Maybe they want it to be an education tool. Apple has always been in to education since the start. The tablet/slate should have good potential in that area.
If Apple were embarrassed about iPhone gaming, why did they run ads showing how well the iPod Touch works with games? It doesn't make sense.
The word "embarassed" was AppleInsider's interpretation of John Carmack's words. The specific quote was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
"At the highest level of Apple, in their heart of hearts," Carmack reportedly said, "they're not proud of the iPhone being a game machine, they wish it was something else."
It can obviously be interpreted many ways, but I read it as Apple doesn't want the iPhone to be primarily known as a gaming device that is also a phone and media player. Apple would probably want the iPhone to be known more as the first of a new type of universal, truly mobile computer device that can cohesively integrate computer productivity, entertainment, and communication functionality. As such, having a disproportionally large number of games in the App Store could compromise the broader iPhone vision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Furthermore, the average App Store game is in the $5 to $10 dollar range while the average DS game hovers closer to $30.
If only it were true that the average App Store game were $5-$10, then there would be more interest in developing iPhone specific titles that are more expansive in scope, more comparable to console games. As it is, the average price of the top 100 games is $2.76 and in general, out of the top 100 games, the number of games priced above $5 is in the single digits. Gameloft and EA have been among the few developers to price their games above $5 while providing the content and quality to justify the higher price. I'm not saying there shouldn't be cheap games, but I'm definitely hoping the App Store community keeps a willingness to support higher price points for bigger budget games that are more likely to push the envelope of the iPhone becoming a legitimate portable gaming console.
I'm particularly interested to see what Rockstar is going to do with Grand Theft Auto Chinatown Wars on the iPhone. It was just released at $40 on the PSP so it's hard to see it being in the single dollar digits for the iPhone. I'm thinking they may release part the game at $10 and the rest as DLC, maybe divided by islands with bridges severed as is traditional in GTA. Certainly, given the detail and gameplay available in even one island of Chinatown Wars, a $10 chunk of Chinatown Wars would compare favorably to existing games on the iPhone. In any case, I'm looking to Rockstar to be able to provide the content and quality to justify higher prices than have traditionally been the case of App Store apps. I'm not looking to pay more for less, but I'm certainly hoping developers would offer more for people willing to pay for it.
The word "embarassed" was AppleInsider's interpretation of John Carmack's words.
It can obviously be interpreted many ways, but I read it as Apple doesn't want the iPhone to be primarily known as a gaming device that is also a phone and media player. Apple would probably want the iPhone to be known more as the first of a new type of universal, truly mobile computer device that can cohesively integrate computer productivity, entertainment, and communication functionality. As such, having a disproportionally large number of games in the App Store could compromise the broader iPhone vision.
I think that's a very good interpretation.
It's instructive to remember that when the Macintosh first came out people called it a toy. Steve Jobs was so insulted that he spent the next 25 years trying to get people to take his products seriously. Games are too close to "toys" for him to truly open his heart to them.
Had Steve taken that initial jab and said "fine, then I'll make Macintosh the best entertainment device the world has ever seen", things would have turned out very differently.
It's instructive to remember that when the Macintosh first came out people called it a toy. Steve Jobs was so insulted that he spent the next 25 years trying to get people to take his products seriously. Games are too close to "toys" for him to truly open his heart to them.
Had Steve taken that initial jab and said "fine, then I'll make Macintosh the best entertainment device the world has ever seen", things would have turned out very differently.
Then how do you explain his "toying" of the Touch?
Microsoft became the largest and most powerful in business and then years later became the most powerful in gaming. So the business market had already been secured.
Also if Apple really wanted to make a real attempt to get into business they could start by trying to make a decent office suite instead of iworks. While Pages and keynote are good numbers is beyond sad and to date nothing comes close to competing with Excel.
Not mention most large companies still like desktop systems not AIO or really overpriced notebooks.
Back in the 80s, Apple was dismissed as a manufacturer of toys. The reason: The Apple II was the best gaming platform of the day and the Macintosh had all those funny icons, while the serious business machines were being made by IBM with the business like command line interface and greed monchrome displays. Apple downplayed gaming on the Mac because they wanted to be taken seriously by the business market. It didn't work, but the Mac was forever hobbled as a gaming platform.
I don't think that Apple will repeat the mistake with the iphone. Its a cool device and already has a music play built in. Apple recognizes that it can be both a cool music player/game console and a serious business machine. Why not? Microsoft became a favourite for gamers after their business reputation was cemented.
I could see a Doom classic or even a version of Quake on the iPhone but I have no clue how they are going to make an iPhone version of Rage that even remotely looks like Rage.
Microsoft became the largest and most powerful in business and then years later became the most powerful in gaming. So the business market had already been secured.
Also if Apple really wanted to make a real attempt to get into business they could start by trying to make a decent office suite instead of iworks. While Pages and keynote are good numbers is beyond sad and to date nothing comes close to competing with Excel.
Not mention most large companies still like desktop systems not AIO or really overpriced notebooks.
I basically agree with what you say here. I guess the point I was trying to make with MS wasn't so much what they did first, but that they are both in businesses and in games and that doesn't seem to bother corp. IT weenies. Ironic, isn't it, that many IT types call the Mac a 'toy' yet it's Windows that has more toy-like things (namely games), not to mention the Fisher-Price interface of XP.
I think the latest iWork suite competes very favorably to MS Office. The only app still in need of tweaking is Numbers, but in one respect it thrashes Excel - charts & layout. The image quality of page layout (especially noticeable in charts) in Numbers puts Excel to absolute shame. I always use Numbers now when I'm generating tables and charts that will go into company presentations. The Numbers results are smooth, polished, 3-dimensional, professional looking layouts, but Excel results look like stick figures.
Yea, companies like traditional boring desktops. Sad, but true. There are legitimate reasons for not buying AIOs for sure. Our company keeps monitors until they die, but changes the computers every 3 years. You can also juggle monitor sizes, types, if they are separate. Mac minis are actually a great fit for most business purposes. Some companies are starting to see that. We've purchased 4 of them (out of 30 PCs). Hey, it's a start. One surprise - the Mac mini was ~$300 less than our standard corp. PC.
If Apple could just put even the slightest effort into the business computing market, they would get more traction and respect in that arena. And they don't need to be scared of games. Games won't deter businesses - it's Apple's lack of attention that deters businesses.
I think Apple is just sore that they missed such a huge market by ignoring 3D gamers all these years because they had this complex of trying to be taken seriously all the time.
Poor Apple, they built a all purpose device and let the free market and consumers dictate what it was going to be and now they are moaning because they are making tons of money and people just want to escape the pressures of life, the economy and lack of jobs etc, by killing time playing games.
Hello Apple! Your a (impulsive) luxury consumer products company.
You're Trippin'. The route Apple took (ignoring gamers) was the most profitable. They weren't going to build a line of computers for gamers, taking away R&D money and building systems for a limited group of people.
But the speculation of this story comes from a game developer's head. He has no facts to back it up - he just says he "thinks" Apple doesn't like the fact games are popular on the iPhone/iPod Touch. No moaning from Apple, no basis in fact. He's trippin' right along with you.
Then how do you explain his "toying" of the Touch?
I think that's a recognition of the reality of the situation. The priority right now is to get the iPhone and iPod Touch into as many people's hands as possible to gain a large user base and maintain first mover momentum. If games are the way to do it, then so be it. Once the platform is in a more secure/stable position, then Apple can try to convince existing users of whatever broader vision they have for the platform.
And besides, Apple labels the iPod Touch as the funnest iPod ever. They advertise games since that just happens to be what's available. If they had integrated a camera in the Touch, they would probably still promote it as the funnest iPod ever, but instead demonstrate the ability to take quick, candid shots and edit them to share with friends and family all directly from an iPod.
So Apple goes and releases a darn near perfect gaming API (OpenGL ES & OpenAL) and is upset that their pocket Macs are darn good gaming platforms? How could they not see this? They even went to great lengths to make sure that the GPU was a fully fledged co-processor on the device rather than some side show.
