More Junk from MS

[schticker]

Originally Posted by Shadowself

Because Microsoft is selling crap. Anyone who sells crap should be called on it. It does not matter who made it. If Apple had Lockheed Martin Skunk Works build the best possible iPod and charged $10,000 each for them and they routinely failed after 100 hours I'd still blame Apple not Lockheed.

MS is also winning.

Look at the battery fiasco of last year. I feel that Apple and Dell and a host of others are at fault every bit as much as (and maybe more so than) Sony. Sony shipped defective batteries but it was an inherently flawed design for which Sony should be blamed. Putting that flawed design in their computers is Apple's, Dell's and other's fault, not Sony's.

It's not up to other companies to independently test for months the quality of a simple device--especially a battery. Christ, I would think they would trust Sony to do that correctly.

You "earn" exclusivity when a developer independently of the console vendor decides it is in their best interest to be exclusive. This is rarely the case. The extreme case was Halo.

That never happens though. You assume that these decisions happen in a vacuum. The ease to maximize the programmer's vision is a definite factor, and PS2/PS3 consoles are absolutely notoriously difficult to program for, capabilities aside.

Bungie had planned to be exclusive to the Mac. Microsoft could not stand that. Microsoft bought Bungie and made Halo exclusive to Microsoft systems. Cases like that are most definitely not "earned" exclusivity.

Well, that and the fact that Apple doesn't/didn't have a console. Although a lot of the design of the 360 is based on Macs--be we won't go there.

What "'small companies' after the 'monopoly' ruling" are you talking about? Are you talking about the anti trust case of the U.S. Government and 19 States against Microsoft?

Which was bogus.

Microsoft was found to be a monopoly for desktop operating systems in the U.S. Microsoft was found to be using that monopoly power to force abusive and anti competitive behavior out of other companies. The penalty was to agree to never do it again.

Part of how that is typically ensured is that companies are "split" into separate business entities on paper (and as a result, in function).

There are no "small companies" due to that litigation. Period. End of story. Anyone who thinks there is should read the facts of the final ruling. After reading the facts, anyone who still thinks there are "small companies" within Microsoft due to that ruling is purely delusional.

Do your homework. MS operates LIKE a group of small companies, in that each division is granted their own budget a huge degree of autonomy. Anyone working at MS will tell you that, and frankly there's no real reason to say so otherwise.

This is one of the advantages of the Xbox over the PS3. Porting a game from the Xbox to Windows (and vice versa) is simpler than porting a game from the PS3 to Windows. Thus cross platform development happens more easily for the Xbox.

This is called good planning and foresight, not collusion or unfair play.

This is irrelevant to the situation at hand. (Although many might say it is just an extension of the symptoms displayed by the company in general.)

Not really. There is an assumption that MS handed off a suitcase full of cash to buy this deal. It is after all easy to pick on MS, when BRs only hope is in the form of a game console that competes directly with a MS product. I'm aware of the roots of hostility here in this regard, and it's for good reason. Anyone (other than Apple) has to fight uphill against MS, because they in the end churn out good, usable product that enjoys mass-adoption.