TabLife – RIM PlayBook Impressions (w/Video)

I was fortunate enough (thanks to Rogers) to attend the TabLife conference at Rogers Headquarters last week. I knew David Neale would be there (and I was looking forward to it having seen him in a panel discussion at NEXTmedia earlier in the week) but I didn’t know he had two PlayBooks with him.

While there was no opportunity for hands-on (RIM isn’t letting anyone touch it) we did get a lengthily video demo, here are some of my brief impressions:

- Wow – is it ever thin. Running a dual-core Cortex A9 SoC, having a pretty sizable battery, as well as far more I/O ports than what’s out there right now, one would expect this thing to be pretty thick, especially for gen 1 hardware – quite the opposite. From a distance I’d say it fell somewhere around half an inch thick. It’s also a nice size – 7″ looks quite manageable, especially when it’s in a package that’s far more elegant (and slimmer) than the Galaxy Tab.

- Application Management - While I realize this could change quite quickly and nothing presented was final, I’m not entirely sure why they would occupy as much of the screen as they have with access to application groups. They have a traditional app launcher view that shrinks down when launching programs, you’ll see from the video below that the single row appears quite large on the 7″ display (or maybe I’m just losing it?…). The single row application scrolling was grouped by category, which seemed handy, I just hope we’ll be able to create new categories when the device is finalized. (A very small gripe, I know).

- 1080p playback. Neale did a brief demo of some 1080p content playback on the device – from what I saw it was incredibly smooth, playing back even in the task manager view.

- Multi-tasking. Neale was switching between running programs with ease thank to the touch sensitive bezel, flicking up revealed running applications, switching between them was fluid – the whole process seemed very organic/natural. The task management seems to be a cross between WebOS (gestures/live view/cards) and Symbian (tile view).

- The Browser. The browser for the PlayBook is apparently ported over from the Torch. Neale demonstrated loading up the (often heavy) Rogers home page. It was at this point Neale told the audience that the browser wasn’t yet optimized for dual-core (it was only running on one) so we wouldn’t see any of the speed benefits that will be present in the final device.

Thoughts (ramblings):

At the end of the day, I came away impressed. It’s honestly a little strange to see a company like RIM (one that hasn’t really been known in recent years for being a pioneer in the industry) develop something like the PlayBook. It doesn’t feel like a RIM product, and I think that’s a good thing, especially given that many consumers are going to walk into the tablet market device agnostic; Honeycomb, Android, iOS and WebOS tablets are sure to be quite prevalent in 2011.

But the consumer market is only half the battle for RIM (maybe even less) as David Neale made quite clear during his talk that the company is focusing first and foremost on enterprise deployment. Neale made a point to talk security, since the PlayBook will make use of tethering for viewing BES accounts (Calendar, Contacts, Wireless Access, etc) on the tablet from your BlackBerry – apparently once disconnected from tethering, everything you were accessing from your BlackBerry on the tablet will disappear. This kind of security play is going to be the main differentiating factor that they’re going to draw on when they launch. The security aspects of the device, from the company that wrote the book on device security, will likely pay dividends in the enterprise sector.

The one last thing I came away thinking about: is RIM rewriting the rules of the tablet game by having this device so tightly integrated with their core offering (BlackBerry)? If this kind of functionality takes off, especially in enterprise deployment, how will the iPad compete? Currently, the iPad exists as a standalone device, a third pillar. Neale was quick to point out that they don’t want to be a third pillar, they see their tablet as something that will, hopefully one day, replace the need for many of their customers to carry a laptop at all – many have found this with their iPad’s, however, it is far from being as integrated/somewhat reliant on other iOS devices as PlayBook is with BlackBerry. I think we’re going to see a similar adoption case with PlayBook as we did with BlackBerry; starts out Enterprise and breaks through to consumer (albeit with a little more momentum this time as the PlayBook does carry the BlackBerry branding).

2011 is going to be an interesting year!

http://vimeo.com/17618951

Toronto Samsung Galaxy S Launch – Thoughts…

Last week Samsung put on a free concert @ Union Station featuring Metric – the entire event was branded – a rep came out to tell everyone about the event and about the handset…I think that:

• Branding it was enough…
• The event should be more about brand visibility, the idea of being given a company line (while Samsung had the best of intentions) doesn’t gel well with young concert goers.
• Control the message – at a certain point WOM took over any controlled message Samsung had put out through its media channels – the message was that Metric was playing – hence I think that company/brand image here is the big win (just being there) – not telling people that the reason they’re playing is because Samsung paid them to play – instead associating the brand with the band – putting the product out there and letting people draw their own conclusions.
• Samsung should have had reps in the crowd with the product so that those who want to give it a try could – or should have planned forward – many concert goers came via TTC or GO Train from out of town – having reps in the station with promo materials OR even just buying up advertising space (budget permitting) in the station for the day, bathrooms or trains could have gone a long way to pushing the message even further.

That said was the event a failure? – NO – absolutely not – Samsung got favourable coverage in the press, they branded the stage to the point where most who watched the show will associate Galaxy S with the Samsung brand and it went off without incident.

Does it hurt credibility when company rep’s get boo’d off of a stage? Does it damage the message? What do you think? Comment below.

Video courtesy of Mobile Syrup.

iPhone 4G Leak – Real? Fake?

I don’t like bringing attention to rumors but – Engadget’s story late last night involving pictures posted by a guy that found an iPhone prototype on the floor of a San Jose bar was understandably met with criticism and since then it’s gone from real to fake to real again. From the looks of it the iPhone has had quite the face lift; flat back, circular buttons and joints (which is a little strange considering Apple’s design philosophy as of late)!

Image from Engadget post “iPhone 4G Proof”

For me, it’s still up in the air – MacRumors claimed that some guy bought one in a Japanese KIRF phone market – not sure how that links up with a bar in San Jose? I’m not going to comment any further because any info we have at this point is only coming from one source. Either way it should be interesting to see how it all plays out.

Original Story: Engadget

Follow up: MacRumors

Update: iPhone 4G tear-down – via MacRumors

Update 2: John Gruber Weighs In – via Engadget

Update 3: It’s confirmed – Gizmodo had been sitting on the “San Jose” model for a week prior to posting it today, they’ve taken it apart and confirmed that the guts are Apple. I have to say I like the design, seams don’t bother me and I’m glad they got rid of the chrome border! Story is here.

Video:

Content Creation & Consumption: iPad & Courier

For Sean:

As new details and video’s of Microsoft’s Courier leaked for the second time last month, people started noticing – which is great – but people also started comparing it to the iPad – which is wrong – so I figured I would make my case as to why the two devices won’t be competing with each other.

This all comes down to two new terms in the world of portable devices, two terms that have become more prevalent due to the nature of the devices these manufacturers are releasing; content creation and content consumption. While is may not be totally black and white, I believe the Courier is geared more towards content creation, as highlighted in their video’s. The iPad, more toward content consumption, eveident from the material highlighted in Steve Job’s throne speech in January and also from the wealth of information posted on Apple’s own product page.

I’m not rooting for one or the other, I haven’t used either of the devices and information on Courier is scant to say the least – here goes.

Design Basics

The iPad is a slate (or tablet – a term everyone seems to have forgotten about) design, the Courier is a foldable, folio style device – obviously quite different, and visually it’s quite obvious what usage situations the designers had in mind when creating them.

The iPad is meant for causal use, it’s Apple’s take on the netbook and in world of Apple (and as Tested.com’s Will Smith would tell you) it pretty much is an Apple netbook. It’s meant to be used in the lap, casually – Apple doesn’t expect you to be doing any hardcore computing on this device because, aside from the fact that you probably couldn’t (can’t lay it flat on a table and without multi-tasking it just isn’t going to be as productive as an actual PC or Mac desktop/laptop interface) it’s a third pillar, not quite your laptop, not quite your desktop.

The Courier on the other hand is a book design, a very small book design (which according to Engadget measures only 5×7 when closed), meant to replace your note pad, day timer/anything you write on. It’s an ambitious concept and design, one which tries to get us to rethink how we use a touch based device – that admits that there’s still room for a stylus in our life if it’s doing something useful and replacing something we do on a daily basis.

The more you look at the physical differences of the two products, the more apparent the usage situations, something that the concept videos for Courier (located at the bottom of the Engadget post) and product videos for iPad, do admirable job of communicating.

Interface Fundamentals

The iPad uses a capacitive touch based screen, that only responds to the touch of a finger (due to its capacitive nature). The Courier uses some sort of hybrid resistive/capacitive screen that allows both finger and stylus (it looks like it’s going to ship with a pen) use. For a while, I thought that a company called TouchCo was probably supplying the screen tech, however in February the NYTimes reported that TouchCo had been bought by Amazon, supposedly to use the tech in their next Kindle. Now I’m not so sure, perhaps a licensing agreement or maybe Microsoft has it’s own thing going – in any case either it’s a hybrid screen or Microsoft has figured out how to get a pen input working on capacitive displays.

The interface on the iPad (something 99% of us are quite familiar with), similar to that of the iPhone/iPod Touch, is basically a big application launcher, with icons for programs that open one at a time, easy to get around, clean layout, nuff said.

The interface of the Courier borrows elements from Windows Phone 7 Series and Zune HD OSs’, which makes some sense since the it’s rumored to be based on the Windows CE kernel and run Tegra hardware (a la Zune HD) – anyways – the device clearly puts more of an emphasis on creation rather than consumption, in many cases, utilizing one screen for menu selection and the other as a notepad, scrapbook, journal, etc. To comment further would be to make stuff up as beyond the screen shots and the concept video’s, not much else is known.

Usage Situations

The iPad is positioned as a third pillar – for when the situation calls for slightly more than what your iPhone is capable of but not quite as much as your MacBook. It’s something that people would (largely) be stationary with, something to relax with, something that has a large enough screen to keep your attention longer and make usage over longer periods of time easier than your iPhone and makes relatively simple tasks like viewing your calendar or surfing the web easy and accessible (no start up time, easier viewing angle, simple access).

To me, the iPad, doesn’t come off as something one would easily use in a public setting. It’s size means you’re bringing a bag with you to hold it, it’s angular back means you won’t be using it on a table and it’s large on-screen keyboard says you’re not going to get any serious work done on it. But serious work is not what you’re buying this for (see above paragraph). The iPad is a simple, easy on device that makes accessing App’s, the web, play/purchase various kinds of media, view files and view my calendar/email – easy – in other words it’s a great content consumption device and definitely has a place in our lives (if you’ll let it in).

The Courier should be aimed at the “on the go” crowd, young professionals, people who have the bag space to store a small device that can replace their organizer or note pad and minimize the amount of times they have to use their phone or laptop in tandem with the device. In many way’s it comes off as being more of an evolution of the PDA than it does a derivative of a netbook or cellphone. Due to it’s size and appearance, this is not going to be touted as a “couch gadget”, something Apple highlights in every single ad/walkthrough for iPad; this is something you use while being productive and something that is focused on helping you complete tasks through out the day – it’s also something you would put down when you get home, as you switch to something like a laptop or tablet device.

The  Bottom Line…

The bottom line here is that these devices are not intended for the same usage situations. I’d be willing to bet that the idea of the two devices competing in the same space hasn’t crossed very many people’s minds but confusion is bound to happen to some. The iPad leans heavily on an App/Book/Music and Movie marketplace, features finger input that makes hand writing impossible and a keyboard that doesn’t look like it’s going to be very friendly when it comes to hammering out your next report. But that’s fine – it’s not supposed to be.

And with the very small amount of information we have on the Courier, it’s clear to see that we’re looking at a very different device, one that will be aimed at an entirely different demographic than the iPad and used in content creation heavy situations, where notes need to be taken quickly, content heavy emails can be created and sent on the fly and a second screen can be used as a viewable clipboard.

Personally, I can’t wait for both of the devices to hit the market, I want both of them and I think that there is a place for both in my life. So much innovation pouring out of Apple and Microsoft these days, I can’t wait to see what’s next.

Canwest Bets on Pure Pwnage

Canwest announced recently that they are bringing the popular web show Pure Pwnage to Showcase, hoping that its web success can reach a new audience on TV. It’s interesting that Canwest/ShowCase is trying this (I guess Canwest is a little desperate as of late) – I would worry about disenfranchising my web audience (could be viewed as a sell out).

Not having seen the show before, I decided to watch an excerpt, the stand up routine, on purepwnage.com which consisted of some lame StarCraft jokes – I just don’t find any of it very funny, which is neither here nor there – but for my age group, and those into the same hobbies (gaming, tech, computers) who are, coincidently, the only crowd that’s going to understand moments like the stand up routine, I think they’re missing the mark.

The content cross over is very interesting, if Pure Pwnage ends up being a success (at this point I’m not so sure), we might see other media giants do the same – which would lend more legitimacy to web tv projects.

In any case, it should be interesting to see what comes of it.

Full Steam Ahead

Yesterday Valve revealed it’s plan to bring its much lauded Steam platform to OS-X. Yesterday the Mac took its first big step to becoming a viable gaming platform. The deal will see Valve launch the service for Mac this year with it’s Half Life and Left For Dead franchises in tow, as well as a Valve first; a multi platform launch for Portal 2. What does this mean for gamers? For one, it means that there will be more of them; the install base of current gen Macs alone would be able to run Source Engine based games with relative ease, not to mention every MacBook Pro dating back to 2006. What does it mean for Apple and it’s OS-X platform? For new buyers, yet another reason to go for a Mac, for current owners, a great value-add for their platform of choice.

Is it fair to draw any comparisons between Steam’s future Mac audience and its current audience on PC or the PC gaming industry in general? In all actuality it’s probably too early to even speculate (on platform adoption but something I’ll comment on a few months after launch) but it does raise some interesting questions.

If a service such as this succeeds in attracting AAA titles to the platform, will we see better Mac hardware? Upgradable Mac hardware? Will other niche products such as external video cards attract a new audience? Will increased interest and “multi-platform” games result in fewer graphically impressive titles? Will Mac attract the same audience as PC or will OS-X become the new home of the causal gamer? Perhaps they are looking to balance both groups of users with features like cloud syncing, something that lets the user play a game on their PC and pick up where they left off on their Mac, while at the same time synching info like game saves, game preferences (in game settings) and stats.

I’m not going to answer any of these questions today, partly because the service hasn’t launched yet; I don’t know the answers. However, it is interesting to think that what we may be witnessing here could change the the face of computer gaming, the Mac platform and Steam forever.

WIND Blows…

WIND Mobile formally announced their pricing plan today and many praised it, including Boy Genius Report.

**DISCLAIMER**

Now I have absolutely nothing but love for BGR, a well known fact amongst those who know me, and I love the fact that they care enough about the small percentage of their readers who reside in Canada to cover changes in the Canadian wireless industry, but I would tend to disagree with the article titled “How WIND Mobile changed Canada in less than 24 hours.” Please keep in mind that I am among the pissed off group of Canadians who long for the kind of wireless carrier that is common place in Europe, who long for real competition – I’m not just out to put WIND down and I can see where BGR is coming from but I want to see something significant, not half-assed.

Until today little was known about WIND and its price plans and hardware, they had been promising, for quite some time, to shake up the wireless industry to change the way that customers viewed their cellular company and alter what Canadians view as a reasonable contract term. Unfortunately, none of these things happened today and the Canadian wireless industry remains, for the most part, unchanged.

First off, what most consumers switching to WIND won’t know is that the handset they’re buying is running on the AWS spectrum (Advanced Wireless Spectrum) which, unless you own a second home in the US that is privy to good T-Mobile coverage, isn’t going to be worth a thing to the average consumer who decides to migrate carriers when they’re through with WIND. When I say ‘not worth a thing’ I mean that users will not be able to utilize the advanced features on their device, for instance on the BlackBerry 9700, not being able to use 3G, when you knowingly paid more for 3G on a Blackberry, is going to be annoying. In the same way that CDMA was, previous to now, the bastard wireless standard of Canada, we now have the 1700mhz AWS spectrum to take its place.

