Sony PS3 Q+A (Leaked)

[Sis]

For a board that is supposed to be technically inclined, I continue to be amazed at how often the words "computer" and "PC" are used interchangeably, or as comprehensive substitutes for one another.

Oh, come now. They are obviously trying to muddy the distinction between a PC and the console; blaming that confusion on the target of their marketing is highly unfair.

Calling it a computer, to me, says nothing particularly unusual for a videogame system. However in the context created by Sony in interviews etc. it's obvious that they see it as more than a videogame system, a computer in the stronger sense of something that inherits some of the characteristics of a PC. But not all. They're not saying it's a PC, in fact I don't think they ever have. They've drawn comparison with some elements for sure (those they have borrowed from that space), but it's clear they see the distinction themselves.

And this is not something new for Sony, as the suggestion that it's a reaction to the price for the sake of marketing concerns. SCE has always had a vision of a new type of "home computer", they've always talked in those terms with the Playstation. That is even reflected in their name, and their persistent referal to Playstations as "computer entertainment" systems, not "videogame systems". PS3 is just the most evolved form of that yet.

If all they end up doing is adding downloadable games, than calling it a computer is indeed more a marketing gimmick than anything else. Adding music and video downloads doesn't make it a computer either, just a nice consumer electronics device.

Now, if I can run homebrew software on the device, I'm much more inclined to think it a computer.

 

[Titanio]

Oh, come now. They are obviously trying to muddy the distinction between a PC and the console

I don't think it's their fault if people read "PC" everywhere they see "computer". Obviously Sony does want to more closely align their philosophy with that of a PC, but that's not the same thing as saying it is a PC, and saying it is a computer is not the same thing as that either. At most they're saying that as a computer system, it should be possible to adopt certain desireable characteristics from the PC space (without compromising its nature as a fixed platform for games), and it's as much about pointing out the undesireable nature of some of their competitor's models. When a Sony person says "it's a computer, of course it allows this or that", it's a knowing suggestion that this is something all systems should be doing, but aren't (in certain cases).

Maybe that's confusing for some, but I'm surprised if it confuses so many here.

If all they end up doing is adding downloadable games, than calling it a computer is indeed more a marketing gimmick than anything else.

The philosophy has manifested itself in multiple positive ways beyond that already.

 

[Sis]

I don't think it's their fault if people read "PC" everywhere they see "computer".

You should tell Sony that then. I counted three different comparison uses of the term PC in their talking points:

A7. Like PCs,

A12. Basic services available free for current PCs

just like with PCs,

And then there's this line that seems to directly contradict what you are saying:

PS3 is being positioned as a computer system, and not a computer entertainment system. Like other computer systems

Like what other computer systems? According to you, they don't mean the PC. So are they talking about some other type of computer systems?

Finally:

The philosophy has manifested itself in multiple positive ways beyond that already.

Given that the system is not yet released and no timelines for the extended "non-console" computer-like functionality were addressed in the talking points, I find this statement very empty.

The specifics are so vauge right now, other than Sony wants people to see the PS3 as a computer, that you'll just have to forgive me when I think this is just a marketting spin to justify a higher cost.

 

[Titanio]

You should tell Sony that then. I counted three different comparison uses of the term PC in their talking points:

I'm beginning to wonder if you're reading my posts!

They're not saying it's a PC, in fact I don't think they ever have. They've drawn comparison with some elements for sure (those they have borrowed from that space), but it's clear they see some distinction themselves.

Furthermore, if they saw it as a PC, they wouldn't be saying that this or that aspect was "like" PCs. They'd just say it is a PC. There is an implied distinction. (But hey, depending on what Linux allows, the whole point could be moot, and they could call it a PC if they wanted - but I don't think they have called it that yet).

Like what other computer systems? According to you, they don't mean the PC. So are they talking about some other type of computer systems?

It seems more like an Amiga to me. They should not say it's not a "computer entertainment system", though, IMO - I think they're trying to draw contrast with previous systems that they have called specifically that, to put distance between it and the approaches with PS2/PS1, but if it's a type of computer, it's an entertainment computer. But I do think that by talking in these terms, probably much of the point is to draw attention to what has changed (for the better) with the third Playstation compared with the previous two, and to convey some of the freedoms that they claim will be enjoyed versus the previous formats. They may figure that calling it a "computer" (and then more specifically comparing to certain aspects of PCs) may be the best way to do that.

