They will have to sell nearly 17M copies at $60 each to make a billion, unless there is downloadable pay content being sold as well.
Oh gee, you mean like reading Steve's biography? Here's an article that discusses it. It mentions that several executives petitioned him about calls out 2, but I've seen Forstall's name listed chiefly over the last several years whenever it's brought up. If you will recall, when the iPhone came out Steve said no to apps and that if people wanted apps they could design web apps. Eventually his viewpoint was changed and it's a good thing it was. Steve was not perfect or all-knowing.
Jobs is a reknowned control freak and the introduction of a new device will drive that part of his mentality to protect what he sees as the right kind of user experience out of the box. But notice that Isaacson siad he was initially resistant (follows his preferences) but allowed Schiller and Forstall to convince him, especially once they demonstrated that Apple would curate the apps and control delivery - remember, Jobs is all about the user experience and controls to that OCD. And the fact that he was supporting webapps indicates that he wasn't against apps on the iPhone, just not apps that had system access. Once his team could prove to him it could be done in a way acceptable to him it was a go, and Jobs enthusiastically supported them.
And at no point did I state or even imply that Jobs was perfect or all knowing. Understanding the personality of the individual helps to understand the thought process that produced the decisions that were made. As someone who is a generational peer of Jobs and moved in some of the same circles, I don't necessarily need his autobiography to understand how he thinks. Because ultimately what you do is proof of what you believe, and having watched Jobs work through his career, there is abundant evidence to indicate why he made the decisions he did.
I don't see any evidence that Jobs "caved" as you so blithely put it. He made informed decisions based on what his executives demonstrated was possible. It is not a rational assumption to state that Jobs didn't want apps on a platform that would clearly benefit from apps. Or perhaps you believe that Jobs just didn't get how important application were to the Mac platform as well? Your caved comment simply didn't make logical sense if you understand what drove Steve Jobs.
Do you have some support for such a silly comment? Do you really believe that they did not intend for apps to be developed for the iOS platform in the manner in which they actually developed? Did you really think that Apple woke up one morning, looked out the window, saw a big group of app developed camped on the front lawn and said, "well if we don't let them create apps, they won't go away?"
Cupidity at its finest!
Yet, right up until the very day that Apple announced the iPhone SDK and App Store, a lot of Mac zealots were still arguing in favor of closing off iPhone development to third parties. No, they were not saying "Apple will eventually release an iPhone SDK". Instead, they were saying things like:
Apple should not allow third parties to create native iPhone applications.
Nobody needs third party iPhone applications.
Web apps are really SWEET.
There is a difference.
On one hand, these Apple zealots encourage people to send feedback to Apple because "Apple listens" and "Apple loves its customers". But when Apple does make a change to something due to popular demand, these zealots are not willing to admit it. They cannot admit that they backed the wrong side of the issue. So they spin their argument around to say "Apple was already planning to do it all along. Apple doesn't need to listen to anybody". Same goes with copy-paste and multitasking. If Apple really was planning to add those features, then they should have just admitted that they were working on those features instead of dismissing them one day, then saying something else the next day and expecting people to have no memory of what was previously said. So unless Apple is more open about their plans to add features or fix bugs in current features, the "whiners" and "complainers" should get credit for convincing Apple to implement them.
But notice that Isaacson siad he was initially resistant (follows his preferences) but allowed Schiller and Forstall to convince him, especially once they demonstrated that Apple would curate the apps and control delivery - remember, Jobs is all about the user experience and controls to that OCD. And the fact that he was supporting webapps indicates that he wasn't against apps on the iPhone, just not apps that had system access. Once his team could prove to him it could be done in a way acceptable to him it was a go, and Jobs enthusiastically supported them.
Well considering you referred to my comment as "silly" and then tried ending with referring to cupidity, which means greed, and thus not making any damn sense, what was I supposed to think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy
And at no point did I state or even imply that Jobs was perfect or all knowing.
Well considering you referred to my comment as "silly" when it was a statement that has been mentioned many times in the past, your response certainly seemed geared toward the "Steve can do no wrong" from your tone and some of the things you said. Then tried ending with referring to cupidity, which means greed, and thus not making any damn sense, what was I supposed to think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy
As someone who is a generational peer of Jobs and moved in some of the same circles, I don't necessarily need his autobiography to understand how he thinks.
Good for you, that means jack as far as this goes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy
He made informed decisions based on what his executives demonstrated was possible. It is not a rational assumption to state that Jobs didn't want apps on a platform that would clearly benefit from apps. Or perhaps you believe that Jobs just didn't get how important application were to the Mac platform as well?
If someone is very resistant to the idea and is turned to the other point of view, they have certainly flip flopped. You can call it caving in to someone else's viewpoint or just changing your mind, but it still ends up the same. Steve said no third party apps and from various sources did not want them on the phone. Eventually he changed his mind and a SDK was designed and the app market went thru the roof. Quibble w/my wording all you want, the facts seem pretty evident.
A simple iPhone game, probably costs one tenth of a game like Battlefield 3 that is on consoles and PC's. However with as many iphones/ipads that simple game might just make as much as Battlefield 3 in the end (if its good).
The consumer ends up with a bunch nice, simple games but could end up not getting the higher end games in the long run.
I still refuse to believe its going to go down like that.
Just because the iDevices are getting more popular doesn't mean many millions of people will stop loving good games.
After ditching PC gaming I am enjoying my Xbox360 with it's Microsoft mantra of open, interoperable, non-curated apps, non-proprietary interfaces and... oh wait, that doesn't apply to their most successful consumer product.
Again, I like the Xbox360 for my "mainstream gaming" but Sony and Microsoft are now milking 5 year old tech to the max and are hopelessly, hopelessly dependent on pumping oodles of cash into the "AAA" title game developers to push sales.
