It is XBox 360 time again! I am one of those gamers who couldn't get his hands on this shiny new gaming machine. So you could call it a rant from a disgruntled gamer. But now that I have done some thinking around the whole thing, I see many signs of how MS executed (executing) it so badly. So here are my points:
1. Does supply does meet demand?: Microsoft set launch date and I am fairly certain that it predicted the demand as well. But it failed to provide adequate supply of units for the holidays. It has been a month since the launch and I still don't see this damn thing on the store shelves.
2. Make hay while sun shines: This season is the best time of the year when people make impluse buys or not worry about spending their dollars that much (I sure is one of them) or want to gift someone that hottest items in the market to their loved ones. It failed to capitalize on this sentiment or momentum. What is the point of building the hype when there is nothing to benefit on it?
3. Why lose money when you don't have to?: The hardware isn't making money for Microsoft as this story goes. If the demand is so high, why wouldn't/shouldn't it make some money out of these things? I would have expected the initial pricing to be higher so that only the core gamers and people could afford can buy them. Would it have had the effect of reduced sales? I don't think so. I see people buying/selling these things at a minimum of $600 and as high as $1500. I have even made offers to the extent of $675 for a $399 system and was turned down. I would rather see the Microsoft and its shareholders make money out of this demand rather than the people on ebay or others.
4. Why buy the old? If the hype is so high and the demand is so high, why would anyone want to buy the old XBox or its games? In fact, retailers like Bestbuy reported that their game sales is down as much as 12%
5. Why bite more than you can swallow?: Microsoft made another big mistake by setting simultaneous worldwide launch (USA, Europe & Japan) when it couldn't even handle the demand in USA. In fact when people raised these issues prior to launch, Microsoft said it could meet the demands fine but see for yourselves.
6. When there is a choice, there will be some research: With the possibility of the supply not matching demand as late as march of 2006, I am pretty sure that some significant percentage of gamers would choose to wait for the Sony's PS3 launch which is set to second quarter of 2006. When that time comes, I am sure people are going to compare both and make informed decisions based on what they see fits them best (Price/Games/Features etc). So Microsoft has only 4 or so months before it runs into competition and the sony momentum builds. It will be a huge mistake to underestimate PS3 launch when we know what happened to PS2.
I totally see the huge mistakes and all the lost opportunities. I can't stop laughing when Microsoft talks about Asia launch!! Sure it can do it anytime. Because it is all a matter of making few thousand units available and then disappoint the gamers in the other parts of the world and then call it a hugely successful launch.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Judge rules against ‘intelligent design’
I could summarize it all in one sentance "There is still hope". Not all is lost and there are still rational and sane people living in this society. There is some hope and the country is showing signs that it not getting more conservative. I see peole questioning President on every thing from his policies to his decisions these days. This is good.
Here is the news:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/
Excerpts from the link:
During the trial, the board argued that it was trying improve science education by exposing students to alternatives to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and natural selection.
The policy required students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade lessons on evolution. The statement said Darwin’s theory is “not a fact” and has inexplicable “gaps.” It referred students to an intelligent-design textbook, “Of Pandas and People.”
But the judge said: “We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom.”
The disclaimer, he said, "singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource and instructs students to forgo scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere."
Here is the news:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/
Excerpts from the link:
During the trial, the board argued that it was trying improve science education by exposing students to alternatives to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and natural selection.
The policy required students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade lessons on evolution. The statement said Darwin’s theory is “not a fact” and has inexplicable “gaps.” It referred students to an intelligent-design textbook, “Of Pandas and People.”
But the judge said: “We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom.”
The disclaimer, he said, "singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource and instructs students to forgo scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere."
Thursday, December 01, 2005
3% is a lot. It means 1 in 33 units are defective
Microsoft claims that only 3% of the XBox 360 units sold have been faulty, which is below the industry average. (Through www.engadget.com)
Since when did 3% of defective units is acceptable. If percentage looks very small to anyone, it is 12,000 units given that 400,000 units have been sold so far. Personally, that is an aweful lot of defective units. Microsoft just can't and shouldn't extend its software standards to its hardware devices when it wants to take over the living room of every household. People expect a lot more stability and reliability from devices like these. I for one is so glad that Microsoft isn't getting into Cars (or any other appliances). 3% would be lot and I would stop driving the car when the day comes.
