An interesting week in tech so far...
Granted it is CES week. But not all of what I found interesting had to do with CES. There was a very random article which made me laugh on Windows Phone users having statistically higher odds of having an STD, Sony's PlayStation Now service beating Steam OS to the punch, the latest sales numbers for PS4 and Xbox One and Sony potentially making a Windows Phone device.
Just to get it out of the way... the article doesn't reference a study, show the size of the samples or any demographic data. So it could be a joke. But I'm going to roll with this, assuming it is completely legit. There is still one MASSIVE problem here. The Windows Phone market share. In most countries it is an order of magnitude lower than Android and iOS. And since, simply by owning a phone these people would have no way of knowing whether or not you had an STD, this means that a sample audience was surveyed to get the results. Were you in the survey? Or anyone you knew in such a survey? Probably not.
For the sake of giving this story an ounce of credibility we'll assume this happened in some fictitious country where Windows Phone's market share is an even 5%. This is generous because the North American market is actually currently smaller than this. And lets say they were able to find and survey 10000 people willing to disclose (truthfully we'll assume) whether or not they have an STD and what platform they use. We'll also assume a 60% market share for android and a 35% market share for iOS. And lets say it just so happens that one person in each group has an STD. Based on those results, they would argue that roughly 0.00017% of Android users have an STD 0.00029 iOS users had an STD and 0.002% of Windows Phone users have an STD.
If you look at it this way, it looks like Windows Phone users are almost 10x more likely than iOS users and even more likely than that compared to Android users. But in all 3 cases it is only 1 person who actually had an STD in each group. And the sample sets looked like this... 6000 Android users, 3500 iOS users and 500 WP users. Yes, the conclusions reflect the data. WP reached the same number of incidences at a smaller sample size. But, if you were to instead JUST consider 500 each of the iOS or Android results to ensure that each had the sample size, you could just as easily end up with 1/500 having an STD. Similarly, you could likely find a further 5500 WP users and not find another incidence of an STD.
The problem is, unless the size of each group is equivalent, you can't actually draw any reliable direct comparisons. The group with the largest sub-set of the data will have the smallest margin for error and thus be more likely to be representative of the population at large. Whereas the results from the smallest subset will have the widest margin for error and be least likely to be an accurate representation of real world.
To take the case to ridiculous levels to stress the point. If, I go and survey EVERY SINGLE Android user and find that 0.5% of them have an STD, that data has 0 margin for error. It includes everyone. It is undeniably 100% accurate. If I then go out and survey only myself as a Windows Phone user, I do not have an STD. I could say that, based on my study, 0% of Windows Phone users have an STD and 0.5% of Android users do. But the margin for error in my Windows Phone study would have astronomical margins of error. In general, the larger the sample for a subset of the data, the more accurate it will be. But, that isn't the only factor, trends can change based on region, age, salary, gender and a number of other factors. End results can also be skewed if your data isn't diverse enough. So, ultimately, without full disclosure on how the results were obtained, they are fundamentally useless.
But either way... it is rather funny.
The next story was Sony's PlayStation Now service. Which as I gather is the official name for Gaikai. Anyway. I had theorized that if Valve had instead focused on getting the streaming aspect of Steam OS bundled into Smart TV's and set top boxes it actually had a chance in my mind of causing serious turbulence to console gaming. Shortly after I finished that post I read that Sony was already working with Smart TV and set top box makers to get their service PlayStation Now service in exactly those markets as well as on the PS4/PS Vita/etc...
Which means that they will probably beat Steam there by a long shot. My hats off to Sony on this one. This is a brilliant move. And another huge blow to Steam Boxes. Sony has a massive catalogue of quality past gen titles it could stream. As long as the service works well enough that is. Games MEANT to be console games are going to play much better on a TV with a console-like controller than computer games hacked to work with a console controller. Who cares if they don't sell PS4's? Subscription based gaming and re-purchasing old games is an infinitely more lucrative model.