I'll keep saying it. Apple A6 or A7 chip, much better graphics than Xbox360 (which are fairly primitive now) and Boom! An Xbox360+ that's a fraction the size, no fan and PORTABLE too.
I still refuse to believe its going to go down like that.
Just because the iDevices are getting more popular doesn't mean many millions of people will stop loving good games.
Indeed. Bastion is an awesome "indie" console game. iOS is good but like I said Apple just needs to offer something equivalent to consoles and they have the entire market covered... Remember, including "PC-only"(read:Mac too) titles like StarCraft2.
Again, I like the Xbox360 for my "mainstream gaming" but Sony and Microsoft are now milking 5 year old tech to the max and are hopelessly, hopelessly dependent on pumping oodles of cash into the "AAA" title game developers to push sales.
You know there are a lot of people (millions in fact) that don't want to have to purchase a new console every year, they like the fact that any PS3 game made will run on their PS3 purchased at any time
Yet, right up until the very day that Apple announced the iPhone SDK and App Store, a lot of Mac zealots were still arguing in favor of closing off iPhone development to third parties. No, they were not saying "Apple will eventually release an iPhone SDK". Instead, they were saying things like:
Apple should not allow third parties to create native iPhone applications.
Nobody needs third party iPhone applications.
Web apps are really SWEET.
There is a difference.
On one hand, these Apple zealots encourage people to send feedback to Apple because "Apple listens" and "Apple loves its customers". But when Apple does make a change to something due to popular demand, these zealots are not willing to admit it. They cannot admit that they backed the wrong side of the issue. So they spin their argument around to say "Apple was already planning to do it all along. Apple doesn't need to listen to anybody". Same goes with copy-paste and multitasking. If Apple really was planning to add those features, then they should have just admitted that they were working on those features instead of dismissing them one day, then saying something else the next day and expecting people to have no memory of what was previously said. So unless Apple is more open about their plans to add features or fix bugs in current features, the "whiners" and "complainers" should get credit for convincing Apple to implement them.
If Apple ever admitted that they were working on something well in advance then the media would crucify them because the product had not begun shipping yet or that it was late.. I prefer Apple's normal method of announcing things when they are ready or very close to being ready and not before. Advance notice typically causes grief.
You know there are a lot of people (millions in fact) that don't want to have to purchase a new console every year, they like the fact that any PS3 game made will run on their PS3 purchased at any time
That's fine, and convenient, and why I got an Xbox360. On PC, you literally have to update your graphics drivers each time you install a new game, sometimes, several times throughout the course of the game. Not to mention constant updates and patches to the game itself. So far Xbox360 and PS3 are pretty darn stable.
But 5 years is very long in tech, and there is no roadmap by Sony (who lost a lot of cash this past year) or Microsoft, whose Xbox360 Slim still rattles as if it's going to explode when playing a game from disc.
There is a gaping opportunity for Apple, and I want to see even better visuals and an even more immersive gaming experience. Heck, game developers want to deliver more, they are good to go once there is more horsepower in consoles. It's a big constraint trying to deliver what they envision on what is now relatively poor graphics of the PS3.
An ageing Core2 Duo, average speed 2GB of RAM, ordinary hard disk and an ageing and very mid-range GPU like an ATI HD5770 can do some killer, killer stuff with at least 2x AA at 1920x1080 60p.
The console industry has got several things right but they are definitely resting on their laurels, which is dangerous in this time and age. Not to mention, again, Sony lost a whole bunch of money this past year as a whole.
Also, to put things in perspective, the iPad is on track in the next year to sell almost as many iPads in one quarter than PS3 and Xbox360 combined sold IN AN ENTIRE YEAR.
Even if iPad growth levels off, by the end of this year, there will be ALMOST AS MANY iPADs sold than PS3s SOLD SINCE PS3 came out. There will be ALMOST AS MANY iPads sold than Xbox360s since Xbox360 came out.
That's fine, and convenient, and why I got an Xbox360. On PC, you literally have to update your graphics drivers each time you install a new game, sometimes, several times throughout the course of the game. Not to mention constant updates and patches to the game itself. So far Xbox360 and PS3 are pretty darn stable.
But 5 years is very long in tech, and there is no roadmap by Sony (who lost a lot of cash this past year) or Microsoft, whose Xbox360 Slim still rattles as if it's going to explode when playing a game from disc.
That's what I was trying to say, there are millions of people that are happy paying for a device that has a long life, they are happy that the price of said device decreases as time goes on, a new PS3 costs half of what it did at release time, and I can still play Uncharted 3 on both the first and the last models.
And how do you know what Sony's roadmap is? What is it ok for Apple to held these things secret, but not Sony?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
There is a gaping opportunity for Apple, and I want to see even better visuals and an even more immersive gaming experience. Heck, game developers want to deliver more, they are good to go once there is more horsepower in consoles. It's a big constraint trying to deliver what they envision on what is now relatively poor graphics of the PS3.
But I don't want to have to replace my iPad every year to play the next big game, there is nothing wrong with what the PS3 does as far as gaming goes
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
An ageing Core2 Duo, average speed 2GB of RAM, ordinary hard disk and an ageing and very mid-range GPU like an ATI HD5770 can do some killer, killer stuff with at least 2x AA at 1920x1080 60p.
Are you referring to a Windows based PC? Try playing Steam games on a Mac, you need a lot higher speced machine that Windows to play the same game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
Also, to put things in perspective, the iPad is on track in the next year to sell almost as many iPads in one quarter than PS3 and Xbox360 combined sold IN AN ENTIRE YEAR.
What is your point? The PS3 and X-Box are gaming machines that do so much more, the iPad is a multimedia device that you can play games on, the primary sale of an iPad is not for games, you cannot compare the sales of one of these devices to another
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
Even if iPad growth levels off, by the end of this year, there will be ALMOST AS MANY iPADs sold than PS3s SOLD SINCE PS3 came out. There will be ALMOST AS MANY iPads sold than Xbox360s since Xbox360 came out.
Again, what is your point? You may as well compare the sales of pens to crayons, they are sold for primarily different reasons.
That's what I was trying to say, there are millions of people that are happy paying for a device that has a long life, they are happy that the price of said device decreases as time goes on, a new PS3 costs half of what it did at release time, and I can still play Uncharted 3 on both the first and the last models.
Stability is an advantage but may also be a crutch for Sony and Microsoft. PS3 cost cutting has been blamed for Sony's past year losses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
But I don't want to have to replace my iPad every year to play the next big game, there is nothing wrong with what the PS3 does as far as gaming goes
That's fine. I'll explain further down what the impact of the iPad is. As for having to continually update, it depends on iOS developers on their backward compatibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Are you referring to a Windows based PC? Try playing Steam games on a Mac, you need a lot higher speced machine that Windows to play the same game.
Yes, but my point is a Mac is part of Apple's ecosystem that, at the present rate, will soon offer a gaming experience at all levels from mobile to tablet to console (if they do it) to PC/Mac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
The PS3 and X-Box are gaming machines that do so much more, the iPad is a multimedia device that you can play games on, the primary sale of an iPad is not for games, you cannot compare the sales of one of these devices to another
You've got it backwards. The PS3 and Xbox are a multimedia device you can play games on, the iPad is extremely versatile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
I hope you don't use vgchartz as the source, it must be the most despised source of information regarding gaming around
They are the easiest source of data for now. Unless you have proof there are many million more units sold than shown in the graph above.
At the current rate of growth of the iPad, even if only 50% of users ever use it for gaming, it will be a very significant platform.
What can I do on my Xbox360... Buy movies, music and TV shows. I can do that on my iPad. I can't browse the Internet, download apps or watch YouTube in any simple way, not that I can find, feel free to correct me.
As of 6th Jun 2011 Microsoft has only demonstrated Bing and YouTube, not a full browser.
What I'm trying to do is open up people's eyes to how massive and versatile the iPad platform is going to become.
You say that you don't want to update each time to play the latest game. Fair enough. But think about this. If the iPad 3 sells 50 million units in 2012, which is very likely, that is about ALL THE UNITS OF PS3 sold for the PAST SIX YEARS.
That means, that through 2012 and 2013, a game developer making a game targeted at iPad 3 will have ALMOST THE EQUIVALENT USER BASE of THE ENTIRE PS3 USER BASE.
So, if Apple continues on its trajectory, sometime around the iPad 4, with iPad 5 being backward compatible, the iPad 4/5 will have a MUCH LARGER USER BASE THAN PS3. Like, EVER. This is big. This is significant... if the iPad 4 and 5 can pack some horsepower, and it will, and you can play games on your HDTV, which you already can.
Yes, not every person purchasing an iPad is going to play games. But some will, and the ease of entry into the iPad gamer market may be better than PS3. For some gamers, if iPad 4/5 gaming is reasonable, they might not even consider a PS3, since they might want to do some other multimedia stuff besides gaming with a PS3... So they may be better off buying an iPad instead of a PS3. Some will say, "but oh, the "real" gamer market" knows PS3 and Xbox360. But the Wii, with none of that great "AAA" titles massively outsells the PS3 and Xbox360.
It is very likely that the iPad4/5 will redefine gaming just as iPhone and iPod touch has. For better or worse, I leave that to the individual to decide. I feel that console gaming has destroyed PC gaming... for example, there will never be another "Myst" made in this decade. But do I despise console gaming? Nope, I do enjoy the console titles in a different way. Will iOS gaming destroy console gaming? Some say it already has... Again, I leave it to the individual to decide.
Stability is an advantage but may also be a crutch for Sony and Microsoft. PS3 cost cutting has been blamed for Sony's past year losses.
Really? All the searches I did say their TV division are to blame
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
That's fine. I'll explain further down what the impact of the iPad is. As for having to continually update, it depends on iOS developers on their backward compatibility.
How are software developers going to handle changes in hardware to provide this compatibility? Will the iPad play the same games designed for the iPad 5?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
Yes, but my point is a Mac is part of Apple's ecosystem that, at the present rate, will soon offer a gaming experience at all levels from mobile to tablet to console (if they do it) to PC/Mac.
The iPad, iPhone, iPod have an ecosystem with iTunes, is the Mac really part of it? I don't think so, up until now it has been a device you setup your iOS device from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
You've got it backwards. The PS3 and Xbox are a multimedia device you can play games on, the iPad is extremely versatile.
That's your definition, Sony prefers to say it does everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
They are the easiest source of data for now. Unless you have proof there are many million more units sold than shown in the graph above.
I'm not saying anything about sales levels, I still don't see what the point of comparing sales of two different devices are. All I know is vgchartz are the most complained about source of data.
At the current rate of growth of the iPad, even if only 50% of users ever use it for gaming, it will be a very significant platform.
Lovely graph. May I ask why you have compared the sales of the iPad 1 and 2, but only included the PS3 and X-Box 360? My PS3 will play PS1, and PS2 games, only seems fair that you combine the sales of all PS devices, putting it around the 300 million mark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
What can I do on my Xbox360... Buy movies, music and TV shows. I can do that on my iPad. I can't browse the Internet, download apps or watch YouTube in any simple way, not that I can find, feel free to correct me.
I don't own a X-Box 360, and have never used one, I don't know what it can or can't do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
As of 6th Jun 2011 Microsoft has only demonstrated Bing and YouTube, not a full browser.
As above, will have to believe you on that one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
What I'm trying to do is open up people's eyes to how massive and versatile the iPad platform is going to become.
I have no issue with that, just don't make it out to be something it isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
You say that you don't want to update each time to play the latest game. Fair enough. But think about this. If the iPad 3 sells 50 million units in 2012, which is very likely, that is about ALL THE UNITS OF PS3 sold for the PAST SIX YEARS.
That's because you don't have to replace it every year when a new model comes out
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
That means, that through 2012 and 2013, a game developer making a game targeted at iPad 3 will have ALMOST THE EQUIVALENT USER BASE of THE ENTIRE PS3 USER BASE.
Yes, assuming that all those iPad users will purchase a game, big assumption
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
So, if Apple continues on its trajectory, sometime around the iPad 4, with iPad 5 being backward compatible, the iPad 4/5 will have a MUCH LARGER USER BASE THAN PS3. Like, EVER. This is big. This is significant... if the iPad 4 and 5 can pack some horsepower, and it will, and you can play games on your HDTV, which you already can.
So you are comparing what might happen in the future with that Sony/MS sells now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
Yes, not every person purchasing an iPad is going to play games. But some will, and the ease of entry into the iPad gamer market may be better than PS3. For some gamers, if iPad 4/5 gaming is reasonable, they might not even consider a PS3, since they might want to do some other multimedia stuff besides gaming with a PS3... So they may be better off buying an iPad instead of a PS3. Some will say, "but oh, the "real" gamer market" knows PS3 and Xbox360. But the Wii, with none of that great "AAA" titles massively outsells the PS3 and Xbox360.
Again, you are comparing the future products of Apple to the current MS/Sony products. The PS3 has functions that the iPad does't have, and will never have, they are not directly comparable devices
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
It is very likely that the iPad4/5 will redefine gaming just as iPhone and iPod touch has. For better or worse, I leave that to the individual to decide. I feel that console gaming has destroyed PC gaming... for example, there will never be another "Myst" made in this decade. But do I despise console gaming? Nope, I do enjoy the console titles in a different way. Will iOS gaming destroy console gaming? Some say it already has... Again, I leave it to the individual to decide.
Again, you are comparing the possible future devices of one company against the current offerings of others.
I don't own an iPad, and there is no current game that wants to make me drop a $1000 to purchase an iPad, I can't see any significant gaming advantage over my PS3's. Apple has been lucky that some companies have had some success with casual gaming (Apple didn't initate this, the game creators did), but they are missing the major games to drive these hardcore gamer across. But the thing is, they don't need the major gamers, Apple is doing fine doing what they are doing now. Just try and remember that they will never have 100% of the market, and people are right to purchase that they want, and no everyone wants to purchase a new device every year. The PS2 sales levels are a prime example of this.
I still refuse to believe its going to go down like that.
Just because the iDevices are getting more popular doesn't mean many millions of people will stop loving good games.
And that highlights exactly why Jobs is important to the gaming industry. There were too many people like you who think that only super-deluxe high-end shootemup games are the only thing that matters. Your use of 'good games' suggests that you're entirely incapable of the concept that something can be a good game without requiring 100 fps on a 2 GB teratexel video card.
It's much like the introduction of the Wii. before Wii, the game console business was all about "our console is faster than last year's - and faster than the competition". Wii showed that it's possible to have a fun gaming experience by focusing on the EXPERIENCE rather than the specs. The iPhone does the same thing - it completely changes the paradigm.
Now, just as Wii didn't put PS3 and XBox out of business, the iPhone isn't going to kill your type of video games. It's simply an alternative which many people will choose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
You know there are a lot of people (millions in fact) that don't want to have to purchase a new console every year, they like the fact that any PS3 game made will run on their PS3 purchased at any time
Ah, but if you're a "REAL gamer", you always need the latest and greatest video console or PC. If someone comes out with a new video card that has a 20% higher frame rate, it's a must have - even at $500. At least, that's what all the game fanatics seem to say - and your reference to 'good games' confirms that. Lots of people are focused on specs.
Look at Wii. How long has it been without a change in performance? 5 years? And it's still selling - and people are buying lots of games. Similarly, people are able to play games on a 3 year old iPhone 3GS and enjoy the experience. It is, again, a paradigm shift. No one is ever suggesting that Doom Civilization Deathmatch Halo whatever is going to go away. It's simply a new option (low priced portable gaming) for the industry - and Apple largely led the way in that.
I don't own an iPad, and there is no current game that wants to make me drop a $1000 to purchase an iPad, I can't see any significant gaming advantage over my PS3's.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
No significant advantage? You mean the fact that you can pull it out of your backpack in an airplane to play a game at 30,000 feet isn't an advantage? Or the fact that the same device that does all of your remote computing allows you to play games without carrying an extra device isn't an advantage?
No one is suggesting that the iPhone will replace the xBox or PS3. It's simply an alternative. What part of that don't you understand?
Oh, and btw, you know you've lost the argument when you have to start making up stupid numbers to try to defend your choice. There isn't a single iPad model which costs $1,000. If you were only going to use your iPad for gaming, the least expensive $499 model is all you'd need. Games are small enough that the extra storage capacity isn't needed and there'd be no reason for 3G.
But 5 years is very long in tech, and there is no roadmap by Sony or Microsoft, whose Xbox360 Slim still rattles as if it's going to explode when playing a game from disc.
No public roadmap.
There is no public roadmap for the iPad 3 or iPhone 5 either.
Comments
They will have to sell nearly 17M copies at $60 each to make a billion, unless there is downloadable pay content being sold as well.
Oh gee, you mean like reading Steve's biography? Here's an article that discusses it. It mentions that several executives petitioned him about calls out 2, but I've seen Forstall's name listed chiefly over the last several years whenever it's brought up. If you will recall, when the iPhone came out Steve said no to apps and that if people wanted apps they could design web apps. Eventually his viewpoint was changed and it's a good thing it was. Steve was not perfect or all-knowing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...bs-apps-iphone
Jobs is a reknowned control freak and the introduction of a new device will drive that part of his mentality to protect what he sees as the right kind of user experience out of the box. But notice that Isaacson siad he was initially resistant (follows his preferences) but allowed Schiller and Forstall to convince him, especially once they demonstrated that Apple would curate the apps and control delivery - remember, Jobs is all about the user experience and controls to that OCD. And the fact that he was supporting webapps indicates that he wasn't against apps on the iPhone, just not apps that had system access. Once his team could prove to him it could be done in a way acceptable to him it was a go, and Jobs enthusiastically supported them.
And at no point did I state or even imply that Jobs was perfect or all knowing. Understanding the personality of the individual helps to understand the thought process that produced the decisions that were made. As someone who is a generational peer of Jobs and moved in some of the same circles, I don't necessarily need his autobiography to understand how he thinks. Because ultimately what you do is proof of what you believe, and having watched Jobs work through his career, there is abundant evidence to indicate why he made the decisions he did.
I don't see any evidence that Jobs "caved" as you so blithely put it. He made informed decisions based on what his executives demonstrated was possible. It is not a rational assumption to state that Jobs didn't want apps on a platform that would clearly benefit from apps. Or perhaps you believe that Jobs just didn't get how important application were to the Mac platform as well? Your caved comment simply didn't make logical sense if you understand what drove Steve Jobs.
Do you have some support for such a silly comment? Do you really believe that they did not intend for apps to be developed for the iOS platform in the manner in which they actually developed? Did you really think that Apple woke up one morning, looked out the window, saw a big group of app developed camped on the front lawn and said, "well if we don't let them create apps, they won't go away?"
Cupidity at its finest!
Yet, right up until the very day that Apple announced the iPhone SDK and App Store, a lot of Mac zealots were still arguing in favor of closing off iPhone development to third parties. No, they were not saying "Apple will eventually release an iPhone SDK". Instead, they were saying things like:
Apple should not allow third parties to create native iPhone applications.
Nobody needs third party iPhone applications.
Web apps are really SWEET.
There is a difference.
On one hand, these Apple zealots encourage people to send feedback to Apple because "Apple listens" and "Apple loves its customers". But when Apple does make a change to something due to popular demand, these zealots are not willing to admit it. They cannot admit that they backed the wrong side of the issue. So they spin their argument around to say "Apple was already planning to do it all along. Apple doesn't need to listen to anybody". Same goes with copy-paste and multitasking. If Apple really was planning to add those features, then they should have just admitted that they were working on those features instead of dismissing them one day, then saying something else the next day and expecting people to have no memory of what was previously said. So unless Apple is more open about their plans to add features or fix bugs in current features, the "whiners" and "complainers" should get credit for convincing Apple to implement them.
not into cars...but when you mention that kind of thought pattern...I have a Mac Pro ;D
Ferrari should go out of business because hardly anyone buys them.
But notice that Isaacson siad he was initially resistant (follows his preferences) but allowed Schiller and Forstall to convince him, especially once they demonstrated that Apple would curate the apps and control delivery - remember, Jobs is all about the user experience and controls to that OCD. And the fact that he was supporting webapps indicates that he wasn't against apps on the iPhone, just not apps that had system access. Once his team could prove to him it could be done in a way acceptable to him it was a go, and Jobs enthusiastically supported them.
Well considering you referred to my comment as "silly" and then tried ending with referring to cupidity, which means greed, and thus not making any damn sense, what was I supposed to think?
And at no point did I state or even imply that Jobs was perfect or all knowing.
Well considering you referred to my comment as "silly" when it was a statement that has been mentioned many times in the past, your response certainly seemed geared toward the "Steve can do no wrong" from your tone and some of the things you said. Then tried ending with referring to cupidity, which means greed, and thus not making any damn sense, what was I supposed to think?
As someone who is a generational peer of Jobs and moved in some of the same circles, I don't necessarily need his autobiography to understand how he thinks.
Good for you, that means jack as far as this goes.
He made informed decisions based on what his executives demonstrated was possible. It is not a rational assumption to state that Jobs didn't want apps on a platform that would clearly benefit from apps. Or perhaps you believe that Jobs just didn't get how important application were to the Mac platform as well?
If someone is very resistant to the idea and is turned to the other point of view, they have certainly flip flopped. You can call it caving in to someone else's viewpoint or just changing your mind, but it still ends up the same. Steve said no third party apps and from various sources did not want them on the phone. Eventually he changed his mind and a SDK was designed and the app market went thru the roof. Quibble w/my wording all you want, the facts seem pretty evident.
You are correct, the real reason.....greed.
A simple iPhone game, probably costs one tenth of a game like Battlefield 3 that is on consoles and PC's. However with as many iphones/ipads that simple game might just make as much as Battlefield 3 in the end (if its good).
The consumer ends up with a bunch nice, simple games but could end up not getting the higher end games in the long run.
I still refuse to believe its going to go down like that.
Just because the iDevices are getting more popular doesn't mean many millions of people will stop loving good games.
Again, I like the Xbox360 for my "mainstream gaming" but Sony and Microsoft are now milking 5 year old tech to the max and are hopelessly, hopelessly dependent on pumping oodles of cash into the "AAA" title game developers to push sales.
I'll keep saying it. Apple A6 or A7 chip, much better graphics than Xbox360 (which are fairly primitive now) and Boom! An Xbox360+ that's a fraction the size, no fan and PORTABLE too.
I still refuse to believe its going to go down like that.
Just because the iDevices are getting more popular doesn't mean many millions of people will stop loving good games.
Indeed. Bastion is an awesome "indie" console game. iOS is good but like I said Apple just needs to offer something equivalent to consoles and they have the entire market covered... Remember, including "PC-only"(read:Mac too) titles like StarCraft2.
Again, I like the Xbox360 for my "mainstream gaming" but Sony and Microsoft are now milking 5 year old tech to the max and are hopelessly, hopelessly dependent on pumping oodles of cash into the "AAA" title game developers to push sales.
You know there are a lot of people (millions in fact) that don't want to have to purchase a new console every year, they like the fact that any PS3 game made will run on their PS3 purchased at any time
Yet, right up until the very day that Apple announced the iPhone SDK and App Store, a lot of Mac zealots were still arguing in favor of closing off iPhone development to third parties. No, they were not saying "Apple will eventually release an iPhone SDK". Instead, they were saying things like:
Apple should not allow third parties to create native iPhone applications.
Nobody needs third party iPhone applications.
Web apps are really SWEET.
There is a difference.
On one hand, these Apple zealots encourage people to send feedback to Apple because "Apple listens" and "Apple loves its customers". But when Apple does make a change to something due to popular demand, these zealots are not willing to admit it. They cannot admit that they backed the wrong side of the issue. So they spin their argument around to say "Apple was already planning to do it all along. Apple doesn't need to listen to anybody". Same goes with copy-paste and multitasking. If Apple really was planning to add those features, then they should have just admitted that they were working on those features instead of dismissing them one day, then saying something else the next day and expecting people to have no memory of what was previously said. So unless Apple is more open about their plans to add features or fix bugs in current features, the "whiners" and "complainers" should get credit for convincing Apple to implement them.
If Apple ever admitted that they were working on something well in advance then the media would crucify them because the product had not begun shipping yet or that it was late.. I prefer Apple's normal method of announcing things when they are ready or very close to being ready and not before. Advance notice typically causes grief.
You know there are a lot of people (millions in fact) that don't want to have to purchase a new console every year, they like the fact that any PS3 game made will run on their PS3 purchased at any time
That's fine, and convenient, and why I got an Xbox360. On PC, you literally have to update your graphics drivers each time you install a new game, sometimes, several times throughout the course of the game. Not to mention constant updates and patches to the game itself. So far Xbox360 and PS3 are pretty darn stable.
But 5 years is very long in tech, and there is no roadmap by Sony (who lost a lot of cash this past year) or Microsoft, whose Xbox360 Slim still rattles as if it's going to explode when playing a game from disc.
There is a gaping opportunity for Apple, and I want to see even better visuals and an even more immersive gaming experience. Heck, game developers want to deliver more, they are good to go once there is more horsepower in consoles. It's a big constraint trying to deliver what they envision on what is now relatively poor graphics of the PS3.
An ageing Core2 Duo, average speed 2GB of RAM, ordinary hard disk and an ageing and very mid-range GPU like an ATI HD5770 can do some killer, killer stuff with at least 2x AA at 1920x1080 60p.
The console industry has got several things right but they are definitely resting on their laurels, which is dangerous in this time and age. Not to mention, again, Sony lost a whole bunch of money this past year as a whole.
Also, to put things in perspective, the iPad is on track in the next year to sell almost as many iPads in one quarter than PS3 and Xbox360 combined sold IN AN ENTIRE YEAR.
Even if iPad growth levels off, by the end of this year, there will be ALMOST AS MANY iPADs sold than PS3s SOLD SINCE PS3 came out. There will be ALMOST AS MANY iPads sold than Xbox360s since Xbox360 came out.
http://www.vgchartz.com/article/8840...-october-29th/
Putting together a chart now.
http://a.yfrog.com/img532/4672/f47.png
That's fine, and convenient, and why I got an Xbox360. On PC, you literally have to update your graphics drivers each time you install a new game, sometimes, several times throughout the course of the game. Not to mention constant updates and patches to the game itself. So far Xbox360 and PS3 are pretty darn stable.
But 5 years is very long in tech, and there is no roadmap by Sony (who lost a lot of cash this past year) or Microsoft, whose Xbox360 Slim still rattles as if it's going to explode when playing a game from disc.
That's what I was trying to say, there are millions of people that are happy paying for a device that has a long life, they are happy that the price of said device decreases as time goes on, a new PS3 costs half of what it did at release time, and I can still play Uncharted 3 on both the first and the last models.
And how do you know what Sony's roadmap is? What is it ok for Apple to held these things secret, but not Sony?
There is a gaping opportunity for Apple, and I want to see even better visuals and an even more immersive gaming experience. Heck, game developers want to deliver more, they are good to go once there is more horsepower in consoles. It's a big constraint trying to deliver what they envision on what is now relatively poor graphics of the PS3.
But I don't want to have to replace my iPad every year to play the next big game, there is nothing wrong with what the PS3 does as far as gaming goes
An ageing Core2 Duo, average speed 2GB of RAM, ordinary hard disk and an ageing and very mid-range GPU like an ATI HD5770 can do some killer, killer stuff with at least 2x AA at 1920x1080 60p.
Are you referring to a Windows based PC? Try playing Steam games on a Mac, you need a lot higher speced machine that Windows to play the same game.
Also, to put things in perspective, the iPad is on track in the next year to sell almost as many iPads in one quarter than PS3 and Xbox360 combined sold IN AN ENTIRE YEAR.
What is your point? The PS3 and X-Box are gaming machines that do so much more, the iPad is a multimedia device that you can play games on, the primary sale of an iPad is not for games, you cannot compare the sales of one of these devices to another
Even if iPad growth levels off, by the end of this year, there will be ALMOST AS MANY iPADs sold than PS3s SOLD SINCE PS3 came out. There will be ALMOST AS MANY iPads sold than Xbox360s since Xbox360 came out.
