Apple Racks Up the Gaming Patents
An anonymous reader writes "Evidence has been growing that Apple is developing a new gaming console. Now, there are some possible details about how a combined media/game console might work, based on patent applications filed by Apple in late 2007 and early 2008. Here is some of what we can look for: having your personal music integrated into a title, a 'natural' gesture multitouch interface, and a single online store that sells games, media, and video."
Apple's other attempt to enter the gaming market.
As much as I dislike their products, if Apple goes after the Wii with stong iTunes and iPhone/Pod integration, as a gaming and convergence device, they could hurt Nintendo. The saturated market isn't an issue when you can lower the standard of definition and quadruple the market space (e.g. the "smartphone" market).
They will probably have to kill Apple TV, though.
Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
Sounds like something the 360 does right now.
Maybe the patent covers a system whereby you're forced to pay the console maker for the music you want to integrate.
All of the stuff mentioned there could apply equally well to the iPhone and iPod Touch, which Apple have been positioning as proper gaming devices anyway.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Lots of people claimed that the Wii would fail because it's graphics weren't adequate for what hardcore gamers wanted. Nintendo proved them wrong.
I'm just sayin'.
It's not that simple. The view is pretty complex in games. The controller has to include networking, file i/o, actually controller input and mapping to a unique internal method.
Nice if true, but it's not. Different chipsets (x64, x86 and PowerPC) all require tweaks to the underlying math libraries to optimize performance. Sometimes those tweaks propogate up.
Without knowing exactly the dividing line, I can say that those components are pretty complicated. So why should we have to use Objective-C at all? Why should I have to have some other language anywhere in my build?
XNA is optional. Objective-C is manditory.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
After the disaster that was Pippin, I very much doubt that Apple will be going into that business again. Steve Jobs' animosity toward computer gaming is well-documented, and it is unlikely that he would about-face on something like this, as he would have to have done back when this project started.
More likely, this is an extension of the Apple TV into a more full-fledged set-top PC. Jobs hates games, but he's learned the hard way that games sell computers, so of course he's going to have Apple put some thought into the interface. But this will not be marketed as a game console, and ultimately it will not compete with game consoles.
On the other hand, it's good to see that they're leaning towards Wiimote-like gesture-based control as opposed to 1:1 motion mapping. It's the best of both worlds: the abstraction of buttons alongside the immersion of motion.
Sigh... in the not-so-distant past, when the Slashdot community was oriented around open vs. proprietary discussions, Microsoft and Apple very much WAS considered to occupy the same basic space.
These days Slashdot is all about piracy, fads and rumors in social networking sites, and discussions about marketing. The occasional GPL vs. BSD/MIT/Apache flamewar still sprouts up, but mostly it's just fanboys praising or bad-mouthing various shiny objects on the basis of how "sexy" they are.
Apple sells "better" stuff, Microsoft sells "more" stuff. Other than that, yeah... they are pretty much the same thing.
Actually, you can also play your own music in games on your Xbox, and Xbox Live has an online store for games and videos. Other than a multi-touch interface (Nintendo DS's turf), what is Apple doing new besides combining these and putting their logo on it?
For some people that's all they need to do...
You guys are about to learn what I learned 10 years ago: Discrete devices work best.
That is true, and that is what geeks prefer. I preferred that myself once.
But you are soon to learn a more powerful truth. That the general populace prefers convergence when it works. "Normal" people (and I use that term neutrally, not implying anything wrong with being abnormal!) do not want to have two or three devices to charge if possible. These people will happily sacrifice a few things to carry less and not become The Batman.
The cycle is that you have a dedicated device until the general devices get powerful enough to absorb the specific.
This is true of course primarily in the mobile space, for fixed location devices I think people will generally either prefer or have neutral preferences on quality devices that do one thing well (like using a receiver vs. having an all-in-one entertainment system). But when carrying stuff space and weight are all premiums that people will sacrifice a lot to improve - not just true in electronics ether, just look at hiking gear...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley