Slashdot Mirror
Apple Console Rumour Resurfaces
1up has commentary on speculation from an industry analyst, which GamesIndustry.biz has published. Prudential analyst Jesse Tortora gesticulates wildly in the direction of renewed interest by Apple in the games market. From the GI.biz article: "We think the videogame market represents a distinct possibility for Apple, especially considering that it recently announced the availability of videogames for its iPod through its iTunes store ... The game console device could be morphed out of some combination of the MacMini and iTV, while the handheld player could be developed as an enhancement for a future version of the widescreen iPod."
Buy Nintendo, slap an Apple logo on the Wii, call it Applicious and get sued by the Beatles (again)!
Just like their last one. BTW, isn't the console market getting a little crowded already?
The only way I see Apple getting into the console business is *after* they've taken the living room by storm with their other media offerings (iTV, etc.). Exactly the opposite of the way Microsoft and Sony are doing it.
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
I agree, Apple isn't on the list when you think of gaming.
As the article mentions, Apple makes it's money from hardware
(unlike everyone else who IS actually in the gaming market).
There would have to be some major changes there.
"We think the videogame market represents a distinct possibility for Apple, especially considering that it recently announced the availability of videogames for its iPod through its iTunes store," - Yeah, cell phone quality video games bring forth a new age of gamming only made possible by Apple.
And, consider the fact that most Mac users are old people, any console they release will tank.
They are using Intel chips now, so it is kind of feasible... Ok, maybe not.
Here's a concept that should be considered: Apple are clearly wanting to build a living-room device that displays content from the network and internet on the television. The hardware they will use will be better than the mere "just enough" to get the job done. So why not invest a couple of extra bucks and partner up with Nintendo so their living room device plays Gamecube and Revolution games? Surely future Apple hardware could hack it. Neither side has anything to lose: Apple's living room device becomes more versatile while the market for Nintendo games grows substantially. Plus, don't underestimate the the value of Steve Jobs and countless Apple ads saying the word "Nintendo" on multiple occasions. Nintendo need the added mindshare.
"As the article mentions, Apple makes it's money from hardware (unlike everyone else who IS actually in the gaming market)."
Last I checked, Sony and Microsoft were making hardware, too. The profits do come from the games. The game developers receive those profits and the hardware developers get a large cut. How many games do you see out there that are developed solely by the hardware manufacturer?
Apple has a brand, a very popular one right now. If they can tie their gaming platform to the iPod it will definitely get their foot in the door. If Apple enters gaming it most likely won't be to compete head on with the 360 or PS3, at least to start. As Nintendo has shown with the Wii, you don't need to have cutting edge graphics or processing speed, you need an innovative idea. And although a lot of us do not like to admit it. Apple has been an incredible innovator in the past few years and their products are highly desired in the areas that they focus on. I guarantee that Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo have already considered Apple in their gaming business strategies.
There are many tongues to talk, and but few heads to think. -Victor Hugo
the joystick will only have one button.
Apple isn't on the list when you think of gaming.
Pippin comes to mind and how that was a failure.
2 things are different now and maybe that is what the impetus is.
Apple's customer base knows how to use the internet.
There are thousands of free computer games available that can be played on computers today and people know pretty much how to do it today.
Their `iTV` or whatever will likely turn heads when it is released. I know I am interested. I do not own an iPod. I do like their interfaces.
If their iTV thing does what I think it does, it will become a gateway for their content to be delivered to the living room and that means games.
I bet that most people would like to play Bejewed or some other flash/java game outside of their computer.
That being said, most people have a computer so the TV isn't really all that important anymore as it used to be.
If the iTV will be a platform for specialized content (games) then maybe it will be worth looking into for casual gamers.
I doubt it will be the graphic caliber of the uber expensive Xbox and PS systems but it may have some content worth looking into.
