Topic: XboxOne ~News/Rumor/Speculation~ Biggest Console Released This Gen!!

[Ceric]

I stream my TV From my Computer.

[oohhboy]

As for the ESPN service, I am pretty sure that you don't need an Xbox for it. That took me 5 seconds to find.

Not all people are OK with watching things illegally.

Xbox Live Gold is worth $50 a year because of how good it is, though if you don't play online then I can see why you wouldn't subscribe.

It's a demonstration of how much easier the process should be instead of the hoops you have to jump through to watch it legitimately. Charge for it if you want, put ads in it, but insisting on being both the delivery system and the content provider in a time where the delivery is a near perfect commodity, being both is absurd. It only serves to drive anticompetitive behaviour causing massive collateral damage to civil liberties in the US and worldwide.

As for the $50 a year, Steam and every other service out there shows it is the exception, not the rule.

[Do_What]

Isn't gold $60 a year? I had gold for one year in 2008 or so and haven't had it sense, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I haven't ever had cable, and it isn't that big a deal. If you don't watch a lot of tv it doesn't matter. My desktop is hooked up to my tv and it basically works as a media center thing. Unless online gaming can be done with random people that aren't the worst humanity has to offer I don't need it, and I especially don't need to pay $50 or $60 a year to do it.

[TJ Spyke]

As for the ESPN service, I am pretty sure that you don't need an Xbox for it. That took me 5 seconds to find.

Not all people are OK with watching things illegally.

Xbox Live Gold is worth $50 a year because of how good it is, though if you don't play online then I can see why you wouldn't subscribe.

It's a demonstration of how much easier the process should be instead of the hoops you have to jump through to watch it legitimately. Charge for it if you want, put ads in it, but insisting on being both the delivery system and the content provider in a time where the delivery is a near perfect commodity, being both is absurd. It only serves to drive anticompetitive behaviour causing massive collateral damage to civil liberties in the US and worldwide.

As for the $50 a year, Steam and every other service out there shows it is the exception, not the rule.

LOL, are you trying to say stuff like Xbox Live even SLIGHTLY affects your civil liberties? If so, please go and read about what your rights actually are and you will see you are 100% wrong.

[oohhboy]

I was responding to both you and Shingi at the same time in regards to cable and media services, not Xbox Live, that is covered in the second sentence. It was you who is mistaken.

[Chozo Ghost]

If so, please go and read about what your rights actually are and you will see you are 100% wrong.

We have more rights than just those which are enumerated in the constitution. Read and familiarize yourself with the 9th amendment of the constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

And also the 10th amendment, which is kinda similar, but a little different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[TJ Spyke]

I am familiar with the Constitution. Services like Xbox Live do NOT take away your rights, in ANY way.

[Chozo Ghost]

I'm just saying that we have more rights than we realize we do. Everyone knows of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. because they are enumerated, but according to amendments 9 and 10 there are more than just those. I don't think most people realize that.

[Do_What]

that got out of hand

[Shaymin]

Which one of you was crazy enough to give Chozo a f**king TRIDENT?

[ShyGuy]

hahahaha Chozo is Brick

bottom line, Microsoft is a fading empire, like IBM in the late 90s-early 2000s.

[Fatty The Hutt]

hahahaha Chozo is Brick

bottom line, Microsoft is a fading empire, like IBM in the late 90s-early 2000s.

Calling IBM a faded empire (if that's what you meant) makes me laugh.
If you meant they were fading in the past but are now strong, I could accept that.

[ShyGuy]

IBM was huge in the 80s and 90s. The majority of business PCs were IBM. They made their own CPUs, RAM, Sound Cards, Network Cards, Video Chipsets, Hard Drives and Optical Drives. If you could buy an IBM case you could build a completely IBM PC.  In addition to having a finger in every hardware pie, They had a huge software lineup, with the dominant business servers and databases. They owned their own international radio network. They were largest employer in the world. I ran OS/2 as my primary OS for about eight years. They squandered almost all there software assets.

They are strong now but as a much smaller focused service company.

