It's not as small as you'd like to claim, and it's also highly profitable when done right. Activision doesn't rake in billions every year by accident.
Not arguing it is not profitable, but MS lost money on ever console for a long time. But you will never see a 100M or 1B consoles being sold. Those are big markets these days when you consider the global markets. I know Sony and MS both sold a number of systems, but most are collecting dust these days. Go to friends house who older kids and their systems just sit them collecting dust. We have a number of those systems in my house hand-me downs from my kids cousins, and those have been recycle of current collecting dust.
Don't be an idiot and think about this for a second.
1) Even if they went with the A8 (and the A9 should be ready for this one). They will not be nearly as thermally constrained or power constrained so you would expect dramatically better performance from the chip in the AppleTV.
2) Sure, there are some first tier companies pushing the envelope of the PS 4 and Xbox one, but for every one of those there are 20 Unreal Engine knockoff games that this could handle. Look at the top sellers for PS4, Diablo III, LittleBigPlanet 3, Plants vs Zombies, Need for Speed, Assassins Creed, Lego Marvel Super Heroes, Dragon Age, and dozens of others that are all within reach of an A8/A9 CPU.
3) Market share. OMG! PS4 has sold over 20M units world wide in the past 6 quarters (including 2 christmas buying seasons). Apple sold 26Million iPads in the last quarter of 2014, and another 21Million last quarter. Even just the iPad Air 2, introduced 6 months ago has more units shipped than PS 4 and that ignores the hundred million iPhone 6/6+ that run virtually the exact same hardware. You can't compare console sales to previous console sales. You have to compare them to sales of products that compete for developer mind share.
4) Cost. $99 even if you have to purchase some controllers is a steal and games can be sold far less expensively because of expected volume of purchases. When you sell a game into a market that is out selling it's competition by orders of magnitude. You can still sell a $10 title and make a ton of money.
Now lets be clear! I'm not saying the AppleTV will kill off the PS 4 or Xbox One. Those will die under their own weight with or with out this device. I'm just saying that Apple could be the Wii of 2015 and will crush the Amazon Fire and Roku.
Apple wants to drop all bombs at the same time: gaming, Full App store, LiveTV, Home automation, new user interface. This will go along with a higher price tag. Probably between $199-$399.
Now imagine if Apple added a full app store and gaming to the current AppleTV a couple years ago. Would people pay 3x more to buy the new hardware? Probably not. Apple will use all these new services to convince people to buy the new more expensive AppleTV.
Yes, and if I may add...gaming will probably start with technology somewhere between Halo and Angry Birds...since this is where most people would delight in.
Not sure why some believe Apple TV meant for Angry Birds or Candy Crush...those are definitely iPhone/iPad games.
Not sure also why some believe Apple TV must have Halo-quality games. There is definitely middle ground. Halo-like games can remain with PS4 and Xbox. Or Apple can later launch a Apple TV-G which costs more but more conducive for games.
I do anticipate that joystick/controllers will be an accessory for the Apple TV along with other controllers like motion control, steering wheels, etc.
"A8X chip found in the iPad Air 2 is capable of near PlayStation 3 level graphics"
I take your A8X and raise you an A9. Why not?
Something people just don't get: different OSes require different hardware specs. Why would Apple want to build Apple Game console with similar hardware as PlayStation? iOS games are running perfectly fine in an iOS device like iPad or iPhone. We don't expect it'll be different in Apple Game Console/TV since it runs the same apps. My prediction on new Apple TV will be A8X chip with the same CPU and GPU cores as iPad Air 2 or may be modified to get more GPU. Apple TV needs not to be a super computer like PS4 or XBox One, but just has better graphic and GPU than current ATV3, full iOS and own app store + TV programs. The box will probably be priced a little higher than ATV3 like $149-$199 since Apple consider ATV as hobby. Now, the TV program services and apps will drive the profits.
I've since bought an Amazon FireTV Stick and can now confirm that the Apple TV is outdated. They are getting their asses handed to them by freaking Amazon! The Stick is a fraction of the price, connects to Netflix, Amazon Prime & now Sling TV, has all the apps offered by Apple TV, PLUS does games already. Lastly, the UI is just as nice, if not nicer. What I don't get is what's taking Apple so long to get on board. They already have the back-end setup. The hardware should be a piece of cake to put together, and they already have the customer base installed... What more can you ask for?
So what are Amazon's numbers if they are kicking the Apple TV's ass?
I meant that in functionality. But you already knew that. My point had nothing to do with sales. Why don't you do something useful for your argument and look them up instead of simply posting snarky remarks.
They could link it up with the Watch so that you can do fitness plans in front of the TV while working to a set of exercises. Yoga etc. They bought PrimeSense and haven't used it yet:
That can do body tracking like Kinect. They can have family games, quiz games, karaoke and casual games. It'll be able to play higher-end titles too, the developers just have to adapt the game like they did with GTA V for the PS3:
[VIDEO]
It's unlikely they'd go to the effort of downgrading for the ?TV specifically but you never know. The PS3 sold over 80 million units, ?TV has sold over 20 million units.