Again, what is your point? You may as well compare the sales of pens to crayons, they are sold for primarily different reasons.
http://www.vgchartz.com/article/8840...-october-29th/
Putting together a chart now.
I hope you don't use vgchartz as the source, it must be the most despised source of information regarding gaming around
iPad as a platform will eventually dwarf Xbox360 and PS3 if current iPad groth rate is maintained:
What is your point?
That's what I was trying to say, there are millions of people that are happy paying for a device that has a long life, they are happy that the price of said device decreases as time goes on, a new PS3 costs half of what it did at release time, and I can still play Uncharted 3 on both the first and the last models.
Stability is an advantage but may also be a crutch for Sony and Microsoft. PS3 cost cutting has been blamed for Sony's past year losses.
But I don't want to have to replace my iPad every year to play the next big game, there is nothing wrong with what the PS3 does as far as gaming goes
That's fine. I'll explain further down what the impact of the iPad is. As for having to continually update, it depends on iOS developers on their backward compatibility.
Are you referring to a Windows based PC? Try playing Steam games on a Mac, you need a lot higher speced machine that Windows to play the same game.
Yes, but my point is a Mac is part of Apple's ecosystem that, at the present rate, will soon offer a gaming experience at all levels from mobile to tablet to console (if they do it) to PC/Mac.
The PS3 and X-Box are gaming machines that do so much more, the iPad is a multimedia device that you can play games on, the primary sale of an iPad is not for games, you cannot compare the sales of one of these devices to another
You've got it backwards. The PS3 and Xbox are a multimedia device you can play games on, the iPad is extremely versatile.
I hope you don't use vgchartz as the source, it must be the most despised source of information regarding gaming around
They are the easiest source of data for now. Unless you have proof there are many million more units sold than shown in the graph above.
What is your point?
http://a.yfrog.com/img532/4672/f47.png
At the current rate of growth of the iPad, even if only 50% of users ever use it for gaming, it will be a very significant platform.
What can I do on my Xbox360... Buy movies, music and TV shows. I can do that on my iPad. I can't browse the Internet, download apps or watch YouTube in any simple way, not that I can find, feel free to correct me.
As of 6th Jun 2011 Microsoft has only demonstrated Bing and YouTube, not a full browser.
What I'm trying to do is open up people's eyes to how massive and versatile the iPad platform is going to become.
You say that you don't want to update each time to play the latest game. Fair enough. But think about this. If the iPad 3 sells 50 million units in 2012, which is very likely, that is about ALL THE UNITS OF PS3 sold for the PAST SIX YEARS.
That means, that through 2012 and 2013, a game developer making a game targeted at iPad 3 will have ALMOST THE EQUIVALENT USER BASE of THE ENTIRE PS3 USER BASE.
So, if Apple continues on its trajectory, sometime around the iPad 4, with iPad 5 being backward compatible, the iPad 4/5 will have a MUCH LARGER USER BASE THAN PS3. Like, EVER. This is big. This is significant... if the iPad 4 and 5 can pack some horsepower, and it will, and you can play games on your HDTV, which you already can.
Yes, not every person purchasing an iPad is going to play games. But some will, and the ease of entry into the iPad gamer market may be better than PS3. For some gamers, if iPad 4/5 gaming is reasonable, they might not even consider a PS3, since they might want to do some other multimedia stuff besides gaming with a PS3... So they may be better off buying an iPad instead of a PS3. Some will say, "but oh, the "real" gamer market" knows PS3 and Xbox360. But the Wii, with none of that great "AAA" titles massively outsells the PS3 and Xbox360.
It is very likely that the iPad4/5 will redefine gaming just as iPhone and iPod touch has. For better or worse, I leave that to the individual to decide. I feel that console gaming has destroyed PC gaming... for example, there will never be another "Myst" made in this decade. But do I despise console gaming? Nope, I do enjoy the console titles in a different way. Will iOS gaming destroy console gaming? Some say it already has... Again, I leave it to the individual to decide.
Stability is an advantage but may also be a crutch for Sony and Microsoft. PS3 cost cutting has been blamed for Sony's past year losses.
Really? All the searches I did say their TV division are to blame
That's fine. I'll explain further down what the impact of the iPad is. As for having to continually update, it depends on iOS developers on their backward compatibility.
How are software developers going to handle changes in hardware to provide this compatibility? Will the iPad play the same games designed for the iPad 5?
Yes, but my point is a Mac is part of Apple's ecosystem that, at the present rate, will soon offer a gaming experience at all levels from mobile to tablet to console (if they do it) to PC/Mac.
The iPad, iPhone, iPod have an ecosystem with iTunes, is the Mac really part of it? I don't think so, up until now it has been a device you setup your iOS device from.
You've got it backwards. The PS3 and Xbox are a multimedia device you can play games on, the iPad is extremely versatile.
That's your definition, Sony prefers to say it does everything.
They are the easiest source of data for now. Unless you have proof there are many million more units sold than shown in the graph above.
I'm not saying anything about sales levels, I still don't see what the point of comparing sales of two different devices are. All I know is vgchartz are the most complained about source of data.
http://a.yfrog.com/img532/4672/f47.png
At the current rate of growth of the iPad, even if only 50% of users ever use it for gaming, it will be a very significant platform.
Lovely graph. May I ask why you have compared the sales of the iPad 1 and 2, but only included the PS3 and X-Box 360? My PS3 will play PS1, and PS2 games, only seems fair that you combine the sales of all PS devices, putting it around the 300 million mark.
