Topic: Ouya

[TJ Spyke]

After listening to the most recent CAGcast, I am even more skeptical of this. It's smelling more and more like the Phantom. Like how from an engineering point of view, designing and manufacturing a system in 8 months (since it's supposed to come out in March) is extremely difficult (and this is assuming they even can find a manufacturer like Foxconn to fit them in). The likelihood of making a profit when they encourage hacking. Etc. At best I see this being a very niche product.

[BranDonk Kong]

This is completely different than the Phantom. For one thing, the Phantom was called...the Phantom. That should have been the biggest sign that it was bullshit. The Ouya uses readily available technology from...Nvidia. If they sell these for $100, they'll probably profit off of the hardware alone.

[Chozo Ghost]

The problem with the Phantom was it was aiming for far loftier goals. It was supposed to be powerful enough to play current and future PC games, and as we all know PC gaming hardware is expensive, and that was probably even more true back in 2004.

The Ouya is aiming for the very simple goal of Android gaming. You can already get Android tablets for less than $200, so why not a console for $99? A console would be cheaper and easier because you don't have to mess with a screen or a battery, so those two things should shave a lot off the cost. If we can buy a tablet that can do Android gaming for $200, why couldn't we have a screenless batteryless console at half the price? I think its a very reachable goal, and we will see it happen sooner or later either by Ouya or someone else.

[tendoboy1984]

Impressed is not the word I would use. Instead, extremely skeptical that they can pull it off. The designer did the One Laptop Per Child. Remember how far over price that ended up being by the time it finally launched (and years later it still hadn't hit the price target)? iSuppli estimated the Nexus 7, which has similar hardware, as having a component cost of over $150. Subtract the screen and battery, but then add in cost for the controller, manufacturing, and shipping. How can it possibly be $99?

That's what I don't get about Google and Amazon. How can they sell their tablets at $200 when the iPad is sold for over $500? Aren't the components pretty much the same in all those devices (screen, CPU, GPU, RAM, casing, etc.). Are Google and Amazon losing money with each device sold? Or is Apple vastly overcharging for their iPad?


The Nexus 7 is basically a smaller version of the iPad, yet it sells for half the price. Either Google is selling their tablet at a loss, or they are barely breaking even. But then that would mean the iPad is way overpriced.

[Shaymin]

Amazon supposedly lost money on the Fire: Google is making a small profit on the Nexus 7.

The thing is, both companies have other ways of making money, whether it's directing you to their media content or just throwing ads at you (Google).

[NWR_insanolord]

And it really depends on what you mean by overpriced. The iPad is selling quite a bit better than any of its competitors despite the higher price, so in economic terms I don't think you could argue it's overpriced.

[Chozo Ghost]

Amazon supposedly lost money on the Fire:

Amazon is losing a little money on each Fire sold, but they are making a tremendous amount of money back via the sale of digital content to those Fires.BTW, a new Fire is due to be released the end of this month. The old Fire will see a price drop, and the new model will be at the same price the old one was.

And as far as iPads being overpriced, isn't that true with literally every product that Apple makes? Apple products are like designer clothing. You pay a lot for just the brand name, even though a generic equivalent would do you just as good. People who buy Apple products do so for the "Bling" factor.

[tendoboy1984]

Amazon supposedly lost money on the Fire: Google is making a small profit on the Nexus 7.

The thing is, both companies have other ways of making money, whether it's directing you to their media content or just throwing ads at you (Google).

And Apple has plenty of ways to make money, yet they still think that charging a premium for their hardware is the best way to go. Yet we constantly see competitors like Google and Amazon release products for half the price of an iPad.

[nickmitch]

And Apple has plenty of ways to make money, yet they still think that charging a premium for their hardware is the best way to go.

Because according to Michael Porter (and Apple's financial statements), it is.

[Ceric]

Amazon supposedly lost money on the Fire: Google is making a small profit on the Nexus 7.

The thing is, both companies have other ways of making money, whether it's directing you to their media content or just throwing ads at you (Google).

And Apple has plenty of ways to make money, yet they still think that charging a premium for their hardware is the best way to go. Yet we constantly see competitors like Google and Amazon release products for half the price of an iPad.

Because people are still paying the Premium at a pace that keeps steady to there production capacity.

[tendoboy1984]

And Apple has plenty of ways to make money, yet they still think that charging a premium for their hardware is the best way to go.

Because according to Michael Porter (and Apple's financial statements), it is.

If people are willing to pay $500 for an iPad, then why didn't they pay $500 for a PS3? Maybe the iPad sets an example that people are ok with paying $500 for an entertainment device, and Sony might just be able to sell the PS4 at $600.

[nickmitch]

Well, some people were, but the price tag was obviously above what the market would tolerate. There are times when a differentiation strategy works and times when it doesn't. Sony was in a place where it didn't work as well.

[tendoboy1984]

Well, some people were, but the price tag was obviously above what the market would tolerate. There are times when a differentiation strategy works and times when it doesn't. Sony was in a place where it didn't work as well.

It just shows how biased people are when it comes to Apple products. Consumers will pay a $500-$700 premium for an iPad, and Apple knows they can get away with charging that price. But if any other company tries it, they'll immediately fail (as is the case with the various Android tablets that tried to compete with the iPad).


Consumer bias much?

[nickmitch]

I wouldn't call it "consumer bias" as much as I would call it "effective marketing."

[tendoboy1984]

I wouldn't call it "consumer bias" as much as I would call it "effective marketing."

But then why is it all the Android tablets failed when they tried to compete with Apple at the same price range? Many of the Android tablets have more features than an iPad, yet most of them failed. The only truly successful Android tablets are the Samsung Galaxy series. (Kindle Fire isn't really an Android tablet, since it uses a proprietary OS that is loosely based on Android 2.3)


Now Google themselves thinks they can compete by selling a cheaper tablet with all the features of an iPad. Hopefully it does well.

