Have you ever noticed "this app is compatible with all of your devices" or "this app is not compatible" or whatever if you search from the desktop? In fact if you search apps from your Android device itself you shouldn't even be offered apps that aren't compatible with it.
No I have never seen anything to that effect, nor do other users, and there is absolutely nothing stopping me from installing titles that will NEVER work on my devices.
Cherry-picking negative reviews makes me sad. Every developer gets them, even for the best apps. As an app developer they make me simultaneously frustrated and glad that I can't reply to them.
I'd prefer to see some statistics on what percentage of reviews are negative or some reporting of the game's overall score on each platform. You could argue that Android users will rate apps more generously because they don't have access to iOS-quality apps but a broken experience is a one-star rating on any platform.
I don't understand where people get the nerve to say it doesn't need more ram as if that isn't going to be a benefit with zero downside. What proof do you have it doesn't need more ram.
No one is saying this.
What also makes me laugh is people talking about how Apple TV is going to kill the PS4 or Xbox One.
Nor this. I don’t get why people even want the Apple TV to have its own games. That would require the product to be completely redesigned from what it is. We already have our gaming hardware: iPad/iPhone/iPod touch. Stream to a TV through an Apple TV.
And yes, that hardware will be comparable to this generation of consoles next year.
With the latest iOS upgrade it can even mirror iOS devices anymore.
Huh?
…kotaku…
How to make people not care about the argument you’re trying to present.
The dedicated console gaming market isn't going anywhere. That is a market that is safe, for the moment. The Wii market is dead, but the PS4/Xbox market is safe. It's not just about cost, it's about the ecosystem. Sony and Microsoft simply have the ecosystems to draw people, and they have the market to get the big games.
Newer titles are in the 20-50GB range, you really think people will play those on an Apple TV? With iffy to nonexistant controllers?
It's just like how the iOS devices were supposed to kill portable game consoles, yet the 3DS continues to sell very well. Buttons, in that case, make a big difference.
Personally I've been waiting for more titles to take advantage of the A7 and A8. I have yet to be blown away by any new game.
Any bets the AppleTV will look and do pretty much the same in five years? A lot of people have been waiting for some things to happen with AppleTV (excluding Gene Munster here, but regular consumers).
All Apple has been able to do in the years ATV came out is add a lot of buttons for channels that a lot of people don't use.
ATV is just a Netflix device pretty much for most people. They need to open that puppy up and allow other channel apps that other TV devices have had for a long time.
Anyway, it seems iOS games will only be on portable devices. "Casual gaming" as Steve J (?) like to put it.
XBox and PS4 could/are being weakened by casual gaming on portable devices.
Nice choice of review for Goat Simulator, pure gold.
This article is spot on, Android's problem is "Software squandering expensive hardware." What the article doesn't mention is that Apple is heading down the same road with their switch from C to Swift, which sacrifices runtime performance to make life easier at coding time. In other words it puts the needs of the coder ahead of the needs of the user.
One of the primary advantages of Swift code is that it's execution is Fast. Faster executing than equivalent Objective-C or C code.
There were some tests run on the very early version of Swift which showed poor performance -- but that was on a Swift compiler that was optimized for debugging and not performance.
With each release of XCode6 betas, the Swift implementation has improved. Underlying Obj-C frameworks are being rewritten and optimized for Swift.
I haven't read any recent complaints about Swift performance ...
If you have any links supporting your assertion, please post them.
WWDC 2014: Swift Programming Language “Objective-C without the baggage of C”
Swift programming language is safe, fast, modern and interactive according to Craig Federighi
It is a new programming language for iOS and OS X development with new syntax
It is like scripting languages but unlike C, Swift lets you get straight to the point; however, Swift is compiled, using a compiler based on the LLVM project
Compared to Python, a complex object sort written in Swift ran 3.9 times faster, and RC4 encryption ran 220 times faster and it even ran faster than the same algorithms implemented in Objective-C.
It is object-oriented, but it also supports some functional programming styles. For example, the language also supports closures.
