We love to argue here about what's going to happen this Christmas, but unless something totally bombs, it's really not all that important to it's long-term success. So what's gonna happen?

What I predict is this-- first, Microsoft isn't dumb. They know how to turn the company on a dime, learn the market, and conquer it. And they know it takes time. Remember when they scoffed the 'net, and someone within the company said "no way, we need to OWN the net" and started up Internet Explorer and Outlook Express programs? They were rough at first, but they got the foot in the door and quickly overcame. Do you think it's a coincidence that The Guy responsible for heading all that up was J Allard, The Guy responsible for heading up Xbox?

MS's goal isn't to dominate right off the bat. They've said as much. They want to make agressive but realistic launch goals and meet them, get the ball rolling with retailers, build a head of development steam, and get the online service running. THEN comes the big push to dominate.

My guess is it'll work out like this: This Xmas, Nintendo will sell all the Gamecubes and GBAs they can manufacture. MS will sell all the Xboxes they can make, too. Sony will sell lots and lots of PS2s on the strength of some actual good software for once.

Come Nov 2002, when the Xbox is a year old, Gamecube just a little older, and PS2 more than two years old, Microsoft will be in 3rd place. But not embarassingly so. PS2 (with a big head start) will have an installed base of 20 million worldwide, with slowing recent sales. Gamecube will have had a very respecctible first 15 months at like 15 million. Xbox will have a nice first year at 10-12 million.

But from there, PS2 sales will slow down. It'll ultimately sell 50 million by the time PS3 rolls around in four more years, but they won't dominate like PS1.

Gamecube will get cheap and have a lock on the "family friendly" market. But to their surprise, it won't be as big as it used to be (all those NES-playing kids are now 28, and want Metal Gear and stuff). They'll do a solid 50-60 million pretty quickly but hardware sales will suck the last two years (2004 and 2005).

Xbox could go one of two ways. It'll play a strong third, ultimately getting 40 million in sales and good enough software support to be worth owning--a "success" but not the market leader. Or, their plan to agressively lower price and some good marketing of second-year games (coming from Xmas 2002 to fall 2003) like Metal Gear Solid X and whatever exclusives they can buy (like The Matrix), together with a more agressive and superior online strategy, all pays off. Hardware sales ramp up like nuts starting Xmas 2002 (with a serious price drop) and they build up a head of momentum that proves unbeatable. By the time Xbox 2 hype gets big in 2005, they've got a worldwide base of 80-100 million.

Either way, I don't think they'll pull out in front right out of the gate and keep on truckin'. Hell, I don't even think they expect to. I think they expect to get the pieces in place upon which they can build dominance further down the road. That's generally the MS method.

Regardless of who is "number one," I think we're looking at a situation where none of them will be "losers." Hardcore game geeks tend to be polar--there's one Best and everything else, by virtue of not being Best, sucks horribly. (take it from someone who gets a lot of mail about video cards) But the reality is there can be one Best and two Very Goods.

I think they'll all sell enough units to be pretty well supported by developers, have enough hot games in the long run to be worth buying, and ultimately profitable endeavors. But hey, I'm a pragmatist. =)

Damn, can I ramble or what?

I think my prediction would look pretty similar to that, but I don't think the PS2 will do as well as you seem to think. Most people I know that have them wish they had waited and bought something else. I don't think it'll take long for it to drop to second, or even third, place. The Gamecube will probably take the top spot a year or so after they launch, and hold it until the Xbox conquers all -- which will likely happen eventually.

But then, what the heck do I know? I could very well be wrong.

Actually Jason,
keep rambling. I've been enjoying your insights here.

-Andrew
PS: I got that Radeon 64MB Vivo... haven't tried the vivo yet but the card itself sure beats that Voodoo 5500 (that I got for free).

> I don't think the PS2 will do as well as you seem to think.

Well, they have an 18 month and 10 million unit head start. During the years that Gamecube and Xbox are out, I agree that their sales will be slower.

I wonder, though, if the much earlier launch of PS2 will mean that PS3 will likewise come long before the competition. If PS2 has a five-year life, PS3 will debut in spring of 2005. If Gamecube and Xbox go five years, they're looking at fall 2006 for sequels.

