Sony PlayStation 3 Revisited

If you haven't noticed, I've been subjective about the PS3 before I started writing for this blog. When in May of 2006 Sony announced that the premium (read: only version anyone would ever consider of the ) PS3 would cost $600, I was pissed. The PS2 is a fine console and by now damn cheap, too. Sony has fumbled with the PS# since the beginning, and they've been arrogant about it to boot.

Sony assumed that people would not care about the exorbitant price tag - relying almost solely on brand name, just like I assumed - and buy the next version of a video game console. Sony's downfall came when they tried to push the PS3 as a media platform as well as a video game console. Here's the golden rule: If it plays video games, people will know it as a video game console. It plays Blu-Ray movies and MP3s? Consumers will still recognize it as a video game console. The Xbox 360? Yeah, it plays media, but if will forever be known as a video game console for consumers.

Sony pissed me off by figuring the cost of a Blu-ray disc player into the PS3, thus raising the price. Not only do I not want to spend $600 on a video game console, but I also have no interest in either of the high-def movie disc formats.

The market actually surprised me. The PS3 craze lasted only a week after the PS3's American launch, and then the whole franchise promptly imploded. When SCEA (Sony Computer Entertainment America) President Jack Tretton promised $1200 to anyone who could find a PS3 on store shelves, the writers of webcomic Penny Arcade found $13200 worth of merchandise in less than an hour. Simply put, PS3s aren't exactly flying off the shelves.

For the best market indicator, we turn to eBay. At the time of this writing, there are 1043 PS3 systems being sold - 98 Used. Two months ago, there ere 10 thousand such auctions. Many Playstation 3 consoles were selling for over $700. At this point, on the other hand, you're hard pressed to find a PS3 selling without a bundle for more than $600 - with games and controllers, $750 at most.

The scalping supply for PS3s is shrinking. Right now, there are 1886 Wii systems for sale on eBay - nine-fifths of the number of PS3s. In a month or two,practically no one will be selling PS3s as they're being sold. We will no longer see the majority of PS3s sold in mint condition. The PS3 seller will turn into a consumer who has finished using his or her console and now wishes to sell it. I'm not going to say that the PlayStation 3 has reached market saturation, but the supply curve is shifting downward; since all PS3s are the same, that means the price is declining, as well.

Sony has managed things very badly. They've completely misjudged the market. Even the future doesn't look bright. You know why? At this very moment, Nintendo Wiis are flying off the shelves. And with those Wiis are games. And when a consumer spends hundreds of dollars on the video game system, the chance of buying an additional console is minuscule - especially when the marginal cost of that second console is over twice what you paid for the first. Couple that with a low penetration of high-def television sets - necessary to fully enjoy the PlayStation 3's capabilities, and you have yourself a quagmire. Sony is taking a hit that will stay with them for years to come.

Microsoft as a corporation

Are corporations really evil? Do "the corporations" want to brainwash you, control the media, and make themselves rich?

Do you really believe that?

As a student of economics, hearing people say stuff like, "Linux is better because it's not controlled by a corporation, and Microsoft sucks," makes me want to cry. Let me explain why.

There re four main types of businesses in the United States: Sole proprietorships, partnerships, corporations, and limited liability companies. The difference between partnerships (and proprietorships) and corporations is that corporations are not dissolved when the owners depart, corporations have to file more information with the government, and corporations are treated like people in court. Limited liability companies are small businesses (possibly with only one member) that - as the name implies - have less liability than proprietorships. Creditors can claim the property or assets of the owners of proprietorships and partnerships if the businesses owned by them collapse, but LLCs are not vulnerable to this.

So what exactly makes corporations evil? That's a serious question I'm asking. What's wrong with corporations?

The purpose of businesses, excluding non-profit organizations, is to make money; let us not delude ourselves. Companies don't exist to make the world a better place or provide children with flowers. Proprietors, partners, corporations, and companies all want to make money. So how do you make money? Thornton Wilder wrote it most plainly:

"A million is made by producing something that everybody needs every day."
--Horace Vandergelder, The Matchmaker

These are examples of useful things: Computers, breakfast cereal, paper, clothes. Not coincidentally, all those things are manufactured and sold by corporations.

Let's talk about computers. A while back, I claimed that Microsoft had a monopoly on the desktop OS market for two reasons: Microsoft has patents with which it can threaten other companies, and Microsoft has deals with major PC manufacturers. However, I'm going to correct myself. Microsoft does not have a monopoly on the desktop OS market.

Patents are not necessarily an indicator of a monopoly. Microsoft may have patents on code inside Windows, but other companies have patents on software (IBM, NTP, etcetera.). Microsoft's patents haven't threatened the development of Linux, Apple OS, or other operating systems. That makes it apparent that having patents does not automatically make a company a monopoly.

Microsoft's deals with Dell, HP, and other companies also don't make Microsoft the only game in town. Nothing prevents a person from dual-booting Ubuntu or FreeBSD, and Microsoft sure as hell isn't going to stop Apple from bundling Apple OS with its computers. Also bear in mind that it's possible to get a refund from PC sellers if you can prove that you chose not to accept Microsoft's terms of use when Windows' license agreement was presented to you. If Microsoft persuades PC manufacturers from bundling copies of Linux, that is Microsoft abusing its position as an oligopolist, not a monopolist. A small number of operating systems dominates the market: Microsoft Windows, Apple OS, Ubuntu Linux, and a few others. Microsoft is not the only game in town. They are not preventing other organizations from building their own operating systems.

So the crucial question remains: Is Windows a bad product if Microsoft is a bad corporation? But is Microsoft a bad corporation? No. The simple truth is that Microsoft intends to reduce its costs to a point where they can no longer spend any less - Just like ever other business, Microsoft strives for its efficient point. The people who run Microsoft will do whatever they think will make them the most money for the least cost. To Microsoft, this means the addition of restrictions and exclusivity - all in the name of profit. Microsoft isn't out to hurt the consumer and sing praises to the RIAA. Rather, I blame this on stupidity. Microsoft is afraid of lawyers. Just look at the Zune: If Microsoft enabled song sharing, the Zune would be technologically superior to the iPod, and it would have launched with a bang. But afraid of the RIAA and its member organizations, one of the most powerful companies in the world folded to a media distribution company, Universal.

It sounds like Microsoft doesn't care about the users, right? As long as management signs the OEM deals, nothing else matters, right? Wrong. Like every other software company, Microsoft has to convince you that Microsoft software is the best. There are two reasons for this: First, Microsoft knows that if it doesn't update its operating system, customers can and will move to one that does. Second, Microsoft, like every other software company, makes money when its product sells. Updating the product is an incentive to buy new versions.

I'm not excusing Microsoft for it's "embrace, extend, and extinguish" policy, nor for its shady influence on other companies. Microsoft is only as honest as the people that run it; a downside of corporations is that they give unscrupulous people a shield, since corporations are regarded as persons in the eyes of United States law.

I'm not going to get into whether or not Linux is actually better than a commercial product due to its non-commercial nature. I wrote this essay, because arguing that corporations are evil is just silly. I recognize the consumerist attitude that makes up modern America, but it's not inherently evil. Most Americans (and citizens of much of the rest of the world) want to make a lot of money, and for some people, that means running a business. Corporations don't love you, but they don't hate you either. It's important to remember that corporations are made up of people.

The next-gen disk format fight is hardly over

Blu-Ray and HD DVD - the two biggest contenders in what will soon be the battle for 2007 and the following years in the home entertainment market. Some folks have declared that the battle is handily won, thanks to the introduction of the HD DVD decryption program for the PC, BackupHDDVD by a user named muslix64 on the Doom9 forum website. Some people will surely think that the ability to copy HD DVDs means that people will attract more consumers to the brand.

However, Sony isn't about to give up so easily. The Blu-Ray brand has a larger following in Japan than in the United States, for one thing. As crazy it might sound, also consider the PS3: Those who have brought PS3s have also bought built-in Blu-Ray players. Sony has sold around a million units, whether consumers know about Blu-Ray or not. Sony's willing to bet that they've got their foot in the door and can keep it there.

So what does the HD DVD brand have? It has "DVD" in the name. That's a sort of advertising you can't get from anywhere else. Consumers see DVDs and see HD DVDs, and the two connect - just like that. Though Blu-Ray may have greater storage capacity, people won't know what the hell a Blu-Ray is, but a HD DVD - Why, that must be an advanced DVD! HD DVD also has Microsoft, the richest corporation in the world, singing the praises of the HD DVD. With 80% of the PC market share, you can bet your donkey that Microsoft is going to have the last say in this fight.

Warner Bros. announced two days ago that they're going to produce a disc called Total HD, a disc comprised of a HD DVD disc and a Blu-Ray disc. That will no doubt further the length of the battle. Don't know which format to pick? Why not both?

So who's the real loser in this fight? Everybody. A likely outcome will be that both types survive. This whole thing will be a big headache for everyone for the next five years. There will be Blu-Ray and HD DVD apologists, separately. It'll be an extension of the ol' Windows vs. Apple OS holy wars. Both HD DVDs and Blu-Rays will occupy space on the high definition disc shelf at your local Best Buy or Circuit City - just like DVD-, DVD+, and DVD-RAM, except worse.

Everybody's going to suffer, because neither company was willing to back down - a classic outcome completely along the lines of game theory. Game theory is applied to economics when talking about oligopolies - a few companies that control most of the market share for specific markets. Sony and Toshiba are oligopolies in the HD disc industry, responsible for Blu-Ray and HD DVD respectively. Note the prisoner's dilemma. According to this version of game theory, there are two options for each player - aggressive and passive. When Toshiba and Sony are aggressive, both trying to push formats on consumers, they both profit, but by very little. When both companies are passive, co-operating with each other (and in this case allowing Warner Bros. to step in and develop both formats on a single disc), their profits will be higher than if they both try to win; allowing both formats to work with each other will give customers leeway and encourage them to choose either type. Now, what if Toshiba chooses to exit the HD DVD market, and Sony wins the day? Or vice versa? One company would then take the prize and leave the other guy with nothing; this is a very unlikely conclusion, as both companies know that there is profit to be had - But when both giants are trying to wrestle for it, the profits for each contestant won't be so impressive.

One Apple fanboy in particular

As a devoted Digger through and through, as I have been for some time now, I am fascinated by one particular character from a cast crazier than Gene Wilder, Zero Mostel, and Richard Pryor all put together: Daniel Eran Dilger. The man seems to hate Microsoft for no apparent reason, other than that it's more successful than Apple - the jewel in Dilger's eye.

I first heard of Dilger when hundreds of Diggers in September Dugg a story about how recently announced iTV would change television. My first reaction was, Huh? Would a box with mysterious features really conquer the tube, which we all know to be the gospel? I wasn't very impressed by his article - no more so than I was with Mr. Dilger, who goes by Daniel Eran on his blog. (Eran is his middle name.) For some reason, one guy was calling himself a magazine. (Does that mean I'm a magazine, too? I have a blog!)

What astounded me was Dilger's absolute awe in able Apple's apposition. To Mr. Dilger, Apple is the gospel, the ultimate revelation. Dilger's series of essays on the iTV were speculative at best and unfounded at worst. To be fair, plenty of his other essays have some semblance of fact or solid base, but I did not see anything decent in my first impression. Practically every one of his entries mentions Microsoft - usually in ridicule. While the company undoubtedly deserves a number of lashes, Mr. Dilger seems to attack Microsoft for doing anything at all. It's sort of like beating a dead cow. He's even criticized Microsoft for building the Zune with a screen bigger than the iPod's. Mr. Dilger is at war with Microsoft, or so it seems.

One of his more questionable claims is that success of the Xbox 360 is a myth - an illusion of football players, guns, magic, and sorcery. Apparently selling 8 million units in one year is disappointing. The PS2 sold more units: Three million more! But Dilger doesn't quite seem to understand the console market: Note that last year, Sony sold 20 million PS2 units worldwide. (I'm using his source, from PC vs. Console.) With the arrival of the PS3, is has all but looked like the end of the PS2's life cycle: The Xbox 360 has been on the market for one year, and the PS2 six. The PS2 is an established brand with tons of games. The Xbox 360? One year, definitely not as many games. The reputation of a six-year-old console will bulldoze a newbie. In 2007, we'll see a lot more sales of the Xbox 360, with the arrival of Xbox 360 exclusives and other big wig games. Year two will be big for the Xbox 360, and the next three years will see plenty of Xbox 360 sales. Video game consoles have life cycles of five to six years: The PS2 came out in 2000, and the PS3 2006; the Xbox came out in 2001, and the Xbox 360 2005 (an unusually short lifespan of four years). Also, is it just me, or did Dilger compare a game console to a portable music player? That really doesn't make much sense at all.

But aside from the content, I tend to view Dilger negatively, because it seems someone has been gaming Digg. A Digger even compiled a list of likely fake users, controlled by a real person to artificially inflate the Digg count for Dilger articles. Furthermore, at some point in late November or early December, the Digg team blocked stories originating from RouglyDrafted.com. Dilger cried foul and for a short time appended each of his blog entries with a short, sordid tale of special interest groups like Microsoft paying Digg to censor Mr. Dilger. Excuse me if a claim like that doesn't raise his credibility. (All those appendices are gone, but they were amusing for a week or two.) Daniel Eran then moved to NewsTrust.net. He subsequently started reviewing his own essays, giving them favorable ratings without fail. Integrity, shmegrity. That sure puts to rest any doubts that at one point or another, Dilger was indeed Digging his own stories under different pseudonyms.

I don't like Daniel Dilger. I'm not fond of any fanboys, but Dilger takes the cake as the biggest Apple fanboy with the least amount of integrity. To my knowledge, Dilger has never admitted to Digging his own stories, but it seems pretty certain that he did it.

Free market education

I'm in high school. I don't particularly enjoy it - Who does? But I don't like the way the schools are run, either. There's a fundamental problem that's ruining the schools of America: No choice.

Schools today are more segregated than they were 30 years ago. In an age where desegregation orders are in effect, you would think that people of different skin color, religion, and creed could actually congregate together. But the fact of the matter is that we are segregated. Not by government order or charter - but by our homes. We live where we can afford it. Children go to school based on where they live - the root cause. School districts are ruining schools. By funneling property taxes only into the schools of their respective districts, politicians are segregating our children and dividing us - the rich and the poor, two wholesomely separate groups kept wholesomely separate without any command.

If you were a parent, and the school closet to you was the worst in town, and you had a choice in where you sent your child, would you choose a different school? Of course you would? Would the worst school in town then try to shape up and get better teachers? Of course!

Now, some people will say that the disappearance of school districts would ruin schools. But what if public schools got funding for every child that decked their halls? (Private schools of course would be barred from this benefit.) Suddenly, things would change for the better. Parents would start to shop around. Feeling the pressure, principals and administrators would find the best teachers possible, so that their school would the highest scores on the AP U.S. History test! Facilities would improve, and better materials would be bought - all in the name of competition.

If there's no competition among schools, the losers are the kids. By locking children into government-mandated natural monopolies, the school districts are lazy, bloated, and slow. Breaking these bonds would force schools to improve - or else. The No Child Left Behind Act cannot improve schools by requiring education institutions to meet and beat arbitrary standards. That doesn't accelerate the motivation to improve; goals like that simply change the material taught in the classroom by shifting the focus onto memorization skills and subjects the tests pinpoint. Teaching to the test is not an improvement in education!

So what can we do? Push school districts into the free market. Redistribute property taxes so that the funds are divided according to student population. Survival of the fittest won't kill schools; it will make them leaner, stronger, and healthier.

Physical media

I own 46 CDs. I have reviewed 43 additional albums. I own 0 songs - none from iTunes, none from Yahoo!, none from MSN. That's zero, zip. I may have grown up with the Internet, but I will not give up CDs for files on an operating system. No way, no how. Physical discs have too much value for me to abandon them in the name of technological advancement.

And in an age when I can pick and choose which songs I want to buy, there's just one problem: I wouldn't actually own the songs I would buy. For some reason, I would only have a license to those songs - like I need permission to listen to the music I buy! Who calls me villain? Ha!

I will never buy music with embedded digital rights management (DRM). It's never gonna happen. Not any time in the next century. The music stores would have to give me a damned good reason to do that, and I just can't see it happening. There's one huge problem with DRM: It removes incentive, instead of creating it. In the next few minutes, I could begin downloading music from dozens of sources: Some legal, some infringing copyright in the process, but all quickly available. And when I can download unrestricted music at no monetary cost, there is no good reason to pay for an item of lesser value. I ask: What value does DRM add? Presently, none. DRM allows me no incentive to purchase the files it locks down - DRM says I don't own what I buy; I am buying a license, a permit that can be revoked or denied to me at any motion.

Other consumers will purchase DRM-laden music for one of several reasons: They are not concerned about the limitations; they are not aware of the limitations; it's cheap; they cannot choose an alternative. Any of these reasons are possible. I may be an audiophile, but I am not gullible: I will not degauss my CDs, I will not pay $500 for a wooden volume knob, and I will not pay for a license when I could find music of better resolution for free. I am perfectly aware of programs that will strip the DRM from iTunes files or licensed WMA files, but I still cannot do it - I would be upholding the very statutes I have thoroughly come to loathe.

But of the MP3 stores? Audio Lunchbox or eMusic? Jamendo? I have not used their services, either. I'm just not interested in those stores. I don't support them, because I have no incentive to; I am not out to spite DRM. I simply will not purchase it.

My CDs have the most value to me. They take up space; they are real. They are not a bunch of files in a box. They are discs, with packaging and additional material. I need no license for them. I don't care if the entire world stops buying CDs; any music I purchase will be on a CD.

Some Linux users are just too good for me, I suppose

Thanks to Digg, I happened to stumble across this analysis of why Linux is not Windows, at the blog OneAndOneIs2, by Dominic Humphries. By all means, "Linux != Windows", the blog entry I am trying to dispel, is quite long. I didn't attempt this task on a whim, but I believe that "Linux != Windows" was very wrong for several different reasons, and as such I decided that I would use my blog to do what I like to do most when it comes to blogging, speak my mind. This blog entry is divided into sections, according to each "problem" that divides each component of the opinion I am refuting. This essay relies heavily on the original article, so I suggest you read that first. At any rate, I shall proceed.

Point 1. How is it impossible to expect Linux to be better than Windows and have the same features? Isn't that called an upgrade? Doesn't that imply that improvements have been made upon central concepts? Claiming that Linux cannot be like Windows and better than it is like claiming that Windows Vista could not possibly exist, because it's Windows XP, but better. Mr. Humphries is missing the point of Windows users who try Linux. Those users want an upgraded Windows; they're not looking for something exactly the same. If those users wanted an operating system that's exactly the same and Windows, why not choose Windows in the first place?

Firefox succeeded not because it was different, but because Firefox built off of IE and had better, upgraded features. Just look at FF2 and IE7: For the most part, the GUI is the same! You navigate to different websites by typing the URL into the navigation bar and press Enter or click Go; you navigate through your window/tab history by using the Backward and Forward tabs; you save websites by putting their paths in bookmarks. Is the Find function an ability that Firefox devs invented? Of course not! Its presence in the bottom of the browser is (you may disagree) and improvement, an upgrade! It's not superior because it's different; it's superior because it has better functionality! Better != different! Sites like OldVersion.com exist because changes to software made the new versions worse! Firefox's features, when IE6 was competing with Firefox, were better than those in IE because they were easier to use and faster to use! If Firefox changed the default language to Swahili, would that make it better than IE? But Mr. Humphries' reason, yes, because it's different. Again, if users were looking for a copy of IE, they would just use IE! I myself switched to Firefox, because I heard that Firefox had better features, not because it was different. Firefox was similar enough in use to IE that I had no trouble adapting to it.

Point 2. This section is quite misleading. It asks whether or not there's really any big difference in the differences in Linux distributions and then compares Linux to a car: If you can drive one car, you can drive them all!

But you see, the difference in choices is more complicated than that. When you want airbags in your car, you don't choose between "Baag," "Baglite," "Big Bag," or "Sfebag" type airbags, all of which do the same thing but conform to standards that ordinary (most) people won't understand. When you have lots of choices in interfaces, file managers, desktops, and even window managers, people who just want to use a computer will be confused when presented with a choice. If you have to explain all of the intricacies of an operating system to someone who just wants to get work done, chances are that person will give up and move to what he or she is used to - Windows XP, which comes in the consumer-friendly name differentiations of "Home" and "Professional." When your operating system has dozens, if not hundreds, of minute differentiations without any clear advantage in any, that is one example of too many choices. When you have so many choices for both underlying and trivial options, you have to do one of two things, or a combination: Differentiate, or consolidate. Give the user reasons to choose, not options; most people just want to get their work done! Give the people the means to the ends, not the means to the endless! The problem is that there are too many choices there they don't need to be.

Ah, and here we come to desktop Linux. Let me admit that I am an experienced Windows user, and I believe that Linux is not ready for the desktop. But remember, correlation does not equal causation. I have considered switching to Linux, as I've mentioned in my last blog entry. (I'm not going to rehash it, for the most part.) Mr. Humphries is ignoring the big reason that Linux is not ready for Dell and blaming the whole thing on Windows junkies. Honestly, if it was only our fault, why is Linux so slow in moving onto the computers of the masses? We're not getting in your way!

Or is it because of the work ethic involved: You might have to adjust Linux to get it working, and if you need help you have to go to some forum. That's just the problem: The masses want to use their computers, not work with them. I worked with MS-DOS and had no trouble using at after I learned the commands. I'm not rigid to one set of controls, and I have no doubt that a beginning computer user who works with Linux will have little trouble learning what buttons to press. But what if something isn't working? What if you can't find something? The average person doesn't even care about what the problem is! People just want to fix it and go - wham bam, thank you, ma'am. That leads me to...

Point 3a. I'm not panning forums. Forums are great. I've used a great many forums!

You're not going to endear many Linux switchers by telling them that they have to get used to tech support from a loose organization of volunteers. When I search 'Windows help' in Google, I get Microsoft's support site; when I search 'Linux help,' I not only get Linux Questions, but LinuxSelfHelp, Linux Online, linuxhelp.blogspot.com, linuxhelp.co.za, and JustLinux, just to name a few. These websites may be comprised of fine, fine people; I don't know. But what I do know is that with Windows, you know who to ask: The guys that make it. Coincidentally, the guys that made it also have a website for it! Linux is like Windows in that regard, ironically: The guys that made it also have a website for it - and thousands of people made it! The problem is that there is too much choice where there shouldn't be.

And is it just me, or is Mr. Humphries criticizing Windows users because most users only use software after it's stable? Sorry to rain on your parade, but that simply is not going to fly for most people, except for the most hardened Linux veterans or the peopel actually working on the program. Let me give you an example: Songbird. Songbird is at release version 0.2.1. It's barely usable. (I've tried it myself.) But when the media library fails to comprehend my Weird Al library because the metadata has quotation marks (among other random quirks), it's NOT ready for use. Should I apologize for expecting my programs to work when I run them? I run my programs to get something done, and I'm not about to compromise my productivity for "new" software. I have standards: I shouldn't need to fool around with software to get it to work. Only in the world of Linux is that expected!

Furthermore, Mr. Humphries criticizes Linux switchers for expecting their software to be polished to a grade as high as Windows. Remember that they "don't owe you anything?" For God's sake, Linux is competing against Windows! Like it or not, Linux is trying to compete in the same market in which Windows operates. They're trying to convert people to this OS, and they're complaining that people expect it to be good? That's their own damn fault! They shouldn't cry that it's impossible them you to deal with, because those Linux heads got themselves into it! They're trying to compete against an OS with 95% of the market share, and they expect to wow people by not providing comprehensive, easy service and telling users to find the answers for themselves? Some call me a waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahmbulance! I'm crying my eyes out that those poor Linux devs are overworked and paid nothing. Hey, they chose to do what they do; programming is not a task that can be performed by the unskilled, and managing programmers isn't, either. If you have a product to sell, the free market doesn't care about how much work you put into it: Only the quality of its mettle. Root, hog, or die.

Point 3b. It is in fact more elitist to say, "Everybody knows this," than, "Everybody ought to know this." According to Mr. Humphries, everyone who has never used Linux before is a novice. Let me build on that an offer a parable:

Imagine, if you will, a Beginning French class. None of the students before have ever taken French in their lives; they don't even know the alphabet or the diacritic marks. So one of the students raises his hand and asks about the alphabet. The teacher shrugs it off, replies that the alphabet is something everyone knows, and goes on.

In that example, it sure sounds like the teacher telling the student that he ought to know that would be the same thing as saying everybody knows that.

The difference is that telling someone that they ought to know something places emphasis on what is not learned and that it is in fact crucial. That phrases places emphasis on the fact, not the person. Would it be elitist for a French teacher to tell the students what they ought to know in order to prepare for the test?

By contrast, telling someone, "Everybody knows that!" puts the emphasis on the person. Saying that assumes that the person who is hearing it is a Have Not in a world of Haves. Claiming that everybody knows something - and you don't - puts you at a lower level. There's no emphasis on even learning what is unknown. If you don't know it, then you're sunk.

And now I get to talk about the Lego metaphor. It's completely wrong. When you download a distribution of Linux (especially a desktop distribution), you get an environment that is set up for you - just like a Windows installation. That's not like getting a Lego set at all! I honestly don't know of a right metaphor, but this one is completely irrational. If you're comparing Linux to Windows, then the only difference is that the Linux toy car comes with the tools to take it apart, build, find, or purchase extensions, and customize it how you like, while the Windows care comes with a paint set. I absolutely hated this section of "Linux != Windows". Linux doesn't come broken up into many different pieces. Would you really compare downloading programs to a Lego car? If so, then Windows would also be a Lego car! Besides, the focus of Linux should be the focus of any other operating system - providing a platform for getting things done. Emphasizing how much you can take apart only skims the purpose of an operating system's usefulness. What is the worth of Linux if its only purpose is to be taken apart and put back together again?

Just because you use open source software doesn't mean you want to open up the code and spill its guts. Though I may use Mozzila Thunderird, Mozilla Firefox, StepMania, and Foobar2000, I really don't care about how they work. Generally, software being open source is just an added bonus, not an important feature.

Point 4. This is just another attempt to brush off the users who simply want to get things done, by claiming that the software was created for a difference target audience.

Now, obviously there is nothing wrong with designing tools for programmers; I find no faults with developing an efficient IDE, for instance.

But when you don't tell the beginning users what is most efficient for them, that's your fault. Face it; people who just want to get work done just want to know how to do it in the quickest way possible. Even if you have just developed the most powerful text editor on Earth, there's no way you should advertise it to a person with the goal of expediency if it takes a few hours to learn. Chances are, Vi is one of those programs. It may certainly be an excellent program, but give the novices something like OpenOffice if they just want to type a list or two! Don't you think you're missing the mark if you're trying to sell a newbie on a program so complex that it requires special effort to close it?

Point 5. Look, is it too hard to write a program that has both keyboard shortcuts and menus? I definitely see the point here: Different users have different needs. Once you know the shortcuts, any other way is painfully long. So, I have to disagree on this point, but I totally respect where the opinion is coming from. My version of "user-friendly" says, "Programmed to be usable by those familiar with simple commands and by others who can understand non-obvious shortcuts."

Point 5a. While Point 5 is respectable, its folow-up is less so. While Ctrl-X and Ctrl-V are non-intuitive, they are very efficient. All you need to cut and paste are only but a couple keystrokes away, and the only finger you need to shift is your index finger.

So what does d5w offer? That's just as non-intuitive as Ctrl-X or Ctrl-V to the uninformed. But when you get to know either keystroke combination, that combination becomes familiar and efficient. To the uninformed, d5w doesn't look like much at all. But if you've worked with it before, of course you'll know what it is!

Point 5b. I liked reading the first half of this section, and it all goes downhill from there.

Dominic Humphries is complaining that coding menus takes time. Well of course it does. But if you can't compete with the market, that's your own problem.

Secondly, how is MS Word inferior to Vi and Emacs, because the latter are used for coding? Here's a reality check: MS Word wasn't designed for programming. It was designed for word processing! If you want programming, use an IDE! For God's sake, MS Word is not inferior to Vi or Emacs because they're aimed at different audiences! Is there a joke that I missed, due to lacking a sense of humor? If not, then I can hardly believe the nonsense that I just read.

And again comes up the issue of appealing to the masses. Believe it or not, it's more efficient for some people to just click on what they want instead of learning commands. If you're not going to develop frontends for the programs you're putting into Linux, you're going to have lots of users who will find Linux to be a complete waste of time.

Point 6. This whole portion of the article is one great straw man argument. I don't know how anyone in their right mind would believe that Linux is copying Windows for developing a GUI. What is Point 6 trying to prove?

Point 7. It's this last category that makes this article worth debunking. This "problem" demonstrates arrogance to the highest degree possible. To the common user, it's the middle finger. it's like saying, "Screw you and your little dog, too," to everyone not fortune enough to be in the know. Here, let me sum up "problem 7":

We don't care about you or your needs, and if you don't know what we know, then you're not worth our time.

What a callous choice of words for a community so intent on convincing people that Linux is better. I suppose all those people on Digg who relate tales of switching and never looking back are fringe radicals, hm?

What is so supremely ironic is that Humphries claims that the goal of Linux is to create the best operating system ever. But if you don't accept feedback, how is it going to be usable?

This point is the gotcha clause. The excuse clause. It makes Linux sound like a colossal waste of time to the whole world except for a few people. But the truth is that Linux is usable, and if you're listening to Mr. Humphries, then asking whether or not you are good enough for Linux is an excuse for not supporting you.

Asking the users to do everything for themselves will not only frustrate good people but convince the smart but unexposed people that they'd be wasting their effort on such callous people. Let me ask you something, Mr. Humphries: Are you saying that you're developing an operating system and then not expecting people to use it? That proposition is so laughable that it's hard for me to even refute it. It's ridiculous. It doesn't make sense at all. I'm finding difficulty finding the sense in it. You're developing a usable operating system, not expecting anyone to use it, and criticizing people who expect it to work but have trouble? Doesn't that violate the philosophies of the desktop Linux distros, who are trying to convert the common people? Doesn't that even contradict the goals of Firefox, since Firefox is built from user input?

Mr. Humphries, I really hope that you're not naive enough to believe what you're saying. I sincerely hope that you do not reflect a majority of the Linux community, because "problem 7" is your problem. I sincerely believe that Linux is about the people, not the machines, and if you're crazy enough to insist that the computers matter more than the people, you're not doing anything for Linux. The last category in your article will do nothing to advance your cause.

The myth of monopolies

I have oft heard a myth about companies that manufacture consumer products. The myth is that companies with expansive market shares have monopolies in those markets. I will take an objective (as much as I can) look at two controversial companies, Apple and Microsoft, and determine their potential status as monopolies.

First, we must understand the criteria for monopolies. To be a near-monopoly or a monopoly, a firm needs to have close to or all of, respectively, the sales in a specific market. That means, to be a near monopoly, one of three specific things must happen:

1. A firm controls a resource critical to a market.


2. A government signs a contract with a firm that makes the firm the only competitor.


3. A firm can make a product cheaper than anyone else can.

Any of those three things can turn a corporation into a monopoly. For instance: A company patents a specific technology and then sells it; the government contracts a single company to produce trains for a public railway; a firm can launch cheap long-distance telephony service by launching satellites cheaper than anyone else.

Once you are a monopoly, you have the market. There is no one else. You have all the sales. No one can compete with you, since there are no close substitutes. Coke and Pepsi are close substitutes, for instance, so they can't be monopolies. And the best part is that you can keep other companies out of your market by use of technology, legality, or force. That sounds great, doesn't it?

What really makes a company a monopoly is the presence of barriers to entry. If your company can keep other people out of the market, you have exclusivity. You are a monopoly. Now, there are many potential barriers to entry. If you are a large company, you are an incumbent. That means you have a big legal team, loyal customers, patents, research and development, and lots of advertising. Those are all factors that can keep another company out of your market. A new company is building a new operating system? Threaten the little guy with patents and advertise how great you are, and you have successfully kept another firm out of the market, etc.

So is Apple a monopoly in regards to the iPod? Well, the iPod has 75% of the market share. That's hardly limiting anyone else from entering the MP3 market - hey look! There are lots and lots of MP3 players! There are other big competitors in the market, like Creative, Sandisk, and Microsoft. Apple hardly controls the means of productions, since any of the other companies listed above produce MP3 players that can replace the iPod. Apple certainly doesn't have any legal power that prevents anyone else from creating a similar MP3 palyer - hell, apparently Apple can't stop companies from producing identical fake iPods!

Next up is Microsoft. You would probably say that Microsoft is a monopoly. First, are they the only operating system producer in the market? Nope. Say hello to Linux, Macintoshes, BSD, YouOS, and a Windows clone, ReactOS. Microsoft is certainly not alone. And certainly some of those are close substitutes for Microsoft Windows. Apple OS X is an obvious choice, as would be the Ubuntu distribution of Linux. Does Microsoft possess any resources crucial to the market? Maybe. Microsoft, like any large technology corporation has patents on code - in Windows. Microsoft likes to talk about those patents when bringing up the possibility of litigation to keep Linux from competing with Microsoft. That is a barrier to entry if I ever saw one. Threatening a group of volunteers with litigation is taking advantage of your status in the market. While it is possible to build an operating system without violating Microsoft's patents, Microsoft can scare businesses into shying away from Linux by making Linux look illegal.

Microsoft also has deals with hardware manufacturers, like Dell and HP. Windows is bundled with that hardware. That in turn makes life difficult for the other competing operating system developers, since the hardware companies won't bundle anything but Windows. That in turn leads to customer loyalty: Consumers know that Windows comes with every OS they buy, so they feel safe. The hardware companies in turn don't want their customers to feel alienated by bundling different OSes.

I covered iPods and Windows because those are the most frequently discussed brands when it comes to monopoly debates. While there are certainly more monopolies and mistaken monopolies in the wild, such examples are not particularly relevant at this point in time. I know that there are people who will disagree with me and those who will hold me up, but the fact of the matter is that the evidence truly decides. I have not covered all the evidence, to be sure: There are other mentionable examples of Microsoft's status as a monopoly that I deemed insignificant overall. All I can do is hope that I've convinced at least one person of the true status of the iPod and Windows in the market.

R&D v. Advertising

The technology sector is a very interesting area of the economy. It's not like other kinds of products - used by many, understood by few. And unlike most products, technology is dependent not only on public awareness but also on development. Computers are improving at a rate faster than any other product in history. If cars were computers, in the space of less than three minutes you could successfully complete an order for a Mercedes Benz that costs $3.99 and gets 1,000,000 miles per cubic centimeter of compressed air. (Sort of.)

The thing is, consumers hardly care about advanced technology. For most consumers, the most important criteria are, "Does it run fast?" and, "Does it work?" That is the image that technology companies - especially consumer technology firms - try to project. Every company wants to say about their computers, "These computers are so easy, a caveman could use them," and, "There is so much that you can do with our products." Thus, technology companies are faced with two challenges: To appeal to the public, and to build products that are one step ahead of anything a competitor can offer.

If a company builds a computer that is the best in the world - but never tells anyone about it - what good is it? If somebody builds a piece of crap - and then tells every person possible how beautiful it is - what good is it? That is the reason why firms specializing in computer-related products face such a challenge. Unlike the cola market, consumers can evaluate for themselves the quality of the product and make a conscious choice, and their preferences can change.

But once you buy a computer, you're stuck with it; not to mention that most people wouldn't be able to make a choice if they had to choose. I'm not just being arrogant. How did e-mail virii spread so quickly? People opened their e-mail attachments, unaware that it could do something. People just don't know. Many people think of computers as many people think of cars: You can use a car, but you don't know how it works. When it breaks, you take it to someone who can fix it; the same goes for computers.

Thus, firms have to not only stay ahead of the game and be able to tell people that. If a technology firm fails at the first objective, the firm loses market share in industries that purchase and depend on computers, because other firms will know which product is superior. If a technology firm fails at the second objective, the firm loses market share in consumer industries, which are just as important. In both the corporate and consumer markets, if the market finds that there is a better choice, the market will choose the better product. If neither the corporate nor consumer markets know about the product, then there is no point in producing it. Both objectives are important, and firms are continually evaluating which strategy to take: Whether to spend more resources developing a product, or more resources advertising a product.

How to screw up a perfectly good product: Just ask Microsoft

Microsoft has a real dud on their hands. The ill-conceived Zune is not performing in the market as Microsoft has hoped. While it may certainly be listed in Amazon's bestseller list for electronics (though not as high on the list as a position that would indicate categorical success), the media's attention to the Zune has been passing. It appeared on the Today show, only to be compared to the iPod; the iPod continues to dominate the market.

In the months before the Zune was to be released, the reports about it that I read made the Zune look like a great product. Of course, only Microsoft could screw up a product like this:

• 30 GB hard drive


• Customizable background


• Smart playlisting


• Song and photo sharing


• Spontaneous video encoding for viewing video in any popular format


• Slick interface


• Based off a previously successful MP3 player (Toshiba Gigabeat)


• A big screen

Of course, Microsoft proceeded to do stuff wrong:

• Limiting song sharing to 3 plays/days


• Not integrating the Zune marketplace with Windows Media Player


• Disallowing the use of the Zune as portable storage


• Strange, limited marketing (I never saw a single advertisement for a Zune)


• Forcing consumers to buy points before they could buy Zune songs: 1 point is not equal to a penny


• Paying money to Universal for every Zune sold


• Abandoning PlaysForSure DRM and not allowing songs bought from MSN Music to be downloaded for free from the Zune Marketplace

Microsoft got the technical specs right, but the execs proved that they do not know anything about consumers or actually selling products. Making services hard to use and arbitrarily destroying possible community interaction in favor of business is no way to sell a gadget. Microsoft needs to get rid of any old thinking (read: moronic executives) and embrace the new marketplace, or else the Xbox brand may very well by Microsoft's only successful consumer product. Lesson to learn: When creating consumer products, think about satisfying your users, not your partners.

How does the PS3 market add up?

Namco believes that a developer must sell 500,000 copies of a game to make money. UBS believes that 30 PS3 games must be sold per PS3 for Sony to break even.

In mathematical terms, what does that mean?

Playstation 3 (60 GB) = $600 + tax
30 PS3 games = $1,800* + tax
Total = $2,400

* Assuming that each game costs $60

Sony earns $10 per PS3 game sold. That's $300 in revenue for 30 games. That almost covers losses from the 60 GB PS3, according to my oft-cited Ars Technica article.

Of course, GameStop has reported that PS3s sell with an average of 1.5 games per console.
Rounding up, Sony gets only $20 from the average PS3 user.

Here's the math for the market buying enough games to recoup a developer's costs:
Number of copies of a game needed to sell in order to break even: 500,000
Minimum amount of money the market will spend to recoup a developer's costs: $330,000,000 *
Sony's subsequent minimum costs to make that sale happen: $400,000,000
Revenue Sony receives from the sale of 500,000 consoles: $300,000,000
Revenue accumulated by Sony from the sale of 500,000 games: $5,000,000
Sony's profits from the money consumers will spend at minimum to recoup a developer's costs: $-95,000,000

* Assuming each consumer buys one 60 GB PS3 and one game for $60

Here's the math for the market buying enough games to recoup a developer's costs and Sony's costs:
Number of copies of a game needed to sell in order to break even: 15,000,000 *
Minimum amount of money the market will spend to recoup everyone's costs: $1,200,000,000 **
Sony's subsequent minimum costs to make that sale happen: $400,000,000
Revenue Sony receives from the sale of 500,000 consoles: $300,000,000
Revenue accumulated by Sony from the sale of 15,000,000 games: $150,000,000
Sony's profits from the money consumers will spend at minimum to recoup everyone's costs: $50,000,000

* Assuming 500,000 consumers buy 30 games
** Assuming each consumer spends $2,400 for a 60 GB PS3 and 30 games

Bear in mind that the number of PS3s sold is at most 300,000. We're looking at perhaps January 2007 before 500,000 PS3s become available. The time and money that must be spent by the consumers, the developers, and Sony to reach equilibrium is enormous. At the moment, Sony's success in the market seems unfathomable. In contrast, Nintendo has already shipped over 400,000 Wiis. Considering that buying a competing console decreases a consumer's buying power, Sony's ability to reach PS3 fans decreases with every Wii sold. The question is transforming from one of how Sony will succeed to one of how Sony will recuperate its PS3 launches in its other product lines.

No love for Sony

As a fan of Digg, it's been quite obvious to me that in the past few weeks and even months that the dislike of Sony is intense. If Digg was the entire market, Sony would fail to sell more than a few PS3s. Now, I'm not claiming that there is only antipathy for Sony at Digg; Digg is representative of many gamers. I can't say that I know exactly how many gamers are angry at Sony, but there are a few reasons that I can find for this:

• Price. Sony didn't make many friends by making the 60 GB Playstation 3 a full $600. You want to alienate your fans? Charge them through the nose. This isn't disposable income, here. And increased development costs leading to $60 games don't help either. But what's even worse about pricing your product badly is when it's accompanied by


• Arrogance. The Sony execs seemed to assume that everybody would love the PS3, no matter what, simply because the first two consoles were great - and let's not forget the PS2. The PS2 is an awesome console. It was simply better than the Xbox and Gamecube, and still is a good platform, with its cheap price, large library of games available for it, and large fan base. Of course, Sony couldn't help but ride on the PS2's coattails for as long as possible; unfortunately, when it came time to develop the PS3, the execs believed so much in the brand that they forgot about


• Innovation. Seriously, what's new about the PS3? A hard drive, some shinier graphics, Blu-Ray, and a motion-sensitive controller. Oh yeah, Sony got the idea for their controller from Nintendo, and the new controller has no rumble feature. The hard drive? Sony produced a hard drive attachment for the PS2. Sony chose for the next generation to simply include one. Shinier graphics? Shouldn't we expect the graphics to be improved from the last generation? Check. For $600 per unit, I would expect the graphical capabilities of the PS3 to be better than those of the competition. No check.
  
  So it seems like the most innovation Sony has done with the PS3 is the introduction of a Blu-Ray drive. The thing is, most Americans don't have HD-compatible televisions. Microsoft kept the price of the Xbox 360 low by selling the HD-DVD drive as a separate component. Sony wants all or nothing: You get the Blu-Ray drive, or you don't buy the console. Since the BR drive costs $125 per unit, many fans are unhappy about the prospect of buying a Blu-Ray drive they don't want.

But all is not lost! Theyre might just be something Sony can do to win back disenfranchised gamers:

• Lower the price. This one won't happen for a while - not until manufacturing costs and component costs drop. Right now, with Sony losing hundreds of dollars on each PS3 sold, Sony can't afford to drop the price without a damn good reason.


• Wait. I'm serious. Sony has either made a big mistake in the inclusion of the Blu-Ray drive, or Sony is in fact ahead of the curve. By that, I'm talking about the prospect of consumers buying HDTVs. It's possible that in a year or two, consumers might like the included BR drive, which will enhance gameplay a lot. Of course, that's still a long shot: What if Sony had taken Microsoft's route and instead opted later to release a cheaper Blu-Ray add-on? Time will tell.

But what about innovation? Sony is screwed here. Buying a video game console isn't like buying an iPod. You don't buy second or third generations of your video game console. (If you do, you're a consumer whore.) Sony is screwed on the hardware. Sony is stuck with the hardware they got. Sony would just anger everyone more if they released "Platstation 3.1 - Now with more innovation!" Sony has failed to offer a new experience with the PS3, and there's no firmware patch that can upgrade components. Right now, what Sony really needs is a patch to fix their relationship with the gaming community at large.

Sony Playstation 3 units see price drops on eBay

The price and quantity of PS3s on the free market (eBay) have both dropped since the Friday launch. Though the Kotaku story doesn't mention quantity, rest assured that fewer and fewer PS3 units are for sale on eBay at any given time. On Sunday, there were over 19,000 units for sale. By Monday, that number dropped to 12,000. The average sale price has also dropped by $800-500 to an average $1,200 or so per unit. I predicted on Sunday that PS3 fans that didn't want to pay a fortune for their coveted consoles would have to wait a month or two to find a PS3 at the retail price. Boy, I was foolishly wrong. By the end of the next week, you will see PS3s selling at $600 or an amount slightly higher. A few sellers will try to compensate by upping the shipping costs to ridiculous amounts to trick would-be buyers who aren't careful enough.

The biggest enemy of the PS3 sellers is the next restock date. No one knows for sure when that date is, but rest assured the marketplace for PS3s will change, for two reasons:

1. Decrease in market price. As the buyers who are willing to purchase Playstation 3 bundles on eBay for high prices exit the market, there's less incentive to wait in line for 14 hours and sell what you buy: There are fewer buyers competing for the same product, so there are fewer bids on PS3s. During the weekend, you could have easily seen 50 bids on one Playstation 3. On Monday, a more common number of bids was 30. Expect that number to drop in the next few days. The number of bids per system will drop slowly, as new buyers who wish to take advantage of the decreasing market price enter the market.



2. Another source for Playstation 3 units. Since the market price on eBay is dropping, many potential sellers will stay home and not enter the market. The marginal revenue of the market is slowly decreasing, meaning that each additional PS3 sold nets on average less revenue than the last one sold. Now that the market price is dipping below $1,200, some people will decide that the effort spent is not worth the money.
   
   Because second-hand sellers aren't entering the market, actual PS3 fans will have greater access to stores stocking PS3s. There is an obvious difference between spending $600 and spending $1,200. As soon as consumers become aware that PS3s are obtainable in retail chains for same-day pickup, second-hand sellers will have to drastically lower prices to compete. Eventually, the profit from selling a PS3 on eBay will reach zero. The eBay sellers will actually see losses: They not only made no profit but spent hours waiting in line and additional time shipping PS3s.

The market is gradually drying up for those who want to make a profit on eBay, but what if Sony sold PS3s for $1,200 apiece? For one thing, the demand for PS3s would be much, much lower. People looking to make a profit on eBay would have to sell for at least $2,000 to make the effort to get one worthwhile. Some consumers would just give up. Sony wouldn't be able to justify a price at $1,200. The market price only exists at that point because of the second-hand market. If twelve hundred dollars was the retail price, there would be no PS3 fans. Not only would consumers not want to pay for a console that expensive, but no video game developer would want to produce games for a platform that risky.

So it's tough luck for Sony, and it's soon going to be tough luck for the people who waited in line overnight to get their hands on a precious console. As people become aware that cheaper PS3 systems exist, consumers will flock to Target and company instead of eBay.

What does this leave for Sony? Low sales. Beyond the PS3 fans, of which there are admittedly a few, the brand name is really the only thing that's going to carry the PS3. Even then, it's going to be tough for parents to think about buying a $600 game console this Christmas. The Microsoft Xbox 360 and the Nintendo Wii are cheaper alternatives to what will otherwise be a not-so-subtle attempt at pushing Blu-Ray on consumers - consumers who probably aren't ready for high-def television and movie discs that cost $25 a pop. (Seriously, who would pay $25 to buy a Blu-Ray movie that would otherwise cost $15 on a DVD?) If Sony decided not to include a Blu-Ray drive, there is no doubt in my mind that demand for the Wii would drop substantially, and the Xbox 360 and PS3 would be locked in a battle for control of the market. The reviews are in, and the advantages of owning a PS3 to an Xbox have yet to emerge. In the meantime, expect the for-profit PS3 market on eBay to evaporate.

Nintendo to take advantage of Sony's limited supply?

The week before the Playstation 3 even launched, over 3,000 PS3 units (pre-orders) sold for prices near $2,000 on auction site eBay. Each 60 GB PS3 nets Sony a profit of $-240. That must suck, but Sony's not the first manufacturer to produce at a loss to gain marketshare. The only problem is that most of the people buying the PS3s have no interest in keeping them: Their only intention is to auction them off on eBay for twice the MSRP. The PS3 has experienced so much hype simply because there aren't a lot of them. Real PS3 fans either have to buy now or wait a month or two. They face a large reduction in their buying power or a very frustrating wait.

I know what you're thinking: Next I am about to tell you why Nintendo will muscle in with the Wii and steal customers from Sony. I'm not going to do that. The suggestion is unreasonable.

There's a fundamental reason that Nintendo will not pick up PS3 fans with the Wii. The two target markets are much, much different. The PS3 boasts gorgeous graphics, a new wireless controller, the possibility for huge games stored on Blu-Ray disks, and a legion of developers who know that the target audience is a group of enthusiastic adults who appreciate good action.

What about the Wii? Take a look at this Wii commercial produced by Nintendo. Notice how the actors using the Wii look like ordinary people who are really getting into the game and having a great time. The Wii is about being accessible to every body. Everybody can use their arms to produce the movements previously choreographed by button pushes. These aren't people with high definition televisions or expensive sound setups; these are people have a good time. While Sony introduced motion sensing as an added capability, Nintendo has made it so much more.

