^ What buttons? The volume up and down? Not sure Apple even allows you to use them, and they're hardly ergonomic.
As usual, we don't know where Apple is goi g with this. They didn't allow the button for a camera, then they did. They are ergonomic, they fit right where your fingers would be.
^ True enough, we don't know where Apple are going, but this article seems to be suggesting an awful lot without even a glimmer of innovation or good reason why gaming would be such a big opportunity for Apple. Kindle Fire TV also has games (I believe) and a similar model, but no one much seems to care about that.
Re. ergonomics and how good the volume buttons would be as game controlling buttons, we'll just have to disagree on that. Sounds rubbish to me.
To me the killer feature is the tremendous pool of talent in the iOS development community. A lot of devs I talk to seem to think Apps have kind of peaked. We still see new and original Apps, but not at the pace we used to.
Give these developers access to an Apple TV with a good processor and suddenly they've got a new market to start developing for. I think all the major iOS game companies will be jumping over themselves to get their new ideas onto an Apple TV. It'll be like the early days of The App Store all over again, this time with the Apple TV.
I don't see gaming on the Apple TV as any kind of major priority. It hasn't done much for the Roku, Fire TV, etc ... Mind you I have never cared for console gaming so I am biased. Do have a couple of Fire TV's with game controllers that never get used. The Fire TV itself is pretty nice though it has the worst Plex app of all times. A new Apple TV with a Plex app would convince me to move back. Perhaps they should look at the Amazon Echo for something that actually gets used.Just adding Siri would not be enough.
All this time wasted getting ad supported TV onto the Apple TV. Such a shame. They have an opportunity to change the way entertainment is delivered and all they want is to basically port cable content to the Apple TV? What is the point?
Apple just doesn't seem to be willing to take risks anymore. Reminds me of that clone company Compaq and we know what happened to it.
You should meet more people. On the flipside, I know several under-35s who all have cable or satellite service including my children and their friends. Once they got out of college and into an apartment or house, they all signed up for cable. While it works for the viewing habits of some, streaming TV is not ready for prime time. For example...
1. How many times do you have to re-login to an account? It seems that one app or another is always asking me to sign back in.
2. Who doesn't have more than one TV? Each Apple TV or similar device is its own entity and needs to be configured for each TV. No way to set up one and copy your preferences and account info to another.
3. Nobody has shown how this is cheaper than a moderate cable package. I pay about $115 for broadband internet and a fairly inclusive TV package plus HBO. This does not include boxes and DVRs for multiple TVs. Subtract $35 for the upgraded broadband part and that's about $80. And I can watch things I forget to record from the On Demand service.
To get what I would want over the top, I would need to subscribe to HBO, Amazon Prime, Netflix and Hulu plus the MLB, NHL and NFL packages of some type. Even if it was a bit cheaper, which I doubt, I would have to worry about managing at least 7 or 8 different subscriptions. That's not even including secondary cable networks like USA or the History Channel etc.
If Apple could pull all this together under a single monthy charge to an iTunes account and have it be more cost effective, they may have something. This does not exist yet.
1) I haven't had to login in months...No brainer
2) I have three... again no brainer. Same accounts on all three.
3) You need to get out more... I pay ~$35 / month with 3 kids, three TV's all streaming HD over my 40Gb ($40) link, not to mention their laptops... and I still have too much to watch... This includes free OTA local channels. Man you must spend a lot of time staring at the tube.
I don't see gaming on the Apple TV as any kind of major priority. It hasn't done much for the Roku, Fire TV, etc ... Mind you I have never cared for console gaming so I am biased. Do have a couple of Fire TV's with game controllers that never get used. The Fire TV itself is pretty nice though it has the worst Plex app of all times. A new Apple TV with a Plex app would convince me to move back. Perhaps they should look at the Amazon Echo for something that actually gets used.Just adding Siri would not be enough.
All this time wasted getting ad supported TV onto the Apple TV. Such a shame. They have an opportunity to change the way entertainment is delivered and all they want is to basically port cable content to the Apple TV? What is the point?
