In that case... there's a Minecraft Pocket Edition that runs on Android and iOS phones. :)

Most of the games you find on mobile phones *right now* are still only good for a few minutes.

But when you compare on a technical level then the devices are already pretty much equal in capabilities. Not even the PS Vita is much more powerful than an iPhone. You also have ports of handheld console games appearing on smartphones, e.g. there are several iOS ports of DS and PSP games like GTA CTW, Final Fantasy 1-3, Chrono Trigger, etc. There are also ports of older PC games starting to appear - I can play GTA 3 on my phone. A few years ago I played silly J2ME text adventures on it. There's definitely a trend toward parity, and from past experience with the computing market I'm fairly convinced that mobile integrated devices will take over the console market in the near future. PCs are different - but the target audience of consoles is pretty much "people who want to play the latest games on a system where they don't have to bother with technical details". I'm certain that iOS or Android integrated devices can appeal to that market, they are not quite there yet, but I don't really see a reason why their dramatic rise in processing power can't continue.

My wife btw. is also an example, but slightly different from yours. My wife owns a DSi, and she used to play the occasional game on a desktop computer. She even had a C64 when she was a kid. She's not a gamer, but she's definitely grown up with games and various gaming systems, but I only find her playing a game regularly since she got an iPad. And she doesn't play Angry Birds, she basically plays the same games she's always played, which in her case (point and click adventures) happen to work very well on mobile touch devices. The type of game I like to play isn't quite there yet - I like RPGs including modern 3rd person 3D RPGs - but they're already starting to appear. So I'm expecting I'll stop buying consoles right about now (I have a PS3, a Wii, a DSi and a 3DS) and instead wait for more powerful mobile phones.

Did you watch the slide show? He argues how movies did not die when the cinema died because movie producers adapted to the new formats, specifically VHS and so on. So of course movies don't need to die because of YouTube - producers and distributors alike are adapting to the new channels, there are countless ways to watch streamed movies online today.

That's half of his argument really. He's saying that game developers may want to adapt to the changing environment and focus more on mobile. The console as a platform paradigm may die but his entire point is that the game developers don't have to die with it, just like movies are still around.

I wouldn't equate Facebook games with PC games. They're either HTML or Flash. Mobile devices these days can all handle HTML. Some of them can handle Flash. Some Facebook gaming companies like Zynga make their games available on devices that can't handle Flash on web pages, e.g. there's a Farmville app for iOS. So the ability to play Facebook games is not something that sets the PC apart as a product that you need to buy if you're interested in playing Facebook games. Actually I'd see Facebook games as a prime example of something that PCs are losing as mobile devices are becoming more powerful.

In the slide show he's, however, showing absolute figures that are shrinking.

He does also argue the shrinking relative market share point because that's, frankly, what you're interested in as a game developer: Where can you make the most money with games? When you can make 10% more year-over-year in one market but 200% more in another then you'll go for the 200% growth market.

How is he a moron when he's saying what you're saying? His argument is that there is a larger audience for games, which makes the relative market share of console games smaller, and means there's more money to be made in the mobile market.

The console market doesn't have to shrink - it is, of course, but that's not his main point. His point as a game developer is that he can make more money in the mobile market, and that he predicts this trend will continue.

It doesn't mean consoles will go away. He's comparing to mainframes and personal computers, among other things. Mainframes continued to sell after the PC boom started but suddenly there was much more money in the PC business. Now today we have big companies using PCs for tasks that mainframes were used, but this is decades after they were introduced. He's also comparing consoles to arcades, which still exist and aren't really doing *that* much worse than they used to (just worse than they did in their prime), but they also never got anywhere near the amount of money you can make with consoles.

He's not arguing that ngmoco competes with consoles or PCs. He's arguing that the relative market share of console games will go down as the mobile games industry boom continues. He clearly states that he believes that mobile games haven't disrupted the AAA console game industry yet, but are on par with handheld consoles - which as far as I can see from the handheld devices that I own and from published sales data is an accurate assessment of the situation.

I doubt that a court would see it as borrowing when you (as one previous poster wrote) wipe the phone and change the IMEI.

Here in Germany, that's the case as well - but the distinction is that there has to be a barrier. A railroad track is not a barrier. An open tunnel entrance is not a barrier. TFA makes it seem like they only used openly accessible tunnels, and in one instance explicitly mentions that a closed gate meant they had to take another route.

The only reason you can run the same OS is that the x64 architecture supports emulation of the old 32 bit x86 architecture which supports emulation of the 16 bit architecture that came before it. Maybe you didn't notice these jumps, but they were there. There's another jump just happening, the move from magnetic hard disks to solid state disks. That's again one you don't notice unless you know about the technical difference, but it's still a pretty big difference. And yes we have more RAM, and yes that's even an example of something that's essentially still very similar to 1995 RAM, but even then, miniaturization is kind of a big deal. The chips may still work in the same way but there were huge advances in the technology that is used to produce them, which are hidden from most normal users. The basic idea of how a computer works is still the same, of course, but then, that hasn't changed in almost a century. And it probably won't change anytime soon - the next big change is probably the move to smaller, portable devices that require even less inside knowledge to operate. Maybe, ten years from now, you'll look at your phone and say "why this is so different from the computers we used to have to put up with- finally they changed something!" because the package looks different, but the overall architecture will still be the same.

There is a car sharing program in the city I live in (in Germany) that has electric cars. Maybe it doesn't count because I don't think they have electric-only cars, but they do have plug-in hybrids i.e. cars that can be charged from external sources and will run on electrical power for the first 20 km or so.

If you have an HR webstart app that loads libraries from random servers on the internet, you probably deserve what you get...

Siemens think they can, and in the light of recent political decisions in Germany, they see an opportunity for Siemens to make some money off non-fission power plants that *will* have to be built. What's so hard to grasp about this, it's almost like everybody here thinks Siemens want to get out of the fission business because they have concerns about the viability of nuclear power... they're a business, they'll do what makes them money, and right now fission doesn't fit the bill for a German company.

It's quite possible to build a device that can help with acne and isn't really much larger than a smartphone. Acne bacteria (and a number of other organisms that are responsible for other types of skin irritation) can be killed with UV light. You just need a bigger light. For someone who doesn't know the technical details and/or how much light it actually takes to see a measurable difference, it's not an unreasonable assumption that a company that sells a product with the claim that it can do enough to help with their acne isn't actually lying, especially not when they're citing dermatologists.