Given that the system is not yet released and no timelines for the extended "non-console" computer-like functionality were addressed in the talking points, I find this statement very empty.

Well gee, we may aswell stop talking period. If you want to defer to that kind of retreat, then the same could be applied to counter everything you have said. In much of what has been presented, then, the influence of the PC space is clear to see in multiple ways. If people want to focus on the nature of PS3, what type of computer it is, they may do well to stop arguing over labels (which unfortunately I'm doing myself here) and look at what it actually is, and the benefit that some of that "computer" thinking is bringing to the table.

 

[Sis]

Well gee, we may aswell stop talking period. If you want to defer to that kind of retreat, then the same could be applied to counter everything you have said.

Maybe we are talking past each other. I think Sony is being vague about the specifics of the how the PS3 is like a computer--other than I can updgrade some components, like the hard drive. And I probably can plug some things into it (but no mention how drivers work).

To me, calling it a computer is all about the details. If all I can do is install a different hard drive and plug in an external hard drive or memory card reader, then I think calling it a computer is definitely a stretch. If, however, the full Linux OS is there and all I need is a PS3 Linux driver in order to install some special hardware, then sure, it's an extendable computer.

So can you address the specifics? We don't even know how much DLNA support will be in the machine, how much access we'll have to the OS, what devices we can plug into it, what software we can run. Just a vague promise that "it's like a computer." And yet you give me a hard time when I say, "Gee, we don't know anything yet." We don't know much other than what Sony wants us to view the PS3, and my argument is that they do this in order to drive perceived consumer value for the console.

I'm beginning to wonder if you're reading my posts!

No, I'm reading it. I was showing counter examples that try to prove my point; that Sony wishes to muddy the distinction between a "PC" and a "computer", as if in common vernacular there is a distinction.

It seems more like an Amiga to me. They should not say it's not a "computer entertainment system", though, IMO - I think they're trying to draw contrast with previous systems that they have called specifically that, to put distance between it and the approaches with PS2/PS1, but if it's a type of computer, it's an entertainment computer.

If it is indeed like an Amiga, it would be more valuable. If I have a choice between a console that plays video games and a console that plays video games and is an Amiga (also plays Blu-ray!) then I'm going with the Amiga entertainment computer, especially if it's only a $100 bucks more.

Of course, in what ways is it like an Amiga, other than the ability to upgrade the hard drive? In my mind, not much. To you, apparently they are very similar.


So, no, I don't think we need to wait until it's released to argue semantics, but you dismiss my argument pretty quickly by suggesting I don't know the difference between a computer and a PC, but you never address that what we have are vague promises by Sony that the PS3 is a computer (instead, you want to change the debate by saying "computer" does not mean "personal computer", which smells of a red herring).

 

[one]

So if they are losing money now, they'll continue to lose money through 2007 since any cost savings will be immediately passed on in price reductions?

Did I write when the price drop would happen? I guess it will get a price drop just before the 2007 holiday season. You referred to "past Sony history", so lemme check the PS2 case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_2
JPY 39,800 (March 2, 2000, Launch Price in Japan)
USD 299.99 (October 26, 2000, Launch Price in the NA)

According to FRB 1$ was 107.3700 Yen on Mar. 2, 2000, so the Japanese launch price of PS2 was $370.68.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/Releases/H10/Hist/dat00_ja.htm

It could get a $70 price drop from $370.68 to $299.99 in 2000. I think you already know how it was possible.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Of course, in what ways is it like an Amiga, other than the ability to upgrade the hard drive? In my mind, not much. To you, apparently they are very similar.

I'd say you could divide PC from Computer in that PC is an open standard, created by no one party, where different IHVs provide different components to build it. Whereas a 'computer' that's not a 'PC' is an official computer with processor, storage, etc. and traditionally these were designed by a single entity and moderately closed box.

If PS3 provides a full open OS with PS3, I'd say it's definitely like the many non-IBM clones that roamed the prehistoric technological Earth. If it only provides a few closed functions, I'd say it's not really classifiable as such. At the moment all we have are promisesm, no details, and depending on personal regard for Sony, different people have different expectations. Labelling it as computer or not based on personal opinion of what actually the device will do is a topic that can't be discussed.

