Support NeoGAF

[coldfoot]

Disagree, he sounds pro Xbox and like he finally snapped.

This thread is literally the only place he's posted as a comical Xbox console warrior, it's either someone else using the account, or more likely he was fake trolling:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=92739985&postcount=141
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=92734714&postcount=203
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=90178874&postcount=183
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=88227581&postcount=4699

 

[Zinthar]

More consoles and more software gets sold in Europe. It's time for America to stop thinking it's so important.

Looking over data from past years, it doesn't look like that's strictly true -- in the years I checked it appeared that about a million more consoles sold in the U.S. than in Europe, despite the fact that the U.S. has less than half the population of Europe. So yeah, it's a pretty important market. Or at least Sony seems to think so...

 

[Zachi]

I don't think MS is as big of a threat as Netflix, HBO (if they start offering their content outside of cable), and other content providers. With Microsoft, the cable companies can reach deals that will ensure that Microsoft isn't stepping in on their core business and that you're using the console to access their content.

so u said Netflix is cable provider biggest threat, and yet it makes sense for them to push Xbox One that has Netflix in it in their life line? I dont follow your logic

 

[unapersson]

I don't think MS is as big of a threat as Netflix, HBO (if they start offering their content outside of cable), and other content providers. With Microsoft, the cable companies can reach deals that will ensure that Microsoft isn't stepping in on their core business and that you're using the console to access their content.

But wouldn't cable providers then be subsidising a box that placed those services onto the TV in the living room (Netflix, HBOGo etc.) in direct competition to their own? Are you suggesting MS make deals so those services are not included in the subsidised cable boxes?

 

[Zinthar]

so u said Netflix is cable provider biggest threat, and yet it makes sense for them to push Xbox One that has Netflix in it in their life line? I dont follow your logic

It's a complicated business -- multiple cable operators are actually in talks to add Netflix to their set-top boxes despite the fact that it's a competitor. I think the reason is that they see the writing on the wall: their business could be entirely replaced by streaming (live or otherwise) of all of their content. If millions of people are going to use Netflix anyway, and if every TV and set-top box has Netflix streaming built-in, you might as well have them doing it alongside your cable content so that your customers treat them as complementary services rather than substitutes.

In the case of Xbox One, if people are using the console (and it's well-known that tons of people use consoles for little more than Netflix streaming), you might as well have your cable content on it as well so that customers are still getting value out of cable while they're on the console.

 

[Skeff]

I don't think MS is as big of a threat as Netflix, HBO (if they start offering their content outside of cable), and other content providers. With Microsoft, the cable companies can reach deals that will ensure that Microsoft isn't stepping in on their core business and that you're using the console to access their content.

This makes no sense, to be honest I'm not sure what the situation is regarding on demand content in the US, but here in the UK, Sky are now including other companies On Demand offerings on their sky box. They are offering their own on Demand Shows but also the on Demand shows of BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, all as part of the Sky user interface, If Sky then gave an Xbox one away with their subscriptions people would be using those on demand services Via their XB1, they would be using Sky Via the XB1 OneGuide, I can see how this could be massively beneficial to MS, but Sky gain nothing, in fact they lose. Games consoles this generation have gone from supplementary devices providing a seperate experience to cable boxes last gen into a competitor for the Services that traditional TV boxes are starting to offer.

Everybody wants to be the Hub for peoples content consumption now, which makes them competitors not partners, The lack of Sky Go on PS4/XB1 and the fact that NowTV is heading to XB1/PS4 shows that previous partners are now competitors.

(to elaborate Sky go let's you watch Sky on a Device with a standard sky subscription, no extra cost. NowTV allows you to watch Sky Movies/Sky Sports by purchasing a specific subscription.)

 

[Nuts.Pistachio_Nuts!]

PS4 winning? Perfect! ;P

Walked into the two-floor Target downtown this morning.

They don't seem to need them. ;P

Use to think that was a rare case but I've seen more xbox ones every mall I've been to and no ps4's. Maybe more shipments from microsoft but damn every gamestop I've been to says same thing no ps4's but have xbox one's in stock. Crazy.

 

[avaya]

Cable companies will not be subsidising Bones without Microsoft paying for it all.

FCC requirement is for them to be platform agnostic with their streaming options in the States.

In Europe Liberty isn't going to give MS shit. People need to put down the crack pipe. Primary goal for most cable companies is to move away from supplying STB's altogether, just the modem. Services delivered through the cloud.

