He released the Apple TV. I have physical proof that your sarcasm is meaningless.
Also the iMac design pretty much means that dangly boxes are part of the design language. Dangly box for DVD ripping/burning. Dangly box for any thunderbolt peripheral, etc.
I have maintained that AirPlay is the key piece to Apple's living room strategy...and of course that required an aTV at the moment.
Game console? iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch to aTV via airplay.
App store? iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch to aTV via airplay.
Content? Everyone wants to reach the mobile user and they can't afford to ignore the iPhone and iPad. They may require you to have a cable contract but once you have that most of the mobile content is enabled even if some are blocked from airplay.
There goes your "one remote" idea, out the window again. At least have a consistent vision.
One TV remote, yes, absolutely, that's the ideal. For games, however, a dedicated hardware games controller, with physical buttons, makes the most sense - that won't change no matter what setup you have. You're nitpicking. It's about making common sense, practical decisions when it comes to controllers.
Also the iMac design pretty much means that dangly boxes are part of the design language. Dangly box for DVD ripping/burning. Dangly box for any thunderbolt peripheral, etc.
Dangly boxes for the iMac are a stop-gap, because most people don't use them anymore.
Are you comparing an iMac, to a TV? That is not a strong argument.
Game console? iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch to aTV via airplay.
App store? iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch to aTV via airplay.
That is far from an ideal experience. You want to look at the TV when playing games on the TV, so AirPlay is really a game gimmick when it comes to this. If you think otherwise, you're fooling only yourself.
One TV remote, yes, absolutely, that's the ideal. For games, however, a dedicated hardware games controller, with physical buttons, makes the most sense - that won't change no matter what setup you have. You're nitpicking. It's about making common sense, practical decisions when it comes to controllers.
Oh and remote...iPhone or iPad.
There isn't a single piece of the living room that doesn't have an app to control it somewhere in the product line. TVs have apps for control. AV receivers have apps for control. Blu-Ray players have apps for control.
None of this requires Apple make a TV and if they do, it probably won't be all that special. A nice high end TV with a nice high end price and relatively modest market footprint. No bigger than say the Sony Bravia line.
My guess is that the TV itself will have little smarts and just the ability to natively do airplay and switch between inputs. All the "smart TV" functionality will be resident in the paired iOS device...so when the TV apps need 512MB RAM and more CPU horsepower all you need is a current gen iOS device for you to have the most up to date "Apple TV".
For a $2500+ TV they can toss in an iPad Mini as part of the package.
For games, however, a dedicated hardware games controller, with physical buttons, makes the most sense - that won't change no matter what setup you have. You're nitpicking.
NITPICKING?! You demand an "all in one" system, you demand one remote, you demand a "full" app store instead of one that would actually make sense for the device itself, and then you throw the demands of your entire setup RIGHT OUT THE WINDOW by saying customers will need to go buy a* third party (YES, THIRD PARTY, BECAUSE DO YOU REALLY SEE APPLE MAKING A VIDEO GAME CONTROLLER, NOT TO MENTION ONE WITH PHYSICAL BUTTONS, GOING IN DIRECT CONTRAST TO THE CONCEPTS SPEARHEADED BY THE CREATION OF THE IPHONE AND FORCIBLY LIMITING GAMES ON THE DEVICE TO THE CAPABILITIES OF SAID CONTROLLER) controlling device just to use some of the apps designed for the television, despite having a perfectly capable and far more versatile first-party system already in place in the form of every other iOS device.
That's not nitpicking. That's seeing a giant hole in the ground that is surrounded by those orange and white striped traffic cones and a couple of cops who say, "There is no hole in the ground. Please do not walk through the cordoned off area."
You talk of "the ultimate simplicity" and yet willingly ignore this for the sake of putting specialized software where it doesn't need to be and forcing the creation of specialized hardware whose existence undermines "simplicity".
I cannot be the only one that sees this!
I would FAR rather have a TV of my choosing, an Apple TV box connected to it, a Channel Store, where I can buy access to live aired television shows (or entire channels) a la carte, breaking the decades-old TV stranglehold, one remote—an Apple Remote—modified to include only THREE more buttons (power, volume up+down) to allow it to control both the TV—whatever model—and Apple TV box, and use my iOS device and AirPlay for every other conceivable application that I'd want on a television screen. Note the name of the device: Apple… TEE-VEE.
