Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Wired Dissects Sony as PS3 Effort Falters 379

Posted by Zonk
from the already-on-life-support dept.
PetManimal writes "Wired has an excellent analysis of Sony as it struggles to overcome the failures of the 1990s and make the PS3 live up to its promise. Sony is counting on the PS3 turning around the company's fortunes, but it may have been too ambitious. Besides being hamstrung with an unusual company culture that emphasizes small hardware teams and proprietary formats, Sony's efforts to make the PS3 kill several birds with one stone and appeal to a wider customer base is turning off the PS3's core support network: gamers. From the article: 'Then there was the decision to build Blu-ray into the PlayStation 3. Sony's logic seemed ironclad: Not only would the hi-def drive's huge storage capacity allow for far-more-realistic and complex games, the PS3 would carry Blu-ray into millions of households and drive sales of HDTVs as well. As it turned out, however, Blu-ray has done nothing good for the PS3. Blu-ray was the main reason gamers weren't able to get the new machine last spring: The launch had to be postponed because the new format's digital rights management system did not yet satisfy every Hollywood studio.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wired Dissects Sony as PS3 Effort Falters

Comments Filter:
  • sweet (Score:4, Funny)

    by dolson (634094) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @01:31PM (#16008811) Homepage Journal
    I was waiting for The Daily Dose. And here it is!
  • by Anonymous Coward
    ...and I have no clue who to cheer for.
    • by AKAImBatman (238306) * <akaimbatman.gmail@com> on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @01:40PM (#16008899) Homepage Journal
      Nintendo.
      • by Frag-A-Muffin (5490) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @02:14PM (#16009188) Homepage
        ...and I have no clue who to cheer for.



        Nintendo.



        This is more insightful then you know. It's the only gaming company left that doesn't have some ulterior motive. Sony wants the PS3 to push its bluray format into every living room. Then you have Microsoft battling that by siding with the HDDVD camp, cuz THEY also have interest in the "living room".

        Meanwhile, Nintendo wants to make games, and fun ones at that. You can argue it's motive is to try to tie in the DS and sell more of those (or vice versa). But at least it's still game related.

        I for one am siding with Nintendo on this one, and not only because I'm a Nintendo fanboy, but because I want my gaming to not be affected by some stupid political battle of the formats. I don't want to be caught in the middle of a format war that no good can come of.

        • by Pluvius (734915) <pluvius3@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @02:29PM (#16009312) Journal
          [Nintendo is] the only gaming company left that doesn't have some ulterior motive.

          Are you kidding? The only reason Nintendo can't be said to have an ulterior motive is because they have no leverage with which to accomplish any ulterior goal. Am I the only one who remembers the draconian censorship policies and ludicrous licensing fees that existed back when Nintendo was the only store on the block?

          Nintendo is a heartless corporation, same as the other two. You don't notice only because it has been mostly irrelevant for the past decade. I might not be rooting for Sony or Microsoft, but I'm sure as hell not rooting for Nintendo.

          Rob
          • by jchenx (267053) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @02:41PM (#16009430) Journal
            I totally agree. Nintendo definately did a lot of bullying themselves, when they were the King of Console Gaming. I remember when Sony started this little thing called the PlayStation, nobody believed in it. But developers flocked to it, one reason was due to the licensing and censorship issues they faced in Nintendo at the time. (Anyone else remember the Mortal Kombat fiasco?) That was also the time of $60-80 video games, and this is NOT at today's prices.

            That said, I think (maybe more along the lines of "hope") that the Nintendo of today is far different than the bully of years past. But to all the fanboys who think that Nintendo can do no wrong, they need to remember that these are still corporations we're talking about. Not people. They all will do what it takes to make money. Part of it, though, does mean treating customers with respect, and doing the right things for gamers, so that they'll come back to you time and time again. I think that's what Sony has lost (and arguably, that's what toppled Nintendo back then too).
            • Nintendo is a very different company since Yamauchi left. Iwata is a very different person with a different style of management, and different views.

              I'm not saying 'they can do no wrong', but Yamauchi retiring was a good thing for their company.

              • by Pluvius (734915)
                I've noticed that Iwata is not the senile old man that Yamauchi was, and that Nintendo has made as many good decisions in the past couple of years as they made in the whole decade before that. But they still make bad decisions, such as calling the console "Wii." And they've also been forced to do other questionable things simply because of the position they're in, such as making a gimmicky controller in an attempt to tap the non-gamer market. So pardon me for not being optimistic.

                Rob
                • by Abcd1234 (188840) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @03:19PM (#16009789) Homepage
                  And they've also been forced to do other questionable things simply because of the position they're in, such as making a gimmicky controller in an attempt to tap the non-gamer market.

                  Yeah, no kidding! It's like that other gimmicky thing they came up with that was supposed to appeal to non-gamers... the, whatsitcalled, the... DS! Yeah, that's it! Man, where's that ridiculous thing, now, I wonder...
                  • by Pluvius (734915)
                    There's one little difference between the DS and the Wii. Let's see if you can figure out what it is. I'll give you a hint: Before the DS was released, the GBA had a marketshare in the portable gaming market of close to 100%.

                    Rob
                    • by Abcd1234 (188840)
                      I fail to see how that addresses the point that their "gimmicky" device, as it was originally declared, has ended up a smashing success, that has won over their naysayers while actively *expanding* their market to non-gamers, just as they had hoped.

                      Put another way, the success of the GBA doesn't explain why the DS has gone from "gimmicky" to cool, and has gone from a device that a GBA owner might buy to something a DS owners' mom wants.
                    • by masklinn (823351)

                      So what? The DS' stylus was still called a useless gimmick, the PSP was coming with a better screen, a higher resolution and much better 3D processing (no batteries though).

                      As soon as the PSP was released people started shouting that Nintendo was deadn that the DS was ugly, bulky, and had awful graphics.

                      Want to see the result? Here are the top 10 japanese game sales for Aug 21 - Aug 27:

                      1. NDS FF3 - 503.051
                      2. NDS NEW SMB - 65.556
                      3. NDS Rune Factory - 42.210
                      4. NDS Brain Age 2 - 41.784
                      5. NDS Cooking Navi - 37.326
                      6. NDS
                    • by Abcd1234 (188840)
                      The pedigree for the Wiimote consists of the Power Glove and the Philips CDi remote, neither of which were ever considered laudatory efforts.

                      Both of which were primitive technology compared to what we have today being used with platforms that really didn't benefit from the device. In this world of 3D gaming and high quality motion sensors, something like the Wiimote makes a *lot* more sense.
                    • by Pluvius (734915)
                      It does explain why nearly every portable-games developer signed onto the DS even before it came out, though.

                      Rob
                    • by Pluvius (734915)
                      See, that's why I said "questionable" instead of "completely retarded." Unlike most of the fanboys around here, I'm perfectly willing to admit that I'm not a psychic.

                      Rob
                    • by Abcd1234 (188840)
                      So, presumably you bring this up because you feel this isn't true for the Wii, despite big players like EA being interested?
                    • by Pluvius (734915)
                      What do you mean by "interested"? Do you mean in the same way that Square was "interested" in the Gamecube, so they decided to release a throwaway game that most people didn't like for it, while continuing to release their major games only on the PS2?

                      The marketshare of the previous system has a massive impact on developers' perceptions of the new system. Only three companies have had huge losses of marketshare between generations:

                      1. Atari (Atari 2600->Atari 7800): The Video-Game Crash of 1984 happene
                    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                      by masklinn (823351)

                      Anyway, the point that you missed is that the PS3 is in the same position that the DS was

                      Uh. No?

                      the Wii and the PSP were hyped up as giant-killers

                      That widely varies with the people you poll, the Wii is either extremely liked or extremely disliked (due to debatable and nearly not shown graphic abilities)

                      And they didn't consider it viable because they couldn't do it. They even proved that they couldn't do it with the Gamecube.

