3 ms·

You can build, for the price of a ps4, a more powerful x86 computer than a ps4, today. It isn't about two years, it is now. This console generation isn't selli

by zanny 13y ago

You can build, for the price of a ps4, a more powerful x86 computer than a ps4, today. It isn't about two years, it is now. This console generation isn't selling at a loss, so all that is really happening is that MS and Sony have developed two entirely proprietary OSes with proprietary APIs and locked down distribution and usage, when under the hood they are just normal x86 based systems. I think it really shows the absurdity of modern consoles in general. The industry made sense from the 70s to 90s when you needed heavily specialized hardware with finely tuned pipelines and exact design specs to be able to do real time video in 2 and eventually 3 dimensions, but today any computer can do that for fairly cheap, and console technologies are not entirely novel hardware concepts, but just cpus and gpus bundled on a board just like every other modern computer system. If you want an argument for SteamOS, it is that coupling physical parts with a proprietary gaming platform is unnecessary and ridiculous today. So SteamOS doesn't do that. It is a console OS for any computer, in the same way the PS4 and Xbone operate, except you can just build your own rather than being shackled to hardware. So you are still shackled to a proprietary software platform (Steam) but can console said platform anywhere it supports without being bound to silicon and copper.

walesmd 13y ago
Although not a gaming platform (a detail not to be dismissed), isn't coupling physical parts with a proprietary software platform Apple's recipe for success - and the direction Microsoft is headed, beyond the XBox business unit? Microsoft initially took the decoupled route with desktops (sell software, primarily to OEMs), which obviously brought them great success; but the tides in this market are clearly changing. Could we be on the brink of a transition within the console market as well, albeit in the opposite direction (from closely coupled to decoupled). If that is the case and given the fact that the mobile market is essentially closely coupled as well; any bets on a similar shift in 20 years there?
- zanny 13y ago
  > isn't coupling physical parts with a proprietary software platform Apple's recipe for success It is also Google's recipe for success with Android, since their Nexus products are always stellar. But by having Android the OS be independent of Nexus the Google hardware, they also have a magnitude more device sales per quarter running their platform than Apples. And trying to directly compare Apple and Google revenue isn't really accurate since Google isn't trying to use Nexus or Android as a revenue generator. Microsoft I feel is heading in the Apple direction out a lack of direction and lack of confidence in their own ability to innovate at all. But I don't think that is necessarily saying a wholly proprietary vertical stack in house is the absolute truth - it is like how the dark side is the easy way, but the light side wins in the end. It is easy for an industry to walk the single stack single company monopoly platform because then you can dodge the support across devices / OSes / etc angle, but in the long run having multiple devices / OSes / software stacks means competition, full market coverage, organic growth, and much more innovation, at least to me.

by zanny 13y ago

walesmd 13y ago

Although not a gaming platform (a detail not to be dismissed), isn't coupling physical parts with a proprietary software platform Apple's recipe for success - and the direction Microsoft is headed, beyond the XBox business unit? Microsoft initially took the decoupled route with desktops (sell software, primarily to OEMs), which obviously brought them great success; but the tides in this market are clearly changing. Could we be on the brink of a transition within the console market as well, albeit in the opposite direction (from closely coupled to decoupled). If that is the case and given the fact that the mobile market is essentially closely coupled as well; any bets on a similar shift in 20 years there?

zanny 13y ago
> isn't coupling physical parts with a proprietary software platform Apple's recipe for success It is also Google's recipe for success with Android, since their Nexus products are always stellar. But by having Android the OS be independent of Nexus the Google hardware, they also have a magnitude more device sales per quarter running their platform than Apples. And trying to directly compare Apple and Google revenue isn't really accurate since Google isn't trying to use Nexus or Android as a revenue generator. Microsoft I feel is heading in the Apple direction out a lack of direction and lack of confidence in their own ability to innovate at all. But I don't think that is necessarily saying a wholly proprietary vertical stack in house is the absolute truth - it is like how the dark side is the easy way, but the light side wins in the end. It is easy for an industry to walk the single stack single company monopoly platform because then you can dodge the support across devices / OSes / etc angle, but in the long run having multiple devices / OSes / software stacks means competition, full market coverage, organic growth, and much more innovation, at least to me.