Sounds a lot better than a TV that costs twice as much, is supported half as long, has the same old subscription-based television content, is itself SUBSIDIZED by paying for said content (meaning the content is raised in price from the current solutions, simply because you own this specific TV), has an app store meant for "everything", regardless of how well some of said apps can, would, or should be used in a television format and when restricted to the buttons of the television remote, and then forced to buy one or more third party "controllers" with hardware buttons to play any games at all and told that this is "simplicity".
I can sum up my vision for a non-hobby Apple TV thus: Exactly the TV content you want, exactly the way you want it. And upgrades are $99.
I can sum up yours thus: The same old TV content in a shiny, new case. And upgrades are $2,000.
*"a controller", used lightly, in contrast to multiple controllers—plural—which would be created/needed for the reasons following in parentheses.
Originally Posted by Ireland
That is far from an ideal experience. You want to look at the TV when playing games on the TV, so AirPlay is really a game gimmick when it comes to this. If you think otherwise, you're fooling only yourself.
You're just blind, is all. That you cannot even fathom the concept of being able to control something without looking at it shows that you have zero experience with touchscreens whatsoever.
That is far from an ideal experience. You want to look at the TV when playing games on the TV, so AirPlay is really a game gimmick when it comes to this. If you think otherwise, you're fooling only yourself.
Which is why the WiiU has a tablet for a primary controller? You look at the TV for playing and the iOS device to see how much ammo you have or access your backpack or or choose the next play or whatever.
Hardware controls?
With Bluetooth you could use any controller to connect to the iOS device. It just requires Apple to add BT game controller support into the core APIs.
There's no reason that the iPad 4 can't be the heart of the Apple living room gaming experience. If you think otherwise you're simply incapable of thinking outside the box (and not very outside at that). It's not XBox/PS3 level but better than the Wii.
Which is why the WiiU has a tablet for a primary controller?
Who said the Wii U was a good idea? The Wii itself was a much better idea. They should have made a better Wii, made it black instead of white and called it Wii HD. Just one man's opinion.
Who said the Wii U was a good idea? The Wii itself was a much better idea. They should have made a better Wii, made it black instead of white and called it Wii HD. Just one man's opinion.
While there are many games that don't use the WiiU display area effectively you can see that when done well it provides for better game play options.
Apple has the advantage in that there are many iOS devices in the household that it can leverage for the same thing. In any case, by keeping the brains of the living room on the iOS device that Apple wants you to buy every 2 years anyway addresses the criticism that any Apple branded TV becomes obsolete at the same rate as iPhones (very quickly).
If you put the CPU into the TV as you insist then that continues to be a significant problem that you always fail to address.
Oh, come now. We've had an intelligent discussion until now; no need to drop to this.
I "get" that Nintendo is choosing to stick with the proprietary console hardware game in this time of surging tablet growth. I respect that; it's what Apple would (and did) do. They're doing something else brand new with the creation of the WiiU controller, and I laud them for that, as well. Time will tell how well the experiment works, but they have a history of wildly successful "experiments" on their side.
I particularly like that all other controls are just done with Wii Remotes, so everything's forward compatible. Additionally, as they did with the Wii, the last generation device's games will play on the new console. Really I would have only changed one thing about the WiiU. Were it to upconvert Wii games to 1080p, they would sell a WiiU for every Wii sold. I'll never understand why they didn't put the effort in the emulator to actually do that. Particularly when I can already run Wii games at higher than 1080p on my computer in a fan-made emulator thereof!
Would I like to see Nintendo properties get their own games on iOS? Yes, that would be nice. They'd also be ludicrously successful there, to the detriment of Nintendo's hardware (and hardware-specific software) sales. But they lose the control that has served them so well in the past. Apple wouldn't cave on that, and I respect Nintendo for doing the same.
Oh, come now. We've had an intelligent discussion until now; no need to drop to this.
