Adverts may feed the kittie, but the manufacturers of devices (must be a better term) can change the whole environment, and forever.
Remember the old fight b/w VHS and Beta? Transition from 8-track to cassette to DVD? HDTV to....3DTV?
I also get a little miffed when games come out that only run on X upgraded platform, almost a planned obsolescence that forces us to constantly buy expensive "new stuff". Wait 6-12 months and it's outdated.
Uh...consoles aren't obsolete that quickly. The PS3 was released in 06. Xbox360 in 05(?).Originally Posted by GGT
I also get a little miffed when games come out that only run on X upgraded platform, almost a planned obsolescence that forces us to constantly buy expensive "new stuff". Wait 6-12 months and it's outdated.
So the being "forced to buy new stuff constantly" is a gross exaggeration. Sony supported and continued to sell the PS2, and games were still being developed and released for it while the PS3 was out. I dunno if MS did the same. Sony was claiming a 10 year lifespan on the PS3, and according to some developers, they are finally being able to utilize all the power the PS3 offers.
Not sound fanboyish, I don't follow the Xbox, so anyone is welcome to explain what plans MS has for the Xbox platform. The PS2 was released in 2000. PSone, 1994.
While you get miffed, gamers seem to welcome new and better tech that increases the gaming experience. If developers were to keep you happy, we would be force to play RockBand on the Atari 2600.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Xbox Live support for the original Xbox is getting turned off either this month or next I believe. I also believe their transition game window was a lot shorter. Only Xbox or Xbox360 games I have are the 3 from Burger King. Sony was a lot more kind to the PS2 generation, but with the numbers the PS2 had, and still has, they didn't have a choice.
I've never purchased a console planning for what I expect to do with it. I purchase it to do something I want to do now. Its not like an Xbox720, or PS4 is going to make the current generation of games any less fun.
As a parent, buying the new stuff is "miffulating". I mean even the hand-held games, Nintendo v eleventymillion. Probably wouldn't mind if I were a tech geek or gadget guru, but I'm not. My ex is tho, he'll run out and buy first version of anything Apple-related (like iPhone, iPod, iMac, iPort, iPad....)
School-aged kids love to brag about having the latest tech toy, it's like fashion and being cool, only more expensive.
Aren't the newer PS3's not backward compatible with the PS2 games? I thought they dropped that with the slim...
. . .
My kids are perfectly happy to have Nintendo DS and not Nintendo DS-i.
They will, however, be getting DS-is for Buddy Boy's birthday.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
Not DSiXLs?
Those are the ones with the bigger screens?
Depends on what they have next month when I go to buy 'em.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
Yes bigger screens, I still have a DS lite, and I was looking at the DSiXL, but I don't know about that pen sized stylus.
Hmmm, I'll have to look at them.
I probably will just go with the DSi, though.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
As Beej notes below,this is an exaggeration. But, I sympathize. My complaint is using console gimmicks to try to corner a market. Bungie made revolutionary games for PC and Mac. MS takes them over and makes games exclusively for their console,then delays porting a couple of years. Me, I'm not going to do it. A computer is a necessary part of the home (my wife works ~60% at home.) I'll invest in one. But dropping a few hundred on a console to play a couple of games that interest me? That ends up being a few hundred percent markup on the game, and fails with me.I also get a little miffed when games come out that only run on X upgraded platform, almost a planned obsolescence that forces us to constantly buy expensive "new stuff". Wait 6-12 months and it's outdated.
Not really. A console is basically a CPU, yet most homes already have one in the shape of a computer, and many people replace theirs regularly to maintain performance and software compatibility. Thus most games could be made to work on computers, and "extra special" controllers could be marketed separately (which they did a lot of in the 90s,with joysticks and whatnot.) Granted, they allow you to play on your TV.
Bottom line is they're not marketing for me, they're marketing for spoiled kids who can lobby for the conspicuous consumption item next Bday or Xmas.
Well sure, technology theoretically offers much better and more efficient distribution platforms today. But that doesn't avoid the issue of companies who have entrenched cashflows from advertising.Adverts may feed the kittie, but the manufacturers of devices (must be a better term) can change the whole environment, and forever.
Remember the old fight b/w VHS and Beta? Transition from 8-track to cassette to DVD? HDTV to....3DTV?
I also get a little miffed when games come out that only run on X upgraded platform, almost a planned obsolescence that forces us to constantly buy expensive "new stuff". Wait 6-12 months and it's outdated.
Back to Access----
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35849813...ew_york_times/Effort to widen Internet access sets up battle
F.C.C. proposal will influence billions of dollars in federal spending
By Brian Stelter and Jenna Wortham
updated 5:39 a.m. ET, Sat., March. 13, 2010
The Federal Communications Commission is proposing an ambitious 10-year plan that will reimagine the nation’s media and technology priorities by establishing high-speed Internet as the country’s dominant communication network.
The plan, which will be submitted to Congress on Tuesday, is likely to generate debate in Washington and a lobbying battle among the telecommunication giants, which over time may face new competition for customers. Already, the broadcast television industry is resisting a proposal to give back spectrum the government wants to use for future mobile service.
The blueprint reflects the government’s view that broadband Internet is becoming the common medium of the United States, gradually displacing the telephone and broadcast television industries. It also signals a shift at the F.C.C., which under the administration of President George W. Bush gained more attention for policing indecency on the television airwaves than for promoting Internet access.
