2. Aquire a large gaming company with great upcoming game.
3. Develop a console that plays games, downloads movies, streams video/photos
4. License the hell out of the platform.
Microsoft has created a winner in just 3 generations of Xbox consoles. Apple can cut that down to 2 generations if they just follow the pattern of success and avoid the pitfalls.
Bring on the iGame Console!
It's been 2 generations and Microsoft has lost $4,000,000,000.00 to date doing it. I really don't think it's all that easy. Look at the PSP. Incredible hardware + lackluster software = lackluster product.
Even if Apple did built this TV, how would they sell it?
Most of the time when people buy TV's they head over to Bestbuy/Circuit City/Whatever and stand there, find the one that looks best and walk out with it. Apple would have a few options here. They could sell it in their retail stores only (and online), or they could try to sell it alongside all other TV's in electronics retailers around the county.
Selling it in an electronics store would give it more visibility at the price of the "Apple Experience".
I really just don't see that happening. Apple has no reason to enter the TV market.
hmurchison What's your agenda, why do you keep ignoring the fact that Microsoft lost billions on the XBox and Apple could never afford that?
You can easily check the XBox' numbers in Microsoft's Earning Reports. Between Jul 03 and Sep 06 their entertainment business lost $3.2 billion. That includes more than $1 billion since the release of Xbox 360, so the XBox 360 is a loss leader of huge dimensions.
For Oct 01 (when the XBox 1 went on sale) to Jun 03 Microsoft did not reveal the losses of their entertainment business, but they did state revenues of that segment and there are detailed sales numbers from NPD group, Media Create and others for that time. From those sources we can be sure that the losses at that time were in the same region or even higher as from Jul 03 onwards, amounting to at least $2.5-$3 billion for the early life of the XBox 1.
If you add those numbers Microsoft lost about $6 billion or more on the XBox project so far, with $5 billion coming from the XBox 1 and $1 billion coming from the XBox 360. Even if they should break even in one of these next quarters (it has not happened yet) it will take them another decade to get that money back, and they might well fail.
PS: Those people that like Nintendo's Wii, just buy it and plug it into your TV, along with your iTV from Apple. What would be the benefit of combining those two? Nintendo's strategy helps Apple, but they don't have to merge the companies or products for that.
It's always so bizarre to read these kinds of threads. I read though this entire thread so here comes a rant. Feel free to skip it. :-)
First, why would Nintendo partner with Apple when they're doing perfectly fine and enormously profitable all by themselves. Even if Wii turns out to be a novelty and fizzles out after a year or so, Nintendo's proven itself incredibly resilient. After 2 years, DS has proven it's not only NOT a gimmick, but a huge cash cow. Nintendo rode all those disappointing GameCube years on Game Boy Advance. This is a company that has never turned an unprofitable quarter in over a century. Add on Nintendo's multi-billion war chest (this is something like 5-10 billion US dollars of liquid assets, on top of whatever the market value of the company itself is.) Microsoft couldn't justify buying Nintendo, I highly doubt Apple could.
Sony is... Sony. Why would Apple want to buy all that baggage just for PlayStation? On top of everything else, and this applies to Nintendo as well, as long as these companies are Japanese stalwarts and the Japanese government continues to be run by the racists that have been in office since WW2, don't expect any acquisition, especially by an American company, to be a simple affair.
Microsoft would be the best example for Apple to look at if they were serious (and I don't think they are), and I just don't see the kind of vision to truly pursue the console market that Microsoft had in J Allard. There's talk of using Mac components and a barebones version of OSX. That's just a recipe for failure. Even Microsoft was smart enough to make the original Xbox Windows-free and with the 360, completely customized chipsets and a PowerPC processor (ironically what all the next gen consoles use)
Apple has always been the kind of company that pushed products that promoted other products, but the minute they start thinking that way, they're doomed to fail because the console market is a unique marketplace. Quite honestly, the Mac gaming scene is pretty dead. Isn't it possible that Apple's recent gaming acquisitions are less about going after Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft, and more about just establishing a gaming presence on the Mac? The Mac as a platform is perfectly fine, although some of the hardware choices Apple has made don't necessarily lend themselves to it as well as they could. This could be a first-party effort on Apple's part to make themselves a legitimate gaming presence on the market.
...Sony looks to lose quite a bit on the PS3 for at least the next year or year and a half...
Sony may never make money on the PS3, they are loosing more than average on the PS3 and a recent interview with one of the MS guys he was talking about how it takes 4 years to see a return on the hardware (unless you can get a much higher than average attach rate, Sony's off to a bad start) With Sony's extra loss on each system, it may take 5 or more years to see a return and what do you want to bet MS will have a new system ready to go just in time to catch Sony with their pants down. I'm no Fanboy, I have all three, the 360, the Wii and the PS3 (not to mention a DSLite and PSP), I just know that MS is a smart company (when it comes to profit) Billy knew he'd loose money on the Xbox and you know what, he didn't care. He was looking at the big picture.
What if Apple uses the boot camp as a portal by which they could run games designed for windows. You can download the games via itms and play them on the itv via a virtualized environment. It would kind of be lide downloading a movie.
Apple said they had no plans to have virtualizaion on the mac but they didn't say that they didn't have other plans. Like for ITV
Or, Apple could spend some coin and get the OS up to par with the gaming industry.
But then again wasn't microsoft using a PowerMac to test the XBox 360???
I think that all of that Legacy Power code is now really valuable to Apple.
Sony may never make money on the PS3, they are loosing more than average on the PS3
With over 200 million Playstation's sold. Sony has an installed base that eclipse Xbox and Nintendo combined. Over 2006 Playstation 2 has out sold Xbox 360. Sony clearly has the momentum.
The Playstation 1 has sold over 100 million units. It his that mark while the original Xbox was on the market. The Playstation 2 hit 111 million units sold while the Xbox 360 is on the market.
The Xbox has only sold about a tenth of the Playstation numbers over the same length of time. Infancy doesn't account for that.
PS1's costed $39.00 while the Xbox was on the market at 299.00 and PS2's cost what $149.00 or have they gone down? Plus, a lot of people buying PS2's at this point are just replacing broken hardware. I know people who have had 3 or 4 PS2's. I know that 110 million systems are not sitting in anywhere near 110 million homes, probably more like 60 million. In college, I managed a video game store and I kid you not, we had probably 100 broken PS2's in our back store room (and 1 broken GameCube).
Those incredibly high sales numbers have a lot to do with...
1) A long time with no serious competition
2) Hardware matured to the point that the low cost of the system attracted even the most reluctant spenders
3) Big time name brand recognition. When I was younger, my mom called every system a Nintendo no matter who made it, now she calls everything a PlayStation (even my DSLite), If she were to going to buy me a system for Cristmas, what do you want to bet she would get me a PlayStation.
...Apple doesn't develop hardware they can't turn a good profit on. On the other side of the equation they probably lose money at first on new software like iLife because most of the first year sales are free copies bundled with new hardware...
You don't think that those costs are factored into the cost of the product? Apple's systems are pretty steep. I'm not saying they are not worth it, I'm just saying they are not cheap by any strecth of the imagination.
With over 200 million Playstation's sold. Sony has an installed base that eclipse Xbox and Nintendo combined. Over 2006 Playstation 2 has out sold Xbox 360. Sony clearly has the momentum.
Do you have a PS3? I do, and I'm not sure it's got what it takes to beat either Nintendo or MS. To be honest, I only have one game for it (Resistance) and I don't play that becuase I can't stop playing Zelda on the Wii. The rest of Sony's launch titles blew chunks and I'm not seeing any tripple A titles on the horizin in the near future. Add to that the fact that 80% of the games will be cross-platform and the 360's price point is a lot sexier. Plus and here is a biggie, online sucks with the PS3. I know its free, but you know the saying; you get what you pay for.
Just because there's a report about Apple hiring game designers why does everyone assume Apple will then develop games? Could it not be because game designers have other skills Apple's looking for? Video and graphics perhaps?
1. Even if Apple did built this TV, how would they sell it?
2. They could sell it in their retail stores only (and online), or they could try to sell it alongside all other TV's in electronics retailers around the country.
3. Apple has no reason to enter the TV market.
(I numbered your comments so I could reply to them more effectively, and left out all unnecessaries, please forgive me.)
1. Huh?
2. They'd do both.
3. No reason?
(i) They've got all the reasons in the world, and I suspect Apple wouldn't be stupid enough to avoid receiving more money.
(ii) They must address this market at some stage
(iii) Apple's beginning to sell movies.
(iv) Apple loves all in one.
(v) Apple knows how to make existing producs better.
(vi) Apples is currently in the process of entering several markets they have never been in.
(vii) One remote = The holy grail. Steve Jobs knows this, but consumers think there's no solution, so they live with all the bullshit clutter that's not wanted or needed.
(viii) Apple wants us to connect our TV's to our computer, with a product they're making. This is the next logical step. Avoid the connecting process, so it just works/connects out of the box.
(ix) Simplification = ease of use
(x) Cool styling as a bonus
(xi) They're good at making hardware
(xii) They could reinvent the TV if they put thier mind to it.
(xiii) Apple is very good at business, and this makes good business sense.
(xiv) One remote, one piece of hardware that does it all well, what more could anyone want.
(xv) No more old or non techie people will need any help setting up their entertainment system as you just plug the Apple TV in the wall and away you go. People like that independence, it gives them a sense of satisfaction, confidence, achievement, and makes them happier.
(xvi) People will say, I can't believe no one thought of this sooner.
With over 200 million Playstation's sold. Sony has an installed base that eclipse Xbox and Nintendo combined. Over 2006 Playstation 2 has out sold Xbox 360. Sony clearly has the momentum.
According to news sources here in Japan, they've already called that race...Nintendo wins hands down. Sony is both overpriced (adding the unproven BluRay was a BIG mistake) and undersupplied--great formula for a losing product. XBOX was never even a contender, at least on these shores.
BTW, has anyone noticed how familiar the Wii looks-packaging, website, ads? I'd be willing to bet five nuts that Nintendo and Apple are already in love--even if they haven't consummated the relationship yet.
PREDICTION: An iMac that comes with a Wii remote and a DS model in the iPod lineup.
I numbered your comments so I could reply to them more effectively, and left out all unnecessaries, please forgive me.
1. Huh?
2. They'd do both.
3. No reason?
(i) They've got all the reasons in the world, and I suspect Apple wouldn't be stupid enough to avoid receiving more money.
(ii) They must address this market at some stage
(iii) Apple's beginning to sell movies.
(iv) Apple loves all in one.
(v) Apple knows how to make existing producs better.
(vi) Apples is currently in the process of entering several markets they have never been in.
(vii) One remote = The holy grail. Steve Jobs knows this, but consumers think there's no solution, so they live with all the bullshit clutter that's not wanted or needed.
(viii) Apple wants us to connect our TV's to our computer, with a product they're making. This is the next logical step. Avoid the connecting process, so it just works/connects out of the box.
(ix) Simplification = ease of use
(x) Cool styling as a bonus
(xi) They're good at making hardware
(xii) They could reinvent the TV if they put thier mind to it.
(xiii) Apple is very good at business, and this makes good business sense.
(xiv) One remote, one piece of hardware that does it all well, what more could anyone want.
(xv) No more old or non techie people will need any help setting up their entertainment system as you just plug the Apple TV in the wall and away you go. People like that independence, and it gives them a sense of satisfaction, confidence, achievement, and makes them happier.
(xvi) People will say, I can't believe no one thought of this sooner.
Of all your reasoning, the only one that would make me consider buying an Apple-brabded TV is the all-in-one remote. I don't know, but I think I would fork out the extra money to get that convenience.
Of all your reasoning, the only one that would make me consider buying an Apple-brabded TV is the all-in-one remote. I don't know, but I think I would fork out the extra money to get that convenience.
You'd be right too becasue that's the biggest and most obvious reason, when you see it in words.
Some people come along and say; there's already all-in-one universal remotes. What they fail to see is this isn't a universal remote, it's a universal TV.
According to news sources here in Japan, they've already called that race...Nintendo wins hands down. Sony is both overpriced (adding the unproven BluRay was a BIG mistake) and undersupplied--great formula for a losing product. XBOX was never even a contender, at least on these shores.
IMHO, the PS3 is a bit of a Trojan horse for Sony. The initial profit earning of the PS3 isn't a big deal if it solidifies Blu-ray as the next gen optical drive. The profits from that should last, at least, the next 15 to 20 years.
IMHO, the PS3 is a bit of a Trojan horse for Sony. The initial profit earning of the PS3 isn't a big deal if it solidifies Blu-ray as the next gen optical drive. The profits from that should last, at least, the next 15 to 20 years.
That's just it. They're already calling Blu-ray the new beta, and after gauging consumer sentiment, it seems people are unwilling to splurge that 2-300 dollars extra for a format that may well be extinct in a few years. Everyone is waiting around to see where everyone else is gonna go, and people are not adopting PS3s as rapidly as Sony may have hoped.
My Wii has just arrived as I write, and I swear, that box would so not look out of place in an Apple store...
I agree with Ireland, although I hope Apple keeps the setbox separate from the tv.
When I saw the question how would Apple sell a tv, I had the same thing - huh? The answer to this question is so easy I don't see how somebody could even ask the question. If Apple brings out entertainment systems and cell phones, they should sell them in stores along side their computers. Wait - Apple already has stores. Think it is all chance? I think Jobs is way ahead of us on this one.
One remote, one remote, one remote...
The question is where does games fit into this strategy. The Pippen would have been the right product at the right time but I doubt Apple could have waged war at that time and been successful. I think they wanted to but financially couldn't. They had to skip that segment.
But the question is whether that will come back to haunt them now in the living room. Thank goodness Sony has been battling MS to keep them from owning that segment. And Nintendo too. But Apple has to figure out how to get in on the action without breaking the bank.
Consoles pack a lot of computer power at a super cheap price. Apple has no opening to exploit with consoles. Same with games. Apple cannot create or buy a host of games cheaply. However, if they could make a platform that could run competitor's games they would have a chance.
Remember the old PS emulator? What if Apple could do something similar for the Xbox360 or PS3? Or how about PC games? If Apple can figure out a way to make this happen they can solve the number of games issue.
The next question is what is Apple going to do the processing. That's why I suggest they borrow the processing that already sits idle in another computer. iTV only works when tied to a Mac so why not harness this processing power? Is it possible? I think so.
The only question is latency. If a standard LAN connection introduces too much latency, Apple could always come up with a special solution. This could as simple as a dedicated ethernet wire connecting the iTV directly to the Mac. It would be a cheap solution for harnessing the Mac's power.
I don't see why somebody would essentially buy two high powered computers, one which only does games and another which does everything else. While they work/play on the one, the other sits idle. This is what people do with consoles currently.
So Apple could tap into the computer's power for gaming. If it had an emulator or at least could use a version of boot camp to run PC games, then they have a solution.
I admit this is a far out solution but it makes use of all the pieces Apple has.
w00t! Apple getting into thre gaming bizz big time? Why not? Start with little gamez for the iPods/iPhones, Apple has very deep pockets at this time, so buy a game maker or two, all 3 consoles happen to have PowerPC CPU's and nVidea/ATI graphics, which we know Apple has plenty of programming experience with.
That's right, 64-bit YDL 5.0 will run on the PS3, and who else has 64-bit *NIX? That's right Apple.
BTW, I'm getting YDL as a duel boot for my Quad G5, in addition to IBM's kickass 64-bit Fortran 10.0 compiler optimized for the PowerPC, gonna do some kickass programming, been waiting on this for almost a year now.
Apple has always so been into gadgets, that it only seems natural (to me anyway) for Apple to expand into the console market.
I finally finished laughing at this thread's premise and content, and found something worth commenting on...
Quote:
Originally Posted by visionary
About latency.
The only extra latency would be the iTV to Mac and back traffic. This depends a lot on one's network but I think this traffic could be streamlined and made fast enough. Apple has Xgrid so they know all about handling latency for other apps.
Sadly the network traffic isn't the only latency. In order to transmit the video across any network you're likely to find in an average home it needs to be encoded and all existing encoders introduce significant latency even if they are capable of real-time high quality compression. And when the compressed stream arrives at the TV it must then go through the decode process which also introduces latency. And this is on top of the already considerable latency of most HD TVs. The result would be untenable for most games. And then there are the quality and computional load issues associated with this.