Talk about melodramatic. You said I didn't "get" games, I found that insulting. No doubt you think you're right where I'm wrong, but I believe you're the one who can't see the forest for the trees. But that's just my opinion.
I "get" that Nintendo is choosing to stick with the proprietary console hardware game in this time of surging tablet growth. I respect that; it's what Apple would (and did) do. They're doing something else brand new with the creation of the WiiU controller, and I laud them for that, as well.
Yes, they should be lauded, but that doesn't make it a good product, which in the end is the only thing that actually matters. Besides, they are clearly trying to ape the iPad, but are putting what they believe is a clever spin on in. The Wii was a revolution, this product, the Wii U, is not. They should have made a better Wii, I believe they've made a worse one, by focusing on the wrong things (I'm aware you're going to disagree).
A controller with a 4 hour battery life? On what planet could that be called a good idea?
People loved the Wii, but the one complaint they had about it was graphics. If Nintendo had focused solely on graphics and power, while staying through to the original, without the distraction of this poor man's, Playskool, iPad knock-off, I believe they would have created a product a lot more people would be interested in: Wii HD. Which for marketing purposes, I'd call: Wii 2.
Would I like to see Nintendo properties get their own games on iOS? Yes, that would be nice. They'd also be ludicrously successful there, to the detriment of Nintendo's hardware (and hardware-specific software) sales. But they lose the control that has served them so well in the past. Apple wouldn't cave on that, and I respect Nintendo for doing the same.
That's all lovely. Here's your moral medal. I am dumbfounded why you feel it necessary to make this comment no one would disagree with.
Hardly. They'd be making a handheld console for that, likely with physical buttons. This is their attempt to ride forth the tablet bandwagon in a way that is different from any other.
The Wii was a revolution, this product, the Wii U, is not.
Why? Why is that?
They should have made a better Wii…
They. Did. I don't get how you don't get that. The specs are in every single way improved. It's more powerful than any current-generation console, and it runs all Wii games.
People loved the Wii, but the one complaint they had about it was graphics. If Nintendo had focused solely on graphics and power, while staying through to the original, without the distraction of this poor man's, Playskool, iPad knock-off, I believe they would have created a product a lot more people would be interested in: Wii HD. Which for marketing purposes, I'd call: Wii 2.
Wow. Yes, I was right; you don't get games at all. You claim the Wii was a revolution and yet you don't have a FRICKING CLUE why that was. You don't have the merestinkling of what it represented to their industry as a whole, not just in video game UX.
The Wii showed developers, it showed competitors, and it proved to Nintendo themselves that Graphics. Don't. Matter. The experience matters. Sounds a little familiar to me. Wonder what parallels we can draw here. OH YEAH. Apple products. They ain't the fastest fruit in the knife, and they ain't the cheapest barrels in the drawer, but darn if they aren't the single best product with the single best experience available, proven time and again by user retention and satisfaction records.
Whyzzat, though? The Wii, that is. Well, Nintendo had the best software. Not just the way their software was written, but the intellectual properties therein. The Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, Metroid, Pokémon, Kirby, and the rest of their franchises. This is time-tested stuff that people love. That's step one. Not hardware. You can have the fastest hardware in the world. No one will buy it if you don't have desirable games. Step two, something that no one else seems to take, is making innovation. People laughed at the Wii controller when it was introduced. And yet the Wii is the most popular console of this generation by a large margin.
Know how else I know Nintendo is right? Everyone else pulled a Microsoft and abandoned their original controllers to copy it. Not just Kinect and Move, no. The Wii Remote was revealed a month before E3 2007. I'll never understand why they didn't pull an Apple and keep it secret, but they didn't. At E3, one month later, Sony had changed its PS3 controller from the boomerang design (yes, that was STILL going to be the design) to… the exact same controller as before, "but we have motion controls in it!" And they didn't really work.
But let's talk about hardware now, too. The Wii is the "slowest" of the three consoles, but it's also the one that was released with an actual plan for the future. The Wii changed games forever. Sounds a lot like a phone that came out around the same time. The Xbox 360? Just a faster Xbox. The PlayStation 3? Just a faster PS2 that cost hundreds more. And yet people bought the Wii. The Wii, capable of 480p with terrible anti-aliasing (if you put it on a larger resolution). They bought it because of how it controlled. The UX. JUST like Apple. Apple doesn't have the fastest computers, but they have the best experience using them. And with the way the software is written, they BECOME the fastest computers when actually used. Nintendo proved to the video game console industry what Apple proved to the computer industry once, twice, three times over: that graphics (speed) don't (doesn't) matter when you make the UX welcoming.
You. Don't. Get. This. This is on par with the idiots that (STILL) slam the iPhone for not having a MicroSD slot or a removable battery. YOU DON'T GET IT. PERIOD. You don't have a clue. You're looking for Carmen Sandiego, but she got married and lives in Boca Raton with her husband and two kids. In 1998!
And your lack of understanding here is a perfect mirror for the topic of the thread, which we've fallen away from somewhat: you don't have a clue about what would make a truly revolutionary television. Just as you want exactly what is wrong for the Wii, exactly what the Wii is supposed to completely destroy the "need" for, you want exactly what is wrong with television combined with exactly what software doesn't work natively on a television.
Originally Posted by Ireland
I am dumbfounded why you feel it necessary to make this comment no one would disagree with.
You truly are blind. "No one" would disagree with it? Thousands do. I made the direct assumption that you did, given your lack of understanding about why Nintendo has done what it did. It was the only explanation I could envision for you not understanding their way of working. Now I'm just completely gobsmacked. Plenty of people want Nintendo to get out of the hardware game, simply because they're "bleeding money" on hardware and could make a lot more on iOS devices. Again, that's like saying Apple should get out of the hardware game, simply because they're "bleeding marketshare" and could have considerably more by licensing.
I agree it will be all about services not hardwear. They could have made a normal TV years ago. My guess is they are working on software and partner agreements to offer TV in an entirely new way. I envision a system akin to itunes where you can watch what you want when you want, and only pay for what you want. I know PVR can sort of accomplish some of this but imagine subscribing to actual shows, instead of channels. You can do it online for free the following day through network websites but they are a day late, awkward, and slow.
I think in five years ordering a cable package and looking at the schedule will seem as silly as going to a CD shop and listening to samples before deciding what album to buy.
Think of the parelles with music. There was a time when is was not only free (albeit stolen), but more convenient to illegally download music. I would say the same for TV shows today. Apple made legal downloading of music better for a reasonable efficient fee. Can they do the same for TV?
I agree it will be all about services not hardwear. They could have made a normal TV years ago. My guess is they are working on software and partner agreements to offer TV in an entirely new way. I envision a system akin to itunes where you can watch what you want when you want, and only pay for what you want. I know PVR can sort of accomplish some of this but imagine subscribing to actual shows, instead of channels. You can do it online for free the following day through network websites but they are a day late, awkward, and slow.
I think in five years ordering a cable package and looking at the schedule will seem as silly as going to a CD shop and listening to samples before deciding what album to buy.
Think of the parelles with music. There was a time when is was not only free (albeit stolen), but more convenient to illegally download music. I would say the same for TV shows today. Apple made legal downloading of music better for a reasonable efficient fee. Can they do the same for TV?
I agree with you on the hardware. It will not be all about hardware. It will be about what Apple does best....the user experience.
Channel store! Right now I get about 300 channels on my cable bundle. I probably have watched maybe 15 at some point....all the others are pretty useless to me and just take up time channel surfing. Pretty boring stuff...wasting time. But what I would love to see is Apple do something like a subscription service for just the channels you want. That service would have the basic network channels ABC, CBS, NBC...any geographically local channels. Now via something like iTunes for music (what that really is is still to be determined) I can choose exactly what channels i get and what i want to pay for. Then i can choose exactly what order they show on my new Apple remote to go along with my new Apple TV. That would be a tru;y gratifying TV experience for me......just what I want just the way I want it!
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I've found references at least as far back as 2008, so 5 years is probably about right
Easily 2006.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/06/11/02/apple_wont_sell_tvs_alongside_itv_set_top_box___analyst
Everyone from back then will also remember Rolo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
He released the Apple TV. I have physical proof that your sarcasm is meaningless.
Also the iMac design pretty much means that dangly boxes are part of the design language. Dangly box for DVD ripping/burning. Dangly box for any thunderbolt peripheral, etc.
I have maintained that AirPlay is the key piece to Apple's living room strategy...and of course that required an aTV at the moment.
Game console? iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch to aTV via airplay.
App store? iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch to aTV via airplay.
Content? Everyone wants to reach the mobile user and they can't afford to ignore the iPhone and iPad. They may require you to have a cable contract but once you have that most of the mobile content is enabled even if some are blocked from airplay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
There goes your "one remote" idea, out the window again. At least have a consistent vision.
One TV remote, yes, absolutely, that's the ideal. For games, however, a dedicated hardware games controller, with physical buttons, makes the most sense - that won't change no matter what setup you have. You're nitpicking. It's about making common sense, practical decisions when it comes to controllers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Also the iMac design pretty much means that dangly boxes are part of the design language. Dangly box for DVD ripping/burning. Dangly box for any thunderbolt peripheral, etc.
Dangly boxes for the iMac are a stop-gap, because most people don't use them anymore.
Are you comparing an iMac, to a TV? That is not a strong argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Game console? iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch to aTV via airplay.
App store? iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch to aTV via airplay.
That is far from an ideal experience. You want to look at the TV when playing games on the TV, so AirPlay is really a game gimmick when it comes to this. If you think otherwise, you're fooling only yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
One TV remote, yes, absolutely, that's the ideal. For games, however, a dedicated hardware games controller, with physical buttons, makes the most sense - that won't change no matter what setup you have. You're nitpicking. It's about making common sense, practical decisions when it comes to controllers.
Oh and remote...iPhone or iPad.
There isn't a single piece of the living room that doesn't have an app to control it somewhere in the product line. TVs have apps for control. AV receivers have apps for control. Blu-Ray players have apps for control.
None of this requires Apple make a TV and if they do, it probably won't be all that special. A nice high end TV with a nice high end price and relatively modest market footprint. No bigger than say the Sony Bravia line.
My guess is that the TV itself will have little smarts and just the ability to natively do airplay and switch between inputs. All the "smart TV" functionality will be resident in the paired iOS device...so when the TV apps need 512MB RAM and more CPU horsepower all you need is a current gen iOS device for you to have the most up to date "Apple TV".
For a $2500+ TV they can toss in an iPad Mini as part of the package.
Originally Posted by Ireland
For games, however, a dedicated hardware games controller, with physical buttons, makes the most sense - that won't change no matter what setup you have. You're nitpicking.
NITPICKING?! You demand an "all in one" system, you demand one remote, you demand a "full" app store instead of one that would actually make sense for the device itself, and then you throw the demands of your entire setup RIGHT OUT THE WINDOW by saying customers will need to go buy a* third party (YES, THIRD PARTY, BECAUSE DO YOU REALLY SEE APPLE MAKING A VIDEO GAME CONTROLLER, NOT TO MENTION ONE WITH PHYSICAL BUTTONS, GOING IN DIRECT CONTRAST TO THE CONCEPTS SPEARHEADED BY THE CREATION OF THE IPHONE AND FORCIBLY LIMITING GAMES ON THE DEVICE TO THE CAPABILITIES OF SAID CONTROLLER) controlling device just to use some of the apps designed for the television, despite having a perfectly capable and far more versatile first-party system already in place in the form of every other iOS device.
That's not nitpicking. That's seeing a giant hole in the ground that is surrounded by those orange and white striped traffic cones and a couple of cops who say, "There is no hole in the ground. Please do not walk through the cordoned off area."
You talk of "the ultimate simplicity" and yet willingly ignore this for the sake of putting specialized software where it doesn't need to be and forcing the creation of specialized hardware whose existence undermines "simplicity".
I cannot be the only one that sees this!
I would FAR rather have a TV of my choosing, an Apple TV box connected to it, a Channel Store, where I can buy access to live aired television shows (or entire channels) a la carte, breaking the decades-old TV stranglehold, one remote—an Apple Remote—modified to include only THREE more buttons (power, volume up+down) to allow it to control both the TV—whatever model—and Apple TV box, and use my iOS device and AirPlay for every other conceivable application that I'd want on a television screen. Note the name of the device: Apple… TEE-VEE.
