Hasta La Gadget!

The Consumer Electronics Show is boring; it’s too big; and for the most part, few companies are able to get their products into the spotlight for long enough to actually impress many customers.

And yet, CES is a necessary evil. Like it or not, the show is what the industry needs to ensure that the average non-Apple company can actually get some attention in a world dominated by the iPhone maker.

In some ways, the technology industry has become a sad place. Apple’s success has tossed all other companies in its growing shadow, and those firms can only hope to come out when the iPhone maker isn’t looking. Each year around this year, such an event happens.

CES is the opportunity that small vendors and even large companies like LG, Dish, and so many others, need to finally communicate their products to customers. For once, those companies can sit in front of a packed audience and show off their plans for the years. Better yet, they can get in touch with journalists, hold one-to-one meetings, and (hopefully) excite them into thinking that their latest inventions are the next big things in technology.

All of the rest of the year, things are much different for those companies. They’ll send out a press release here and there and typically receive a story or two. If they’re lucky, the average consumer will pay attention long enough to find out when the product will launch and how much it costs. If they’re really lucky, those companies might even be able to get the consumer out of their home and into the store to try the product out. And if they’re really, really lucky, those folks might just buy the respective device.

That’s the world that Apple, Microsoft, and Google has created. The big three are garnering all of the attention in the technology industry, and just about anything they have to say is newsworthy. All other companies are hoping to fill in the ever-smaller gaps that line up around them.

“CES levels the playing field”

CES, though, levels the playing field. Apple is nowhere to be seen at the show, and Google and Microsoft hardly have a presence. CES, therefore, is open to smaller or less important companies that want to share off their wares while the giants are off working on products that will steal the world’s attention all the other days of the year.

That’s precisely why CES should not – and cannot – be shuttered. As big and annoying as it is, the show serves a very important purpose in the technology industry. And without CES, it’s hard to see how companies will be able to get their products out there and into our increasingly busy lives.

So, perhaps we should have a little patience with CES. Sure, it’s not what it used to be and there are increasingly boring aspects to it, but it’s an important event, nonetheless. And we can’t discount that.

Find all of our CES 2013 news at our CES Hub!

Why CES Is A Necessary Evil is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

With the recent unveiling of a Sony patent application indicating the company was thinking of killing off used games in the PlayStation 4, speculation has run rampant over how such a tool would affect the games industry. There seems to be a general sense that the implementation of such a product would potentially ruin GameStop, and would benefit game makers. Used games, some say, are bad news.

The reality is, used games aren’t really all that bad. In fact, there’s a good chance that the continued growth of used games is helping the industry in an immense way.

Unfortunately, being a gamer is an expensive proposition. In order to even start having the chance to play games, consumers must purchase a console that will set them back several hundred dollars, and then buy games that cost $60. If they want to play handheld titles, buying a device like the PlayStation Vita or Nintendo 3DS XL will once again cost them hundreds.

In a world where economies are slow to turn around and the future is decidedly in doubt, spending that kind of money on video games isn’t always a top priority. And as much as folks might want to enjoy the entertainment value provided by games, dropping $60 for a new title just doesn’t fit into budgets every month.

With used games, though, that changes. Used titles are notably cheaper than their new counterparts, making it more possible for gamers to get titles. And as those folks get titles, they become more invested in certain hardware, developers, and franchises. The result? A more engaged and entertained gaming community.

“A more engaged and entertained gaming community means more online customers”

A more engaged and entertained gaming community means more customers that will sign up for online services, like Xbox Live. It also means that there will be a broader base of customers to whom developers can sell add-on packs and other goodies.

Now, I understand that the main issue with used games is that developers, who spend years of their lives creating games, aren’t actually getting anything in secondary sales. And I would fully agree that that’s wrong. But that’s not enough of a reason for me to believe that used games should be stricken from the industry.

Like it or not, I do believe that retailers have a responsibility to developers and publishers to share some of the revenue generated from used games. Yes, I know that such a move bucks a longstanding trend and GameStop and Amazon hate the thought of it, but there’s something to be said for being fair. And fairness would dictate paying developers for used sales.