                      By your declaration, the GC should've been less powerful that the PS2. An

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by AKAImBatman (238306) *

                  But they still make bad decisions, such as calling the console "Wii."

                  Are you kidding me? That's the most incredible viral marketing campaign ever to hit the console industry! I swear, my dog knows what the Wii is, thanks to all the juvenile jokes that are spread about it.

                  The name is accomplishing its intended purpose. To advertise to folks who are traditionally "non-gamers". And it's managing to harness viral marketing without directly making Nintendo look juvenile. (A big problem with a lot of the viral ma

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Lauwenmark (763428)
            Are you kidding? The only reason Nintendo can't be said to have an ulterior motive is because they have no leverage with which to accomplish any ulterior goal.

            I don't think (s)he was kidding. Nintendo had no ulterior motive than making profit, by trying to monopolize as much of the gaming market for itself. Why did Nintendo experiment so many "unusual" gaming devices ? Simple: to attract as many customers as possible, grabbing them before less inovative competitors. Somtimes, it was a huge success (Gameb
          • by AKAImBatman (238306) * <akaimbatman.gmail@com> on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:20PM (#16010274) Homepage Journal
            Am I the only one who remembers the draconian censorship policies and ludicrous licensing fees that existed back when Nintendo was the only store on the block?
            No, but apparently I'm the only one who remembers why they were so Draconian.

            Hello? Video Game Crash of '83/'84 mean anything to anyone? What caused the crash? Too many poor quality cartridges hitting the market. What did Nintendo's contracts require? A limited number of cartridges per publisher.

            You also seem to forget that Nintedo was the first company to embrace third parties rather than tolerate them. Atari never liked Activision and IMagic. Mattel and Coleco wanted all the profits to themselves. Nintendo said, "sure, sign on the dotted line."
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by buzzzz (767841)
          While I understand the concept that Game Companies should focus on games, I for one am excited about the possibility of someone finally getting it right and integrating the living room into a single device. One can just let one's imagination run with the possibilities of that scenario.

          Controlling devices in your house by doing stuff with in a game for example? :)
        • by brkello (642429)
          This is only insightful to fanboys. Nintendo wants to make money off of you just as much as anyone else. In fact, Nintendo is making more money off of you than the other companies. Xbox sells at a loss. So wouldn't make that Nintendo more evil? Kidding aside, I want all three to do well so that competition is healthy.
  • Sony didn't invent the transistor radio. An American company did with the help of Texas Instruments.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_radio [wikipedia.org]
    • by Snarfangel (203258) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @01:40PM (#16008889) Homepage
      Sony didn't invent the transistor radio. An American company did with the help of Texas Instruments.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_radio [wikipedia.org]


      This sounds like a truthiness challenge. I'd say Sony is TI's Portugal.
    • FTA you linked to:

      RCA had demonstrated a prototype transistor radio as early as 1952 and it is likely that they and the other radio makers were planning transistor radios of their own.

      Granted, RCA was also an American company, but it did not do it with the help of TI.
    • by MoFoQ (584566) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @01:51PM (#16009011)
      From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_radio [wikipedia.org]

        It was Sony, then a small, aggressive concern, who produced Japan's first transistor radio, the TR-55 (in 1955). Sony's greatest success was the pocket sized TR-63 released in 1957. It was the first transistor radio to utilize all miniature components and was the first Japanese radio to be imported into the U.S.A.


      They may have not "invented" it persay but they did make the first transistor radio to use all miniature components. It's just like Edison...he didn't invent the light bulb...just perfected it ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bu lb#History_of_the_light_bulb [wikipedia.org] ).
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by arodland (127775)
        If you can't spell "per se" properly, then there's absolutely no chance that you understand it well enough to use it in writing.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by LWATCDR (28044)
        No they didn't.
        The first transistor radio sold to the public was the Regency TR-1. Sony didn't get into the market until three years later. They made a good product and it is popular with collectors but it would be like saying Oldsmobile invented the automobile.
        The transistor radio became a mainstream consumer item only when companies in Taiwan and Hong Kong started producing the super cheap little radios that you often see in sixties sitcoms.
    • I've heard that the Sony radio was a little too big for pockets. So ... Sony had custom shirts made for the sales staff that had larger pockets. "See how nicely it fits in a pocket?"