[shingi_70]

I have been hearing the whole microsoft is dying thing for the past five years now.yet everything tangible tells us that this is the excat opposite . The entertaiment division is doing really well. The office divison is doing good with mutiple revenue streams. Windows 8 is projected to do better than windows 7 and is the first major shift in trying to converge computing. Windows phone is looking to grab the #3 spot away from rim. And Microsoft probably has the most invested next to google in the growing cloud sector with skydrive and azure.

Would be a shame if microsoft died as they in recent times have been very consumer and dev friendly.

[Ian Sane]

I've noticed that those who claim that MS is doomed fall into two extremes.  They're either really hardcore computer geeks who muck around with Linux the whole time OR they're Apple people who see everyone using iPads and figure that's the standard now.  They fail to realize how big Windows is in the business world.  Windows is a good balance between the consumer friendliness of Apple and the flexiblility of Linux.  Software developers often uses Windows.  Businesses that need custom software to handle their day-to-day operations often use Windows.  I think some people use their iPad for making music and videos and surfing the net and playing Angry Birds and figure that since it suits all of THEIR needs, then it must be good enough for everyone.  That's ridiculous.  Even if Apple completely takes over the personal home use computer market that doesn't mean Microsoft or Windows is toast.

[shingi_70]

Even then I think Windows 8 will grab good portion of the tablet market. Not as much as apple mind you but a good 2nd place.

[Chozo Ghost]

Apple will eventually lose the tablet market for the same reason that they've lost the desktop computer market. They are way too overpriced. People didn't want to pay $3,000 for Mac computers when they could get an equivalent PC for half the price, and the exact same thing goes for tablets. People as a whole aren't willing to pay $600 for a tablet when they can get an Android or Windows 8 one for a half or even a third that price. This is why Apple losing the market is inevitable.

The only reason they have the market right now is because they were the fastest on the draw, but remember they were the fastest on the draw with desktop computers back in the 80s too. Grabbing a hold of a market is easy when you're the first, but holding onto that market is a whole other story. You can't do that when you charge double or triple as much as your competitors.

[tendoboy1984]

Apple will eventually lose the tablet market for the same reason that they've lost the desktop computer market. They are way too overpriced. People didn't want to pay $3,000 for Mac computers when they could get an equivalent PC for half the price, and the exact same thing goes for tablets. People as a whole aren't willing to pay $600 for a tablet when they can get an Android or Windows 8 one for a half or even a third that price. This is why Apple losing the market is inevitable.

The only reason they have the market right now is because they were the fastest on the draw, but remember they were the fastest on the draw with desktop computers back in the 80s too. Grabbing a hold of a market is easy when you're the first, but holding onto that market is a whole other story. You can't do that when you charge double or triple as much as your competitors.

But then what will become of the iPhone? Can Google and Microsoft really topple Apple from the smartphone market?

[TJ Spyke]

Apple will eventually lose the tablet market for the same reason that they've lost the desktop computer market. They are way too overpriced. People didn't want to pay $3,000 for Mac computers when they could get an equivalent PC for half the price, and the exact same thing goes for tablets. People as a whole aren't willing to pay $600 for a tablet when they can get an Android or Windows 8 one for a half or even a third that price. This is why Apple losing the market is inevitable.

The only reason they have the market right now is because they were the fastest on the draw, but remember they were the fastest on the draw with desktop computers back in the 80s too. Grabbing a hold of a market is easy when you're the first, but holding onto that market is a whole other story. You can't do that when you charge double or triple as much as your competitors.

But then what will become of the iPhone? Can Google and Microsoft really topple Apple from the smartphone market?

Google already has. Android has been beating iOS for quite some time. In Q1 2012, it had 61% of the market share, in Q2 it had 68% (Microsoft was a distant 5th, behind even BlackBerry and Symbian).

[tendoboy1984]

Microsoft is a much bigger company, has more developer support, and has a lot more marketing than RIM/Blackberry, so how could they be falling behind? The logic makes no sense.

If Windows Phone really was doing worse than Blackberry, then carriers wouldn't bother advertising them, and developers wouldn't make apps for them. Yet Windows Phone has more developer support and advertising than Blackberry.

And what is Symbian?

[TJ Spyke]

BlackBerry is still used by a lot of businesses, which may count for a chunk of its sales. Symbian is the mobile OS from Nokia. Android had 68.1%, iOS had 16.9%, BlackBerry had 4.8%, Symbian had 4.4%, Windows Phone had 3.5%, Linux had 2.1%. Windows Phone is increasing (it jumped 115% from 2011), but it is still far behind.

http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23638712

[Ceric]

Poor Windows Phone. It has lots of Apps but, the popular ones don't get ported and it has the Windows Stigma.  I yet to find someone who has used it longterm that didn't like it.

[tendoboy1984]

BlackBerry is still used by a lot of businesses, which may count for a chunk of its sales. Symbian is the mobile OS from Nokia. iOS had 68.1%, iOS had 16.9%, BlackBerry had 4.8%, Symbian had 4.4%, Windows Phone had 3.5%, Linux had 2.1%. Windows Phone is increasing (it jumped 115% from 2011), but it is still far behind.

http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23638712

Linux? They make smartphone OS's now?

And the discrepancy between Blackberry and Windows Phone isn't much. Blackberry is still far behind iOS and Android. The problem is, RIM never marketed the Blackberry as a mainstream product, it was mainly used by businesses, which accounts for it's dramatic drop in popularity. iOS is used widely by businesses and consumers alike, and Android is popular mainly because most of the other smartphone manufacturers use it (Samsung, HTC, LG, etc.). Most people don't even know what Android is, they just see the next Samsung Galaxy or HTC Evo and buy it because of the name. Android isn't popular as a brand, it's the devices that use it that are popular (Samsung and HTC).

Windows Phone will surpass Blackberry within the next year; once Microsoft rolls out Windows 8 and markets the hell out of it, consumers will be more aware of it's existence. Nokia uses Windows Phone as their primary OS, and Symbian isn't even available outside of Europe, so it doesn't count.

As far as global popularity goes, iOS > Android > Blackberry = Windows Phone (they are about tied).

[TJ Spyke]

As far as global popularity goes, iOS > Android > Blackberry = Windows Phone (they are about tied).

Actually, no. The numbers I mentioned above are for worldwide sales (for the record, Linux is used for stuff like Samsung's Bada OS). Also, besides the fact that you think stuff sold in Europe doesn't count, where did you come up with the idea that Symbian isn't available outside of Europe? It most certainly IS. In fact, as recently as 2009 it had 42% of the global marketshare. In 2011, Symbian had 1.4% of the US market. It is available worldwide.

Even if Microsoft markets the hell out of Windows Phone 8, it will still need the apps if it will get any real marketshare.

[tendoboy1984]

As far as global popularity goes, iOS > Android > Blackberry = Windows Phone (they are about tied).

Actually, no. The numbers I mentioned above are for worldwide sales (for the record, Linux is used for stuff like Samsung's Bada OS). Also, besides the fact that you think stuff sold in Europe doesn't count, where did you come up with the idea that Symbian isn't available outside of Europe? It most certainly IS. In fact, as recently as 2009 it had 42% of the global marketshare. In 2011, Symbian had 1.4% of the US market. It is available worldwide.

Even if Microsoft markets the hell out of Windows Phone 8, it will still need the apps if it will get any real marketshare.

Every time I read about a new app, it's either for iOS, Android, or Windows Phone. The most popular smartphones (Samsung and HTC) use Android, and I don't think the average consumer even cares what a non-iPhone uses for its OS. If Symbian was so important, then why isn't Nokia a bigger threat to Apple and Google? No one cares about Nokia anymore, they're a hasbeen.  If Nokia wanted to, they could license their Symbian OS to other companies, but they instead chose to partner with Microsoft and use Windows Phone.


For more proof that Nokia has decided to abandon Symbian, just do a quick Google search.





As for Blackberry/RIM, well, they're a sinking ship. There's a reason why most smartphone companies chose Android, and why others are considering Windows Phone... brand recognition.