Slashdot Mirror
Apple Eyeing EA?
yerktoader writes "There are rumors that Apple might buy EA, but some interesting counterpoints abound. File this one firmly under 'unconfirmed,' but it's nevertheless a tantalizing rumor. According to Fast Money's Guy Adami, Apple is 'eyeing Electronic Arts as a takeover target.' EA is currently the second-largest games publisher in the world and owner of the smash hit NFL-licensed series of football games. Could we be facing the possibility of an iMadden? Well, probably not. Apple has indeed been bolstering its games know-how, hiring a major Xbox strategist away from Microsoft in recent weeks. And EA is no stranger to Apple platforms: in the last year it's brought several of its major franchises to the iPhone (with more on the way), including Sim City, Tiger Woods, and Spore, with considerable success. But it's a far cry from there to a takeover, and that's putting it mildly. Video games analyst Michael Pachter seems to agree. Speaking to Gamasutra, he pointed out that if Apple was looking to make some entertainment acquisitions, it could buy Warner Music — which controls 20% of the music industry — for roughly half of EA's estimated price."
Nothing.
How many rumours of Apple wanting to buy companies is Slashdot going to post this week?
It would be really nice to see some quality EA titles for the Mac versus quick and sleazy ports - but it won't happen, and I am not saying that just because it's a rumor. Of course, if Apple really financially enticed EA to make titles for both PC and Mac - and *really* worked with developers to make games work on the Mac OS X platform to the levels of performance people come to expect from the PC only market - then EA could really make some money with games for the Mac.
Sadly, as it is right now - they are more than happy to let Aspyr hoover up the residuals making sadly ported versions of their games on the Mac platform.
You sure do get something. More DRM.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
Would Apple really have money to buy EA? They're almost the largest player on gaming industry, and I dont really see Apple having that much of buying power.
It might be worth their while to buy a small stake in the company just to ensure that the blockbuster games get ported to Mac, but it wouldn't make much sense for them to buy the entire company. Although the gaming industry is getting bigger, I think it might be more beneficial for them to target the living room through something like their Apple TV. Otherwise they would need to release their own gaming console and even though they've got the money to burn, it's probably cost Microsoft some $8 billion just to get the point they're at now where they can start trying to make some of that back.
It would probably make more sense for them to negotiate some deals where content providers would allow Apple to rent TV shows to iTunes customers for a fraction of what they charge for a purchase and get Apple TVs into as many homes as possible. If they could work some kind of worldwide distribution as well they could easily target the huge market that Hulu leaves out due to regional restrictions.
Everyone seems to be spouting rumors about who Apple is going to acquire. I think someone saw how much coverage the Apple/Twitter buyout rumor got and decided that it'd be fun to garner a few additional hits to their blog or second rate news site. I think I'm going to go spin a rumor about Apple acquiring Adobe and pull in some ad revenue when other sites pick up the story and link to me. Of course, unlike all the other stories, this one is true. I have it on good authority from someone inside Apple and there's no reason I'd ever lie about that.
let me ask, how many major independent game companies are there?
Its not my fault, someone put a wall in my way.
Game developers are already writing apps for the iPhone/iPod touch.
However, Mac gaming is in a pretty sorry state.
There are also rumours that Apple will enable casual gaming on the AppleTV.
Having the #1 game developer would certain help boost Apple's gaming platforms. The question is, how much are they willing to pay to do so? Apple traditionally doesn't pay much for acquisitions, preferring to buy small companies with promising technologies.
This space left intentionally blank.
EA has a market cap of 6.5 billion. Apple has over 20 billion in cash and short term investments. Even with a hefty control premium, they could easily acquire EA. If they were only interested in a majority share, so that they could force more consideration of their platforms, it's even easier.
http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
How big the video game industry is? If you take 20 seconds to look it up you'd see that EA has a market cap of 6.49 billion vs Apple's market cap of 115.25 billion. Where do people keep getting the idea that EA is so big, they're literally a small fry compared to Apple.
You gotta find first gear in your giant robot car
If they need to do anything, it would be a manufacturing fab. Or it would be a chip designer or manufacturer, or screen company. But none of these things are really necessary to lower the parts cost, increase revenue, or increase profit.
But they really don't need to buy a games company. They make plenty from the apps store, and the games company is making plenty from the game. They are both happy.
How big the video game industry is? If you take 20 seconds to look it up you'd see that EA has a market cap of 6.49 billion vs Apple's market cap of 115.25 billion. Where do people keep getting the idea that EA is so big, they're literally a small fry compared to Apple.
You mean they're figuratively a small fry compared to Apple. You should look up the meaning of literal.
Or at least not only EA. My reason is simple, EA doesn't make Mac games. They make PC games and then shove them into Transgaming's Cider, which is great for productivity and justifying the cost of delivering a Mac version to the market but not so great for making games which run as fast and as bug-free as they can. If they're going to buy a company outright I'd like to see Apple buy a smaller but established company who specializes at least at some level in making or porting games to the platform and then buy franchises and the talent to go along with those titles from other companies to jump-start their gaming division.
Of course, maybe a better solution to the lack of gaming problem would be to subsidize or incentivize game publishing on the platform, but I pay little attention to the details of these things and have no idea what the best first step would be.
How do you fend of the netbook challenge, which Apple doesn't have a product in? Make sure that CPU heavy games and other applications run on your platform, but not on a netbook. Then your choice is between a netbook, or spending another $500 on a MacBook that also runs $GAME.
And even if they had a netbook product, the margins would be low and perhaps cannibalize other higher end products. I'm not sure that they want one.
I think Apple has a small problem. Now that they have finally switched over to a performance delivering CPU architecture, the market is starting to discover it doesn't really need that much CPU and is looking at tinier and tinier platforms. They came a little late to the performance party, when it's starting to lose it's relevance and portability (and price) are starting to dominate as the deciding factors. So Apple needs to make sure that you still want performance-demanding applications, games included, so people continue to have a reason to buy desktops and even laptops.
Seriously, I work in front of a computer all day, and the only application I ever open is my browser--it has my email, my calendar, my documents, and my chat client. Also, my workflow manager. I also sometimes use a terminal window. I could seriously work all day in the computer business on a smartphone--except for the screen and less, the keyboard--both of which could be fixed by a smart docking solution.
Once in a great while I open a PDF reader, and about once a month I need to open Word or Excel--and only cause my collaborators are behind the curve and not using an online document system.
But if all I need is a browser, then really all I need is a smartphone or a netbook, and for convenience a dock to a monitor and a full size keyboard. I don't need a Mac to do that, which has got to be keeping Apple up at night.
--
$tar -xvf
A commenter above indicates that they could pay cash. Twice.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
He means literal in the figurative sense.
What if Apple buys EA, ports all current titles, and then kills off the Windows versions of those titles, and does not offer Windows (or Linux) versions of any new titles? This would be similar to what Apple did when they acquired the DAW company, Logic. And Apple, with $20 bil. in the bank and no long-term debt, could easily afford to kiss-off the revenue from the Windows versions of EA titles.
Apple could, in one master stroke, change from the underdog to the top dog, as far as gaming goes.
And with EA's share of the overall gaming market, smaller game developers would soon be falling all over themselves to offer Mac versions of their games, too.
That's exactly the kind of game-changing (pun intended) move that Apple is deservedly famous for...
And who's to say that Apple hasn't been secretly developing a killer game framework, ala DirectX?
Discuss.
Apple can buy up EA and make a deal with Sony to not make games for MS based consoles in return for a sweet deal on Sony's music. Then they get the best of everything.
They get games, music and can fuck over a rival in the PC and console gaming market.
If they bought EA and quit making PC games and started making Mac games that would give them a huge advantage and really screw MS over with consumers.
So exactly what have you done?
I see a post on Slashdot full of claims but no links to anything of actual substance. You almost sound like Steve Balmer claiming he's going to DESTROY GOOGLE. The fire and brimstone is there, for sure, but that's about it.
If you really want us to go along with your plan at least link to a website detailing what exactly it is you're doing. Your post is so vague that I'm not exactly sure what this 'stuff' I'm supposed to be doing entails. As far as I know, this wonderful Slashdot post is that first move you mentioned. I think you need a more defined cause before you try to rally people to it.
Like alvinrod said, I'd like to see a link..or some proof as to what your doing.
If it's there and going somewhere, I'll throw support behind it.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
It makes sense because not only can they ensure that major titles are made for the mac, but they can ensure that major titles are made ONLY for the mac.
I don't know if it's true any longer, but I recall that Apple had some obscene amount of cash on hand that they could use to buy out a lot of decently large companies.
In fact, This recent news article states that they have around $29 billion just sitting around. It's no wonder everyone predicts they're going to buy company X.