Nintendo has a big advantage over Sony in inventory. Most Target stores, for instance, received 30 to 50 apiece. Nintendo not only shipped more units than Sony to each store on their respective launch dates, but they also shipped to more stores than Sony. Nintendo will also restock stores faster than Sony. Nintendo already is shipping more Wii units for sale on Monday, November 20, only one day after launch. Nintendo clearly has more inventory to move. Nintendo could easily pick up the fans that Sony dropped. The question is whether or not that will happen, since the goals of each system are completely different.

Nintendo is about simplicity; Sony is about possibilities. Both routes have their advantages and disadvantages; for Nintendo, it's the lack of crisp graphics; for Sony, it's the price tag. The customers of each console have specific need in mind. Some people are buying both consoles, because neither system has everything. While Nintendo is striking out in an entirely new direction, Sony is continuing down the same path and improving on an already established formula; the only change in Sony's formula is the amount of money being demanded from consumers.

So, no. Nintendo isn't taking advantage of Sony's limited supply. Very few PS3 fans will be so discouraged by their situation that they will just bail on Sony. While I expect that a PS3 fans might just buy the Wii and play until retailers can carry the new Playstations for more than an a few minutes without selling out completely. The fanbase is too distinct and too established to simply jump ship.

What is still questionable to me is what will happen to the people who buy PS3s on eBay. What percentage is the buyers who have incomes that aren't impacted harshly by the amount they're spending on one console? What percentage is comprised of average guys? As the news changes, I'm left wondering more and more what the outcome of Sony's gamble will be.

PLAYSTATION 3: Brand success, or economic failure?

By all means, Sony's Playstation 3 has undergone a rocky start. Sony sold 88 thousand of the promised 100 thousand Japanese PS3 units on Sunday, November 11, when the unit went on sale. It is no coincidence that, a short time later, many very expensive Playstation 3 units appeared on eBay.

Of course, it wouldn't be a Sony launch without technical problems and issues. There is the occasional high definition picture issue, reports that some games already available on the XBox 360 have bugs and issues that make the PS3 versions slightly inferior, and some claims that backwards compatibility with PS1 and PS2 games is somewhat glitchy.

Of course, Sony will be low on supply of units meant for the American launch, games will be more expensive, a high definition television is needed to grasp the true PS3 experience, there's an extremely high cost of ownership that decreases buying power and reduces the number of PS3 games that will be sold, and the PS3 is being used as the platform for a new media format. These are fundamental issues at the heart of the question of whether Sony will succeed in its PS3 endeavor.

There are clashing theories of whether the PS3 will whip the market or succumb to competing forces within PS3 production.

Ultimately, the PS3 will succeed. It will dominate the market in 2007 and 2008, but Christmas 2006 is doubtful. This is not based on analysis of the traits of the Playstation 3 or of Sony's marketing prowess or of the fanbase of the PS3. Simply put, the Playstation 3 will dominate the market because it's a Playstation.

The truth is, possibly the most some consumers know about the Playstation 3 is that it is a Playstation. That enough evokes the association with a strong brand name; Sony has historically provided excellent console systems to the market. Nintendo doesn't have that power; they are constantly referred to as a company that manufactures video games for children.

Ask an uninformed person which is cooler - Nintendo or the Playstation - and the Playstation will win, hands down. Gamers, geeks, and nerds just don't represent the market as much as parents buying games to their kids. Think about it; most gamers are reasonably intelligent and are aware of what goes on in the gaming industry. Would there really be a Hot Coffee scandal if gamers constituted the majority of the market? No. Otherwise, Rockstar Games would shrug their shoulders and say, "Our profits are secure."

And here we have competing factors. Based on brand name, it is extremely conceivable that the PS3 will save the day for Sony. But there are a number of economic factors that might hinder the Playstation's success.

The mainstream video game consumers will be in for a shock when they go to check out that sweet new Playstation, only to find out that it costs six hundred greenbacks. What will really be a measure of Sony's success is whether or not the consumer will still accept the Playstation - even if it's the priciest net-gen console - based solely on the Playstation's reputation as the hip system that has the best games.

Chances are, even if that consumer buys the Playstation 3, Sony still loses. After you shell out $600, ow much money do you have left for games? The 60GB Playstation 3 costs twice as much as the Playstation 2 at the PS2's debut. Some consumers, clueless as to the PS3's considerably greater functionality, will accept the 20GB model as a more affordable substitute. Even then, disposable income allocated to games will be much smaller than the income allotted to games for any other next-gen console.

Sony is betting that the Playstation's image will save the PS3. The ultimate test of the PS3 is whether or not the Playstation has an image worth $500 or $600. Add to that the cost of additional games and accessories in the lifetime of the PS3, and the PS3 could cost anywhere from $700 to $1,500.

But there is one crucial piece to this puzzle that I have not talked about. What of people trying to buy the PS3 now, or the people who will try to buy it in the days following Nov 17? Consumers have a month to find out that trying to get ahold of one of these mythical consoles will cost possibly $1,000 to $2,000, or even more. That reduces buying power even more, leaving game developers out in the cold if they want to make PS3 games. The average consumer just can't shell out $2,500 for the lifetime of his her video game console. Many potential buyers will resist buying a PS3 until the price comes down.

But when PS3s are available in stores finally, the PS3 will see the ultimate test to the Playstation brand. How much is it really worth?

Doubts about the Zune

As the Zune sees its release into the wild, numerous doubts and issues have arisen. These range from hardware to software problems and quirks, and leave the Zune's usability in doubt.

For one, there is the problem with the software that connects a Zune to a computer. The software is of course for Windows, but strangely there is no integration with Windows Media Player. Microsoft has spent a great deal of money developing Windows Media Player, but they don't even integrate their flagship music device into it? It sounds like it would be a lot easier to simply integrate Zune support into WMP11.

Then of course Microsoft has the Zune Marketplace. Again, where is the integration with WMP11?

Speaking of the Zune Marketplace, consumers are sure to be confused as they buy "points" to spend on Zune songs. But why is it that $1 = 80 points? Shouldn't it be more like $.01 = 1 point? People aren't good at math, so the latter idea sounds like a no-brainer.

It seems to me that the problems with the Zune stem from Microsoft's attitude toward consumer products. Namely, Microsoft has a vendor-based attitude instead of a consumer-based attitude. This is a product that's supposed to be big this Christmas, so why try to please the vendors so much? Microsoft is paying a fee to Universal Music Group, it probably isn't integrating the Zune Marketplace with WMP11 because of the Urge service, and it requires an entirely new program to be installed. People don't like how that sounds. Apple does integration perfectly for the iPod: One program, one store, prices in actual money.

On the plus side, the Zune has lots and lots of features. It's big on features, unlike the iPod - which does a few things and does them well. Microsoft definitely wants to out-feature the competition. They also want to convert you from the iPod camp (not likely) by offering free WMA versions of songs you bought from iTunes.

But in between use (listening) and functionality (the computer) comes the interface (the software). The software is definitely the weak point in Microsoft's launch, a lesson that needs to be learned as soon as possible.

What does Viacom's deal with YouTube hold for the future?

YouTube allows Viacom content on YouTube.

YouTube, the online video giant now owned by Google, has recovered the momentum it stood to lose when the likes of John Stewart and Stephen Colbert disappeared from the site. Thousands of fans were dismayed to find that YouTube was no longer Comedy Central central. Some users of Digg.com proclaimed that they would be moving all their Stewart and Colbert clips to Dailymotion, one of YouTube's many competitors.

It's good to see that companies are embracing the Internet, not scorning it. This deal will work well for both parties; Viacom (presumably) receives compensation for the content posted, and YouTube draws more visitors and raises its value thanks to the traffic of people looking for Jon Stewart. Both companies would lose out if Viacom chose litigation over co-operation: The only important question to ask is what of what Viacom's compensation consists.

It's possible that media giants are warming up to technology - a move completely uncharacteristic of the entertainment industry of olden times. Media giants fought tooth and nail against the VCR, radio, and even the piano roll; every time, the entertainment industry eventually learned to embrace technology. While anyone might be afraid of new technology, to examine history and subsequently ignore it is downright ignorant. But now that the likes of NBC, Warner Bros. and Viacom have deals with YouTube, it's possible that fear of technology might in the future take a back seat to jumping on the technology and making a profit before anyone else can. The porn industry has been notorious for this.