And Xgrid-style computational latency is very different than the real-time interactive space.
Comments
Getting into gaming is fairly easy.
1. Develop a powerful gaming API for OSX
2. Aquire a large gaming company with great upcoming game.
3. Develop a console that plays games, downloads movies, streams video/photos
4. License the hell out of the platform.
Microsoft has created a winner in just 3 generations of Xbox consoles. Apple can cut that down to 2 generations if they just follow the pattern of success and avoid the pitfalls.
Bring on the iGame Console!
It's been 2 generations and Microsoft has lost $4,000,000,000.00 to date doing it. I really don't think it's all that easy. Look at the PSP. Incredible hardware + lackluster software = lackluster product.
Like it or not, it will happen.
I guess my question is: why?
Is there really that much money in the TV market?
Even if Apple did built this TV, how would they sell it?
Most of the time when people buy TV's they head over to Bestbuy/Circuit City/Whatever and stand there, find the one that looks best and walk out with it. Apple would have a few options here. They could sell it in their retail stores only (and online), or they could try to sell it alongside all other TV's in electronics retailers around the county.
Selling it in an electronics store would give it more visibility at the price of the "Apple Experience".
I really just don't see that happening. Apple has no reason to enter the TV market.
You can easily check the XBox' numbers in Microsoft's Earning Reports. Between Jul 03 and Sep 06 their entertainment business lost $3.2 billion. That includes more than $1 billion since the release of Xbox 360, so the XBox 360 is a loss leader of huge dimensions.
For Oct 01 (when the XBox 1 went on sale) to Jun 03 Microsoft did not reveal the losses of their entertainment business, but they did state revenues of that segment and there are detailed sales numbers from NPD group, Media Create and others for that time. From those sources we can be sure that the losses at that time were in the same region or even higher as from Jul 03 onwards, amounting to at least $2.5-$3 billion for the early life of the XBox 1.
If you add those numbers Microsoft lost about $6 billion or more on the XBox project so far, with $5 billion coming from the XBox 1 and $1 billion coming from the XBox 360. Even if they should break even in one of these next quarters (it has not happened yet) it will take them another decade to get that money back, and they might well fail.
PS: Those people that like Nintendo's Wii, just buy it and plug it into your TV, along with your iTV from Apple. What would be the benefit of combining those two? Nintendo's strategy helps Apple, but they don't have to merge the companies or products for that.
First, why would Nintendo partner with Apple when they're doing perfectly fine and enormously profitable all by themselves. Even if Wii turns out to be a novelty and fizzles out after a year or so, Nintendo's proven itself incredibly resilient. After 2 years, DS has proven it's not only NOT a gimmick, but a huge cash cow. Nintendo rode all those disappointing GameCube years on Game Boy Advance. This is a company that has never turned an unprofitable quarter in over a century. Add on Nintendo's multi-billion war chest (this is something like 5-10 billion US dollars of liquid assets, on top of whatever the market value of the company itself is.) Microsoft couldn't justify buying Nintendo, I highly doubt Apple could.
Sony is... Sony. Why would Apple want to buy all that baggage just for PlayStation? On top of everything else, and this applies to Nintendo as well, as long as these companies are Japanese stalwarts and the Japanese government continues to be run by the racists that have been in office since WW2, don't expect any acquisition, especially by an American company, to be a simple affair.
Microsoft would be the best example for Apple to look at if they were serious (and I don't think they are), and I just don't see the kind of vision to truly pursue the console market that Microsoft had in J Allard. There's talk of using Mac components and a barebones version of OSX. That's just a recipe for failure. Even Microsoft was smart enough to make the original Xbox Windows-free and with the 360, completely customized chipsets and a PowerPC processor (ironically what all the next gen consoles use)
Apple has always been the kind of company that pushed products that promoted other products, but the minute they start thinking that way, they're doomed to fail because the console market is a unique marketplace. Quite honestly, the Mac gaming scene is pretty dead. Isn't it possible that Apple's recent gaming acquisitions are less about going after Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft, and more about just establishing a gaming presence on the Mac? The Mac as a platform is perfectly fine, although some of the hardware choices Apple has made don't necessarily lend themselves to it as well as they could. This could be a first-party effort on Apple's part to make themselves a legitimate gaming presence on the market.
...and thus the rant ends.
...Sony looks to lose quite a bit on the PS3 for at least the next year or year and a half...
Sony may never make money on the PS3, they are loosing more than average on the PS3 and a recent interview with one of the MS guys he was talking about how it takes 4 years to see a return on the hardware (unless you can get a much higher than average attach rate, Sony's off to a bad start) With Sony's extra loss on each system, it may take 5 or more years to see a return and what do you want to bet MS will have a new system ready to go just in time to catch Sony with their pants down. I'm no Fanboy, I have all three, the 360, the Wii and the PS3 (not to mention a DSLite and PSP), I just know that MS is a smart company (when it comes to profit) Billy knew he'd loose money on the Xbox and you know what, he didn't care. He was looking at the big picture.
Apple said they had no plans to have virtualizaion on the mac but they didn't say that they didn't have other plans. Like for ITV
Or, Apple could spend some coin and get the OS up to par with the gaming industry.
But then again wasn't microsoft using a PowerMac to test the XBox 360???
I think that all of that Legacy Power code is now really valuable to Apple.
Sony may never make money on the PS3, they are loosing more than average on the PS3
With over 200 million Playstation's sold. Sony has an installed base that eclipse Xbox and Nintendo combined. Over 2006 Playstation 2 has out sold Xbox 360. Sony clearly has the momentum.
The Playstation 1 has sold over 100 million units. It his that mark while the original Xbox was on the market. The Playstation 2 hit 111 million units sold while the Xbox 360 is on the market.
The Xbox has only sold about a tenth of the Playstation numbers over the same length of time. Infancy doesn't account for that.
PS1's costed $39.00 while the Xbox was on the market at 299.00 and PS2's cost what $149.00 or have they gone down? Plus, a lot of people buying PS2's at this point are just replacing broken hardware. I know people who have had 3 or 4 PS2's. I know that 110 million systems are not sitting in anywhere near 110 million homes, probably more like 60 million. In college, I managed a video game store and I kid you not, we had probably 100 broken PS2's in our back store room (and 1 broken GameCube).
Those incredibly high sales numbers have a lot to do with...
1) A long time with no serious competition
2) Hardware matured to the point that the low cost of the system attracted even the most reluctant spenders
3) Big time name brand recognition. When I was younger, my mom called every system a Nintendo no matter who made it, now she calls everything a PlayStation (even my DSLite), If she were to going to buy me a system for Cristmas, what do you want to bet she would get me a PlayStation.
Aaron
...Apple doesn't develop hardware they can't turn a good profit on. On the other side of the equation they probably lose money at first on new software like iLife because most of the first year sales are free copies bundled with new hardware...
You don't think that those costs are factored into the cost of the product? Apple's systems are pretty steep. I'm not saying they are not worth it, I'm just saying they are not cheap by any strecth of the imagination.
With over 200 million Playstation's sold. Sony has an installed base that eclipse Xbox and Nintendo combined. Over 2006 Playstation 2 has out sold Xbox 360. Sony clearly has the momentum.
Do you have a PS3? I do, and I'm not sure it's got what it takes to beat either Nintendo or MS. To be honest, I only have one game for it (Resistance) and I don't play that becuase I can't stop playing Zelda on the Wii. The rest of Sony's launch titles blew chunks and I'm not seeing any tripple A titles on the horizin in the near future. Add to that the fact that 80% of the games will be cross-platform and the 360's price point is a lot sexier. Plus and here is a biggie, online sucks with the PS3. I know its free, but you know the saying; you get what you pay for.
1. Even if Apple did built this TV, how would they sell it?
2. They could sell it in their retail stores only (and online), or they could try to sell it alongside all other TV's in electronics retailers around the country.
3. Apple has no reason to enter the TV market.
(I numbered your comments so I could reply to them more effectively, and left out all unnecessaries, please forgive me.)