 

[serversurfer]

Micheal Pachter mentioned it on GT when he talked with MS they said it was something they are looking into in the future.

Also, something similar maybe happening at launch for China. "An article in Sohu IT, one of China's biggest technology sites, quotes Luo Jiangchun, CEO of online video service Funshion, saying that Xbox One will be available late next year. Funshion is a streaming TV service, owned by BesTV, which recently announced a joint partnership with Microsoft in the Shanghai Free Economic Zone." http://www.polygon.com/2013/12/16/5216828/report-suggests-china-xbox-one-launch-in-2014

BesTV has already grown into the world's largest IPTV operator with more than 16 million effective IPTV users.
http://www.bestv.com.cn/en/about/index.html

While I agree that would imply there will be a Funshion app for XBone, I don't see how it implies BesTV will be subsidizing XBones.

I don't think MS is as big of a threat as Netflix, HBO (if they start offering their content outside of cable), and other content providers. With Microsoft, the cable companies can reach deals that will ensure that Microsoft isn't stepping in on their core business and that you're using the console to access their content.

MS are a much bigger threat, actually. Not only do they provide the very apps you claim cable companies fear, they also sell content themselves, and more to the point, they have the means to funnel users towards that MS-provided content, or any other content MS may choose.

Even without overt efforts in the UI, such as listing XBL results first in searches, etc., the paywalls already make an effective funnel; with Netflix behind the paywall, Microsoft's own services seem that much more attractive. Hell, with XBone, they've even managed to paywall your cable feed itself. I'll bet Time Warner and Comcast are just loving that.

 

[Zinthar]

Alright, because I'm being jumped on by like 3 people at once I won't directly quote anything. Home consoles with strong multimedia capabilities are indeed competitors to the cable companies, but the consoles are going to sell hundreds of millions of units regardless of whether the cable companies partner with Microsoft or provide content to them.

Key point: Regardless of whether or not the cable operators partner with Microsoft, Microsoft will STILL be their competitor. So to simplify the choice: you can either partner with your competitor, or withhold your content and risk the possibility of people using your cable service less because when they turn on their TV by saying "Xbox on", your content isn't on that box.

And in the case of partnering with Microsoft, it's an even sweeter deal for the cable operators, because they'll lock people into contract and can probably win back a few customers.

By far the worst thing the cable operators could do is to just stick their head in the sand and hope that Microsoft and content provider competitors will just go away. If the cable operators refuse to play ball with Microsoft, then the most likely outcome is that more television content finds its way onto Netflix rather than cable on-demand channels, and HBO Go apps become even more popular.

 

[avaya]

MS are a much bigger threat, actually. Not only do they provide the very apps you claim cable companies fear, they also sell content themselves, and more to the point, they have the means to funnel users towards that MS-provided content, or any other content MS may choose.

Even without overt efforts in the UI, such as listing XBL results first in searches, etc., the paywalls already make an effective funnel; with Netflix behind the paywall, Microsoft's own services seem that much more attractive. Hell, with XBone, they've even managed to paywall your cable feed itself. I'll bet Time Warner and Comcast are just loving that.

Microsoft are only a much bigger threat not due to anything they have in the market at present, since right now that amounts to jack shit in the cable game. Microsoft are a bigger threat due to the size of their balance sheet.

Generally speaking OTT services like Netflix will not be allowed to run all over cable to the point of it being an existential threat since governments realise the importance of promoting investment from those who will build networks. Further to that cable pay-tv services will always exist as long as live sport still exists and people still need broadband.

Netflix are no threat to that market.

 

[Dr. Kitty Muffins]

Cheese, wine, and Playstation.

 

[cr_blah_blah]

Is there a French retail survey I can verify this information with? Amazon.fr or the French version of Target?

 

[IAmRandom31]

Alright, because I'm being jumped on by like 3 people at once I won't directly quote anything. Home consoles with strong multimedia capabilities are indeed competitors to the cable companies, but the consoles are going to sell hundreds of millions of units regardless of whether the cable companies partner with Microsoft or provide content to them.

Key point: Regardless of whether or not the cable operators partner with Microsoft, Microsoft will STILL be their competitor. So to simplify the choice: you can either partner with your competitor, or withhold your content and risk the possibility of people using your cable service less because when they turn on their TV by saying "Xbox on", your content isn't on that box.

And in the case of partnering with Microsoft, it's an even sweeter deal for the cable operators, because they'll lock people into contract and can probably win back a few customers.

