The market for gaming is too small for Apple to invest heavily in it right now.
Go get an Xbox/PS
This is getting ugly. This individual is not the only person who has suggested that an Apple branded game controller would be a good idea. If there were an Apple branded gaming controller (sold separately from AppleTV) then companies would be more willing to invest in advanced gaming titles that otherwise would not be targeted for AppleTV. There are four levels that limit the market for games on AppleTV: 1) include Apple game controller by default 2) make an Apple branded controller available separately 3) Allow third party controllers 'endorsed' by Apple 4) ignore game controllers. Each step reduces the market size for game creators.
I understand why Apple would avoid the first choice since it makes AppleTV seem more like a product in the game console market which is brutal and arguably not in Apple's best interest. The second choice, on the other hand, could result in more advanced and enjoyable games developed for AppleTV.
In my case it does not matter. When it becomes available I will buy one. I just wish they had chosen the second option since rationally it would have attracted better games to the platform. Of course there is still the possibility that the new controller is so well designed that like the Wii controller it drives a wave of new creativity in game creation.
Simpleton? Right! Like 2gb of ram didn't exist back then? My wife had a tablet that had those features WITHOUT lag. Would I move to Android still? No. But it existed and I wanted it! But I didn't want the Android eco-system. Truth is Apple spaces out their tech so they can have things to release in further generation, but in my opinion they're too spread out. And they don't want to put a few dollars more worth of ram or whatever is needed. And no, doing those things won't make them like Android, I strongly believe its not black or white when it comes to these things. It's about more profit or less profit, and I'm all for that since I'm invested in them. But we do get left behind on a lot of things just to give them higher quarterly earnings.
Memory as an example, and I've stated this before; If Apple doubles the amount to memory in the near 250 million iOS devices that it will sell this generation, then there also has to be enough manufacturing capacity available in the market to do that; there wasn't until this year. In fact, desktop memory prices are relatively high because many manufacturers have repurposed their lines to produce memory for mobile devices.
When you speak of Android hardware having these things first, and Apple being far behind, what you are really stating is that some of the Android devices have some of these features, but likely all of them do not; it's a mixed lot. The truth is that Apple makes huge coin off of waiting for the technology to mature; while that is happening, they refine and develop the technology. The reason that they can get away with that is because they don't have to compete in a world of Android OEM devices that live or die by differentiation; hence no need to rush to market.
"What should concern customers is the evolution of what's commonly viewed as an impartial marketer of others' goods into a marketing arm of a corporation that already dominates e-commerce. Amazon has reached that point by stressing customer service; having established its primacy, it's moving to cram its proprietary choices down its own customers' throats. This is the threat always posed by latent monopolists. Their behavior appears benign as they build toward a monopoly; once they've achieved it, they squeeze their advantage ruthlessly. "
Apple does not allow competition on their platforms when they are indeed competition. Hence, when the Apple Watch was released many developers had to remove support for Pebble watch from their apps. Amazon Fire TV is out selling Apple TV;it has beenfor awhile now.
Amazon Fire TV is selling well. Amazon is doing this, because Apple will not allow Amazon Video or Music support on Apple TV.
If that were the reason why do they no longer sell Chromecast? Also, how would anyone (other than Amazon) know if Fire TV is selling well? Amazon is notorious for not revealing any numbers. Has that changed?
Apple does not allow competition on their platforms when they are indeed competition. Hence, when the Apple Watch was released many developers had to remove support for Pebble watch from their apps. Amazon Fire TV is out selling Apple TV;it has beenfor awhile now.
Developer's haven't had to remove support for the Pebble watch. Apple has changed the BlueTooth stack so that many of the apps "break" in iOS 9. The developers will have to fix that. The Pebble will not be allowed to work in the Apple Watch app on the iPhone. Android Wearables will be supported on the iPhone, but again, not through the Apple Watch app.
The current Apple TV may or may not be outselling the Fire TV, but its likely that the next generation AppleTV will be widely adopted after its release in November, especially with the advent of tvOS that allows apps including games. Apple hasn't stopped Amazon from creating an app for its media streaming; They decided not to create the app with the intention of forcing their media streaming through Amazon Fire branded media. I note that my 2011 LG BD Player will not be able to stream Amazon content anymore either.