>keep rambling. I've been enjoying your insights here.

Dude, be careful what you wish for. =)

"Well, they have an 18 month and 10 million unit head start."

I think that's a load of crap. Look at software. What is the HIGHEST selling PS2 _game_? If 10 million units were really out there, the software unit sales would be higher.

10 million, my ass!

"I wonder, though, if the much earlier launch of PS2 will mean that PS3 will likewise come long before the competition. If PS2 has a five-year life, PS3 will debut in spring of 2005. If Gamecube and Xbox go five years, they're looking at fall 2006 for sequels."

I think we'll see an accelerated schedule for rolling out new systems. We might see a PS3 launched in Japan in two-and-a-half years, especially if Sony thinks MS and Nintendo are gaining on them.

About Microsoft and IE and Outlook -- don't forget that they gave the software away and were using strongarm tactics to make sure Windows/IE was installed on just about every new PC. They were essentially a monopoly and used their position to shove IE onto the market.

Look at it another way. Suppose IE didn't come with Windows. Suppose the only way you could have gotten IE was to buy it. And supposed that it cost $100 more than Netscape. How well do you think Microsoft would have done with it under those conditions?

"They were essentially a monopoly and used their position to shove IE onto the market."

Do we really have to go here? Mark, any modern OS should have a browser built into it.

For example. The WINDOWS HELP SYSTEM, among other things, is built with HTML. So you're proposing that MS should be forced to sell a seperate browser, so people can view the HTML-based help files that come with the OS.. just because you think it's somehow unfair?

>"I think that's a load of crap. Look at software. What is the HIGHEST selling PS2 _game_? If 10 million units were really out there, the software unit sales would be higher.

10 million, my ass!">

That's a documented fact. Sony had sold 10 million PS2 units at the end of March. More now. 10 million had been their first year projection initially, but that projection was lowered to 8-9 million, but they ended up meeting their initial estimate. Onimusha was the first million seller for the PS2 (that was just in Japan) and GT3 looks poised to overtake it. It sold like 950,000 the first couple weeks in Japan. And there are quite a few titles that did half a million units in Japan or the States. Hmm. I wish I hade better domestic numbers.

As for Jason's predictions:

First, I don't think there is any way in hell Sony and Nintendo combine for 100 million units sold and MS sells 80-100 million on top of that. The market is not that big. It's not going to double in size in the next 5 years to allow for 200 million in a single generation of hardware. MS would be hard pressed to sell 100 million units if they were the only game in town. The PSX is the most successful console ever and hasn't hit that number yet.

Second, it's likely there will be 20 million PS2s out there by March of 2002, will only 5-6 million Xboxes and Gamecubes, combined. And individually I doubt either the GC of Xbox will sell more then 10 million in their first year. The speed with which the PS2 sold was unprecidented, and it was effectively alone in the marketplace. And that was with bad press and parts shortages. My guess is the GC and Xbox do, at best, 15 million units combined in their first year. Going into Fall 2002 there should be something like 25 million PS2s, 6-7 million Xboxes and 8-9 million Gamecubes.

I think you're right about J Allard, he seems to be a war-time guy. I think it's funny, though, when you look at some of the press coverage of the Internet Explorer project and the Xbox project (and indeed the Direct X project) there are some remarkable similarities in the story being told. My opinion of MS is pretty clear, so I understand if you all dismiss this as the ramblings of an anti-MS zealot, but I think MS marketing has a public relations strategy worked up for situations where they need to gain some credibility with the hardcore, geeks and tech-heads. IE, DX and the Xbox are all protrayed as being the brainchild of some renegade faction within the MS ranks. That the team believed in the idea enough that they fought off middle management long enouigh to get an audience with Gates, who was so impressed by their enthusiasm that he OKed the project. I don't buy it anymore.

You missed your calling, Jason. You should be an equity analyst.

"For example. The WINDOWS HELP SYSTEM, among other things, is built with HTML. So you're proposing that MS should be forced to sell a seperate browser, so people can view the HTML-based help files that come with the OS.. just because you think it's somehow unfair?"

