endimion wrote:

apple is a trend joke... that has no real power and no real value.... XB will go open source before it follows any business model from apple.... being profitable with less than 10% market share is not a prowess it's the strict minimum to still exist..... 

According to a recent news by BBC, Apple is now bigger than Microsoft.

(source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10168684) 

How does a trend joke become bigger than what has 'real power and real value'. So I don't see any problem if Microsoft follows Apple's trend. In fact they followed throughout the history, with the mouse, with graphical user interface in the operating system and now with everything the Vista and 7 offers are only by following Apple.

It's called PC ;)

Open Source is the future.

that's what I had in mind when reading this.

and it recoups the " you can still make calls idea" on the iphone comparison. Lifecycles are different and the competition is a lot more varied and dynamic.

In this generation we've seen:

• 4 different HDD sizes.
• A completely revamped OS with an entirely new look and feel.
• Major new Live features.
• A completely new exterior to the console.
• A completely new way to play games was launched for the console.

How much of the Xbox 360 as it is today completely alien to the box which was launched 5 years ago? It's arguably the most changed console in the current console generation. Now how much of what has happened to the Xbox 360 in the long run negatively effected the Xbox 360 as a game console? If you can agree that the current state of Xbox 360 evolution was positive then you can also agree that console evolution during a hardware generation is a good thing. Now every action they've taken has been weighted with supporting evidence and followed up afterwards, so if they do or have already decided to follow even more rapid console evolution it will be because they believe it will make them more profitable which is in the end satisfying their target audience.

The idea of monolithic console hardware has to end because they cannot satisfy their entire target market with the one box anymore. Some will absolutely not pay higher prices, some will want higher performance, some won't play games, some will only play games and avoid multimedia and some will not want to buy one because it lacks the user experience that they would desire at launch. The Xbox 360 reflects evolution but it also reflects the fact that its tearing away in different directions and they need to satisfy all present 360 target markets and more than that. We all know that a hot expensive box which has a -$200 margin isn't going to fly and nor will a $600 box. So what follows is Apples model of coming out with a core box which does the basics right and then expand on that with frequent hardware and software revisions whilst satisfying those whom have the highest needs as well as those who only want the basic experience.

Android and iOS are as comparable as Linux and PS3.

The iOS platform was specifically developed for the iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch line of Apple manufactured devices. It has springboarded Apple from having a total marketshare of 0% in those fields, to the dominant position in the electronics market that they currently have.

Android is an open source platform, it is not tied to any device, anyone who wishes to run it on a capable device can do so. Android "blowing iOS out of the water" is a very misleading statement, as Apple continuing to expand their market, with each successive release being more successful than the last. Android is mostly serving as an up to date Smartphone platform to replace the older and out of date BREW, Java, and Linux platforms used by Samsung, Sony Ericsson, LG, HTC, etc...

Essentially, Apple is expanding their position in the mobile market place. Companies using Android are using it to replace older OS's; in other words, the marketshare for the companies manufacturing Android phones already existed. While Android devices are competing against Apple, they are also competing against each other; they are not some unified Android front that have combined forces to "blow Apple out of the water".

It would work if they did it right, and DID NOT make sega's mistakes. You need a reason to upgrade day one. Then again, if you implying yearly or even biyearly revisions that require the purchase of a new console, I do not think that it would be as successful as that of the mobile markets releases because of the price of which it would cost for these constant upgrades and the looming possibility that the consumer would believe that their money would be better spent on software, but it would still be successful in the sense it would constantly be producing new consumers, and occassionaly sucking money out of old consumers who want to upgrade. Essentially, Microsoft gets around 2 console sales per consumer which is never bad for Microsoft, but horrendous imo for consumers. Lastly, Microsoft would have to make sure their profit of each console is relatively high. Through multiple console iterations, they could possibly be stunting their software sales,which could actually cause them to make less money. This is why I think they would be releasing MAJOR revisions biyearly(at the earliest), if at all.

This is a different argument then what you present in the OP though, to me at least. The 360 has evolved, but not in a way where your launch unit isn't on par with anything new. It's more noisy, and if you have an old unit without storage you may not have room for the OS updates, but on the whole, there's nothing your old 360 can't do that your new 360 can. There's no game that can take advantage of any new features that makes a game unplayable on a launch unit compared to an S unit.

And that's the difference with game consoles and Apple's strategy. When people buy a game console, they expect it to recieve continued support and a bunch of games they can play in the long run. Smartphones don't have as long a lifespan as game consoles, and if Microsoft did yearly hardware revisions that would alienate old users, they would lose more customers than they would gain.

Comparing iOS to games consoles is very much a comparison of apples and oranges.

It's a supplement argument!

Compare a launch console with 20GB and the old operation system to the same price in hardware from today. You've got 20GB vs 250GB of space, vastly more reliable console, new operating system, Kinect etc. Just because it performs similar functions and plays most of the same games doesn't mean it hasn't evolved.

What basis do you have for people to actually become alienated in a real sense as opposed to loud mouth internet whiners just making a bunch of noise? Noone is forced to buy a new revision of an Apple device for instance so why would people feel compelled to buy a new revision of a console unless it actually offered them something they wanted which the current console they had didn't? I didn't even say that they would offer yearly revisions, just that they could offer them as frequently as that. Most likely every two years or every three years would be the right frequency.

Number 4 and thats because Nokia is stupid and switched from their own phones to WP7. Otherwise it would be #5.

Order will be (till not competitor comes on board) iOS, Android, Blackberry, WP7, whatever "dumb phones" use.

You know, I wish more linux distros made smartphone OSs. Things would get interesting.