That is just too rich. I suppose that OS X isn't a gaming platform either. OMG! What if those big gaming companies start optimizing their games for OS X over DirectX?
I don't really know anything about Carmack. You say he's mature and credible, but common sense and all the visible evidence says that Apple is plenty happy with their success with gamers. I for one would like to see more proof that he's believable. Show me some evidence from Apple itself that it's opposed to gaming.
John Carmack is really the godfather of 3D video games. The entire industry was influenced by him and some of his colleague programmers back in the early and mid nineties. This guy is the real deal. The video game industry looks the way it does in part to this guy.
It's just something in internally Apple that does not want to see their products as "toys". It is well documented from the past that Carmack has tried speaking about with Apple in the past about gaming and then following up with Apple people some time later only to see nothing progressed.
It is my opinion that Apple has never had games on the priority list. I am a gamer and a mac user since 1984. Its just not part of "Apple" culture. something hard to understand since there is so much money in it. But then again Steve Jobs is not in it for the money.
It's instructive to remember that when the Macintosh first came out people called it a toy. Steve Jobs was so insulted that he spent the next 25 years trying to get people to take his products seriously. Games are too close to "toys" for him to truly open his heart to them.
Had Steve taken that initial jab and said "fine, then I'll make Macintosh the best entertainment device the world has ever seen", things would have turned out very differently.
Very good point there about Steve Jobs. He is a master at many things but especially in the early days he wouldn't bend even when it might have been the right decision.
Carmack is a very intelligent guy, who is tremendously pragmatic and has few pets or favorites. He's not a vindictive turd, but rather a guy who has had so much success that he can speak his mind. If anything, he tends to be fairly reserved in his speech. Even when he's frustrated, he doesn't appear to try to blow things out of proportion. But he doesn't necessarily avoid treading on toes. The few times he's been critical of Apple, he's usually got his thumb right on it.
Kind of moot, considering you can natively run Windows on Macs. Thus, you can indeed enjoy shooting all the same 3D aliens.
Really, gaming was the last genuine bastion of the anti-Mac crowd. Bit for bit, they lose on everything else (including value, and resale in particular). What do they have left?
It's not the same. I tried running WoW on my macbook through Bootcamp and while I did get much better framerates, it was still terrible in certain cities. Here's the catch: If I would have spent the money I spent on my macbook on a pc I would be running WoW at much better settings and higher framerates.
Then there are games that really would not do well at all unless you grabbed a mac pro which would be quite expensive.
80% of luxury sales are impulsive. This is a proven statistic.
The shiny screens on new Mac's and Apple Store locations are just further proof.
Impulsive sales occur at all stages of buying ability, it just happens more if it's less in price as more people can afford to be impulsive.
Most PC 3D gamers are interested in the least expensive, most expandable/customizable and most compatible software to play others online with.
Apple doesn't offer a sub $1000 expandable tower, thus few games and few graphic card upgrades. And also for the longest time Mac's didn't give up control of the hardware to game software like it did on Windows for the best performance. (Now Mac's can give up control of the OS to other OS's. It's a start)
So even if you got a cross platform 3D game, in the old days, on the Mac side it would run slower, because the OS didn't give up control of the hardware.
Of course this is all history now, as dedicated consoles 3D game much better and cheaper, look just as good as PC gaming. Lots of players online too.
And you get a up to 9 core and a BlueRay drive too in PS3's...
There are still games that play better with a mouse and keyboard though. Shooters and rpgs like Dragon Age:Origins are great examples. Also pc versions of games like Fallout 3 enjoy an endless amount of fun player-created mods you can add on for free.
Just a quick response to this.. While its true that most gamers get a PC, I don't believe its for Mac's lack of ability to game (try call of duty 4 on an iMac and you'll see what I mean) It's because gaming companies generally don't make Mac versions of their games. The Mac computer market is only a fraction of the PC market, and a large majority of mac owners use the computers specifically for video editing, and recording music..
Comments
The Macintosh platform.
/thread
What games are available for MAC platform? Google it and see what comes up?
Basically NADA.
If Apple were embarrassed about iPhone gaming, why did they run ads showing how well the iPod Touch works with games? It doesn't make sense.
The word "embarassed" was AppleInsider's interpretation of John Carmack's words. The specific quote was:
"At the highest level of Apple, in their heart of hearts," Carmack reportedly said, "they're not proud of the iPhone being a game machine, they wish it was something else."
It can obviously be interpreted many ways, but I read it as Apple doesn't want the iPhone to be primarily known as a gaming device that is also a phone and media player. Apple would probably want the iPhone to be known more as the first of a new type of universal, truly mobile computer device that can cohesively integrate computer productivity, entertainment, and communication functionality. As such, having a disproportionally large number of games in the App Store could compromise the broader iPhone vision.
Furthermore, the average App Store game is in the $5 to $10 dollar range while the average DS game hovers closer to $30.
http://www.pocketgamer.biz/r/PG%2EBi...re.asp?c=16245
If only it were true that the average App Store game were $5-$10, then there would be more interest in developing iPhone specific titles that are more expansive in scope, more comparable to console games. As it is, the average price of the top 100 games is $2.76 and in general, out of the top 100 games, the number of games priced above $5 is in the single digits. Gameloft and EA have been among the few developers to price their games above $5 while providing the content and quality to justify the higher price. I'm not saying there shouldn't be cheap games, but I'm definitely hoping the App Store community keeps a willingness to support higher price points for bigger budget games that are more likely to push the envelope of the iPhone becoming a legitimate portable gaming console.
I'm particularly interested to see what Rockstar is going to do with Grand Theft Auto Chinatown Wars on the iPhone. It was just released at $40 on the PSP so it's hard to see it being in the single dollar digits for the iPhone. I'm thinking they may release part the game at $10 and the rest as DLC, maybe divided by islands with bridges severed as is traditional in GTA. Certainly, given the detail and gameplay available in even one island of Chinatown Wars, a $10 chunk of Chinatown Wars would compare favorably to existing games on the iPhone. In any case, I'm looking to Rockstar to be able to provide the content and quality to justify higher prices than have traditionally been the case of App Store apps. I'm not looking to pay more for less, but I'm certainly hoping developers would offer more for people willing to pay for it.
The word "embarassed" was AppleInsider's interpretation of John Carmack's words.
It can obviously be interpreted many ways, but I read it as Apple doesn't want the iPhone to be primarily known as a gaming device that is also a phone and media player. Apple would probably want the iPhone to be known more as the first of a new type of universal, truly mobile computer device that can cohesively integrate computer productivity, entertainment, and communication functionality. As such, having a disproportionally large number of games in the App Store could compromise the broader iPhone vision.
I think that's a very good interpretation.
It's instructive to remember that when the Macintosh first came out people called it a toy. Steve Jobs was so insulted that he spent the next 25 years trying to get people to take his products seriously. Games are too close to "toys" for him to truly open his heart to them.
Had Steve taken that initial jab and said "fine, then I'll make Macintosh the best entertainment device the world has ever seen", things would have turned out very differently.
I think that's a very good interpretation.
It's instructive to remember that when the Macintosh first came out people called it a toy. Steve Jobs was so insulted that he spent the next 25 years trying to get people to take his products seriously. Games are too close to "toys" for him to truly open his heart to them.
Had Steve taken that initial jab and said "fine, then I'll make Macintosh the best entertainment device the world has ever seen", things would have turned out very differently.
Then how do you explain his "toying" of the Touch?
Microsoft became the largest and most powerful in business and then years later became the most powerful in gaming. So the business market had already been secured.
Also if Apple really wanted to make a real attempt to get into business they could start by trying to make a decent office suite instead of iworks. While Pages and keynote are good numbers is beyond sad and to date nothing comes close to competing with Excel.
Not mention most large companies still like desktop systems not AIO or really overpriced notebooks.
Back in the 80s, Apple was dismissed as a manufacturer of toys. The reason: The Apple II was the best gaming platform of the day and the Macintosh had all those funny icons, while the serious business machines were being made by IBM with the business like command line interface and greed monchrome displays. Apple downplayed gaming on the Mac because they wanted to be taken seriously by the business market. It didn't work, but the Mac was forever hobbled as a gaming platform.
I don't think that Apple will repeat the mistake with the iphone. Its a cool device and already has a music play built in. Apple recognizes that it can be both a cool music player/game console and a serious business machine. Why not? Microsoft became a favourite for gamers after their business reputation was cemented.
I could see a Doom classic or even a version of Quake on the iPhone but I have no clue how they are going to make an iPhone version of Rage that even remotely looks like Rage.
http://www.rage-game.com/home.action
Wow... Off topic, but the only way that game could be any more like "Half-Life 2" would be for there to be G men.
It looks like Carmack *really* wished he had made that game.
Microsoft became the largest and most powerful in business and then years later became the most powerful in gaming. So the business market had already been secured.
Also if Apple really wanted to make a real attempt to get into business they could start by trying to make a decent office suite instead of iworks. While Pages and keynote are good numbers is beyond sad and to date nothing comes close to competing with Excel.
Not mention most large companies still like desktop systems not AIO or really overpriced notebooks.
I basically agree with what you say here. I guess the point I was trying to make with MS wasn't so much what they did first, but that they are both in businesses and in games and that doesn't seem to bother corp. IT weenies. Ironic, isn't it, that many IT types call the Mac a 'toy' yet it's Windows that has more toy-like things (namely games), not to mention the Fisher-Price interface of XP.
I think the latest iWork suite competes very favorably to MS Office. The only app still in need of tweaking is Numbers, but in one respect it thrashes Excel - charts & layout. The image quality of page layout (especially noticeable in charts) in Numbers puts Excel to absolute shame. I always use Numbers now when I'm generating tables and charts that will go into company presentations. The Numbers results are smooth, polished, 3-dimensional, professional looking layouts, but Excel results look like stick figures.
Yea, companies like traditional boring desktops. Sad, but true. There are legitimate reasons for not buying AIOs for sure. Our company keeps monitors until they die, but changes the computers every 3 years. You can also juggle monitor sizes, types, if they are separate. Mac minis are actually a great fit for most business purposes. Some companies are starting to see that. We've purchased 4 of them (out of 30 PCs). Hey, it's a start. One surprise - the Mac mini was ~$300 less than our standard corp. PC.
If Apple could just put even the slightest effort into the business computing market, they would get more traction and respect in that arena. And they don't need to be scared of games. Games won't deter businesses - it's Apple's lack of attention that deters businesses.
I think Apple is just sore that they missed such a huge market by ignoring 3D gamers all these years because they had this complex of trying to be taken seriously all the time.
Poor Apple, they built a all purpose device and let the free market and consumers dictate what it was going to be and now they are moaning because they are making tons of money and people just want to escape the pressures of life, the economy and lack of jobs etc, by killing time playing games.
Hello Apple! Your a (impulsive) luxury consumer products company.
You're Trippin'. The route Apple took (ignoring gamers) was the most profitable. They weren't going to build a line of computers for gamers, taking away R&D money and building systems for a limited group of people.
But the speculation of this story comes from a game developer's head. He has no facts to back it up - he just says he "thinks" Apple doesn't like the fact games are popular on the iPhone/iPod Touch. No moaning from Apple, no basis in fact. He's trippin' right along with you.
People get so boxed in!
Then how do you explain his "toying" of the Touch?
I think that's a recognition of the reality of the situation. The priority right now is to get the iPhone and iPod Touch into as many people's hands as possible to gain a large user base and maintain first mover momentum. If games are the way to do it, then so be it. Once the platform is in a more secure/stable position, then Apple can try to convince existing users of whatever broader vision they have for the platform.
And besides, Apple labels the iPod Touch as the funnest iPod ever. They advertise games since that just happens to be what's available. If they had integrated a camera in the Touch, they would probably still promote it as the funnest iPod ever, but instead demonstrate the ability to take quick, candid shots and edit them to share with friends and family all directly from an iPod.
That is just too rich. I suppose that OS X isn't a gaming platform either. OMG! What if those big gaming companies start optimizing their games for OS X over DirectX?
The horror!