The beauty of Sony's model is that it also provides even more incentive for game studios to develop for consoles. Even with the PS4 phasing out the PS3, if I can fire up PlayStation Now on my PS4 and pay and play an old PS3 or even PS2/PS1/PSP/PS Vita title it means more revenue for that publisher. It means my games have a longer shelf life. As great as Steam's catalogue is, Sony has been in the gaming business much longer. And consoles only recently started pandering to the useless subpar quality games that computers, tablets and phone are plagued with. Much of Steam's catalogue is crappy indie games that rip offs of other crappy arcade style indie games. I don't need 3000 Bejeweled variants.
If Microsoft follows suit with their own service and offers up a similar level of functionality, while the catalogue wouldn't be as big as Sony's, it would still contain an impressive collection of premium games for exactly the same reason.
And, the nail in the coffin for Valve would be if both Microsoft and Sony offered the software to access their services on the others consoles. I don't think current gen games would be up on PlayStation Now, or Microsoft's service if they choose to revive their efforts in that arena. So, they wouldn't be cannibalizing current gen sales dollars. So, in that respect, either company would just be cashing in on the subscribers. Again, who cares if you sell the hardware? Margins are crap on hardware. Services revenue and percentage cuts of games developed your OEM's is a way better source of revenue. Subscribers gives you recurring revenue. If they buy a game and you take a cut, you get paid for someone else's work. If some buys a console, they spend hundreds and you're lucky if you recoup $5 on the sales in a one-time transaction.
Which leads into the 3 million vs 4.2 million. To be honest, I don't think availability has ceased to be a factor yet. So I don't think the numbers are meaningful. But nevertheless, I do believe we are at the point where the chasm will just keep widening. While there are some places where Xbox Ones are still selling out, there are others yet where they are starting to stay in stock without issue. So, at least in the markets where both are available, I expect the lower price of the PS4 to help keep it ahead.
To be honest, I think Microsoft made a mistake in their launch plans. At least, if their plan was to "win" the numbers war or to keep it as close as possible. Perhaps they truly did care more about it being available to those who wanted one... in which case I think they did win in general on that goal. But, assuming that was a load of BS and it was just another way they were trying to win the numbers war... while I don't doubt that by having better availability in a smaller number of countries ended up in people buying an Xbox One over a PS4 simply because they couldn't get their hands on a PS4. I also think that those units which are now piling up in some places would have been sold already if they had instead had fewer units in N.A. and launched with more constrained availability in more countries like the PS4 did.
The wider availability in the launch markets has lead to not only units starting to pile up in places now saturated but also to image issues. If there were fewer availability issues for the Xbox One, that meant fewer people buying them online, lower online prices due to lower online demand, less people claiming that the empty shelves are a sign of their superiority. Basically, while I still believe the 2013 numbers were pretty much solely proof that Sony actually produced more units for sale, when you combine the actual numbers with the above image issues it is very hard not to say that Sony is winning.
But, given that most analysts had forecasted that console gaming was dead I also think both Microsoft and Sony were legitimately caught off guard by the demand. And I think each realizes that they are each others key to success. Competition has always helped markets more than hindered them. Fan boys, as annoying as they are help drum a more visceral attachment to console gaming and help promote it. I'll almost guarantee that while there are some people at both Microsoft and Sony planning ways to win the numbers wars that the companies in general and their executives are happy with their own sales and happy for their competition as well.
And, almost to prove that there is no real rift between these companies, Sony has confirmed that they are planning on building Windows Phones. Not that this necessarily wouldn't happen even if they were at each others throats. Companies the size of Sony and Microsoft are not truly like individual entities. Each company has products and services in different markets. And those products and services tend to have completely different marketing, sales and even management teams. So, while the console divisions of each could be at each others throats, the phone divisions could be sipping drinks on a private beach somewhere and the OS divisions could be suing each other endlessly.