Next – the handset line-up:

**As quoted from the official WIND Blog**

BlackBerry Bold 9700 ……. $450

HTC Maple ………………….. $300

Samsung Gravity 2 ……….. $150

Huawei U7519 ……………… $130

Huawei E181 data stick…….$150

The price for the BlackBerry Bold 9700 is very reasonable, for no contract pricing. The same handset on Rogers is $599, $649 on Telus, and $599.95 on Bell. A part of me wonders, because the same handset, bought on Rogers, Bell or Telus (and unlocked), could be used seamlessly with all three carriers as all are operating on the 850 HSPA band. However, you would have no where to go (for 3G) if you paid $450 for your 9700 on WIND. When traveling to the U.S. one would have to rely on what many would call one of the weakest networks present in America today; T-Mobile.

Next up the HTC Maple aka the HTC Snap (S522) aka the Dash from T-Mobile – now this one really puzzles me – why would I, confronted with options from other carriers, for example, the Nokia E71 on Telus for $329.99 no contract (regarded by many to be a superior phone, with better build quality, features and a slightly less annoying OS), why would I opt for the HTC Maple at $300? Again, a completely useless handset if one were to venture away from the carrier, and clearly much better value exists on Telus. For $100 more on Rogers the LG Eve – an Android handset, offers significantly better value and, you guessed it, could be used on any other carrier in Canada (with full functionality) except WIND. These $30 – $100 price gaps with competing handsets on Rogers and Telus could theoretically be closed at any time, bringing superior handsets to the same WIND pricing level.

I won’t touch on the T-Mobile Tap…err…I mean the Huawei U7519 or the Samsung Gravity 2 – they’re cheap feature phones that have gotten pretty decent reviews from both users and publications and the prices fall in around what one would pay for a much lesser phone on Pre-Paid with any of the big 3 carriers.

I also won’t get into the fact that no one is going to be able to use their iPhone on this network (at least not with full functionality), I suppose if T-Mobile is ever successful in getting Apple to build one with a radio for their network it could work out – although I shudder when I think of what the pricing would be.

I would like to draw some attention to the FAQ’s section on the WIND Mobile site:

Quoting – Question: Do I have to buy a WIND phone at WIND Mobile or can I use my unlocked phone? Answer: Yes, at this time you must buy a WIND phone to access service at WIND Mobile Canada. That may change in the future though, so stay tuned.

It would have been a good move for WIND to try to attract as many “unlockers” as possible, especially in Southern Ontario – a place that has more imported phone shops than anywhere else I’ve been. Imagine how great it would be to unlock the full potential of a Nokia N900, currently not supporting the 850 band on HSPA. Many of these imported phones (obviously NOT the N900) can be purchased for around the same price of WIND’s current top tier phones- shouldn’t this be encouraged? They certainly aren’t making a lot of money from their handset sales. And what about feature phone, non-3G users who want to switch from one of the big three carriers? Shouldn’t WIND be grabbing them by any means necessary?

Where WIND does succeed – the plans associated with 3G sticks for laptops – for $55 a potential customer can get into unlimited data (not capped but slowed significantly after 5GB), all that’s required is that they buy the stick for $150. The plan is to be applauded, however, the stick is only 7.2mbps. Sticks from the competition are all 21mbps HSPA+ (Bell is pretty decent value at $174.95) and while we’re never going to see a full 21mbps down over 3G, the stick you buy can mean the difference between 1mbps and 5mbps down, which translates to happier customers as they attempt to download, surf full html pages and stream videos on their laptops. The price though, is pretty compelling at $55 while the big 3 all sit at $85 for a capped 5GB plan, plus a commitment term of one year unless, with the exception of Bell’s stick, you want to shell out over $200.