 

[Titanio]

Maybe we are talking past each other. I think Sony is being vague about the specifics of the how the PS3 is like a computer--other than I can updgrade some components, like the hard drive. And I probably can plug some things into it (but no mention how drivers work).

To me, calling it a computer is all about the details. If all I can do is install a different hard drive and plug in an external hard drive or memory card reader, then I think calling it a computer is definitely a stretch. If, however, the full Linux OS is there and all I need is a PS3 Linux driver in order to install some special hardware, then sure, it's an extendable computer.

So can you address the specifics?

There is much detail to be resolved. But in so far as what is clear, the influence of the PC space is obvious.

Of course, in what ways is it like an Amiga, other than the ability to upgrade the hard drive? In my mind, not much. To you, apparently they are very similar.

Most particularly the inclusion of an OS and compiler, obviously, and the move from a more proprietary closed videogame system to a more open one (which is similar to the move Amiga saw from a pure games machine to something more general). I don't expect the hardware side to be as open at all, but the software side potentially (and that's what's more important IMO). I do think it's a closer analog than to a modern PC (although some might call Amigas PCs, but hey..).

So, no, I don't think we need to wait until it's released to argue semantics, but you dismiss my argument pretty quickly by suggesting I don't know the difference between a computer and a PC, but you never address that what we have are vague promises by Sony that the PS3 is a computer (instead, you want to change the debate by saying "computer" does not mean "personal computer", which smells of a red herring).

That was precisely my original point, I'm not changing any argument. Comments like this:

"If all I can do is install a different hard drive and plug in an external hard drive or memory card reader, then I think calling it a computer is definitely a stretch."

Are what make me argue these points. I can't speak for Sony in terms of their intended meaning when referring to PS3 as a computer, but to me, PS3 (and all these consoles) are computers. It simply irks me when people say computer, when they mean PC (as you do above). It may be common to interchangeably use the term among the masses, but I'd expect a little more subtlety here (particularly if discussing the specific nature of a system). I don't know, maybe someone needs to draw up a taxonomy of computers and make a thread out of it or something.

 

[Sis]

Did I write when the price drop would happen?

No, but you responded to my post where I disagreed it would happen in 2007, given past history.

I guess it will get a price drop just before the 2007 holiday season. You referred to "past Sony history", so lemme check the PS2 case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_2
JPY 39,800 (March 2, 2000, Launch Price in Japan)
USD 299.99 (October 26, 2000, Launch Price in the NA)

According to FRB 1$ was 107.3700 Yen on Mar. 2, 2000, so the Japanese launch price of PS2 was $370.68.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/Releases/H10/Hist/dat00_ja.htm

It could get a $70 price drop from $370.68 to $299.99 in 2000. I think you already know how it was possible.

I've looked at the price history, which is why I said given their past history. They have never released a console and done a price drop within 6 months (and only the UK saw one withinin 12), primarily because they didn't have to (but they made Microsoft do one, in a move that still makes me chuckle). And comparing luanch prices in different regions is not the same as a price drop and isn't an indicator of whether they lost money on the NA launch, broke even, made a profit, or would be willing to reduce the price in the region they launched in a short timespan.

Playstation 2 price history

 

[Sis]

That was precisely my original point, I'm not changing any argument. Comments like this:

"If all I can do is install a different hard drive and plug in an external hard drive or memory card reader, then I think calling it a computer is definitely a stretch."

Are what make me argue these points. I can't speak for Sony in terms of their intended meaning when referring to PS3 as a computer, but to me, PS3 (and all these consoles) are computers. It simply irks me when people say computer, when they mean PC (as you do above). It may be common to interchangeably use the term among the masses, but I'd expect a little more subtlety here (particularly if discussing the specific nature of a system). I don't know, maybe someone needs to draw up a taxonomy of computers and make a thread out of it or something.

But Sony is the one that compares itself to the PC in this regard. So if you remove hardware extensibility, and we know nothing of software extensibility, then what's left?

Anyway, I'm willing to drop the argument, since it is currently about semantics. My initial point was that the computer-use for the PS3 is largely abstract and meant to give consumers the impression that it's something other than a feature-rich consumer electronics device.

 

[compres]

I think we can better decide if the ps3 is a console or a pc by looking at it's competition: xbox360 and wii.

The ps3 is a console folks, just like rice and weat are cereals, beer and wine are drinks, pepsi and coke are soft drinks.