Why exactly is the porn industry so adept to learning technology. It all has to do with the market. To a certain degree, the porn market is perfect competition. There are lots and lots of porn makers each making very similar products. There are many varieties of porn that all share similar content, depending on the type. That means that there isn't a lot of room for branding; company has to stand out before it can establish a brand peopel can recognize. Also, a lot of porn on the Internet is available for free - on websites, in file-sharing network, etc. There is so much free porn available that there is very little incentive to actually buy it. Subsequently, porn companies cannot dictate the market price easily; while they may be able to charge different rates for certain content, a movie priced too high means that consumers will just look elsewhere for porn - Namely, the Internet, where porn is free. When wiggle room is not easy to come by, porn studios can differentiate themselves from the market by utilizing the latest and greatest in technology. This allows them to drive down costs and provide a unique product for which people are willing to pay more.

The porn industry is not like the entertainment industry at all. The music industry, for example, is an oligopoly, where roughly 85% or more of record labels in the United States are owned by four companies. Each label dictates the market price for a certain product, because each product is different; unlike porn, music is distinct. Artists usually have a certain sound or image associated with them - The Decemberists have Colin Meloy's nasal voice and acoustic backing, Muse has Mathew Bellamy's falsetto and controlled guitar distortion, and Modest Mouse has Isaac Brock's definitive drawl and twangy guitar. These are aspects easily recognizable and exclusive to each artist. Unlike porn, every production is unique. Famous bands often seek specific producers or studios for a sound that they want to call their own. The television industry is in some ways like the music industry.

Since the entertainment industry not only sets the market price but controls the availability of content, the entertainment industry has little incentive to adapt to new technology. Most people are unfamiliar with technology and don't care about new gadgets and widgets. Since the entertainment industry is so ingrained in the current system, and since there isn't a large demand for entertainment sitting on the bleeding edge of electronics, the entertainment industry has been non-responsive to new technology. As with the VCR and radio, the entertainment industry only got involved with the new technology when it threatened the current system.

YouTube is something else. YouTube is no VCR or radio; YouTube has the potential for users to commit copyright infringement on a massive scale. That the old media companies are partnering with YouTube is significant in that regard. Though the movie studios were shortsighted when it came to Sony v. Betamax, the media industry appears to be showing an impressive amount of patience in dealing with YouTube. When Google bought YouTube, many speculators predicted lawsuits coming the way of YouTube, due to receiving funding from a company with such deep pockets; so far, that has not been the case (except in the ironic case of the UTube lawsuit, which is totally unrelated to media).

Could it be that the media industry no longer intends to litigate every new technology out of existence? Perhaps these companies have come to the conclusion that money is wasted in trying to destroy technology that might upset the media companies' control over their media. Perhaps these companies have come to the conclusion that consumers don't like the image of over-litigious stuffed suits. Perhaps these companies have given up. Perhaps they are simply biding their time, waiting to strike. Ignoring the RIAA's lawsuits against consumers, it seems that media companies might be changing the ways they handle technology. Could we finally see the day when a record label executive doesn't start to sweat bullets at a technology that takes him completely by surprise?

The aesthetic reasons songs aren't played on the radio

There is a lot of music in the world. A lot. I can not emphasize just how many bands and soloists and producers there are on Earth, and the list grows as I write this. As the means of production become more accessible, anyone who before could only wish that they could make a record now has only to look in the right places to find a studio that will fit inside your computer.

But don't think that this rise in accessibility has much of an impact on the music industry - not even the indie labels. Even though The Average Joe Band has their shiny disc for sale on CDBaby and a couple tracks on Myspace, they are likely to see very few sales. Their market consumes such a niche space that it receives very little attention. Indeed, there are so many different spheres of accomplishment and recognition that it becomes easy to lose the prize in the mist.

Since there are so many garage bands, bedroom musicians, jam bands, singer-songwriters, DJs, bands, singers, orchestras, and supergroups, chances are that whatever the average music consumer hears is the cream of the crop. While even the most non-discerning consumer will be able to tell you which bands absolutely suck, this itself is remarkable - A band has been separated out from all the other millions of bands. A record executive has singled out one band from a multitude of others and determined it to be worthy of an investment. But any record store will have hundreds, if not thousands, of other bands' albums and singles. Several record executives have found sounds they believe will appease the marketplace.

That of course leads to reaction from the music consumers. A target audience usually consists of the core market for certain genres of music. Bands within those genres compete for the tarket audiences' attention. This happens in every record store. The record store, in response to the target audience, will supply the target markets with the music the store believes will appeal to the most people. Inevitably this leads to discontent from consumers who see their tastes and preferences excluded from the market. These discerning consumers will turn to niche markets or second-hand markets for the music they seek.

It is the indie genre that arises from the collective of unhappy voices. The previously marginalized product finds a new market that completely disregards the consumers from the major spheres and chooses only to appeal to smaller, less viable spheres of consumers. In the course of this process, some genres or performers are ignored at each level, leading to new spheres, including music distributors that operate by putting artists' songs into the iTunes market, for example. There are so many different spheres available that perhaps almost all music consumers will stay within the three biggest spheres - major pop/rock artists on big record labels, indie pop/rock artists on big record labels, and indie pop/rock artists on indie record labels.

But what does that have to do with me? I'm just a volunteer record reviewer for a community radio station, KXCI. Once ever week or every two weeks I drop off CDs I've analyzed and pick up some more. KXCI gets hundreds of CDs in the mail every week. The process never ends. I don't know how many other volunteers do what I do, but what I do know is that every week the music director's small office, equipped with two desks and a couple bookshelves, is stacked high with CDs. CDs occupy the bookshelves, they lean on each other in small crates piled like little appartments, they lay scattered across the desks, they cover the floor, they are everywhere. These CDs encompass a wide variety of genders and genres. These CDs were recorded by people all across the United States and some of them are from other countries. These CDs were produced by professionals and amateurs alike. What these CDs share is that the public at large will near none of them - maybe one or even two.

Half of the music I hear is unfit for radio. I'm not pretentious, I'm not picky - I just review music and determine its suitability for airtime. KXCI has standards, and I have standards. People locally and all around the world listen to KXCI, thanks to FM and streaming audio. If I cannot listen to an album without later talking about it in violent terms to my half-interested friends, there is no way I'm going to recommend it for radio play.

So ignoring all the spheres, all the economics, and all the radio, I'm going to tell it straight: Some music will never be heard by the general public because it is bad. no, I tiptoe - Half the music that exists is bad. I would immediately change the channel if the music I have to hear was played on the radio. Some of the albums I hear I would not wish on my worst enemies, and as a reviewer I listen to every song on the albums I review.

Bad music is almost indefinitely prevented from entering the three biggest spheres - I am not talking about music I don't like that others may like. This is despicable music I am talking about. However, music is quite subjective. When I talk about bad music, I talk about music that subsists in the smallest spheres, that appeals to the smallest markets.

The simple explanation for why many bands remain unknown is simply that they are bad. They appeal to far too few people to be successful. It is not a matter of marketing a band or writing the write songs or meeting the right people. If you are bad, no one will listen to you. I'm telling this to all the unknown bands out there: Mediocrity is the number one obstacle to success. A lot of music in the world is bad. The scope of the world's mediocre music is so vast that few people in the world will ever hear the scope. I am exposed to far more unpleasant music than I would prefer.

There is a lot of music in the world, much of it bad. The reason people at large don't hear it is because a filter like me will catch it. There is a good reason why you haven't heard of the bands The Weegs or An Albatross - And if you know who they are, you have "bad" taste in music - Someone has determined that you in all chances won't like those bands. People like me, who review music, decide on a daily basis which bands have a chance of going on the radio. If radio is life and death, half the bands that send their CDs to radio stations, hoping to break into the market will die.

The thing about reviewing records is that reviews are not absolute - Any music journalist could tell you that. There is no rubric for the constitution of a 10 on the ratings scale; instead, scores for music are based on other music. Actually, it is a question of how well does the music plays in comparison to other bands - the opportunity cost of radio, if you will.

So really, why does some music never play on the radio? I'm not going to tell that it's because it fits only a niche market or because there are better bands that could be played. Frankly, if your music doesn't get on the radio it's because it sucks.