| Gnac said: Ignore o_0.Q, he only registered to defend Sony from criticism. It doesn't matter how far back a company was working on technology; what matters is when they DARED to bring it to us. Sony took the piss out of motion controls while Nintendo capitalised on their potential. Sony used their tired and tested method of disparaging the competition before eventually joining the party late, as they have historically shown to do. |
And it is a matter of innovation and leadership coming together with a vision of what you are trying to accomplish. You can dabble, explore and so on, and just throw something out there. But, before Nintendo rolled out the Wii, what was Sony's effort here, besides their camera? And what did it exactly do, and why did they put it out there? Did they have it as an essential part of their offering to people, and try to reach casual gamers with it? Did they do anything with it to make gaming more accessible, or was it in the gimmick category that the Wii was hammered HEAVILY about, before it ran away with the market, and forced Microsoft and Sony to respond? It forced Microsoft to respond to the extent that Kinect became a major new initiative for them, and changed the XBox 360. Smart Glass is looking to be yet another one.
And this is where real innovation and leadership happens. When it is done, you get a jump and everyone follows you. And Apple is another company that does this, with their i techonology they roll out. People go WTF? with what they have, particularly the tablet, and now it is a norm. Apple made it work, even if other efforts are earlier. And you see Microsoft being late time and time again to the market. They were late to search, late to portable computing and late to about everything else. They aren't leading, they are following. And Sony is similar with this. Both are late and expect to come in better. Microsoft pulled it off some, because they owned the desktop. But now freed of the desktop, Microsoft doesn't have the edge. And the bloom is off to the extent that Ballmer was voted worst CEO of a publically trade company. Answer me this, if Microsoft isn't having a problem with leadership, why would their CEO get voted worst CEO?
