Theorizing a Big Apple Push Into Gaming

Ian Lamont writes "Terrence Russell has outlined an interesting theory about what industry Apple intends to break into next. He points to games. Forget Pippin II, or an iMac gaming rig — he thinks the mobile realm is where Apple will make a big product push. It's not the first bit of speculation about Apple's renewed interest in gaming, but Russell's theory may have more legs, considering Apple's invitation to develop games on the iPhone SDK, its strong mobile product line, and a Apple trademark extension filed three months ago."

Comments

Re:Fruit market

[Hatta]

I thought Apples were already marketed to fruits.

Re:Graphics Cards

[neoform]

>Ok, I'm 99% sure you're a blatant troll, but to give you the benefit of doubt..

Take a look at my posting record and ask yourself if I'm a troll.

So Why Hasn't iPhone Killed iPod Then?

[pandrijeczko]

So the iPhone gets a game or two? Big deal - just about every other mobile phone out there can play games.

Just look at the evidence...

Just because mobile phones have built-in cameras, have they killed off the sales of digital cameras? No. And why? Because digital cameras take better pictures and because the more "abilities" you throw into a single device, the more complicated you make it to operate for Joe Public.

Has the iPhone killed the iPod due to the ability to play music on it? No, because an iPod does a better job of playing music than a phone does.

So what does this tell you? It tells you people don't mind following the UNIX philosphy of having a number of different tools, all of which do a single job well - rather than having a single tool that, no matter how pretty the GUI is, is still complicated to operate for Joe Public. And not to mention the fact that having separate devices means that when one device breaks, Joe Public loses the ability to do one thing for a while, rather than everything.

Apple has completely and totally missed an opportunity that Microsoft are currently missing - namely tiny PCs or netbooks like the EEEPC. Microsoft slipped up with pushing everything into Vista without the realisation that there's no chance of getting it to run on a Netbook - Windows XP, yes (with a bit of slimming down) & Linux definitely. Plus Netbooks will play games quite well and are pretty portable.

Sorry, Apple freaks, but ask yourself a question. Imagine Joe Public in the computer shop with his mobile phone in his pocket that already makes phone calls "quite well". In front of him on one shelf is an iPhone, on the other is a EEEPC and a "normal" Nokia phone which both, combined, cost less than the iPhone. So what do you think he's going to buy?

Putting the fanbois aside, the reality of the situation is this - despite my personal disdain of iTunes and DRM stopping me ever buying a closed platform player like an iPod, the reality is that Joe Public likes the iPod because to him it's a good product at a reasonable price that *just* plays music.

However, Joe Public is not buying Macs because as far as he's concerned, a PC is cheaper and lets him surf the Internet and play a few games. Therefore, Macs are not good value products which is why they are marketed as fashion accessories and "geek toys" to appeal to those people who need to make outward displays to others. (Otherwise, why would the Apple logo need to be so big and visible on a Mac?)

Yes, maybe if Macs were half the price they are, people would buy them in their droves - but then the fanbois wouldn't buy them because they wouldn't be "exclusive" enough for them.

So let's not beat about the bush here - iPods sell because they play music well at the right price. But Macs are aimed at an exclusive market and iPhones are aimed at people who have already bought Macs. Therefore Macs and iPhones will never be particularly viable gaming platforms whilst Joe Public can buy stuff that's half the price or less and plays games as well or better.