Wow - if I had a dollar for every High Definition DVD sold - I could buy myself Gears of War.
Are things going well for Sony? If you look at Sony's financial report, things don't look too rosy. It might explain why Ken Kuturagi was forced to comit ritual Sepuku all over Stringer's floor.
While he was slippin' around in Ken's guts. Howard might have read some of the negative press....
With the manufacturing cost of the PS3 about $300 higher than the retail cost - it is a merciful relief to Sony that IBM can't make the chips. If they sold millions, it would bankrupt them.
Thank heavens the software developers are making money.
Wow - if I had a dollar for every High Definition DVD sold - I could buy myself Gears of War.
Are things going well for Sony? If you look at Sony's financial report, things don't look too rosy. It might explain why Ken Kuturagi was forced to comit ritual Sepuku all over Stringer's floor.
While he was slippin' around in Ken's guts. Howard might have read some of the negative press....
With the manufacturing cost of the PS3 about $300 higher than the retail cost - it is a merciful relief to Sony that IBM can't make the chips. If they sold millions, it would bankrupt them.
Thank heavens the software developers are making money.
I've asked perhaps two dozen people if they would buy an Apple branded Tv, and most of them said that they would be interested. It's such a big market that if even 5% of people buying in any category bought an Apple product, Apple could add a billion bucks to their sales a year.
What features would this device have? An Apple tv with intergrated blu ray (or HD DVD) and an intergrated hard drive a la TIVO would be very appealing to me.
What features would this device have? An Apple tv with intergrated blu ray (or HD DVD) and an intergrated hard drive a la TIVO would be very appealing to me.
I'm not sure I'd like to see any of that in the display. I'm a component person, I don't even like receivers.
I would just like a display with 1080p, and 1080p HDMI 1.3 connectors, which most HD Tv's still lack.
I'm not sure I'd like to see any of that in the display. I'm a component person, I don't even like receivers.
I would just like a display with 1080p, and 1080p HDMI 1.3 connectors, which most HD Tv's still lack.
Then you potentailly loose ease of use. The set up for a tv with cable and DVR (Tivo) is actually quite difficult. When we moved and reset up our system it took several calls to tech support before we were able to get it working again. I would like to see it all intergrated but that's me. Certainly there are arguements for keeping them seperate.
Apple should avoid the games market, until someone other than Nintendo figures out how to actually make a profit.
Actually, Sony makes quite a handsome profit in their Playstation division overall. In fact, there's been some quarters where most of the collective company's profit has come from that division. 8)
Its different right now since its early in the PS3's lifecycle, and Sony will lose money on every PS3 sold for awhile, but, just as with the PS2, when the manufacturing costs come down, Sony ends up making big profit off their game licensing fees- more than anyone else, since their marketshare is so much larger than Microsoft's or Nintendo's (yes, we know that currently there are more 360s out there than PS3s, since it just launched, but there are 111 million PS2s out there, compared to about 24 million Xboxs, and 21 million Gamecubes. And nearly all analysts predict that the PS3 will have dominant marketshare eventually as well).
Nintendo is different in that it makes a profit off of its hardware much sooner than either Sony or MS (some say from day one), but the drawback is that their hardware ends up being nowhere near as powerful, since they can't put as much into it, as they are not willing to lose a lot of money on it initially. Hence the innovation angle, since they can't sell on graphical power (which I actually like- played Wii Sports and it is pretty fun).
I'm not sure I'd like to see any of that in the display. I'm a component person, I don't even like receivers.
I would just like a display with 1080p, and 1080p HDMI 1.3 connectors, which most HD Tv's still lack.
Then what's the point of an Apple branded TV? Really, you're just saying you want an Apple Cinema Display with an HDMI connection? How is that a particularly compelling product? It's just a bare bones TV. It's not going to dissuade anyone from stopping off at their local Walmart for the HD TV they've been itching for.
At least with an iTV integrated into it, it could do something not many other TV's could.
I'm not sure if I understand your other comment about being a component person but not liking receivers...sort of seems like an oxymoron. If you going with components, a receiver is generally an essential part of that system to get it all to tie together, unless you're just plugging it all into the TV and decided the TV's speakers are good enough for you. Which at that point, your TV is the receiver.
And I'm not saying an Apple branded TV doesn't interest me, but if it's just a TV with an Apple logo on it, big deal. I could buy a Sony TV and slap an Apple sticker on it and it would have as serve the same purpose as an Apple TV.
What features would this device have? An Apple tv with intergrated blu ray (or HD DVD) and an intergrated hard drive a la TIVO would be very appealing to me.
Apple releases iTV, a year and a bit later Apple brings out Apple TV.
These are very possible/achievable specs:
1. 32", 40" & 50"
2. Only available in Black
3. 24 Watt built-in speaker system (like some of Panny's)
4. Sleek, minimal, thin Apple styling
5. iTV Ready, i.e. iTV inside
6. HD ready (full 1080p/1080i/720p/410p/etc.
7. Good build quality
8. Side-load slot-load DVD drive (capable of playing most if not all formats of DVD)
9. *New* Apple TV Remote (slightly different form their current remote, maybe a touch bigger, a subtly different form factor.. dedicated rec. button or something, bottom line not the existing remote they ship)
10. Good contrast (they wont release a TV without them being seroiusly happy with the picture, decent TV engine is a must and they would be aware of this)
Then at any stage they could offer a full iTunes store subscription service, ala iPTV.
(giving you the option of ditching your rather expensive cable service if you wish)
No more lots of things under your TV. If you sign up to their subscription service, you could ditch your cable box, ditch your DVD player, ditch your VCR (if you have one), and most improtantly ditch all those remotes. If you have a surround sound system, you could plug that into the TV for the full cinematic experience. I also believe at some stage Apple will sell one of those as-well (numerous Apple patents suggest this). And stage C always comes after stage B.
Apple releases iTV, a year and a bit later Apple brings out Apple TV.
These are very possible/achievable specs:
1. 32", 40" & 50"
2. Only available in Black
3. 24 Watt built-in speaker system (like some of Panny's)
4. Sleek, minimal, thin Apple styling
5. iTV Ready, i.e. iTV inside
6. HD ready (full 1080p/1080i/720p/410p/etc.
7. Good build quality
8. Side-load slot-load DVD drive (capable of playing most if not all formats of DVD)
9. *New* Apple TV Remote (slightly different form their current remote, maybe a touch bigger, a subtly different form factor.. dedicated rec. button or something, bottom line not the existing remote they ship)
10. Good contrast (they wont release a TV without them being seroiusly happy with the picture, decent TV engine is a must and they would be aware of this)
Then at any stage they could offer a full iTunes store subscription service, ala iPTV.
(giving you the option of ditching your rather expensive cable service if you wish)
No more lots of things under your TV. If you sign up to their subscription service, you could ditch your cable box, ditch your DVD player, ditch your VCR (if you have one), and most improtantly ditch all those remotes. If you have a surround sound system, you could plug that into the TV for the full cinematic experience. I also believe at some stage Apple will sell one of those as-well (numerous Apple patents suggest this). And stage C always comes after stage B.
Personally, I'd pay extra for it to NOT include speakers. I hate paying extra for a feature I do not need. And once you add in the surround sound receiver (which I consider essential), you're back up to two remotes unless the Apple TV and Apple receiver are introduced simultaneously. I'd kind of hope the Apple remote is programmable with an LCD display so it can change controls as needed (possibly a use for the touch screen wi-fi iPod).
I'm also not keen of having all that stuff integrated into one unit; too many eggs in one basket for my taste. I could see the iTV having a HD/Blu-Ray/DVD player option, but it would be better for it to be external to the TV. Otherwise if one part breaks, you're left with a gimp TV.
Also, I don't understand the continuing suggestion that iTunes will eventually shut down the cable companies. Where I live the only option for high-speed internet IS the cable company, so if they went under I couldn't do a thing with iTunes (unless I wanted to spend several days downloading a one-hour show over dial-up or paid for satellite internet that was more expensive than the cable [including internet service] and was only 1/4 of the speed). DSL is not an option and even if it were, I have a cell phone, so why would I want to pay to have another phone line just to get DSL?
Apple releases iTV, a year and a bit later Apple brings out Apple TV.
These are very possible/achievable specs:
1. 32", 40" & 50"
2. Only available in Black
3. 24 Watt built-in speaker system (like some of Panny's)
4. Sleek, minimal, thin Apple styling
5. iTV Ready, i.e. iTV inside
6. HD ready (full 1080p/1080i/720p/410p/etc.
7. Good build quality
8. Side-load slot-load DVD drive (capable of playing most if not all formats of DVD)
9. *New* Apple TV Remote (slightly different form their current remote, maybe a touch bigger, a subtly different form factor.. dedicated rec. button or something, bottom line not the existing remote they ship)
10. Good contrast (they wont release a TV without them being seroiusly happy with the picture, decent TV engine is a must and they would be aware of this)
Then at any stage they could offer a full iTunes store subscription service, ala iPTV.
(giving you the option of ditching your rather expensive cable service if you wish)
No more lots of things under your TV. If you sign up to their subscription service, you could ditch your cable box, ditch your DVD player, ditch your VCR (if you have one), and most improtantly ditch all those remotes. If you have a surround sound system, you could plug that into the TV for the full cinematic experience. I also believe at some stage Apple will sell one of those as-well (numerous Apple patents suggest this). And stage C always comes after stage B.