Uh, at the time Microsoft used Winhelp instead of HTML based help. They scrapped a perfectly fine and in many ways better help system to go with HTML based help. They made thousands of existing third party help systems based on Winhelp obsolete.

I'm not trying to bash Microsoft, but it's a fact that they went after the market by positioning their browser software for free, and that they had a defacto monopoly with their OS. Remember how they said the browser would always be free? I wonder if under the new subscription-based stuff that still applies? How's it free if I have to subscribe to get it?

If the browser's so essential that it must be given away, why can't they give away a better word processor with the OS? I think a decent word processor is essential too. All they have to do is take Wordpad and build in a few essential features, like support for stylesheets, and I won't need Word anymore. Why don't they do that? The answer's simple: They already own the word processing market, so there's no need to give away added functionality because they don't have to undercut the competition.

By the way, do you find it as amusing as I do that Microsoft has lately been whining about the open source movement? There's an example of something free that's starting to compete with them, and they don't like it.

My favorite (paranoid and utterly unsubstantiated) theory is that the X-Box as gaming console machine is a trojan horse for MS getting computers they are selling into every home in the world. The price point is well below a comperable PC and the computing power is more than sufficient for any home-office needs. The windows based OS would be easy for 3rd party developers to create productivity content for.

Sure, computers that are faster will also eventually get cheaper but there will still be all those nagging problems we have with PCs today. Upgrades, compatibility issues, the annual (or monthly) driver hunt, and all the usual joys we associate with computing. The X-Box, well, one size fits all for about five years and maybe more. No worries that you'll be behind the curve. There is no curve.

Also game developers might appreciate creating games instead of worrying about compatibility issues or learning new DirectX/graphics techniques every few months.

I know, it's nuts to think MS is trying to set itself up as a computer hardware provider without even so much as signalling that intent.

But why name this product 'X-Box'? Why not the GameBox or the PlayBox? X is a variable. A blank slate.

This box could really be Pandora's.

(An evil Muahahaha echoes and fades as this forum is returned to leveller heads).

"They scrapped a perfectly fine and in many ways better help system to go with HTML based help"

Mark, have you ever actually _worked_ with WinHelp? It sucked! HTML help is vastly easier to deal with, plus-- horror of horrors-- it's based on a universal standard! Those bastards at Microsoft. Creating something better and easier. How dare they! Get the DOJ on the phone this instant!

Mind you, this is only a specific example. I can think of dozens of other ways having a browser built into the OS is useful.

"If the browser's so essential that it must be given away, why can't they give away a better word processor with the OS? I think a decent word processor is essential too."

A browser is only good for VIEWING html documents. A word processor, spreadsheet, and database are tools for CREATING documents. They're fundamentally different.

It's the same reason Adobe gives away their Acrobat Reader software which VIEWS pdf files. But you don't see them giving away the Acrobat Distiller which CREATES pdf files, do you? Pretty obvious when you think about it for a second.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

>The market is not that big.

I think there will be a pretty sizeable amount of overlap. I think 200 million systems sold will be 80-90 million homes (worldwide) with quite a few owning more than one system. That's an increase in the size of the market, over the next four years, that's consistant with the 15% year-on-year growth it's seen for the last few years.

>X is a variable. A blank slate.

It's also more edgy and hip. Xgames. X-treme sports. Blah blah blah. I don't think it's any better or worse, but the market will tell.

Regarding IE etc.: well, that's what browsers sold for. Netscape was free, too (there was a pay product, but NOBODY paid for it). And everyone hated IE at first. It wasn't bundled with the OS until IE 4, by which point it was already superior and more downloaded than Netscape. You can't compare it by saying "what if it was $100 more than Netscape and you had to buy it" because you're talking Free vs. $100. With consoles, we're talking about tangible goods that nobody expects to get for free. You're talking $200 vs. $300.

Don't forget, PS2 is $299 as well, and Sony insists they won't drop the price. Most people think they will, of course, but I don't know they can afford to drop it $100.

Besides, it doesn't have to be equally priced now, just priced well enough to sell what they can produce. They drop the price and move into mass market over the next couple years.

There are better examples, though. Like when they moved from being just an OS company to also making office productivity software. At first, people still used Lotus 1-2-3 and Word Perfect, but MS had their foot in the door. What percent of office productivity software does Office comprise now?