      Can anyone confirm or refute this story?
  • Blah... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GundamFan (848341) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @01:37PM (#16008869)
    I am half expecting the PS3 to be a smshing sucess at this point.

    I would like to call this the inverse internet expert principal or IIEP (in short the louder and more athoritative the armchair expert is the less accurate they become) but not only is the acronym probably taken... I don't think it is a new idea.

    Blah... Why do I care? I'm mostly a PC gamer.
    • by 7Prime (871679)
      Blah... Why do I care? I'm mostly a PC gamer.
      Yeah, that's pretty obvious.
      • by GundamFan (848341)
        Errr... Last I checked it wasn't a bad thing... I won't likey buy any console at launch... my fun budget is a bit tied up at the moment (the Core 2 Duo calls to me) but I am almost 100% sure Microsoft won't fool me again. Fell free to use this post as an excuse to spread irrational Wii love (not that the Wii is good or bad... just some people are irrational about it.)
        • by 7Prime (871679)

          If anything is irrational here, it's this statement:

          I am almost 100% sure Microsoft won't fool me again.
          Reminds me of a song by a little-known rock band I've listened to, called, The Who, you should listen to it sometime.
  • by Yvan256 (722131) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @01:39PM (#16008882) Homepage Journal
    Between the high price of the PS3 and all its delays and problems, and the relatively high cost and problems of the Xbox 360 (along with the "Xbox 1.5" perception by most people), how can Nintendo not jump from 2nd to 1st place?

    Yes, they were 3rd in the USA, but world-wide they were 2nd, just a bit ahead of the Xbox. Given their larger marketshare when you take the Nintendo DS into account (marketshare, i.e. which % of console(s) owners have a Nintendo system), you have to wonder what the future holds for Microsoft (still in the red with the whole Xbox division) and Sony (betting it all on the PS3, which seems to be a failure before it even starts).

    • Who cares? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by NineNine (235196)
      Who cares who is number 1, 2, and 3? Buy whatever you want. I personally don't give a flying shit what game "experts" say (that's an oxymoron, if I've ever heard one). I'm buying a PS3 because I want to.
    • I've seen a number of comments about Nintendo being #2 world-wide recently but haven't seen any numbers to support this. The only recent numbers I've seen (like this [wikipedia.org]) have xbox #2 on world wide rankings. Am I just missing a better source for numbers or is the whole Nintendo is #2 thing one of those internet spread myths?
    • by brkello (642429)
      Uh, you want to declare Nintendo a winner when it isn't available to purchase yet? What a ridiculous statement.

      Nintendo has ALWAYS dominated the handheld market, that didn't help them in the past. So that completely invalidates that point.

      Nintendo can not jump to first for many reasons. They still have the kiddy image. Their control scheme may turn out to just be gimmicky (I know, people said the same thing about the DS and it worked out, but still could be true for the Wii). Have no idea what kind o
    • by masklinn (823351) <slashdot.org@nOSpAm.masklinn.net> on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:06PM (#16010155)
      Yes, they were 3rd in the USA, but world-wide they were 2nd, just a bit ahead of the Xbox.

      They weren't. During the respective lifespans of the consoles, 21 million GameCubes were sold versus 24 million Xbox.

      Now benefit-wise, Microsoft lost $2b while Nintendo once again racked in profits.

  • by UbuntuDupe (970646) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @01:40PM (#16008894) Journal
    Blu-ray was the main reason gamers weren't able to get the new machine last spring: The launch had to be postponed because the new format's digital rights management system did not yet satisfy every Hollywood studio.'"

    Blu-ray was the *main* reason? So, otherwise, they were basically ready to launch before May? So, a bunch of launch titles had *already* been completed by developers and should have had full functionality at E3, and it's possible to send reviewers ready-for-gaming (but crippled) PS3s with these games? And the "tilt controller" was ready to go then?