According to F.C.C. officials briefed on the plan, the commission’s recommendations will include a subsidy for Internet providers to wire rural parts of the country now without access, a controversial auction of some broadcast spectrum to free up space for wireless devices, and the development of a new universal set-top box that connects to the Internet and cable service.
The effort will influence billions of dollars in federal spending, although the F.C.C. will argue that the plan should pay for itself through the spectrum auctions. Some recommendations will require Congressional action and industry support, and will affect users only years from now.
Still, “each bullet point will trigger its own tortuous battle,” said Craig Moffett, a senior analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Company.
'Terrible roads'
For much of the last year, Julius Genachowski, the F.C.C. chairman and the plan’s chief salesman, has laid the groundwork for the Congressionally mandated plan by asserting that the United States is lagging far behind other countries in broadband adoption and speed. About a third of Americans have no access to high-speed Internet service, cannot afford it or choose not to have it.
In a speech last month, Mr. Genachowski observed that the country could build state-of-the-art computers and applications, but without equivalent broadband wiring, “it would be like having the technology for great electric cars, but terrible roads.”
The plan envisions a fully Web-connected world with split-second access to health care information and online classrooms, delivered through wireless devices yet to be dreamed up in Silicon Valley. But to get there, analysts say the F.C.C. must tread carefully with companies like Comcast and AT&T that largely control Internet pricing and speeds. Already, there are questions about the extent to which the F.C.C. has jurisdiction over Internet providers.
The F.C.C. says it can make some important changes on its own. They include reforms to the Universal Service Fund, which spends $8 billion a year from telephone surcharges to ensure that rural and poor people have phone lines at home. It also supplies Internet access to schools, libraries and rural clinics.
By reducing the phone subsidies over time, the fund could instead “support broadband access and affordability,” especially in remote locations where private companies have little incentive to build networks, said Colin Crowell, a senior counselor to Mr. Genachowski.
In recent weeks, the most-talked-about idea in the television industry has been a voluntary auction of over-the-air spectrum for future mobile broadband uses. In total, the F.C.C. is hoping to free up roughly 500 megahertz of spectrum, much of which would come from television broadcasters, which would be compensated if Congress acts.
<40 percent in U.S. lack home broadband>
The proposal already faces resistance from the TV industry. Stations say they still serve a valuable public service, especially during emergencies, and say the F.C.C. proposals could cause gaps in signal coverage.
But F.C.C. officials assert that the spectrum changes are necessary given a looming spectrum shortage. “It isn’t a crisis tomorrow, it’s a crisis in five or six years,” Mr. Crowell said, but allocation “literally takes years.”
The plan will advise that some of the spectrum become unlicensed, so it can serve as a test bed for new technologies.
Also notably, the plan will include an initiative the chairman calls 100 Squared — equipping 100 million households with high-speed Internet gushing through their pipes at 100 megabits a second by the end of this decade. According to comScore, the average subscriber now receives speeds of three to four megabits a second.
The government is “setting a stake in the ground by setting a standard for broadband speeds in order to be a competitive nation,” said Dan Hays, director of PRTM, a global management consulting firm in the telecommunications industry.
He said the plan could place “significant pressure” on incumbent providers to improve their networks.
'Job creation and innovation'
Mr. Genachowski also argues that broadband expansion can be an economic stimulant, a crucial selling point in a time of high unemployment. “Broadband will be the indispensable platform to assure American competitiveness, ongoing job creation and innovation, and will affect nearly every aspect of Americans’ lives at home, at work, and in their communities,” he said Friday.
According to officials briefed on the proposals, the plan will also call for a “digital literacy corps” to help unwired Americans learn online skills, and recommendations for $12 billion to $16 billion for a nationwide public safety network that would connect police, fire departments and other first responders.
In a move that could affect policy decisions years from now, the F.C.C. will begin assessing the speeds and costs of consumer broadband service. Until then, consumers can take matters into their own hands with a new suite of online and mobile phone applications released by the F.C.C. that will allow them to test the speed of their home Internet and see if they’re paying for data speeds as advertised.
“Once again, the F.C.C. is putting service providers on the spot,” said Julien Blin, a telecommunications consultant at JBB Research.
Yes, been following this. Stelter and Wortham seem to know of the plan, but not many details.
I think a bigger question needs to be asked before we do this kind of thing: in the late 1990s private companies built so much fiber optic cable that there was a glut, which still exists today. The access issues are mainly local infrastructure issues, demand issues and price issues. In other words, many areas lack local infrastructure, service is too expensive and there's not enough demand.
But in some areas (IE where 60-70% of the US lives and has broadband access), those issues really aren't significant. And the trend is moving towards faster access.
When the trend is positive for 60-70% of the nation, is it really a good idea for a bankrupt national government to blow in and start imposing minimum service requirements, price fixing, subsidies and taxpayer handouts?
I don't know. Maybe that's for D & D and Rand's suggestion of a Google or Linux Democracy (earmarks)?
Information is Power. India's had some success with cheap cell phones in impoverished slums. Even if it's just used to wire transfer money internationally to relatives, let alone social networking.
Was the same argument used in the past, against public libraries, public schools, or literacy programs....just too expensive for the government to get involved?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote