/the-mobile-os-market/
http://www.blackberrycool.com/2010/02/23/gartner-release-breakdown-of-mobile-os-market-share/
Androïd and iOS are gaining market shares in 2010. Androïd at a pretty impressive rate. I think the market is close to consolidation between Androïd, iPhone, RIM (for real smart-phone) windows mobile 7 has to be successful or I think Ms will have a hard time on the market. I don't think that advantages can be reset simply when people change their phones, the software environment is pretty important.

But you'll see that so far its been Linux on the mobile which has really lost the greatest market share to Android. You could say that Android which is Linux based is simply surpassing another version of itself. Also Symbian is still the most significant mobile OS by far and will likely remain so with Nokia holding significant market share in many markets. The growth now doesn't prove that Android has what it takes to break out into the wider market like the other products.

Windows Mobile 7 has some key advantages which the other makes don't have. It shares instant name recognition with the most popular by far desktop operating system, it will link in with already present home console efforts etc. Also I get the feeling that its going to be more like iPhone than Android in that its made for an audience which will not forgive basic shortcomings like poor battery life over additional raw performance. I also suspect that RIMs rise has much more to do with a lack of a viable Win Mobile alternative for enterprise environments.

More on iPad. I took iPad as an example not because I think Apple is a threat to any of Ms activities, just to show how public is receptive to new that kind of approach of computing. 3 millions for such an unproven concept is a lot. Apple doesn't really want to compete with any body they will always limit them-selves to "high end" and proprietary approach that ensure them high margins. So as the fight is on OS an actor that limits its Os to proprietary hardware and aim for the goals I gave above can't be a threat to any body. Speaking of OS Apple sold ~11/12 millions (3+~8) devices running iOS. As the numbers I posted above show Apple is not the only actor, overall sales for are impressive. So iPad will have competitors, the tablet market will expand and at a pretty fast rate, it won't eat on smart-phone market, it will eat in net-book first and then laptop market which means mobile OS invading MS almost private market. Point is laptop sales are more important than desktop and the gap is likely to increase.
You see the pattern Ms "private" market size is shrinking.

The iPad is like Twitter. Its importance is overstated in the media. http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/facebook-farmville-is-bigger-than-twitter-655373 for instance.

In any case people still have the ability to revert to their familiar Windows environment with Windows 7 embedded compact devices due out in the market this year. Never underestimate the power of familiarity in the wider consumer market. It doesn't really matter what we nerds think, people will keep returning to what is familiar so long as its about as good even if its slightly worse than something they don't know of. AMD has enough problems and thats the technology which isn't even driving the user experience/interface!

On perfs and battery, well some smart-phones are a bit too much that's true, but it will get better and they're close to sweet point in regard to perfs. Tablets are different beasts, they don't have the same constrains. an iPad while not a laptop has healthy dimension it's not something you always carry with you all the time, will use all the time etc. Battery life is a bit less important. You can use it at home for watching moving, surfing, with a keyboard, at work for presentations, etc.
It's just something more flexible and convenient than laptop in many ways.

But this looks like more a fracturing of the market into different segment/performance categories rather than say having one form factor (tablet) overtake another (laptop). If its only going to steal some of the market in some ways, expand it in other ways it doesn't mean that Microsoft will lose out. They stole the thunder on Linux with WinXP on netbooks so they can do the same with Win 7 EC and perhaps better year Windows 8 which is due end of next year according to rumours.

Well Google is pretty much a try everything company and see what is successful. We will see how well or bad Chrome does at a windows alternative for laptop. And I don't think Androïd has a long way too go to be viable desktop OS. Intel entering the embedded market with X86 works against MS best interest for once. So Androïd will run better and better on X86.
The main point anyway is that we disagree on what is a viable OS for desktop, almost every single person I know (family, friends) use computers for e-mail, internet, media few text processing. We have the fake assumption that requirement for a viable OS on desktop are high, it's wrong consumers couldn't care less. PC/laptop in their eyes are really the commodity part of the commodity part, they care more for their phones, mp3 players, etc They have PC/laptop because they have (had) no choice.

What people want is still different from what they need. They want Windows because its familiar, just as they want a DVD drive even though 100% of their time they get their data from the internet and many people have never opened their disc drive. For many people it could be there for show and they wouldn't even realise. They may not need Windows but they still want it, even though if you presented them with an alternative they wouldn't even notice a difference. Its like the car market, you could have the best and most feature rich car with the best value in the U.S. market but it wouldn't sell because its only available in a manual. People hate learning new interfaces.

It's not mature it simply has nothing to do with most people everyday uses (non professional realm). See above for my beliefs about where the market is heading.
As you say Ms sold ~50millions Seven in a quarter, almost as much "real" smart-phones have been sold in the same time too.

Its market size vs market turnover. The average person will keep their Win 7 machine for 5+ years going on XP penetration rates. The average smart phone owner? It could be as low as 18 months. Because of these time scales people buy what they think they will need, they think they'll need something only Windows offeres in that timespan so they are much more conservative.

I don't agree, when people will realize choice exist (more tablets, gen two or three, more accessories) they will a lot more willing to give up on Ms products than you think.
They won't smite Google acting as follower and there is no need to smite Apple.
I think they have to distinguish them-self from Google by rethink "desktop" as I said in my previous post. They should also adopt a slightly different business model Google is about gratuity and ads, MS could be content (extend live which is one of their neat advantage, closed and secure platform) and continuity from your hand (phones) to your tv. They are still a crazy strong company, have a lot of traction on many markets, one of the strongest brand in the world. they managed to get games back from Sony (I mean most games are no longer exclusives) having them develop for "re thunk" PC or Xbox would not be an issue.
You're write about the variety in MS offering, the quality but adding interface to already sluggish interface won't make it. I think that a unified experience would be such a strong selling point.
As I said to PC could be also in charge to insure security of all the Ms devices you bought.
They may also take very strong engagement in regard to personal data, etc.

Googles greatest strength is also their greatest weakness. They can lose on two fronts here. They can lose if people get the idea that Google = no privacy. Imagine Microsoft putting out an advertisement which depicts Google as a far hairy old man handcuffed to a young hip guy and constantly spouting out annoying advertisements based upon the context of what the guy is doing. Sure they'd destroy much of the advertising market but as its not their primary revenue gathering model it wouldn't matter.

Their other strength is offering an alternative. But the alternative has to offer a much better value package for people to switch. The weakness here is that they have to be better than just 'good enough'. Microsoft has that advantage as the incumbant, Sony had that advantage as the incumbant with the PS2 and Nintendo destroyed that advantage because they were much better than the incumbant. Googles issue is that they are spead so widely that they don't offer a significantly better alternative often than the incumbant.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyhow this does actually relate back to the prediction of new console hardware! I think we've reached the end of the line for hot, expensive consoles. The performance and price will be dictated by the lowest common denominator and the ability to get a console out there for $199-299 entry price. I don't think we've seen the last of the 720P native resolution games on consoles because as we've seen, most people hardly seem to care about the native resolution and it seems pixels are infact over-rated. I also suspect that a lot more of the fixed cost resources are going to be dedicated to the interface so whilst in this generation they made have spent 5% of the average cost on controllers they'll probably move to between 15 and 33%.

So whereas at the start of last generation we would have expected the next generation to say come in at $450-$475 cost price on a $399 console for the next generation we may infact be only looking at $240 or so on the console and ~$50 for the interface which is a significant reduction in cost on what is a $299 entry price. I don't believe we will see a return of the HDD for every SKU and the Xbox 360 Arcade/Nintendo Wii will reign as the ideal standard console because we have to face the facts that they have proved themselves to be the most successful.

I can't see the next generation moving much beyond:

-Smattering of flash (16-32GB)
-Single chip (100-190mm^2) with no more than 75W TDP
-128bit interface (2GB or so @70-100GB/S)
-Commodity Blu Ray Drive 4-6x or 22-33MB/S
-Camera interface with unique controllers designed to act in concert

 

[liolio]

liolio, you bring up some really good points and while they may not be directly tech related, they indirectly hint at where tech might go for the next generation. Or at least outline some potential roadblocks to typical console progression.

The push of Apple growth in the past few years has also come out of nowhere. The ipod was at the time an unthinkable success but it was dwarfed by the outrageous growth of the iPhone. I don't think MS saw this coming at all and the future implications that mobile devices bring to their bottom line.

Indeed, next generation of Atom are only to make things worse.

The future is obviously pushing toward cloud computing, but at the same time, cloud concepts are nothing new. That infrastructure was tried and dumped previously when local computing needs surpassed the ability of a central device to supply them either due to computing deficiencies at the central device or issues with network bandwidth.

