If the PSP2 is a phone, they will have to compose with carriers that could maybe subvention it (with 2 years subscribtion) so it could be cheap. Else, once again they will have a very expensive product that will be hard to sell. People could get iphone with carrier's subvention or even other android phones for really cheap.

When i've seen the thirs parties line-up for the 3DS,one of the first things I've thought has been "...Welcome back to a one-man show,handled market!".

The 3DS has an incredible line-up for a console that will be released in 6-9 months,impossible for an handled,coming from an other universe thinking that these are all games for a NINTENDO console. But the most unbelievable things is that,in the line-up,there are names before the 15th June that noboy would have though to see on the 3DS.

Street Fighter?(How many years have passed between SSFIV 3DS and the last appearance of the franchise on a Nintendo console...)

Dead or Alive(WHAT?)

Saints Row(Even the press at the conference have laughed seeing it,LOL)

PERSONA(GIGAWHAAAAAAT?!?It has done even well on PSP,even in the West,if i remeber correctly...but,above all,is one of the franchises BORN on PSX)

It is unbelievable.

However,PSP2 could always be showed at TGS,but this should mean a release for the second half of 2011(I don't think they would release it after the TGS,this year...No,Sony is not so stupid to Saturn-ize their handled,come on),when the 3DS will have problably started to rock everything,thanks to its games and to its feature,especially one:movies in 3D without glasses...this is THE feature,in my opinion,because now there is the 3D-Mania at cinemas,thanks to Avatar and other movies,but with a 3D available only with glasses.

3D Movies without glasses...this is riding a new tendence,but obtaining to find what to offer to concenctrate all the attentions on your product.Bravo,Nintendo,Bravo.

To obtain a certain market,Sony should release a PSP2 only a bit more powerful than the PSP,with touch and phone features incorporated(so,also only DD games).In this way,the PSP2 should be seen between the 3DS market and the IPhone market,create its own market because of the Sony brand.

Otherwise,the PSP2 could be "Dreamcast'd" very quickly:the 3DS,now,is stronger than any console(home and handled)EVER.

C'mon guys, we are already on 16th page of the discussion while we had concluded that PSP2 is dead in the water on the very 1st page. Nintendo delivered final blow to Sony, 3DS is the end not only of PSP, but Bravia and their stupid glasses also, the whole PS3D deal and Sony iselft is getting down. Just be honest and admit it, nothing to discuss here anymore.

I honestly think the should scrap PSP2.I mean you have sony representatives stating PSP will last 10 years. LOL
"There is absolutely a 10-year life cycle for PSP, and probably more," says SCEA's John Koller."

http://www.joystiq.com/2010/06/18/video-interview-sonys-john-koller-on-psp-go-psn-and-ps3

PFAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAA
So basically when Nintendo 3DS would be upgraded again to the next gen handheld( if Nintendo continues 5 year life cycles) Sony will launch PSP2 witch will get dreamcast'd AGAIN.

The precentage thing you bolded more so refers to "19% of what?" The thing I argue about the information is that 2009, the year that information was for, was the 5th year of both the PSp and the DS. Systems tend to peak in their 3rd year, so they are naturally going to have lower revenue for that year (and Nintendo has not released any big software for the system since Pokemon back in 2007). So, it's easier to claim a bigger peice of the pie in a slower year. The question is how much revenue was made in 2009 and how does it compair to previous years. Our source doesn't give the number. A better measure is to see how Apple's revenue for games holds up in the year when the 3DS launches.

As for your question, precents are relative. 1 is 50% of 2 but also 1% of 100. So, a precent by itself means nothing. It's the numbers attached to it that are useful. So, to answer your question, let me say this. The ways to increase your profit (which is what is the most importaint here) you either lower your cost, raise your price, or sell more. What I have been arguing (amoung other things) is that just that the iPhone/Touch isn't nessisarily more profitable as it has lower prices and the games don't sell as much on average (19% with well more then twice the games on the DS vs 70%?). Naturally, they are going to make less money on them even if their cost are lower because they charge so little for the software. You mentioned precents, but I'd rather ignore them. I'd rather talk about absolute number.

