AquaAnalogue
Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2010
- Messages
- 355
My roommate at the Institute is somewhat daft when it comes to the technology "scene". To illustrate this: he is a rabid Microsoft supporter (let the holy wars not begin? though I think I'm safe here 
) and often argues blindly in circular logic how open-source is "immoral", even likening me to a terrorist for using open-source software. :blink:
However, he said something brilliant recently during one of our arguments, and I'm only now starting to put the pieces together with the price increase on the Pandora.
We were having an argument about the open-source driver for the Kinect, and how it had been cracked mere hours after it was put on the market. He was crying blasphemy, scandal and hellfire against the whole open-source scene as usual, and I said something to the extent of: How does it hurt your precious Microsoft? We still have to buy the device to utilise it for open-source software.
His reply was unusually informed-- more so than myself, apparently. His reply was something like this: Dumbass! Microsoft sell the Kinect at a loss and make the money back on the games! Open-Source are stealing from Microsoft! OOOOHH BOY, I can't WAIT for THIS lawsuit! Heh heh heh.
What followed is irrelevant, but let's just say he wouldn't be convinced for his life that it was perfectly legal, and his circular logic was quite formidable. I had to settle for a stalemate lest I lose my mind.
However, I came away with a different point of view. If what he said about selling the Kinect at a loss is true, then is all commercial hardware sold at a loss? If you count out piracy and homebrew and assume an Orwellian government which sees all and punishes both with death... it's a somewhat decent business model. If all this is true, I can see why a fanboy would be upset. Of course, that's why nobody should be a fanboy of a company from Hell.
This could explain why the Pandora costs $500. If OpenPandora Limited were making money on royalties and commercial game sales, it would probably cost less. This must be why everyone I tell about the Pandora "mm-hmms" until I get to the price, then says "500 dollars?!" (and earlier, but less often "330 dollars?!") and scoffs.
Don't get me wrong-- I know all about the Gilette business model. "Give 'em the razor; sell 'em the blades." However, I never really thought a company would sell a fully-fledged gaming device at a loss. It's an incredibly stupid thing to do, honestly; no wonder they fight so much against homebrew, piracy, and jailbreaking!
) and often argues blindly in circular logic how open-source is "immoral", even likening me to a terrorist for using open-source software. :blink:However, he said something brilliant recently during one of our arguments, and I'm only now starting to put the pieces together with the price increase on the Pandora.
We were having an argument about the open-source driver for the Kinect, and how it had been cracked mere hours after it was put on the market. He was crying blasphemy, scandal and hellfire against the whole open-source scene as usual, and I said something to the extent of: How does it hurt your precious Microsoft? We still have to buy the device to utilise it for open-source software.
His reply was unusually informed-- more so than myself, apparently. His reply was something like this: Dumbass! Microsoft sell the Kinect at a loss and make the money back on the games! Open-Source are stealing from Microsoft! OOOOHH BOY, I can't WAIT for THIS lawsuit! Heh heh heh.
What followed is irrelevant, but let's just say he wouldn't be convinced for his life that it was perfectly legal, and his circular logic was quite formidable. I had to settle for a stalemate lest I lose my mind.
However, I came away with a different point of view. If what he said about selling the Kinect at a loss is true, then is all commercial hardware sold at a loss? If you count out piracy and homebrew and assume an Orwellian government which sees all and punishes both with death... it's a somewhat decent business model. If all this is true, I can see why a fanboy would be upset. Of course, that's why nobody should be a fanboy of a company from Hell.
This could explain why the Pandora costs $500. If OpenPandora Limited were making money on royalties and commercial game sales, it would probably cost less. This must be why everyone I tell about the Pandora "mm-hmms" until I get to the price, then says "500 dollars?!" (and earlier, but less often "330 dollars?!") and scoffs.
Don't get me wrong-- I know all about the Gilette business model. "Give 'em the razor; sell 'em the blades." However, I never really thought a company would sell a fully-fledged gaming device at a loss. It's an incredibly stupid thing to do, honestly; no wonder they fight so much against homebrew, piracy, and jailbreaking!
