Pachter: Apple 2013 Console

[RancidLunchmeat]

I don't think Apple intends to abandon anything.

But the same line of thinking could have been said against MS entering the games biz.

Why would they abandon their uber profitable 90% margins in Software Engineering?.

Except that they didn't. MS was a software company that entered the hardware business.

Apple is a hardware company. Sure, they make unique operating systems but it's their hardware design that is their major selling point which allows them to generate those huge margins.

In order for an Apple console to BE an Apple console it would have to have similar amounts of effort put into design and detail, along with a nice and easy to use OS (that would mimic their other products). But all of that would be worthless to Apple if they can't match the margins they make on iPhones and iPads.

Which is hard to believe because consoles are already hugely expensive while sold at a loss, and I doubt Apple will be able to convince people to buy a new one each year because it has a handful of extra features.

(There's also the fundamental underlying psychology that people "show off" their iPhones and iPads and iDevices because they are mobile - people won't get to "show off" their new iConsole to anywhere near the same extent.)

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

No offense but youre talking out your ass, yes that used to be true years ago WRT hardware pricing. Today though they're priced very similar to their competitors. see Ipad, Iphone, Ipod.
The chief reason I could see for apple to do this is (create a console/tv/multimedia device).
Apple app store, selling ppl apps/content from the comfort of their living rooms.
If I was Sony/Nintendo/MS I'ld be very worried indeed

Talking out my ass? Hmm.. Perhaps if you could see out of your ass, you'd have read where I clearly stated the only reason Apple would abandon their overpriced hardware model to enter the console space was because they felt the revenue generated from the Apple store would compensate for it.

Which then leads into the questions of WHY they would believe such things, which then asks the question of how much revenue PSN and LIVE generate for Sony and Microsoft respectively.

See, those are actually INTERESTING questions that reflect not only on the dynamics of whether Apple would or wouldn't enter the console space, but also lend insight into possible targets for future MS and Sony products as well.

Edit: Which, oh look, others in this thread have now realized as well and have mentioned above in terms of how online services revenue could impact the price of future consoles by subsidizing their costs!

But I do see how it's much easier to get your panties in a bunch and go into Apple denier mode.

Oh, no offense.

 

[TheChefO]

Except that they didn't. MS was a software company that entered the hardware business.

Apple is a hardware company. Sure, they make unique operating systems but it's their hardware design that is their major selling point which allows them to generate those huge margins.

In order for an Apple console to BE an Apple console it would have to have similar amounts of effort put into design and detail, along with a nice and easy to use OS (that would mimic their other products). But all of that would be worthless to Apple if they can't match the margins they make on iPhones and iPads.

Which is hard to believe because consoles are already hugely expensive while sold at a loss, and I doubt Apple will be able to convince people to buy a new one each year because it has a handful of extra features.

(There's also the fundamental underlying psychology that people "show off" their iPhones and iPads and iDevices because they are mobile - people won't get to "show off" their new iConsole to anywhere near the same extent.)

The first attempt to capture the Livingroom (with the end goal on major profits through various continuous revenue streams) was the AppleTV which sold for $230.

The next attempt, $99.

I'm not seeing huge profits from either venture which I agree, we normally do see from Apple.

What this tells me, is that this venture is special.

Apple sees this market as more than a simple market to sell a gizmo for high profit margin.
They value it, and despite the failure of the first venture, they went in again.

The sales result of both show that the methods they've used to attempt access to the BigScreen have failed, but both show a desire to be in the livingroom, and the willingness to be flexible on their High profit margin business model.

So...

With both ventures failing, and MS, Sony, and Nintendo all able to push through >50m into livingrooms each ... I can see why Apple would be eying this angle to gain access to the livingroom.

Even a "disaster" like Dreamcast would be head and shoulders above the sales they've been getting with AppleTV.

The only question in my mind is will they realize the necessary step to even have Dreamcast sales, or will they flounder with Appletv3.0 type sales...

 

[TheChefO]

Chef I don't think you really understand how Michael Pachter speaks. He makes the same kind of definitive pronouncements about all the things he expects based purely on current trends in the market and little else. He was saying a similar thing about the WiiHD coming out at the end of the year for years. He doesn't have any insider info about what Apple is planning, and he probably understands as much about Apple's business strategies as any of us on this forum.

Imho Apple has no need to make a dedicated gaming console. Their business is driven by multipupose convergent CE devices. There's no benefit to them entering the traditional console business, rather if they have any serious aspirations in gaming at all (which i doubt the do) they would simply put more emphasis on it with their existing devices, and grow their gaming business through those areas.

Apple won't make a games console. And unless you're a disciple of the church of St Jobs and Apple Almighty i don't understand why anyone would want an Apple console in the first place :-S

Pachter may be talking out of his ass ... but WiiHD is here. Not when he said, but it wasn't vaporware.

Seeing others also chime in with Apple console hints which have lately been ramping up ... where there's smoke, there's fire.

Also as I was saying in multiple posts in this thread, AppleTV failed. An attempt to be the centerpiece of the livingroom DOES make sense. They've attempted twice, failed twice.

They see MS, Sony and Nin having success in being the livingroom centerpiece.

One way (gaming) is a "proven" path to success in the livingroom. The other (AppleTV) has proven to be a dead end.

So even if it is just speculation on Pachter's part, it's speculation grounded in sound reasoning.

 

[AlphaWolf]

The cost of those failures will pale in comparison to the cost of failing at a serious console effort. Apple TV is like $30 of hardware.

 

[liolio]

I agree that this is a plausible route that Apple may go. But the question is, what would be the end result of this business plan?

1- $200-300 HW sold at or near BOM
2- Does everything an iphone/ipad does (assuming they can rip the Kinect)
3- Games which are cross compatible with other idevices.

4-This is basically describing a beefy Ipad without the screen.
If someone already has an ipad, why buy this?
If someone wants an Ipad, why choose this over the ipad?

5-If someone has a xb360/ps3 (xb720/ps4), why buy this?

I introduced number in your post, I hate multi-quoting as the purpose is more than often to destroy the logical links in one's argumentation but I think I've been fair here.
1-agreed still 199$ is a wanted feature and one no other manufacturer will match.
2-Does everything an iPad/Iphone does and more I think that Apple has to implement some extra that doesn't make sense in a phone or a phone, namely I think at the way the device manage multiples accounts, it has to be convenient and allow the software community to come with nice ideas. Out of my head I could think of NAS functionality, other devices managements, security tools ( cleaning other device, etc.), in some way (made convenient to the intended market) quiet a lot like a client/server relationship that would map on top of iCloud. I don't think they need to match Kinect to be attractive but good voice recognition is needed at this point, face recognition and the like while it sounds nice is a bit of a gadget for me (at least now).
3-Yes I think that cross compatibility is a necessity for games. As I see it the restrictions would be more on the phone and tablet side. The device is likely to play any game (at least for a while) but as the device release Apple should define a bottom line for developers and do so on the phone and tablets. It could any games that are release on the the new iDevice have to run (at lesser quality setting possibly) on say "A5" or 'A6" class of devices. On the other hand any games released for the phones/tablet would run on the new device. I can see exclusive games most likely only the few AAA games.

4-as a continuation from last points. I think that yes it has to be perceived if not as a beefy iPad without screen which sounds negative but for user as a continuation of their iPad iPhone as far as experience are concerned. As I see it's almost a matter of completing this new computing environment (the mobile environment) you have phone tablets and last the home server (sort of).
In the standard OS (win, OSX, etc.) you have many device in your home from desktop to net-top but they never manage to work together in way that most users would benefit (/do the actual settings...) with those more users friendly OS (iOS in our case). In my head the new device could well be called iPlay but for all intend and purpose act like a iHome.

5-it's a matter of what one wants and how he perceive the marginal value of the different offerings. It's unclear what Ms will do and at which price they will launch as well as when. We knows nothing about Sony and MS next devices, this question has no answer for now.

I think the end result of an underpowered Ibox which has generalized portable gaming software compatible with other idevices, would be a commercial failure similar to AppleTV. Even if it get's ports of xb360/ps3 games. What incentive would there be to buy this box in addition to the one already in the home or to choose it instead of the one with a gaming library which dwarfs it?

Same here you have no clue for now about either MS or Sony hardware, how can you tell the box will be underpowered? I mean who guessed that after the gamecube N would come with the Wii? Ok I agree it's unlikely but you're setting the conditions here and answer accordingly still it's not as clear.
I don't agree either on the games there are more and more quality games on portable devices, I would expect the trend to get stronger. As for the intensive well I think that Apple can provide what Sony would break if they where to ship a new system, the possibility of seamless gaming from portable devices to home devices (like from the PSV to PS3). For the intensive to jump to the system, well the synergies I described if you're the owner of an iOS device. Graphics would be better than on nowadays systems most likely noticeably better more than what raw specs would implies (more ram, more storage=> better textures + better filtering, PowerVR do really well with AA,)

I don't think Apple can afford to not compete on specs. Especially as a newcomer to the games market. If they go light, they will get similar sales results to AppleTV ... for the third time.

That's your take I believe that if plaid well enough along with a a proper refresh rate that it's the other systems that would looks dated, and expansive soon. A sane refresh would be every 2 generations of mobile chip so ~3 years while keeping the price low ($200).

I'd like to think Apple is smarter than this, and will invest appropriately to have success in this market if they've deemed it a corporate goal. Judging from Pachter's words, it is indeed a corporate goal as the machine is in the works. Now it's just a matter of supporting it with enough resources inside and out to be successful.

Well I'm not sure why you think one has to lose money to be in the console market, RroD aside Ms would have lost few money on the 360. With a different positioning for the product they may have lose no money at all. It's your belief that the system has to be uber powerful, be competitive with half a kilowatts PC and for an extending period of time, etc. Apple is indeed cleverer than that if they enter the market and have success it will be because they will have get the market where they wanted, not the other way around.

Not to mention, they still need to come up with a solution to the interface problem.

That's not different than nowadays systems, and there is room to do much better ie pad are not well suited for non gaming activities. If I let my imagination runs I could this them go with a wiimote like remote (pretty simple and user friendly) that has a 'slider' keyboard integrated + a proper pad. Then if one were to use it in more productive fashion well (or for the competitive gamers) nothing would beat Keyboard+mouse which iOS provide support for.

 

[TheChefO]

The cost of those failures will pale in comparison to the cost of failing at a serious console effort. Apple TV is like $30 of hardware.

Indeed...If they fail.

MS showed how easy and quick it is to burn through $4B with the original Xbox.
But look at them now.

I think if you were to approach Apple and say we'd like to sell you the Xbox division for $4B, they'd jump at that in a heartbeat.

Apply that mentality to any other Company in the games industry and if Apple had the opportunity to acquire success for $4B, they'd jump at the opportunity.

But starting a brand new venture is a riskier endeavor as they have to constantly reassure stock holders that the investment will be worth it and to bear with them over the long haul.

But again ... it worked for MS.

And with how much bigger Apple is now vs MS, I can see them persuading stock holders to just trust them.


Often times, it takes money to make money.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

They see MS, Sony and Nin having success in being the livingroom centerpiece.

Of course, unlike Apple you are ONLY looking at the good side of things.

In getting to where Sony are now, they STILL haven't recouped their investment costs in the platform nor the losses generated in the early years of the PS3.

MS may or may not have recouped the investment and losses generated from entering the console market in the first place (starting with the Xbox).

Apple isn't looking at a virtually empty playing field with no dominant players (iPod, iPhone, iPad). And iPhone while still hugely popular is rapidly losing ground to Android. Unlike what happened with the iPod, significant and well respected competition finally arrived with the Android based phones.

When looking at the console arena and transposing products for a minute. It would be a similar situation to Apple releasing an iPhone after 5+ years of Android dominating the market. Would it have nearly as much success? Would Apple even enter the market in that situation?

Apple isn't stupid. Well at least I'm hoping that with Jobs gone now, that they haven't suddenly gone back to the Apple of old that couldn't get anything right.

