Apple already tried a gaming platform back in the day. It was called the Pippin.
Is this idea gonna fly?
Are you kidding? Apple tried a PDA called the Newton, and since it was canceled, the iPhone/iPod touch/iPad are all doomed as well?
The Wii and all the current iOS handhelds have proven that casual gaming is a very lucrative market. It's entirely unfounded to think gaming on an Apple TV is destined to fail. That's not to say it's destined to succeed either. It really comes down to how well Apple executes this. The input device is going to be the deciding factor. Clearly using the current Apple remote won't cut it, and as interesting as it might seem, using an iPod touch or iPhone won't be enough (it will be really cool as an auxiliary i/o device, though). Just a clone of the Wii-mote will suffice.
Once they get that worked out, it seems like it's got quite a shot. It's only $99, iOS software is pretty cheap, it's really simple to use, and consumers love Apple products. It's actually hard to think of reasons why it *won't* succeed, without involving some monumental missteps.
Do we really need yet another Apple-controlled walled garden? Don't we have enough of those already?
Actually, yes. Consumers love them. This is because they create a system that is easy for them to understand and provides a certain level of trust. Geeks can understand technology far better, and can rely on themselves to keep their systems running well and safe, so sure, *you* don't want another walled garden. Here's a hint: you don't ever have to use it. Just stick with Android or whatever.
But for the other 99+%? Apple's "walled garden" is fantastic.
And it's an absurd complaint to begin with when talking about a gaming system. *ALL* major gaming systems are walled gardens. In fact, they are far more controlled than iOS.
Did you forget to include any actual content? If facts equal trolling and are detrimental to a site, that says a lot about the site, don't you think?
My post contained both facts and reasoning, i.e. a valid argument. Yours is just trolling and is actually detrimental to this website (although its reputation is already tarnished as a hive of socially awkward nerds, so at least you're fine here in that regard).
You don't need to touch an antenna to attenuate it's signal, it's just much worse when you do, which is why this touchable-antenna-on-the-outside-of-the-phone is just plain bad engineering.
But this doesn't happen on the Verizon iPhone (and doesn't seem to plaque people on non-AT&T GSM iPhone 4's either).
The iPhone 4's antenna starts out with a better signal, due to what you call "bad engineering". The normal "death grip" signal loss is still better *except* when you touch it at one particular point, in which case it drops worse (and may even drop the call, depending on your initial signal quality).
The Verizon iPhone 4 has the exact same type of external antenna, but not the exact same type of attenuation issue. It's issue is just the normal "cover the whole thing and grip tight" and it doesn't attenuate as bad as many other phones, including the GSM iPhone 4 on AT&T. That doesn't point to the external antenna design being innately bad engineering.
There's a difference between "all phones have an antenna" (duh), and "the antenna is exposed to conductive material by human skin contact" which has a very different effect than locating your hand near the in-case antenna.
The iPhone has an external non-insulated antenna which, when you touch it, get's detuned.
This is false. Every phone has a signal weakness. Some only require a finger in a certain spot (including non-iPhones), others require a hand covering a large area. The AT&T iPhone has a spot. The Verizon iPhone requires a full-on "death grip".
>>>All phones have a "death grip" that drops the signal.
Mine doesn't. That's because it has an actual antenna sticking out the top of it.
Ok, Einstein, cover the antenna with your hand and report back.
*Every* phone has a death grip because that's how radio works. The only way to eliminate it is to use different frequencies, higher powers, or larger antennas, such that the hand is insufficient to attenuate the signal.
It's not news because it's how radios work. All phones have a "death grip" that drops the signal. The Verizon iPhone's grip is different from AT&T's, because the antennas are different.
You might be missing the point. Say he went to a hotel for a stay and wanted to watch something on his iPaid on the TV in the room without paying some silly $10 charge. Connect the cable and watch. Where is that modern, 21st century home digital network with the TV allowing you to use wireless to connect? Hint: It isn't there in the hotel.
How is that a coherent argument?
If you are at a hotel, you can use AirPlay just as you can at home, with an AppleTV. If the hotel TV doesn't have HDMI, you can use analog connections directly from the iPad. If the hotel TV doesn't have digital *or* analog connections, how is that a problem with the iPad?
And that's all within the very unusual circumstance of being in a hotel and wanting to hook video up to a TV. If that were the biggest problem with the iPad (that it for some reason couldn't video-out to hotel TVs) it would hardly be much of a thing to complain about for most people.
You are right, he might be missing the point. The point isn't that there's anything wrong with the iPad, the point is to just complain.
Yes, 'quite easy'. Obvious problems though - you shouldn't need iTunes. It's a stupid interface for getting movies onto your device.
How so? iTunes is a large part of the mass appeal of iPods.
Something like AirShare lets you drag and drop a movie on your desktop to the device, but of course the sandboxing means you can't get that movie into your iPad videos folder, you nee to watch it inside AirShare.
Why does that matter? It still plays just fine.
The iPad also has no inbuilt way to watch movies stored on NAS.
Why does that matter? If there are apps easily available, how important is to to be built in?
There's a number of apps which try to offer DLNA support, but all the ones I've tried have been unstable.
I've not used any DLNA apps, but I've used network video sharing apps, and they all worked fantastically, even transcoding on the fly.
It's not that the iPad isn't capable - look at the XBMC install for jailbroken iPads. It's just that Apple won't allow the capabilities to be exploited.
Um, except that they do. You've seen the App Store, right?
They'd rather you just bought the movie again through iTunes and let them get their cut.
Their "cut" isn't the issue. They'd much rather you buy an iPad than buy movies from them. Their selling of movies is entirely about selling hardware. The reason they limit *some* things is in order to make their devices more appealing. Once something becomes too complex, people start to look elsewhere.
I meant, "I never thought the iPad would Sell well at the price it sold for"
Fair enough.
not sure you how you read "would never sell at its cost" as "would never sell AT COST" big difference between the two
"Cost" has specific economic connotations which imply what it costs to make. Cost to the consumer is more appropriately called "price". I completely accept that you mean the retail price, not the component and manufacturing cost, but it's pretty easy to see why someone would interpret it in a way different from what you meant.
Exactly. It's an argument without anything substantive to back it up. There's no precedence upon which to base it.
If "a polished turd" simply means "not a spectacular product", then perhaps. The original AppleTV wasn't *spectacular*, but it also wasn't a runaway success. It was not a "polished turd". Apple can't even *make* a polished turd. Perhaps the puck mouse from over a decade ago, and it's not like people went out and bought them in droves. In other words, it's a perfect counter example.
I'm postulating that if they actually released a real, polished turd that it would probably still sell well based on the existing following and the hype that would surround it.
Buyers of Apple hardware can easily spend more than their device's purchase price on iTunes-purchased software and media.
That's a lot of songs and games for (mostly) a a buck a piece. Would you care to cite your sources?
Music and games and movies and TV shows and podcasts and tools and books and periodical issues and periodical subscriptions. The most expensive app is $1000. Content is king. I often see DVDs sold with a free DVD player.
Your "sources" are "the most expensive app" and some other company that gives away DVD players? In other words, you have no sources whatsoever. You're just making shit up.
Web apps running under iOS will always be harder to use than native apps because Apple bans native APIs like Flash and non-Apple JavaScript. This means that web apps can't make use of device I/O such as multi-touch, sound, GPS, accelerometer, etc.
That is false. You are making shit up.
Yes the 30% is revenue not margin. I'm arguing that although Apple's hardware revenue share is higher (probably in the 80-90% range), the low fixed and marginal costs to run their online software and media store compared to designing, making, and selling devices would make the margin gap a lot narrower than this revenue gap.
Again, you are just making shit up.
No developer is forced to use iAds. As a matter of fact, AdMob and other advertisement networks were rather well established before iAds came in. If developers chose to use iAds it is because they find it superior or more convenient than other services.
Apple makes a direct profit on every piece of hardware they sell, including iPads. App Store (and music store) profits are minuscule compared to their hardware profits. There is no lock-in dynamic like you are imagining.
Why do you say there's no lock in?
I didn't.
I said "there is no lock-in dynamic like you are imagining". Specifically, that you were saying Apple sells the iPads at a loss because they will make up the difference after the sale. They don't.
Apple is the exclusive agent for native apps (including publications), in-app book sales, and analytics-capable in-app advertising. Buyers of Apple hardware can easily spend more than their device's purchase price on iTunes-purchased software and media.
Yes, they *can*, but they don't.
Sure Apple's revenue cut is 30% rather than 100% (less for music), but their margins on software and media can be comparable to their hardware margins because their cost of sales is so much less.Then there's the on-going revenue from ad views.
It costs far more to run their stores than you think. It's not a significant profit center for Apple, it's a value-add for their hardware, and it pays for itself. It's basically adding a feature for free, and it's a feature no one else can match. On a side note, that's one of the features (maybe even the main feature) that makes Android so much less appealing than iOS to most people.
So I see Apple deriving a greater and greater share of their profits from their "platform".