I don't really know anything about Carmack. You say he's mature and credible, but common sense and all the visible evidence says that Apple is plenty happy with their success with gamers. I for one would like to see more proof that he's believable. Show me some evidence from Apple itself that it's opposed to gaming.
John Carmack is really the godfather of 3D video games. The entire industry was influenced by him and some of his colleague programmers back in the early and mid nineties. This guy is the real deal. The video game industry looks the way it does in part to this guy.
It's just something in internally Apple that does not want to see their products as "toys". It is well documented from the past that Carmack has tried speaking about with Apple in the past about gaming and then following up with Apple people some time later only to see nothing progressed.
It is my opinion that Apple has never had games on the priority list. I am a gamer and a mac user since 1984. Its just not part of "Apple" culture. something hard to understand since there is so much money in it. But then again Steve Jobs is not in it for the money.
I think that's a very good interpretation.
It's instructive to remember that when the Macintosh first came out people called it a toy. Steve Jobs was so insulted that he spent the next 25 years trying to get people to take his products seriously. Games are too close to "toys" for him to truly open his heart to them.
Had Steve taken that initial jab and said "fine, then I'll make Macintosh the best entertainment device the world has ever seen", things would have turned out very differently.
Very good point there about Steve Jobs. He is a master at many things but especially in the early days he wouldn't bend even when it might have been the right decision.
Wow... Off topic, but the only way that game could be any more like "Half-Life 2" would be for there to be G men.
It looks like Carmack *really* wished he had made that game.
Carmack has seen his day come and go. Valve blows away ID Software.
Carmack is a very intelligent guy, who is tremendously pragmatic and has few pets or favorites. He's not a vindictive turd, but rather a guy who has had so much success that he can speak his mind. If anything, he tends to be fairly reserved in his speech. Even when he's frustrated, he doesn't appear to try to blow things out of proportion. But he doesn't necessarily avoid treading on toes. The few times he's been critical of Apple, he's usually got his thumb right on it.
What he said...
Kind of moot, considering you can natively run Windows on Macs. Thus, you can indeed enjoy shooting all the same 3D aliens.
Really, gaming was the last genuine bastion of the anti-Mac crowd. Bit for bit, they lose on everything else (including value, and resale in particular). What do they have left?
It's not the same. I tried running WoW on my macbook through Bootcamp and while I did get much better framerates, it was still terrible in certain cities. Here's the catch: If I would have spent the money I spent on my macbook on a pc I would be running WoW at much better settings and higher framerates.
Then there are games that really would not do well at all unless you grabbed a mac pro which would be quite expensive.
80% of luxury sales are impulsive. This is a proven statistic.
The shiny screens on new Mac's and Apple Store locations are just further proof.
Impulsive sales occur at all stages of buying ability, it just happens more if it's less in price as more people can afford to be impulsive.
Most PC 3D gamers are interested in the least expensive, most expandable/customizable and most compatible software to play others online with.
Apple doesn't offer a sub $1000 expandable tower, thus few games and few graphic card upgrades. And also for the longest time Mac's didn't give up control of the hardware to game software like it did on Windows for the best performance. (Now Mac's can give up control of the OS to other OS's. It's a start)
So even if you got a cross platform 3D game, in the old days, on the Mac side it would run slower, because the OS didn't give up control of the hardware.
Of course this is all history now, as dedicated consoles 3D game much better and cheaper, look just as good as PC gaming. Lots of players online too.
And you get a up to 9 core and a BlueRay drive too in PS3's...
There are still games that play better with a mouse and keyboard though. Shooters and rpgs like Dragon Age:Origins are great examples. Also pc versions of games like Fallout 3 enjoy an endless amount of fun player-created mods you can add on for free.
But yes, consoles are much improved nowadays.
Just a quick response to this.. While its true that most gamers get a PC, I don't believe its for Mac's lack of ability to game (try call of duty 4 on an iMac and you'll see what I mean) It's because gaming companies generally don't make Mac versions of their games. The Mac computer market is only a fraction of the PC market, and a large majority of mac owners use the computers specifically for video editing, and recording music..
Good point but just part of the picture.