Which I'm sure they would do if Cell doesn't run their system as well as the other chips they choose. There's reason's not to, but Hardknock's point to Apple turning down Cell isn't one of them.
Apple on PS3 page?
- Thread starter Bad_Boy
- Start date
ihamoitc2005
Veteran
Unfortunate
Oh this is very sad news my friend. I was hoping for $599 super mac! It was very enjoyable to think of this but this dream is now gone:
4 core 2.5ghz mac w/dvd: $3299
8 core 3.2ghz mac w/blu-ray: $599
Titanio said:
Oh this is very sad news my friend. I was hoping for $599 super mac! It was very enjoyable to think of this but this dream is now gone:
4 core 2.5ghz mac w/dvd: $3299
8 core 3.2ghz mac w/blu-ray: $599
ihamoitc2005 said:
And that is exactly why it wont happen! Apple is not interested in a commodity market when they can demand an exorbitant premium on their current hardware.
Even iTunes would be iffy. Sony has a lot at stake from the media, distribution, and hardware ends. Sony stands to make substantially more by leveraging their own services. Unless Apple can offer Sony a sweet deal it is hard to imagine them putting a competitors service on their Playstation.
The PS3 is, after all, Sony's "trojan". It is their 100M customers -- what better instant install base to establish your platforms. aka BluRay, digital distribution, etc
Any deal has to make sense not only economically in the short term and in regards to consumer appeasement, but also long term strategical movement and alliances. Sony has a lot to lose by giving a competitor a foothold on their 100M customers, so any partnerships would need to be substantial to Sony's bottomline.
Considering how niche they are, and how well MS have done with selling OS's, I'd have thought they'd be good reason to consider a broader OS. I wonder how many PC users would switch to the 'secure and virus free' Mac OS on their Intel PC if they had the chance? $50 per OS for PS3, on 50 million consoles, would be over $2 billion profit in 5 years. They'd have to lose a lot of Mac sales to make that unviable, and the professional isn't going to buy a games machine over a $3000 workstation even if the games machine was better at the job, because of the image! So the professional, high-cost machines will still sell, and I expect Apple would make far more from OS sales than they'd lose in hardware sales. I'd have thought the reasons not to go Apple are more from Sony's end than Apples.Acert93 said:
I think this is just a mistake. Its been up for less then a day and its already been taken down. Sony isnt the fastest company in the world that would shoot down some adverstisng/rumor even if it were false/true. BUt they were fast at removing this. plus isnt Apple one of Sonys biggest rivals, I mean they have lost alot of money especially in japan becuase of apple. from computers to media players. Even some of there music artist that have signed up with sony BMG have broken there contracts, becuase Sony for awhile banned some of there artist music from being sold on itunes which is lost revenue for the artist.
but i do see them maybe implementing Itunes on ps3, why fight a loosing battle might aswell just get on and take a very small cut thne none at all.
but i do see them maybe implementing Itunes on ps3, why fight a loosing battle might aswell just get on and take a very small cut thne none at all.
Acert93 said:
From what I have read, it was IBM that declined, because Apple was asking for too low a price - it simply wasn't worth IBM's trouble for the small numbers that Apple use especially when IBM has already bagged all the processor orders for all three consoles - a huge number in total. Another factor was the Apple laptop. It simply wasn't worth developing a new low power Power chip for Apple's laptops with the small number of orders from Apple and the low prices they were prepared to pay.
What's forward looking about Apple selling their OS to Sony on the PS3? What is the next thing that occurs that helps Apple? Sales of iLife on the PS3? More iPods? The possibility, if Sony desires, of the PS4 as a platform?SPM said:
Apple giving up control of the hardware, at this stage of the game, sounds incredibly short sighted, based entirely on short term profit. Apple is very smart and knows that the benefit of owning the user experience from retail sale to out of box to end user software is integral to the Apple experience.
Providing an Apple OS to a closed system will allow them to provide an Apple Experience, connecting up to Apple hardware and using Apple applications. Looking at iPod on Windows, you see Apple aren't averse to breaking that 'Apple end to end experience' if it'll make them more sales. Why would they refuse iTunes on PS3 and XB360 if they allow it on PC? Would they rather let Sony create their own delivery platform for music on it's own hardware without providing any competition?!Sis said:
Shifty Geezer said:
That is ultimately the next step, I would not be surprised if with in the next 12 months MS will have a music store available on Live. Sony would follow suite but I'm sure the idea of getting iTunes on it would be a real bonus even if just for the name alone.
Surely you agree that there's a major difference between a single, small software app and the entire OS. I can see them partnering with Sony to ship iTunes on the PS3 (though I can't see Sony doing that), so it's not about whether iTunes shows up there.Shifty Geezer said:
Absolutely. Apple doesn't need any help with digital distribution; they're actively trying to take advantage of the iPod's halo effect by converting Microsoft users into Apple users, not Microsoft users into Sony users.
That's an interesting point. Early today I had someone telling me how impressed they were with the Apple Mac Powerbook they had just seen. Looks like Apple are striving for market share. But I still think when it comes to straight money, there's nothing to beat software in the profitability stakes.Sis said:
Jabjabs said:
I shake my head at the fact that we are talking about MS having a music store on Live 12 months from now. Napster may have caught the music industry with their pants around their ankles many years ago, but its shocking how Apple stole the initiatives from MS, and so while Apple thrives with an expensive iPod that people cannot get enough of, MS has to compete with the Napster and Musicmatch delivery services for the leftovers. Live is not the answer because its userbase pales in comparison to the Windows desktop monopoly that MS should have leveraged YEARS ago.
eDoshin said:
Apple's success is the result of their hardware, not their service. The Ipod sold their music service, not the other way around. People didn't flock to Apple because their music service was so great, they flocked to Apple because they had a great little portable player.
And Microsoft never had anything to compete with it. After all, you can't exactly clip a Windows-based PC to your gym shorts and listen to MP3's while you work out.