To be fair... if you read the news in this console war you won't really find jabs between the 2 companies. You'll find PLENTY of animosity between advocates of the two systems. But the companies, even in this where they are direct competitors, seems very amicable.
So, yeah, an interesting week to be sure.
Just to get it out of the way... the article doesn't reference a study, show the size of the samples or any demographic data. So it could be a joke. But I'm going to roll with this, assuming it is completely legit. There is still one MASSIVE problem here. The Windows Phone market share. In most countries it is an order of magnitude lower than Android and iOS. And since, simply by owning a phone these people would have no way of knowing whether or not you had an STD, this means that a sample audience was surveyed to get the results. Were you in the survey? Or anyone you knew in such a survey? Probably not.
For the sake of giving this story an ounce of credibility we'll assume this happened in some fictitious country where Windows Phone's market share is an even 5%. This is generous because the North American market is actually currently smaller than this. And lets say they were able to find and survey 10000 people willing to disclose (truthfully we'll assume) whether or not they have an STD and what platform they use. We'll also assume a 60% market share for android and a 35% market share for iOS. And lets say it just so happens that one person in each group has an STD. Based on those results, they would argue that roughly 0.00017% of Android users have an STD 0.00029 iOS users had an STD and 0.002% of Windows Phone users have an STD.
If you look at it this way, it looks like Windows Phone users are almost 10x more likely than iOS users and even more likely than that compared to Android users. But in all 3 cases it is only 1 person who actually had an STD in each group. And the sample sets looked like this... 6000 Android users, 3500 iOS users and 500 WP users. Yes, the conclusions reflect the data. WP reached the same number of incidences at a smaller sample size. But, if you were to instead JUST consider 500 each of the iOS or Android results to ensure that each had the sample size, you could just as easily end up with 1/500 having an STD. Similarly, you could likely find a further 5500 WP users and not find another incidence of an STD.
The problem is, unless the size of each group is equivalent, you can't actually draw any reliable direct comparisons. The group with the largest sub-set of the data will have the smallest margin for error and thus be more likely to be representative of the population at large. Whereas the results from the smallest subset will have the widest margin for error and be least likely to be an accurate representation of real world.
To take the case to ridiculous levels to stress the point. If, I go and survey EVERY SINGLE Android user and find that 0.5% of them have an STD, that data has 0 margin for error. It includes everyone. It is undeniably 100% accurate. If I then go out and survey only myself as a Windows Phone user, I do not have an STD. I could say that, based on my study, 0% of Windows Phone users have an STD and 0.5% of Android users do. But the margin for error in my Windows Phone study would have astronomical margins of error. In general, the larger the sample for a subset of the data, the more accurate it will be. But, that isn't the only factor, trends can change based on region, age, salary, gender and a number of other factors. End results can also be skewed if your data isn't diverse enough. So, ultimately, without full disclosure on how the results were obtained, they are fundamentally useless.
But either way... it is rather funny.
The next story was Sony's PlayStation Now service. Which as I gather is the official name for Gaikai. Anyway. I had theorized that if Valve had instead focused on getting the streaming aspect of Steam OS bundled into Smart TV's and set top boxes it actually had a chance in my mind of causing serious turbulence to console gaming. Shortly after I finished that post I read that Sony was already working with Smart TV and set top box makers to get their service PlayStation Now service in exactly those markets as well as on the PS4/PS Vita/etc...
Which means that they will probably beat Steam there by a long shot. My hats off to Sony on this one. This is a brilliant move. And another huge blow to Steam Boxes. Sony has a massive catalogue of quality past gen titles it could stream. As long as the service works well enough that is. Games MEANT to be console games are going to play much better on a TV with a console-like controller than computer games hacked to work with a console controller. Who cares if they don't sell PS4's? Subscription based gaming and re-purchasing old games is an infinitely more lucrative model.