The only real question is whether or not they'll be able to find a company that would be a good fit for them. Twitter and EA don't really offer Apple anything that fits with their current business strategy. They want to sell expensive high-end Mac computers and iPhones. The iPod has saturated the market to the extent that they really don't need any acquisitions in that area.
It would make more sense for them to throw a lot of money at Autodesk so that they would release a version of AutoCAD for the Macintosh. Think of how many high end workstations they'd sell to engineers and architects and other CAD users who could be convinced to try the Apple experience.
You could argue that gamers are a high end market, and to some extent that's true, but they're the type of people who like to constantly upgrade a box to stay on the bleeding edge. Apple likes to sell you new boxes, but doesn't really like you to upgrade them incrementally with parts from Newegg from which they won't see a dime.
If Apple topped out at 20% market share, but it was the professional market that purchased their top of the line, high profit margin machines, why should they care if they'll never crawl above that. Let the other PC markers enjoy their race to the bottom price wars to fight over the remaining 80%.
Also apple needs to have better laptop prices and video cards $2000 for a 9600M GT with 256MB with 15" screen and $2,799.00 9600M GT with 512MB with 17" screen. Come on there maybe laptops that are good for gameing at $1000 and up.
Even some with 17" mate, blue ray, ati 4850 512, p9500, e-sata, hdmi and more for about $1600.
Well I think you'd at least get a high energy burst of gamma rays.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
It's a load of horse manure, plain and simple, and it's not news. Now when Apple does buy someone, then it's news, but till then it's not and it doesn't matter.
To answer your question: "To drive Mac sales."
Compared to the PC gaming market, the Mac gaming market is nearly non-existent, to the point where it's the largest reason for the people who actually buy high-end PCs to skip Mac.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Apple needs much better gameing hardware at a better price the mac pro is joke and comes with a very week video card for it's price and the video card upgrades are a rip of as well. ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB [Add $200.00] on top of the base NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 512MB at $150.00 makeing it 200+150 = 350 for a 4870 512???. also the imacs at $1,199.00 and $1,499.00 used to come with a better video card now they come with the week 9400m Also the $1,799.00 needs to have much better then a NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 with 256MB. The mac pro should be about $1000 less with x2 the ram and better base video. The mini at $800 should have it's own video card as well with 2-4gb of system ram.
This is a complete non-sequitur to the question as to whether Apple should purchase EA.
.000005% of the PC gaming market even plays into the "must-have-fastest-hardware" idiocy, don't you?
And your whining about the Mac Pro (which is decidedly NOT aimed at "gamers") and its list price is just gratuitous Apple-bashing, for Apple-bashing's sake.
Except for the Mac mini growing some sort of ridiculously high-end video card (due to size and cooling constraints), all of your issues can be easily addressed. Plus, you do realize that only about
The way I see it (and what i've been saying for a few years now) apple should get into gaming. Here is why.
1. Gaming now is all about graphics. Apple is already in the graphics market so it's a nice fit
2. This one is key: Games are one of the few things keeping windows alive. Most people keep upgrading because someones kids (or whoever is reading this) wants to play the latest and best games. Either way, you're pretty much locked into windows unless you're ok with playing older games ported to mac... or stuck with performance hits playing through wine, assuming it even works in wine/cadegra.
Here is the magic. If apple was able to come up with an opengl based "directx" like language, (specifically something NOT locked to apple) then Apple would in turn be seen as a hero for making games officially NOT locked to windows. Even if it's something that is coded to work in windows also (cross platform on linux / windows / unix) ... eventually the gamers would realize that linux / apple are much more efficient than windows... and linux is free. In doing this, apple doesn't just get some of the gaming market share, but more importantly, creates a massive hole in windows business market because hardcore gamers will not stick to windows (MANY people i've talked to all say that the only reason they still use windows, or have it on their machines at all is because of gaming). Same with hardcore gaming machines makers like the XPS, alienware, etc... they will be able to sell cheaper computers, and potentially more of them because they are now locked into windows contracts. Selling a computer for 100-200 dollars cheaper sounds great for the end user and great for the manufacturer for being able to have "more options".
In the end, it's not that apple would be making so much more money, it's that windows would be making less, thus opening up the market for more apple converts.
What do they get by buying EA?
A major games software firm to help them sell their new Apple games console.
Apple is very good at selling easy to use hardware to consumers. A games console/media center box fits in with their strategy.
They already have a marketplace to sell the games from.
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
Why not start some more: Apple - Tesla or worse, Apple - Chrysler Apple - Somalia Apple - MS Apple- Slashdot Apple - The GOP
They want to sell expensive high-end Mac computers and iPhones.
I doubt Apple simply wants to keep doing what It already does a great job of. Like every other business, It wants to expand it's reach, or expand into new territory where it believes it can succeed. The expansion doesn't need to fit within their current business strategy for their specific whatever. Thats the entire point of expanding, to do more.
but apple can do better then 9400m that uses system ram and at least put a 9500 / 9600 in the $800 mini and the $1200 and up imac should have at least a 9600 level video card with 256 or more. I am not talking about high end video cards. I am talking about being more in line with other pc systems.
If Apple aquires the EA, we end up having games where you have one button middle of the screen what allows you to shoot or jump.
All the graphics are white/chrome/black combinations and starts with i. Like iGame, iLike, iSports, iFPS, iRTS.
But games quality rises like a phoenix from ashes. That would be the only good point...
Uh, yeah... Good luck with that!
Apple has lots (I mean LOTS) of money on their account and now in current money markets situation, there might come good deals... but everyone is hoping Apple would buy a company "X" to profit etc.
Just stypid rumors...
My prediction is that Apple will continue to do that. They want to be a leader in the consumer electronics field, and so they are going to spend those billions in a way that helps them do that. Does buying Twitter, a company without a business model, help them be a leader in the industry? If not, they're not gonna buy Twitter. Does buying EA help them be a leader in the industry? Apple makes hardware and software to operate that hardware, but they've never been much of a software company, so it doesn't help them.
True, games is a huge market, and one that Apple has missed out on. But Jobs' ego dictates that Apple is a technology leader, not a follower. They don't want to be a 'me-too!' company by jumping into a market with a shiny white console when the console market is already saturated between the Xbox 360, PS3, and Wii. Apple conquered a new market with the iPod and is a serious contender in the emerging smartphone market. Apple will continue to tackle emerging technologies, not established technologies like game consoles. My guess is that Apple will (1) expanded into portable, networked electronics that fill the gap between phone and laptop, and (2) try to do for the TV what they already did for music. They've already tried that with Apple TV. It hasn't taken off yet, but it's a step in the right direction.
Exactly. Apple loves screwing us. Like when I installed Mac OS X, I was forced to enter this long stream of characters or the software would stop working. And I was way pissed when I had to call Cupertino to "reactivate" my license after I installed a new hard drive. They obviously love implementing any anti-piracy mechanisms they can at the expense of us poor consumers. Those greedy execs will use any anti-consumer strategy just to pad their pockets.
Huh? Oh, this never happened? Well how about the fact that Apple sells DRM musicz!!@! They're obviously in love with DRM.
What? They bought the rights from record companies to distribute non-DRM tracks by giving up their pricing strategy which was valuable to them?
Sshhh. La la la, I'm not listening! Apple is teh evilz DRM-loving anti-consumer pig-dogs!! La la la la........
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
Huh? Oh, this never happened? Well how about the fact that Apple sells DRM musicz!!@! They're obviously in love with DRM.
What? They bought the rights from record companies to distribute non-DRM tracks by giving up their pricing strategy which was valuable to them?
1. My old tracks should be removed of the DRM.
2. Since they got rid of the DRM, they jacked there prices on some songs up 30 cents. It's all about the money.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
We get a totally unstubstantiated rumor and then that is speculated upon by what would be a even more unlikely.
Apple buying EA. Okay, the idea behind that would make some sense. After all MS has been selling of its gaming companies and Sony is doing so well owning both hardware and media... on which note, what idiot then goes on to claim buying Warner is a better idea? Because it is cheaper? EA would give Apple games for its hardware, of course EA already puts a lot of its games on the mac so the advantage is not that great but still. But what would be gained by owning a music company? Does it help Sony sell PS3's? Nope.
Speculation is fun, but try to at least think of a reason why Apple should buy something. A better reason then because it is cheaper then buying something else.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I think he meant "literally" in the sense of "actually", which is the third definition for the adverb on Dictionary.com.
But the whole pricing fighting thing coming from the record industry is really helping Apple's credibility! Seriously, if it was Apple raising prices they'd have questions to deal with... No one likes the record industry but they have the best PR people in the world on their side generating good will(except perhaps the movie industry). Apple really needs something like the Kindle, perhaps a device that passively searches for wireless points when the user requests a song. Android of course is full of the potential for such things but there are other reasons Apple's fighting Google on that front.
Meh, music is close enough to on demand... more important right now is the lack of anything to listen to. Downloaded 5 top 100 compilations from various music critics, there's some interesting stuff going on in rap with Santogold, M.I.A. etc, but the whole genre is in danger of getting played out.
That would probably work if Apple had something like 50% of the market share. Otherwise you're just blowing tens of millions on a AAA game title that will only be able to move a few hundred thousand units because you simply don't have enough machines on which to run the games.
Apple can get a larger number of games for their system by just increasing their market share. They can't necessarily guarantee a significant increase in market share just from buying a gaming company. If they tried to make everything Mac exclusive it's likely that they'd end up with a bankrupt gaming company and not much market share to show for it.
Did you forget to take your meds again?
You might want to look up the meaning of 'small fry' too. The term literally was correctly applied.
You gotta find first gear in your giant robot car
Yeah, I was pissed about the whole Spore thing, too, but I don't really see anything they did illegal. Maybe false advertising (depending on how you interpret the law), but there's really not enough illegal activity to "sue the crap out of them".
Steve Jobs said he wanted Apple to be the new Sony, that is, to be the leader in consumer electronics. At the time, I thought Jobs was either out of it, or being typically grandiose. But over the past ten years, this is exactly what Apple has done.
Very good point. The reason Apple is kicking Sony's ass from hell to breakfast is precisely because Sony can't decide whether they're a hardware company or a content company. They're a house divided against itself; every time the hardware guys want to do something cool, the packaged-entertainment side of the company overrules them.
So, yeah, if Apple wants to be the next Sony, then buying EA is exactly what they'd do. And that would be great news for whatever startup is waiting in the wings to take Apple's place.
Jacked up the price and sampling bitrate for higher fidelity (insofar as that's even possible with digital music).
Yes, they are about the money. But who isn't?
Everyone's Apple-DRM anger would make more sense if they had pioneered the per-song deal without DRM, then added a "gotcha" lower-price, lower-quality, DRM-laden product. But they did the opposite.
As for point #1, replacing your DRM-laden songs. Now that is typical Apple - typical American corporate beast. They didn't even offer the option, trade up to DRM free (with higher sampling bitrate) for 30 cents. I or anyone could argue the problems with ensuring the old copy was gone, etc, etc, and how poor Apple would have pay again for the license because that's how the music guys would look at it.
But that part is just the way-sucky part of American business ethics. Is it Apple's fault you can't convert your DRM songs? The record companies'? Both? The end result is the consumer has a moving target, accepts (in general) that the market has moved on to newer/better, and bites the bullet. To be clear - I'm not saying it's ok because it's understandable, I'm saying it's less ok because it's understandable.
Meanwhile - can't you burn your DRM-laden music to CD, then import it DRM-free? I thought you could do this, I don't know. I know the quality **may** take a hit - not sure. But you might try it - CDs are way cheap, hold a lot of songs, it's worth a try.
http://www.jakeludington.com/itunes/20060513_unlock_itunes_music_store_files.html
And for a bit of Apple-DRM background, from a few years ago, check out:
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
Hope this helps you have a better day!
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
Yeah I heard something like this while back. Supposedly all the big console companies were thinking of buying up their own studios and divvying up the market. Nintendo was going to buy Capcom, Sony was gonna get Square, and Microsoft was going to get EA. Strange how that never came to fruition.
I have nothing compelling to say
pro users have been asking for a $1000 - $1500 tower like apple had in the g4 / g5 days and what do they get a system that is about $1000 more then that you can get with a pc that will have x2 the ram and a better base video card that does not need a $30 $100 add on just to use 2 screens. Also a gaming console will not work they need a gameing desktop. gaming consoles are to limited for most gamers and cut out free games / open software.
Where are my DRM-free movie purchases then? Or does DRM only count if it's on music?
They don't want to be a 'me-too!' company by jumping into a market with a shiny white console when the console market is already saturated between the Xbox 360, PS3, and Wii. Apple conquered a new market with the iPod and is a serious contender in the emerging smartphone market. Apple will continue to tackle emerging technologies, not established technologies like game consoles.
IF Apple is, or is thinking off, buying EA, in order to push for broader Mac support in forth coming video games; then I don't think it would be to "become a console". PCs (and by this I mean Computes Running Windows basically) are used for a lot of different tasks, many of them the same tasks done on Macs, however a computer have a large share of games made available as well (some also works on Macs; but for the most part Windows based clients are prioritized more than Macs). What I imagine Apple would want was for games to have full Mac support along the same lines as their Windows releases. This is wouldn't make a Mac a competitor to Consoles, but to gain equal footing with Microsoft when it comes to games running on a computer platform. Not to mention that the added benefit, IF the Windows/DirectX dominance of Computer Games is broken; it could help push for broader Linux support as well. In short, establishing standards for computer game code that cave broader support to different operating systems; could allow consumers in the distant future to eventually enjoy video games on the computer client, console, terminal, brain interface; of their choice.
The Long Now Foundation
Apple cut cut a check tomorrow without breaking a sweat. And I notice that they would have enough cash left over to also cut a check for Dell, which would make for an amusing day of shopping.
EA is already deep enough in the hole with their games not selling enough (they're currently posting LOSSES), limiting them to a platform that isn't bought for its gaming capabilities (and not suitable for gaming either AFAIK, don't consumer-grade Macs tend to have fairly shitty graphics cards?) would just be a disaster, yeah. Plus they'd be trying to sell gaming computers in an age where the average consumer (especially the kind who plays EA's super-mass-market games) prefers a console.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Gaming now is all about graphics.
No, it was 3 years ago, now it's about motion controls and games that appeal to the average joe who hasn't been gaming before. Graphics are so advanced that the average customer just doesn't care enough about further increases, making the graphics better has about zero effect on sales (but an exponential increase on development costs) while pushing something like the Wii's motion controls is a MASSIVE advantage.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
EA is a small, recently hatched fish?
But they'd have to alter their hardware offerings too, currently you need a really expensive Mac to get decent gaming hardware because that's where the cheaper ones cut their costs the most. A significant part of the Mac userbase couldn't play games on their system if they wanted. Just forcing EA to put its games on the Mac wouldn't really work because the average customer would end up buying one of the cheaper Macs and find out too late that games run like crap on those. These customers prefer consoles for a reason. Buying EA only to appeal to high end PC users would be a massive waste of money, there aren't that many of those (AFAIK that's the biggest complaint of companies who make PC games, average PCs can't do gaming either and the number of high-end PCs is dwindling as more people just use consoles).
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
As for point #1, replacing your DRM-laden songs. Now that is typical Apple - typical American corporate beast. They didn't even offer the option, trade up to DRM free (with higher sampling bitrate) for 30 cents.
Incorrect, you can upgrade songs in your library to a higher quality DRM free version.
While I mentioned just the high end before, I keep forgetting that EA includes Maxis, whose products target the mainstream.
Products such as The Sims, Spore, etc...
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Wow - many sincere thanks for updating me! I did not know that! OK, I'm red-faced.... :)
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
Yes, let's pretend Apple do nothing to keep people from installing OS X on whatever hardware they see fit (including sub 867 MHz Powerbooks made by Apple, including many that are more than fast enough to run Leopard), that the iPhone isn't the most locked down phone on the market, and so on. That's all just slander. Or libel, since you're a pedant.
The only reason why you don't have to activate OS X is that it's sold with the computer and only works properly on Apple hardware. But you Mac-fags are always in denial.
i don't support apple wanting to buy EA..... i like EA were they are.... and if apple buys EA will Madden and Need for speed etc not come out for xbox?
rethinkafghanistan.com
So why has Microsoft not purchases EA yet? Fear of over extending its monopoly. Microsoft would have a lot to get out of EA, reduce the PS3 sales around the world by shipping all those sports games to xbox.
Steve jobs knows the writing is on the wall for the big record labels. They pay them lip service and make decent money through the itunes store, but the statistics are out there and the major music studios have lost an entire generation, who will ingrain the same hatred into their children. They are dying of self inflicted wounds, a death protracted by their use of political corruption to thrash about at everything they see.
He would NEVER buy a music label. Video games are quickly eating the music and movie industries' lunches, and smart money says jobs knew this long before any of us did.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
It really doesn't seem like it would make sense for Apple to buy out EA.
That's because it wouldn't.
The way these rumors go, is that from time to time someone who wants to make a quick buck on stock futures will toss something like this out there. They're hoping that EA shares will take a quick jump, and they'll make money on the higher volatility.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Steve Jobs said he wanted Apple to be the new Sony, that is, to be the leader in consumer electronics.
He sure wasn't expecting Sony to self-destruct in just a few years.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I don't see how this could make EA any more evil than they already are. It just means developers will go from 90 hours work weeks and sustenance on glue and cardboard to 95 hours a week and a hearty regimen of wheat germ and gluten free cheese. With the extra calories they will be able to polish games between fainting spells.
I was able to see a PDF of the complaint you filed, but is there any more information available on this case? It looks like you filed in Nov/Dec 2008, but I couldn't find any updates on the case anywhere.
Incidentally, I wouldn't go so far as to say I wholeheartedly agree with your lawsuit, but I admire you for having the backbone to take on EA in a court of law over their DRM garbage. Best of luck to you.
http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
A fair question unfairly mod'd troll.
There is one major IT/electronics market segment where Apple hasn't put any effort yet: games.
Sure, the iPhone/iTouch can play games. And so can the iMac, sorta. But they've got no "game" products. You could argue that most of Apple's software products are surface products, in that they're the 'starter' version of whatever is available in the genre: there's not a terrific software selection, and arguably a lot of features are missing at times. At the least, gaming has been an afterthought for Apple's efforts to this point (despite it being much of what many people care about).
But personally, I think the might make a move in that direction. I'm not talking about publishing games (though they'll obviously want a piece of that cake, as that's where all the profit comes from in games). Reasonably, that's where EA comes from. And Apple has the entire distribution system in place and working well, too, so they've already got that hurdle beaten.
Whether or not they scale down a PC (x86) or upscale a phone (ARM) doesn't really matter, though I'd guess they'd go the multicore ARM route and tightly integrate a gaming platform w/ OS X and iPhone OS to allow people to share game data, and have games with multi-device roles. (I seem to recall reading about something to this effect recently.) Not just as a "neat feature" but an actual feature that makes the games more enjoyable (maybe even providing some fresh ideas to gaming). I can think of a couple fantastical (hazy) things which might be done with a cross-platform game which relies upon an iPhone's portability and interfaces, and I think ti could certainly be made 'fun'.
I mean, seriously: what sense does it make for the world's most powerful super computer (note sarcasm) to not be able to play games? Being able to play the best games only on Apple hardware sounds like a great marketing ploy.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Not only that but owning EA means they get all of those lucrative exclusive sports titles with it, I can see them possibly using this as leverage against Microsoft's XBox360, Since OS X, Linux, Windows, PS3 and Wii all support openGL and openal as well as other open programing standards apple could easily release across everything but the 360, putting a major dent in microsoft's plans.
Last I checked, you could run Crysis at a pretty damn good clip with 2Gb RAM and a GF9400. What's your beef?
I'd like you to spec a nice system, parts only, from somewhere like NewEgg and tell me how much it costs comparable to what Apple offers in the iMac line. You wouldn't be able to get close without open box parts. I say this, having just done it. When you include the case, the 20-22" monitor, the keyboard, and support (for simple security of mind) you're not going to be able to do it. Apple offers a very nice platform for a competitive price.
For what it's worth, I didn't buy the mac. I'm a linux user, through and through, and had parts I'd be using - so I could cut a couple costs, as I'm sure you can. But comparing Apple to Dell is something else entirely. Their hardware is comparable.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Yeah but buying EA only to make Sims 4 a Mac exclusive while ignoring the rest of their output is a bit too expensive. Spore wasn't low-end I think. Also I'm wondering how the sales for the Sims franchise are going. Are the later PC iterations still selling as much as the earlier ones? Are the sales staying on the PC or are they migrating to the consoles? How many people only bought The Sims because they already had a PC anyway and could play it on that and would NOT buy a Mac even if that was the only way to get The Sims 4?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
I think someones been drinking the aquarium water.
Quack, quack.
Well, to be quite honest, Apple bricked (unable to reflash back to normal) my SuperDrive through a "security" update. The update was to prevent people from being able to rip DVDs. I did not even realize what had happened until after I replaced it.
I wanted to rip a dvd so I stuck a dvd in my replacement superdrive and the ripping process errored out. I said hmmmmm. Performed some research, and searched for a flash update to unlock my drive... which is when I ran across numerous discussions about the model number of my previous drive. These discussions centered around a security update Apple pushed in November 2007 (iirc) which bricked that particular model number. Obviously, the intention was NOT to brick the drive, however, the drive was indeed bricked.
I have bought 2 more laptops since then, neither of them Apple.
strike
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Who gave you the impression making a living writing good software should be an easy ride? In the end it's the customers who buy the products, not the developers, so throwing crap out for better stuff at least benefits the people paying for the stuff. Them, and future developers who don't have to keep working with outdated API's that do not take full advantage of the latest hardware and software infrastructure.
Yes, maybe a lot of developers might move off the Apple platforms because they don't want to adjust to newer tech, and this will leave all the more room for other developers who are willing to invest some extra time to make the better app. It's always been my impression that there's a lot less freeware/shareware/OSS for Apple (compared to windows and linux), but that the overall quality is a lot higher. Personally, I'd like to keep it that way.
The MS dev tools are pretty good indeed, but they're not freely available like on OS X. As for the quality of the Apple dev tools themselves: you might not like Xcode but in the end it's simply gcc and friends that you'll be working with, and I think there's hardly any developers who think gcc is crap. Apple's performance tools are pretty good too, I still haven't found any usable *nix alternative for Shark.
How? Can you share the procedure? (hopefully you don't mean convert existing DRM'd tracks to AAC)
[quote]As for point #1, replacing your DRM-laden songs. Now that is typical Apple - typical American corporate beast. They didn't even offer the option, trade up to DRM free (with higher sampling bitrate) for 30 cents. I or anyone could argue the problems with ensuring the old copy was gone, etc, etc, and how poor Apple would have pay again for the license because that's how the music guys would look at it.[/quote]
Did you miss the GIANT BANNER offering this exact service, to upgrade all your old DRM songs to new, non-DRM format for 20p each on the iTunes store on the very same day the DRM free songs were announced?
Yes, I did.
I was in Cupertino just before the announcement, knew from friends it was going down soon, but rumors had started that they wouldn't do that. Next two or three months, I was in Asia, too busy with a lot of work to notice any more than a SF newpaper press release that got relayed to me - and that article suggested that no upgrade policy was forthcoming - so, I simply didn't check past the rumor stage when I got home. (And yes, some of the places I was at in Asia had decent net access, some did not, but I was working 18 hour days - and it just wasn't the biggest news for me.)
I had one FairPlay iTMS song - Red Shoes, and that was because it was a free pick of the week. My only other use of iTMS was a year later to gift a few songs for a friend with his gifted iPod, and then to rent one movie, just to see.
So, I like iTunes (but I'm suffering from it as I'm told that Windows users do), I love my iPod, and I ***try*** to help people when they get cross-threaded with iPod and FairPlay misunderstandings. There are still people who believe that iPods won't play MP3s and that AAC=DRM.
In this case, I was honestly clueless. No excuse for ignorance, I guess, but FWIW, I wasn't attempting to troll anyone, I really was attempting to help and commiserate my displeasure.
Also, FWIW, I was the only guy that pointed out that the DRM-free songs do feature higher sampling for the money - or - do have that wrong, too?
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
Like others have said, Apple has an absurd amount of liquid capital sitting around. The could easily but EA with the money they have in the coffee machine.
If there's one thing that is certain, Apple could not sell another machine for the duration of the economic crisis and just sit in limbo until it wears off and come out the other side still with enormous wheelbarrows of cash.
Their games stink like fish eggs, so it's a strong possibility.
Maybe, maybe not. There is a lot of low level technology that is exclusive to mac. If there were say 100 high quality games unlike anything available for any other platform would gamers be willing to buy apple; especially given that they can dual boot to run PC games?
I agree, it doesn't make sense for Apple to purchase EA. EA will continue to make iPhone and Mac games regardless of whether Apple owns them or not.
The only reason it would make sense for Apple to purchase a game company is to ensure exclusive A-list games for their platform. That's why Microsoft acquired Bungie, so that they could have the Halo games exclusively on the XBox for two years before they ported them to the PC and Mac. Bungie, who was a Mac developer at the time, had originally planned to release all versions simultaneously, IIRC.
The Bungie acquisition was an easy choice for Microsoft to spot. Bungie was greatly under-appreciated for their talents because they were cranking out A-list games for the minority platform.
What exclusive title EA might have for Apple, I have no idea. It would be a mistake for EA to take established franchises and suddenly make them iPhone-only or Mac-only.
If Apple wants an in-house game company, they need to look at up-and-coming developers or other opportunities. The collapse of 3D Realms presents a unique opportunity for someone to buy their IP assets and crank out the long-awaited Duke Nukem Forever (but Duke may be a little too controversial for Apple's tastes).
Or the New York Times or GM. What about NASA or JPL? As long as we're going shopping, lets have fun!
I drank what? -- Socrates
Apple buying EA doesn't automatically mean that EA would stop making Windows games.
The Sims must be doing something right or they wouldn't continue making expansions for it. Seriously, there's like 30 expansions for The Sime 2.
The Sims 3 comes out sometime next month, too.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Mabey we will see a decent port of EA games for mac