    Is it just me, or were several other equally important issues preventing the Spring launch?
    • by Yvan256 (722131)
      Maybe the "tilt controller" was added after they knew the whole thing was going to be delayed anyway and after seeing what Nintendo has in store (Wiimote, unknown until that point).

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by dolson (634094)
        The Wii remote had nothing to do with the decision! Stop spreading lies! Clearly it was an innovation thought up by Sony - that's what they said - weren't you listening?
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by DDLKermit007 (911046)
          Actually it's more Sony can't use rumble anymore so they HAD to put something in there. Copying Nintendo badly was the best they could do.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The amazing sales of the PS2 are the real reason Sony pushed back the launch of the PS3.

      The PS2 is flying off the shelves in all territories even during these usually slow Summer months. Sony could have launched in Spring without the upgraded HDMI spec and with smaller numbers of PS3s to stores. And obviously with less games, but the insane sales of the PS2 have given them the luxury of being able to chose their launch time. People like to claim the "Nextgen doesn't start until we say so" talk by Sony was j
      • by slofstra (905666) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @02:43PM (#16009451) Homepage
        Your post sounds suspicious so I ran a search on the WSJ. An article posted on 28 July 2006, states:
        "The games division, Sony Computer Entertainment, reported a 26.8 billion yen operating loss in the April-June quarter due to research-and-development costs for the PlayStation 3. Division sales fell 29% as fewer consumers bought PlayStation 2 consoles in anticipation of the next model."
        • by SuperKendall (25149) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @07:37PM (#16011881)
          Division sales fell 29% as fewer consumers bought PlayStation 2 consoles in anticipation of the next model.

          Yes, and yet the PS2 STILL managed to outsell the 360 every month except I think for last Christmas, which is what the original poster was saying. Even despite that drop the PS2 is selling in very large numbers.
          • by JFMulder (59706) on Thursday August 31, 2006 @12:50AM (#16013388)
            Actually, I just thought about looking at Wikipedia, and I've found the information my other reply to my post was lacking. Seriously, Wikipedia is way better at finding information than Google now. Anyway... straight from Sony's website
            Playstation 1 shipping figures [scei.co.jp]
            Playstation 2 shipping figures [scei.co.jp]

            Now, before anybody get's excited, I know that consoles shipped != consoles sold, but they are a pretty good indicator of sales anyway. And if you go to a store right now, you'll see both PS2s and 360s sitting on store shelves.

            Sony started shipping PS2 on March 6, 2000. 10 months into the PS2 life span, they had shipped 6.4 million units. Microsft has shipped just north of 5 million consoles 10 months into their console life.

            At the same time, Sony kept on shipping Playstation 1s. The number of console shipped from march 31 2000 to december 31rst 2000 went from 71.2 to 79.61. This means they actually shipped (thus more or less sold, face it, no stores like to keep too much unsold consoles in stock), 8.41 million consoles, while the shipped only 6.4 million PS2s.

            After a year, Sony has shipped 10 million PS2 (interresting, since this is the figure Microsoft is shooting at for their first year with the 360). And shipped 9.31 million more PS1. So it nearly took a year for the PS2 to outsell the PS1.

            Now, fast forward a couple of years to the 360's launch. On June 30th, Sony had shipped roughly 6.22 million consoles since the 360 came out. 21 days later, Microsoft accounced [arstechnica.com] they had shipped 5 millions.

            So where does that leave us. Yes, the 360 is selling less. Keep in mind that it's (360's retail at 400CAN$ and 500CAN$) between 3.1 and 3.8 times more costly than a PS2(129CAN$) and 4 to 5 times the price of a GameCube(100CAN$). On the other end, PS2(299US$) was 3 times PS1's price when it launched(99US$) [scei.co.jp].

            So all of this considered, I think Microsoft is doing a pretty good job.

      • by blighter (577804)
        There you are!

        The Great AC Sony Astroturfer!