Now, a mac and a dell are pcs, becouse when someones buys one they won't need the other. Can you guys really believe the ps3 will compete with macs and dells and not with wii and xbox?

 

[patsu]

I think you missed my point entirely.

First up, I was comparing the PS3 as a computer to the PC as a computer. Now, hands down, the PC will kick it's ass in terms of functionality, features, and user-base. I'm not talking about running PS3 games on a PC or vice versa (if that's what you meant - it's not entirely clear from your wording).

I actually agree wholeheartedly with you. Compared to a Mac and XP, PS3 is a poor PC in terms of application support and mindshare. Compared to Xbox 360 and Wii, PS3 can easily hold its own.

That's why I believe Sony uses the term "computer" only as a loose classification to describe what it is. It will not play a major role in channel strategy or strategic marketing plan.

e.g. 1, It won't be sold in Fry's Electronics in the PC and printer section.

e.g. 2, It won't be advertised on TV as a PC replacement for Mac, Dell or HP.

Naturally, the "Playstation" or "PS3" name will be used instead. Its software support will define what kind of "computer" it is. The same way iLife, Mac OS X define a Mac.

 

[Titanio]

But Sony is the one that compares itself to the PC in this regard. So if you remove hardware extensibility, and we know nothing of software extensibility, then what's left?

They compare it to a PC in some very specific cases - using certain 'standard' usb devices (port multipliers etc.), and being able to upgrade the HDD etc. Some of the same comparisons can be made about Wii, for example (being able to use standard usb flash drives etc.), but it's clear it's not a PC.

I have a very broad concept of what a computer is, and maybe that's a byproduct of an academic background. Maybe I'm being snobbish here, I don't know. But saying that it's wrong to call any console a computer, to me is like saying it's wrong to call a car a vehicle.

If their intent is to convey that there is more freedom with PS3 than previous Playstations, then I think that's a sincere intention, assuming they deliver on everything outlined. Taking what has been presented on good faith, it's clear PS3 moves away from the more proprietary, closed natures of previous Playstations, to a more open, more PC-like model (in as far as that can be done without compromising the fixed nature of the console platform), and I think they're trying to find a way to express that. But they have not yet quite stretched to call it a PC (though again, details pending on Linux, it may be able to act like one, rendering the entire argument moot - though I do not expect that will be the case).

 

[one]

I have nothing to add to this "computer" argument except for this slide from the ISSCC 2006 keynote speech by Ken Kutaragi

 

[patsu]

I think we can better decide if the ps3 is a console or a pc by looking at it's competition: xbox360 and wii.

The ps3 is a console folks, just like rice and weat are cereals, beer and wine are drinks, pepsi and coke are soft drinks.

Now, a mac and a dell are pcs, becouse when someones buys one they won't need the other. Can you guys really believe the ps3 will compete with macs and dells and not with wii and xbox?

Perception is something that can be changed to re-define the business. My memory on this is blurry now but here's a real life example. The company names are probably all wrong but they serve to illustrate a point only.

e.g., The guys at Pepsi have been wondering how to overtake Coke in soft drink sales. They eventually decided that their market is not just "soft drinks". If they can also successfully sell to "flavored water drinkers" (Fruit punch, orange juice, etc), they have a much bigger market to sell their sweet stuff to. A change in perspective and approach is thus needed. Pepsi started to look at "wallet share" as a key decision variable (e.g., how much budget does a typical consumer spend on beverages in general), and try to take as much from that share as possible. The Pepsi taste and pitch also need to broaden to change people's perception about when (is a suitable time) to consume it. In this particular case, it turned out (extremely) well for the innovator. That's why it was a case study (and I'm a bad student ).

Now like I said, the details are likely wrong but you get the geeze of it: Sony is trying to redefine the business to suit itself. I believe the underlying current is "Platformizing".

[Pause and gulp from beer bottle]

Sony studied Apple and decided that the latter is a much more efficient business. Apple has a much smaller number of SKU (Sony has over 1 million SKUs in APAC alone), Apple leverages on software to differentiate and penetrate, Apple enjoys a stronger brand and charges a premium for its products, Apple has a higher market cap than Sony, ...

In general, I'm more inclined to believe that calling PS3 a "computer" is part of a larger strategy. Sony also does not need to yell "PS3 is a komputer !!!1" in the market to sell it. There are more subtle and much more effective ways to do it (Software, software, and software).