Identifiers can be composed of any Unicode characters – so you can name your variables in Chinese, for example, or even use symbols.
It is suitable for everything from short programs to entire operating systems.
Code written in both languages (Ojective-C and Swift) can be mixed and matched within the same program, and it is easy to migrate code from one language to the other.
The iOS devices will not be comparable to the Xbox One and PS4 next year. That's a pipe dream. It's simply a matter of resources. When Apple says "console level graphics" they mean PS3 and 360. A powerful ARM chip is not a match for eight core APU's with high end GPU's and 8GB of RAM. There is a benefit to all that hardware when the API's exist...
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">This article is spot on, Android's problem is "Software squandering expensive hardware." What the article doesn't mention is that Apple is heading down the same road with their switch from C to Swift, which sacrifices runtime performance to make life easier at coding time. In other words it puts the needs of the coder ahead of the needs of the user.</span>
Apple haven't switched from C to Swift, they've switched from Objective-C to Swift. Very few iOS developers write a significant amount of their code in C.
It hasn't been emphasized, but I believe that one of the long-term advantages of Swift is that it will allow system developers to write code that is closer to the iron ...
I suspect that the Apple Watch OS will take advantage of this -- especially in the access, storage, manipulation and display of data -- first with the required iPhone -- but eventually as a standalone device.
After all, access to Data is what it's really all about -- everything else is just [necessary] details ...
And for tower defense game "Defenders," which appears to get lots of enthusiastic reviews from Android blogs, a player complains, "Performance issue. The graphics are awesome but I am having serious lags here .. don't know why .. I got 1G of ram and a 1.2Dual core cortex A9 processor with PowerVrSGX540 I am pretty sure thats enough to run this game smoothly."
Here's why it lags: It only takes minutes for the Android device to begin throttling back performance due to thermal issues... While Apple iDevices can run full out for as long as there is battery power, Android's inefficient hardware/software mismatch can not keep going and going.
The dedicated console gaming market isn't going anywhere. That is a market that is safe, for the moment. The Wii market is dead, but the PS4/Xbox market is safe. It's not just about cost, it's about the ecosystem. Sony and Microsoft simply have the ecosystems to draw people, and they have the market to get the big games.
Newer titles are in the 20-50GB range, you really think people will play those on an Apple TV? With iffy to nonexistant controllers?
It's just like how the iOS devices were supposed to kill portable game consoles, yet the 3DS continues to sell very well. Buttons, in that case, make a big difference.
Personally I've been waiting for more titles to take advantage of the A7 and A8. I have yet to be blown away by any new game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35
The next leap in AppleTV will be a real threat to consoles.
I'm thinking the price will go up to, probably $399 range.
I'm thinking that the update to the new mac mini will be just that, a sup'd up version of what the apple TV is. You get a device that is capable of running everything in your house and is connected to your TV. If you don't want that, stick with the cheaper Apple TV.
Anyway, it seems iOS games will only be on portable devices. "Casual gaming" as Steve J (?) like to put it.
XBox and PS4 could/are being weakened by casual gaming on portable devices.
I think you nailed it with these last two comments. There will always be a place for console games, but it's becoming a niche market compared to the much faster growing portable/casual gaming population. Let's face it the social outcasts living in their mother's basements are not reproducing like their social upward-mobile casual gaming cousins.
Minor fact correction: "Samsung's domestic versions of the Galaxy S5 and Note 3, built using the company's own Exynos 5 Octa core Application Processor, "
If domestic was supposed to be US that would be incorrect. All Samsung US 'flagship' phones like the Galaxy S and Note lines are built around Qualcomm Snapdragon, not their own Exynos. Chart is right, text is wrong.
Domestic as in Korean, domestic to Samsung. The text is quite clear what that means, more so than even Samsung was when it advertised the models as having EIGHT CORES!!! before shipping Qualcomm chips in the majority of its international markets.
Cherry-picking negative reviews makes me sad. Every developer gets them, even for the best apps. As an app developer they make me simultaneously frustrated and glad that I can't reply to them.
