Why Apple should release a game console
The Industry Standard posted an interesting article recently discussing the possibility of Apple releasing a mobile gaming platform. According to the writer, the circumstantial evidence points to Apple trying its luck with gaming once again. And while I think the company may want to do just that, it should attempt to make its way into the console market.
I'm sure some are wondering what my justification for such a move would be considering Apple failed miserably in the console market back in the mid-1990s with the Pippin, but let's not forget that it wasn't really an Apple product. Apple's Pippin was licensed to Bandai, a company that was trying desperately to get into the gaming industry. In essence, Apple envisioned Pippin to be a product that it could market and go above and beyond just gaming. In essence, it wasn't really an Apple console.
Regardless, it failed. Miserably.
Fast-forward to today and the gaming landscape has changed. Today, the industry is booming like never before and it's rife with opportunity for any company that's willing to provide an experience that can eclipse that which we're enjoying right now. And as long as Apple plays by the rules it has played by for the past 10 years, there's no reason to suggest it can't be a success.
The Motive
Apple has shown time and again that it wants to be the leader in every industry that controls the way you live your life. Computers? Check. Cell Phones? Yep. Set-top boxes? You bet. MP3 players? Of course. Gaming? Not yet.
But why is it that Apple hasn't gotten into gaming yet? It has shown time and again that it's committed to being your middleman in almost every way and after it dropped 'Computer' from its name and started to broaden its horizons, showed us all that what it really wants is to dominate your home. And what better way than with a video game console?
Aside from that, the gaming industry is booming. Apple has always been keen on industries that are growing and in desperate need of something fresh, and the video game industry looks like the perfect target. And as more people trust and enjoy Apple products in the home, the company could easily capitalize on its success elsewhere and create a gaming console that could do the same.
Make no mistake: Apple wants to control the home.
Although I believe Apple may want to get in on the mobile gaming field, console gaming is where it should focus its efforts. Today, gamers are more likely to play online, download movies and TV shows with their consoles and do many of the things already found on Apple products. And with such a powerful piece of software in iTunes, there's no reason to suggest the console couldn't be tied to the platform and become yet another way to use iTunes to download music, movies, TV shows, and now, video game demos. Simply put, the infrastructure is in place and ready to go.
But perhaps most importantly, Apple can use its console as yet another tool of convergence. What if you could use an iPod Touch or iPhone as the controller? What if the company released a controller that would double as a portable media player? To me, the possibilities seem endless.
Of course, Apple would be met with a series of issues if it wants to make an impact in the gaming industry. First off, it would be forced to forego its insistence on a closed platform and allow third-parties to do what they wanted with the console. Along those lines, it would also need to play nice with third-party developers in order to bring more games to its console -- something Apple has not been too proficient at in the past. But if it can get past its distrust of third-parties, there's no reason to suggest it can't provide solid reasons to own an Apple console.
Once it endeavors to get in on the console gaming industry, Apple should acquire some third-party developers and use those to make first-party titles. Let's face it -- in the gaming industry, it's incumbent upon each hardware developer to create its own stable of games and considering Apple doesn't have the know-how in that field, it'll need to outsource it. And because it's a company with no debt and tons of cash, it shouldn't have too much trouble acquiring a major firm like Take-Two Interactive or any other developer of that caliber that has a solid stable of games in the works.
In terms of hardware, Apple would need to only provide something that appeals to gamer desire. There's no reason to suggest it should develop a Wii-killer that attempts to compete on innovation. Instead, it should create a console that can compete on the same level graphically with the Xbox 360 and PS3, but also provides that same level of convergence that makes people want Apple products.
Getting in on the console game now wouldn't be such a bad idea for Apple. And while some may wonder if it's really the best move for a company that's trying to command a variety of markets, I think it's the next logical move for the company that's trying to control all facets of the home.
Will it happen? Who knows. But if Steve Jobs really wants to create a full-featured lineup of products, a video game console is a must.
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
Key word is wants to be the leader. It doesn't mean it is the leader so why don't you get your facts straight.