> Trojan horse Xbox theory

Strangely enough, the ones showing very tangible signs of that is Sony, not Microsoft.

Re: MS and Open Source--yes, I do find that amusing. Of course, Open Source software has proven incredibly niche and I think for the things the Open Source crowd loves so much (like operating systems) it's going to stay that way, for a variety of reasons I won't get into here. I think Open Source has a real future making certain applications, though.

Oh yeah, and food for thought:

The Dreamcast had a HUGE price advantage and far better software last Xmas, but PS2 far outsold it. So maybe not having the best price and absolute best launch library isn't the kiss of death we think.

For that matter, Dreamcast had the biggest launch sales in console history, by FAR (until the PS2's launch edged it out). And we all know what happened there. Just goes to show how important those first few months really are(n't).

It's a marathon, not a sprint.

This time around, everyone is in for the duration. They say the market can't support 3 players, and that's true historically, but the market isn't what it used to be. I'm not so sure anymore.

All good points, Jason. Additionally, critics and game journalists-- I won't mention any names, but you know who you are-- LOVED the Dreamcast and heaped tons of critical praise on it.

And in the end, it didn't make one goddamn bit of difference.

Definite food for thought. I'm not saying DC should have failed, but there definitely does not appear to be much logic behind the reasons why it DID fail. It seemingly had everything going for it!

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Mark, have you ever actually _worked_ with WinHelp? It sucked! HTML help is vastly easier to deal with, plus-- horror of horrors-- it's based on a universal standard! Those bastards at Microsoft. Creating something better and easier. How dare they! Get the DOJ on the phone this instant!"

Yeah, I used it all the time. I created numerous help files with Winhelp, literally hundreds of pages of it. It was a better way of delivering online help than HTML. I still prefer it. You see how HTML handles popup help? God, it's ugly. Winhelp was much more elegant. Winhelp was a lot faster, too. The only thing HTML help has going for it is that you can access it over the 'net and it works with other platforms besides Windows. For most commericial apps, you only need your help to be compatible with Windows and you don't need to deliver it via the 'net, so HTML help is pointless.

As to giving away a word processor, they already do that with Wordpad. Why don't they make Wordpad better? It would be very easy for them to do so, and think how handy it would be for us users to have the built in word processor that's bundled with Windows be robust enough that we didn't have to buy a separate application.

I'm glad the browser's free. I wish Microsoft had the kind of competition in other areas to make them bundle more free software with Windows. As it is, they have a monopoly with Office.

IE is king now because, well, Netscape simmply sucks. Now you can argue that it sucks because MS made sure Netscape had no money to improve it, but I think that's putting the cart before the horse or some other silly metaphor.

Basically, in software and hardware, monopoly is often good. Standards, standards, standards--anyone who remembers the horrible days of "almost PC compatible" machines should be thankful for Windows, IE, and NVIDIA.

---

Quote:

Definite food for thought. I'm not saying DC should have failed, but there definitely does not appear to be much logic behind the reasons why it DID fail. It seemingly had everything going for it!

---

---

Quote:

IE is king now because, well, Netscape simmply sucks. Now you can argue that it sucks because MS made sure Netscape had no money to improve it, but I think that's putting the cart before the horse or some other silly metaphor.

---

Jason Cross> That's an increase in the size of the market, over the next four years, that's consistant with the 15% year-on-year growth it's seen for the last few years.

Yes, during the longest sustained economic growth period in our nation's history. The international economy is now taking a dive. I think this will have a drastic effect on the sales of consoles this year. Just look at the sales of PCs recently.

I see MS having trouble selling their console for $299 to the "mom's shopping for Xmas gifts" segment. I think you'll see Xboxes sitting on shelves (unless MS's marketing pays off big.) GameCube will do brisk sales, and PS2 as well (if they drop the price to $199.)

The GBA will be the "hot" system this Xmas. They'll be flying off the shelves like pants off a $20 hooker.