Anyway, Apple isn't stupid. Anyway you look at it, the console arena isn't something you jump into and immediately succeed unless you're lucky or have some significant advantage. And even then success isn't guaranteed. The Dreamcast was arguably superior to the PS2 with a rabid fanbase yet failed. The Xbox was definitely superior to the PS2 yet did poorly.

Whatever Apple does is most definitely NOT going to be a console in the way you, I, or anyone else on this forum thinks of as a console. To do that is for Apple to risk losing billions of USD as Microsoft did with the Xbox or Sony did with the PS3.

And the Apple of today isn't about taking those kinds of risks. That's why they specifically target markets and opportunities with no current dominant players. That does not characterize the console market.

What it does characterize however is a potential home set top box market which both Apple and Google have been trying to crack with little to no success. It's an alternate path to potentially dominating the home living room space without the associated risks involved with console developement. In other words, something that is right up Apple's alley.

As postulated by myself and others here. The most likely product that will be coming out is an expansion of the Apple TV line with expanded functionality and access to the iOS store and with the ability to run iOS apps and by extension iOS games. This is the most likely shape of the Apple "Console" that Pachter is referencing.

I wouldn't be surprised if it contained the exact same computing components as a top of the line iPhone as well, minus the display and gorilla glass. And selling for slightly less than a comparable iPad.

I also wouldn't be entirely surprised if it came with motion tracking hardware, sort of like a Kinect Lite or at the very least a WiiMote type of TV Remote.

Regards,
SB

 

[liolio]

The cost of those failures will pale in comparison to the cost of failing at a serious console effort. Apple TV is like $30 of hardware.

It's less than I though. I thought the A4 was between 20/25$ (with stacked RAM) I would have expect the tiny mobo, connectors, flash memory, psu, + assembly/plastics, and remote to end up higher. Assuming ~30% margins from retailers, they still make quiet some money on it. They are testing the market for cheap.

 

[TheChefO]

Does everything an iPad/Iphone does and more

The only things an ibox could do that a hypothetical ipad couldn't ever match:
-Performance chipset (200w)
-Kinect type interface / motion control (cant rely on people getting off the couch to touch the TV)

Now, if they take advantage of these and literally have software which can't be played on ipad/phone/pod, then it has a shot at success.

If not, I'll have to agree to disagree with you and say: "If I can do everything I can on my ipad/phone that I can on my ibox, then there is no point for the ibox and I'll leave it on the shelf".

Same here you have no clue for now about either MS or Sony hardware, how can you tell the box will be underpowered?

True, but MS/Sony know the road to success. They've driven it to success multiple times.

And looking over their shoulder at Nintendo, they see the pitfalls of relying on a gimmick.
WiiU doesn't have enough uniqueness in interface for success and the guts will be inadequate to compete as soon as ps4/xb720 are announced.

That's your take I believe that if plaid well enough along with a a proper refresh rate that it's the other systems that would looks dated, and expansive soon. A sane refresh would be every 2 generations of mobile chip so ~3 years while keeping the price low ($200).

The quick refresh is an interesting concept that I think could bode well. But again, for sales to take off, they need to give people a reason to buy. Underpowered hardware won't cut it. So perhaps after a few years and hardware revisions the sales would pickup as the hardware outclasses ps4/xb720, but this is assuming they don't/cant follow the same concept... remember the origin of the words forward compatible.

Well I'm not sure why you think one has to lose money to be in the console market...

It's true, there is no rule stating a loss is necessary. But the razorblade model has been in place since PS1.

This may change as there are many alternate forms of revenue to offset high hardware costs, but the draw for modern consoles since the ps1 has always been, "this console is a deal because it is offering hardware which would normally cost significantly more than the MSRP." Along with this, the games library is expected to take advantage of this hardware and provide results which confirm a top tier experience.

The alternate is to simply buy an old box.

Putting outdated guts in a new console is a huge disadvantage as the hardware in the old box is near to the new box but the new box comes with a handy higher price, and smaller software library.

The only caveat to this is a gimmick outside the typical hardware. Wiimote.

That approach has been successful ... once.

That's not different than nowadays systems, and there is room to do much better ie pad are not well suited for non gaming activities. If I let my imagination runs I could this them go with a wiimote like remote (pretty simple and user friendly) that has a 'slider' keyboard integrated + a proper pad. Then if one were to use it in more productive fashion well (or for the competitive gamers) nothing would beat Keyboard+mouse which iOS provide support for.

I could be selling Apple well short on interface design.

I just find it very difficult to beat a HD Kinect with high res cameras, and low latency.

Such an interface if high enough fidelity can mimic most any other interface. Especially when they get to the point of eye tracking and subtle finger movements in z space to emulate a virtual keyboard.

 

[liolio]

Of course, unlike Apple you are ONLY looking at the good side of things.

In getting to where Sony are now, they STILL haven't recouped their investment costs in the platform nor the losses generated in the early years of the PS3.

MS may or may not have recouped the investment and losses generated from entering the console market in the first place (starting with the Xbox).

Apple isn't looking at a virtually empty playing field with no dominant players (iPod, iPhone, iPad). And iPhone while still hugely popular is rapidly losing ground to Android. Unlike what happened with the iPod, significant and well respected competition finally arrived with the Android based phones.

OT it's time for Ipod to evolve by the way, they should position it against 7" slate./OT

When looking at the console arena and transposing products for a minute. It would be a similar situation to Apple releasing an iPhone after 5+ years of Android dominating the market. Would it have nearly as much success? Would Apple even enter the market in that situation?

While investing massively? Clearly no, for cheap it's another matter.

Apple isn't stupid. Well at least I'm hoping that with Jobs gone now, that they haven't suddenly gone back to the Apple of old that couldn't get anything right.

Anyway, Apple isn't stupid. Anyway you look at it, the console arena isn't something you jump into and immediately succeed unless you're lucky or have some significant advantage. And even then success isn't guaranteed. The Dreamcast was arguably superior to the PS2 with a rabid fanbase yet failed. The Xbox was definitely superior to the PS2 yet did poorly.

well you don't need to dominate to be successful, the kind of dominance we saw with the PS2 may never happen again. Apple has its advantages, a faithful user base, an serious edge in non gaming related feature, most likely play everywhere (and that can mean playing social games with whoever you want that has a facebook account). iOS is more closed as an environment than Android still they let users do that, I don't expect them to change their policies in this regard on their new device. As I see it one may even play versus a PC gamer.

Whatever Apple does is most definitely NOT going to be a console in the way you, I, or anyone else on this forum thinks of as a console. To do that is for Apple to risk losing billions of USD as Microsoft did with the Xbox or Sony did with the PS3.

Agreed to me it's a new/matured computing environment that is knocking at the door which would share some console characteristics but much more PC characteristic.

And the Apple of today isn't about taking those kinds of risks. That's why they specifically target markets and opportunities with no current dominant players. That does not characterize the console market.

I don't expect either Apple to plan on losing money for greater good (supposedly).

What it does characterize however is a potential home set top box market which both Apple and Google have been trying to crack with little to no success. It's an alternate path to potentially dominating the home living room space without the associated risks involved with console development. In other words, something that is right up Apple's alley.

As postulated by myself and others here. The most likely product that will be coming out is an expansion of the Apple TV line with expanded functionality and access to the iOS store and with the ability to run iOS apps and by extension iOS games. This is the most likely shape of the Apple "Console" that Pachter is referencing.

I wouldn't be surprised if it contained the exact same computing components as a top of the line iPhone as well, minus the display and gorilla glass. And selling for slightly less than a comparable iPad.

I also wouldn't be entirely surprised if it came with motion tracking hardware, sort of like a Kinect Lite or at the very least a WiiMote type of TV Remote.

Regards,
SB

I pretty much agree with everything you say, in fact I wonder why I post

Spoiler

should spend more time on my thane in titan quest IT on Onlive

.

 

[TheChefO]

Of course, unlike Apple you are ONLY looking at the good side of things.

In getting to where Sony are now, they STILL haven't recouped their investment costs in the platform nor the losses generated in the early years of the PS3.

MS may or may not have recouped the investment and losses generated from entering the console market in the first place (starting with the Xbox).

Apple isn't looking at a virtually empty playing field with no dominant players (iPod, iPhone, iPad). And iPhone while still hugely popular is rapidly losing ground to Android. Unlike what happened with the iPod, significant and well respected competition finally arrived with the Android based phones.

When looking at the console arena and transposing products for a minute. It would be a similar situation to Apple releasing an iPhone after 5+ years of Android dominating the market. Would it have nearly as much success? Would Apple even enter the market in that situation?

Apple isn't stupid. Well at least I'm hoping that with Jobs gone now, that they haven't suddenly gone back to the Apple of old that couldn't get anything right.

Anyway, Apple isn't stupid. Anyway you look at it, the console arena isn't something you jump into and immediately succeed unless you're lucky or have some significant advantage. And even then success isn't guaranteed. The Dreamcast was arguably superior to the PS2 with a rabid fanbase yet failed. The Xbox was definitely superior to the PS2 yet did poorly.

Whatever Apple does is most definitely NOT going to be a console in the way you, I, or anyone else on this forum thinks of as a console. To do that is for Apple to risk losing billions of USD as Microsoft did with the Xbox or Sony did with the PS3.

And the Apple of today isn't about taking those kinds of risks. That's why they specifically target markets and opportunities with no current dominant players. That does not characterize the console market.

What it does characterize however is a potential home set top box market which both Apple and Google have been trying to crack with little to no success. It's an alternate path to potentially dominating the home living room space without the associated risks involved with console developement. In other words, something that is right up Apple's alley.

As postulated by myself and others here. The most likely product that will be coming out is an expansion of the Apple TV line with expanded functionality and access to the iOS store and with the ability to run iOS apps and by extension iOS games. This is the most likely shape of the Apple "Console" that Pachter is referencing.

I wouldn't be surprised if it contained the exact same computing components as a top of the line iPhone as well, minus the display and gorilla glass. And selling for slightly less than a comparable iPad.

I also wouldn't be entirely surprised if it came with motion tracking hardware, sort of like a Kinect Lite or at the very least a WiiMote type of TV Remote.

Regards,
SB

I've brought up these points prior.

The difference is in where I see success, vs failure.

You may not call the above a console, but if the core experience lure is gaming, its a games console. All the periphery can be done with an ipad/phone/appletv.

Those devices are already available and successful ... aside from Appletv which has no purpose and or no lure. Add gaming to it, then the lure is obviously gaming as the rest of the Appletv product has proven twice to be a failure.

So then...

If they attempt to do as you suggest and take an ipad, rip the screen, add motion controls and package it for $300-400, I think consumers will look at it and say "Why?".

Kinect is already on shelves and been on shelves for years. Capable of everything they are doing with AppleTV, and motion control. And with a larger games library, better graphics, and lower MSRP.

Oh, and friends on live playing your favorite titles.


As you said, entering the games market will require something special. Interface has already been aced with Kinect. Further improvements with Kinect HD will come.

That leaves the option of top notch specs and going for some form of exclusive AAA gaming experience.


You're right. Apple isn't stupid.

There is one path which will lead to failure, and one which can lead to success.

 

[liolio]

Maybe we will have to agree to disagree at this point as we don't agree on causalities that get actors where they are now.

For example Wii, for me Nintendo didn't pursue hardware upgrade fast enough. Patcher predict for instance that N would launch something new sooner, he's been proven wrong still I agreed with him and still have the same opinion. They imho miss the opinion to consolidate their position by gathering more core gamers.

In my opinion you overlook the importance of what a 200Watts system can push out graphically in the costumers eyes either way most of the comnputers out there would be equiped with those great 100$GPU (the ones that absolutely beat the crap out of ps360, play cheaper games etc.). Consoles are a success because they offer something PC don't convenience, comfort (couchs chair, living room versus a desk, etc.). Console are trying to provide things mobile OS already provide in a way superior manner. It's about the marginal value how the different services (including games) add up to the overall marginal value of a device is a not set in stone, especially in the electronic world. What arbitration costumers will do we don't know.