What we witnessed this week wasn’t a revolution, it was more of the same – just another extreme. Instead of a three year contract, we get no contract but a limited phone selection at prices no consumer in Canada is going to easily swallow and on a HSPA band that no other carrier in Canada supports. The big three didn’t get competition because WIND isn’t technically competing in the same space, WIND isn’t big enough to get exciting exclusives (cough iPhone, Storm, Pre) hell, T-Mobile isn’t, and as hardware selection is the biggest pull for the average Canadian consumer in choosing a carrier (let’s face it most of the price plans across the big three carriers are roughly the same – they have no choice) it starts to look more and more like WIND doesn’t really have much of a platform to stand on.

Real change would have been truly interesting AWS compatible handsets (they do exist) and a maximum term of two years (to reduce hardware cost, while still creating a shift in the industry), alongside WIND’s already excellent price plans and no hidden fees – similar to the stance that T-Mobile is taking in the US right now. Alternatively, why not create a system whereby users have payment options, similar to Telus’ Koodo service.

For WIND to be a success in their current state there would need to be a massive change in how consumers view their cell phones and how much they think they’re worth. Consumers have always been able to buy contract free hardware from the big three, just at a greater expense and all the while the carriers have been racking up contract terms. At the end of the day, what makes this so different?

We now have more competition in Canada, which is what BGR was getting at and that’s a good thing in the long term but right now it’s pretty meaningless. The WINDs of change are clearly still a long way off in the Canadian wireless industry.

Nokia + Android = No

It was reported over the weekend that Nokia was working on an Android handset set to be unveiled at a conference in September. Everyone was quick to jump on the Symbian hater train and root for the other team, however, today Nokia announced that,

“Absolutely no truth to this whatsoever, everyone knows that Symbian is our preferred platform for advanced mobile devices.”

This, of course, makes sense seeing as how they have just spent hundreds of millions of dollars completing their acquisition of Symbian and all of the man hours they’ve spent bringing the platform to maturity not only for non-touch phones but also (more recently) for touch, on handsets like the N97 and 5800 Express.

All of this does bring an interesting question to the surface though, can Nokia continue being the world leader in hardware sales without a competitive OS? Just imagine for a moment that Nokia is Victor Frankenstien and Symbian is the monster, minus all of the violence that ensued in the real story, Nokia has been keeping Symbian alive with menial updates; a system that was never intended for touch has been patched up to a some what functioning state on the N97. Delivering a “multi-media device” that can’t even play common video formats out of the box is no way to sell a product.

Another problem; the hardware. It’s not the build quality (something that Nokia is legendary for), its the parts that are used. Most people that have used an N97 will tell you that the slow downs are quite annoying and can’t understand why Nokia would use such a slow processor (relative to the competition; only 434mhz) in their flagship device. Nokia penchant for resistive touch screens is also becoming a problem, in a market place full of fresh faces and ideas – HTC Hero, Apple iPhone, Palm Pre – that all use capacitive touch screens and modern OS’s, Nokia’s offerings pale in comparison.

I’m really not trying to hate on Nokia, in fact I love them – a love that started all the way back when bought my first smart-phone, a Nokia 6620. Since then I’ve been through Symbian (6620 and E61), Palm (680), Apple and Win Mo 6.5 and I have to say that none of them fully deliver (the latter especially) what they promise to, but all of them bring unique ideas to the table and deliver really well in some key areas.

Palm got it, they released WebOS – Apple gets it, constantly listening and updating OSX, hell, even Win Mo gets it with 6.5 and the oft rumored but never shown Win Mo 7 – but Nokia, they’re sleeping right now – innovation is key, changing it up not staying the course, this isn’t a storm to be weathered, the mobile space is ever evolving, every day further integrating itself into our every day lives and if Nokia doesn’t wake up, I honestly fear that a once devoted user base (I guess Europe?) will leave for greener pastures. Build quality is sadly only one part of the product that tomorrows mobile leaders will focus on; let’s all hope that Maemo is the change that Nokia’s future market share and customer base are craving.

The Future of Gaming?