The same could repeat with a heavy computational need at the POS. What could that new dynamic be? Personal interaction. Graphics tech can be very bandwith intensive, but the cap is what is actually delivered to the screen which is determined by resolution. Optimal Human interaction will require hi resolution cameras (the higher the better), hi res 3d camera (or a secondary hi res camera to generate 3d data) and multiple microphones to determine sound location.

While this data could then be transmitted via the net, processed along with imagery data, and then sent back to the user, I don't think this model works very well for current network infrastructure.

As is, there is already notable lag on local machines. There is also notable lag in onlive delivery along with lower image quality. This may end up being the future, however it will not be until the widespread availability of even higher bandwidth and lower latency networks are available to enough homes to abandon the current console biz model.

I'd say we are safe for at least another generation.

I agree with what you wrote but I'm not sure that is what I was implying. Having the PC acting as a cloud for devices with their own resources (tablets) is to alleviate the network short coming. The PC would only be a resource for other devices within a house on a same local network.
And for sending lots of data to a device without resources (monitors or a tablet used as such for coop for example) I was thinking of Intel technology for wireless display not of using the in house network.

The same can be said for media delivery. Currently, not all consoles are connected to the net. 50% for Wii (the cheapest console) and 80% for ps3 (the most expensive) with xb360 in between.

It would be interesting to have the same data for computer, nowadays PC not connected to the web have to be rare cases in developed countries.

The reason imo is pretty simple. Broadband internet access isn't free and while some people might be able to afford a Wii, they may not afford or may not want broadband. Limiting the userbase to only those that can afford or only have broadband is foolish. Especially as the console price decreases and new markets are being sold to.

On top of it depending on the house arrangement I think people favor PC/computer for the internet connection. PC would get connected to internet no matter their location.

Simple way to attack this for next gen consoles might be to include local storage and not include a optical drive. Of course an optical drive could be an add-on, and a way for manufacturers to make up some cost for those that prefer optical media.

I'm not sure that would be an intensive for people to rearrange the in house network. They could end simply losing costumers.

For the rest, it is a streamlined delivery medium which encourages connected consoles and plays into what console manufacturers have in mind in the long run.

Consequences of these and many other business decisions will ultimately decide console tech more so than the latest gpu by AMD or Nvidia.

Sad as that is, it's the truth.

The bottom line for these companies (especially ones with stagnant or shrinking growth) is ultimately going to direct the future of the industry. Now one might assume this to mean lower tech ala Wii. It may, or it may lead to a desperation move to grab more marketshare and deliver more for less and attempt to push out the competition with an unmatched funding edge.

An example may be something along the lines of:
$100 xbox720 with 3 year live subscription!

The intent of this is obviously to not only get adoption of the new console into homes, but to also ensure that every one of these consoles is net connected. And while such an endeavor would be extremely costly, it would also ensure mass adoption at a rapid rate. Others that could not compete on such a cost basis would be forced to either accept dramatically reduced market share, or to exit the market altogether.

The second part of this equation is why would they want to take such a hit on hardware? Same reason that many website provide services for free.

Advertising.

Advertising works best when it is targeted. If advertisers know their target demographic, they can have a much easier time trying to sell product to them.

A games machine as an advertisement medium may sound ridiculous, but the intent of these boxes was never simply games.

"A box in every home"

That was the intent. These companies will try their best to reach this goal.

Now if this box becomes a portal for all media needs (tv, games, social networking, internet access) then ad space can become very valuable.

Especially if one important aspect is introduced:

Direct Human interaction.

I don't mean a mouse and keyboard. I mean a single point of access for all in the family. Interacting with the device as one would interact with a concierge.

"What new movies are coming out this week?"
"I'm going grocery shopping, are there any ads at the local grocer?"
"I'm hungry, order a pizza"
"we're going school shopping whats the latest fashions for teens?"
"we're all out of these *holds product box up* who's got the best price?"

or pro-active advertising:

With HD cameras, the device can scan the room and find products which already exist in the home such as coke cans, or magazines, or brands of clothing, etc.

Upon scanning along with a tag for date and time, the device can better gauge buying habits of the demographic and target ads at load times or dashboards etc. Also another waiting period is while waiting for online matches to start or spawn points.

This type of interaction is valuable. In fact, id say if also tied to a mobile device via an app, this type of interaction is even more powerful and influential than google.com or android.