Overall I'm not longer sure that what Kinect provides in the non gaming realm is that relevant. In fact I think that people are used to their remote and somehow enjoy them. Voice recognition is a given on any device.

Overall I've the strange feeling that in the end your pov is close to be nobody should tried to enter the console market as MS will obliterate anybody, with top hardware, Win8 or some sort of close to fullblown OS, kinect2,etc. And let me tell you that whereas it may happen it's quiet a stretch. All this would cost MS or the costumer or both a lot of money. It's unclear if MS share holder will green this thinking "let invest any amount of money this can't fail, nobody can compete if we invest a billion subsiding the hardware".

MS has thing running against them to, they have a completely closed approach to gaming, they ask for fees for online gaming, it's still unclear how Win8 will fare against the competition. You ignore another giant in the room that relies on many manufacturers for now (that has strength and weakness) Google, Google power is outstanding at this point. MS as a whole has competitors of higher importance than Sony and Nintendo, you make it sounds that they should not even try to get there (ie living room). Let sort this out MS is not almighty, Android, iOS are threat to MS main business (in the personal space only for now but still that's fucking something most us have never seen in their life), one could even say for now they are winning (Google especially). No matter all the fuzz it's MS that is now in a position to prove it-self with Win8, not the other way around.

Another thing you overlook in regard to MS strength, their relative strength worldwide. You should also consider a more critical pov the environment in which they are successful now. Sony is weak and if not for being a national gem of Japan could apply for bankruptcy at anytime and N realized that they had an opportunity to jump on the gun only to late and now it seems that they're facing many threats being too late with a product not that compelling and lacking a clear concept /synergy with their other product (only 1 it should have been easy!) on top of it the whole thing seems wrapped in serious execution & engineering problems

Be honest if you're point is "it's crazy to go against MS in the living room at this point" state it. I'm confident that you won't manage to make it though.

 

[Scott_Arm]

If Apple releases a console it would undoubtedly be more powerful than 360 and PS3, just based on tech that is available today. It would not be an iPad in a different package. They would not sell it at a loss. Apple is very good at marketing and selling products at a premium. They are not #1 in total sales in the smartphone space, but they are piling up HUGE stacks of cash. Apple is very comfortable sitting in 2nd or 3rd place in a market, as long as they still have growth and profits. When they introduced the iPhone, it was a risky design with a high price, into a market that was nearly completely controlled by RIM. When the iPod came out, it was a very expensive mp3 player, yet it became a big business for them. You can buy dirt cheap laptops from many companies, yet people still buy significantly more expensive macbooks and it continues to be a good business for them. I'm not sure why the console space couldn't work the same way for them, if they wished it to. That said, all of those products I mentioned are good products. Can they make a console that is a good product? If this ever happens, we'll get to find out, but I think leveraging the existing iOS base gives them an inroad to push sales. Maybe they go to the opposite extreme and make it $600-700, but make it a game-playing PVR with all the media capabilities of Apple tv, plus sync/pairing with iPhone and iPad, as well as access to all the iBookstore, iTunes and Appstore content. They might target 5-10 million units per year, rather than having the lofty goals of selling 100+ million in a 5 year span. Like the iPhone, maybe they think there's room for a so-called "luxury" console. There's a lot of ways they could go with this. People put too much emphasis on the console industry being about having the #1 selling console. That's the way it worked for Nintendo, Sega, 3DO, Atari because that was really the only business they were in. I don't think the business works like that anymore. Maybe Apple thinks they could turn a profit by capturing 15-20% of the market.

All of this is completely unfounded and wild speculation, of course. I wouldn't put anything past them. Trying to talk about what they would and wouldn't do in absolute terms is pretty much pointless.

 

[patsu]

Heh heh, don't be surprised if consoles become more like iPad/iPhone. It's already happening with WiiU and Vita.

I don't think Apple needs to or will conform to the traditional concept of consoles. Consoles have evolved very far from Pong and Game & Watch right ?

With yesterday's additional education focus, I think they can also do well -- 'specially in Asia -- with learning titles. Very well in fact, if my past experience is correct. Asian parents spend a fortune on education in and out of schools, no question asked. Their economy is growing faster than ours too, as expected.

 

[TheChefO]

Be honest if you're point is "it's crazy to go against MS in the living room at this point" state it. I'm confident that you won't manage to make it though.

On the contrary!

I'd love to see Apple "jump in"!

I think through heavy competition is how the best products are produced. When companies get too comfortable in their positions at the top, we get quotes like those in my sig, and the resultant product on the shelf.

I just know that in the console market, they need to bring their "A" game. They can't afford to go in half way with underpowered hardware and assume the brand name will carry them.

It won't.

Just as consumers rejected AppleTV ... twice.

And as I said before, the competition is tough. Not insurmountable, but certainly not pushovers!

I think it may have been a language barrier issue giving you the impression that I somehow thought the idea of Apple beating MS for the livingroom would be a waste of time.

I just don't want to see them launch the ibox and see it fail.

I WANT to see Apple bring a real competitor to the space.

Although quite honestly, I'm 99% sure they could just buy Nintendo on the cheap in a few years after WiiU failure or buy them now and rework the WiiU into a winner with i-device integration, and thus have a livingroom presence.


Having said that, I'm in not a fan of Apple in general. But I do think they get human interaction and interface and they have enough cash to bring creative new approaches, IP, hardware, and concepts to the game space.

If they do it right, they could have great success and actually bring something new to the industry. If not, we'll get angrybirds on the bigscreen. yay.

 

[TheChefO]

Heh heh, don't be surprised if consoles become more like iPad/iPhone. It's already happening with WiiU and Vita...

I fully expect ALL the major competitors to offer tie-ins with tablets. But they are not tablets. Nor would they require tablets (aside from Nintendo's mixed message mess aka WiiU).

There are things which can't be done on a tablet and will always be better suited to a console-type STB.

 

[patsu]

Apple just want to complete the experience at home so there is more content $$$ after selling the box. The STB world has already started to change because of shifting consumer habits. I suspect the traditional STB concept may be obsoleted in a few years. AppleTV may not be the focus in the first place (as Steve Jobs has alluded to in a few interviews).

I fully expect ALL the major competitors to offer tie-ins with tablets. But they are not tablets. Nor would they require tablets (aside from Nintendo's mixed message mess aka WiiU).

There are things which can't be done on a tablet and will always be better suited to a console-type STB.

In Apple's world, it doesn't really matter. The OS is the platform, not just the form factor. ^_^
The so-called STB experience can be in the form of a TV, or AppleTV, or iPad, or who knows what. People will just pick their desired ones based on price and usage preferences.

 

[liolio]

Scott_Arm I believe Apple has way to make money and to ship something ship enough that's somehow a sane target for PC developments.
I don't see them go wit ha luxury device as from a gaming POV it's not in Apple interest to focus that strongly on +60$ kind of game, CoD and the like has just to be part of a greater offering.

 

[TheChefO]

Can they make a console that is a good product? If this ever happens, we'll get to find out, but I think leveraging the existing iOS base gives them an inroad to push sales.

Agreed. Imagine having an xb720/ps4 with cross platform access to iOS apps, itunes, along with all the other media functions.

That's compelling.

Taking the same concept but applying it to WiiU, leaves me considerably less excited for it's chances.

Like the iPhone, maybe they think there's room for a so-called "luxury" console.

Going the other end of the spectrum would be interesting, but this would put the burden of writting games to tap that power on their shoulders.

High price + new comer = min dev support

I'd fully expect them to get their share of multiplats though. Assuming their arrangements with pubs/devs are reasonable.

Maybe Apple thinks they could turn a profit by capturing 15-20% of the market.

Perhaps initially, but I fully expect their intent to be mass adoption for pushing media, and advertising.

The "gaming" portion of these consoles has always been the trojan horse.