[BranDonk Kong]

Apple makes hundred off every iPad sold. The thing is they always make a supremely overpriced model (64GB or is it 128GB now?), then the still way overpriced 16GB model seems like a good deal.

[tendoboy1984]

Apple makes hundred off every iPad sold. The thing is they always make a supremely overpriced model (64GB or is it 128GB now?), then the still way overpriced 16GB model seems like a good deal.

So where did the Android tablets go wrong? Samsung is doing well with the Galaxy Tab, but most of the other Android tablets failed to capture Apple's marketshare.


Android is very successful on smartphones, so why hasn't that success translated to tablet sales? Where did Google and the tablet manufacturers go wrong?

[Hey Einstein!]

So where did the Android tablets go wrong? Samsung is doing well with the Galaxy Tab, but most of the other Android tablets failed to capture Apple's marketshare.


Android is very successful on smartphones, so why hasn't that success translated to tablet sales? Where did Google and the tablet manufacturers go wrong?

For me it is all about content.
I think Android is successful on the phone front because the hand sets are so much cheaper and/ or the call packages are better value then an iphone.  I do not think most people care about "walled gardens" and such like, but they do care about what they can get for their money.
I know lots of people with an Android phone who also have an ipod touch or ipad which they use for the app store & itunes content. There are things I prefer about Android to ios, but Google Play is not a patch on the ios App store in terms of what is available in whichever category you like; gaming, productivity, lifestyle, kids stuff (except emus of course, ho ho). I'm sure it WILL get there, but as of right now it is years behind the App store for choice, quality and browsing experience.


Ipad has had a simple one stop solution for all media since launch. That's why I thought Kindle Fire stood a good chance out of the gate because it had a simple approach to content delivery.


It looks like Google is really trying to improve the Google Play experience, but the devs still aren't on board in the same way. Until devs are hitting the headlines for making an over night fortune out of Android apps I think we can expect to see ios continue to dominate in the field of content delivery.



In short, I think Android tablets have failed largely because at the same price as an ipad they look like an inferior package to the regular joes who aren't going to tinker much but just want to download stuff, browse the web and email. And until recently the cheap ones have seemed exactly that; cheap.

[Ceric]

You can not underestimate the Apple Zealot contingency.  Without those individuals Apple wouldn't be what it is today.  Though as Apple has become more main stream the true Zealots have started to wane and a weird counter culture of Window Zealots are starting to emerge.

[Chozo Ghost]

You can not underestimate the Apple Zealot contingency.  Without those individuals Apple wouldn't be what it is today.  Though as Apple has become more main stream the true Zealots have started to wane and a weird counter culture of Window Zealots are starting to emerge.

What about GNU/Linux Zealots?

[BranDonk Kong]

I think another big part of it is that the Android tablet purchaser typically know exactly what they want and why they are buying that tablet, and many (not all or even a majority) iPad purchasers buy one (or ask for one for Christmas, etc), and they have no idea why, other than that just everyone they know has one. My wife's family has 4 or 5 iPads, and while they all brought them on vacation, only the 6 year old ever used it.

[Ceric]

You can not underestimate the Apple Zealot contingency.  Without those individuals Apple wouldn't be what it is today.  Though as Apple has become more main stream the true Zealots have started to wane and a weird counter culture of Window Zealots are starting to emerge.

What about GNU/Linux Zealots?

They are terribly ineffective.

[Hey Einstein!]

You can not underestimate the Apple Zealot contingency.  Without those individuals Apple wouldn't be what it is today.  Though as Apple has become more main stream the true Zealots have started to wane and a weird counter culture of Window Zealots are starting to emerge.

Apple Zealots drive me crazy.
I was one for years until I had to use their european customer service call center. I spent 5 months fighting for a refund on a faulty imac G5, it was only when a national journalist got involved that Apple agreed to do anything.


The moral of this story is that it made me seriously consider the whole Apple ecosystem and when ever I talk about it or write about it online I get shot down by the zealots. Violently and remorselessly shot down (I realise I am writing about it online right now which is an open invitation to trolls or pranksters to have a little fun - enjoy!).


ANYWAY - although the Apple zealots shout the loudest I do not believe there are that many of them compared with the millions of ipads, ipods and iphones they sell each year. Computers is a different story, but I think that ios devices are so main stream now that the zealot argument doesn't hold enough weight. Nintendo has a lovely rabbid following but we didn't make the DS and Wii that successful all by ourselves.
I think the success of ios is a mix of form, function, zealous early adapters, social trends and fashion.


My wife's parents are fantastic social indicators. They are not gamers or tech geeks but they get into things fairly early. They loved the DS, Wii Sports, Guitar hero, Wii Fit, Just Dance and ipad 2 & usually before I ever realised what a phenomena each of them would be.


I'll let you know what they get into next ;-)

[Spak-Spang]

I think the Apple Zealots are annoying...I understand people that like Apple products (I am one of them) and will choose to only use those products...but Apple isn't infallible, and they certainly are not the "best."  But, if you like what they make then enjoy it.

Now, back on topic...I like the concept of this machine, but I do fail to see the big difference between this and say a computer...I think the design they are going for in this product is quite smart, but it really does feel like it is dead on arrival, unless they are able to convince many developers to make games for their controller. 

Also, I like the idea of a hardware maker  charging little to nothing to allow games on its platform.  The more open the market the better for gamers in general.

[BranDonk Kong]

They don't have to make games for this controller, they just need to support a controller, period - which a lot of newer games do. For instance I was playing Dead Trigger on my DROID Bionic hooked up to my TV over HMDI, controlling it with me PS3 controller the other day.