The price would affect how many gaming units they'd sell. They have to bundle a controller and more storage. Given that they can drop the price to $69 and still make a profit, adding a controller and extra storage might not make as big an impact on price. Bump up storage to 32GB where each game has a 4GB size limit and put in a single controller, they might be able to hit $149.
Games like the following would be ideal for it:
[VIDEO]
The whole game works with just movement and a single button press and each of the two characters has to do their own thing, the larger brother has to help the smaller brother swim, the smaller one can fit through gates, the larger one is stronger etc.
They would have to sell reasonably priced add-on controllers. I think it should be touch-based with just 4 physical shoulder buttons and they can incorporate Force Touch into the touch areas with 3 separate motors for 3 pads. It could be two pads really and have the start/menu buttons as 5th and 6th shoulder buttons but object selections can use the middle pad, maybe they could put an e-ink display under the glass.
[VIDEO]
For a game like Monument Valley, they can have a semi-transparent circle showing where you are touching on the controller and then Force Touch to make the action happen:
[VIDEO]
You couldn't play that easily with a standard controller because thumbsticks don't map one-to-one with the movement like a touchpad. You'd be able to play Fruit Ninja, Angry Birds, Scrabble, Minecraft, World of Goo, Cut the Rope, Plants vs Zombies. In games like Cut the Rope, touching the pad can place the marker and then hold a shoulder button and move to cut, same with Angry Birds pulling the catapult.
One big plus for buyers is having regular hardware updates. The next-gen consoles won't get another update for 7 years or so but every year or two, Apple can refresh the ?TV and all games would be backwards compatible.
The revenue might not be as much because desktop plus console titles are much higher priced:
Console plus PC makes about 3x mobile software revenue and isn't dominated by addiction games like Candy Crush. If you took those handful of games out of mobile revenue, it would be much lower. Also consider that's for a 400 million+ strong device market where the ?TV adds just 20 million. It's still worth doing though because it'll grow the userbase and strengthens their TV push.
Apple will kill Sony, MSFT, and Nintendo. Imagine games that cost 1/10 that of the existing consoles. Also imagine a pay once, play everywhere game. THATS why they're dead!
Something people just don't get: different OSes require different hardware specs. Why would Apple want to build Apple Game console with similar hardware as PlayStation? iOS games are running perfectly fine in an iOS device like iPad or iPhone. We don't expect it'll be different in Apple Game Console/TV since it runs the same apps. My prediction on new Apple TV will be A8X chip with the same CPU and GPU cores as iPad Air 2 or may be modified to get more GPU. Apple TV needs not to be a super computer like PS4 or XBox One, but just has better graphic and GPU than current ATV3, full iOS and own app store + TV programs. The box will probably be priced a little higher than ATV3 like $149-$199 since Apple consider ATV as hobby. Now, the TV program services and apps will drive the profits.
Agree with a number of points there. Reason for "why not A9" is more likely related to Apple targeting all of the new generation to iPhone & iPad updates. No reason an A8/A8X clocked higher can't do everything this box needs to do.
My view of pricing is in-line with what you have there (for an entry level unit - should they have more than one model, such as based on storage capacity, the higher models could be more for sure). I think anything over $199 USD providing functionalities of casual gaming/TV streaming/music & photos/general apps/Homekit/Airplay would limit the market. I say that in viewing this as a device to grow the Apple ecosystem in a meaningful way - a big part of this is to make iPhone and iPad more valuable. If the gaming isn't stressed heavily, then I expect entry model would be lower - $149 ish. With an App Store , and with Homekit, there will be a lot of value unlocked over time, but in a market with $50 streamers, it may be harder to go higher.
While a lot of discussion was around 4K, I would say the A8(x) capabilities related to H.265 are more important with lowering the streaming bandwidth requirements of 1080p content. If the content is encoded well with this new codec technology (and the real-time encoders for a live streaming service are really on the bleeding edge - but Apple can afford them:), then it would use potentially as low as 50% of a competitive service. That has a huge impact on expanding the addressable market (based on Internet access speeds) for such a live streaming service (unlike an on-demand service like Netflix, the internet access speed is much more important for live). I work in this area (IPTV, CDNs, internet streaming), so can say this is a big challenge, and no one is offering a commercial H.265 (HEVC) service yet. The issue of course is one of the endpoint having the capabilities to do so, and economically requires a HW decoder. Apple has this with the A8 devices.
On a controller device (or even on a remote), will be interesting to see if Apple have come up with anything innovative using haptic feedback.
Apple wants to drop all bombs at the same time: gaming, Full App store, LiveTV, Home automation, new user interface. This will go along with a higher price tag. Probably between $199-$399.
Now imagine if Apple added a full app store and gaming to the current AppleTV a couple years ago. Would people pay 3x more to buy the new hardware? Probably not. Apple will use all these new services to convince people to buy the new more expensive AppleTV.
Yep. Apple often does that - wait for a number of parts to line up before doing an update or new product - so they can make a big splash (more free marketing, consumer interest & impact, ability to up-sell).