Now were talking. That makes the Apple tv different from what currently exists.
Hey, maybe this would force Apple to put a real GPU in the Macbook!
Hey Southern Oregon, have enough TV cameras down there?
I am certainly no gaming guru, bu I'm thinking of laptops too! I have a hard time imagining that iTV morphs into a console. How, hmurch, can you think that if it is not economically viable for 3 big consoles to be battling in the market, that Apple could add itself?! Consoles are a whole new beast that needs an ecology of culture (like the iPod) to survive or needs the backing of MS's cash. Apple is certainly entering the living room more, but it is going to use the evolutionary changes in the Mac and iPod platforms. That way the consumer doesn't need to spend $100's of dollars on a box, they just need to spend $10's of dollars on games that work "everywhere."
The coolest gaming experience I've had recently is with my nephew playing wirelessly a game between my old TiBook and his new iMac. A decent pc game with multiple interactions and connections possible. Would you rather have a console that cost $500 sitting next to your TV or would you rather have you and your families MacBooks have the ability to "project" a game onto the TV whenever you wanted a break from email or work?
A console only works if Apple becomes a VERY VERY close partner with someone else.
Actually, Sony makes quite a handsome profit in their Playstation division overall. In fact, there's been some quarters where most of the collective company's profit has come from that division. 8)
.
As I suggested - read the CURRENT financial report. The Playstation division is losing money on the PS2 the PSP and obviously the PS3 - and more money for each unit sold. Overall the Playstation division is losing a lot of money. Hence the Kutaragi manouver.
Meanwhile Microsoft has finally reduced the cost of production of the 360 to match the retail cost. Something that could take Sony two years to acheive. The only way Sony can recoup the loss is to sell games. Lots and lots of games. If people buy the PS3 to watch DVDs matters only get worse.
This is why the news that the attach-rate for early PS3s is so bad. Early adopters are buying the unit and not buying the games. The reason is ... the release games suck.
Apologists will say that release titles always suck. Consoles are rushed out. Developers have too little time. Yada yada. It's true - but Sony have had a extra year. In fact more than a year. The PS2 came out before the Xbox. Sony have had two years extra to get this right. And is it right?
Nope. Developers hate it. It's single CPU is way too too slow. Sony have failed again to provide proper English documentation, proper APIs and stable hardware - because again the clowns who design the hardware have once again been allowed an orgy of self-indulgence (imagine Jackson Pollack style self abuse... that's how self indulgent they are!).
It is fortunate that Sony cannot manufacture more machines - because if it could, Sony could quite literally go bankrupt. Makes you wonder if those manufacturing difficulties are real.
Back out of sour bitter twisted rant mode.
Apple could do something smart with casual gaming. But any attempt to enter the "core" gaming market would be dumb.
Steve Job's and Apple's stated goal as always is to build the media home around the Mac.
That means no gaming console. Steve has no interest in the gaming market beyond what currently exists for the Mac.
Apple would be happy for you to buy a Mac AND a Playstation or a Mac AND an XBox4. MS has successfully created a new platform that does plenty of things but really does not tie you to Windows at all. Microsoft had to do this for their own reasons and it works well into Apple's plan.
"Go ahead, by a Wii, but when you want to listen to music or email or make a photo album, use your MacBook!"
hmmm very verbose thread ... just wondering about this ..
1)Apple need a bigger market share gets game devs into house to Dev a highly powered IDE/API for rapid development over mutlithreaded OpenGL , revs up cards (though i am more than happy with everything that shipped that far on desktops...) (about 10 machines total this far), i have been using ATI stuff over Nvidia for driver reasons somehow the Nvidia stuff get beat by ATI on macs and this has been going on for YEARS .
2) Cider is there but their licencing is TOO expensive at this time .. sure Apple could take over some game distribution over Itunes , using the few game devs ,buy titles, make titles and port over using Cider then their own engine.
3) The move would make some sense altogether and would bring more adopters to the Mac Platform ...
4) And please dont tell me Macs cant handle graphics ... this is HIGHLY ludicrous to someone working in Graphics and 3D for the last 10 years.
As a long time practionioner of this industry. I can safely say its not a great way of making actual cash.
Sony - Losing money now. Might make money in future. Might not
Microsoft - losing money.
Nintendo - do make modest profits by "thinking different".
EA - make money - by being smart. (and cruel)
Every other publisher. Losing money.
Game developers - losing money on 1st batch of next gen titles.
The games industry turnover is big - but costs of development are growing much faster than revenues. At least for games for the hardcore audience. And only the hardcore audience buys enough games.
Apple might be able to make some money in the game space -but not by going against the suicide tactics of Microsoft and Sony.
As I suggested - read the CURRENT financial report. The Playstation division is losing money on the PS2 the PSP and obviously the PS3 - and more money for each unit sold. Overall the Playstation division is losing a lot of money. Hence the Kutaragi manouver.
If you had bothered to read the rest of my post, you would understand that I am quite current on this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
Its different right now since its early in the PS3's lifecycle, and Sony will lose money on every PS3 sold for awhile, but, just as with the PS2, when the manufacturing costs come down, Sony ends up making big profit off their game licensing fees- more than anyone else, since their marketshare is so much larger than Microsoft's or Nintendo's (yes, we know that currently there are more 360s out there than PS3s, since it just launched, but there are 111 million PS2s out there, compared to about 24 million Xboxs, and 21 million Gamecubes. And nearly all analysts predict that the PS3 will have dominant marketshare eventually as well).
And no, Sony is not losing money on the PS2, quite the contrary, its the bright spot. Its the high initial costs for the PS3 that are dragging the division into the red, temporarily.
Quote:
Meanwhile Microsoft has finally reduced the cost of production of the 360 to match the retail cost. Something that could take Sony two years to acheive. The only way Sony can recoup the loss is to sell games. Lots and lots of games. If people buy the PS3 to watch DVDs matters only get worse.
The teardown costs for the 360 now look more promising, but they still have to pay off the marketing costs, R&D costs, distro costs, etc. The 360 probably isn't in the black yet either, and first-gen Xbox never was and never will be, overall.
Far as folks buying the PS3 to watch Blu-Ray discs... that's something Sony is counting on, actually. Part of the PS3's mission is to win the format war for high-def DVDs.
Quote:
This is why the news that the attach-rate for early PS3s is so bad. Early adopters are buying the unit and not buying the games. The reason is ... the release games suck.
Same thing was said about the PS2 launch titles, 360 launch titles, Xbox launch titles (aside from Halo), and so on and so on. So what? It sure didn't stop the PS2 from dominating the console landscape like it did. What matters is what happens in the next year or so, history shows. Also, the attach rate does suffer some from some folks buying the PS3 as a Blu-Ray player for their high-def TVs. So blanket statements like "The attach rate is bad, so the release games must suck" are not really provable.
Quote:
Apologists will say that release titles always suck. Consoles are rushed out. Developers have too little time. Yada yada. It's true - but Sony have had a extra year. In fact more than a year. The PS2 came out before the Xbox. Sony have had two years extra to get this right. And is it right?
Doesnt really matter- if the dev kits ship out only x number of months before console launches, that's the time a developer has to make the game. Despite the longer cycle, developers really didn't have 'extra time' to work on the games. So we're back to complaining that many of the launch titles aren't that great, and I'd agree that some aren't, but Sony is hardly unique in this.
Quote:
Nope. Developers hate it. It's single CPU is way too too slow. Sony have failed again to provide proper English documentation, proper APIs and stable hardware - because again the clowns who design the hardware have once again been allowed an orgy of self-indulgence (imagine Jackson Pollack style self abuse... that's how self indulgent they are!).
All the same things were said about the PS2. And yet somehow the PS2 succeeded wildly. I'm sure the devs weren't happy about some of Sony's same practices with the PS2, but still they flocked to the dominant platform, because $$$ talks. Can't see any reason why it'd be different with the PS3- everyone pretty much agrees that it will outsell both Wii and 360, the only question is by how much.
Quote:
It is fortunate that Sony cannot manufacture more machines - because if it could, Sony could quite literally go bankrupt.
That I agree with. Teardown costs alone for the PS3 are $840(!). It is quite a machine, and I too note the coincidence between the costs and the console being in short supply until early '07. Regardless, Sony is good at bringing down manufacturing costs quickly, and by the time the machine is in wide supply they should not be losing their shirt so badly on each unit sold. Perhaps that is kind of the plan.
I think a big question is how Apple develops it's cross-platform apps. iTunes, QT, FileMaker (if we can still call it an Apple app) and a few others are those bridges to the PC world. How would games enter this realm or ignore it. OpenGL implementation in a DirectX world.
It seems to me that Apple hasn't decided yet what its pc footprint will look like. It wants Windows operability in every Mac, but it won't go for virtualization yet. Until it decides what to do with all of its apps that could go pc, I doubt Apple will make big gaming inroads in any particular direction.
Comments
Wow - if I had a dollar for every High Definition DVD sold - I could buy myself Gears of War.
Are things going well for Sony? If you look at Sony's financial report, things don't look too rosy. It might explain why Ken Kuturagi was forced to comit ritual Sepuku all over Stringer's floor.
While he was slippin' around in Ken's guts. Howard might have read some of the negative press....
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=21541
or noticed that the PSP's ass has been handed it by the DS.
