fonzo.biz

So in the past few days there has been a ton of information about Microsoft’s new media venture; movies and TV via the Xbox 360. When I heard the news that Microsoft was venturing into movies and television with their Xbox I was not the least bit surprised. In fact, I was expecting them to announce this service sooner or later (albeit it did come sooner than I thought). What I was surprised by was people’s reactions to the upcoming service.

From the moment it was announced people started claiming Microsoft’s new service to be the “Apple-Killer” and pointing out how Apple must be frustrated since Microsoft beat them to the living room. Others simply focused on the technical superiority of the Xbox’s HD content compared to Apple’s almost as good as DVD resolution. However, I think people are wishful thinking and creating a false rivalry. Yes it is true that they both will allow an individual to watch downloaded content on their TV, but just because two devices share the same end result does not necessarily mean they are in competition with one another. In fact, I would say that one word will keep these two services from competing with one another: portability.

Apple sells its movies and television shows to customers because people want to enjoy their media on-the-go. Instead of sitting shotgun on a road trip and sleeping, sitting uncomfortably on an airplane staring at a tray table, or watching fellow commuters on the local mass-transit at 6am with a skeptical eye, they want to watch an episode of 24, Prison Break, BattleStar Galactica, etc. This is why people buy movies/television shows from iTunes. Nobody purchases television series from iTunes with the intention of watching it on their TV. I know that sounds odd, but it is the truth. Sure, being able to watch their favorite episode of the Chapelle Show on their glorious 42″ HDTV when at home would be a nice perk, but that option is just that, a perk. Apple understands this, recognizes that its users love perks, and therefore is releasing the iTV to allow people to watch their portable content at home easily. I know many people want it to be more, but that is it. They are simply looking to make portable content easily enjoyable at home.

Microsoft on the other hand is attempting to deliver content to your home, and only your home. All of the content downloaded from Xbox Live Marketplace will be stored on your Xbox. And since nobody is going to be packing around their Xbox, a television, and a hefty battery pack to watch content on the go, Microsoft’s offering has no portability. None. It is at the home content only. That is why I do not see the two competing with one another for customers. Apple is occupying the spare time of the on-the-go individual, while Microsoft is trying to satisfy the HD cravings of the almighty couch potato. They are two separate customers, with two separate needs, and the companies solutions illustrate this.

So if Microsoft is not competing with Apple, the question is who is Microsoft competing against? Cable/satellite providers. Microsoft wants to offer its users the ability to purchase HD television shows, or rent HD movies, so they can watch them at their convenience. And while this “sounds” new and exciting, it is nothing but the same old offering in new packaging. Companies such as Comcast have been, and currently do, provide its customers the exact same functionality (minus the purchasing of television shows) and convenience that Microsoft is attempting to provide with its upcoming service.

As an example, with the click of an “on demand” button on my remote, I have the option of renting (for a 24hr window just like the Xbox service) any movie of my choice in glorious HD. Or, I could pay Comcast $10 more a month, get DVR functionality, and record all of the television shows I want. This allows me to enjoy the content I want, when I want, just like the Xbox Live service. And just like the Xbox service, the content cannot be easily transported or enjoyed outside of my living room. I am trapped to the confines of my living quarters. This offering is drastically different from the Apple option which allows me to be entertained not only when I want, but where I want.

So in closing, while the Microsoft vs. Apple war is always an interesting one to watch, it looks like we will have to wait a while longer before we get to really see the two battle it out for the living room. For now though, congrats to Apple for offering users the easiest way to enjoy their favorite past-time while in transit or at home. And congrats to Microsoft for being able to repackage an old offering and convince people its new.

Right around the time I purchased my Macbook, and even today, many people were speculating on when Apple would upgrade their Macbook and Macbook Pro lines. Currently, both notebook models come packed with a Core Duo processor and many people think that Apple will soon start selling them with Core 2 Duo processors. According to Intel, the new Core 2 Duo chips will offer a 20% increase in speed over their respective Core Duo counterpart.

Now usually this is not something I would write about, but I find this particular upgrade conversation interesting. For example, the conversation on when the new processors would be included has got hyped up so much that many people have held off purchasing a new Macbook (I almost did the same) until the new processors are included. They want the new processor and they want the 20% increase. However, is the wait really worth it?

The short answer: No.

The long answer: To answer this question (which I asked myself a few weeks ago), I looked at my computer purchasing pattern. After looking at the date (below), I noticed that I typically buy a new computer every two and half years. In addition, with each purchase I typically receive an increase in performance of more than double (100% increase) what I currently have.

So given those results, I had to ask myself if waiting for the “claimed” 20% increase in speed really was worth waiting around for? As stated, it was/is not.

On one side of the coin, one would say that it is. By looking at the graph, it is apparent that over time the percentage of performance increase per purchase has decreased. Therefore, waiting for an additional 20% could be justified. However, given that my upgrades are for more than double the performance, an additional 20% seems like nothing and most likely would not be noticeable while performing day to day tasks.

Another factor to take into consideration with the above numbers is that most people do not upgrade their systems as often as I do. In fact, I think the average upgrade cycle is more in the five or six year range (I think I read that somewhere at one point in time), so when most people are upgrading they are already seeing performance gains closer to 500%. And really, how noticeable is a 520% increase compared to a 500% increase? Not much.

So the point of this article: stop holding out and upgrade. While holding out for the latest and greatest is a pleasure we all love, it is one that leaves you perpetually unsatisfied. In addition, taking into consideration that the performance increase is only a “claim”, that most users are already seeing performance gains of more than 100%, and that the extra 20% is not likely to give your computer an extra year or two of life, holding out for an additional 20% seems .. well .. ridiculous?