Either way, and as others have mentioned, Amazon does not state sales numbers for its Fire products; with the exception of the Apple Watch, Apple does state numbers of sales for its products in its quarterly reports.
Yes, Apple did state that they removed and rejected apps with Pebble support by "mistake". That said, I still have apps that have not seen the return of Pebble support. If you believe that was a msiatke, than you are fooling yourself. Many Apple Centric websites have noted that the Fire TV is out selling the Apple TV, e.g.. AppAdvice. Simply google "Fire TV sales" without mentioning Apple and the top results should be Fire TV outselling Apple TV. (Fortune, CNet and others)
Apple does not allow competition on their platforms when they are indeed competition. Hence, when the Apple Watch was released many developers had to remove support for Pebble watch from their apps. Amazon Fire TV is out selling Apple TV;it has beenfor awhile now.
You can keep adding sources all you want, what's your fucking point? You come here talking about Apple not allowing competitors on the Apple TV, that's a load of crap, if you'd read any of this thread you'd see many examples already cited where the Apple TV allows myriad competitors, such as Hulu, HBO, Netflix (which is pretty much identical to Amazon, so that alone blows your point away all by itself), and on and on (the list is actually quite long). You spout numbers, based on a device that has done remarkably well (the ATV) despite receiving not one update from Apple in years, and just before Apple releases a new and HUGE update, so what is your point? Are you saying that the Fire TV is better? Well, I say it's not. This is a stupid us vs. them (religious war) competition and I fail to see what point you're making, but it's strange that you've been a member here for 7 years and your first four posts have been in the last day all telling us (an Apple fan site) that a competitor's product is superior (in your opinion) based on some very strange criteria weighted in favour of the product you claim is better - how fucking convenient.
You think the Fire TV is great, because Amazon can stream to it and it outsells last generation's Apple TV? Great, go fucking buy a boat load of them, I don't give a crap, but I will say that I've owned 2 generations of Apple TV and it's a device I use pretty much more than every single computer or computing device I've ever owned, and I'm really fucking excited about the new Apple TV, I can't wait till it's released, and I don't give a crap if Amazon is too stupid to fucking build an app for it (despite their already having an iOS app you can stream to the current ATV), I don't subscribe to Amazon's service, so I don't care, and if they are that stupid, well, you can continue to blame Apple for it, but that point is without merit yesterday, today and tomorrow and the numbers game you play is stupid silly, but if that's important to you, it's so obvious that Apple will sell millions of this device far more than the Fire TV, not that numbers mean anything, at least not to me.
If Fire TV works for you, great, get it. I love devices, I love computers, I have no problems with people choosing other products based on a criteria set that is different than mine, but to come to an Apple fan site and start talking shit about Apple products, well, that's what trolls do, but that's not you I hope.
Yes, Apple did state that they removed and rejected apps with Pebble support by "mistake". That said, I still have apps that have not seen the return of Pebble support. If you believe that was a msiatke, than you are fooling yourself.
Notice I said nothing about it and you still replied.
Before people blast Amazon for this, keep in mind that Apple doesn't sell Fire TV's or Google Chromecasts. What's more, they pulled Nest thermostats off their shelves when the company was bought by Google.
If you don't see anything wrong with that, you don't have a leg to stand on now.
Apple does not allow competition on their platforms when they are indeed competition. Hence, when the Apple Watch was released many developers had to remove support for Pebble watch from their apps. Amazon Fire TV is out selling Apple TV;it has beenfor awhile now.
Probably the most idiotic post on this thread (and that is saying something). On the AppleTV itself, Apple offers Netflix, Hulu, & HBO Now - three services which directly compete with what Apple rents or sells on iTunes. On the general App Store for iOS devices, Amazon apps are offered.
Idiotic? LMAO You are very condescending. Apple has a very differnet model. You buy video content from Apple. Apple does not have a video streaming service. This is a very important distinction. Amazon sells and offers a streaming service. Amazon has some of the same practices, e.g., the Rdio service/app is available on Fire TV, but it functions solely as a radio service and not a music on demand service. There is a difference between the two models.
Renting, selling and a streaming service are fundamentally different. The fact that you equate the three is incredibly ignorant. If they were the same, streaming would not have such tremendous momentum. Apple saw this when they purchased LALA and Beats music services. Youtube/ Google offers video for rent and purchase, but they still launched a streaming service.
Apple does not allow competition on their platforms when they are indeed competition. Hence, when the Apple Watch was released many developers had to remove support for Pebble watch from their apps. Amazon Fire TV is out selling Apple TV;it has beenfor awhile now.
Can you source "had to" and indicate any terms and conditions. Your previous links indicate sales speculation, not developer terms and conditions.
If you like I'll link you to their developer terms. They don't deny app store approval unless it is in fact redundant. They aren't always clear, but it's not like you suggest.
Idiotic? LMAO You are very condescending. Apple has a very differnet model. You buy video content from Apple. Apple does not have a video streaming service. This is a very important distinction. Amazon sells and offers a streaming service. Amazon has some of the same practices, e.g., the Rdio service/app is available on Fire TV, but it functions solely as a radio service and not a music on demand service. There is a difference between the two models.
Renting, selling and a streaming service are fundamentally different. The fact that you equate the three is incredibly ignorant. If they were the same, streaming would not have such tremendous momentum. Apple saw this when they purchased LALA and Beats music services. Youtube/ Google offers video for rent and purchase, but they still launched a streaming service.
So you believe that if Apple offers a video streaming service of some variety in the future - in other words when it becomes "streaming" competition, that they will then remove Hulu, Netflix, HBO Now and any other streaming app currently (or in the future) on Apple TV? I am willing to bet against that - how much do you want to wager?
So you say that Apple doesn't allow apps which are real competition to Apple services? So why is Spotify, Pandora, Rdio, etc still on Apple's App Store? Should they not have been removed since they are competitive to Apple Music? And why is Amazon Kindle still on there?
Apple gets revenue from HBO, Netflix and Hulu. Amazon refuses to share evenue with Apple. Why would they remove or block services that are a source of revenue? I should of been more precise Apple is reluctant to allow competing services that refuse to share their revenue generated from their iOS presence.
Comments
Apple is not a gaming company. Give it a rest.
The market for gaming is too small for Apple to invest heavily in it right now.
Go get an Xbox/PS
This is getting ugly. This individual is not the only person who has suggested that an Apple branded game controller would be a good idea. If there were an Apple branded gaming controller (sold separately from AppleTV) then companies would be more willing to invest in advanced gaming titles that otherwise would not be targeted for AppleTV. There are four levels that limit the market for games on AppleTV: 1) include Apple game controller by default 2) make an Apple branded controller available separately 3) Allow third party controllers 'endorsed' by Apple 4) ignore game controllers. Each step reduces the market size for game creators.
I understand why Apple would avoid the first choice since it makes AppleTV seem more like a product in the game console market which is brutal and arguably not in Apple's best interest. The second choice, on the other hand, could result in more advanced and enjoyable games developed for AppleTV.
In my case it does not matter. When it becomes available I will buy one. I just wish they had chosen the second option since rationally it would have attracted better games to the platform. Of course there is still the possibility that the new controller is so well designed that like the Wii controller it drives a wave of new creativity in game creation.
Simpleton? Right! Like 2gb of ram didn't exist back then? My wife had a tablet that had those features WITHOUT lag. Would I move to Android still? No. But it existed and I wanted it! But I didn't want the Android eco-system. Truth is Apple spaces out their tech so they can have things to release in further generation, but in my opinion they're too spread out. And they don't want to put a few dollars more worth of ram or whatever is needed. And no, doing those things won't make them like Android, I strongly believe its not black or white when it comes to these things. It's about more profit or less profit, and I'm all for that since I'm invested in them. But we do get left behind on a lot of things just to give them higher quarterly earnings.
Memory as an example, and I've stated this before; If Apple doubles the amount to memory in the near 250 million iOS devices that it will sell this generation, then there also has to be enough manufacturing capacity available in the market to do that; there wasn't until this year. In fact, desktop memory prices are relatively high because many manufacturers have repurposed their lines to produce memory for mobile devices.
When you speak of Android hardware having these things first, and Apple being far behind, what you are really stating is that some of the Android devices have some of these features, but likely all of them do not; it's a mixed lot. The truth is that Apple makes huge coin off of waiting for the technology to mature; while that is happening, they refine and develop the technology. The reason that they can get away with that is because they don't have to compete in a world of Android OEM devices that live or die by differentiation; hence no need to rush to market.
No they don't have a Amazon Prime app on AppleTV, just on the iPhone and iPad.
Monopoly concerns about this move.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-amazon-a-monopolist-20151002-column.html
"What should concern customers is the evolution of what's commonly viewed as an impartial marketer of others' goods into a marketing arm of a corporation that already dominates e-commerce. Amazon has reached that point by stressing customer service; having established its primacy, it's moving to cram its proprietary choices down its own customers' throats. This is the threat always posed by latent monopolists. Their behavior appears benign as they build toward a monopoly; once they've achieved it, they squeeze their advantage ruthlessly. "
That sounds kind of like Apple, actually.
Amazon Fire TV is selling well. Amazon is doing this, because Apple will not allow Amazon Video or Music support on Apple TV.
If that were the reason why do they no longer sell Chromecast? Also, how would anyone (other than Amazon) know if Fire TV is selling well? Amazon is notorious for not revealing any numbers. Has that changed?
Apple does not allow competition on their platforms when they are indeed competition. Hence, when the Apple Watch was released many developers had to remove support for Pebble watch from their apps. Amazon Fire TV is out selling Apple TV;it has beenfor awhile now.
Developer's haven't had to remove support for the Pebble watch. Apple has changed the BlueTooth stack so that many of the apps "break" in iOS 9. The developers will have to fix that. The Pebble will not be allowed to work in the Apple Watch app on the iPhone. Android Wearables will be supported on the iPhone, but again, not through the Apple Watch app.
The current Apple TV may or may not be outselling the Fire TV, but its likely that the next generation AppleTV will be widely adopted after its release in November, especially with the advent of tvOS that allows apps including games. Apple hasn't stopped Amazon from creating an app for its media streaming; They decided not to create the app with the intention of forcing their media streaming through Amazon Fire branded media. I note that my 2011 LG BD Player will not be able to stream Amazon content anymore either.
Either way, and as others have mentioned, Amazon does not state sales numbers for its Fire products; with the exception of the Apple Watch, Apple does state numbers of sales for its products in its quarterly reports.
Amazon does not release sales numbers. You cannot possibly know this.
Prove it, then.
Rule #26: Apple cannot stand competition. They just want a monopoly. "Coke doesn't sue Pepsi," is appropriate.
http://www.itproportal.com/2015/08/25/apple-tv-sales-are-falling-flat-lagging-behind-amazons-fire-tv/
http://www.androidheadlines.com/2015/06/amazon-fire-tv-takes-30-streaming-market.html
http://fortune.com/2015/08/21/apple-amazon-fire-tv/
http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-tv-drops-to-fourth-place-behind-amazons-fire-tv/
Shall I keep adding sources?
I can watch Amazon Prime Video on my iPhone.
http://appadvice.com/appnn/2015/08/amazons-fire-tv-overtook-the-apple-tv-in-u-s-sales-during-2014
http://www.itproportal.com/2015/08/25/apple-tv-sales-are-falling-flat-lagging-behind-amazons-fire-tv/
http://www.androidheadlines.com/2015/06/amazon-fire-tv-takes-30-streaming-market.html
http://fortune.com/2015/08/21/apple-amazon-fire-tv/
http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-tv-drops-to-fourth-place-behind-amazons-fire-tv/
Shall I keep adding sources?
You can keep adding sources all you want, what's your fucking point? You come here talking about Apple not allowing competitors on the Apple TV, that's a load of crap, if you'd read any of this thread you'd see many examples already cited where the Apple TV allows myriad competitors, such as Hulu, HBO, Netflix (which is pretty much identical to Amazon, so that alone blows your point away all by itself), and on and on (the list is actually quite long). You spout numbers, based on a device that has done remarkably well (the ATV) despite receiving not one update from Apple in years, and just before Apple releases a new and HUGE update, so what is your point? Are you saying that the Fire TV is better? Well, I say it's not. This is a stupid us vs. them (religious war) competition and I fail to see what point you're making, but it's strange that you've been a member here for 7 years and your first four posts have been in the last day all telling us (an Apple fan site) that a competitor's product is superior (in your opinion) based on some very strange criteria weighted in favour of the product you claim is better - how fucking convenient.
You think the Fire TV is great, because Amazon can stream to it and it outsells last generation's Apple TV? Great, go fucking buy a boat load of them, I don't give a crap, but I will say that I've owned 2 generations of Apple TV and it's a device I use pretty much more than every single computer or computing device I've ever owned, and I'm really fucking excited about the new Apple TV, I can't wait till it's released, and I don't give a crap if Amazon is too stupid to fucking build an app for it (despite their already having an iOS app you can stream to the current ATV), I don't subscribe to Amazon's service, so I don't care, and if they are that stupid, well, you can continue to blame Apple for it, but that point is without merit yesterday, today and tomorrow and the numbers game you play is stupid silly, but if that's important to you, it's so obvious that Apple will sell millions of this device far more than the Fire TV, not that numbers mean anything, at least not to me.
If Fire TV works for you, great, get it. I love devices, I love computers, I have no problems with people choosing other products based on a criteria set that is different than mine, but to come to an Apple fan site and start talking shit about Apple products, well, that's what trolls do, but that's not you I hope.
Notice I said nothing about it and you still replied.
Something relevant in any capacity would be nice.
Before people blast Amazon for this, keep in mind that Apple doesn't sell Fire TV's or Google Chromecasts. What's more, they pulled Nest thermostats off their shelves when the company was bought by Google.
If you don't see anything wrong with that, you don't have a leg to stand on now.
Well, I see nothing wrong with either move.
Apple does not allow competition on their platforms when they are indeed competition. Hence, when the Apple Watch was released many developers had to remove support for Pebble watch from their apps. Amazon Fire TV is out selling Apple TV;it has beenfor awhile now.
Probably the most idiotic post on this thread (and that is saying something). On the AppleTV itself, Apple offers Netflix, Hulu, & HBO Now - three services which directly compete with what Apple rents or sells on iTunes. On the general App Store for iOS devices, Amazon apps are offered.
Renting, selling and a streaming service are fundamentally different. The fact that you equate the three is incredibly ignorant. If they were the same, streaming would not have such tremendous momentum. Apple saw this when they purchased LALA and Beats music services. Youtube/ Google offers video for rent and purchase, but they still launched a streaming service.
Quote:
Apple does not allow competition on their platforms when they are indeed competition. Hence, when the Apple Watch was released many developers had to remove support for Pebble watch from their apps. Amazon Fire TV is out selling Apple TV;it has beenfor awhile now.
Can you source "had to" and indicate any terms and conditions. Your previous links indicate sales speculation, not developer terms and conditions.
If you like I'll link you to their developer terms. They don't deny app store approval unless it is in fact redundant. They aren't always clear, but it's not like you suggest.
Idiotic? LMAO You are very condescending. Apple has a very differnet model. You buy video content from Apple. Apple does not have a video streaming service. This is a very important distinction. Amazon sells and offers a streaming service. Amazon has some of the same practices, e.g., the Rdio service/app is available on Fire TV, but it functions solely as a radio service and not a music on demand service. There is a difference between the two models.
Renting, selling and a streaming service are fundamentally different. The fact that you equate the three is incredibly ignorant. If they were the same, streaming would not have such tremendous momentum. Apple saw this when they purchased LALA and Beats music services. Youtube/ Google offers video for rent and purchase, but they still launched a streaming service.
So you believe that if Apple offers a video streaming service of some variety in the future - in other words when it becomes "streaming" competition, that they will then remove Hulu, Netflix, HBO Now and any other streaming app currently (or in the future) on Apple TV? I am willing to bet against that - how much do you want to wager?
So you say that Apple doesn't allow apps which are real competition to Apple services? So why is Spotify, Pandora, Rdio, etc still on Apple's App Store? Should they not have been removed since they are competitive to Apple Music? And why is Amazon Kindle still on there?