PCs are used for an amazing range of functions these days: From mail ordering wives, garage sales to "forum therapy". Sony would be successful as long as people use PS3 regularly beyond gaming.

Now as for the PS3 price, it's a related but different animal. I tend to disagree that Sony uses the term "computer" just because PS3 is more expensive. Consumers are smarter these days.

I believe Sony wants its buyers to see PS3 as a "value/worthy" platform, not a "cheap" platform. So they are likely to maintain the relatively higher price but throw in more (good) stuff. In this case like the PSP, *quality* is an extremely important variable (Backward compatibility, visuals of Blu-ray player, noise level, size, build quality, bundled software, game quality, ...) to re-assure the buyers. We have yet to see the bundled software and content yet. Not sure whether Sony will fall flat here. Nonetheless, I think Sony is less likely to drop PS3 price suddenly (although they may have contingency plans).

As for the risk... In the soft drink example, drinking is an existing and huge demand, so consolidation brings huge opportunity. In Sony's case, some of the high-profile functions it combines (like Blu-ray and Online gaming !) are still new/unproven demand. Perhaps some of the existing "computer" functions can be channelled over to PS3. We shall see.

Sony is re-inventing itself while we curse and swear in these boards. And that's a beautiful thing

 

[joebloggs]

All this arguing over semantecs is pointless until we know exactly what form the Linux OS on PS3 will take.

That's when you'll get your answer - until then please stop this childish bickering.

 

[patsu]

I have nothing to add to this "computer" argument except for this slide from the ISSCC 2006 keynote speech by Ken Kutaragi

Yeah well, that's again a technical (needs and power) perspective. Calling PS3 a computer is just a way to place its value, describe what it can do, ...

It may have nothing to do with "How to sell PS3", at least not directly.

EDIT: Just as a reference, I read some review about Toshiba's HD-DVD player... According to the reviewer, the player is a PC under the hood (uses computer parts and follows a computer-like architecture).

 

[Arty]

I doubt we'll ever see clockspeed listed for PS3 ever again. They don't even have it listed on the new official PS3 specs sheet. I find it suspcious that Sony doesn't know the Cell or the RSX clockspeeds even when those components are now being mass produced as we speak. Both are being swept under the rug so to speak. What is Sony trying to hide?

Heck, we actually know less about RSX than we knew last year. I doubt that will change.

I find this suprising too, in the casual way.

 

[Fafalada]

Of course, in what ways is it like an Amiga, other than the ability to upgrade the hard drive? In my mind, not much. To you, apparently they are very similar.

Amiga(the original one) was a game console that masquaraded as a poor man's PC. According to everyone in this thread (especially haters) PS3 is supposed to be exactly the same thing.

Heck we could be nastier and equate Core Pack lack of HDMI with lack of Color TV-out on Amiga Back in the day you needed a 100$ adapter if you wanted color picture (or a 1000$ Commodore monitor).

Now - if you wanna debate whether PS3 has a chance in hell to live up to spirit of Amiga or gain desktop software support that Amiga had - that's a completely different issue.

 

[Sis]

Amiga(the original one) was a game console that masquaraded as a poor man's PC. According to everyone in this thread (especially haters) PS3 is supposed to be exactly the same thing.

Heck we could be nastier and equate Core Pack lack of HDMI with lack of Color TV-out on Amiga Back in the day you needed a 100$ adapter if you wanted color picture (or a 1000$ Commodore monitor).

Now - if you wanna debate whether PS3 has a chance in hell to live up to spirit of Amiga or gain desktop software support that Amiga had - that's a completely different issue.

From wikipedia:

The Amiga was originally designed by a small company called Amiga Corporation as the ultimate video games machine. Before the machine was released into the market, the company was bought out by Commodore, and it was redesigned into a real, general-purpose computer.

Regardless of the intent of the Amiga, it still functioned as a general purpose computer, right? So we're back to square one: if the PS3 functions as a general purpose computer, then by all means, it's just like the Amiga.

In fact, reading further:

Many expansion boards were produced for Amigas to improve the performance and capability of the hardware, such as memory expansions, SCSI controllers, CPU boards, graphics boards; famous third party hardware manufacturers were Great Valley Products (GVP) and Phase5