Sounds a lot better than a TV that costs twice as much, is supported half as long, has the same old subscription-based television content, is itself SUBSIDIZED by paying for said content (meaning the content is raised in price from the current solutions, simply because you own this specific TV), has an app store meant for "everything", regardless of how well some of said apps can, would, or should be used in a television format and when restricted to the buttons of the television remote, and then forced to buy one or more third party "controllers" with hardware buttons to play any games at all and told that this is "simplicity".
I can sum up my vision for a non-hobby Apple TV thus: Exactly the TV content you want, exactly the way you want it. And upgrades are $99.
I can sum up yours thus: The same old TV content in a shiny, new case. And upgrades are $2,000.
*"a controller", used lightly, in contrast to multiple controllers—plural—which would be created/needed for the reasons following in parentheses.
Originally Posted by Ireland
That is far from an ideal experience. You want to look at the TV when playing games on the TV, so AirPlay is really a game gimmick when it comes to this. If you think otherwise, you're fooling only yourself.
You're just blind, is all. That you cannot even fathom the concept of being able to control something without looking at it shows that you have zero experience with touchscreens whatsoever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
That is far from an ideal experience. You want to look at the TV when playing games on the TV, so AirPlay is really a game gimmick when it comes to this. If you think otherwise, you're fooling only yourself.
Which is why the WiiU has a tablet for a primary controller? You look at the TV for playing and the iOS device to see how much ammo you have or access your backpack or or choose the next play or whatever.
Hardware controls?
With Bluetooth you could use any controller to connect to the iOS device. It just requires Apple to add BT game controller support into the core APIs.
There's no reason that the iPad 4 can't be the heart of the Apple living room gaming experience. If you think otherwise you're simply incapable of thinking outside the box (and not very outside at that). It's not XBox/PS3 level but better than the Wii.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Which is why the WiiU has a tablet for a primary controller?
Who said the Wii U was a good idea? The Wii itself was a much better idea. They should have made a better Wii, made it black instead of white and called it Wii HD. Just one man's opinion.
Originally Posted by Ireland
They should have made a better Wii, made it black instead of white and called it Wii HD.
For someone talking so much about games and how they require dedicated whatever, you sure don't seem to "get" games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
For someone talking so much about games and how they require dedicated whatever, you sure don't seem to "get" games.
Yeah, because you do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
Who said the Wii U was a good idea? The Wii itself was a much better idea. They should have made a better Wii, made it black instead of white and called it Wii HD. Just one man's opinion.
While there are many games that don't use the WiiU display area effectively you can see that when done well it provides for better game play options.
Apple has the advantage in that there are many iOS devices in the household that it can leverage for the same thing. In any case, by keeping the brains of the living room on the iOS device that Apple wants you to buy every 2 years anyway addresses the criticism that any Apple branded TV becomes obsolete at the same rate as iPhones (very quickly).
If you put the CPU into the TV as you insist then that continues to be a significant problem that you always fail to address.
Originally Posted by Ireland
Yeah, because you do.
Oh, come now. We've had an intelligent discussion until now; no need to drop to this.
I "get" that Nintendo is choosing to stick with the proprietary console hardware game in this time of surging tablet growth. I respect that; it's what Apple would (and did) do. They're doing something else brand new with the creation of the WiiU controller, and I laud them for that, as well. Time will tell how well the experiment works, but they have a history of wildly successful "experiments" on their side.
I particularly like that all other controls are just done with Wii Remotes, so everything's forward compatible. Additionally, as they did with the Wii, the last generation device's games will play on the new console. Really I would have only changed one thing about the WiiU. Were it to upconvert Wii games to 1080p, they would sell a WiiU for every Wii sold. I'll never understand why they didn't put the effort in the emulator to actually do that. Particularly when I can already run Wii games at higher than 1080p on my computer in a fan-made emulator thereof!
Would I like to see Nintendo properties get their own games on iOS? Yes, that would be nice. They'd also be ludicrously successful there, to the detriment of Nintendo's hardware (and hardware-specific software) sales. But they lose the control that has served them so well in the past. Apple wouldn't cave on that, and I respect Nintendo for doing the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Oh, come now. We've had an intelligent discussion until now; no need to drop to this.
