Your bias is showing. You think PC gaming is superior and if consoles were more like PCs they would be better. But us console gamers DO NOT WANT the barrier removed. We like to know that none of our opponents are using aimbots or custom textures that let them see through walls or macros or other such cheats. We like the fact that people that mod the hardware of their XBOX in order to cheat run the risk of getting locked out of XBox Live. Microsoft makes more money on Xbox games than it does on the same game for PC. And PC game sales are dwarfed by the volume of console game sales, so the value of wooing PC gamers onto the console is not that big. It looks to me like that barrier benefits both Microsoft and console gamers. Also, Microsoft has been pretty serious about making the XBox into a media center, when was the last time you tried it? I have a friend who recently canceled cable TV and uses his PC as a DVR for over the air programming, then streams from the PC to all the XBoxes in the house. The Xbox also runs Hulu+, Netflix, Espn, Last.fm and a UFC channel. I hear the next OS update will add more. I believe they plan on being able to replace set-top boxes from some cable companies in the future. If they are limited, it is because the content providers want to maintain control, not because MS, Sony Nintendo, or Apple are "dicking around" YOU trying telling the networks they should stream everything so the users don't have to pay for cable.

That is absurd.

I don't understand this part: “Moreover, while conventional chip fabrication requires multimillion dollar clean room facilities, our process can be performed with simple equipment that costs much less." They can only be replacing the physical layer step, the laser or the photo-diode, if they don't need a multimillion dollar equipment. They will still need a conventional chip for the amplifier or laser-driver. So their claim that the signal won't have to leave the fiber is misleading right off the bat. Then I have to wonder why it would be cheaper to grow a laser (and test it) one-at-a-time on the end of a fiber instead of on a wafer. Okay, you skip packaging, but the market has already decided (for the moment) that packaged lasers are cheaper than putting a bare die directly into an integrated module. Where's the savings?