By far the worst thing the cable operators could do is to just stick their head in the sand and hope that Microsoft and content provider competitors will just go away. If the cable operators refuse to play ball with Microsoft, then the most likely outcome is that more television content finds its way onto Netflix rather than cable on-demand channels, and HBO Go apps become even more popular.

How is Microsoft a competitor to a cable provider? MS is not PROVIDING a cable service ... they are piggybacking off the users already existent cable service and just overlaying stuff on top of that to make the viewing experience more " dynamic ".

Now, if Microsoft gets into the cable TV business, then we would have a conversation. Until then the cable companies can blow this off and provide the same type of UI functionality out of their own boxes already given to customers for a low price / free / add on to monthly bill. Direct TV is already doing the " navigate TV by Voice " stuff and the whole UI overlay is just a matter of time away.

 

[Nafai1123]

Alright, because I'm being jumped on by like 3 people at once I won't directly quote anything. Home consoles with strong multimedia capabilities are indeed competitors to the cable companies, but the consoles are going to sell hundreds of millions of units regardless of whether the cable companies partner with Microsoft or provide content to them.

Key point: Regardless of whether or not the cable operators partner with Microsoft, Microsoft will STILL be their competitor. So to simplify the choice: you can either partner with your competitor, or withhold your content and risk the possibility of people using your cable service less because when they turn on their TV by saying "Xbox on", your content isn't on that box.

And in the case of partnering with Microsoft, it's an even sweeter deal for the cable operators, because they'll lock people into contract and can probably win back a few customers.

By far the worst thing the cable operators could do is to just stick their head in the sand and hope that Microsoft and content provider competitors will just go away. If the cable operators refuse to play ball with Microsoft, then the most likely outcome is that more television content finds its way onto Netflix rather than cable on-demand channels, and HBO Go apps become even more popular.

What!? No, just no. The consoles are not even close to competing with the cable companies. All they are doing is providing SERVICES, just like any Roku/AppleTV/etc. Once the cable companies start streaming their content via IPTV (which everyone seems to be ignoring) it doesn't matter WHAT device you're using for it, you will be buying into their content and they would much rather subsidize a $50 or $100 device than a $500 device.

 

[Piggus]

More XB1s for the US! Pack them up and ship them back.

As if we need any more. Demand isn't exactly through the roof here. :/

 

[Zachi]

Alright, because I'm being jumped on by like 3 people at once I won't directly quote anything. Home consoles with strong multimedia capabilities are indeed competitors to the cable companies, but the consoles are going to sell hundreds of millions of units regardless of whether the cable companies partner with Microsoft or provide content to them.

Key point: Regardless of whether or not the cable operators partner with Microsoft, Microsoft will STILL be their competitor. So to simplify the choice: you can either partner with your competitor, or withhold your content and risk the possibility of people using your cable service less because when they turn on their TV by saying "Xbox on", your content isn't on that box.

And in the case of partnering with Microsoft, it's an even sweeter deal for the cable operators, because they'll lock people into contract and can probably win back a few customers.

By far the worst thing the cable operators could do is to just stick their head in the sand and hope that Microsoft and content provider competitors will just go away. If the cable operators refuse to play ball with Microsoft, then the most likely outcome is that more television content finds its way onto Netflix rather than cable on-demand channels, and HBO Go apps become even more popular.

your logic is absurd, there's not one scenario where it makes sense for cable providers would want to share their pies with MS

 

[Racer1977]

Not that any of this really matters as long as both are profitable but looking at all these numbers it is clear that most territories don't amount to shit when compared to North America. So Microsoft focusing on North America seems smarter than caring if 1000 japenese people buy the console.

On the contrary, the European market is now as large as NA, with far more potential for growth as southern and Eastern European countries become economically stronger. Similarly, Asia is growing tremendously, and is no longer an afterthought outside of the Japanese market.

Microsoft's complete focus on NA is shortsighted, and IMO, casts huge doubts over the long term viability of the Xbox brand. This gen, if Microsoft lose Europe and Asia by a huge margin, and Sony keep within striking distance in NA, it makes you wonder what their strategy will be for next gen in terms of which markets they will forgo.

As hyped as the NPD's are, there relevance to the fortunes of a games console becomes less and less each year, never mind each gen.

 

[Zinthar]

MS are a much bigger threat, actually. Not only do they provide the very apps you claim cable companies fear, they also sell content themselves, and more to the point, they have the means to funnel users towards that MS-provided content, or any other content MS may choose.