The beauty of Sony's model is that it also provides even more incentive for game studios to develop for consoles. Even with the PS4 phasing out the PS3, if I can fire up PlayStation Now on my PS4 and pay and play an old PS3 or even PS2/PS1/PSP/PS Vita title it means more revenue for that publisher. It means my games have a longer shelf life. As great as Steam's catalogue is, Sony has been in the gaming business much longer. And consoles only recently started pandering to the useless subpar quality games that computers, tablets and phone are plagued with. Much of Steam's catalogue is crappy indie games that rip offs of other crappy arcade style indie games. I don't need 3000 Bejeweled variants.
If Microsoft follows suit with their own service and offers up a similar level of functionality, while the catalogue wouldn't be as big as Sony's, it would still contain an impressive collection of premium games for exactly the same reason.
And, the nail in the coffin for Valve would be if both Microsoft and Sony offered the software to access their services on the others consoles. I don't think current gen games would be up on PlayStation Now, or Microsoft's service if they choose to revive their efforts in that arena. So, they wouldn't be cannibalizing current gen sales dollars. So, in that respect, either company would just be cashing in on the subscribers. Again, who cares if you sell the hardware? Margins are crap on hardware. Services revenue and percentage cuts of games developed your OEM's is a way better source of revenue. Subscribers gives you recurring revenue. If they buy a game and you take a cut, you get paid for someone else's work. If some buys a console, they spend hundreds and you're lucky if you recoup $5 on the sales in a one-time transaction.
Which leads into the 3 million vs 4.2 million. To be honest, I don't think availability has ceased to be a factor yet. So I don't think the numbers are meaningful. But nevertheless, I do believe we are at the point where the chasm will just keep widening. While there are some places where Xbox Ones are still selling out, there are others yet where they are starting to stay in stock without issue. So, at least in the markets where both are available, I expect the lower price of the PS4 to help keep it ahead.
To be honest, I think Microsoft made a mistake in their launch plans. At least, if their plan was to "win" the numbers war or to keep it as close as possible. Perhaps they truly did care more about it being available to those who wanted one... in which case I think they did win in general on that goal. But, assuming that was a load of BS and it was just another way they were trying to win the numbers war... while I don't doubt that by having better availability in a smaller number of countries ended up in people buying an Xbox One over a PS4 simply because they couldn't get their hands on a PS4. I also think that those units which are now piling up in some places would have been sold already if they had instead had fewer units in N.A. and launched with more constrained availability in more countries like the PS4 did.
The wider availability in the launch markets has lead to not only units starting to pile up in places now saturated but also to image issues. If there were fewer availability issues for the Xbox One, that meant fewer people buying them online, lower online prices due to lower online demand, less people claiming that the empty shelves are a sign of their superiority. Basically, while I still believe the 2013 numbers were pretty much solely proof that Sony actually produced more units for sale, when you combine the actual numbers with the above image issues it is very hard not to say that Sony is winning.
But, given that most analysts had forecasted that console gaming was dead I also think both Microsoft and Sony were legitimately caught off guard by the demand. And I think each realizes that they are each others key to success. Competition has always helped markets more than hindered them. Fan boys, as annoying as they are help drum a more visceral attachment to console gaming and help promote it. I'll almost guarantee that while there are some people at both Microsoft and Sony planning ways to win the numbers wars that the companies in general and their executives are happy with their own sales and happy for their competition as well.
And, almost to prove that there is no real rift between these companies, Sony has confirmed that they are planning on building Windows Phones. Not that this necessarily wouldn't happen even if they were at each others throats. Companies the size of Sony and Microsoft are not truly like individual entities. Each company has products and services in different markets. And those products and services tend to have completely different marketing, sales and even management teams. So, while the console divisions of each could be at each others throats, the phone divisions could be sipping drinks on a private beach somewhere and the OS divisions could be suing each other endlessly.
To be fair... if you read the news in this console war you won't really find jabs between the 2 companies. You'll find PLENTY of animosity between advocates of the two systems. But the companies, even in this where they are direct competitors, seems very amicable.
So, yeah, an interesting week to be sure.
Comments
Post a Comment