What can I do on my Xbox360... Buy movies, music and TV shows. I can do that on my iPad. I can't browse the Internet, download apps or watch YouTube in any simple way, not that I can find, feel free to correct me.
I don't own a X-Box 360, and have never used one, I don't know what it can or can't do.
As of 6th Jun 2011 Microsoft has only demonstrated Bing and YouTube, not a full browser.
As above, will have to believe you on that one.
What I'm trying to do is open up people's eyes to how massive and versatile the iPad platform is going to become.
I have no issue with that, just don't make it out to be something it isn't.
You say that you don't want to update each time to play the latest game. Fair enough. But think about this. If the iPad 3 sells 50 million units in 2012, which is very likely, that is about ALL THE UNITS OF PS3 sold for the PAST SIX YEARS.
That's because you don't have to replace it every year when a new model comes out
That means, that through 2012 and 2013, a game developer making a game targeted at iPad 3 will have ALMOST THE EQUIVALENT USER BASE of THE ENTIRE PS3 USER BASE.
Yes, assuming that all those iPad users will purchase a game, big assumption
So, if Apple continues on its trajectory, sometime around the iPad 4, with iPad 5 being backward compatible, the iPad 4/5 will have a MUCH LARGER USER BASE THAN PS3. Like, EVER. This is big. This is significant... if the iPad 4 and 5 can pack some horsepower, and it will, and you can play games on your HDTV, which you already can.
So you are comparing what might happen in the future with that Sony/MS sells now?
Yes, not every person purchasing an iPad is going to play games. But some will, and the ease of entry into the iPad gamer market may be better than PS3. For some gamers, if iPad 4/5 gaming is reasonable, they might not even consider a PS3, since they might want to do some other multimedia stuff besides gaming with a PS3... So they may be better off buying an iPad instead of a PS3. Some will say, "but oh, the "real" gamer market" knows PS3 and Xbox360. But the Wii, with none of that great "AAA" titles massively outsells the PS3 and Xbox360.
Again, you are comparing the future products of Apple to the current MS/Sony products. The PS3 has functions that the iPad does't have, and will never have, they are not directly comparable devices
It is very likely that the iPad4/5 will redefine gaming just as iPhone and iPod touch has. For better or worse, I leave that to the individual to decide. I feel that console gaming has destroyed PC gaming... for example, there will never be another "Myst" made in this decade. But do I despise console gaming? Nope, I do enjoy the console titles in a different way. Will iOS gaming destroy console gaming? Some say it already has... Again, I leave it to the individual to decide.
Again, you are comparing the possible future devices of one company against the current offerings of others.
I don't own an iPad, and there is no current game that wants to make me drop a $1000 to purchase an iPad, I can't see any significant gaming advantage over my PS3's. Apple has been lucky that some companies have had some success with casual gaming (Apple didn't initate this, the game creators did), but they are missing the major games to drive these hardcore gamer across. But the thing is, they don't need the major gamers, Apple is doing fine doing what they are doing now. Just try and remember that they will never have 100% of the market, and people are right to purchase that they want, and no everyone wants to purchase a new device every year. The PS2 sales levels are a prime example of this.
I still refuse to believe its going to go down like that.
Just because the iDevices are getting more popular doesn't mean many millions of people will stop loving good games.
And that highlights exactly why Jobs is important to the gaming industry. There were too many people like you who think that only super-deluxe high-end shootemup games are the only thing that matters. Your use of 'good games' suggests that you're entirely incapable of the concept that something can be a good game without requiring 100 fps on a 2 GB teratexel video card.
It's much like the introduction of the Wii. before Wii, the game console business was all about "our console is faster than last year's - and faster than the competition". Wii showed that it's possible to have a fun gaming experience by focusing on the EXPERIENCE rather than the specs. The iPhone does the same thing - it completely changes the paradigm.
Now, just as Wii didn't put PS3 and XBox out of business, the iPhone isn't going to kill your type of video games. It's simply an alternative which many people will choose.
You know there are a lot of people (millions in fact) that don't want to have to purchase a new console every year, they like the fact that any PS3 game made will run on their PS3 purchased at any time
Ah, but if you're a "REAL gamer", you always need the latest and greatest video console or PC. If someone comes out with a new video card that has a 20% higher frame rate, it's a must have - even at $500. At least, that's what all the game fanatics seem to say - and your reference to 'good games' confirms that. Lots of people are focused on specs.
Look at Wii. How long has it been without a change in performance? 5 years? And it's still selling - and people are buying lots of games. Similarly, people are able to play games on a 3 year old iPhone 3GS and enjoy the experience. It is, again, a paradigm shift. No one is ever suggesting that Doom Civilization Deathmatch Halo whatever is going to go away. It's simply a new option (low priced portable gaming) for the industry - and Apple largely led the way in that.
I don't own an iPad, and there is no current game that wants to make me drop a $1000 to purchase an iPad, I can't see any significant gaming advantage over my PS3's.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
No significant advantage? You mean the fact that you can pull it out of your backpack in an airplane to play a game at 30,000 feet isn't an advantage? Or the fact that the same device that does all of your remote computing allows you to play games without carrying an extra device isn't an advantage?
No one is suggesting that the iPhone will replace the xBox or PS3. It's simply an alternative. What part of that don't you understand?
Oh, and btw, you know you've lost the argument when you have to start making up stupid numbers to try to defend your choice. There isn't a single iPad model which costs $1,000. If you were only going to use your iPad for gaming, the least expensive $499 model is all you'd need. Games are small enough that the extra storage capacity isn't needed and there'd be no reason for 3G.
But 5 years is very long in tech, and there is no roadmap by Sony or Microsoft, whose Xbox360 Slim still rattles as if it's going to explode when playing a game from disc.
No public roadmap.
There is no public roadmap for the iPad 3 or iPhone 5 either.