Even without overt efforts in the UI, such as listing XBL results first in searches, etc., the paywalls already make an effective funnel; with Netflix behind the paywall, Microsoft's own services seem that much more attractive. Hell, with XBone, they've even managed to paywall your cable feed itself. I'll bet Time Warner and Comcast are just loving that.

Oh yeah, it's definitely a rough situation for the cable operators (not that anyone should pity them for a second), but the alternative where the multimedia-rich Xbox One console has all of the content under the sun EXCEPT for your cable content is even less appealing. The cable operators are desperately trying to hold on to their subscribers in a rapidly evolving marketplace. At least if they work with Microsoft, though, the cable operators can reach agreements where Microsoft is promoting cable content.

The reality is that television shows and other broadcasts you watch on cable are going to make their way onto the consoles one way or another whether the cable operators like it or not.

 

[avaya]

Alright, because I'm being jumped on by like 3 people at once I won't directly quote anything. Home consoles with strong multimedia capabilities are indeed competitors to the cable companies, but the consoles are going to sell hundreds of millions of units regardless of whether the cable companies partner with Microsoft or provide content to them.

Key point: Regardless of whether or not the cable operators partner with Microsoft, Microsoft will STILL be their competitor. So to simplify the choice: you can either partner with your competitor, or withhold your content and risk the possibility of people using your cable service less because when they turn on their TV by saying "Xbox on", your content isn't on that box.

And in the case of partnering with Microsoft, it's an even sweeter deal for the cable operators, because they'll lock people into contract and can probably win back a few customers.

By far the worst thing the cable operators could do is to just stick their head in the sand and hope that Microsoft and content provider competitors will just go away. If the cable operators refuse to play ball with Microsoft, then the most likely outcome is that more television content finds its way onto Netflix rather than cable on-demand channels, and HBO Go apps become even more popular.

The Bone will not sell enough to be a major threat to cable. Say it does 360 numbers in the states, 40mn. What percentage of those users is online? Of that percentage what percentage forgo their cable content? The number starts becoming very very small. Incurring a $200 customer acquisition cost and/or trying to recover the cost of the Bone you gave away over the life of the contract is simply not worth the outlay for the pitifully small number of consumers you are targeting. Moreover you potentially start a firestorm where you cannabalise your own base and crater your profitability by having good paying customers choose the Bone option since they get a Bone for free/cheap.

A company like Comcast will want to move to ASP model. They supply you/you buy a very cheap modem, and their entire TV service + UI/EPG is streamed to you. That is margin uplift big-time. At that point they give zero fucks about what browser you use to subscribe to their service - they are out of the hardware provision game and will be agnostic.

 

[Skeff]

What!? No, just no. The consoles are not even close to competing with the cable companies. All they are doing is providing SERVICES, just like any Roku/AppleTV/etc. Once the cable companies start streaming their content via IPTV (which everyone seems to be ignoring) it doesn't matter WHAT device you're using for it, you will be buying into their content and they would much rather subsidize a $50 or $100 device than a $500 device.

In the Uk, Sky are selling a rebranded Roku Box with their own custom firmware for access to their IPTV services, they are being sold for £9.99. EDIT: it's a Roku LT to be specific.

 

[Pop]

Looks like we'll be getting a kinectless sku pretty early next year. I'm thinking before Titanfall.

 

[Prince Vultan]

Xbowned

 

[Zinthar]

your logic is absurd, there's not one scenario where it makes sense for cable providers would want to share their pies with MS

If you can't see the logic in partnering with a potentially fierce competitor rather than risking losing a chunk of your core business to them, then you're beyond hope. The cable operators are voluntarily partnering with Microsoft. So either they're all stupid, or you are...

 

[Skeff]

Looks like we'll be getting a kinectless sku pretty early next year. I'm thinking before Titanfall.

Re-launch at a loss at $399 with titanfall would make for fierce competition, Kinect only adds $75 to the BoM apparently, But I imagine they'll save a little more on Packaging and shipping too, Though I imagine $449 with Titanfall is more likely.

 

[avaya]

If you can't see the logic in partnering with a potentially fierce competitor rather than risking losing a chunk of your core business to them, then you're beyond hope. The cable operators are voluntarily partnering with Microsoft. So either they're all stupid, or you are...

Cable companies are going to lose their broadband business to MS?

Put down the crack pipe son.