        It feels like so long since I've seen anything from you, I'd feared you'd given up the job!

        No one would blame you if you had, it must be hard to come up with arrogant sounding pro-Sony stuff when so much continues to go wrong with Sony. Thankfully, you're skills at putting together authoritatively worded yet completely illogical defenses of Sony's fumblings is completely undiminished.

        Let's see here:

        You're contending that Sony is intentionally delaying t

    • by ProppaT (557551)
      You can add to the list the fact that Cell processor yeilds are still pretty low, relatively speaking. Back then it would have been futile to even think about producing enough for launch without jacking the price of the system through the roof (as if they haven't already).
    • by oGMo (379)
      Not to mention spring is a terrible time to launch a gaming console. It's a big expense... and most people spend their biggest at Christmas, not during the spring (when wallets are likely still hurting from last Christmas). The other PS consoles have all had end-of-year launch dates.
      • Hint: customers in Japan do not spend big at Christmas. The Playstation 2 was released in March in Japan, and in October in the US.
  • Myth (Score:5, Insightful)

    by generic-man (33649) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @01:40PM (#16008896) Homepage Journal
    Right beneath this article on my front page is one called Ten Gaming Myths Debunked [slashdot.org]. Myth #1: "The PlayStation 3 Will Fail" [extremetech.com]

    The real winners in the Sony-Nintendo-Microsoft battle for console supremacy: on-line advertisers and opinion columnists.
    • The real winners in the Sony-Nintendo-Microsoft battle for console supremacy: on-line advertisers and opinion columnists.

      No shit. And the websites that repost their drivel.
  • by Pluvius (734915) <pluvius3@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @01:56PM (#16009052) Journal
    Blu-ray was the main reason gamers weren't able to get the new machine last spring: The launch had to be postponed because the new format's digital rights management system did not yet satisfy every Hollywood studio.

    Wouldn't that mean that Hollywood is the main reason the PS3 isn't out now?

    Rob
  • Yes they were behind it all, all of it I say. WWI and WWII and the cold war! In every basement around the world they have shrines of man hate. The truth is out! Run you perfect, innocent ..dweebish uh I mean noble Nintento boys! RUN!
  • Microsofts Lead (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ironsides (739422) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @02:15PM (#16009197) Homepage Journal
    I hate to say it, but from what I've read about the PS3 and it's cost components, it seems to me that Sony should have followed Microsofts lead and released the 1st gen PS3 without Blue-Ray. As I understand it, that alone would have allowed a several hundred dollar price cut and would make it competitive with the 360. Also, given the lack of blue lasers out there, it would help with manufacturing as well. Then, in a year or two when the Blue Ray drives have come down in price, they could release the 2nd gen PS3s with Blue-Ray. One revolution per generation seems to be enough.

    One thing I'm curious about. I wonder if one reason MS delayed shiping the 360 with an HD-DVD drive was to see if Blue-Ray would come out on top over HD-DVD and make sure that they didn't support the losing side prematurely. Basically, even though MS says they are commited to HD-DVD, if it flops they could just put Blue-Ray drives in the 2nd gen 360s instead.
    • by Babbster (107076)

      One thing I'm curious about. I wonder if one reason MS delayed shiping the 360 with an HD-DVD drive was to see if Blue-Ray would come out on top over HD-DVD and make sure that they didn't support the losing side prematurely.

      Nope. There were two reasons Microsoft decided to go DVD instead of HD-DVD for the 360: The first is the obvious one, which is cost. They were already looking at an expensive device with the new CPU, graphics and continued inclusion of a hard drive - this had already caused them to

  • I don't think the original article describes the PS3 effort as 'faltering' so much as 'really risky'.

  • Or, is this anti-PS3 shit is getting really old? Every day we get the same thing.

    I'm the last person who's going to sit singing Sony's praises, but let's be real here. The damn thing hasn't even been released yet, and we are seeing articles / summaries all over the place telling us how the PS3 has failed, and how they've made huge mistakes with the console.