Still the PS3 has great performance
http://www.geekpatrol.ca/2006/11/pla...3-performance/
almost as much as a 800Mhz Pentium 3!
http://digg.com/hardware/PS3_equals_...ium_III?cshow=
With the manufacturing cost of the PS3 about $300 higher than the retail cost - it is a merciful relief to Sony that IBM can't make the chips. If they sold millions, it would bankrupt them.
Thank heavens the software developers are making money.
http://ps3.vggen.com/news/news.php?id=3164
Apple should avoid the games market, until someone other than Nintendo figures out how to actually make a profit.
C.
What read his mind?
Uh, no. Thought of this: "Gaming as a concept from Apple may be something we haven't even imagined yet."
There's a High Definition DVD market?
Wow - if I had a dollar for every High Definition DVD sold - I could buy myself Gears of War.
Are things going well for Sony? If you look at Sony's financial report, things don't look too rosy. It might explain why Ken Kuturagi was forced to comit ritual Sepuku all over Stringer's floor.
While he was slippin' around in Ken's guts. Howard might have read some of the negative press....
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=21541
or noticed that the PSP's ass has been handed it by the DS.
Still the PS3 has great performance
http://www.geekpatrol.ca/2006/11/pla...3-performance/
almost as much as a 800Mhz Pentium 3!
http://digg.com/hardware/PS3_equals_...ium_III?cshow=
With the manufacturing cost of the PS3 about $300 higher than the retail cost - it is a merciful relief to Sony that IBM can't make the chips. If they sold millions, it would bankrupt them.
Thank heavens the software developers are making money.
http://ps3.vggen.com/news/news.php?id=3164
Apple should avoid the games market, until someone other than Nintendo figures out how to actually make a profit.
C.
First of all. It's far too early to know what is going to happen in the next 12 months.
Second of all, Apple doesn't have to come out with a game console to enter the games market.
If you think about that, you might understand why. Or read the posts earlier.
I've asked perhaps two dozen people if they would buy an Apple branded Tv, and most of them said that they would be interested. It's such a big market that if even 5% of people buying in any category bought an Apple product, Apple could add a billion bucks to their sales a year.
What features would this device have? An Apple tv with intergrated blu ray (or HD DVD) and an intergrated hard drive a la TIVO would be very appealing to me.
What features would this device have? An Apple tv with intergrated blu ray (or HD DVD) and an intergrated hard drive a la TIVO would be very appealing to me.
I'm not sure I'd like to see any of that in the display. I'm a component person, I don't even like receivers.
I would just like a display with 1080p, and 1080p HDMI 1.3 connectors, which most HD Tv's still lack.
I'm not sure I'd like to see any of that in the display. I'm a component person, I don't even like receivers.
I would just like a display with 1080p, and 1080p HDMI 1.3 connectors, which most HD Tv's still lack.
Then you potentailly loose ease of use. The set up for a tv with cable and DVR (Tivo) is actually quite difficult. When we moved and reset up our system it took several calls to tech support before we were able to get it working again. I would like to see it all intergrated but that's me. Certainly there are arguements for keeping them seperate.
Apple should avoid the games market, until someone other than Nintendo figures out how to actually make a profit.
Actually, Sony makes quite a handsome profit in their Playstation division overall. In fact, there's been some quarters where most of the collective company's profit has come from that division. 8)
Its different right now since its early in the PS3's lifecycle, and Sony will lose money on every PS3 sold for awhile, but, just as with the PS2, when the manufacturing costs come down, Sony ends up making big profit off their game licensing fees- more than anyone else, since their marketshare is so much larger than Microsoft's or Nintendo's (yes, we know that currently there are more 360s out there than PS3s, since it just launched, but there are 111 million PS2s out there, compared to about 24 million Xboxs, and 21 million Gamecubes. And nearly all analysts predict that the PS3 will have dominant marketshare eventually as well).
Nintendo is different in that it makes a profit off of its hardware much sooner than either Sony or MS (some say from day one), but the drawback is that their hardware ends up being nowhere near as powerful, since they can't put as much into it, as they are not willing to lose a lot of money on it initially. Hence the innovation angle, since they can't sell on graphical power (which I actually like- played Wii Sports and it is pretty fun).
.
I'm not sure I'd like to see any of that in the display. I'm a component person, I don't even like receivers.
I would just like a display with 1080p, and 1080p HDMI 1.3 connectors, which most HD Tv's still lack.
Then what's the point of an Apple branded TV? Really, you're just saying you want an Apple Cinema Display with an HDMI connection? How is that a particularly compelling product? It's just a bare bones TV. It's not going to dissuade anyone from stopping off at their local Walmart for the HD TV they've been itching for.
At least with an iTV integrated into it, it could do something not many other TV's could.
