The Sony E3 megaton is ... Apple?

[flick556]

I concur with the last poster in many ways.

I think it has to do with the fact that the units are already sold. They may be able to beat apple in the future, when major technology shifts cause demand for a new player. For now you have millions of people who already own an ipod and are happy with it, there’s just no easy way around this. So maybe they decide to play nice for a little while.

 

[McFly]

I think he is suggesting that IBM is starting to make computers on their own with Cell tech inside.

They can't or they would get sued by that Chinese company that got IBM's PC devision.

Fredi

 

[DuckThor Evil]

If IBM would make computers with Cell tech and imagine that it would be able to play PS3 games, that would be serious threat to MS and X86.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I think he is suggesting that IBM is starting to make computers on their own with Cell tech inside.

They can't or they would get sued by that Chinese company that got IBM's PC devision.

Fredi

Oh...
Well Maybe future Apple models could play PS3 games

 

[Entropy]

I think he is suggesting that IBM is starting to make computers on their own with Cell tech inside.

They can't or they would get sued by that Chinese company that got IBM's PC devision.

Fredi

Not knowing the details of the IBM-Lenovo deal even if IBM did start making desktop/laptop computers again, they would in all likelyhood base them on Linux. Which is a different market from the OSX one, you could say that OSX includes the Unix market, and adds its own set of interface, integration and application values on top. And for most users, that topping is what they use and find value in.

So if IBM decides to push personal Linux computing, then fine. That absolutely doesn't explain why they would want to loose a big customer that would in all probability be sharing the costs not only of CPU development, but probably of various other logic as well, (the current Apple system logic being an example of such possibilities). Amortising hardware development costs over a greater market, cushioning start-up risks, collaboration on certain basic system resources - all of these potential advantages would be lost, so why on earth would IBM decide to stop selling PPCs to Apple? They sold PPCs to Apple when they made Windows boxes, why not do it if they make Linux ones? Particularly since they already do this, albeit in a different market segment but still competing directly with the X-serves, more directly than desktop Linux ever could.

Sorry, but this just doesn't make sense.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I think he is suggesting that IBM is starting to make computers on their own with Cell tech inside.

They can't or they would get sued by that Chinese company that got IBM's PC devision.

Fredi

Not knowing the details of the IBM-Lenovo deal even if IBM did start making desktop/laptop computers again, they would in all likelyhood base them on Linux. Which is a different market from the OSX one, you could say that OSX includes the Unix market, and adds its own set of interface, integration and application values on top. And for most users, that topping is what they use and find value in.

So if IBM decides to push personal Linux computing, then fine. That absolutely doesn't explain why they would want to loose a big customer that would in all probability be sharing the costs not only of CPU development, but probably of various other logic as well, (the current Apple system logic being an example of such possibilities). Amortising hardware development costs over a greater market, cushioning start-up risks, collaboration on certain basic system resources - all of these potential advantages would be lost, so why on earth would IBM decide to stop selling PPCs to Apple? They sold PPCs to Apple when they made Windows boxes, why not do it if they make Linux ones? Particularly since they already do this, albeit in a different market segment but still competing directly with the X-serves, more directly than desktop Linux ever could.

Sorry, but this just doesn't make sense.

Yes you are right, I was just thinking what IBM could do . It really doesn't make any sense stop shipping processors to Apple.

 

[trinibwoy]

If IBM would make computers with Cell tech and imagine that it would be able to play PS3 games, that would be serious threat to MS and X86.

Hmmm, a computer that can play PS3 games but not run XP. Yep, MS better start packing up now.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

If IBM would make computers with Cell tech and imagine that it would be able to play PS3 games, that would be serious threat to MS and X86.

Hmmm, a computer that can play PS3 games but not run XP. Yep, MS better start packing up now.

Well people buy Apple's computers eventhough they can't run XP, what's up with that?, if they would have good selection of games they would probably sell more. Did I say it would be game over for MS, I said it would be big threat, can you spot the difference?.

 

[trinibwoy]

The ability to play PS3 games on Apple machines will not be a big draw for the Apple crowd. They will just buy a PS3.

 

[McFly]

The ability to play PS3 games on Apple machines will not be a big draw for the Apple crowd. They will just buy a PS3.

But it would be for many that would switch to Apple if there would be more games.

Fredi

 

[trinibwoy]

But it would be for many that would switch to Apple if there would be more games.

Fredi

Switch from the PC to play PS3 games? Any PC owning gamer who wants to play PS3 games is going to buy a PS3.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

But it would be for many that would switch to Apple if there would be more games.

Fredi

Switch from the PC to play PS3 games? Any PC owning gamer who wants to play PS3 games is going to buy a PS3.

So you are saying that reasonably priced new Apple model which would play PS3 games wouldn't make it more atractive than current models?. I only speak for myself, but if such model would see the light of day, I wouldn't spend a single dollar upgrading my PC anymore.