Open source is a joke. It is great in theory and Linux systems are stable with passable GUIs. However, after fiddling around with Mandrake 8.0 for a week or two I can safely say Windows is in no danger. Anyone who is not a serious geek won't be able to use Linux easily. Windows has it's quirks and may not be the most stable environment (although 2000 is very very stable and nice) but Linux is not ready for primetime.

-- Xaroc

"They'll be flying off the shelves like pants off a $20 hooker. "

Mmmm. $20 hookers.

But seriously. I see all three big-name consoles doing equally poorly, and the $99 systems winning big time.

I don't agree that Xbox will sit on shelves-- never underestimate the power of hype during the months immediately prior to release. Every new console is selling well, to the 'hardcore' if nobody else. But that's at least a million units right there.

Something I find disturbing--

At a local store the other day, I saw a Dreamcast and a PS2 set up side by side. They were both demoing DOA2. Which one looked better? The Dreamcast. Better color saturation, better image quality, better anti-aliasing.

The next day, they had Crazy Taxi running on both machines. Which one looked better? The Dreamcast, for the same reasons stated above.

The superior product most definitely not assured of a victory in the marketplace. It's a damned shame the Sega lost the war.

Ergo, all too true. I am underwhelmed, to say the least, with the graphics on my PS2.

Okay, let me get this right. Morrowind, Halo, Warthog's Bounty Hunter, Colisseum and god knows what else are just 'covering the basics' and a 'wimpy lineup'? Yet kiddie games are cool?

Demographics are changing. Older kids, middle-aged ones, are getting game. Now, I wasn't at E3, I don't know what foreign chemicals Nintendo was pumping through the ventilation ducts but I do know that I'm considering an X-Box not only as my new console system but as my new PC gaming system. Get me a keyboard and give me intense, relatively, deep games and voila! I'm good for five years. I can download my wargames from Matrix and Shrapnel for my old PC (probably for the next ten years considering how thrifty, or broke, grogs are). Flight sims? Well, the guys working on the new Falcon have also expressed intent to develop for console systems. Considering that more sophisticated titles are heading to the X-Box that's probably where these sims will crop up.

Now, I'm no industry insider, which might be painfully obvious but I can see where MS is aiming just ahead of the curve for more monied adopters - workin' stiffs, and suits, not the after-school-special crowd.

>Yes, during the longest sustained economic growth period in our nation's history. The international economy is now taking a dive.

I think the big economic collapse is somewhat exaggerated right now. Yes, the economy is softening. Yes, the dot-coms and much of the tech sector is in big trouble. Oddly enough, several tech companies posted record quarters last quarter. But we're not in a full-blown "recession" and much less the "depression" the press is making it out to be.

I also don't think it'll last for the next five years--the life of these consoles.

Brian's right, Xbox has a lot more "innovative" games than PS2 or Gamecube does. Many of them will probably suck, some won't. Bounty Hunter is a totally new thing. Colisseum is one, too. Project Ego is MAJORLY ambitious and new (http://xbox.ign.com/news/35430.html). Cel Damage is as different as Luigi's Mansion. Pirates of Skull Cove and Galleon are both new and different. Jonny Drama is different. There are others. Most of "right at the start" titles aren't too innovative out of necessity--short development times to get 'em on the shelves so quick. For that matter, the Marvelous Dreamcast didn't have much in the way of innovation at the start.

And innovation is overrated next to execution. What game drove everyone bonkers at E3? Rogue Squadron 2, probably the least innovative game at the show.

For those that think the Xbox will turn into a PC, consider this: it's a great way for Microsoft to LOSE hundreds of millions of dollars. Why? Do the math. They lose money on each console sold. Even further down the road when the console is cheaper to make (and costs less to buy), at best they'll break even and spend on marketing. They have to have people buy Xbox games to earn royalty money or they don't turn a profit. The last thing they want is for people to run PC software or PC games on Xbox because they get no royalties on it. Even if they sell Xbox-only word processing and web browsers and stuff, if 10 million people buy one as a cheap web browser/word processor/email machine, they don't buy games and they lose like $500 million on the sales and marketing of those machines. Meanwhile they have a lock on the PC market to sell to--hundreds of millions of machines for which they don't lose a cent on hardware. They'd be NUTS to jeopardize that with hardware they subsidize the cost for.