Many readers of the article commented along the lines of what I feel. Here are some (ofcourse I am biased here by posting only the ones that supports my view =:0)
Posted Dec 1, 2005, 4:51 PM ET by KB
I don't play video games by any means and could care less about the Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo fueds but since when did 3% of manufactured XBox's to be defective was a "good" percent? Thats actually AWFUL. Is this what U.S. quality control standards have come down to?
Posted Dec 1, 2005, 6:09 PM ET by wxrman
Aren't you glad Microsoft doesn't make heart pace makers!
Sarah/Haloman, I have taken my "product quality control" classes or whatever you want. I have interned at GE. Six sigma is 3.4 defective for every million, not 100.
Posted Dec 1, 2005, 6:13 PM ET by umrain
3% means 1 in every 33 units is bad. that sounds rather poor to me.
Since when did 3% of defective units is acceptable. If percentage looks very small to anyone, it is 12,000 units given that 400,000 units have been sold so far. Personally, that is an aweful lot of defective units. Microsoft just can't and shouldn't extend its software standards to its hardware devices when it wants to take over the living room of every household. People expect a lot more stability and reliability from devices like these. I for one is so glad that Microsoft isn't getting into Cars (or any other appliances). 3% would be lot and I would stop driving the car when the day comes.
Many readers of the article commented along the lines of what I feel. Here are some (ofcourse I am biased here by posting only the ones that supports my view =:0)
Posted Dec 1, 2005, 4:51 PM ET by KB
I don't play video games by any means and could care less about the Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo fueds but since when did 3% of manufactured XBox's to be defective was a "good" percent? Thats actually AWFUL. Is this what U.S. quality control standards have come down to?
Posted Dec 1, 2005, 6:09 PM ET by wxrman
Aren't you glad Microsoft doesn't make heart pace makers!
Sarah/Haloman, I have taken my "product quality control" classes or whatever you want. I have interned at GE. Six sigma is 3.4 defective for every million, not 100.
Posted Dec 1, 2005, 6:13 PM ET by umrain
3% means 1 in every 33 units is bad. that sounds rather poor to me.
Cable channels a la carte - Revisited
It seems FCC is having second thoughts about allowing "A La Carte" option for the consumers. That is not what I wanted to mention here. I came across this article at www.engadget.com (which is my favorite site) which made arguments which didn't make a lot of sense. First the author said the following
"..If you make a channel like say “The History Channel” stand on its own, the number of people who watch the channel would plummet. This would cause the cost of the channel to rise which would, in turn, cause the number of viewers to decrease. It’s a standard supply and demand curve and with each decrease in viewership, the loss of potential advertising revenue exacerbates the issue."
which is O.K with me. But going by the same supply-demand theory, the following cannot be true
"...The majority of cable television programming costs are due to a few select channels such as ESPN"
Based on the supply-demand, if more people prefer watching select channels, then the cost should obviously go down isn't? If I own a channel, I would price it lower so that I could have a broader reach instead of charging a premium and have few people opt it.
The other thing that I hated about the article is the author's negativity about something that hasn't been tried. Why would you oppose something that gives consumers more choices? If this new scheme fails in the market, that is a different thing. Let the market decide. What does the consumer have to lose or the cable providers have to lose because of all this? Nothing.
"..If you make a channel like say “The History Channel” stand on its own, the number of people who watch the channel would plummet. This would cause the cost of the channel to rise which would, in turn, cause the number of viewers to decrease. It’s a standard supply and demand curve and with each decrease in viewership, the loss of potential advertising revenue exacerbates the issue."
which is O.K with me. But going by the same supply-demand theory, the following cannot be true
"...The majority of cable television programming costs are due to a few select channels such as ESPN"
Based on the supply-demand, if more people prefer watching select channels, then the cost should obviously go down isn't? If I own a channel, I would price it lower so that I could have a broader reach instead of charging a premium and have few people opt it.
The other thing that I hated about the article is the author's negativity about something that hasn't been tried. Why would you oppose something that gives consumers more choices? If this new scheme fails in the market, that is a different thing. Let the market decide. What does the consumer have to lose or the cable providers have to lose because of all this? Nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)