 

[trinibwoy]

So you are saying that reasonably priced new Apple model which would play PS3 games wouldn't make it more atractive than current models?. I only speak for myself, but if such model would see the light of day, I wouldn't spend a single dollar upgrading my PC anymore.

Yes, because I would still want to play PC games. The Apple machine would not provide any advantage (for me at least) over a PS3. It would actually be less attractive since I will be giving up all the benefits of a console while being more expensive.

 

[wco81]

I like my iPod a lot but I don't necessarily have a big desire to play my iPod through a console. Or for that matter, playing my music instead of game soundtracks.

Maybe a lot of consoles were hooked up to home stereo systems or Sony anticipates that a lot of them will be in the next generation. Then it might offer some value to have the console play back your digital audio library, either in an iPod or your computer (wireless streaming from iTunes).

But I think these ancillary functions of consoles have been overrated anyways. Did that many people play CDs on the PS1? Do a lot of people still play DVDs on their PS2s or Xbox? Do a lot of people have big libraries of ripped music on their Xbox?

I think Blu-Ray will be used a lot for movie playback in the early life of the PS3. But as standalone Blue-Ray boxes come down in price, people will get those, especially for recording.

To make consoles the full-featured media box is not necessarily in the interest of any of the console companies. MS may hope the 360 stimulates sales of the Media Center (according to the Wired article) while Sony has talked about media servers from its CE division.

 

[Entropy]

To make consoles the full-featured media box is not necessarily in the interest of any of the console companies. MS may hope the 360 stimulates sales of the Media Center (according to the Wired article) while Sony has talked about media servers from its CE division.

While I fully agree with your position regarding consoles as full featured media boxes, it seems nether Microsoft or Sony agrees with us.
Nintendo however, might.

I guess one of the points of such media features is that if the consoles are regarded as otherwise equivalent, those features may tip the buying decision either way. If three consoles perform and cost similarly, but one can play HD video natively then I wouldn't be surprised if it sells a lot more on that one extraneous feature alone. Likewise, if only one of the machines offer the ability to exchange the music soundtrack of games for anything you have lying on your iPod, that would be kind of cool. Or if it offered the complete package - iTunes, the store - without the need of any other computer at all, to some that might be attractive.

All these bonus features are just that - bonus features. But if the packages are otherwise comparable, these extras help make up peoples minds. By the time these consoles get into wide availability, there will be tens of millions of iPod users, they are as a group extremely happy with their device, and they are likely to have invested as much or more in the iPod + music than most will in a console. It may well pay off for a console manufacturer to say "Hey, you've an iPod? Well, we have paid special attention to you, look here...". It sure as hell can't hurt.

 

[wco81]

Yes the iPod and iTunes may help PS3.

But how would PS3 help iPod and iTunes? What would be Apple's motivation? Apple's stock has risen the past couple of years because Wall Street started talking about the Halo effect, where people who buy iPods enjoy the experience so much that they look into getting Macs as well. So Apple is interested in iPods helping sell Macs, not PS3s.

I wouldn't mind consoles having a lot of PC features, like browsing and so forth. I will always have computers but being able to use a browser to download game content from other gamers (instead of paying for downloads through microtransactions like MS and Sony wants) would be nice.

For that and other reasons, MS will expand the features of the Xbox so much. They don't want to alienate Dell or HP by porting Office to the 360 for instance. That is the reason why they probably won't support mouse and keyboard for games or encourage ports of RTS games. They still want good PC sales, where their money comes from.

 

[Legend]

There are only two in design and style: Sony and Apple. End of discussion.

As much as I love both designers, I certainly don’t want them to ‘fuse’. Each one of them has his own style and touch; his own uniqueness.

I don't wat anyone else touching my MAC designs other than Apple, as I don't want anyone touching my PS3 than Sony. it is as simple as that.

 

[_phil_]

If IBM would make computers with Cell tech and imagine that it would be able to play PS3 games, that would be serious threat to MS and X86.

I dreamed of Using MAYA on Cell Based computer.If they can build cell based workstation and run Highend software on it ,why not With Steve Jobs ?

If you connect Pixar ,Apple,Alias maya (runs already on linux ,osX ),and Sony/IBM 's ambition to spread their baby (renderfarms for exemple),why not a patern ,here ?
Or just wishful thinking .
I'm also waiting for something new on the Gelato side.

 

[nAo]

Phil..maybe your dreams will come true one day, Alias is working with CELL based machine since last november, I'm 100% sure abou this

 

[Glonk]

That wouldn't be a megaton for sony. it would be a megaton for IBM, whom already works with apple.

IBM won't work with Apple forever.

Hint hint...

Are you saying that IBM won't supply Apple with CPUs in the future?
Why would IBM want to loose a steady customer of relatively high margin CPUs? Who, if IBM didn't supply their processors, would take their business to IBMs competitors?
Seems like a singularly stupid business decision by IBM, so what do you mean, really?

Might not be IBM's decision, don't you think?

Apple is not happy with the speed of the processors IBM is providing. They may look elsewhere.

Apple promised 3GHz G5s how long ago now?