 

[Racer1977]

I concur with the too early part. XB1 is a livingroom play. Don't be surprised mid/late 2014 MS get the deals to start bundling XB1 with cable/sat providers.

And once again this is another NA play, even if they could pull it off. It's completely unworkable in Europe and Asia with their country specific providers.

That's before the consideration each provider is well on their way towards providing on-demand services, from their own boxes, or online, and won't be willing to hand over THEIR future to Microsoft.

 

[Melchiah]

This still doesn't get the publicity it deserves, so much of the Xbox Ones media features simply don't work outside NA, with no indication when they will come onstream!

I couldn't agree more. I've seen the XB1 media features praised over PS4's in the Finnish magazines and newspapers several times, yet what features (other than HBO) it actually has over here that the PS4 doesn't? 

 

[Nafai1123]

In the Uk, Sky are selling a rebranded Roku Box with their own custom firmware for access to their IPTV services, they are being sold for £9.99. EDIT: it's a Roku LT to be specific.

Damn, I wish we had these kind of services in the U.S.

 

[Zinthar]

The Bone will not sell enough to be a major threat to cable. Say it does 360 numbers in the states, 40mn. What percentage of those users is online? Of that percentage what percentage forgo their cable content? The number starts becoming very very small. Incurring a $200 customer acquisition cost and/or trying to recover the cost of the Bone you gave away over the life of the contract is simply not worth the outlay for the pitifully small number of consumers you are targeting. Moreover you potentially start a firestorm where you cannabalise your own base and crater your profitability by having good paying customers choose the Bone option since they get a Bone for free/cheap.

A company like Comcast will want to move to ASP model. They supply you/you buy a very cheap modem, and their entire TV service + UI/EPG is streamed to you. That is margin uplift big-time. At that point they give zero fucks about what browser you use to subscribe to their service - they are out of the hardware provision game and will be agnostic.

In Q4 2012 there were 84.6 million cable/satellite customers in the U.S. A box that sells 40 million units is inevitably going to overlap with a huge chunk of your subscriber base, and perhaps even be a majority of your subscriber base in certain demographics.

We have no idea how much they'd subsidize the XBO -- the subscriptions they'll lock you into with it will most certainly not be cheap, though. Even if they do sub it for $200, they can lock you into a $100+ cable sub over 2 years, which generates a $2200 profit. You only need to add a "pitifully small" number of new customers with that model to make it worthwhile.

If Comcast wanted to move to the ASP model they could have done it 10 years ago. I don't think it's as lucrative as you think.

 

[Zachi]

If you can't see the logic in partnering with a potentially fierce competitor rather than risking losing a chunk of your core business to them, then you're beyond hope. The cable operators are voluntarily partnering with Microsoft. So either they're all stupid, or you are...

cable companies are voluntarily partnering with MS, hahaha...yeah whatever, I'm done with you....

 

[avaya]

Microsoft is not a credible threat to any broadband or pay-TV service till they buy sport content rights. When they pony up the money for the next set of NFL rights, then others will start to take them seriously.

What they have right now does not even register on the radar.

 

[Zinthar]

Cable companies are going to lose their broadband business to MS?

Put down the crack pipe son.

Obviously that's not at issue. It's the other half of their revenue stream that they'd like to keep -- you know, the one with trivially low marginal costs?

 

[CadetMahoney]

Re-launch at a loss at $399 with titanfall would make for fierce competition.

I doubt Yurop cares about Titanfall.

 

[Zinthar]

cable companies are voluntarily partnering with MS, hahaha...yeah whatever, I'm done with you....

You're right, they'd never do that.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57615897-75/verizon-fios-app-replaces-xbox-ones-clunky-cable-tv-interface/

and

http://www.winbeta.org/news/time-warner-cable-bring-more-300-tv-channels-xbox-360-new-microsoft-partnership

 

[avaya]

Obviously that's not at issue. It's the other half of their revenue stream that they'd like to keep -- you know, the one with trivially low marginal costs?

Oh the one with the massively high content costs? That one? What does MS have exactly that is a threat?

In the US, these firms will have to stream to all devices. Why should they pick one device over another? Microsoft has no special place here.

Microsoft has literally nothing but the power of their balance sheet.

Pro-tip, for cable operators it is their broadband product that is the holy grail. Not TV. TV is there to prevent churn. Your whole point centers on using the Bone to prevent churn. That is an expensive and rather ineffective way to prevent churn.