While android/iphone mobile devices are a threat, they are also limiting. Their screens are small and though high res, they still cannot replicate the desktop experience. The ipad addresses this somewhat, however it is too bulky to tag along and too expensive and fragile to just have them lying around the house for everyone to just grab and use for whatever purpose. Leaving its use about equivalent to a laptop or tablet pc as we've had for many years.

This leaves the desktop, however, as we know, it is tied to the desk. Putting it in the living room has been a mixed bag mostly due to the interface. A mouse doesn't play well with a couch and a keyboard is very bulky for a coffee table.

Solution:

Phone.

Especially, a droid type device with a slide keyboard.

Having such a device linked via your tv gives users the best of both worlds. The mobility of a phone, and the readability of the family TV.

How does this relate to consoles? That's for Sony and MS to figure out.

Overall I was also considering price and costs when I start the discussion.
People are willing to spend more money on a PC than on a console. Ms have more room for licensing costs.
PC don't cost MS any money (sorry for the obvious statement) whereas consoles... Actually by not producing anything would benefit from its partners efforts and the concurrence between them. Price would go lower without MS breaking a sweat, cheaper product, more product sold, more licenses (not a change for their nowadays situation in the PC realm actually).
I don't agree with the subscription system bewause I think manufacturer (ms in our conversation) can have both sell license for the OS to Dell, Acer and the likes, sell the subscription to end users, the world is a vampire

Back to tablets I think it's a viable solution for working given proper accessories thus I believe it can get rid of the PC stuck to the desk (or worse in some houses the desk being there because of the PC...) You really don't need that much to make it effective and offset iPad drawback: mostly a clever case and a flexible / fold-able Keyboard. I think tablet potential has still not be realized. Apple push the simplicity (no keyboard, etc. a bit like MS with Kinect) but when you start accounting for accessories the potential uses of the system explode. (I already hear people screaming if you had accessories, what is the point vs netbook, etc. I discard they claim you always needs extra stuffs, bulky power supplies, bags cases, etc.)

For the cost I only need to say its an Apple product competitors may be more affordable

 

[liolio]

But you'll see that so far its been Linux on the mobile which has really lost the greatest market share to Android. You could say that Android which is Linux based is simply surpassing another version of itself. Also Symbian is still the most significant mobile OS by far and will likely remain so with Nokia holding significant market share in many markets. The growth now doesn't prove that Android has what it takes to break out into the wider market like the other products.

I think that the fact that Androïd is based on Linux is not the relevant part, what is relevant is Google support and thus the money it puts into the development.
As for Symbian is still the most significant OS but imho for "not that smart" phone, I'm not sure they are to close to create the economic that start to surrounds Apple phone or phone running Androïd. I mean that it lloks like Nokia is to waste its advantage to only remain a phone manufacturer and make no profit out of the surrounding environment. (I may have missed something as I'm my-self not a phone person I avoid them as much as possible but I've been force to learn a bit about them through workmates discussion and professional needs).

Windows Mobile 7 has some key advantages which the other makes don't have. It shares instant name recognition with the most popular by far desktop operating system, it will link in with already present home console efforts etc. Also I get the feeling that its going to be more like iPhone than Android in that its made for an audience which will not forgive basic shortcomings like poor battery life over additional raw performance. I also suspect that RIMs rise has much more to do with a lack of a viable Win Mobile alternative for enterprise environments.

Agreed. Ms has still some cards in the hands. But I think they may have actually enough cards to "disrupt" the market and actually increase their "mostly private market". My belief is that a pretty radical move while as you pointed it accurately multiple times the competitors are still in the potential threat category for Ms main business.

The iPad is like Twitter. Its importance is overstated in the media. http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/facebook-farmville-is-bigger-than-twitter-655373 for instance.

I don't agree if tablets fail as product it won't be because of a bad concept but bad marketing, not making their full potential.

In any case people still have the ability to revert to their familiar Windows environment with Windows 7 embedded compact devices due out in the market this year. Never underestimate the power of familiarity in the wider consumer market. It doesn't really matter what we nerds think, people will keep returning to what is familiar so long as its about as good even if its slightly worse than something they don't know of. AMD has enough problems and thats the technology which isn't even driving the user experience/interface!