The gaming world was set ablaze this week with news of a device that could revolutionize the way we play games and think of distribution/the hardware we use to play. The company OnLive is set to offer 720p streaming of PC games over broadband and while this does raise the usual questions I have regarding any kind of streaming base services, especially in Canada, such as ohhh…monthly data caps – (the average account with Rogers gives you 60GB/month) the idea itself is intriguing. The idea of cloud computing is a popular one these days, with every company from Apple to Micorosft to Google offering up ideas and services that would take advantage of it. Up until recently however, it’s all been about storage, pulling information stored on the “cloud” down to whatever device you want to use it on, backing up files and documents that you can access anywhere in the world, or in M$’s case talk about designing a cloud OS for years and never deliver.

So the service would ask you to pay a set fee to access it, something similar to Xbox Live’s monthly/yearly fee, you would then pay for access to games which would then be streamed down over any computer with an internet connection- allowing you to play any game (even Crysis) on something as poorly spec’d as a NetBook. Users of the service would also have the option of buying a small set top box that would interface with their TV set (over HDMI), the box would also have an optical out, NIC and 2 USB ports – All for $200 USD

This all sounds really cool, especially if you’re not the type to build or upgrade your own computer, BUT aside from the hardware price advantages are we going to see OnLive create some incentive to purchase these games? Similar to my feelings on Steam (which I love and will one day write about), when are we going to see game prices reflect the real cost of delivery to the end user? Are we going to see pricing specific to the region the games are being sold in? If you’ve eliminated the middle- man (delivery, hell even the publisher in some cases), shouldn’t the cost savings be passed along to the consumer; since they’re, in some ways, not receiving anything tangible in the exchange? I’m hoping gamers will soon see at least a ten-dollar-off incentive for purchasing online over brick and mortar alternatives.

Also, wouldn’t this take all the fun out of PC building? I know, for myself, that the feeling of pride that comes from upgrading or building a PC that’s able to take advantage of the latest PC game was always part of the fun of using a PC in the first place – not to mention you learned something along the way. Only time will tell if this will take hold; if the community will embrace it or if console manufacturers will copy it. Frankly, I see this turning out to be a licensed technology for use in future game consoles rather than a widely adopted new way of gaming – however the service does have the attention of some of the top game studios and publishers in North America. In the end, whatever shape it takes, it will hopefully continue to do what similar content distribution services are doing on the web and on consoles – encourage creativity and move the industry forward.

Really Sony?

So say you’ve got this game console that showed up late to the party and was being outsold by your two major competitors (whether you view them as compeditors or not). It’s been rough and you’ve had to swallow some major debt in order to get it to its current point on the market but things are looking up! A major disc format is slowly taking off and more and more people are starting to look at the media advantages of owning your console, you’re just missing one thing…a ton of quality games.

Fast forward to February 28th, 2009 – what is arguably one of the most important game launches since your console came to the scene is about to happen – certainly one of the most important of this fiscal year – specifically you’re trying to prove that you can compete with FPS games from the other players – at least one made by a company that rhymes with Fungie.

NOW – present day, your marketing department is trying desperatly to build some hype for this game, one would think that you would try and get a single/multi demo ready for atleast a month before launch and that you would want as many people as is humanly possible to see the game, play it, and start loving it ASAP. But no, you go with, what I can only assume netted you some cash, an exclusivity deal for the demo with GameStop. Bad idea – and while it may net you some cash and pre-orders in the interim – putting a price on a demo for a franchise name you’re trying to build up is never a good idea.

One would think that Sony might be looking for past examples of great franchise marketing that resulted in the creation of a system mover. Forinstance maybe Microsoft? When the original Xbox launched, Microsoft had zero respect in the console game – they moved the console by promoting its harware capabilities and putting demo stations everywhere for games like Halo (which is now one of the biggest, most recognized game franchises in the world) and made sure everyone knew about its online capabilities. Sony, when you think about it is in the same position that Microsoft was in when the first Xbox launched in November of 2001, they have a higher price point than the competition and the competition is running away with sales and head starts – the same kind that the PS2 had back in 2001.

Bottom line – all of this is related – either Sony start upping the ante and generate some hype for their big games; give people the chance to have some hand on time with this game, get them wanting more and the rest should fall into place – OR continue to be as lazy as possible in trying to reach people – SELL demo’s and ignore past lessons in console launching. Why not right? It’s a “10 year Console” after all?