Yet another reason why Apple has more impact on the market. Other companies would rush out a feature (often have baked) just to have a bullet point to talk about vs. the other guys. Most CEOs would have had an App Store on the unit a few years ago, on limited h/w and with limited API/services support, leading to likely sub-par apps.
Apple must feel they are ready now - New TV services, Homekit, perhaps Forcetouch interface on controller, tie-in with Apple Watch, more powerful CPU and connectivity for more useful applications, maybe Primesense tech (if not now, then next version), etc. Big splash, just in time for the Christmas shopping season. If they can make it useful in more countries (via Apps) then they could move more units than previously.
Apple will kill Sony, MSFT, and Nintendo. Imagine games that cost 1/10 that of the existing consoles. Also imagine a pay once, play everywhere game. THATS why they're dead!
That might not be such a good thing for developers initially because people will have libraries of iOS games that they'll expect to be updated for the ?TV and not buy again. Developers like to charge again for things like HD or iPad versions. They can perhaps add small in-app upgrades for controller support. Lack of backwards compatibility is not accidental on consoles, they deliberately cut backwards compatibility to drive sales of new titles, which is how new franchises can make over $1b. The console manufacturers take a cut of the games.
I think Apple making a controller would be the big thing rather than the ?TV because it would be usable with an iPad too. Instead of holding the whole device, it would just be able to sit in the smart cover and you hold a small wireless controller. Kids in the back of a car can each have a wireless controller and play together on one iPad and you'd be able to control media playback without picking it up.
That might not be such a good thing for developers initially because people will have libraries of iOS games that they'll expect to be updated for the ?TV and not buy again. Developers like to charge again for things like HD or iPad versions. They can perhaps add small in-app upgrades for controller support. Lack of backwards compatibility is not accidental on consoles, they deliberately cut backwards compatibility to drive sales of new titles, which is how new franchises can make over $1b. The console manufacturers take a cut of the games.
I think Apple making a controller would be the big thing rather than the ?TV because it would be usable with an iPad too. Instead of holding the whole device, it would just be able to sit in the smart cover and you hold a small wireless controller. Kids in the back of a car can each have a wireless controller and play together on one iPad and you'd be able to control media playback without picking it up.
Well, it'll work exactly the same way as now. Many games and apps on the iTunes store are universal apps. It's not really a stretch to think that the universality will be extended to the TV as well. It's just another screen size. Certainly there will be those who would want to charge a different price for each but there are also many who charge once and use in-app purchases to make bank. There's no such model really on the consoles. The fact that games cost 1/10 that of consoles alone means that consoles will lose big time. We haven't even talked about the hardware either. Apple's hardware cycle is every year. Console makers' cycle is about every 5. Who do you think will win? All of this leads to a very clear picture that the console war has been fought and won by Apple before it's even begun.
A controller is just an accessory. I'm sure Apple will have one and let others make different versions so that's no different then the way they do things now. I have no idea what you mean by big. Apple has never been about making accessories. They're about making platforms. There are bluetooth controllers in the market already.
The fact that games cost 1/10 that of consoles alone means that consoles will lose big time.
The low price is attractive for casual gamers but that's not the console market. People wouldn't give up on the main consoles and PC gaming for a weaker but cheaper console with very few good titles, that's why the Wii U hasn't done very well. It would affect some Wii U sales but they still have their popular franchises that draw people to them. GTA V has sold over 45m copies and it's $60 and it's only available on 4 consoles (PS3, 360, PS4, XBox One), which makes it the 3rd most successful game of all time. The best-selling paid mobile game has been Minecraft Pocket Edition ($7) at 30m copies followed by Angry Birds ($1-2) at 12m.
For ?TV to have a significant effect on consoles, it would need to get the titles they get. This can easily happen over a period of a few years but developers won't bother if they can't sustain a high price for the games like they can on consoles.
We haven't even talked about the hardware either. Apple's hardware cycle is every year. Console makers' cycle is about every 5. Who do you think will win?
It's been over 3 years since the last ?TV update. They could refresh a gaming model more frequently, every 2 years would be ok. Being able to refresh the hardware always at a profit more frequently is an advantage for Apple.
A controller is just an accessory. I'm sure Apple will have one and let others make different versions so that's no different then the way they do things now. I have no idea what you mean by big. Apple has never been about making accessories. They're about making platforms. There are bluetooth controllers in the market already.
The controller would be the whole experience of the game. Standard controllers are too limiting. How do you play Fruit Ninja or Monument Valley with thumbsticks? When the Wii launched, the big thing about it wasn't the box itself, it was the wand controller that let you play tennis. If they have a custom controller, you get a unique experience that you can't get with a console. That way people won't say things like 'why play x game on an ?TV when you can get a better version on a PS4?'. It would have exclusive titles that wouldn't be possible to port over to a PS4 or XBox. The same controller would let you control the whole UI too for TV.