Well I would not be that definitive, my wife understand nothing to her vista computer, she can use Ubuntu (10.4). I see more and more people using Mac, switching is not really a problem, firefox executable looks the same, once they knows the "text processor" icon it's the same they are ready to go. They are mostly completely ignorant of the systeme/ UI as a whole. A choking numbers of users never open Explorer for example, they have everything on the desk, they are super happy if they can pass on the start menu... Apple users are imho the worth they have most of the time no clue about the system outside the desk...
Sorry but I don't get what you mean about AMD.

But this looks like more a fracturing of the market into different segment/performance categories rather than say having one form factor (tablet) overtake another (laptop). If its only going to steal some of the market in some ways, expand it in other ways it doesn't mean that Microsoft will lose out. They stole the thunder on Linux with WinXP on netbooks so they can do the same with Win 7 EC and perhaps better year Windows 8 which is due end of next year according to rumours.

Linux was easy to kill not based on its on merit but because it was not supported.
I can't disagree with you as yours objections and reservation make a lot of sense depending on tablets success or failure. It's clearly a matter of opinion, I see a lot of potential maybe because I feel like it could match my need in a better way than a laptop/net-book, and with a pc as I described it, I would throw away my whole setup (bulky Pc, bulky console, bulky display). It's just me, I know but I really use my pc as the average joe at home. We will know soon enough.

What people want is still different from what they need. They want Windows because its familiar, just as they want a DVD drive even though 100% of their time they get their data from the internet and many people have never opened their disc drive. For many people it could be there for show and they wouldn't even realise. They may not need Windows but they still want it, even though if you presented them with an alternative they wouldn't even notice a difference. Its like the car market, you could have the best and most feature rich car with the best value in the U.S. market but it wouldn't sell because its only available in a manual. People hate learning new interfaces.

That's true, on top of that marketers are actually good at selling not necessary stuffs
But for windows a lot comes down to the lack of viable alternative.

Its market size vs market turnover. The average person will keep their Win 7 machine for 5+ years going on XP penetration rates. The average smart phone owner? It could be as low as 18 months. Because of these time scales people buy what they think they will need, they think they'll need something only Windows offers in that timespan so they are much more conservative.

Same as above they mostly have no choice, then comes price lot of people buy laptop nowadays (desktop are really to bulky as a lot of laptop most of the time stay at home). A decent laptop is pricier than a smart-phone (smart-phone also benefit rebate telecoms operators). And you are rich about the ever exploding market, even if they ready close to good enough, people likes them, like have new ones, etc. It's a device you carry with you all the time. It has a special status in many ways, its a bit of the new watch, this model is "in" say something on your social status, your "tribe" for young/teen people (modding the look of it,etc.) It's really a personal device. It's not the commodity part desktop and laptop are. This have a great side effect, people keep pumping money into it, it put pressure on tech so software and hardware evolve at a faster pace too.
Back to your power/battery life legitimate concerns, I don't think that manufacturers are crazy. They push the ball a bit too far with the last gen of devices that's true but because they really wanted to be "where they are now" which is having devices able to do almost everything one needs from, browsing, to watching media and gaming. They wanted to have products that are able to handle the environment/economic surrounding the product. Now they can go with lesser improvements to preserve battery life (which is bothering one of my work mate is not that happy about his HTC incredible for this very reason). Costumers care for that a good phone is on, not out of juice.

Back to tablets their strong point is that they benefit for this formidable dynamic set by phones, mostly the same hardware, mostly the same OS, whereas you can develop specific program they can run the same programs phones do, etc. So actually for somebody doing phones and related OS they cost next too "nothing" in R&D. I indeed agree that there's no way that tablets could sustain the cost needed for their development, but actually there is no need for that. That why they are threatening soon any of the big actors on the mobility market could enter this market (if it doesn't collapse) can enter this market for free and threaten net-book sales for now to a lesser extend laptop sales.

Googles greatest strength is also their greatest weakness. They can lose on two fronts here. They can lose if people get the idea that Google = no privacy. Imagine Microsoft putting out an advertisement which depicts Google as a far hairy old man handcuffed to a young hip guy and constantly spouting out annoying advertisements based upon the context of what the guy is doing. Sure they'd destroy much of the advertising market but as its not their primary revenue gathering model it wouldn't matter.

Their other strength is offering an alternative. But the alternative has to offer a much better value package for people to switch. The weakness here is that they have to be better than just 'good enough'. Microsoft has that advantage as the incumbant, Sony had that advantage as the incumbant with the PS2 and Nintendo destroyed that advantage because they were much better than the incumbant. Googles issue is that they are spead so widely that they don't offer a significantly better alternative often than the incumbant.

Agreed

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyhow this does actually relate back to the prediction of new console hardware! I think we've reached the end of the line for hot, expensive consoles. The performance and price will be dictated by the lowest common denominator and the ability to get a console out there for $199-299 entry price. I don't think we've seen the last of the 720P native resolution games on consoles because as we've seen, most people hardly seem to care about the native resolution and it seems pixels are infact over-rated. I also suspect that a lot more of the fixed cost resources are going to be dedicated to the interface so whilst in this generation they made have spent 5% of the average cost on controllers they'll probably move to between 15 and 33%.

So whereas at the start of last generation we would have expected the next generation to say come in at $450-$475 cost price on a $399 console for the next generation we may infact be only looking at $240 or so on the console and ~$50 for the interface which is a significant reduction in cost on what is a $299 entry price. I don't believe we will see a return of the HDD for every SKU and the Xbox 360 Arcade/Nintendo Wii will reign as the ideal standard console because we have to face the facts that they have proved themselves to be the most successful.

I can't see the next generation moving much beyond:

-Smattering of flash (16-32GB)
-Single chip (100-190mm^2) with no more than 75W TDP
-128bit interface (2GB or so @70-100GB/S)
-Commodity Blu Ray Drive 4-6x or 22-33MB/S
-Camera interface with unique controllers designed to act in concert

I pretty much agree with that too

 

[Squilliam]

I don't want to reply to anything more off topic.

 

[liolio]

I don't want to reply to anything more off topic.

I don't really think it is. But actually ones are wondering about Apple entering the console market.
I can't see Apple doing a console but they may be the one coming sooner than latter with something a bit like I described. I may turn into an Apple fan... My wallet would suffer....

 

[Squilliam]

I don't really think it is. But actually ones are wondering about Apple entering the console market.
I can't see Apple doing a console but they may be the one coming sooner than latter with something a bit like I described. I may turn into an Apple fan... My wallet would suffer....

Well, talking about handheld phones operating system market is as this is a technical forum!... But yeah if Apple are coming they haven't given any indication. If anything it'll be a revamped Apple TV with game support akin to something like a super Wii rather than anything else!

Your wallet probably already suffers! You being French and living a lavish lifestyle of wine and red meat when the price of both have been going up!

But yes, Apple will only really make a play for the market when they believe that theres an opportunity. The funny thing is that with a potential delay for the next generation they have the best shot of coming in now and establishing a foothold without the other players being able to respond.

Whom would they go with in terms of hardware? An AMD fusion Ontario CPU? 1GB of ram and a funky touch screen motion controller with the Toshiba texture effect for the buttons, like a DS but for a home console instead?

 

[liolio]

Well, talking about handheld phones operating system market is as this is a technical forum!... But yeah if Apple are coming they haven't given any indication. If anything it'll be a revamped Apple TV with game support akin to something like a super Wii rather than anything else!
-----------------------------------------------------
But yes, Apple will only really make a play for the market when they believe that theres an opportunity. The funny thing is that with a potential delay for the next generation they have the best shot of coming in now and establishing a foothold without the other players being able to respond.

Whom would they go with in terms of hardware? An AMD fusion Ontario CPU? 1GB of ram and a funky touch screen motion controller with the Toshiba texture effect for the buttons, like a DS but for a home console instead?

They are pretty unpredictable so it's a tough guess.
They tend to go for pretty much high end products still they couldn't go to high in prices.
I would see indeed some APU, more RAM, not optical disk player.

I think they would want to match or exceed Kinect capabilities.

Interesting idea for the pad may be a bit too costly. But they could let you use their phone/tablet. Even without the Toshiba tech it would allow for rich implementation, Phones have accelerometers gyroscopes, can act as keyboard, touch-pad etc. That actually could be really refreshig.

Anyway I agree to stop this discussion. May it would be more relevant to resume it by end 2010/early 2011 once tablets from different manufacturers are on the markets including ones based on X86 and that we will have a better view of windows 7 mobile success

Your wallet probably already suffers! You being French and living a lavish lifestyle of wine and red meat when the price of both have been going up!

Actually the greatest offender to my wallet is the rant for the apartment...