It's just like the problem with the PS2 right now. The software tie ratio is 6:1, but that's 2 PS2 games (nice royalty), 2 PSOne discounted $20 games (pitiful royalty), and 2 DVDs (no royalty). They need to sell more PS2 software. For them, turning it into a computer is a way to sell more software, becuase it won't run Windows, and they don't have a lock the PC market to sell into. Or rather--it's a way to try to get a piece of AOL's market, hopefully $10 a month from 10 million subscribers, which is like having all those people buy a game each month. Good for Sony's coffers, but not good for gaming online on the PS2.

That is, unless anyone here thinks AOL is GOOD. =)

"The last thing they want is for people to run PC software or PC games on Xbox because they get no royalties on it."

Well, the last thing they want is for the home computing market to shift from the desk to the living room. I think they really are concerned that people may eventually do their home computing in the living room and do it with Sony products that don't run Windows. The Xbox at least gets Microsoft into the living room, even if they don't plan on doing anything other than games with this version.

>"Sony insists they won't drop the price.">

Well, duh. You deny a price drop until it happens, that's just common sense. You don't want to talk consumers out of a purchase by promising a better price in 6 months.

>"AOL, and by default Netscape, fears open source and alternative operating systems just as much as Microsoft.">

Well, if AOL really hated open source software Navigator would be part of an open source initiative, which it is. The next version of the AOL client will be mozilla based because AOL doens't need to have their shortcut on every Windows desktop that ships anymore.

>"Open source is a joke. It is great in theory and Linux systems are stable with passable GUIs. However, after fiddling around with Mandrake 8.0 for a week or two I can safely say Windows is in no danger.">

Microsoft doesn't care about end users running Linux, they care about severs running Linux or FreeBSD and Apache instead of Win 2000. In fact, that's what IE is about too, it isn't people using Navigator to browse, it's all about popularizing proprietary browser technologies over open standards. Proprietary technologies that must be served from an MS server suite. It's kinda like what was behind DirectX. It wasn't about gamers playing games on Windows systems as much as it is developers needing Windows development tools and systems. iD once used NextStep as a development platform but they switched to NT after DX came around.

>"At a local store the other day, I saw a Dreamcast and a PS2 set up side by side. They were both demoing DOA2. Which one looked better? The Dreamcast. Better color saturation, better image quality, better anti-aliasing.">

In the PS2's defence, its version had a very quick development period so there was a lot more time to polish the DC version, and it was very early in the PS2's life as well. People were just figuring out how to work the PS2's architecture. It still had a higher poly count and better lighting effects. Almost all of the difference is in the machines' output methods. The DC clearly has a superior RAMDAC.

>"The next day, they had Crazy Taxi running on both machines. Which one looked better? The Dreamcast, for the same reasons stated above.">

Wow, the hacks at Acclaim can't code. That's hardly news.

Brad Grenz

Thanks for clearing that up, Jason. I didn't understand why anyone didn't see the X-Box as MS PC trojan horse situation coming. Now I see why it doesn't make sense for them to 'succeed' at that strategy. On the other hand, though, if the price point that an X-Box sells for is low enough then presumably more people will buy them than PCs. That's a larger audience to sell other MS (X-Box) products too. You assume they'd sell cheap knock-off versions of Office or Word but there's no reason that full versions wouldn't work just fine. MS would have total control of the OS, the OS wars would be dead, and be positioned as the primary software provider. I imagine that the X-Box is also hooked into a proprietary game server and ISP. MS again.

Computer sales are slowing and aside from games I'm not certain the numbers are any better for software. People have 'enough' power for home use. What they don't have is a comfort level with the technology they already possess. X-Box could cut out almost all of the incompatibility and mysterious hassles that we PC users deal with on a daily basis in one fell swoop. And if MS's timing is right X-Box could be 'enough' for a very long time. Longevity of a console creates a bigger window for software sales while consumers are burning out on the binge, purge, PC upgrade mambo all together.

Office sales account for 30% of Microsoft's revenue. Should home users start to switch to doing computing with a living room TV set using Sony hardware, they probably won't be using Office for their word processing.