I'd prefer to see some statistics on what percentage of reviews are negative or some reporting of the game's overall score on each platform. You could argue that Android users will rate apps more generously because they don't have access to iOS-quality apps but a broken experience is a one-star rating on any platform.
There is a line in the article that makes it very clear that there was no "cherry picking" of reviews. These are the top comments selected by Google on the top of the apps. There's even links to those apps so you can investigate yourself rather than racing to the comments to post something. As you may be aware, Google Play provides "some statistics on what percentage of reviews are negative" and there's even a picture for you showing what this "review score" might look like if you bothered to look. None of this is even controversial, as you note yourself that Android users "don't have access to iOS-quality apps."
Nor this. I don’t get why people even want the Apple TV to have its own games. That would require the product to be completely redesigned from what it is. We already have our gaming hardware: iPad/iPhone/iPod touch. Stream to a TV through an Apple TV.
And yes, that hardware will be comparable to this generation of consoles next year.
Huh?
How to make people not care about the argument you’re trying to present.
I don't get a lot of things either but people keep posting about them. My comment about ram was a direct response. So people are saying it.
Apple TV wouldn't need to have it's own games. Most game designers make games across several platforms (xbox, PS3/4 and PC). Adding Apple would be easy. Apple has never showed any real interest in higher end gaming. Good or bad that's just how it is.
Wasn't making an argument just a response.
However I will make an argument directly related to this thread. Gaming benchmarks are a joke, even more so when you don't have a game that actually pushes the device. So any lead either Android or iOS is on paper nothing more.
Back to ram. The hypocritical part is when the new iPad is released with 2gb of ram then it will be a great idea. You know the same situation as a 5.5" phone which was idiotic two years ago but not a great idea. Or when the iPad couldn't multitask which didn't matter until it did.
The dedicated console gaming market isn't going anywhere. That is a market that is safe, for the moment. The Wii market is dead, but the PS4/Xbox market is safe. It's not just about cost, it's about the ecosystem. Sony and Microsoft simply have the ecosystems to draw people, and they have the market to get the big games.
Newer titles are in the 20-50GB range, you really think people will play those on an Apple TV? With iffy to nonexistant controllers?
It's just like how the iOS devices were supposed to kill portable game consoles, yet the 3DS continues to sell very well. Buttons, in that case, make a big difference.
Over its first 3.5 years on the market, Nintendo 3DS has sold 44M, a fraction of units the original DS sold when it launched in 2004 (70). That number should be going up. It's dropped off dramatically just like iPods. People aren't buying dedicated game devices like they used to, just as they aren't buying as many standalone cameras, GPS units, etc. Because of the iPhone.
Back to ram. The hypocritical part is when the new iPad is released with 2gb of ram then it will be a great idea. You know the same situation as a 5.5" phone which was idiotic two years ago but not a great idea. Or when the iPad couldn't multitask which didn't matter until it did.
I don’t recall any of that. What you don’t seem to be comprehending here at all is that no one who doesn’t want 2GB of RAM doesn’t want it for reasons of not wanting more RAM. We’re concerned with battery life. If Apple can put 2 GB of RAM in without sacrificing battery, then it’ll be a great idea.
Comments
Yes there is.
Have you ever noticed "this app is compatible with all of your devices" or "this app is not compatible" or whatever if you search from the desktop? In fact if you search apps from your Android device itself you shouldn't even be offered apps that aren't compatible with it.
No I have never seen anything to that effect, nor do other users, and there is absolutely nothing stopping me from installing titles that will NEVER work on my devices.
I thought fandroids always denied of 64-bit chip with low RAM. Now, they can just s.t.f.u.
Well said!
You assume lots more.
No, know more. Some people are more expert than others.
I don't understand where people get the nerve to say it doesn't need more ram as if that isn't going to be a benefit with zero downside. What proof do you have it doesn't need more ram.
No one is saying this.
