It’s frustrating to purchase a Mac at a premium price and not being able to use it for gaming the way Windows is used. I miss an entire category of content (with my primary usage being productivity & content creation).
I agree with most points in this article although I don’t think opening up the Mac with GPU support makes sense.
Apple could consider a new product: an M3 Max powered “Apple TV” under a different brand name, e.g “Apple HomeCenter” or whatever (hopefully with a better name ;-). It could compete with Xbox and PlayStation, but the Apple way. For this it would need to have strong 1st party content, and subsidize developers porting their work to this device (+ with compatibility with macOS, potentially supporting separate online instances for players on controllers using HomeCenter and desktop/mouse users). It could offer a more compelling subscription like Xbox and PlayStation. Apple would need to consider selling the device with no profit margin to compete; < $499 and consider it being a vending machine of services.
What you describe is what MS is already doing with Xbox, Windows and GamePass. I don't think what you suggest will make Apple better than the competition.
It’s frustrating to purchase a Mac at a premium price and not being able to use it for gaming the way Windows is used. I miss an entire category of content (with my primary usage being productivity & content creation).
I agree with most points in this article although I don’t think opening up the Mac with GPU support makes sense.
Apple could consider a new product: an M3 Max powered “Apple TV” under a different brand name, e.g “Apple HomeCenter” or whatever (hopefully with a better name ;-). It could compete with Xbox and PlayStation, but the Apple way. For this it would need to have strong 1st party content, and subsidize developers porting their work to this device (+ with compatibility with macOS, potentially supporting separate online instances for players on controllers using HomeCenter and desktop/mouse users). It could offer a more compelling subscription like Xbox and PlayStation. Apple would need to consider selling the device with no profit margin to compete; < $499 and consider it being a vending machine of services.
Yup. When a buyer is considering getting a computer, not being able to play the vast bulk of games or have a lot of native games on a Mac is a rather big negative. Another big negative is that there are a lot of engineering and business software that are not native. Those are walls for Apple devices to penetrate consumer and enterprise markets. As long as Apple doesn't have these types of applications, the market penetration of Macs is going to be limited to what, 15%? Maybe 20% for a good quarter?
The web has driven a lot of the Mac renaissance. Apple is perhaps looking long term at server-side gaming (cloud gaming) solving the lack of gaming on Macs, and even on iOS. And server-side business, engineering apps will be a thing too. If cloud driven apps become a thing, the main way apps are run, where the apps is actually running on a server and the UI/display is just blitted over the network, perhaps they see there being no reason to invest in either, and just waiting.
This leaves major features and apps out of their control though. The value in a cloud driven app ecosystem will then reside in the IP and content. Much like they saw the need to have Apple TV+, they really should see the need for game and app content too. Leaving content to 3rd parties is dangerous, not dependable. So, it seems inevitable that they have to do it.
They don't really need to sell a Mac at a loss. They don't need to have the most powerful computing hardware. They just need content, apps, and games that people are willing to pay for.
Apple has succeeded almost beyond belief by focusing on core competencies, avoiding "shiny object" distractions, and leveraging what they do best for maximum profits. And that's what they should continue doing. Apple has never been the dominant player in the gaming arena, and I don't see any benefit for Apple to jump into the chaos in that sector.
It has long been argued, with good reason IMO, that Apple's lack of commitment to gaming is a major reason why people rule out Macs as purchases.
That isn't a good thing because it means you are deliberately underperforming in an area that holds massive economic potential.
The key here is not how well you are doing. The key is how much better you could be doing.
The same thing happened with the original iMac launch. Widely lauded as a success, it was a case of massive underperforming for a variety of reasons.
What you're suggesting is what the great investor Peter Lynch wrote, in his book "One Up on Wall Street," called "diWORSEification." Meaning venturing into business sectors where the company has little of no expertise, in the attempt to increase sales. It always leads to startup expenses, that keep piling up losses until the company abandons it. And that's exactly what happened with eWorld. And Newton. And the Apple xServe RAID.
Apple has already taken the decision. It is already in the gaming market.
That means that your diversification point is irrelevant.
The issue is on its commitment and implementation, not its decision to get into gaming.
BTW, you were simply cherry picking your examples. Both eWorld and Newton were simply ahead of their time and purely business (not product strategy) led to their demise. The same applied to Apple cameras, printers etc. Apple wasn't in a position to keep that many lines open.
You skipped over the success of iPods, headphones and the iPhone itself and the so called halo effect ("increased sales").
eWorld was NOT ahead of its time. It was a lousy copy of AOL. Newton was NOT ahead of its time. It was a disaster for Apple, and rightly so, since it was a lousy product whose "features" became the butt of many, many jokes, even on late night TV.
I stand by my statement. Apple has no business in gaming other than selling apps. And they should avoid trying to make a car or a TV set as well.
AOL was also ahead of its time. The infrastructure just wasn't in place to make the user experience definitive. It was all about compromise and how to deal with it. AOL did at least have a relatively large base.
It's why Netflix had no option but to use the DVD model.
As soon as the infrastructure is in place you can make better business related decisions (if your product or service is still around).
Apple wasn't in a position to struggle on with many technologies and services. Its goal was to survive.
Internet based XR is not a real option today because the infrastructure just isn't there. It's in the same situation as eWorld/AOL back in the day.
Side-note: Have you guys checked out Baldur's Gate 3 for macOS? It's awesome! It even runs great on our old intel Macs lol. Maybe Apple should buy Larian Studios since they missed the boat on Bungie and Blizzard...
Apple has succeeded almost beyond belief by focusing on core competencies, avoiding "shiny object" distractions, and leveraging what they do best for maximum profits. And that's what they should continue doing. Apple has never been the dominant player in the gaming arena, and I don't see any benefit for Apple to jump into the chaos in that sector.
It has long been argued, with good reason IMO, that Apple's lack of commitment to gaming is a major reason why people rule out Macs as purchases.
That isn't a good thing because it means you are deliberately underperforming in an area that holds massive economic potential.
The key here is not how well you are doing. The key is how much better you could be doing.
The same thing happened with the original iMac launch. Widely lauded as a success, it was a case of massive underperforming for a variety of reasons.
What you're suggesting is what the great investor Peter Lynch wrote, in his book "One Up on Wall Street," called "diWORSEification." Meaning venturing into business sectors where the company has little of no expertise, in the attempt to increase sales. It always leads to startup expenses, that keep piling up losses until the company abandons it. And that's exactly what happened with eWorld. And Newton. And the Apple xServe RAID.
Apple has already taken the decision. It is already in the gaming market.
That means that your diversification point is irrelevant.
The issue is on its commitment and implementation, not its decision to get into gaming.
BTW, you were simply cherry picking your examples. Both eWorld and Newton were simply ahead of their time and purely business (not product strategy) led to their demise. The same applied to Apple cameras, printers etc. Apple wasn't in a position to keep that many lines open.
You skipped over the success of iPods, headphones and the iPhone itself and the so called halo effect ("increased sales").
eWorld was NOT ahead of its time. It was a lousy copy of AOL. Newton was NOT ahead of its time. It was a disaster for Apple, and rightly so, since it was a lousy product whose "features" became the butt of many, many jokes, even on late night TV.
I stand by my statement. Apple has no business in gaming other than selling apps. And they should avoid trying to make a car or a TV set as well.
AOL was also ahead of its time. The infrastructure just wasn't in place to make the user experience definitive. It was all about compromise and how to deal with it. AOL did at least have a relatively large base.
It's why Netflix had no option but to use the DVD model.
As soon as the infrastructure is in place you can make better business related decisions (if your product or service is still around).
Apple wasn't in a position to struggle on with many technologies and services. Its goal was to survive.
Internet based XR is not a real option today because the infrastructure just isn't there. It's in the same situation as eWorld/AOL back in the day.
...and then AOL merged with Time Warner...and the rest is history.
Side-note: Have you guys checked out Baldur's Gate 3 for macOS? It's awesome! It even runs great on our old intel Macs lol. Maybe Apple should buy Larian Studios since they missed the boat on Bungie and Blizzard...
Buying a game studio is a hard way to make inroads into gaming. Baldur's Gate 3 is an adult-rated game and took 6 years to make. Larian also wants to stay independent:
When game studios are funded by big companies, they tend to lower quality. This has ruined a lot of big studios like Irrational Games and Bioware.
Microsoft has bought a few studios and the studios would probably rather be owned by them due to having a console audience.
Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo have around 15-20 studios each.
When a AAA studio takes around 3 years to make a game, to release one every other month, it would take nearly 20 studios working in parallel and you still have a lead time of 3 years.
A single studio can work if they make a hugely popular franchise like GTA or Call of Duty but buying a studio first and making a new franchise is very difficult and time-consuming and that popularity comes from deploying on multiple platforms.
Apple has the cash to do it. A major studio of 1000 people (x $100k per employee) = $100m per year. Apple could easily run 10-20 major studios if they wanted to. The hard part is finding that many talented people and to make the return on investment (for Mac), they have to port to multiple platforms.
The current AAA game model has been described by many as unsustainable long-term because big budget games have to sell 5-10 million copies at $60 to break even. If a big studio takes 5 years to make a game, the cost can be as much as $300m and marketing on top. This is why Square Enix sold off major franchises like Tomb Raider:
I don't think targeting old games is a bad thing because a lot of Mac users never had access to those games so old game ports helps build a gaming audience. New games are best to have available but it requires regular investment. Apple managed to get Resident Evil Village + DLC but not the newer Resident Evil 4.
If the Mac could get a Steam Deck level game library, that would build a good gaming audience. Then publishers would have a reason to make native ports.
This whole Mac gaming topic is like an endless déjà vu. Every time Mac gaming makes a little progress it gets stunted. Other big companies have supported gaming for over 30 years and on Windows, it's possible to play games from 30 years ago. Apple has made a few breaking changes and a lot of developers aren't willing to commit to the platform. Bioshock was on iOS and got discontinued:
This is why a compatibility layer can be a better option for older titles but at least have a long-term support option for a game API.
It would be nice to see Apple form an internal game group that oversees how they handle game ports and marketing and have the group work with publishers and they can report at events about new games coming to the platform. 5-10 major game ports per year would be a reasonable target.
Mobile gaming is the largest market now. It generates more revenue than PC/console gaming combined. So criticizing Apple Arcade for having a lot of titles that are mobile oriented is basically not seeing the forest for the trees when it comes to gaming. Apple isn't behind the curve. It's the companies that are primarily in the PC/console space that are behind the curve. For example, when Microsoft bought Activision/Blizzard, what was the 2nd highest revenue generating franchise that they acquired? Not Diablo. Not Warcraft. Not Overwatch. Candy Crush was #2. Only Call of Duty brought in more $$ than a mobile title.
Ford generates more revenue than Ferrari; which car do people desire the most? This is about the quality of the gaming experience and while there are excellent games on mobile the vast majority are devoted to revenue generation rather than gameplay; Apple's commitment to a "magical" experience for users is not being realised in the gaming space.
Mobile gaming is the largest market now. It generates more revenue than PC/console gaming combined. So criticizing Apple Arcade for having a lot of titles that are mobile oriented is basically not seeing the forest for the trees when it comes to gaming. Apple isn't behind the curve. It's the companies that are primarily in the PC/console space that are behind the curve. For example, when Microsoft bought Activision/Blizzard, what was the 2nd highest revenue generating franchise that they acquired? Not Diablo. Not Warcraft. Not Overwatch. Candy Crush was #2. Only Call of Duty brought in more $$ than a mobile title.
Apple success in mobile gaming doesn't change the fact that Apple customers is behing in dektop gaming. Many of use would like to see Apple do better in desktop gaming.
Actually going backwards and missing out on titles that were Mac-friendly when they go up a version. Apple should be talking to the team at Cities:Skylines solve the problems that stop them from making CS2 a mac game. It would probably go a long way to making more games see Mac/ iPad as a target.
Some survey numbers above regarding market sizes of the gaming markets.
Some anecdata from me. My 17yo loves playing Genshin on her iPad. It's not available on on macOS, so she can't play it on her MBA. Apple's made it really simple to port the game to macOS, or just play the iPadOS version. What is stopping the developer from putting it on macOS?
Some anecdata from me. My 17yo loves playing Genshin on her iPad. It's not available on on macOS, so she can't play it on her MBA. Apple's made it really simple to port the game to macOS, or just play the iPadOS version. What is stopping the developer from putting it on macOS?
Some online games use aggressive anti-cheat systems. On Windows, they use kernel-level drivers and root permissions for ensuring that cheats aren't being used:
They might not be able to do this on Mac. Mobile systems are harder to use cheats on.
These games can be run ok in compatibility layers:
It seems like some kind of standard sandbox format would be useful for cross-platform gaming so that anti-cheat systems and mods could be done in a universal way, like how DRM for video was implemented and supported across platforms.
Comments
The web has driven a lot of the Mac renaissance. Apple is perhaps looking long term at server-side gaming (cloud gaming) solving the lack of gaming on Macs, and even on iOS. And server-side business, engineering apps will be a thing too. If cloud driven apps become a thing, the main way apps are run, where the apps is actually running on a server and the UI/display is just blitted over the network, perhaps they see there being no reason to invest in either, and just waiting.
This leaves major features and apps out of their control though. The value in a cloud driven app ecosystem will then reside in the IP and content. Much like they saw the need to have Apple TV+, they really should see the need for game and app content too. Leaving content to 3rd parties is dangerous, not dependable. So, it seems inevitable that they have to do it.
They don't really need to sell a Mac at a loss. They don't need to have the most powerful computing hardware. They just need content, apps, and games that people are willing to pay for.
It's why Netflix had no option but to use the DVD model.
As soon as the infrastructure is in place you can make better business related decisions (if your product or service is still around).
Apple wasn't in a position to struggle on with many technologies and services. Its goal was to survive.
Internet based XR is not a real option today because the infrastructure just isn't there. It's in the same situation as eWorld/AOL back in the day.
https://www.eurogamer.net/baldurs-gate-3-dev-says-its-not-interested-in-being-acquired-but-finds-speculation-flattering
https://gamingbolt.com/microsoft-considered-acquiring-cd-projekt-red-larian-studios-fromsoftware-and-more-in-2021
When game studios are funded by big companies, they tend to lower quality. This has ruined a lot of big studios like Irrational Games and Bioware.
Microsoft has bought a few studios and the studios would probably rather be owned by them due to having a console audience.
Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo have around 15-20 studios each.
When a AAA studio takes around 3 years to make a game, to release one every other month, it would take nearly 20 studios working in parallel and you still have a lead time of 3 years.
A single studio can work if they make a hugely popular franchise like GTA or Call of Duty but buying a studio first and making a new franchise is very difficult and time-consuming and that popularity comes from deploying on multiple platforms.
Apple has the cash to do it. A major studio of 1000 people (x $100k per employee) = $100m per year. Apple could easily run 10-20 major studios if they wanted to. The hard part is finding that many talented people and to make the return on investment (for Mac), they have to port to multiple platforms.
The current AAA game model has been described by many as unsustainable long-term because big budget games have to sell 5-10 million copies at $60 to break even. If a big studio takes 5 years to make a game, the cost can be as much as $300m and marketing on top. This is why Square Enix sold off major franchises like Tomb Raider:
https://www.eurogamer.net/tomb-raider-finally-achieved-profitability-by-the-end-of-last-year
I don't think targeting old games is a bad thing because a lot of Mac users never had access to those games so old game ports helps build a gaming audience. New games are best to have available but it requires regular investment. Apple managed to get Resident Evil Village + DLC but not the newer Resident Evil 4.
https://www.imore.com/mac/resident-evil-4-skips-mac-even-after-village-headlined-apples-gaming-lineup-its-not-good-enough
If the Mac could get a Steam Deck level game library, that would build a good gaming audience. Then publishers would have a reason to make native ports.
This whole Mac gaming topic is like an endless déjà vu. Every time Mac gaming makes a little progress it gets stunted. Other big companies have supported gaming for over 30 years and on Windows, it's possible to play games from 30 years ago. Apple has made a few breaking changes and a lot of developers aren't willing to commit to the platform. Bioshock was on iOS and got discontinued:
https://appleinsider.com/articles/17/01/31/bioshock-for-ios-is-officially-dead-developer-2k-reveals
""In June 2015, BioShock became incompatible with iOS, following Apple's version 8.4 update. As a result, the game was removed from the App Store and is no longer supported," the company's support page now reads."
This is why a compatibility layer can be a better option for older titles but at least have a long-term support option for a game API.
It would be nice to see Apple form an internal game group that oversees how they handle game ports and marketing and have the group work with publishers and they can report at events about new games coming to the platform. 5-10 major game ports per year would be a reasonable target.
Apple should be talking to the team at Cities:Skylines solve the problems that stop them from making CS2 a mac game. It would probably go a long way to making more games see Mac/ iPad as a target.
Some survey numbers above regarding market sizes of the gaming markets.
Some anecdata from me. My 17yo loves playing Genshin on her iPad. It's not available on on macOS, so she can't play it on her MBA. Apple's made it really simple to port the game to macOS, or just play the iPadOS version. What is stopping the developer from putting it on macOS?
https://www.pcgamer.com/genshin-impacts-kernel-level-anti-cheat-no-longer-runs-after-you-close-the-game/
https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/376257/can-genshin-impact-be-run-as-non-administrator-on-windows-10
They might not be able to do this on Mac. Mobile systems are harder to use cheats on.
These games can be run ok in compatibility layers:
It seems like some kind of standard sandbox format would be useful for cross-platform gaming so that anti-cheat systems and mods could be done in a universal way, like how DRM for video was implemented and supported across platforms.