You're right, they'd never do that.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57615897-75/verizon-fios-app-replaces-xbox-ones-clunky-cable-tv-interface/

and

http://www.winbeta.org/news/time-warner-cable-bring-more-300-tv-channels-xbox-360-new-microsoft-partnership

Where are they subsidising consoles? This is wholesaling, they win from wholesaling. Do you even think through your arguments?

 

[Mobile Suit Gooch]

Like I said. France has bad taste. They eat fucking snails. Plus that country does not have the same impact as the US, but you Sony cronies will keep grasping at any info that says you'll win to make you sleep at night.

....Damn

 

[Zachi]

You're right, they'd never do that.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57615897-75/verizon-fios-app-replaces-xbox-ones-clunky-cable-tv-interface/

and

http://www.winbeta.org/news/time-warner-cable-bring-more-300-tv-channels-xbox-360-new-microsoft-partnership

thats just an app, Sony and Verizon can still strike the same deal and have that app runs on PS4

 

[Hex]

You're right, they'd never do that.



http://www.winbeta.org/news/time-warner-cable-bring-more-300-tv-channels-xbox-360-new-microsoft-partnership

For the record, all that this is would be is the Time warner/ Brighthouse tv app which is available on PC/Android/IOS .
Sony does need to work to get HBO Go, and more of these apps on the PS4, if they do so they will apply the last of the nails needed.

 

[Jabba]

I'll take xenophobic defense mechanisms for 500, Alex.

Answer:

This country, has bad taste, eats snails and has no real impact in sales of the console war, providing Sony cronies with many restful nights.

 

[serversurfer]

thats just an app, Sony and Verizon can still strike the same deal and have that app runs on PS4

More to the point, come June, said app will be nothing more than the DLNA client on your console/tablet/phone/whatever.

So if I'm Comcast, why would I support MS, who are putting my service behind their paywall, instead of supporting Sony, who aren't?

 

[Zinthar]

Where are they subsidising consoles? This is wholesaling, they win from wholesaling. Do you even think through your arguments?

Are you thick, sir? That's not even remotely the definition of wholesaling in that industry.

The subsidizing deals rely upon brick-and-mortar businesses having the infrastructure to sell you a cable contract. It's well-known on the Street that Microsoft and some cable operators in the US have already reached a deal, but they're not ready to move ahead with it yet.

Locking customers into two year contracts is an appealing strategy in a market where the operators are bleeding subs from precisely the demo that XBO appeals to.

 

[Zinthar]

thats just an app, Sony and Verizon can still strike the same deal and have that app runs on PS4

I wasn't talking about Sony, but yeah, I'm sure they will.

 

[RaikuHebi]

lol Turkish subtitles "Is this right?" "Is this right?".

 

[Curufinwe]

Funny how a thread about French console sales turned into another rehashing of the cable companies will subsidize the Xbone bollocks.

 

[Steroyd]

If you can't see the logic in partnering with a potentially fierce competitor rather than risking losing a chunk of your core business to them, then you're beyond hope. The cable operators are voluntarily partnering with Microsoft. So either they're all stupid, or you are...

Wut? they get the same result releasing an app on the XBONE/PS4 than fully subsidising either console.

 

[artist]

Dayumm.

Bone got killed.

 

[gcubed]

Are you thick, sir? That's not even remotely the definition of wholesaling in that industry.

The subsidizing deals rely upon brick-and-mortar businesses having the infrastructure to sell you a cable contract. It's well-known on the Street that Microsoft and some cable operators in the US have already reached a deal, but they're not ready to move ahead with it yet.

Locking customers into two year contracts is an appealing strategy in a market where the operators are bleeding subs from precisely the demo that XBO appeals to.

yea, its not well known because its not true

 

[system11]

These sales figures are very good news. It will make it much harder for Microsoft to buy exclusives.

 

[serversurfer]

I wasn't talking about Sony, but yeah, I'm sure they will.

You're kinda missing the main point; come June, Comcast won't need to make an app for either because the consoles' built-in DLNA clients will provide full access to all of Comcast's content with no additional effort from Comcast required, apart from the FCC-mandated effort they already made.

Now, let's say you're Comcast. MS send you an email saying, "We'll be locking our users out of your content unless they subscribe to the Access Your Non-Microsoft Content service we provide. Would you like to pay for some of the hardware we need to accomplish that?" Meanwhile, Sony send you an email saying, "We won't be locking our users out of your content, and we make the most popular streaming device in the country. Would you like to set up a co-marketing deal in your markets?" Which sounds like the better offer?