For people who aren't hardcore gamers or who don't bring work home, the price of a dedicated PC is pretty high for what they get out of it, web surfing and email. If they can get the same experience from a set-top box, they may opt for that instead of upgrading their PCs or buying new PCs.

It may not happen, but Microsoft is certainly concerned about it. I have to think that the Xbox fits into an undisclosed long-term strategy for being ready to shove Windows into the living room should Microsoft feel that's where the market is going.

Just as an aside, Office XP is going for over $400 new and over $200 as an upgrade. That's the kind of price you can charge when you don't have any competition.

"That's the kind of price you can charge when you don't have any competition."

No competition?

http://www.corel.com/Office2000/

http://openoffice.org/
(was Star Office from Sun, now open source and free download)

I probably could find more if I looked, which is obviously more effort than Mark put into this.. so I won't bother.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"If they can get the same experience from a set-top box, they may opt for that instead of upgrading their PCs or buying new PCs."

I dunno Mark. I doubt it. Otherwise WebTV would have taken off a lot better than it has.

Even with a keyboard and mouse word processing and surfing (email) will never be comfy from a couch and TV tray. It's kind of a private thing to do.

The Living Room is for television watching and communal experiences with the family... unless you're single. God, I can't remember the last time I got to use my Dreamcast on the Big TV! There's always something going on out there and I just have one kid!

-Andrew

>You assume they'd sell cheap knock-off versions of Office or Word but there's no reason that full versions wouldn't work just fine.

Nah, I think they'd be full versions. But it would have to be cheaper--what's the point in buying a $200-300 computer replacement if your Office suite costs another $250? The problem is that it would be the only thing that millions of people buy. They'd buy an Xbox with the intent of using it as a cheap computer replacement, and that's all they'd do.

>Should home users start to switch to doing computing with a living room TV set using Sony hardware, they probably won't be using Office for their word processing.

This is where Sony's plans just totally break down, I feel. Their problem is their proprietary nature. They're turning it into a PC for the living room that doesn't use PC software. They can run AOL, sorta, but it's not going to be quite like the PC version and the experience of using it on a TV will suck. You'll have to buy a PS2 and a host of accessories to make it really useable (keyboard, mouse, hard drive, network addon). I'm sure there will be a package deal (what will that cost? Do you have to use AOL with it?). But you won't be able to run Word, so they'll deal with Corel or something. Then, whoops, you need a USB printer (in your living room?). What kind of printer do you have? Now you have driver issues on PS2.

Console as PC is just a bad idea, and I think the market will bear this out. Living Room Computer might catch on, but I don't think it'll be a morphed PS2 (or Xbox).

>I have to think that the Xbox fits into an undisclosed long-term strategy for being ready to shove Windows into the living room should Microsoft feel that's where the market is going.

It's a capable piece of hardware if they need to do that, but they certainly show no sign of being concerned. And again, I think this is a lost cause, financially--they're subsadizing hardware costs, then someone buys "Windows for Xbox", and does nothing after that but use royalty-free computer software.

When DTV is common, using it as your display device for computing tasks will be a reality. I think Microsoft won't worry about Sony stealing the Living Room Computer from them. If the market starts going that way, I think Dell and Gateway and HP and Compaq will make small Living Room Computers--baby AT boards with something akin to NVIDIA's Crush chipset on it (integrated audio and video), cheap with hardware subsidized by an AOL or MSN subscription, and pre-loaded with Windows. MS wouldn't be subsadizing the hardware costs against future royalties or paying to market it, they wouldn't have to change their PC software, and they'd just have a bigger market to sell it to.

I think we're a decade from people actually wanting to use their PCs in their living rooms, if it EVER happens.

About Office XP prices - yeah, it's rediculous. Just like Office 2000 was. By the way, Corel's new office suite just came out as well. It's $149 for the upgrade and $400 for the regular. That's for Standard Edition. Professional is $249/489. It's market-driven...if nobody bought it, they'd have to lower the price. But people do. It's not like your old office software isn't good enough; they don't HAVE to buy.

"I probably could find more if I looked, which is obviously more effort than Mark put into this.. so I won't bother."