The gaming market is already a complete battlefield, with Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo battling for control. Each side has already dug in, and sold millions of consoles, and released their killer apps. If Apple entered now (which they won't), they would get torn to shreds. Their console would be untested, and would give no reason to switch from a 360, PS3, or Wii. The lack of games would also be the final nail in an Apple-branded console's coffin.
It´s true that the gaming industry with so different competitors such as Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo it's pretty mature but never complete.
Jorge R.
All apple products succeed because steve puts his personal control in it. And he controls the device the way he wants to use it. But he doesn't play video games.
Don't forget that IBM in their finite wisdom, said, ?this PC thing is going to be a flash in the pan; ain't worth buying it outright, so let's simply pay a royalty for each one we sell, and get it over with.?
Gates and company would not have cared either way at that point, they were so pleased that they could sell large numbers of these things that used DOS, so they took the IBM offer and were happy as clams to do it that way.
But the PC did take off; a royalty was a great thing to charge; and Microsoft (who?) made a fortune for each sale, and they never really looked back on what they'd done.
And exactly what had they done? Laid the foundation for becoming the richest company in the software world, simply by selling licenses and rights to their software, rather than selling their software outright. Caught IBM with their pants down and their famous light blue dress shirts unbuttoned with their sleeves rolled up ? ready to deal for each and every unit they bought.
This grew into the worlds' largest purchase blunder in the history of package deals; probably of any kind, not just software! Microsoft grew into the world's largest software company overnight, selling nothing but licenses to GW-DOS, which stood for "Gee Whiz DOS!" and made them a bunch of billionaires in a mere set of months. They grew faster than any company before or since; except now Google.
And, thanks to them, they now hold the money to develop the software they thought needed work, and sold that, too.
Find out what works for them, submit your résumé, and go to work for Microsoft as soon as you can, so that you don't miss any more of this insanity, and with that, grow with them, into a multi-million dollar company.
Bandai had a whole division working on it. It had proprietary USB ports, user upgradeable ram, a built in modem (this was before cheap broadband), a combination touchpad/keyboard would do email, play audio CDs, and roughly browse the web (using their dial up service of course). The better games were all video based and its video out was decent for the day.
They just could not fully grasp their market and could not make it cheap enough.
Having been involved with projects like this with Apple and its partners in the past, if Apple wanted to create a dedicated gaming platform they have proven that they can learn from their mistakes and make a better product. I know that was what led them (in a roundabout way) to the Apple TV. But don't look for a dedicated gaming console from Apple any day soon, I think they learned their lesson in that particular vertical market.
1. Innovation? check.
2. Better UI? check.
3. Underdog? check.
4. Better Design(Physical)? check.
5. uberProfitable? check.
And how could Apple, notorious for their markup on products compete with Microsoft and Sony on features vs. price. A comparable box from Apple would cost $800.
What Apple should do is develop next-generation mobile internet devices in various sizes/forms that leverage OS X and utilize the "multi-touch" interface technologies inside the iPhone and part of some Mac laptops. A "Mac touch" (like iPod touch only bigger and badder) that you can use as both an entertainment-gaming device as well as a touch-based computer would rock. It would make a brilliant mobile for field-based workers as well as cool game device to enjoy on the couch.
I currently have a Xbox 360, PS3,and Wii and out of all of them the microsoft console is no doubt the best out of them microsoft has got their crap together with xbox live and the gaming marking in general with many big realeases
The amount of nay-saying in the comments has me in stitches. Apple shouldn't enter the gaming industry because of THREE competitors? Let's take stock of how many cell phone competitors there are first - they've sold over 5 million iPhones in under a year - at or ABOVE the cost of a typical console.
How many portable media manufacturers are out there? Remember when the iPod was the underdog?
I think this article nails exactly what Apple's motives are - they are more than just an electronics company. They are a LIFESTYLE company, much the same way that Starbucks is no longer a coffee company, but a lifestyle company.
If Apple enters the gaming arena (which they will), rest assured that by the 2nd generation it will be competing just fine with MS, Sony, and Nintendo.
Except "lifestyle" company doesn't mean jack. There's no magic company that's immune to market forces. Starbucks is suffering its first pangs from growing too fast, and now it's going to hit a few bad quarters, and probably close some stores. Coffee prices have gone up, shipping prices have gone up, and the economy is soft--people suddenly aren't so fond of spending $4 for a cup of coffee.
Apple is not somehow immune to that kind of thing. Three competitors is pretty crowded in the videogame console world--just ask Sega. Comparing how many iPhones Apple sold at a high price point to video consoles doesn't even make sense. They're not the same product, and aren't bought for the same reasons.
Look at all if Apple's products, they are extremely overpriced for the technology and they still manage to sell their products. A touch screen iPod for $500?? An all in one for $2500?? A bluetooth headset for $150??
ok...
your point has been debunked... if you feel like simply bashing Apple, go to a Microsoft thread.
Name *one* decent game on OS X.
Tell me a developer who would develop exclusively for an apple game console (without exclusives why would anyone buy it?)
Now tell me what GPU the AppleTV has. And the processor?
If Apple tries this they will become a laughing stock.
Apple is able to get ahead because of simple and clean gui that works for those not of geek origin. It may not contain the level of sophistication that power users need, but it works well for all others.
That being said, I can see Apple bringing simplicity of UI to the gaming platform. Raise your hand if you've actually mastered all the moves and abilities of Madden 07. If you need to press 3 different buttons to get to the right menu in the middle of the game, it's taking the fun out of the game.
I don't think it's an easy market to get into, but Nintendo showed through the Wii, that people are not as much interested in high end graphics as they are by the quality of their experience. I know of several people that have bought the Wii despite not being gamers, and all because they heard about the quality of the experience.
The real problem is going to be software design. It'll be a difficult challenge to encourage software developers to adapt their wares to the Apple platform if it's not easy enough to adapt to...or to write for this new platform, if the language is complex.
Personally, I think Google should create an open gaming platform with a free programming language. ;)
As far as gaming, I agree w/ Gerrrg - The only way Apple could get into the gaming console market is to come out w/ a product like the Wii, and that's already been done. I don't think apple is really interested in trying to break into such a crowded space when there are three fiercely competitive platforms already occupying it - especially considering the fact that they are primarily a hardware company and there is not a lot of profit margin in gaming console hardware - just ask MS.
-
by DAMIENKP
May 11, 2008 7:02 PM PDT
- I had to read your article twice to be sure you weren't being ironic.
-
Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 6 pages (143 Comments)Are you serious? Of course the Apple console would either have to come out early compared to the next generation (remember the Dreamcast?), or it would have to wait to compete against Sony and Microsoft, at a price point that would cause Apple to need to take a loss for several quarters.
However, if I were to devil's advocate myself, and assume that Apple should bring out a games console, then I would have to disagree with your proposition that Apple be more open to the third-party developers. Take for example, Nintendo, the winner of the current console war. Nintendo's only successful games for their console are Nintendo games, and as a matter of fact, the proportionately few games sold for the console have been sold pretty much based on the rabid fanaticism of those who love Nintendo (like me!). Well, the only thing that Apple can bring to the table that the other manufacturers have had to spend years building, is rabid fanaticism from an existing base. If Apple produces the majority of games, and perhaps opens their platforms to those few companies that are willing to work with Apple's strict controls (I'm not sure what sort of game Adobe would make). Of course, Apple is also well known for identifying popular third-party software for their platform and taking a stab at it, therefore alienating those third parties (again, ask Adobe about Aperture).
While I will buy the convergence concept, I think that Apple would be much more successful by pulling the PC gaming market out of its rut, building on practices and technologies that Apple is already familiar with. Perhaps a Steam-type setup within iTunes? Or a perhaps a line of Macs and MacBooks designed to bring PC gaming to HDTVs. A third entry into the performance console race will be a loser, no matter how innovative it is.
So, put my vote in the no console column.
There is however a glossy white console that could use some good ol' fashioned know-how when it comes to online distribution.