The Seeker wrote:Zeus wrote:
Go back to my original post and read it. You'll see it has nothing to do with the make-up of the actual electronics themselves but rather the position of the companies in the conscious of the masses
Sony's position in the electronics industry might sell 200,000 units; Not any more than that. The Playstation brandname is something separate from the Sony brandname in most consumers eyes. People do not equate the PSP to the second coming of the Discman, it is a Playstation Portable. It is their position in the videogame market that matters. Otherwise, a larger electronics company like Matsushita (with massive backing from partners like Time Warner, Sanyo, and others) would have been successful with their Panasonic 3D0.
You notice how you and I seem to hijack every post with our arguments? :-)
When Apple releases a new product, people stand up and take notice 'cause it's Apple. They made their name with the iMac and put themselves in people's minds. When they released the iPod, they had the Apple name to get people interested and then it took off. Even though there were many other mp3 players for many years before, they used their brand and marketing (forget for a second whether or not the product is superior; superior products don't always win) to take over the market. They have what, 80% of the market with the iPod?
Sony is similar. A lot of people have this idea that Sony's high-quality products (we're not arguing whether that's a valid point, just that it exists). So, when Sony announces a new piece of electronics, like the PS3, there are a lot of people who say to themselves "Sony's a high-quality product, I"ll get that one if I'm going to get one at all". They have very strong brand loyalty.
It's position in the electronics industry did a lot to win over the crowd with the original PSX (for the masses; the games brought in the gamers) and with the PS3, you'll have people waiting just 'cause of the brand name. I saw it at my store with the PS2 vs the DC. People waited for the PS2 based on brand name alone without even looking at the DC, which had WAAAAY better games in the beginning (and, arguably, the best first two years of any console). I just don't see that kind of blind loyalty with the other two systems, other than the children and the parents buying them for the children with Nintendo.
It's because these companies are masters at marketing that they can do something like overcome an inferior product and still be market leader. Again, not saying either is the inferior product, just trying to explain my point.
Nintendo works the opposite. They rely on brand loyalty and quality to create the market for them. With the NES, they had no real competition, so they won easily. Then the SNES comes out and it takes it 4 years to overcome the Genesis not because it was inferior (I don't think too many would argue that the SNES was a far superior machine), but because Sega used smart, aggressive marketing to put themselves in people's minds. Nintendo kept it's fans through the quality of its product. Eventually they relaxed their ridiculous iron grip a bit and they were able to catch up (it happened with MK2 and after). But they were forced into that and their marketing was shit. They were that way through the N64 and GC days, no marketing and just relying on their product to sell itself.
And nothing's changed. In today's world, you can't just put something out there and expect it to dominate, but they still think they can. That's their arrogance and even though they've been badly beaten for two generations in a row, they're not changing. If they EVER learned to market like Sony or Apple, they'd kick ass...hard. But their arrogance will keep them from doing that which, IMO, will lead to them never truly dominating.