Nor this. I don’t get why people even want the Apple TV to have its own games. That would require the product to be completely redesigned from what it is. We already have our gaming hardware: iPad/iPhone/iPod touch. Stream to a TV through an Apple TV.
And yes, that hardware will be comparable to this generation of consoles next year.
Huh?
…kotaku…
How to make people not care about the argument you’re trying to present.
The dedicated console gaming market isn't going anywhere. That is a market that is safe, for the moment. The Wii market is dead, but the PS4/Xbox market is safe. It's not just about cost, it's about the ecosystem. Sony and Microsoft simply have the ecosystems to draw people, and they have the market to get the big games.
Newer titles are in the 20-50GB range, you really think people will play those on an Apple TV? With iffy to nonexistant controllers?
It's just like how the iOS devices were supposed to kill portable game consoles, yet the 3DS continues to sell very well. Buttons, in that case, make a big difference.
Personally I've been waiting for more titles to take advantage of the A7 and A8. I have yet to be blown away by any new game.
Any bets the AppleTV will look and do pretty much the same in five years? A lot of people have been waiting for some things to happen with AppleTV (excluding Gene Munster here, but regular consumers).
All Apple has been able to do in the years ATV came out is add a lot of buttons for channels that a lot of people don't use.
ATV is just a Netflix device pretty much for most people. They need to open that puppy up and allow other channel apps that other TV devices have had for a long time.
Anyway, it seems iOS games will only be on portable devices. "Casual gaming" as Steve J (?) like to put it.
XBox and PS4 could/are being weakened by casual gaming on portable devices.
They need to open that puppy up and allow other channel apps that other TV devices have had for a long time.
That’s never going to happen.
One of the primary advantages of Swift code is that it's execution is Fast. Faster executing than equivalent Objective-C or C code.
There were some tests run on the very early version of Swift which showed poor performance -- but that was on a Swift compiler that was optimized for debugging and not performance.
With each release of XCode6 betas, the Swift implementation has improved. Underlying Obj-C frameworks are being rewritten and optimized for Swift.
I haven't read any recent complaints about Swift performance ...
If you have any links supporting your assertion, please post them.
http://www.angkorbrick.com/wwdc-2014-swift-programming-language-objective-c-without-the-baggage-of-c/
Yes!
It hasn't been emphasized, but I believe that one of the long-term advantages of Swift is that it will allow system developers to write code that is closer to the iron ...
I suspect that the Apple Watch OS will take advantage of this -- especially in the access, storage, manipulation and display of data -- first with the required iPhone -- but eventually as a standalone device.
After all, access to Data is what it's really all about -- everything else is just [necessary] details ...
Here's why it lags: It only takes minutes for the Android device to begin throttling back performance due to thermal issues... While Apple iDevices can run full out for as long as there is battery power, Android's inefficient hardware/software mismatch can not keep going and going.
The dedicated console gaming market isn't going anywhere. That is a market that is safe, for the moment. The Wii market is dead, but the PS4/Xbox market is safe. It's not just about cost, it's about the ecosystem. Sony and Microsoft simply have the ecosystems to draw people, and they have the market to get the big games.
Newer titles are in the 20-50GB range, you really think people will play those on an Apple TV? With iffy to nonexistant controllers?
It's just like how the iOS devices were supposed to kill portable game consoles, yet the 3DS continues to sell very well. Buttons, in that case, make a big difference.
Personally I've been waiting for more titles to take advantage of the A7 and A8. I have yet to be blown away by any new game.
Quote:
The next leap in AppleTV will be a real threat to consoles.
I'm thinking the price will go up to, probably $399 range.
I'm thinking that the update to the new mac mini will be just that, a sup'd up version of what the apple TV is. You get a device that is capable of running everything in your house and is connected to your TV. If you don't want that, stick with the cheaper Apple TV.
I am hoping to see a mini update this month.
I think you nailed it with these last two comments. There will always be a place for console games, but it's becoming a niche market compared to the much faster growing portable/casual gaming population. Let's face it the social outcasts living in their mother's basements are not reproducing like their social upward-mobile casual gaming cousins.