By the way, I'm an accounting major. So, I looking at this like an Income Statement.

When you say systems peak in their 3rd year, do you mean in terms of software sales or hardware sales, or both? Do you have charts to support it? (I remember reading an article on this, showing the peaks of console sales after a certain number of years.) I ask because the 19% here refers to revenue for gaming software. 

System sales tend to peak after 3 years. If sales for the hardware slow after 3 years, then so to will the software sales.

Anyhow, I still fail to see how 20% of the total gaming software revenue is a percentage you find uninteresting, despite the peak phenomenon. I guess the charts you'll post will help me see it clearer. Now, if Apple had won say 60% of total revenue, would you still maintain your argument?

19% is relative. 19% in 2004 (when the systems launched) is different then 2009 (when they are getting less software and are declining). So I don't think Apple is preforming that well. Also, look at the number of games they have. Compair the last time you heard of an iPhone game everyone had to have and compair that with a DS game or a Wii game (or even a game on the HD twins).

Of course, Apple will never have 60% of a market they don't compete in.

Anyway, I'll suggets 2 interpretations of the scenario in the quote:

1. Apple increased the total market revenue from r to R, and embodies the difference. Here, Apple steals future/undiscovered market from Nintendo/Sony and can be seen as indirect competition.

Or,

2. Apple gobbled up a piece of revenue r from Nintendo/Sony. In this case, Apple is a direct competitor to Nintendo.

(or a mix of both)

What is your take on it?

Neither will happen. What is going to drive Apple as a competitor is software. Software, software software. now, Apple wants to be competitive, but they think just because they release it, it can be successful. No. It must have software. While third parties came make software for it (and boy do they want to), it will always be the first party outings that will make the system. Until Apple can compete with Nintendo's software (which Microsoft and Sony can't even do) then they will not be a competior.

So far, there is little evidence that they can compete. hey've gotten less then a fifth of the market in a slow season. Let's see how they do with a new syste, launch.

Although this sounds mean, you dont actually. My major let's me know how all of the formulars work and how the reports interact. I also know a little bit about business. Being a software engineer does not mean you know games, and this may be your problem.

Video games are actually not in the technology business. They are in the entertainment business. They compete with movies, books and music. Now, video games are reliant on technology, but they are not in the technology business themselves. Apple is in the technology business. They do not make products to entertain. They make products to do a set job. They make iPod so you can listen to music. They make iPhone so you can call people. And as Apple, they put a twist on it to make it easier to use and intergrate into people's lives better. But, they do not make the entertainment for those products. Nintendo actually makes the entertainment for their systems. Until Apple can make entertainment on the iPhone, they can not compete with Nintendo. Apple is in the technology business, so they don't know the first thing about entertaining you. They make the product and the entertainment flows in (iPod worked so well because there is so much music. They just needed to make an music device that worked).

The reason I point this out is because it's a huge misconception about video games. People who think about technology think Nintendo and Apple compete. To them, it makes sense. They are both in the technology business right? Well, no, they are not. Video games are heavily integrated with technology, but they are not technology focused (remember that Reggie said that technology is a tool).

I dunno about you, still my MBP does entertain me sometimes :P

I'm not sure what it's referring to but "margins have nothing to do with a business model"?  I may be taking it out of context or missing something but that's just bad business.

Anothing thing to figure out is the % Apple gets vs the % Nintendo gets vs the % PSP gets, and the total revenue generated from the sale of third and first parties.

This is where business model comes in... does Nintendo / SONY need to focus on selling more games or consoles?
The Iphone won't die if the app store suddenly stops selling games, but would the PSP die if developers stopped making games for it?

A business model is just how the company makes money. Selling burgers is a business model.

Also, AGAIN with the precents. They are not comparable. The amount they take is importaint.

The rest is immaterial.