Apple just doesn't seem to be willing to take risks anymore. Reminds me of that clone company Compaq and we know what happened to it.
Risks, with content? How can they take risks? Use content without a deal as both Amazon and Google attempted to do? That's not Apple. They can't do what content owners won't allow.
The new atv should be a lot more powerful than these other devices. That will make a difference. And neither Amazon nor Roku have the equivalent App Stores that Apple has. Amazon's is pitiful.
Being able to play the same game on the iPhone, iPad and aTv is a major advantage, if iCloud keeps the game info available for all.
Apple has long term plans that aren't always apparent until they put it all together. Sometimes it takes years. But they're slow and steady. The Apple Watch is a risk. Apple Pay is a risk. If they're doing a car, that's a major risk. The risks don't have to be the ones you want.
Sony and Microsoft have the hardcore gamers tied up in the lounge, and an Apple puck isn't going to compete on the same level as that. Gaming would be a minor addition to a product that sells on media content, not a major opportunity in itself.
it doesn't need to compete on niche level of dedicated gaming consoles. it needs to be a successful generalist device and eat away at the niche market for those whom decide it's Good Enough.
please see iPhone and it's affect on the point and shoot camera market.
After the initial excitement, it feels like all of the Android consoles have failed. I'm sure Apple's offering would be superior but I doubt it's enough.
Are casual gamers looking for a big screen experience these days? Even the Wii was a short-lived fad.
And control it how? By looking down at it and not at the TV?
Your iphone has accelerometers, and gyroscopes. You might remember that one of the things that made the Wii popular was these controllers, which, at first, people were doubting would be popular. So if you get a case with a wrist strap, designed for gaming, you could use the phone as a 3D controller. It could be used to change game setting with, and a number of other features.
I'm sure that the screen could be used as a button as well.
Really, imagination should be at play here. There are side buttons as well. While my 6+ is a bit big for it, it would still work.
As a racing controller, it's pretty good, as long as lag isn't a problem. Just an example.
Because the iOS user base is growing (to the chagrin of Android users who like to think only Apple fanboys keep upgrading iPhones and they aren't actually getting new users).
After the initial excitement, it feels like all of the Android consoles have failed. I'm sure Apple's offering would be superior but I doubt it's enough.
Are casual gamers looking for a big screen experience these days? Even the Wii was a short-lived fad.
Android consoles failed for three reasons:
- They were garbage devices with underpowered processors.
- There's hardly any truly good Android games worth playing to put on those consoles.
- They were garbage devices with underpowered processors.
- There's hardly any truly good Android games worth playing to put on those consoles.
- Because, Android.
Pretty much.
The only good Android gaming console is the nVidia Shield TV, but it doesn't have the mass market appeal. Otherwise, it has the most powerful ARM SoC available (Tegra X1), PC ports to Android, streaming from your desktop PC via Steam, and streaming from nVidia's GTX 980 powered GRID service.
Just look at the success of the Nintendo Wii. There are huge opportunities to make profits on casual gamers.
The Wii had horrible graphics compared to the PS3/X360. But casual gamers loved it. I can see the same thing happening with an AppleTV gaming system. I can also see MUCH CHEAPER games similiar to iOS game prices.
The reason why gamers loved it was because it introduced an innovative control scheme (Wii Remote motion control) that provided a new experience not possible on any other system. The Wii U is faltering partly because it doesn't really bring anything revolutionary to the table. A mushy, resistive touch screen? Um, no thanks. Nintendo's eShop is also way overpriced and suffers from a dearth of content relative to the App Store.
The iPad/iPhone really excels at games where you directly interact with elements on the screen (like puzzle games or board games). But games where you aren't dragging and dropping things on the screen (platformers like mario) benefit a lot from the tactile controls of a dedicated controller. These really suck on iOS at the moment. Unfortunately the MFi controller concept will continue to wallow in mediocrity unless Apple produces a dedicated first party controller to set the bar. If that happen as it would open up the platform to a huge number of fun multiplayer indie games that would cement the Apple TV as a "must have" console.
The real key for Apple's anticipated entrance into the console gaming market is the A8 chip, which features PowerVR graphics that are estimated to be about on par with a Sony PlayStation 3. The power could be even greater if Apple decides to go with an anticipated "A9" processor, Hall noted.
What people quickly forget is that the iPad's CPU/GPU is clocked for battery life. If they wanted to make something 10 more powerful, they would just need to stick 10 of them together on one die.
That however wouldn't create a platform on par with the PS4, because game developers are still developing software like there is only a SINGLE CPU and SINGLE CORE available. In the last decade, you will not find a game that works better because you stick a better CPU in, only games that work substantially better if you replace the 99$ GPU with the 599$ one.
Where Apple has a "open" door into this market is with the iOS games on the iPad already. Sell the next AppleTV with a standard "dual analog controller with 12 buttons" and you might actually see it take off as a gaming platform, have the same controller be able to be used on the iPad (eg multiple-pairings over bluetooth) and we might have a winner.
Personally I hate "wireless" controllers. I also hate wireless keyboards and wireless mice. All because they have so much latency that it feels like I'm having to second guess how I play a game.
Anyhow, allowing "Controller-enabled" iOS games to work on an AppleTV would likely make such a thing a viable gaming platform even if nothing else changes.
The only good Android gaming console is the nVidia Shield TV, but it doesn't have the mass market appeal. Otherwise, it has the most powerful ARM SoC available (Tegra X1), PC ports to Android, streaming from your desktop PC via Steam, and streaming from nVidia's GTX 980 powered GRID service.
And that makes the nVidia Shield is more of a "Chromecast" than a game console. As much as developers keep making it so you can "stream" from your 5000$ expensive gaming machine to a 200$ toy... what is the damn point when you can just play the game on the gaming rig? It's like everyone saw what Nintendo was doing and completely missed the point that JAPANESE HOMES ARE TINY AND DON'T HAVE MULTIPLE TV's.
The nVidia Grid service is potentially interesting, but until everyone has FTTH, it's stillborn. Nobody wants to play a high-end game with the visual quality of Youtube circa 2005 and the latency of streaming.
Not gonna happen. Console makers LOSE money on hardware (as its ridiculously over powered at launch) so that they can make it up on software. Apple is not going to sell something it loses money on.
You miss my point entirely.
I'm not talking an uber system.
Just more than ps4. And by now the ps4 parts are cheap. Apple gets to amortize costs across the line with Intel Nd whoever the gfx partner is. The device can still be cheap. But with Apples volume, ecosystem, fan base, AND THE potentoal OF LURING GAMERS INTO THE EHOLE ECOSYSTEM, it would quite surely be a win that not only gathers new users up front, but then turns those users into Apple ecosystem community members.
The PS4 is running on not very powerful CPU core and generation ( or two generation ) old GPU tech with 28nm. Which is 2 Generation from leading node now. Transistor count are roughly similar in the 3 Billion range.
I think a great feature of the new Apple TV would be a well-organized, easy to use, easy to search interface that pulls in ALL of the content available to you. Apps that reside on Apple TV - like Netflix, Hulu, HBO GO and all of the other apps will be required to present and maintain an XML file containing metadata about all of the content available to the signed in user - data points like: - length of program - number of ads - length of ads (Hulu) - quality SD/720p/1080p/3d/4k/etc - cost of program (iTunes) - all the normal metadata about actors, genre, plot synopsis, etc The individual apps will be used for nothing more than sign-up/sign-in and for generating the metadata file.. Apple TV would then merge and consolidate the metadata from ALL of the content providers and present the content in one unified guide with intelligent filters - especially where content is duplicated in Netflix, Hulu, ABC and iTunes for example. A user would set in their preferences whether to prefer highest quality, fewest commercials, lowest cost or to prompt every time. The entire back end would be obfuscated by the Apple TV interface and people wouldn't have to know which app is providing the content they want to watch. Apart from making life easier for the consumer, it would also give Apple a great opportunity to upsell when a viewer reaches the last "free" episode available on Netflix, Apple could invite them to "Continue watching" by purchasing or renting this seasons episodes from iTunes!
Siri integration - multiple profiles for multiple family members - better (and consistent) search options for discovering new content - viewing queues with push or email notifications when new episodes become available - and a companion app for your iPad so you can watch the same content when you're not at home.
Console gaming would be awesome, but what I've described above is what *I* really want to see in the next Apple TV!!! I'm sure many people here will be happy to tell me why Apple will never do that...but does anybody disagree about the awesomeness of an Apple TV that pulls all the available content together and displays it in a well-designed, easy to use, common interface?
Risks, with content? How can they take risks? Use content without a deal as both Amazon and Google attempted to do? That's not Apple. They can't do what content owners won't allow.
The new atv should be a lot more powerful than these other devices. That will make a difference. And neither Amazon nor Roku have the equivalent App Stores that Apple has. Amazon's is pitiful.
Being able to play the same game on the iPhone, iPad and aTv is a major advantage, if iCloud keeps the game info available for all.
Apple has long term plans that aren't always apparent until they put it all together. Sometimes it takes years. But they're slow and steady. The Apple Watch is a risk. Apple Pay is a risk. If they're doing a car, that's a major risk. The risks don't have to be the ones you want.
If the content owners won't let Apple do something worthwhile then perhaps Apple should become a content distributor.
You do have a point about allowing games' content across iPhone, iPad and ATV. I see the appeal. I just wonder why someone would choose to play on a TV versus an iPad. The size of the screen for social games perhaps but otherwise is there really any advantage? The typical game on a portable device would seem to be very different than on a higher end console where input devices become crucial. I am not opposed to games. If people want them then fine. The last time Apple tried a games' machine it flopped badly.
I don't know anything about a car. The watch is a risk being as few people wear them. Apple Pay doesn't seem much of a risk and it's hard to be excited about an electronic credit card suitcase.
I hope you are right regarding longer term plans. I've followed them for a long time. They are turning in to a one trick pony. Their reliance on the iPhone is really nerve wracking and has become somewhat stale. It's a phone not a rocket ship to Mars.
The top executives of the company do not inspire excitement. They are becoming what IBM was back in the 1970's. They need someone to shake them up. Complacency seems to have set in. Moreover they keep coming out with software that doesn't just work, especially on the Mac side. Finally, in an age where the cloud is supposed to matter, Apple has never gotten its cloud act together.
No it doesn't. I really don't think you play many games. There are different kinds of controllers for different games. For the racing games, as I mentioned, it does make a fine controller now. In fact, the standard console controllers make terrible controllers for racing games. There are all kinds of controllers, some of those for racing cost hundreds of dollars. Do you need that? No, but people buy them.
Comments
As usual, we don't know where Apple is goi g with this. They didn't allow the button for a camera, then they did. They are ergonomic, they fit right where your fingers would be.
^ True enough, we don't know where Apple are going, but this article seems to be suggesting an awful lot without even a glimmer of innovation or good reason why gaming would be such a big opportunity for Apple. Kindle Fire TV also has games (I believe) and a similar model, but no one much seems to care about that.
Re. ergonomics and how good the volume buttons would be as game controlling buttons, we'll just have to disagree on that. Sounds rubbish to me.
Yet downloads of apps keep rising at a good clip.
All this time wasted getting ad supported TV onto the Apple TV. Such a shame. They have an opportunity to change the way entertainment is delivered and all they want is to basically port cable content to the Apple TV? What is the point?
Apple just doesn't seem to be willing to take risks anymore. Reminds me of that clone company Compaq and we know what happened to it.
2) I have three... again no brainer. Same accounts on all three.
3) You need to get out more... I pay ~$35 / month with 3 kids, three TV's all streaming HD over my 40Gb ($40) link, not to mention their laptops... and I still have too much to watch... This includes free OTA local channels. Man you must spend a lot of time staring at the tube.
Risks, with content? How can they take risks? Use content without a deal as both Amazon and Google attempted to do? That's not Apple. They can't do what content owners won't allow.
The new atv should be a lot more powerful than these other devices. That will make a difference. And neither Amazon nor Roku have the equivalent App Stores that Apple has. Amazon's is pitiful.
Being able to play the same game on the iPhone, iPad and aTv is a major advantage, if iCloud keeps the game info available for all.
Apple has long term plans that aren't always apparent until they put it all together. Sometimes it takes years. But they're slow and steady. The Apple Watch is a risk. Apple Pay is a risk. If they're doing a car, that's a major risk. The risks don't have to be the ones you want.
it doesn't need to compete on niche level of dedicated gaming consoles. it needs to be a successful generalist device and eat away at the niche market for those whom decide it's Good Enough.
please see iPhone and it's affect on the point and shoot camera market.
After the initial excitement, it feels like all of the Android consoles have failed. I'm sure Apple's offering would be superior but I doubt it's enough.
Are casual gamers looking for a big screen experience these days? Even the Wii was a short-lived fad.
That severely limits game play.
Yet downloads of apps keep rising at a good clip.
Because the iOS user base is growing (to the chagrin of Android users who like to think only Apple fanboys keep upgrading iPhones and they aren't actually getting new users).
After the initial excitement, it feels like all of the Android consoles have failed. I'm sure Apple's offering would be superior but I doubt it's enough.
Are casual gamers looking for a big screen experience these days? Even the Wii was a short-lived fad.
Android consoles failed for three reasons:
- They were garbage devices with underpowered processors.
- There's hardly any truly good Android games worth playing to put on those consoles.
- Because, Android.
Android consoles failed for three reasons:
- They were garbage devices with underpowered processors.
- There's hardly any truly good Android games worth playing to put on those consoles.
- Because, Android.
Pretty much.
The only good Android gaming console is the nVidia Shield TV, but it doesn't have the mass market appeal. Otherwise, it has the most powerful ARM SoC available (Tegra X1), PC ports to Android, streaming from your desktop PC via Steam, and streaming from nVidia's GTX 980 powered GRID service.
I disagree 100%
Just look at the success of the Nintendo Wii. There are huge opportunities to make profits on casual gamers.
The Wii had horrible graphics compared to the PS3/X360. But casual gamers loved it. I can see the same thing happening with an AppleTV gaming system. I can also see MUCH CHEAPER games similiar to iOS game prices.
The reason why gamers loved it was because it introduced an innovative control scheme (Wii Remote motion control) that provided a new experience not possible on any other system. The Wii U is faltering partly because it doesn't really bring anything revolutionary to the table. A mushy, resistive touch screen? Um, no thanks. Nintendo's eShop is also way overpriced and suffers from a dearth of content relative to the App Store.
The iPad/iPhone really excels at games where you directly interact with elements on the screen (like puzzle games or board games). But games where you aren't dragging and dropping things on the screen (platformers like mario) benefit a lot from the tactile controls of a dedicated controller. These really suck on iOS at the moment. Unfortunately the MFi controller concept will continue to wallow in mediocrity unless Apple produces a dedicated first party controller to set the bar. If that happen as it would open up the platform to a huge number of fun multiplayer indie games that would cement the Apple TV as a "must have" console.
What people quickly forget is that the iPad's CPU/GPU is clocked for battery life. If they wanted to make something 10 more powerful, they would just need to stick 10 of them together on one die.
That however wouldn't create a platform on par with the PS4, because game developers are still developing software like there is only a SINGLE CPU and SINGLE CORE available. In the last decade, you will not find a game that works better because you stick a better CPU in, only games that work substantially better if you replace the 99$ GPU with the 599$ one.
Where Apple has a "open" door into this market is with the iOS games on the iPad already. Sell the next AppleTV with a standard "dual analog controller with 12 buttons" and you might actually see it take off as a gaming platform, have the same controller be able to be used on the iPad (eg multiple-pairings over bluetooth) and we might have a winner.
Personally I hate "wireless" controllers. I also hate wireless keyboards and wireless mice. All because they have so much latency that it feels like I'm having to second guess how I play a game.
Anyhow, allowing "Controller-enabled" iOS games to work on an AppleTV would likely make such a thing a viable gaming platform even if nothing else changes.
And that makes the nVidia Shield is more of a "Chromecast" than a game console. As much as developers keep making it so you can "stream" from your 5000$ expensive gaming machine to a 200$ toy... what is the damn point when you can just play the game on the gaming rig? It's like everyone saw what Nintendo was doing and completely missed the point that JAPANESE HOMES ARE TINY AND DON'T HAVE MULTIPLE TV's.
The nVidia Grid service is potentially interesting, but until everyone has FTTH, it's stillborn. Nobody wants to play a high-end game with the visual quality of Youtube circa 2005 and the latency of streaming.
You miss my point entirely.
I'm not talking an uber system.
Just more than ps4. And by now the ps4 parts are cheap. Apple gets to amortize costs across the line with Intel Nd whoever the gfx partner is. The device can still be cheap. But with Apples volume, ecosystem, fan base, AND THE potentoal OF LURING GAMERS INTO THE EHOLE ECOSYSTEM, it would quite surely be a win that not only gathers new users up front, but then turns those users into Apple ecosystem community members.
The PS4 is running on not very powerful CPU core and generation ( or two generation ) old GPU tech with 28nm. Which is 2 Generation from leading node now. Transistor count are roughly similar in the 3 Billion range.
- length of program
- number of ads
- length of ads (Hulu)
- quality SD/720p/1080p/3d/4k/etc
- cost of program (iTunes)
- all the normal metadata about actors, genre, plot synopsis, etc
The individual apps will be used for nothing more than sign-up/sign-in and for generating the metadata file..
Apple TV would then merge and consolidate the metadata from ALL of the content providers and present the content in one unified guide with intelligent filters - especially where content is duplicated in Netflix, Hulu, ABC and iTunes for example. A user would set in their preferences whether to prefer highest quality, fewest commercials, lowest cost or to prompt every time. The entire back end would be obfuscated by the Apple TV interface and people wouldn't have to know which app is providing the content they want to watch. Apart from making life easier for the consumer, it would also give Apple a great opportunity to upsell when a viewer reaches the last "free" episode available on Netflix, Apple could invite them to "Continue watching" by purchasing or renting this seasons episodes from iTunes!
Siri integration - multiple profiles for multiple family members - better (and consistent) search options for discovering new content - viewing queues with push or email notifications when new episodes become available - and a companion app for your iPad so you can watch the same content when you're not at home.
Console gaming would be awesome, but what I've described above is what *I* really want to see in the next Apple TV!!! I'm sure many people here will be happy to tell me why Apple will never do that...but does anybody disagree about the awesomeness of an Apple TV that pulls all the available content together and displays it in a well-designed, easy to use, common interface?
If the content owners won't let Apple do something worthwhile then perhaps Apple should become a content distributor.
You do have a point about allowing games' content across iPhone, iPad and ATV. I see the appeal. I just wonder why someone would choose to play on a TV versus an iPad. The size of the screen for social games perhaps but otherwise is there really any advantage? The typical game on a portable device would seem to be very different than on a higher end console where input devices become crucial. I am not opposed to games. If people want them then fine. The last time Apple tried a games' machine it flopped badly.
I don't know anything about a car. The watch is a risk being as few people wear them. Apple Pay doesn't seem much of a risk and it's hard to be excited about an electronic credit card suitcase.
I hope you are right regarding longer term plans. I've followed them for a long time. They are turning in to a one trick pony. Their reliance on the iPhone is really nerve wracking and has become somewhat stale. It's a phone not a rocket ship to Mars.
The top executives of the company do not inspire excitement. They are becoming what IBM was back in the 1970's. They need someone to shake them up. Complacency seems to have set in. Moreover they keep coming out with software that doesn't just work, especially on the Mac side. Finally, in an age where the cloud is supposed to matter, Apple has never gotten its cloud act together.
No it doesn't. I really don't think you play many games. There are different kinds of controllers for different games. For the racing games, as I mentioned, it does make a fine controller now. In fact, the standard console controllers make terrible controllers for racing games. There are all kinds of controllers, some of those for racing cost hundreds of dollars. Do you need that? No, but people buy them.