... Apple would wait until enough games were ported before launching a new AppleTV.
.....
Isn't that a "chicken or the egg" problem similar to rolling out fully electric cars? Nobody's going to produce the cars till the charging stations are available and nobody is going to install the charging stations till there's something to charge. Similarly, why would a high end game manufacturer build a high end game for Apple TV if there was nothing to run it on?
If Apple is making a push into higher-end gaming, you can be sure that they’ve been working with high-end game companies to port their games over to the Apple ecosystem.
Given that Big Sur will run iOS & iPadOS apps natively on Apple Silicon, you’ll be able to play games on iPhones, iPads, Macs & AppleTV.
Apple would wait until enough games were ported before launching a new AppleTV.
Apple Arcade has provided them a test for a gaming service. They could later launch Apple Arcade+ for higher-end games. And they can include it in a higher-end Apple One subscription.
Rumored Apple AR work would also likely be planned to be adapted for entertainment.
Apple seems to have been working on many initiatives that could support a successful foray into games.
Remember, the Wii wasn’t as powerful as its competitors, but did a good business.
Graphics would likely be good enough on whatever SoC Apple uses for a new AppleTV.
If it sells for much less than the new XBox & PS, provides Siri & Home integration, maybe comes with a discount for Apple One, etc., a new AppleTV could do quite well.
Apple could also release a cheap stick device that provides the non-gaming features.
Providing a cheap stick and 2 version of Apple Arcade is too much fragmentation. I think a better solution is an all new powerful Apple TV with a 64GB version for non-gamers or mild gamers and a 128-512GB for "hardcore" gamers. I hate the word "hardcore" since in the gaming community it implies nerdy 12-year-olds who cuss and play Call of Duty.
1) The released the original game-capable TV with a last-year model chip, forever cementing the baseline below that even of the iPad. Had they used the current design, at the time, the baseline would have been roughly 2X and much better games would be possible for a wider audience.
2) Since the Siri remote, ATV sales have cratered. Now only some of that is deserved, and some of that they've fixed - you can figure it out without lights now, but still can't find the damb thing. But that's part of the package now, which drove up the price $70 and made it one of the most expensive and least capable systems on the market. So it's not exactly surprising it cratered
3) Which means that the games have to be SO GOOD on this new box that people will replace their older ones. And that's from a company:
4) where gaming is alternately announced as the next big thing and then immediately ignored, and ...
5) the OS still has horrible gaming performance compared to any other platform. Same exact box under Bootcamp and Windows gets you 2x performance
So sorry, but I'm skeptical.
I think the Siri Remote is the greatest remote in history next to the expensive Logitechs and the Wii Remote. There's no statistics that show Apple TV sales have "cratered".
With that said, the remote should be improved with Find My support, taptic engine, speaker and better microphone. Apple TV needs the new Apple Silicon Mac chips.
I would like to get an Apple TV -- if not for myself then for my grandson.
But, there's no way I want to buy one with 4 year old processor. That just doesn't make sense to me.
Ummm ... you should investigate the hardware that is in a Roku. Feature phone stuff. Similarly the hardware in a Fire TV or Android TV box - which cost as little as $35 or $50 - would barely run a very cheap Android phone. Ditto for smart TVs. Streaming apps don't require much CPU at all. YouTube TV is actually a PWA on some devices and people are none the wiser. There is absolutely nothing that a set top box will do that requires a modern Ax chip. Using a newer chip would just made the device more expensive and use excess power from a CPU that goes 99% unutilized while providing no benefit. Bad engineering and bad product design.
Of course if Apple is actually able to turn Apple TV into a serious gaming device then you are right. But that has to actually happen first.
It isn't a matter if they can. It comes down to if they want to.
Correction. They most certainly can develop both AAA titles and mobile ones. Microsoft has been doing that for awhile. Forza is a great example as it is both a 4K game on XBox and a free to play game on mobile. But they need to talk about how they are going to turn the Apple TV into a (last gen ... it can't compete with PS5 or XBox X) console with a massive infusion of resources and support, not name dropping a title that can run on a cheap 3 year old Android tablet that is coming your way via a $5 a month service.
Point of contrast ... Microsoft spent $7.5 billion for Bethesda just to get more titles for xCloud (for the near term anyway). By contrast, Lucasfilm (Star Wars!!!) only cost Disney $4 billion, which is also how much Disney paid for Marvel ($4 billion). Gaming is a bigger industry than Hollywood now and was BEFORE covid-19 obliterated the film industry this year (AND caused a gaming boom).
If Apple is going to make Apple TV - and Apple Silicon generally - a real gaming platform beyond mobile titles that is just a hint of the investment that it would take.
I agree. That's why I'm of the mindset that Apple should acquire Nintendo. Nintendo has an extremely popular stable of first-party exclusives that are also family friendly. it would provide a huge boost to Apple's gaming efforts.