1. Huh?
2. They'd do both.
3. No reason?
(i) They've got all the reasons in the world, and I suspect Apple wouldn't be stupid enough to avoid receiving more money.
(ii) They must address this market at some stage
(iii) Apple's beginning to sell movies.
(iv) Apple loves all in one.
(v) Apple knows how to make existing producs better.
(vi) Apples is currently in the process of entering several markets they have never been in.
(vii) One remote = The holy grail. Steve Jobs knows this, but consumers think there's no solution, so they live with all the bullshit clutter that's not wanted or needed.
(viii) Apple wants us to connect our TV's to our computer, with a product they're making. This is the next logical step. Avoid the connecting process, so it just works/connects out of the box.
(ix) Simplification = ease of use
(x) Cool styling as a bonus
(xi) They're good at making hardware
(xii) They could reinvent the TV if they put thier mind to it.
(xiii) Apple is very good at business, and this makes good business sense.
(xiv) One remote, one piece of hardware that does it all well, what more could anyone want.
(xv) No more old or non techie people will need any help setting up their entertainment system as you just plug the Apple TV in the wall and away you go. People like that independence, it gives them a sense of satisfaction, confidence, achievement, and makes them happier.
(xvi) People will say, I can't believe no one thought of this sooner.
(xvii) I'd buy one!
With over 200 million Playstation's sold. Sony has an installed base that eclipse Xbox and Nintendo combined. Over 2006 Playstation 2 has out sold Xbox 360. Sony clearly has the momentum.
According to news sources here in Japan, they've already called that race...Nintendo wins hands down. Sony is both overpriced (adding the unproven BluRay was a BIG mistake) and undersupplied--great formula for a losing product. XBOX was never even a contender, at least on these shores.
BTW, has anyone noticed how familiar the Wii looks-packaging, website, ads? I'd be willing to bet five nuts that Nintendo and Apple are already in love--even if they haven't consummated the relationship yet.
PREDICTION: An iMac that comes with a Wii remote and a DS model in the iPod lineup.
I numbered your comments so I could reply to them more effectively, and left out all unnecessaries, please forgive me.
1. Huh?
2. They'd do both.
3. No reason?
(i) They've got all the reasons in the world, and I suspect Apple wouldn't be stupid enough to avoid receiving more money.
(ii) They must address this market at some stage
(iii) Apple's beginning to sell movies.
(iv) Apple loves all in one.
(v) Apple knows how to make existing producs better.
(vi) Apples is currently in the process of entering several markets they have never been in.
(vii) One remote = The holy grail. Steve Jobs knows this, but consumers think there's no solution, so they live with all the bullshit clutter that's not wanted or needed.
(viii) Apple wants us to connect our TV's to our computer, with a product they're making. This is the next logical step. Avoid the connecting process, so it just works/connects out of the box.
(ix) Simplification = ease of use
(x) Cool styling as a bonus
(xi) They're good at making hardware
(xii) They could reinvent the TV if they put thier mind to it.
(xiii) Apple is very good at business, and this makes good business sense.
(xiv) One remote, one piece of hardware that does it all well, what more could anyone want.
(xv) No more old or non techie people will need any help setting up their entertainment system as you just plug the Apple TV in the wall and away you go. People like that independence, and it gives them a sense of satisfaction, confidence, achievement, and makes them happier.
(xvi) People will say, I can't believe no one thought of this sooner.
Of all your reasoning, the only one that would make me consider buying an Apple-brabded TV is the all-in-one remote. I don't know, but I think I would fork out the extra money to get that convenience.
Of all your reasoning, the only one that would make me consider buying an Apple-brabded TV is the all-in-one remote. I don't know, but I think I would fork out the extra money to get that convenience.
You'd be right too becasue that's the biggest and most obvious reason, when you see it in words.
Some people come along and say; there's already all-in-one universal remotes. What they fail to see is this isn't a universal remote, it's a universal TV.
According to news sources here in Japan, they've already called that race...Nintendo wins hands down. Sony is both overpriced (adding the unproven BluRay was a BIG mistake) and undersupplied--great formula for a losing product. XBOX was never even a contender, at least on these shores.
IMHO, the PS3 is a bit of a Trojan horse for Sony. The initial profit earning of the PS3 isn't a big deal if it solidifies Blu-ray as the next gen optical drive. The profits from that should last, at least, the next 15 to 20 years.
IMHO, the PS3 is a bit of a Trojan horse for Sony. The initial profit earning of the PS3 isn't a big deal if it solidifies Blu-ray as the next gen optical drive. The profits from that should last, at least, the next 15 to 20 years.
That's just it. They're already calling Blu-ray the new beta, and after gauging consumer sentiment, it seems people are unwilling to splurge that 2-300 dollars extra for a format that may well be extinct in a few years. Everyone is waiting around to see where everyone else is gonna go, and people are not adopting PS3s as rapidly as Sony may have hoped.
My Wii has just arrived as I write, and I swear, that box would so not look out of place in an Apple store...
When I saw the question how would Apple sell a tv, I had the same thing - huh? The answer to this question is so easy I don't see how somebody could even ask the question. If Apple brings out entertainment systems and cell phones, they should sell them in stores along side their computers. Wait - Apple already has stores. Think it is all chance? I think Jobs is way ahead of us on this one.
One remote, one remote, one remote...
The question is where does games fit into this strategy. The Pippen would have been the right product at the right time but I doubt Apple could have waged war at that time and been successful. I think they wanted to but financially couldn't. They had to skip that segment.
But the question is whether that will come back to haunt them now in the living room. Thank goodness Sony has been battling MS to keep them from owning that segment. And Nintendo too. But Apple has to figure out how to get in on the action without breaking the bank.
Consoles pack a lot of computer power at a super cheap price. Apple has no opening to exploit with consoles. Same with games. Apple cannot create or buy a host of games cheaply. However, if they could make a platform that could run competitor's games they would have a chance.
Remember the old PS emulator? What if Apple could do something similar for the Xbox360 or PS3? Or how about PC games? If Apple can figure out a way to make this happen they can solve the number of games issue.
The next question is what is Apple going to do the processing. That's why I suggest they borrow the processing that already sits idle in another computer. iTV only works when tied to a Mac so why not harness this processing power? Is it possible? I think so.
The only question is latency. If a standard LAN connection introduces too much latency, Apple could always come up with a special solution. This could as simple as a dedicated ethernet wire connecting the iTV directly to the Mac. It would be a cheap solution for harnessing the Mac's power.
I don't see why somebody would essentially buy two high powered computers, one which only does games and another which does everything else. While they work/play on the one, the other sits idle. This is what people do with consoles currently.
So Apple could tap into the computer's power for gaming. If it had an emulator or at least could use a version of boot camp to run PC games, then they have a solution.
I admit this is a far out solution but it makes use of all the pieces Apple has.
w00t! Apple getting into thre gaming bizz big time? Why not? Start with little gamez for the iPods/iPhones, Apple has very deep pockets at this time, so buy a game maker or two, all 3 consoles happen to have PowerPC CPU's and nVidea/ATI graphics, which we know Apple has plenty of programming experience with.
And take a look at this link;
PS3 *NIX
That's right, 64-bit YDL 5.0 will run on the PS3, and who else has 64-bit *NIX? That's right Apple.
BTW, I'm getting YDL as a duel boot for my Quad G5, in addition to IBM's kickass 64-bit Fortran 10.0 compiler optimized for the PowerPC, gonna do some kickass programming, been waiting on this for almost a year now.
Apple has always so been into gadgets, that it only seems natural (to me anyway) for Apple to expand into the console market.
Nice rumor!
About latency.
The only extra latency would be the iTV to Mac and back traffic. This depends a lot on one's network but I think this traffic could be streamlined and made fast enough. Apple has Xgrid so they know all about handling latency for other apps.
Sadly the network traffic isn't the only latency. In order to transmit the video across any network you're likely to find in an average home it needs to be encoded and all existing encoders introduce significant latency even if they are capable of real-time high quality compression. And when the compressed stream arrives at the TV it must then go through the decode process which also introduces latency. And this is on top of the already considerable latency of most HD TVs. The result would be untenable for most games. And then there are the quality and computional load issues associated with this.
And Xgrid-style computational latency is very different than the real-time interactive space.