Top
340°

Pachter: No browser for 360 as Microsoft wants to “own internet”

VG247 Writes:

Speaking on the latest version of GameTrailers show Pach Attack, Wedbush Morgan analyst Michael Pachter has explained why he feels Xbox 360 will never have a browser. It’s all down to ownership, apparently.

The story is too old to be commented.
mrv3212705d ago

Because they are owning the internet right now, with most people here using Firefox or a different browser to I.E and the reason for that is because I.E sucks... it's slow, no add-ons and full of adverts.

I was SHOCKED to see a no ABP browser, the amount of adverts on the internet has increased so much.

Noctis Aftermath2705d ago

You misunderstood what he meant when he said that they want to "own the internet".

darkmurder2705d ago (Edited 2705d ago )

Again Pachter acting like he knows what's going on. No doubt if they did put in a browser they would redirect it to the home page of Bing and allow no one to change it. I'm sure MS would prefer that.

The real reason why is a console is precisely that a console. Why would MS keep adding key points of their main income in Windows, soon they might as well just put Office on Xbox.....

RageAgainstTheMShine2705d ago (Edited 2705d ago )

Big Mike concluded by snapping those bright red braces.

“Microsoft is all about making money, and that’s the cool thing about my job; I get to assume that everyone I talk about is greedy, and greed is good. Microsoft is going to end up charging you for everything you do, but they won’t charge you; they’ll charge the person you’re paying.”

I'm glad I can view YouTube on PSN for FREE!

HolyOrangeCows2704d ago

“Microsoft [said], ‘You are not getting out of this box unless we control your access.’ So when you replicate Facebook, Twitter, Nextflix on the 360 it’s not the same. You aren’t actually going to those sites; you are going to a Microsoft-controlled site where they know exactly what you are touching"

Xbox 360: Think inside the box....whether you want to or not.

Well, if they gave you access to a browser, all of the dumb things they charge you for would be useless to them.

Chucky20032705d ago

before commenting try to understand what a person is really talking about

cyclindk2705d ago (Edited 2705d ago )

I agree with what you're saying, but Pachter wasn't suggesting Microsoft is even CAPABLE of such a thing as long as third party options are available, which of course are non-existent on the 360 and are only just now being limited to a single option on PS3 due to the removal of the other OS feature, yet it remains an open browsing platform at no extra expense.

Microsoft can and does, however, control their consumers' use of the internet thereby "owning" their pocketbooks by implementing strict usage stipulations.

Theonik2705d ago

Yep, you got it. Also this means they can tax their consumer's use of the internet as they please. (360 owners)

karl2705d ago

and then they call it FEATURES!!! hahaha

i hate MS ...

vhero2705d ago

Exactly its a walled garden they control and always will control.

willie62892705d ago

reminds me of AOL in the early 90s. You didn't get the internet, you got their version of the internet. Most people eventually saw it for what it was, but there are always those that live in blissful ignorance.

RedDevils2705d ago

"Again Pachter acting like he knows what's going on" well he certainly know more than you :P

sikbeta2705d ago

I'm still thinking that MS don't want a Browser which must/may be FREE on the x360 cos they don't want 1 thing "invading" other "MS terrain", something like x360 for gaming and if you need to browse something on the net, go use windows + IE, well that's the idea, cos people can use windows + another alternative to IE, like Firefox, chrome or Opera...

whoelse2705d ago

Microsoft was to be the monopoly over everything you want to do.

MNicholas2705d ago

Microsoft makes a lot more money selling OS and software on PCs than on the 360. Giving the 360 a browser would cannibalize their PC business.

For the 360 division to justify adding a browser and stealing business from the PC division, Microsoft would have to charge $10/month for Live.

Godmars2902705d ago (Edited 2705d ago )

That conclusion was drawn up from MS corporate arrogance. That because they're in the position they're in because of Windows, that they can bully their way into any other position in the industry. It doesn't matter that Firefox is more popular, when push comes to shove the MS mindset is that they'll do something to cut the legs out from under the competition leaving IE as the only choice. Nevermind that half the effort that anyone outside their company might see as being underhanded could have gone into making IE a better product. The same example applies in the PS3 vs 360 "war." The 75 million spent on GTAVI DLC.