Talk about melodramatic. You said I didn't "get" games, I found that insulting. No doubt you think you're right where I'm wrong, but I believe you're the one who can't see the forest for the trees. But that's just my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I "get" that Nintendo is choosing to stick with the proprietary console hardware game in this time of surging tablet growth. I respect that; it's what Apple would (and did) do. They're doing something else brand new with the creation of the WiiU controller, and I laud them for that, as well.
Yes, they should be lauded, but that doesn't make it a good product, which in the end is the only thing that actually matters. Besides, they are clearly trying to ape the iPad, but are putting what they believe is a clever spin on in. The Wii was a revolution, this product, the Wii U, is not. They should have made a better Wii, I believe they've made a worse one, by focusing on the wrong things (I'm aware you're going to disagree).
A controller with a 4 hour battery life? On what planet could that be called a good idea?
People loved the Wii, but the one complaint they had about it was graphics. If Nintendo had focused solely on graphics and power, while staying through to the original, without the distraction of this poor man's, Playskool, iPad knock-off, I believe they would have created a product a lot more people would be interested in: Wii HD. Which for marketing purposes, I'd call: Wii 2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Would I like to see Nintendo properties get their own games on iOS? Yes, that would be nice. They'd also be ludicrously successful there, to the detriment of Nintendo's hardware (and hardware-specific software) sales. But they lose the control that has served them so well in the past. Apple wouldn't cave on that, and I respect Nintendo for doing the same.
That's all lovely. Here's your moral medal. I am dumbfounded why you feel it necessary to make this comment no one would disagree with.
Originally Posted by Ireland
Besides, they are clearly trying to ape the iPad…
Hardly. They'd be making a handheld console for that, likely with physical buttons. This is their attempt to ride forth the tablet bandwagon in a way that is different from any other.
The Wii was a revolution, this product, the Wii U, is not.
Why? Why is that?
They should have made a better Wii…
They. Did. I don't get how you don't get that. The specs are in every single way improved. It's more powerful than any current-generation console, and it runs all Wii games.
People loved the Wii, but the one complaint they had about it was graphics. If Nintendo had focused solely on graphics and power, while staying through to the original, without the distraction of this poor man's, Playskool, iPad knock-off, I believe they would have created a product a lot more people would be interested in: Wii HD. Which for marketing purposes, I'd call: Wii 2.
Wow. Yes, I was right; you don't get games at all. You claim the Wii was a revolution and yet you don't have a FRICKING CLUE why that was. You don't have the merest inkling of what it represented to their industry as a whole, not just in video game UX.
The Wii showed developers, it showed competitors, and it proved to Nintendo themselves that Graphics. Don't. Matter. The experience matters. Sounds a little familiar to me. Wonder what parallels we can draw here. OH YEAH. Apple products. They ain't the fastest fruit in the knife, and they ain't the cheapest barrels in the drawer, but darn if they aren't the single best product with the single best experience available, proven time and again by user retention and satisfaction records.
Whyzzat, though? The Wii, that is. Well, Nintendo had the best software. Not just the way their software was written, but the intellectual properties therein. The Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, Metroid, Pokémon, Kirby, and the rest of their franchises. This is time-tested stuff that people love. That's step one. Not hardware. You can have the fastest hardware in the world. No one will buy it if you don't have desirable games. Step two, something that no one else seems to take, is making innovation. People laughed at the Wii controller when it was introduced. And yet the Wii is the most popular console of this generation by a large margin.
Know how else I know Nintendo is right? Everyone else pulled a Microsoft and abandoned their original controllers to copy it. Not just Kinect and Move, no. The Wii Remote was revealed a month before E3 2007. I'll never understand why they didn't pull an Apple and keep it secret, but they didn't. At E3, one month later, Sony had changed its PS3 controller from the boomerang design (yes, that was STILL going to be the design) to… the exact same controller as before, "but we have motion controls in it!" And they didn't really work.