The more you know, the more you realize how little you know. The less you know, the more you think you know.
On point article, hardly surprising.
Minor fact correction: "Samsung's domestic versions of the Galaxy S5 and Note 3, built using the company's own Exynos 5 Octa core Application Processor, "
If domestic was supposed to be US that would be incorrect. All Samsung US 'flagship' phones like the Galaxy S and Note lines are built around Qualcomm Snapdragon, not their own Exynos. Chart is right, text is wrong.
Domestic as in Korean, domestic to Samsung. The text is quite clear what that means, more so than even Samsung was when it advertised the models as having EIGHT CORES!!! before shipping Qualcomm chips in the majority of its international markets.
Cherry-picking negative reviews makes me sad. Every developer gets them, even for the best apps. As an app developer they make me simultaneously frustrated and glad that I can't reply to them.
I'd prefer to see some statistics on what percentage of reviews are negative or some reporting of the game's overall score on each platform. You could argue that Android users will rate apps more generously because they don't have access to iOS-quality apps but a broken experience is a one-star rating on any platform.
There is a line in the article that makes it very clear that there was no "cherry picking" of reviews. These are the top comments selected by Google on the top of the apps. There's even links to those apps so you can investigate yourself rather than racing to the comments to post something. As you may be aware, Google Play provides "some statistics on what percentage of reviews are negative" and there's even a picture for you showing what this "review score" might look like if you bothered to look. None of this is even controversial, as you note yourself that Android users "don't have access to iOS-quality apps."
No one is saying this.
Nor this. I don’t get why people even want the Apple TV to have its own games. That would require the product to be completely redesigned from what it is. We already have our gaming hardware: iPad/iPhone/iPod touch. Stream to a TV through an Apple TV.
And yes, that hardware will be comparable to this generation of consoles next year.
Huh?
How to make people not care about the argument you’re trying to present.
I don't get a lot of things either but people keep posting about them. My comment about ram was a direct response. So people are saying it.
Apple TV wouldn't need to have it's own games. Most game designers make games across several platforms (xbox, PS3/4 and PC). Adding Apple would be easy. Apple has never showed any real interest in higher end gaming. Good or bad that's just how it is.
Wasn't making an argument just a response.
However I will make an argument directly related to this thread. Gaming benchmarks are a joke, even more so when you don't have a game that actually pushes the device. So any lead either Android or iOS is on paper nothing more.
Back to ram. The hypocritical part is when the new iPad is released with 2gb of ram then it will be a great idea. You know the same situation as a 5.5" phone which was idiotic two years ago but not a great idea. Or when the iPad couldn't multitask which didn't matter until it did.
The dedicated console gaming market isn't going anywhere. That is a market that is safe, for the moment. The Wii market is dead, but the PS4/Xbox market is safe. It's not just about cost, it's about the ecosystem. Sony and Microsoft simply have the ecosystems to draw people, and they have the market to get the big games.
Newer titles are in the 20-50GB range, you really think people will play those on an Apple TV? With iffy to nonexistant controllers?
It's just like how the iOS devices were supposed to kill portable game consoles, yet the 3DS continues to sell very well. Buttons, in that case, make a big difference.
Over its first 3.5 years on the market, Nintendo 3DS has sold 44M, a fraction of units the original DS sold when it launched in 2004 (70). That number should be going up. It's dropped off dramatically just like iPods. People aren't buying dedicated game devices like they used to, just as they aren't buying as many standalone cameras, GPS units, etc. Because of the iPhone.
Back to ram. The hypocritical part is when the new iPad is released with 2gb of ram then it will be a great idea. You know the same situation as a 5.5" phone which was idiotic two years ago but not a great idea. Or when the iPad couldn't multitask which didn't matter until it did.
I don’t recall any of that. What you don’t seem to be comprehending here at all is that no one who doesn’t want 2GB of RAM doesn’t want it for reasons of not wanting more RAM. We’re concerned with battery life. If Apple can put 2 GB of RAM in without sacrificing battery, then it’ll be a great idea.