How will such an agreement be made? I don’t know. How will the revenue split work? No idea. But it’s about time both sides – developers and retailers – come together and come to an agreement. The fact is, both parties benefit from used games. And it’s about time we all acknowledge that.

Why the Used Game Model Needs Fixing (But Not Banning) is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

The Nintendo Wii U has kicked off a new generation of consoles. The device, which comes with HD graphics that can about match those we have from the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, will likely be joined by vastly more powerful PlayStation 4 and Xbox 720 consoles at some point in the next year or so.

Once those devices launch, it will be time to handicap the marketplace. Which console will succeed? Which console will fail? And perhaps most importantly, which console will win the next-generation battle?

[Image credit: Andreas Levers]

I’m sure there are those in each company’s camp armed with reasons their particular favorite will win.

Those who support Nintendo will say that the company’s commitment to innovation and fun, coupled with its high-quality first-party library, will be enough for the Wii U to dominate the gaming market.

Sony fans disagree. They point to the PlayStation 3’s late surge in the gaming space to make their case. Sony fans believe that the PlayStation 4 will come with high-quality specs and a large game library that will give it the edge. To think otherwise, they might say, would be nonsense.

Microsoft, however, has a different take. The Xbox 360 has proven steady over the last six years, and it’s likely that in the U.S. and Western Europe, it will have a strong showing. And Microsoft’s fans say that the software giant’s online experience and Kinect functionality will impress gamers and get enough people to join up to take over the console market.

I honestly believe that all three companies have a chance at dominating the next-generation console market. After all, coming off the GameCube, no one thought that Nintendo would win the space, but it did so with the Wii. And although the PlayStation 3 got off to a slow start, it’s starting to show now why it had so much promise in the beginning.

“I don’t know how Nintendo expects to hang tough in the long term”

At this point, though, I don’t quite know how Nintendo expects to hang tough over the long-term. The Wii U, while nice for its fans, will be trumped very quickly by whatever Microsoft and Sony offer. And if Nintendo doesn’t find a way to respond with some sort of update or new addition to the console’s featureset, it will be impossible for the game maker to keep pace.

Sony’s issue might have something to do with cost. The company has historically tried to deliver a high-end product, but in the gaming market lately, value has been the name of the game. And I’m not sure Sony realizes that.

Microsoft, meanwhile, might be popular in the U.S. and Europe, but the company has yet to establish itself in Asia. And until it capitalizes on that extremely important continent, the Xbox 720 will have some trouble.

So, while all three consoles might have some features that could push it over the top, they all also have some troubles. And the winner of the next console generation will be determined not by how much “stuff” they all have, but by how well they can get over the issues and capitalize on their virtues.

It should be a fun fight to watch.

Which Console Maker Will Win the Next-Generation Battle? is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

Almost as soon as Steve Jobs became a household name decades ago, Apple fans loved him. They viewed Jobs as their fearless leader; someone that, in good times and bad, would find a way to help the company and best all others.

Over the years, numerous books and articles have been written on the late Jobs’ God-like status among his legion of followers. Apple fans have historically rejoiced at the very mention of his name, and whenever he took the stage to show off a new product, those folks viewed it favorably simply because their leader said it was the best product around.

To say that Jobs owned a special place in the hearts of millions might be an understatement.

But since Tim Cook took over Apple, things have been different. Apple is still cherished by its many fans, but the new CEO hasn’t quite hit the same level of iconic status as his predecessor. Whereas Jobs inspired all kinds of laudatory discussions and talk of his genius, Cook is just there. And for the most part, today’s consumers have ignored him, deciding instead to focus on Apple’s products.

Admittedly, Cook might have brought that on himself. When big products had to be announced over the years, Jobs was the person standing on stage showing it off to cameras. Nowadays, Cook is content to kick off an Apple event and close the curtain on it. Whenever products need to be shown off, he leaves that to his executives. Call it shy or a willingness to share the spotlight, but whatever the reason Cook has for not taking center stage at big announcements is hurting his notoriety.