I'm not sure if I understand your other comment about being a component person but not liking receivers...sort of seems like an oxymoron. If you going with components, a receiver is generally an essential part of that system to get it all to tie together, unless you're just plugging it all into the TV and decided the TV's speakers are good enough for you. Which at that point, your TV is the receiver.
And I'm not saying an Apple branded TV doesn't interest me, but if it's just a TV with an Apple logo on it, big deal. I could buy a Sony TV and slap an Apple sticker on it and it would have as serve the same purpose as an Apple TV.
What features would this device have? An Apple tv with intergrated blu ray (or HD DVD) and an intergrated hard drive a la TIVO would be very appealing to me.
Apple releases iTV, a year and a bit later Apple brings out Apple TV.
These are very possible/achievable specs:
1. 32", 40" & 50"
2. Only available in Black
3. 24 Watt built-in speaker system (like some of Panny's)
4. Sleek, minimal, thin Apple styling
5. iTV Ready, i.e. iTV inside
6. HD ready (full 1080p/1080i/720p/410p/etc.
7. Good build quality
8. Side-load slot-load DVD drive (capable of playing most if not all formats of DVD)
9. *New* Apple TV Remote (slightly different form their current remote, maybe a touch bigger, a subtly different form factor.. dedicated rec. button or something, bottom line not the existing remote they ship)
10. Good contrast (they wont release a TV without them being seroiusly happy with the picture, decent TV engine is a must and they would be aware of this)
Then at any stage they could offer a full iTunes store subscription service, ala iPTV.
(giving you the option of ditching your rather expensive cable service if you wish)
No more lots of things under your TV. If you sign up to their subscription service, you could ditch your cable box, ditch your DVD player, ditch your VCR (if you have one), and most improtantly ditch all those remotes. If you have a surround sound system, you could plug that into the TV for the full cinematic experience. I also believe at some stage Apple will sell one of those as-well (numerous Apple patents suggest this). And stage C always comes after stage B.
Apple releases iTV, a year and a bit later Apple brings out Apple TV.
These are very possible/achievable specs:
1. 32", 40" & 50"
2. Only available in Black
3. 24 Watt built-in speaker system (like some of Panny's)
4. Sleek, minimal, thin Apple styling
5. iTV Ready, i.e. iTV inside
6. HD ready (full 1080p/1080i/720p/410p/etc.
7. Good build quality
8. Side-load slot-load DVD drive (capable of playing most if not all formats of DVD)
9. *New* Apple TV Remote (slightly different form their current remote, maybe a touch bigger, a subtly different form factor.. dedicated rec. button or something, bottom line not the existing remote they ship)
10. Good contrast (they wont release a TV without them being seroiusly happy with the picture, decent TV engine is a must and they would be aware of this)
Then at any stage they could offer a full iTunes store subscription service, ala iPTV.
(giving you the option of ditching your rather expensive cable service if you wish)
No more lots of things under your TV. If you sign up to their subscription service, you could ditch your cable box, ditch your DVD player, ditch your VCR (if you have one), and most improtantly ditch all those remotes. If you have a surround sound system, you could plug that into the TV for the full cinematic experience. I also believe at some stage Apple will sell one of those as-well (numerous Apple patents suggest this). And stage C always comes after stage B.
Personally, I'd pay extra for it to NOT include speakers. I hate paying extra for a feature I do not need. And once you add in the surround sound receiver (which I consider essential), you're back up to two remotes unless the Apple TV and Apple receiver are introduced simultaneously. I'd kind of hope the Apple remote is programmable with an LCD display so it can change controls as needed (possibly a use for the touch screen wi-fi iPod).
I'm also not keen of having all that stuff integrated into one unit; too many eggs in one basket for my taste. I could see the iTV having a HD/Blu-Ray/DVD player option, but it would be better for it to be external to the TV. Otherwise if one part breaks, you're left with a gimp TV.
Also, I don't understand the continuing suggestion that iTunes will eventually shut down the cable companies. Where I live the only option for high-speed internet IS the cable company, so if they went under I couldn't do a thing with iTunes (unless I wanted to spend several days downloading a one-hour show over dial-up or paid for satellite internet that was more expensive than the cable [including internet service] and was only 1/4 of the speed). DSL is not an option and even if it were, I have a cell phone, so why would I want to pay to have another phone line just to get DSL?
Apple releases iTV, a year and a bit later Apple brings out Apple TV.
These are very possible/achievable specs:
1. 32", 40" & 50"
2. Only available in Black
3. 24 Watt built-in speaker system (like some of Panny's)
4. Sleek, minimal, thin Apple styling
5. iTV Ready, i.e. iTV inside
6. HD ready (full 1080p/1080i/720p/410p/etc.
7. Good build quality
8. Side-load slot-load DVD drive (capable of playing most if not all formats of DVD)
9. *New* Apple TV Remote (slightly different form their current remote, maybe a touch bigger, a subtly different form factor.. dedicated rec. button or something, bottom line not the existing remote they ship)
10. Good contrast (they wont release a TV without them being seroiusly happy with the picture, decent TV engine is a must and they would be aware of this)
Then at any stage they could offer a full iTunes store subscription service, ala iPTV.