Yes, but "greater and greater" in this case is going from "break even" to "a little better than break even". Apple makes billions in profits from each of their major hardware categories every year, they make millions from their iTunes stores.
The money they make from increased hardware sales *as a result* of the stores exceeds the money they make from the stores themselves. That's the part that people who think as you do are missing. For Apple, hardware is king, and always will be. The day it's not is the day Apple will have stumbled.
But you are basing that on what exists now. If you don't think anything they sell is a polished turd, then on what grounds do you base your assessment?
Perhaps you have a different explanation, and I'm ready to hear it, but as it stands, unless you think something they sell now (or at least sold recently) is sufficiently turd-like, I don't see how you can back up your opinion.
Speaking of someone being offended. These products don't offend my "geek-centric view of the world". I recognize their value, quality and impact on technology. However, if you don't think Apple could put out a polished turd and still make millions, you haven't been paying attention.
Your post completely proved my point. What you would call a "polished turd" (that's what I mean by "offending your geek-centric view of the world") is nothing of the sort. It's just that your standards are so geek-centric.
Ever since the Samsung Galaxy Tab looked like priced way to high I have had a theory: They just fear to have their tablets to be looked upon as "cheap iPad clones". They think people have learned to think "expensive = good", so they price the things up through the roof.
Wait a minute, your theory is that Motorola (and Samsung) deliberately overpriced their tablets in order to get people to think they are better? And that's supposed to be their strategy for a mass market product?
Doesn't it simply make more sense that they can't build their tablets at a price competitive with Apple?
I predict that this will be the first android device to exceed 75% of all devices rooted and a non crippled version of the OS installed.
If that happens, then it will not have been all that successful in the market. Geeks will root it, and if a majority of them are rooted, then a majority have been sold to geeks. Normal people aren't going to root and update the OS.
Since it's all but impossible for the Xoom to be all that successful, your number may very well be achievable.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple already tried a gaming platform back in the day. It was called the Pippin.
Is this idea gonna fly?
Are you kidding? Apple tried a PDA called the Newton, and since it was canceled, the iPhone/iPod touch/iPad are all doomed as well?
The Wii and all the current iOS handhelds have proven that casual gaming is a very lucrative market. It's entirely unfounded to think gaming on an Apple TV is destined to fail. That's not to say it's destined to succeed either. It really comes down to how well Apple executes this. The input device is going to be the deciding factor. Clearly using the current Apple remote won't cut it, and as interesting as it might seem, using an iPod touch or iPhone won't be enough (it will be really cool as an auxiliary i/o device, though). Just a clone of the Wii-mote will suffice.
Once they get that worked out, it seems like it's got quite a shot. It's only $99, iOS software is pretty cheap, it's really simple to use, and consumers love Apple products. It's actually hard to think of reasons why it *won't* succeed, without involving some monumental missteps.
Do we really need yet another Apple-controlled walled garden? Don't we have enough of those already?
Actually, yes. Consumers love them. This is because they create a system that is easy for them to understand and provides a certain level of trust. Geeks can understand technology far better, and can rely on themselves to keep their systems running well and safe, so sure, *you* don't want another walled garden. Here's a hint: you don't ever have to use it. Just stick with Android or whatever.
But for the other 99+%? Apple's "walled garden" is fantastic.
And it's an absurd complaint to begin with when talking about a gaming system. *ALL* major gaming systems are walled gardens. In fact, they are far more controlled than iOS.
Do re-read your post and explain how *I'm* the troll.
Did you forget to include any actual content? If facts equal trolling and are detrimental to a site, that says a lot about the site, don't you think?
My post contained both facts and reasoning, i.e. a valid argument. Yours is just trolling and is actually detrimental to this website (although its reputation is already tarnished as a hive of socially awkward nerds, so at least you're fine here in that regard).
You don't need to touch an antenna to attenuate it's signal, it's just much worse when you do, which is why this touchable-antenna-on-the-outside-of-the-phone is just plain bad engineering.
But this doesn't happen on the Verizon iPhone (and doesn't seem to plaque people on non-AT&T GSM iPhone 4's either).
The iPhone 4's antenna starts out with a better signal, due to what you call "bad engineering". The normal "death grip" signal loss is still better *except* when you touch it at one particular point, in which case it drops worse (and may even drop the call, depending on your initial signal quality).
The Verizon iPhone 4 has the exact same type of external antenna, but not the exact same type of attenuation issue. It's issue is just the normal "cover the whole thing and grip tight" and it doesn't attenuate as bad as many other phones, including the GSM iPhone 4 on AT&T. That doesn't point to the external antenna design being innately bad engineering.
There's a difference between "all phones have an antenna" (duh), and "the antenna is exposed to conductive material by human skin contact" which has a very different effect than locating your hand near the in-case antenna.
Because that's not what's happening.
The iPhone has an external non-insulated antenna which, when you touch it, get's detuned.
This is false. Every phone has a signal weakness. Some only require a finger in a certain spot (including non-iPhones), others require a hand covering a large area. The AT&T iPhone has a spot. The Verizon iPhone requires a full-on "death grip".
>>>All phones have a "death grip" that drops the signal.
Mine doesn't. That's because it has an actual antenna sticking out the top of it.
Ok, Einstein, cover the antenna with your hand and report back.
*Every* phone has a death grip because that's how radio works. The only way to eliminate it is to use different frequencies, higher powers, or larger antennas, such that the hand is insufficient to attenuate the signal.
It's not news because it's how radios work. All phones have a "death grip" that drops the signal. The Verizon iPhone's grip is different from AT&T's, because the antennas are different.
You might be missing the point. Say he went to a hotel for a stay and wanted to watch something on his iPaid on the TV in the room without paying some silly $10 charge. Connect the cable and watch. Where is that modern, 21st century home digital network with the TV allowing you to use wireless to connect? Hint: It isn't there in the hotel.
How is that a coherent argument?
If you are at a hotel, you can use AirPlay just as you can at home, with an AppleTV. If the hotel TV doesn't have HDMI, you can use analog connections directly from the iPad. If the hotel TV doesn't have digital *or* analog connections, how is that a problem with the iPad?
And that's all within the very unusual circumstance of being in a hotel and wanting to hook video up to a TV. If that were the biggest problem with the iPad (that it for some reason couldn't video-out to hotel TVs) it would hardly be much of a thing to complain about for most people.
You are right, he might be missing the point. The point isn't that there's anything wrong with the iPad, the point is to just complain.
Yes, 'quite easy'. Obvious problems though - you shouldn't need iTunes. It's a stupid interface for getting movies onto your device.
How so? iTunes is a large part of the mass appeal of iPods.
Something like AirShare lets you drag and drop a movie on your desktop to the device, but of course the sandboxing means you can't get that movie into your iPad videos folder, you nee to watch it inside AirShare.
Why does that matter? It still plays just fine.
The iPad also has no inbuilt way to watch movies stored on NAS.
Why does that matter? If there are apps easily available, how important is to to be built in?
There's a number of apps which try to offer DLNA support, but all the ones I've tried have been unstable.
I've not used any DLNA apps, but I've used network video sharing apps, and they all worked fantastically, even transcoding on the fly.
It's not that the iPad isn't capable - look at the XBMC install for jailbroken iPads. It's just that Apple won't allow the capabilities to be exploited.
Um, except that they do. You've seen the App Store, right?
They'd rather you just bought the movie again through iTunes and let them get their cut.
Their "cut" isn't the issue. They'd much rather you buy an iPad than buy movies from them. Their selling of movies is entirely about selling hardware. The reason they limit *some* things is in order to make their devices more appealing. Once something becomes too complex, people start to look elsewhere.
None of your listed fears reasonably apply to iTunes content.
I meant, "I never thought the iPad would Sell well at the price it sold for"
Fair enough.
not sure you how you read "would never sell at its cost" as "would never sell AT COST" big difference between the two
"Cost" has specific economic connotations which imply what it costs to make. Cost to the consumer is more appropriately called "price". I completely accept that you mean the retail price, not the component and manufacturing cost, but it's pretty easy to see why someone would interpret it in a way different from what you meant.
Re-read my post and note the word "thousands". We are not talking about consumerism here. The Xoom won't appeal widely enough to reach that threshold.
Exactly. It's an argument without anything substantive to back it up. There's no precedence upon which to base it.
If "a polished turd" simply means "not a spectacular product", then perhaps. The original AppleTV wasn't *spectacular*, but it also wasn't a runaway success. It was not a "polished turd". Apple can't even *make* a polished turd. Perhaps the puck mouse from over a decade ago, and it's not like people went out and bought them in droves. In other words, it's a perfect counter example.
"A polished turd" does not mean "just an average or slightly superior, but not amazing, product".
I'm postulating that if they actually released a real, polished turd that it would probably still sell well based on the existing following and the hype that would surround it.
What's so hard to understand about that?
The part where it's supposed to be true.
That's a lot of songs and games for (mostly) a a buck a piece. Would you care to cite your sources?
Music and games and movies and TV shows and podcasts and tools and books and periodical issues and periodical subscriptions. The most expensive app is $1000. Content is king. I often see DVDs sold with a free DVD player.
Your "sources" are "the most expensive app" and some other company that gives away DVD players? In other words, you have no sources whatsoever. You're just making shit up.
Web apps running under iOS will always be harder to use than native apps because Apple bans native APIs like Flash and non-Apple JavaScript. This means that web apps can't make use of device I/O such as multi-touch, sound, GPS, accelerometer, etc.
That is false. You are making shit up.
Yes the 30% is revenue not margin. I'm arguing that although Apple's hardware revenue share is higher (probably in the 80-90% range), the low fixed and marginal costs to run their online software and media store compared to designing, making, and selling devices would make the margin gap a lot narrower than this revenue gap.
Again, you are just making shit up.
No developer is forced to use iAds. As a matter of fact, AdMob and other advertisement networks were rather well established before iAds came in. If developers chose to use iAds it is because they find it superior or more convenient than other services.
Only iAds give advertisers high quality analytics data, meaning that iAds are likely to pay better, meaning that developers are likely to prefer them to ads from other networks.
In other words, exactly what dzfoo said. They aren't forced to use it, but find it superior.
Apple makes a direct profit on every piece of hardware they sell, including iPads. App Store (and music store) profits are minuscule compared to their hardware profits. There is no lock-in dynamic like you are imagining.
Why do you say there's no lock in?
I didn't.
I said "there is no lock-in dynamic like you are imagining". Specifically, that you were saying Apple sells the iPads at a loss because they will make up the difference after the sale. They don't.
Apple is the exclusive agent for native apps (including publications), in-app book sales, and analytics-capable in-app advertising. Buyers of Apple hardware can easily spend more than their device's purchase price on iTunes-purchased software and media.
Yes, they *can*, but they don't.
Sure Apple's revenue cut is 30% rather than 100% (less for music), but their margins on software and media can be comparable to their hardware margins because their cost of sales is so much less.Then there's the on-going revenue from ad views.
It costs far more to run their stores than you think. It's not a significant profit center for Apple, it's a value-add for their hardware, and it pays for itself. It's basically adding a feature for free, and it's a feature no one else can match. On a side note, that's one of the features (maybe even the main feature) that makes Android so much less appealing than iOS to most people.
So I see Apple deriving a greater and greater share of their profits from their "platform".
Yes, but "greater and greater" in this case is going from "break even" to "a little better than break even". Apple makes billions in profits from each of their major hardware categories every year, they make millions from their iTunes stores.
The money they make from increased hardware sales *as a result* of the stores exceeds the money they make from the stores themselves. That's the part that people who think as you do are missing. For Apple, hardware is king, and always will be. The day it's not is the day Apple will have stumbled.
But you are basing that on what exists now. If you don't think anything they sell is a polished turd, then on what grounds do you base your assessment?
Perhaps you have a different explanation, and I'm ready to hear it, but as it stands, unless you think something they sell now (or at least sold recently) is sufficiently turd-like, I don't see how you can back up your opinion.
Speaking of someone being offended. These products don't offend my "geek-centric view of the world". I recognize their value, quality and impact on technology. However, if you don't think Apple could put out a polished turd and still make millions, you haven't been paying attention.
Your post completely proved my point. What you would call a "polished turd" (that's what I mean by "offending your geek-centric view of the world") is nothing of the sort. It's just that your standards are so geek-centric.
250-300 bucks. Reviews say they feel cheap, well f' it they are. Buy 3 keep 2 spares.
Why? It runs Android. That's actually *not* a selling point for most people.
Of course I thought the iPad would never sell at its cost either.
It doesn't. Apple makes a nice profit on each unit sold.
They will almost certainly sell many thousands of these, although I don't think that really validates your anti-consumer rant...
Ever since the Samsung Galaxy Tab looked like priced way to high I have had a theory: They just fear to have their tablets to be looked upon as "cheap iPad clones". They think people have learned to think "expensive = good", so they price the things up through the roof.
Wait a minute, your theory is that Motorola (and Samsung) deliberately overpriced their tablets in order to get people to think they are better? And that's supposed to be their strategy for a mass market product?
Doesn't it simply make more sense that they can't build their tablets at a price competitive with Apple?
I predict that this will be the first android device to exceed 75% of all devices rooted and a non crippled version of the OS installed.
If that happens, then it will not have been all that successful in the market. Geeks will root it, and if a majority of them are rooted, then a majority have been sold to geeks. Normal people aren't going to root and update the OS.
Since it's all but impossible for the Xoom to be all that successful, your number may very well be achievable.