Meanwhile you've got the example of Google as they grow to a similar level of MS. Offering general benefits to consumers and the industry by reinvesting in the structure of the Internet with fiber optic cables and working with other companies like Sony for Google TV. Not C-blocking Blu-ray with HD-DVD because they want everyone to use their disc format codec or make a foundation for their movie DLC service which is limited to their game console which has a subscription fee in addition to having access to movies, or another subscription from another company.

MNicholas2704d ago

Content owners aren't going to hand their stuff out for free. Google will have to prove that declining confidence in their approach to the online ad market can be reversed.

Legosz2704d ago

You fucking morons, patcher said that if there was a browser on the 360 people would be able to download games and such. This is true too because you wouldn't need to transfer from a computer to the xbox, instead you could download straight to the xbox.

pimpmaster2704d ago

can you dumbasses just watch the vid instead of posting stupid comments based on the headine. your comments have nothing to do with what he actually said.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 2704d ago
Eamon2705d ago

Well, if there were a browser, a lot of the XBL Gold features would be uselss like Netflix, Last.fm, Facebook and Twitter.

And if they make a browser exclusive to Gold users that would be bad publicity I believe.

Then again, I'm not desperate for a browser. I'd rather have a youtube app or BBC Iplayer like the PS3.

Theonik2705d ago (Edited 2705d ago )

BBC iPlayer isn't an app. It's a link to the website and it runs fine on the browser. Same with YoutubeXL, It's a site and it works great with PS3.

@Pedobear: Well if their apps were anything worth noting i would agre but their Facebook app is extremely limited to the extent of it being pointless.
All PS3 needs to so is improve their browser.

Pedobear Rocks2705d ago (Edited 2705d ago )

xbox has served them well...it gives them control over the implementation and user experience of things like Pandora and FB and allows MS to monetize what would otherwise be 'free' on the internet.

This 'app' approach is now going to let MS transition a good chunk of the Live experience to the mobile Windows 7 phone platform as well.

Whereas PS3 users are left with a substandard experience using the browser (I'm not in the states so don't know how well Pandora works if at all on the browser but I know FB works like crap on the PS3 browser)..though it is a free experience.

Won't this be moot when we all have Google TVs?

PBR

mrv3212705d ago

What are you on?

Your justification for no browser is that you have applications? Imagine if the iPhone had a similar thing, no internet and only 4 or 5 apps for the sites.

The PS3 is substandard but it's almost 1,000 times better than the xbox 360 system. Sure some sites may not work but I guarantee more sites work on PS3 than 360.

Bu...bu... I really don't know what defense you could put up, beyond 'It's better for the 3 or 4 sites'. PS3 Iplayer works on PS3 browser.... YOUTUBE works well. This site works well. Countless sites work well, sure there's no Add block plus but they work as well as you can expect from a console.

The dreamcast had a better online than the 360 apps. Infact you could probably get facebook on the dreamcast.

Pedobear Rocks2705d ago (Edited 2705d ago )

No.

I said it is serving MS's purposes of monetizing the online portion of their machine.

I didn't express an opinion as to whether I liked it or not.

As for the PS3...I merely compared the browser experience against the specific apps of MS...not overall.

I used the PS3 browser quite alot and thought it did a decent job...I have moved away from it since installing a Revo at the TV.

You need to calm down. You already showed, with your first comment, that you are a troll and not really intrested in calm and rational discussion. You're here to express your masturbatory love for a gaming console.

D4RkNIKON2705d ago

Pandora works perfectly on the PS3 web browser, I use it all the time, it is nice that you can browse your XMB and send messages while listening too. Facebook gives you access to ALL of facebook and it's features where as the 360 FB app is feature gimped. PS3 needs a browser update no doubt but what it already has is miles ahead of the 360 (IN THIS DEPARTMENT)

Sir_Ken_Kutaragi__2705d ago

Well yeah and they want to own 'YOUR SOUL'!!! ;-D

peeps2705d ago

haha yet again i watched pach-attack and sure enough 2 seperate articles quoting what he said in response to each question

Show all comments (62)
The story is too old to be commented.