    Perhaps they have, but don't under-estimate the average consumer. The PSX and the PS2 were massive successes, and Playstation has become a brand nam

    • by Jerf (17166)
      how they've made huge mistakes with the console.

      It's also worth pointing out that no major operation ever proceeds without "mistakes". I scare-quote "mistakes" because a lot of mistakes are often pretty subjective, too; for instance, it's too early to say that "Bluray is a mistake" because given that the console hasn't come on to the market yet, it could yet be every bit the success Sony is hoping for. But no major operation proceeds without more-or-less objective mistakes being made, too.

      Merely pointing ou
    • by Lisandro (799651)
      I'm the last person who's going to sit singing Sony's praises, but let's be real here. The damn thing hasn't even been released yet, and we are seeing articles / summaries all over the place telling us how the PS3 has failed, and how they've made huge mistakes with the console.

          Meh. There's no point in arguing if you're going to show common sense!

          (Great post BTW)
  • by LibertineR (591918) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @03:04PM (#16009638)
    I mean, come on. If only to protect my Slashdot Karma?

    Throw me a bone, dammit! I AM trying....someone HELP me!

  • Wired has an excellent analysis of Sony as it struggles to overcome the failures of the 1990s

    Sorry, what? I admit I only skimmed the article, but I don't recall Sony's video game business in the 90's being any kind of failure. I can clearly remember the whole video game community having itself a good hearty laugh when it was first announced that Sony wanted to sell its own video game console. Many tried to challenge the market domination of Nintendo and Sega before, and all had failed. Then the Playstation
  • From the summary:

    Sony is counting on the PS3 turning around the company's fortunes

    So Sony, who owns motion-picture studios, music labels, and manufactures sh!tloads of consumer electronics gear besides the PlayStation line, is depending on the PS3 to reverse its downward slide? Anybody know what percentage of Sony's profits come from PS sales? Can it even be broken down that far, or is it just lumped in with the other consumer electronics gear?

    Sorry, I have a hard time believing that just one product can

  • by gamer4Life (803857) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:08PM (#16010178)
    He is a media guy in charge of an electronics company. The media division is why Sony is in this mess in the first place. DRM and anti-copying technology for the sake of protecting it's media business is what's killing Sony.

    "I bought shares in mighty Sony," cried a woman whose holdings had lost nearly two-thirds of their value. "What are you going to do about this?" It was hardly an unexpected question, and Stringer answered as best he could. Citing runaway ticket sales for Sony Pictures' The Da Vinci Code and the remarkable success of the Bravia digital TV line, he argued that Sony has entered a period of reemergence.

    His answer shows his thinking. All he knows is media. He has no idea that the media division is crippling the hardware. If it weren't for Sony's disdain for mp3s, they could have easily came out with an MP3 player and beaten the iPod. That's worth more than a whole year's worth of blockbuster movies.

    Blame Howard Stringer and his media cronies for infecting Sony. They've helped their positions by helping the media division at the expense of Sony's core strength - electronics.

  • by Tharald (444591) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @05:39PM (#16011038)
    Interesting article, but I think it missed a bit on the cause. It starts out good with the line "PR fiascoes tend to be a sign that nobody's thinking about the customer". That is the main problem with Sony.

    Sony seems to have an extremely entrenched philosophy that says that the only way they can do well is to lock in the customer. Like the article touched on, the beta wars, the memory card wars, the mp3 wars... This attitude is amplified by their music division, and they do their utmost to lock the customers into proprietary formats. Putting this in front of giving their customers what they want is what is really killing Sony.

    It is a long time since I stopped buying Sony products, even though they do have really great stuff. I also actively discourage other people from buying Sony. They promote mp3 players that dont play mp3? What the f#%k!

    It is sad, but I think the unhealthy business attitude runs so deep in the company that there is no turning back. Personally I agree with the conclusion. For me its going to be the Wii.

    -TN

The Tao doesn't take sides; it gives birth to both wins and losses. The Guru doesn't take sides; she welcomes both hackers and lusers.

Working...