Mmmm... I tend to disagree.
I had already figured that much, based on your articles.
In the past, computers have never had the allure as they do today. While they're still somewhat scary inventions to be used and nothing more, they've come a long way. They're miniaturizing and are finding their way to many positions outside the normal PC usage.
I generally hate to ask this, but how old are you? Since Win95 PCs haven't really gotten much easier to use. They haven't come a long way at all. And even then Win 3.x wasn't so difficult to use either, it just sucked at multitasking.
But it's not just that. Since the early 90s I've seen DJs (and wannabes) use small form factor AT boxes with Pentium133s to encode and play audio to use as a replacement for tapes/CDs, especially at gigs where they just want to create a nice large playlist. To them the MP3 format was a godsend, even if it took forever to encode the files. Yeah, it was a lot more expensive to do that then than it is now, and it took a little more dedication, but it's been done by enthusiasts for over a decade.
Heck, I used to have my PC wired into my TV to capture audio clips. And I had a cousin doing the same for audio <i>and</i> video. And that was in '96. I knew other friends doing it in '94. (In fact, that was where we had gotten the idea.)
My point? In ten years they really haven't miniaturized much at all and they've been used for the same kind of thing all this time. Yet nothing has really changed.
But why is that a PC can become the central hub to your A/V rack but cannot take over altogether? After all even your consumer electronics are much like simple computers. Basically they're dedicated towards a single role. That's exactly why I think computers will take over this space. They're much more ummm... what's the word I'm looking for here [insert word for 'good at many things'].
Theoretically they could. And embedded Linux has really made applications like this a lot easier than it was in years past. But there are three giant flaws to this ever becoming anything more than a PC enthusiast's pet project:
1) Computers are general purpose. Because they're not tailored to specific tasks nearly as efficiently as consumer electronic devices, they will cost <i>a lot</i> more to accomplish the same things.
2) The margins on computers and computer equipment are very low. The margins on consumer electronics on the other hand can get pretty high. So consumer elecronics just simply make their manufacturers and resellers a lot more money than computers do.
3) An idiot can turn on a radio or play a DVD because consumer electronics are typically meant for one and only one task, their user interface is as obvious as a frying pan to the forehead. Compared to that level of simplicity, computers are very confusing and/or complicated to do the same tasks.
So to sum up, computers are frustratingly more complex, cost more, and make manufacturers less money when compared to consumer electronics.
The only reason a PC is for the 'highly skilled' is because of the path these computer companies have chosen to take.
Hardly. Computers are for the 'highly skilled' because they're just plain more complex to use than a calculator, a VCR, etc. You have to boot them up, find your program, and then run it. Even if you take out the complexities of programs themselves, file systems, logins, etc. it's still a process that daunts many people in this world.
I believe these new consoles will show the PC makers that there is great potential in the home theatre type market.
Perhaps you're not aware that the XBox <i>is</i> a computer, through and through? The last generation of consoles proved that this could be done simply and effectively. Yet nothing has changed.
Quite a few people do use their computer as a multimedia station at home but if they pick up a PS3, they may soon see that a computer is almost useless aside from talking on MSN or whatever.
Various nefarious gamer nitpicks have been saying this since the Nintendo NES. (And maybe even earlier than that.) Yet computers have only grown in usage since then instead of died off. I wonder why that is?
No, in truth, I don't wonder. Computers simply do more. They're a tool for a million and one tasks, all depending on your hardware and software. They're a word processor. They're an internet portal. They're a game station. They're an audio/video media device. They're a storage medium. They're a searchable database. They're a graphic editor. They're a 3D render device. They're a CD copier. And so on. And if a computer isn't what you want it to be, all that it takes is a software and/or hardware upgrade to make them so.
So not only are they a much more powerful tool than anything a console could ever replace, but they're also extensible. And as soon as you turn a computer into a consumer electronic, you greatly mitigate its extensibility.
Not only are computers-turned-consumer-electronics economically disadvantageous to manufacturers, but they're also no longer the tools that many people need them to be.
Basically, general purpose PCs and task-specific consumer electronics will always be two completely seperate and necessary markets that are only occasionally bridged by enthusiasts and areas where economic losses from hardware are not of primary concern.
<pre><font color=green><i>Jesters do oft prove prophets.</i> -Regan in
King Lear (Act V, Scene iii) by William Shakespear</font color=green></pre><p>@ 188K -> 200,000 miles or bust!
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram