Its completely different.

The PS1 was dead. No PSP/handheld. Sony had talked EA into not supporting Sega with the DC - and ensured a rapid death for the advanced console.

Sony had the market to themselves, a 12-month advantage, and lots of ground breaking titles hitting in the first 12 months.

In addition, it was also a DVD player - which although interesting & relevant near launch - became less and less relevant around a year after launch.

It didn't do anything else (yes, it also played CD's - wow... :>).

...

By comparison, the PS3 is a computer. Internet, DVD, BluRay, digital movies/music, TV recording, VoIP, PSP streaming, file storage, networked processing (Folding), messanger, keyboard support, USB/memory card support ... and so on.

Its almost incidental now that it also plays games.

Look at the attach rate for the PSP. Even though the hardware is selling well, software has been terrible.

In my opinion, it has been proven time and time again that all-in-one devices just don't cut it. Sony has their work cut out for them. 

The article was well-written and of its 2 main points

1. That the PS3 is becoming less focused on games, the main reason that people buy it in the first place
&

2. That Sony hasn't concentrated enough on the early adopters, to its detriment with respect to the PS3.

I disagree with both. The PS3 originally cost Sony eight or nine hundred dollars to make. If the PS3 started adding these things early on, when costs were already sky-high, they would have had an even harder time just getting off of the ground. The PS3 would have been the $700 peice of hardware that only a few people would have bought. Instead, I think that Sony wisely decided to give consumers a BD drive and the Cell, which I think gamers would want a lot more than the addone features anyway. So adding even more early on would have been a mistake.

Secondly, the article addresses Sony making the console too diversified in functions which I assume is talking about....the BD player aspect....Games.....social networking and now the FreeviewTV (in Europe) as well as the DVR (america and europe) now. Well, the 360 has many more options available to it right now, than the PS3. It also has chatbox features, matchmaking, video downloads, etc.

I think that the article is incorrectly prognosing the PS3's ills on its diversified functions instead of looking at the obvious factor, its pricing.   The important fact of the matter is that once you get a good enough GPU and CPU, Sony gets a lot more flexibility with what it can do cheaply.  The good GPU of the PS3 not only works for games but it does double duty as it will work for BD playage as well, and soon it will also be able to handle HD video with its DVR functions that has just been officially announced.   So, we are getting a wide variety of usage from this GPU....it doesn't just have to be used for games and this saves the consumer a lot by not making her buy a BD player, and a $500 Tivo, when a PS3 can do all at once.

Personally, I see confusion within there message as being a lesser concern to their unfounded belief that they can "make up the sales later" ...

Until (roughly) January 1st 2009 we can declare that the industry is in a transition phase where both developers and consumers are trying to decide which system they will support. Many (if not most) developers are in the middle of PS2 projects that will not be completed until sometime in 2008, and most gamers have yet to buy into any of the current generation consoles. The one thing that made the PS2 impossible to compete against (the massive third party support) will be leaving the PS2 in search of greener pastures=. With the sales of the PS3 only a fool would switch these development teams to focus on the PS3, and they will most likely move to the Wii.

When the PS3 finally hits $200 to $300 why will consumers choose the PS3 when the majority of the PS2 developers are on another platform?

Shocking. An expensive convergence device that isn't particularly good at its primary function (gaming) isn't succeeding in the marketplace.

How many times do companies need to learn that convergence devices aren't well-accepted by the public before they get the point? It's okay to make a convergence device, but you have to remember a few things:

1. It has to perform its primary function VERY WELL
2. It has to be reasonably priced compared to its non-convergence cousins (or very trendy and hyped, a la iPhone)
3. 90% of consumers won't use the additional features

I've been predicting a Sony crash-and-burn since E3 2006. This shouldn't be surprising anyone.

It also plays games!

Short answer: They won't. 

I really think if Sony had focused its energies into making the PS3 a better gaming console than making it a better living room center piece we might of seen the PS3 quickly gaining on the 360.  I don't know if it would of been enough to sell as fast as the Wii (no way to know that).  But I think the PS3 could of (and should of) easily bowled out of the gates stomping the 360 given its brand name appeal.  All they had to do was focus on the purpose of the unit....that would of sold me.

Obviously that is just my opinion, but the fact that I have owned a PS1 and PS2 and not an Xbox and I am still on the fence about which HD console I want to get down the road...well that doesn't bode well for Sony.  Especially since I am one of the early HDTV adopters.

I was actually hyped and ready to go with the PS3 back in mid '06.  The cell processor was hot and I was sure of what I wanted.  Then slowly but surely stupid exec comments, information about price of the unit, increased cost of games, game release schedules, production problems, and supply chain problems in general had me questioning my choice.  The big turning point was of course the concept of the Wii.  I saw a console that was going to be readily available (boy was I wrong), a console without all this negative hype surrounding it and I couldn't help but ask myself "Why buy a PS3 at launch?".  So my money went elsewhere, I got a Wii and I have been very happy with it.  The question of "When do I get my PS3?" soon turned into "Should I get a 360 or a PS3?". And I am still not sure to this day which way I am going on that issue.  Neither console has really sold me yet, to be perfectly honest both companies over the last year have had a striking resemblance to a Monkey humping a doorknob. But once again all this is just my perspective and opinion.

Anyways, /end rant.. 

thx shams for the post, interesting
I mostly agree with this piece of paper.

I still dont understand WHY, if sony possesss so many hidden games, they could not have give us some sample during this conference.
It was really a bad move ...
they should not do the same at the TGS or their christmas will be very disapointing : people that are waiting for price drop/bundle or more generally people that are interesting on PS3 (these people exist even for a 600$ console) are not completely blind and will finish by leave sony alone if Sony continue on the same direction ...

The key difference between the two is while MS has spent the year telling us that the doorknob humping rate was within acceptable limits before ultimately buying us all new doorknobs, Sony has been telling us that it's not actually a doorknob and that they're not humping it, they're merely getting to know it better and they promise to buy it a nice steak dinner once things get going in 2008.