The low price is attractive for casual gamers but that's not the console market. People wouldn't give up on the main consoles and PC gaming for a weaker but cheaper console with very few good titles, that's why the Wii U hasn't done very well. It would affect some Wii U sales but they still have their popular franchises that draw people to them. GTA V has sold over 45m copies and it's $60 and it's only available on 4 consoles (PS3, 360, PS4, XBox One), which makes it the 3rd most successful game of all time. The best-selling paid mobile game has been Minecraft Pocket Edition ($7) at 30m copies followed by Angry Birds ($1-2) at 12m.
For ?TV to have a significant effect on consoles, it would need to get the titles they get. This can easily happen over a period of a few years but developers won't bother if they can't sustain a high price for the games like they can on consoles.
It's been over 3 years since the last ?TV update. They could refresh a gaming model more frequently, every 2 years would be ok. Being able to refresh the hardware always at a profit more frequently is an advantage for Apple.
The controller would be the whole experience of the game. Standard controllers are too limiting. How do you play Fruit Ninja or Monument Valley with thumbsticks? When the Wii launched, the big thing about it wasn't the box itself, it was the wand controller that let you play tennis. If they have a custom controller, you get a unique experience that you can't get with a console. That way people won't say things like 'why play x game on an ?TV when you can get a better version on a PS4?'. It would have exclusive titles that wouldn't be possible to port over to a PS4 or XBox. The same controller would let you control the whole UI too for TV.
The casual gamer is far larger in numbers than hardcore gamers. In addition, true hardcore gamers use powerful desktop machines so consoles are 'stuck in the middle' which means they will die. The multi-hundreds of millions of $ games that you mentioned are coming to Apple TV as well. It's only a matter of time. They may have created with consoles in mind but the relatively low cost for them to port it to Apple TV vs. the much larger user base, which is about 10 times that of consoles means that it's a no brainer for them to do so. Even Nintendo capitulated recently to releasing their titles to mobile. The writing is on the wall. Resistance is futile.
The reason that Apple is taking so long to refresh Apple TV is due entirely with their negotiations with content providers like Comcast. They were close to an agreement with one provider until it got bought out by Comcast so they had to start over. This took a few years. They wanted their next Apple TV refresh to coincide with completing the signup of content providers which I believe they were finally able to do, hence the refresh coming in June. They view the smaller gaming market as not worthwhile enough for them to release a new version just for that. I think it's a mistake and Jobs would have pushed harder for it but that's just conjecture.
The most important take-away about the hardware refresh isn't that it allows Apple to sell more hardware. It's that Moore's Law is fully in effect with Apple devices whereas consoles are stuck on an old timer's timeline. How do you compete with someone who's able to basically double their processing power every 18 months while it takes you 60 or more to get around to updating your hardware? Apple's A processor is basically driving their gaming consoles. Look at how impressively they've been able to improve that processor each year! Sony, MSFT and Nintendo can't keep up.
Again, you guys are putting too much emphasis on controllers. Yes, it's important for them to release one with the new gaming Apple TV. But existing games will likely still work as undoubtedly Apple will put some kind of sensor like Kinect so that you'll still be able to play Fruit Ninja sitting on your couch.
The casual gamer is far larger in numbers than hardcore gamers. In addition, true hardcore gamers use powerful desktop machines so consoles are 'stuck in the middle' which means they will die. The multi-hundreds of millions of $ games that you mentioned are coming to Apple TV as well. It's only a matter of time.
Time is the key point. Console and PC gamers won't ever abandon high-end titles in favor of casual games so what's needed is for the ?TV to deliver that experience. Storage plays a part here as well as developers being able to sustain higher pricing. Apple has a 4GB app limit in the App Store and PC/console games are currently 20-50GB. GTA V is 65GB. It's possible to retain a lot of the same visual quality while reducing textures and audio because a lot of the quality is in the shaders and lighting but developers are not always willing to downgrade their product. If Apple made a more serious commitment to gaming by building their own controller for their 400 million-strong userbase then that would definitely change.
A 2017 ?TV with 64GB storage and a 20GB app limit would take on next-gen consoles but some exclusives would still be locked to the main gaming platforms.
Improvements will keep coming over time and generic boxes will take over as they pretty much have done already. The PS4 and XBox One are running AMD x86 hardware:
If the firmware allowed it, both next-gen consoles should be able to run standard PC operating systems. That doesn't mean any particular box will disappear.
Again, you guys are putting too much emphasis on controllers. Yes, it's important for them to release one with the new gaming Apple TV. But existing games will likely still work as undoubtedly Apple will put some kind of sensor like Kinect so that you'll still be able to play Fruit Ninja sitting on your couch.
If they had a motion sensor that accurate, they wouldn't need to make a controller but it's too unreliable. One to one mapping with a physical controller is more reliable and I can't see Apple designing a controller like the standard controllers:
I think if they were going to design a controller, they'd design it how they design their mice and trackpads vs competitors. That controller design is not future-proof and is too limited to certain game types. It's not very portable either. This cuts out an entire class of games. Apple could design a controller that allows people to play World of Warcraft and Starcraft from a sofa. These games have sold millions of copies.
It would be great if they made a physical controller with a 4-axis d-pad, ABXY buttons, 2-shoulder buttons (4 is too much) and twin analog sticks. While I recognise that the touch interface is great for some types of games (cardand board games) the touch interface is truly awful for interacting with games that don't require you to manipulate objects directly. I love my Wii U but it really struggles from a lack of third party content.
Really? To date, Wii/U has out-sold the Xbox 360/One. And it's still a huge seller in Asia.
On a separate note... the PS3 landed in 2006, with the PS4 following it 7 years later (in 2013). Whereas, Apple releases an updated iPad every year -- with updated SoC. So, there's no reason why they couldn't update the Apple TV waaaaay more frequently than Sony/MS.
Comments
Not arguing it is not profitable, but MS lost money on ever console for a long time. But you will never see a 100M or 1B consoles being sold. Those are big markets these days when you consider the global markets. I know Sony and MS both sold a number of systems, but most are collecting dust these days. Go to friends house who older kids and their systems just sit them collecting dust. We have a number of those systems in my house hand-me downs from my kids cousins, and those have been recycle of current collecting dust.
I take your A8X and raise you an A9. Why not?
Don't be an idiot and think about this for a second.
1) Even if they went with the A8 (and the A9 should be ready for this one). They will not be nearly as thermally constrained or power constrained so you would expect dramatically better performance from the chip in the AppleTV.
2) Sure, there are some first tier companies pushing the envelope of the PS 4 and Xbox one, but for every one of those there are 20 Unreal Engine knockoff games that this could handle. Look at the top sellers for PS4, Diablo III, LittleBigPlanet 3, Plants vs Zombies, Need for Speed, Assassins Creed, Lego Marvel Super Heroes, Dragon Age, and dozens of others that are all within reach of an A8/A9 CPU.
3) Market share. OMG! PS4 has sold over 20M units world wide in the past 6 quarters (including 2 christmas buying seasons). Apple sold 26Million iPads in the last quarter of 2014, and another 21Million last quarter. Even just the iPad Air 2, introduced 6 months ago has more units shipped than PS 4 and that ignores the hundred million iPhone 6/6+ that run virtually the exact same hardware. You can't compare console sales to previous console sales. You have to compare them to sales of products that compete for developer mind share.
4) Cost. $99 even if you have to purchase some controllers is a steal and games can be sold far less expensively because of expected volume of purchases. When you sell a game into a market that is out selling it's competition by orders of magnitude. You can still sell a $10 title and make a ton of money.
Now lets be clear! I'm not saying the AppleTV will kill off the PS 4 or Xbox One. Those will die under their own weight with or with out this device. I'm just saying that Apple could be the Wii of 2015 and will crush the Amazon Fire and Roku.
Apple wants to drop all bombs at the same time: gaming, Full App store, LiveTV, Home automation, new user interface. This will go along with a higher price tag. Probably between $199-$399.
Now imagine if Apple added a full app store and gaming to the current AppleTV a couple years ago. Would people pay 3x more to buy the new hardware? Probably not. Apple will use all these new services to convince people to buy the new more expensive AppleTV.
Yes, and if I may add...gaming will probably start with technology somewhere between Halo and Angry Birds...since this is where most people would delight in.
Not sure why some believe Apple TV meant for Angry Birds or Candy Crush...those are definitely iPhone/iPad games.
Not sure also why some believe Apple TV must have Halo-quality games. There is definitely middle ground. Halo-like games can remain with PS4 and Xbox. Or Apple can later launch a Apple TV-G which costs more but more conducive for games.
I do anticipate that joystick/controllers will be an accessory for the Apple TV along with other controllers like motion control, steering wheels, etc.
"A8X chip found in the iPad Air 2 is capable of near PlayStation 3 level graphics"
I take your A8X and raise you an A9. Why not?
Something people just don't get: different OSes require different hardware specs. Why would Apple want to build Apple Game console with similar hardware as PlayStation? iOS games are running perfectly fine in an iOS device like iPad or iPhone. We don't expect it'll be different in Apple Game Console/TV since it runs the same apps. My prediction on new Apple TV will be A8X chip with the same CPU and GPU cores as iPad Air 2 or may be modified to get more GPU. Apple TV needs not to be a super computer like PS4 or XBox One, but just has better graphic and GPU than current ATV3, full iOS and own app store + TV programs. The box will probably be priced a little higher than ATV3 like $149-$199 since Apple consider ATV as hobby. Now, the TV program services and apps will drive the profits.
So what are Amazon's numbers if they are kicking the Apple TV's ass?
I meant that in functionality. But you already knew that. My point had nothing to do with sales. Why don't you do something useful for your argument and look them up instead of simply posting snarky remarks.
They could link it up with the Watch so that you can do fitness plans in front of the TV while working to a set of exercises. Yoga etc. They bought PrimeSense and haven't used it yet:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/07/11/apples-secret-plans-for-primesense-3d-tech-hinted-at-by-new-itseez3d-ipad-app
That can do body tracking like Kinect. They can have family games, quiz games, karaoke and casual games. It'll be able to play higher-end titles too, the developers just have to adapt the game like they did with GTA V for the PS3:
[VIDEO]
It's unlikely they'd go to the effort of downgrading for the ?TV specifically but you never know. The PS3 sold over 80 million units, ?TV has sold over 20 million units.
The price would affect how many gaming units they'd sell. They have to bundle a controller and more storage. Given that they can drop the price to $69 and still make a profit, adding a controller and extra storage might not make as big an impact on price. Bump up storage to 32GB where each game has a 4GB size limit and put in a single controller, they might be able to hit $149.
Games like the following would be ideal for it:
[VIDEO]
The whole game works with just movement and a single button press and each of the two characters has to do their own thing, the larger brother has to help the smaller brother swim, the smaller one can fit through gates, the larger one is stronger etc.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/brothers-a-tale-of-two-sons
They would have to sell reasonably priced add-on controllers. I think it should be touch-based with just 4 physical shoulder buttons and they can incorporate Force Touch into the touch areas with 3 separate motors for 3 pads. It could be two pads really and have the start/menu buttons as 5th and 6th shoulder buttons but object selections can use the middle pad, maybe they could put an e-ink display under the glass.
[VIDEO]
For a game like Monument Valley, they can have a semi-transparent circle showing where you are touching on the controller and then Force Touch to make the action happen:
[VIDEO]
You couldn't play that easily with a standard controller because thumbsticks don't map one-to-one with the movement like a touchpad. You'd be able to play Fruit Ninja, Angry Birds, Scrabble, Minecraft, World of Goo, Cut the Rope, Plants vs Zombies. In games like Cut the Rope, touching the pad can place the marker and then hold a shoulder button and move to cut, same with Angry Birds pulling the catapult.
One big plus for buyers is having regular hardware updates. The next-gen consoles won't get another update for 7 years or so but every year or two, Apple can refresh the ?TV and all games would be backwards compatible.
The revenue might not be as much because desktop plus console titles are much higher priced:
http://hexus.net/gaming/news/pc/81292-pc-games-software-market-exceed-35bn-2018-says-oga/
Console plus PC makes about 3x mobile software revenue and isn't dominated by addiction games like Candy Crush. If you took those handful of games out of mobile revenue, it would be much lower. Also consider that's for a 400 million+ strong device market where the ?TV adds just 20 million. It's still worth doing though because it'll grow the userbase and strengthens their TV push.
Something people just don't get: different OSes require different hardware specs. Why would Apple want to build Apple Game console with similar hardware as PlayStation? iOS games are running perfectly fine in an iOS device like iPad or iPhone. We don't expect it'll be different in Apple Game Console/TV since it runs the same apps. My prediction on new Apple TV will be A8X chip with the same CPU and GPU cores as iPad Air 2 or may be modified to get more GPU. Apple TV needs not to be a super computer like PS4 or XBox One, but just has better graphic and GPU than current ATV3, full iOS and own app store + TV programs. The box will probably be priced a little higher than ATV3 like $149-$199 since Apple consider ATV as hobby. Now, the TV program services and apps will drive the profits.
Agree with a number of points there. Reason for "why not A9" is more likely related to Apple targeting all of the new generation to iPhone & iPad updates. No reason an A8/A8X clocked higher can't do everything this box needs to do.
My view of pricing is in-line with what you have there (for an entry level unit - should they have more than one model, such as based on storage capacity, the higher models could be more for sure). I think anything over $199 USD providing functionalities of casual gaming/TV streaming/music & photos/general apps/Homekit/Airplay would limit the market. I say that in viewing this as a device to grow the Apple ecosystem in a meaningful way - a big part of this is to make iPhone and iPad more valuable. If the gaming isn't stressed heavily, then I expect entry model would be lower - $149 ish. With an App Store , and with Homekit, there will be a lot of value unlocked over time, but in a market with $50 streamers, it may be harder to go higher.
While a lot of discussion was around 4K, I would say the A8(x) capabilities related to H.265 are more important with lowering the streaming bandwidth requirements of 1080p content. If the content is encoded well with this new codec technology (and the real-time encoders for a live streaming service are really on the bleeding edge - but Apple can afford them:), then it would use potentially as low as 50% of a competitive service. That has a huge impact on expanding the addressable market (based on Internet access speeds) for such a live streaming service (unlike an on-demand service like Netflix, the internet access speed is much more important for live). I work in this area (IPTV, CDNs, internet streaming), so can say this is a big challenge, and no one is offering a commercial H.265 (HEVC) service yet. The issue of course is one of the endpoint having the capabilities to do so, and economically requires a HW decoder. Apple has this with the A8 devices.
On a controller device (or even on a remote), will be interesting to see if Apple have come up with anything innovative using haptic feedback.
Apple wants to drop all bombs at the same time: gaming, Full App store, LiveTV, Home automation, new user interface. This will go along with a higher price tag. Probably between $199-$399.
Now imagine if Apple added a full app store and gaming to the current AppleTV a couple years ago. Would people pay 3x more to buy the new hardware? Probably not. Apple will use all these new services to convince people to buy the new more expensive AppleTV.
Yep. Apple often does that - wait for a number of parts to line up before doing an update or new product - so they can make a big splash (more free marketing, consumer interest & impact, ability to up-sell).
Yet another reason why Apple has more impact on the market. Other companies would rush out a feature (often have baked) just to have a bullet point to talk about vs. the other guys. Most CEOs would have had an App Store on the unit a few years ago, on limited h/w and with limited API/services support, leading to likely sub-par apps.
Apple must feel they are ready now - New TV services, Homekit, perhaps Forcetouch interface on controller, tie-in with Apple Watch, more powerful CPU and connectivity for more useful applications, maybe Primesense tech (if not now, then next version), etc. Big splash, just in time for the Christmas shopping season. If they can make it useful in more countries (via Apps) then they could move more units than previously.
That might not be such a good thing for developers initially because people will have libraries of iOS games that they'll expect to be updated for the ?TV and not buy again. Developers like to charge again for things like HD or iPad versions. They can perhaps add small in-app upgrades for controller support. Lack of backwards compatibility is not accidental on consoles, they deliberately cut backwards compatibility to drive sales of new titles, which is how new franchises can make over $1b. The console manufacturers take a cut of the games.
I think Apple making a controller would be the big thing rather than the ?TV because it would be usable with an iPad too. Instead of holding the whole device, it would just be able to sit in the smart cover and you hold a small wireless controller. Kids in the back of a car can each have a wireless controller and play together on one iPad and you'd be able to control media playback without picking it up.
That might not be such a good thing for developers initially because people will have libraries of iOS games that they'll expect to be updated for the ?TV and not buy again. Developers like to charge again for things like HD or iPad versions. They can perhaps add small in-app upgrades for controller support. Lack of backwards compatibility is not accidental on consoles, they deliberately cut backwards compatibility to drive sales of new titles, which is how new franchises can make over $1b. The console manufacturers take a cut of the games.
I think Apple making a controller would be the big thing rather than the ?TV because it would be usable with an iPad too. Instead of holding the whole device, it would just be able to sit in the smart cover and you hold a small wireless controller. Kids in the back of a car can each have a wireless controller and play together on one iPad and you'd be able to control media playback without picking it up.
Well, it'll work exactly the same way as now. Many games and apps on the iTunes store are universal apps. It's not really a stretch to think that the universality will be extended to the TV as well. It's just another screen size. Certainly there will be those who would want to charge a different price for each but there are also many who charge once and use in-app purchases to make bank. There's no such model really on the consoles. The fact that games cost 1/10 that of consoles alone means that consoles will lose big time. We haven't even talked about the hardware either. Apple's hardware cycle is every year. Console makers' cycle is about every 5. Who do you think will win? All of this leads to a very clear picture that the console war has been fought and won by Apple before it's even begun.
A controller is just an accessory. I'm sure Apple will have one and let others make different versions so that's no different then the way they do things now. I have no idea what you mean by big. Apple has never been about making accessories. They're about making platforms. There are bluetooth controllers in the market already.
The low price is attractive for casual gamers but that's not the console market. People wouldn't give up on the main consoles and PC gaming for a weaker but cheaper console with very few good titles, that's why the Wii U hasn't done very well. It would affect some Wii U sales but they still have their popular franchises that draw people to them. GTA V has sold over 45m copies and it's $60 and it's only available on 4 consoles (PS3, 360, PS4, XBox One), which makes it the 3rd most successful game of all time. The best-selling paid mobile game has been Minecraft Pocket Edition ($7) at 30m copies followed by Angry Birds ($1-2) at 12m.
For ?TV to have a significant effect on consoles, it would need to get the titles they get. This can easily happen over a period of a few years but developers won't bother if they can't sustain a high price for the games like they can on consoles.
It's been over 3 years since the last ?TV update. They could refresh a gaming model more frequently, every 2 years would be ok. Being able to refresh the hardware always at a profit more frequently is an advantage for Apple.
The controller would be the whole experience of the game. Standard controllers are too limiting. How do you play Fruit Ninja or Monument Valley with thumbsticks? When the Wii launched, the big thing about it wasn't the box itself, it was the wand controller that let you play tennis. If they have a custom controller, you get a unique experience that you can't get with a console. That way people won't say things like 'why play x game on an ?TV when you can get a better version on a PS4?'. It would have exclusive titles that wouldn't be possible to port over to a PS4 or XBox. The same controller would let you control the whole UI too for TV.
The low price is attractive for casual gamers but that's not the console market. People wouldn't give up on the main consoles and PC gaming for a weaker but cheaper console with very few good titles, that's why the Wii U hasn't done very well. It would affect some Wii U sales but they still have their popular franchises that draw people to them. GTA V has sold over 45m copies and it's $60 and it's only available on 4 consoles (PS3, 360, PS4, XBox One), which makes it the 3rd most successful game of all time. The best-selling paid mobile game has been Minecraft Pocket Edition ($7) at 30m copies followed by Angry Birds ($1-2) at 12m.
For ?TV to have a significant effect on consoles, it would need to get the titles they get. This can easily happen over a period of a few years but developers won't bother if they can't sustain a high price for the games like they can on consoles.
It's been over 3 years since the last ?TV update. They could refresh a gaming model more frequently, every 2 years would be ok. Being able to refresh the hardware always at a profit more frequently is an advantage for Apple.
The controller would be the whole experience of the game. Standard controllers are too limiting. How do you play Fruit Ninja or Monument Valley with thumbsticks? When the Wii launched, the big thing about it wasn't the box itself, it was the wand controller that let you play tennis. If they have a custom controller, you get a unique experience that you can't get with a console. That way people won't say things like 'why play x game on an ?TV when you can get a better version on a PS4?'. It would have exclusive titles that wouldn't be possible to port over to a PS4 or XBox. The same controller would let you control the whole UI too for TV.
The casual gamer is far larger in numbers than hardcore gamers. In addition, true hardcore gamers use powerful desktop machines so consoles are 'stuck in the middle' which means they will die. The multi-hundreds of millions of $ games that you mentioned are coming to Apple TV as well. It's only a matter of time. They may have created with consoles in mind but the relatively low cost for them to port it to Apple TV vs. the much larger user base, which is about 10 times that of consoles means that it's a no brainer for them to do so. Even Nintendo capitulated recently to releasing their titles to mobile. The writing is on the wall. Resistance is futile.
The reason that Apple is taking so long to refresh Apple TV is due entirely with their negotiations with content providers like Comcast. They were close to an agreement with one provider until it got bought out by Comcast so they had to start over. This took a few years. They wanted their next Apple TV refresh to coincide with completing the signup of content providers which I believe they were finally able to do, hence the refresh coming in June. They view the smaller gaming market as not worthwhile enough for them to release a new version just for that. I think it's a mistake and Jobs would have pushed harder for it but that's just conjecture.
The most important take-away about the hardware refresh isn't that it allows Apple to sell more hardware. It's that Moore's Law is fully in effect with Apple devices whereas consoles are stuck on an old timer's timeline. How do you compete with someone who's able to basically double their processing power every 18 months while it takes you 60 or more to get around to updating your hardware? Apple's A processor is basically driving their gaming consoles. Look at how impressively they've been able to improve that processor each year! Sony, MSFT and Nintendo can't keep up.
Again, you guys are putting too much emphasis on controllers. Yes, it's important for them to release one with the new gaming Apple TV. But existing games will likely still work as undoubtedly Apple will put some kind of sensor like Kinect so that you'll still be able to play Fruit Ninja sitting on your couch.
Time is the key point. Console and PC gamers won't ever abandon high-end titles in favor of casual games so what's needed is for the ?TV to deliver that experience. Storage plays a part here as well as developers being able to sustain higher pricing. Apple has a 4GB app limit in the App Store and PC/console games are currently 20-50GB. GTA V is 65GB. It's possible to retain a lot of the same visual quality while reducing textures and audio because a lot of the quality is in the shaders and lighting but developers are not always willing to downgrade their product. If Apple made a more serious commitment to gaming by building their own controller for their 400 million-strong userbase then that would definitely change.
A 2017 ?TV with 64GB storage and a 20GB app limit would take on next-gen consoles but some exclusives would still be locked to the main gaming platforms.
Improvements will keep coming over time and generic boxes will take over as they pretty much have done already. The PS4 and XBox One are running AMD x86 hardware:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/171375-reverse-engineered-ps4-apu-reveals-the-consoles-real-cpu-and-gpu-specs
If the firmware allowed it, both next-gen consoles should be able to run standard PC operating systems. That doesn't mean any particular box will disappear.
If they had a motion sensor that accurate, they wouldn't need to make a controller but it's too unreliable. One to one mapping with a physical controller is more reliable and I can't see Apple designing a controller like the standard controllers:
I think if they were going to design a controller, they'd design it how they design their mice and trackpads vs competitors. That controller design is not future-proof and is too limited to certain game types. It's not very portable either. This cuts out an entire class of games. Apple could design a controller that allows people to play World of Warcraft and Starcraft from a sofa. These games have sold millions of copies.
It would be great if they made a physical controller with a 4-axis d-pad, ABXY buttons, 2-shoulder buttons (4 is too much) and twin analog sticks. While I recognise that the touch interface is great for some types of games (cardand board games) the touch interface is truly awful for interacting with games that don't require you to manipulate objects directly. I love my Wii U but it really struggles from a lack of third party content.
The Wii market no longer exists.
Really? To date, Wii/U has out-sold the Xbox 360/One. And it's still a huge seller in Asia.
On a separate note... the PS3 landed in 2006, with the PS4 following it 7 years later (in 2013). Whereas, Apple releases an updated iPad every year -- with updated SoC. So, there's no reason why they couldn't update the Apple TV waaaaay more frequently than Sony/MS.