Comments on: Why Apple should release a game console

Don Reisinger thinks now is the perfect time for Apple to get in on the console gaming front. Does Steve Jobs agree?

[rdwalton]

Dude, you've been drinking that apple flavored kool aid again. Apple does not lead in the computer industry nor cell phones. Get your facts straight; oh I forgot, this is Cnet, nevermind.

[tteister]

hey buddy learn to read it says Apple has shown time and again that it wants to be the leader in every industry that controls the way you live your life.

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.

[puma]

agreed. Apple is all about high performance, leave the toy games to the boys...

[supoman]

Although I believe they could add a lot to the gaming industry I don't think it would be in the best interest of the shareholders to get into such a volatile and competitive industry. Like who knew the Wii was gonna be such a huge hit? There's just too many wild cards in this industry. I think it would be difficult for a company used to leading the way to adapt to this up and down industry.

[artek-studio]

I completely agree with you, congrats for your post.

[Rod Roddy]

Two words...they should'nt.

[rock45]

Oh no you did'nt! In case you don't get the sarcasm, the "two words" are "they shouldn't."

[joriz17]

I'm not an apple fan boy. i dont even own any apple. but if they can pull this off, it may be the start of my self-conversion.

[~Canuck~]

This is a terrible, terrible idea.

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.

[mstatton]

I'm not saying they should, but isn't this almost word for word verbatim of what everyone said when they entered the mp3 market? and the cell phone market? and the set-top device market? Hmmmm..

[artek-studio]

Impossible to say that the gaming market is complete, remember that on an open economy the competence pushes the limits for getting each time better products.

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.

[dressner]

Agreed.

[sal-magnone]

Pretty crowded space already. Only Nintendo would stand to lose from this transaction. Hardcore gamers, who scorn WII, want hardware & effects not iPhone/Mac pizzaz. Wii users want the cool fad, they might go for it. But, like I said, crowded space, tough business.

[anon8mizer]

Apple will not create a game machine because steve jobs does not like to play video games.

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.

[veggiedude--2008]

Apple is not Microsoft, in that they don't intend to be all things to all people. MS wants the desktop, music, video, virtualisation, search, you name it, they want to be in it. Which is why they have been failing the past ten years - they are over reaching.

[superpatty]

So Apple doesn't want to be in everything?? So why is Apple in servers, virtualization, online server storage, desktop, music, video, cell phones. By your logic Apple should be failing any day now.

[boatschool]

Er, dude... excuse me, veggiedude... this post is about Apple.

[Macbrewer]

You need to look over the history of computing there, dude. Apple is first to market with virtually any new technology, such as wireless networking, firewire (from which USB was ripped off) and also the first to phase out the old crap such as floppy disks. IBM wouldn't even have farmed out the IBM PC had it not been for Apple. (And you would still be using DOS.)

[mattkenseth17]

I like DOS

[1AlexH1]

So.

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.

[rEllsworthB]

I'm surprised that so many commenters have not mentioned the iPhone's SDK conference and it's demos of various games by major developers. These were done in a week by no more than two engineers. So, with the iPhone 2.0 coming soon Apple will have a portable gaming platform. Their iPod Touch with it's Wi-Fi and accelerometer will run the same games. Then, you have the Apple TV box that has Wi-Fi and infrared with a remote. With a more powerful chip and graphic card you could easily add gaming to it's TV screen capabilities. Apple's remote game controller patent application was just published this week, so they're obviously thinking along those lines. What's not clear is whether they will go beyond the Wii's lower quality graphics. With their many interface patents, including accelerometer sensor features they could use the iPhone and Apple TV box to deliver Wii style game play. I don't think they will develop much on their own; but they have done some simple games for the iPod already.

[vtorch]

This article is a joke right? 2 Words for you: Sega Dreamcast

[solsticeZ]

I still have a working Pippin and a few of its games. I was involved in the original Pippin project, I wrote the manual, designed their packaging, developed a few of their resellers, even produced the how to videos. It was a great idea, a bit ahead of its time and outrageously expensive to make. Think a very early Mac Mini prototype without a hard drive just using a CDROM and flash memory.

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.

[superpatty]

Apple is already in the gaming industry......they are called Nintendo.

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.

[Anthony Frausto-Robledo]

Apple should not enter the game console market. Trying to dominate in all markets is exactly why Microsoft sucks so badly right now: a total lack of focus and jealous over-reaching.

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.

[klowd10136]

I agree that Apple shouldnt even attempt the gaming console area
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

[killyourfm]

WOW. Let me preface this by saying I'm not an Apple fanboy. I own a mac, and an iPhone. But I also own 2 Windows laptops and a 360. I'm all about getting the best from both worlds.

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.

[sjmanikt]

Uh, yeah. Starbucks is a "lifestyle" company, and so is Apple.

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.

[klowd10136]

I agree they better stick with the ipod which isnt really any better than the zune which has a lot wider ranger of crap it can do and u dont have to have Itunes for the zune. If apple enters the gaming market expect a crash and burn effect for them. BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CELL PHONES AND GAMING CONSOLES. Everyone needs a cell phone(all groups). But a gaming console has to compete with the others and with apples insane prices for there equipment plus alot small number of people that will just go out an buy it. they will fail. AT&T made the iphone what it is if it wasnt for their network the Iphone would have been just an overpriced cell

[donalpixny]

"Power User"? Is that like someone who spends all his time in the garage tuning the inaccessible thingys under the car's hood, but never drives it anywhere? Apple is successful because you can use the computer just by turning it on.

[David.C.]

lol, people bent over backwards to pay $1000+ for a PS3, $1000+ for a 360, $750+ for a wii. What makes you think people won't shell out for a quality apple item.

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.

[cyclelogicpress.com]

Three companies won't stop Apple from entering the gaming field.

[cyclelogicpress.com]

The iPhone and iPod touch are shaping up to make fantastic handheld gaming units.

[cyclelogicpress.com]

Apple TV running Mac OS X could probably be made into a decent gaming console.

[ajwoodhouse]

I LOL'd.
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.

[gerrrg]

DISCLAIMER: I'm definitely NOT an Apple fanboy...I have no fear of the complex, and I like open systems. I don't own a single Apple product.

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. ;)

[shoopdog]

This is the most intelligent analysis I have ever read concerning the difference between the typical Mac user and a Windows user. It's all about whether or not simple GUI is important to you. More technical people are not as drawn to the Mac OS as people who don't have a programming/technical frame of mind. I was drawn to the mac in the early 90s after years of hating the idea of using computers. I'm a visual person and I get Macs.

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.

[puma]

Mac OS X has a much higher level of sophistication than windows that only high end graphics and video professionals can attest to. Windows OS kernel is more spaghetti code than sophistication...

[DAMIENKP]

I had to read your article twice to be sure you weren't being ironic.
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.