Mark obviously meant "no competition" in a practical sense. The RFPs that I respond to now always specify that documents must be supplied in Word format. If you are just sitting at home typing for yourself, then by all means use Star Office. Heck, use Wordpad. If you start working in the businesses world, people now expect & specify Word documents, and that is what Mark was talking about. Excel and PowerPoint also are expected formats now.

"If you start working in the businesses world, people now expect & specify Word documents, and that is what Mark was talking about. Excel and PowerPoint also are expected formats now."

That's what I meant. Office is the defacto standard suite application now just like Windows is the standard OS. Office even goes across platforms.

I don't really mind there being a standard. In many ways, that's a good thing. I don't think the new features of XP are worth over $200 just as an upgrade, though. I think that's a price that reflects Microsoft's market position and not the product itself.

I'll be happy as long as Microsoft doesn't make prior versions of Office incompatible. They'll either have to offer me better features or drop the price to interest me in upgrading from Office 97.

"If you start working in the businesses world, people now expect & specify Word documents, and that is what Mark was talking about. Excel and PowerPoint also are expected formats now."

So is the English language a monopoly, too? This has zip to do with Microsoft. Sometimes it's easier for everyone to just run with the herd, but why exactly do I sue someone for this?

And by the way, all of those office competitors can produce word-compatible save files. Older Word versions, of course, but any recent version of Word can open and edit the files.

"I'll be happy as long as Microsoft doesn't make prior versions of Office incompatible. They'll either have to offer me better features or drop the price to interest me in upgrading from Office 97."

See above comments on older versions of Word. MS _has_ to be compatible with their old stuff, at least for the purposes of LOADING files. Saving is another matter, but even MS allows you to save in older MS file formats. Try it and see.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"This has zip to do with Microsoft. Sometimes it's easier for everyone to just run with the herd, but why exactly do I sue someone for this?"

Who said anything about suing? I just stated that Microsoft has a monopoly with Office.

Where Microsoft stands to run into trouble is if they abuse their monopolistic position. I don't think they do so with Office. If they want to charge too much for it, like they are currently doing, I'll just stay away from it. The speculation is that XP is going to be a tough sell to the business market because the benefits of upgrading to it are marginal, so why spend the money when the economy's soft?

By the way, most corporate analysts suggest companies don't upgrade their Office suites every year. The year-on-year benefits of the new software is almost never worth the money. They recommend upgrading every other year, and I think that's pretty reasonable.

>The speculation is that XP is going to be a tough sell to the business market because the benefits of upgrading to it are marginal, so why spend the money when the economy's soft?

Because if you buy a package deal or site license, you're paying $180-200 per employee. If you pay that every year to upgrade Office, it's a drop in the bucket next to your other business expenses. If I have 20 people using Office in my 30-person company, blowing $4,000 a year to keep them up to date is a drop in the bucket next to what it costs to run my business. If you're an individual who works at home, it's a tax writeoff.

It's really priced for businesses, and terribly overpriced for home users. Personally, I think they'd do better if they just sold a Word, Excel, and Outlook package for $70 for home users. Without some of the corporate-focused features (they've got too many features anyway).

It's not like MS is alone in doing this. Corel does NOT have the lock on the market MS does and they still charge comperable rates for their software. If you wanna talk "overpriced monopoly," let's talk about Photoshop. Or Maya. Or 3DS Max. Or Premiere.

Amen on Photoshop. I'm heavily into digital photography, and even though Paint Shop Pro 7 does most of what any sane person needs, I wanted to have the industry standard (Photoshop) as my digital darkroom. $600 retail (although most people who buy it for personal use find other legitimate routes, you'll still likely pay over $300 for a legit copy.) And as good as Photoshop is, it still doesn't allow things such as user customizable toolbars, etc. I think the most valuable part of Photoshop is the huge user community, and thus online add-ons, tutorials, help, etc.

Many of the Photoshop filters and addons do
actually work in PSP 7. I bought that because it
was, well, affordable but still flexible enough to
allow me to mess around a bit. The community is
there but not as big or as involved as the
Photoshop group from what I can tell.

I take that back about the PSP community. There are hordes of websites and tutorials out there. Got curious after reading this thread. I was the one who wasn't involved or engaged.