I do believe that Apple fans like Tim Cook. After all, he’s been with the company for a long time, and he was hand-picked by Steve Jobs to lead the firm after his death. Tim Cook is also arguably the only person at Apple right now that would have been able to keep the company going in a post-Steve Jobs world. As an executive, Tim Cook is really one of the best in the industry.

“Cook isn’t a visionary to many Apple fans”

But as much as Apple fans like Tim Cook, I don’t think they love Tim Cook. To many Apple fans, Cook is simply the person that is able to rein in Apple’s executives and handle the company’s many moving parts. Cook isn’t a visionary to many Apple fans; he’s the typical chief executive.

Even so, I’m not sure it really matters that Cook isn’t loved. Apple doesn’t need another Steve Jobs; it needs someone who can keep the company moving on the same path. And without a doubt, Cook has been able to do that.

So, perhaps love is oversold in the Apple world. Yes, Steve Jobs was successful in part because he could count on customers that would buy his products no matter what, but there was obviously more to his performance than that. And Tim Cook, despite not achieving the same level of admiration, is actually besting Jobs in terms of Apple’s financial performance.

Your customers might not love you, Tim, but guess what: that’s just fine.

Do Apple Fans Love Tim Cook? is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

The gaming industry is ready yet again for a major change. Every five years or so, gamers are asked to toss away their old hardware and buy the new stuff. The cost, of course, is high, and the effort to actually get a new console is somewhat ridiculous in the beginning, but like good, trusting gamers, we oblige.

The so-called “next generation” is starting now. Nintendo has launched its Wii U, and that device delivers HD graphics and a vastly improved experience compared to the company’s previous console, the Wii. For now, the console is sold out and likely will remain so for the next few months.

Although the Wii U will continue to dominate the console market for the next several months, there’s trouble on the horizon. Microsoft is expected to launch its next console, the Xbox 720, next holiday season. The PlayStation 4 from Sony will likely follow close behind. Both of those consoles are expected to come with better graphics than the Wii U and have more features. In other words, they’ll probably be better all-around consoles than Nintendo’s option.

Realizing that, I don’t think Nintendo has any choice but to launch a new console in 2014. Call it the Wii U 2 or something else, but whatever Nintendo does, the company must deliver a new device in 2014 that’s capable of competing against the actual “next generation” of consoles.

It’s almost laughable that Nintendo would say that the Wii U is a next-generation device. In my own time with the console, I find it to be a nominal upgrade over the Wii. And although HD graphics is a nice addition, we’ve had those for years now from Microsoft and Sony.

“Nintendo is hiding behind the Wii’s success to prove it doesn’t need bells & whistles”

Oddly, Nintendo doesn’t appear willing to launch a new console in 2014 that can actually compete against the PlayStation 4 and Xbox 720. The company is hiding behind the Wii’s success to prove that it doesn’t need all of the bells and whistles to be successful. After all, Nintendo says, the Wii had fewer features and lacked HD graphics, and dominated the console market.

But let’s not pretend that past success can inform our understanding of future market dynamics. After all, if we assume a console will be successful because its predecessor was, shouldn’t we also assume that a failure like the GameCube would spawn another loser? Obviously that didn’t happen.

Nintendo needs to consider the changing market. Today’s consumers want more-capable products in the living room, and like the idea of having consoles that are meaningfully better than those that came before them. The Wii U isn’t that device. And I’m still not convinced that third-parties will embrace the GamePad the way Nintendo hopes. Add that to the Wii U’s lofty price tag and the impending obsolescence at the hands of the PlayStation 4 and Xbox 720, and I think there’s a recipe for disaster being cooked up as we speak.

With a new console in 2014, however, Nintendo can change all that and put itself back in a position to control the hardware market. The Wii U should be an iterative step to whatever major upgrade might come in 2014. Without that launch schedule, Nintendo might be in serious trouble.

Why Nintendo Must Launch A New Console In 2014 is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.