(giving you the option of ditching your rather expensive cable service if you wish)
No more lots of things under your TV. If you sign up to their subscription service, you could ditch your cable box, ditch your DVD player, ditch your VCR (if you have one), and most improtantly ditch all those remotes. If you have a surround sound system, you could plug that into the TV for the full cinematic experience. I also believe at some stage Apple will sell one of those as-well (numerous Apple patents suggest this). And stage C always comes after stage B.
Now were talking. That makes the Apple tv different from what currently exists.
Hey, maybe this would force Apple to put a real GPU in the Macbook!
Hey Southern Oregon, have enough TV cameras down there?
I am certainly no gaming guru, bu I'm thinking of laptops too! I have a hard time imagining that iTV morphs into a console. How, hmurch, can you think that if it is not economically viable for 3 big consoles to be battling in the market, that Apple could add itself?! Consoles are a whole new beast that needs an ecology of culture (like the iPod) to survive or needs the backing of MS's cash. Apple is certainly entering the living room more, but it is going to use the evolutionary changes in the Mac and iPod platforms. That way the consumer doesn't need to spend $100's of dollars on a box, they just need to spend $10's of dollars on games that work "everywhere."
The coolest gaming experience I've had recently is with my nephew playing wirelessly a game between my old TiBook and his new iMac. A decent pc game with multiple interactions and connections possible. Would you rather have a console that cost $500 sitting next to your TV or would you rather have you and your families MacBooks have the ability to "project" a game onto the TV whenever you wanted a break from email or work?
A console only works if Apple becomes a VERY VERY close partner with someone else.
Actually, Sony makes quite a handsome profit in their Playstation division overall. In fact, there's been some quarters where most of the collective company's profit has come from that division. 8)
.
As I suggested - read the CURRENT financial report. The Playstation division is losing money on the PS2 the PSP and obviously the PS3 - and more money for each unit sold. Overall the Playstation division is losing a lot of money. Hence the Kutaragi manouver.
Meanwhile Microsoft has finally reduced the cost of production of the 360 to match the retail cost. Something that could take Sony two years to acheive. The only way Sony can recoup the loss is to sell games. Lots and lots of games. If people buy the PS3 to watch DVDs matters only get worse.
This is why the news that the attach-rate for early PS3s is so bad. Early adopters are buying the unit and not buying the games. The reason is ... the release games suck.
Apologists will say that release titles always suck. Consoles are rushed out. Developers have too little time. Yada yada. It's true - but Sony have had a extra year. In fact more than a year. The PS2 came out before the Xbox. Sony have had two years extra to get this right. And is it right?
Nope. Developers hate it. It's single CPU is way too too slow. Sony have failed again to provide proper English documentation, proper APIs and stable hardware - because again the clowns who design the hardware have once again been allowed an orgy of self-indulgence (imagine Jackson Pollack style self abuse... that's how self indulgent they are!).
It is fortunate that Sony cannot manufacture more machines - because if it could, Sony could quite literally go bankrupt. Makes you wonder if those manufacturing difficulties are real.
Back out of sour bitter twisted rant mode.
Apple could do something smart with casual gaming. But any attempt to enter the "core" gaming market would be dumb.
C.
Steve Job's and Apple's stated goal as always is to build the media home around the Mac.
That means no gaming console. Steve has no interest in the gaming market beyond what currently exists for the Mac.
Apple would be happy for you to buy a Mac AND a Playstation or a Mac AND an XBox4. MS has successfully created a new platform that does plenty of things but really does not tie you to Windows at all. Microsoft had to do this for their own reasons and it works well into Apple's plan.
"Go ahead, by a Wii, but when you want to listen to music or email or make a photo album, use your MacBook!"
1)Apple need a bigger market share gets game devs into house to Dev a highly powered IDE/API for rapid development over mutlithreaded OpenGL , revs up cards (though i am more than happy with everything that shipped that far on desktops...) (about 10 machines total this far), i have been using ATI stuff over Nvidia for driver reasons somehow the Nvidia stuff get beat by ATI on macs and this has been going on for YEARS .
2) Cider is there but their licencing is TOO expensive at this time .. sure Apple could take over some game distribution over Itunes , using the few game devs ,buy titles, make titles and port over using Cider then their own engine.
3) The move would make some sense altogether and would bring more adopters to the Mac Platform ...
4) And please dont tell me Macs cant handle graphics ... this is HIGHLY ludicrous to someone working in Graphics and 3D for the last 10 years.
Cheerio...
Sony - Losing money now. Might make money in future. Might not
Microsoft - losing money.
Nintendo - do make modest profits by "thinking different".
EA - make money - by being smart. (and cruel)
Every other publisher. Losing money.
Game developers - losing money on 1st batch of next gen titles.
The games industry turnover is big - but costs of development are growing much faster than revenues. At least for games for the hardcore audience. And only the hardcore audience buys enough games.
Apple might be able to make some money in the game space -but not by going against the suicide tactics of Microsoft and Sony.
C.
As I suggested - read the CURRENT financial report. The Playstation division is losing money on the PS2 the PSP and obviously the PS3 - and more money for each unit sold. Overall the Playstation division is losing a lot of money. Hence the Kutaragi manouver.
If you had bothered to read the rest of my post, you would understand that I am quite current on this:
Its different right now since its early in the PS3's lifecycle, and Sony will lose money on every PS3 sold for awhile, but, just as with the PS2, when the manufacturing costs come down, Sony ends up making big profit off their game licensing fees- more than anyone else, since their marketshare is so much larger than Microsoft's or Nintendo's (yes, we know that currently there are more 360s out there than PS3s, since it just launched, but there are 111 million PS2s out there, compared to about 24 million Xboxs, and 21 million Gamecubes. And nearly all analysts predict that the PS3 will have dominant marketshare eventually as well).
And no, Sony is not losing money on the PS2, quite the contrary, its the bright spot. Its the high initial costs for the PS3 that are dragging the division into the red, temporarily.
Meanwhile Microsoft has finally reduced the cost of production of the 360 to match the retail cost. Something that could take Sony two years to acheive. The only way Sony can recoup the loss is to sell games. Lots and lots of games. If people buy the PS3 to watch DVDs matters only get worse.
The teardown costs for the 360 now look more promising, but they still have to pay off the marketing costs, R&D costs, distro costs, etc. The 360 probably isn't in the black yet either, and first-gen Xbox never was and never will be, overall.
Far as folks buying the PS3 to watch Blu-Ray discs... that's something Sony is counting on, actually. Part of the PS3's mission is to win the format war for high-def DVDs.
This is why the news that the attach-rate for early PS3s is so bad. Early adopters are buying the unit and not buying the games. The reason is ... the release games suck.
Same thing was said about the PS2 launch titles, 360 launch titles, Xbox launch titles (aside from Halo), and so on and so on. So what? It sure didn't stop the PS2 from dominating the console landscape like it did. What matters is what happens in the next year or so, history shows. Also, the attach rate does suffer some from some folks buying the PS3 as a Blu-Ray player for their high-def TVs. So blanket statements like "The attach rate is bad, so the release games must suck" are not really provable.
Apologists will say that release titles always suck. Consoles are rushed out. Developers have too little time. Yada yada. It's true - but Sony have had a extra year. In fact more than a year. The PS2 came out before the Xbox. Sony have had two years extra to get this right. And is it right?
Doesnt really matter- if the dev kits ship out only x number of months before console launches, that's the time a developer has to make the game. Despite the longer cycle, developers really didn't have 'extra time' to work on the games. So we're back to complaining that many of the launch titles aren't that great, and I'd agree that some aren't, but Sony is hardly unique in this.
Nope. Developers hate it. It's single CPU is way too too slow. Sony have failed again to provide proper English documentation, proper APIs and stable hardware - because again the clowns who design the hardware have once again been allowed an orgy of self-indulgence (imagine Jackson Pollack style self abuse... that's how self indulgent they are!).
All the same things were said about the PS2. And yet somehow the PS2 succeeded wildly. I'm sure the devs weren't happy about some of Sony's same practices with the PS2, but still they flocked to the dominant platform, because $$$ talks. Can't see any reason why it'd be different with the PS3- everyone pretty much agrees that it will outsell both Wii and 360, the only question is by how much.
It is fortunate that Sony cannot manufacture more machines - because if it could, Sony could quite literally go bankrupt.
That I agree with. Teardown costs alone for the PS3 are $840(!). It is quite a machine, and I too note the coincidence between the costs and the console being in short supply until early '07. Regardless, Sony is good at bringing down manufacturing costs quickly, and by the time the machine is in wide supply they should not be losing their shirt so badly on each unit sold. Perhaps that is kind of the plan.
.
It seems to me that Apple hasn't decided yet what its pc footprint will look like. It wants Windows operability in every Mac, but it won't go for virtualization yet. Until it decides what to do with all of its apps that could go pc, I doubt Apple will make big gaming inroads in any particular direction.
If apple was interested in the video game market, why dont they just buy some game developer.
They should buy X-Plane. http://www.x-plane.com/
It is a example of how one man with a mac can take on microsoft (flight simulator) and make a much better product.