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
There's a big problem that is brought up in the article: Console makers sell hardware at a loss. Yes, yes I know about the Wii and how it makes a "profit" but I doubt that is Nintendo's primary source of profit. It has been and always been the games. With Apple notorious for selling overvalued hardware in shiny plastic, this business model is something foreign to them. And then ponder this next point. So what GAMES is this iConsole going to have? If it just has ports of everything else no one in their right mind is going to buy it. It needs a killer app. Good luck Apple finding a developer to create a "must have game" on a new, possibly disastrous platform, for something you know absolutely nothing about. I detest companies trying to do everything for everyone. Do something and do it well dammit.
I think they're smarter than that. They wouldn't go after an entrenched market, where they have no particular skillset advantage, especially one that you need to throw tons of money at to get a foothold. Gaming has been done, by many more qualified competitors.
I wouldn't be surprised if they offered a few simple games, for the casual gamer, on a device like the iTV. Similar to what they do for the iPod. But, I wouldn't call that going after the gaming market, any more than I would call the iPod a GameBoy/PSP competitor.
As Nintendo has shown with the Wii, you don't need to have cutting edge graphics or processing speed, you need an innovative idea.
This is certainly true, and your observation almost touches upon an interesting parallel.
In some respects, Nintendo is the Apple of the console world. They produce quality hardware in an attractive package. They rely on interesting, well integrated features to sell their hardware. The Wii even looks like a MacMini on its side.
I wouldn't suggest that Apple couldn't do as good a job as Nintendo. But is there really room for both in the market? Especially when on considers Nintendo's (and presumably Apple's) target audience? If Apple made a compelling feature, Nintendo would be forced to retaliate with another. Ideas are a scarce resource, and I doubt Nintendo or Apple has a large enough cache of them to avoid lame gimmicks. Kids might be fond of gimmicks, but grown ups usually aren't.
In the end, this would erode both brands.
After all, I am strangely colored.
Your comment does not really deserve a reply being a joke and redundant at the same time, but if you've seen Apple's recent mice I'd say they are of the same mentality as the Wiimote. That is to say, they are designed to be easy and accessible to everyone and to encourage developers to do the right thing. At the same time, they can easily enable power users to have the myriad buttons they need and want. In fact, Apple's "mighty mouse" is the only mouse I've ever seen where a shared computer can have one hardware mouse with one button for kids and novices and multiple buttons for expert users. I've seen firsthand what happens when novice users try to operate one of those four button designs favored by power users and I've cursed at trying to use the same mouse (as I'm accustomed to three or more). I find it sad that people still drag this old horse out of the closet, even if they're trying to be funny.
Noone would buy a Mac if it simply had Windows installed on it. People buy Macs because they love OSX, and its integration with the hardware. OSX is to Apple what Zelda and Mario are to Nintendo. People wouldn't buy a Nintendo, anymore, if Nintendo stopped selling great games, and stop trying to create an inspired atmosphere for developers to do the same. People wouldn't buy Macs if Apple stopped making OSX and stopped pushing developers to be more consistant, interface friendly, and created a framework for them to create better software.
It's all about infostructure, and both Nintendo and Apple have very similar philosophies when it comes to their developer frameworks.
The only real difference is how they ACTUALLY get their money. In the gaming industry, hardware is sold at a loss or at only a small profit (even Nintendo wouldn't stay in the game if they ONLY had their hardware profits to live off of). In the computer world, hardware is sold at a huge profit, and software is used to promote the hardware (iTMS and the iPod being a good example).
Simply because Apple, itself, doesn't "do games", per-say, has very little relivance. They don't do games because the Macintosh lost the gaming war LONG AGO, and it would be futile for them to put a lot of money into trying to win back that market. Also, Apple's plug-n-play, and hard-nosed infostructure is much better suited for the console market than the Computer Gaming market, which are very different.
So, you're right, Apple doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell in the Computer Gaming market. They have about as much chance as Nintendo does in the PC gaming market. Both have an attitude very well suited to the console gaming market.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.