EDIT
Last informations I found on a site a studies on expected tablets sales:
http://www.pcinpact.com/actu/news/57928-tablettes-tactiles-ordinateurs-bureau-portables.htm
I read other that came to the same conclusion but didn't bother to search.

 

[wco81]

There are rumors of a new AppleTV using iOS and an ARM CPU.

Presumably, they could make it play the iPhone/iPad games but the games would at least have to be 720p to display on a big screen.

But the games were made for a touch interface so ...

 

[liolio]

There are rumors of a new AppleTV using iOS and an ARM CPU.

Presumably, they could make it play the iPhone/iPad games but the games would at least have to be 720p to display on a big screen.

But the games were made for a touch interface so ...

Interesting thaks for the hint
I did a search about that, rumours say the thing could consist mostly of a A4 some RAM and Flash storage and sell as low as 99$.
I don't know how fast the A4 can be clocked but I can't see this compete with current gen consoles even though a face off with the Wii could be interesting.

 

[wco81]

The way it would compete wouldn't be graphics or depth.

It would be 99 cent or free games.

And games would presumably be a secondary feature, although they'd have to come out with some kind of controller, if they do it at all (make iPhone games playable on a big screen).

 

[Toaddio]

And games would presumably be a secondary feature, although they'd have to come out with some kind of controller, if they do it at all (make iPhone games playable on a big screen).

They could make the iPhone or iPad a controller for games on the big screen.

 

[function]

Next gen development could initially piggyback current generation development far more effectively than it ever has before, with next gen systems being viewed as just another platform that sits alongside powerful PCs (it's 360 ports being used to sell Eyefinity and 3D Vision after all).

If we assume there is actually a market, or going to be a market, for 1080p 60hz 3D stuff then a next-gen console could fill those requirements without needing to be a 400W $999 monster and without needing to have all new engines and start-from-scratch assets.

Particularly if the next system could just swap places with the old one (B/C with key older titles and cross-generation play so you could still play new games with all your last-gen chums) then you could transition to the new system painlessly. Games could take full advantage of the new system over time.

Perhaps MS are considering doing something like this with the next Xbox. Being able to immediately bring the full force of the 360's Live experience to bear on day one is exactly the kind of thing I'd expect MS to be angling for.

 

[TheChefO]

An extension of this thought of what i expected in next gen entertainment:

In looking at the strides that were made from last gen to this gen, Art asset creation is IMO at near sufficient levels currently. Sure there are improvements that could be made, but for the most part when artists are modeling multimillion poly models and crunching them down with normal maps I think this level of detail is sufficient for next gen.

Asset creation in the environment is another issue, but detail is again very good. Improvements could/should mostly come from procedural generation for smaller details.

This puts a cap on content creation costs which as we know, the industry is extremely concerned (see EA losses etc).

With that in mind, how would the next gen be differentiated over current gen?

Image quality of these existing assets.

Lighting, shadow, resolution, AA, and procedural generation detail.

None of these are asset creation additions so the cost is fixed squarely in the corner of hardware.

Another potential boon for this model, games could be made essentially the same for next gen as current gen. In fact, it may be possible to ship the same exact game on current gen as next gen and have the next gen version look markedly better than the current gen just through improvements in how it handles lighting, shadow, resolution, and AA.

Keys to making it happen:

Procedural generation detail- cpu burden of this technique for multiple detail requirements will be higher. How much will depend on how far they go with detail obviously, but the more processing available, the better. Uses are not only textures, but geometry, and animation as well.

The other image quality improvements are obviously gpu limited and in many ways, 3d rendering engine related.

What would this machine look like? Likely an extension of existing console technology.

XCPU would need a larger cache to handle procedural gen content along with big bandwidth to the gpu.

Safe guesstimate:

6 core xcpu 3mb cache 3.2ghz (x2)
12mb edram 192 stream amd gpu 500mhz (x4)
2gb ram (x4)

Should be very affordable for consumers and MSFT.

Sony:
cell2 - 1 ppe, 16spe 512kb cache/local store each
2gb ram
nvidia off shelf dx11 300mm x 300mm

 

[corduroygt]

nvidia off shelf dx11 300mm x 300mm

After the RSX fiasco, I very much doubt Sony will go anywhere near NV again.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Considering AMD gets better performance per Watt and seems to offer better licensing deals, I can't see why Sony would pick nVidia over AMD given a choice.