But let's talk about hardware now, too. The Wii is the "slowest" of the three consoles, but it's also the one that was released with an actual plan for the future. The Wii changed games forever. Sounds a lot like a phone that came out around the same time. The Xbox 360? Just a faster Xbox. The PlayStation 3? Just a faster PS2 that cost hundreds more. And yet people bought the Wii. The Wii, capable of 480p with terrible anti-aliasing (if you put it on a larger resolution). They bought it because of how it controlled. The UX. JUST like Apple. Apple doesn't have the fastest computers, but they have the best experience using them. And with the way the software is written, they BECOME the fastest computers when actually used. Nintendo proved to the video game console industry what Apple proved to the computer industry once, twice, three times over: that graphics (speed) don't (doesn't) matter when you make the UX welcoming.
You. Don't. Get. This. This is on par with the idiots that (STILL) slam the iPhone for not having a MicroSD slot or a removable battery. YOU DON'T GET IT. PERIOD. You don't have a clue. You're looking for Carmen Sandiego, but she got married and lives in Boca Raton with her husband and two kids. In 1998!
And your lack of understanding here is a perfect mirror for the topic of the thread, which we've fallen away from somewhat: you don't have a clue about what would make a truly revolutionary television. Just as you want exactly what is wrong for the Wii, exactly what the Wii is supposed to completely destroy the "need" for, you want exactly what is wrong with television combined with exactly what software doesn't work natively on a television.
Originally Posted by Ireland
I am dumbfounded why you feel it necessary to make this comment no one would disagree with.
You truly are blind. "No one" would disagree with it? Thousands do. I made the direct assumption that you did, given your lack of understanding about why Nintendo has done what it did. It was the only explanation I could envision for you not understanding their way of working. Now I'm just completely gobsmacked. Plenty of people want Nintendo to get out of the hardware game, simply because they're "bleeding money" on hardware and could make a lot more on iOS devices. Again, that's like saying Apple should get out of the hardware game, simply because they're "bleeding marketshare" and could have considerably more by licensing.
Ok. Let's wait and see.
I agree it will be all about services not hardwear. They could have made a normal TV years ago. My guess is they are working on software and partner agreements to offer TV in an entirely new way. I envision a system akin to itunes where you can watch what you want when you want, and only pay for what you want. I know PVR can sort of accomplish some of this but imagine subscribing to actual shows, instead of channels. You can do it online for free the following day through network websites but they are a day late, awkward, and slow.
I think in five years ordering a cable package and looking at the schedule will seem as silly as going to a CD shop and listening to samples before deciding what album to buy.
Think of the parelles with music. There was a time when is was not only free (albeit stolen), but more convenient to illegally download music. I would say the same for TV shows today. Apple made legal downloading of music better for a reasonable efficient fee. Can they do the same for TV?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcnorth
I agree it will be all about services not hardwear. They could have made a normal TV years ago. My guess is they are working on software and partner agreements to offer TV in an entirely new way. I envision a system akin to itunes where you can watch what you want when you want, and only pay for what you want. I know PVR can sort of accomplish some of this but imagine subscribing to actual shows, instead of channels. You can do it online for free the following day through network websites but they are a day late, awkward, and slow.
I think in five years ordering a cable package and looking at the schedule will seem as silly as going to a CD shop and listening to samples before deciding what album to buy.
Think of the parelles with music. There was a time when is was not only free (albeit stolen), but more convenient to illegally download music. I would say the same for TV shows today. Apple made legal downloading of music better for a reasonable efficient fee. Can they do the same for TV?
I agree with you on the hardware. It will not be all about hardware. It will be about what Apple does best....the user experience.
Channel store! Right now I get about 300 channels on my cable bundle. I probably have watched maybe 15 at some point....all the others are pretty useless to me and just take up time channel surfing. Pretty boring stuff...wasting time. But what I would love to see is Apple do something like a subscription service for just the channels you want. That service would have the basic network channels ABC, CBS, NBC...any geographically local channels. Now via something like iTunes for music (what that really is is still to be determined) I can choose exactly what channels i get and what i want to pay for. Then i can choose exactly what order they show on my new Apple remote to go along with my new Apple TV. That would be a tru;y gratifying TV experience for me......just what I want just the way I want it!