Apple could dominate with an Apple silicon Apple TV that is an all in one entertainment device - including safari and Apple Music. But also with the horsepower for relevant console quality gaming.
Will it cost more than $149 or $199? Yes. But worth it.
I still believe that xCloud is more about Apple not wanting to see the shift from locally executed software to streaming applications. The companies pushing streaming video games - Nvidia, Google, Microsoft, now Amazon - are all major cloud providers who can monetize streaming applications. Apple is not and cannot. If more of the great apps that right now are only available on iPads and iPhones shift to being hosted in the cloud and accessible by anyone with a Chromebook or cheap Android, Windows or Linux device, what is the advantage in paying $1000 for an iPad Pro? So the whole deal is bigger than Apple's merely trying to protect a $5 a month gaming service. Instead their 40 year business model as a premium hardware provider is at stake.
As far as the "all in one entertainment device" ... two things. 0. For the short term, PlayStation and XBox are "all in one entertainment devices" right now and big time. They don't offer Apple's specific apps and services, but they offer their own and third party ones that are comparable. Meanwhile, it would take years - and tens (hundreds?) of billions for Apple to build up a gaming library comparable to theirs. 1. See above. Though Microsoft CLAIMS that xCloud and the XBox can coexist - largely because you can charge $70 per game for the latter - they would be fine junking a hardware product that takes years to turn a profit because its margins are so small in favor of their cloud product. Amazon and now Google have proved that you can provide a quality 4K streaming device for $50. If you can stream video games to that device - and the other entertainment apps can already be streamed to that device - what would be the purpose of a significantly more expensive device running an A14 chip that never does much in terms. So by the time the years that it would take for Apple to build up a decent gaming library for Apple Silicon passes, the gaming industry may well have shifted to the cloud model anyway.
Right before the popularity of music streaming services, I remember saying that people don't want to rent their music. They want to own their music. And he remained steadfast in that. And he was wrong about. Apple eventually ended up having to buy Beats Music in order so that they could enter the space quickly and not fall behind. I genuinely think the same will eventually happen to gaming => people will realize that they're better off renting their games instead of owning their games. It would behoove Apple to get in the space now while it's just getting started
"People have told us over and over and over again, they don't want to rent their music. Just to make that perfectly clear: Music's not like a video. Your favorite movie you may watch 10 times in your life; your favorite song you're going to listen to a thousand times in your life. If it costs you $10 a month, or over $100 a year, for a subscription fee to rent that song, that means for me to listen to my favorite song in 10 years I paid over $1,000 in subscription fees to listen to my favorite song 10 years from now, and that just doesn't fly with customers. They don't want subscriptions." - Steve Jobs
Correction. They most certainly can develop both AAA titles and mobile ones. Microsoft has been doing that for awhile. Forza is a great example as it is both a 4K game on XBox and a free to play game on mobile. But they need to talk about how they are going to turn the Apple TV into a (last gen ... it can't compete with PS5 or XBox X) console with a massive infusion of resources and support, not name dropping a title that can run on a cheap 3 year old Android tablet that is coming your way via a $5 a month service.
Point of contrast ... Microsoft spent $7.5 billion for Bethesda just to get more titles for xCloud (for the near term anyway). By contrast, Lucasfilm (Star Wars!!!) only cost Disney $4 billion, which is also how much Disney paid for Marvel ($4 billion). Gaming is a bigger industry than Hollywood now and was BEFORE covid-19 obliterated the film industry this year (AND caused a gaming boom).
If Apple is going to make Apple TV - and Apple Silicon generally - a real gaming platform beyond mobile titles that is just a hint of the investment that it would take.
I agree. That's why I'm of the mindset that Apple should acquire Nintendo. Nintendo has an extremely popular stable of first-party exclusives that are also family friendly. it would provide a huge boost to Apple's gaming efforts.
Nintendo and Apple have a lot in common like inventing technology to use and having everyone copy them. They truly belong together and admire each other but the chance of that happening is slim. Japan has this belief that they shouldn't sell their companies and Nintendo would be quite expensive. Nintendo is definitely the company Apple should own after Disney. But there are problems here.
Correction. They most certainly can develop both AAA titles and mobile ones. Microsoft has been doing that for awhile. Forza is a great example as it is both a 4K game on XBox and a free to play game on mobile. But they need to talk about how they are going to turn the Apple TV into a (last gen ... it can't compete with PS5 or XBox X) console with a massive infusion of resources and support, not name dropping a title that can run on a cheap 3 year old Android tablet that is coming your way via a $5 a month service.
Point of contrast ... Microsoft spent $7.5 billion for Bethesda just to get more titles for xCloud (for the near term anyway). By contrast, Lucasfilm (Star Wars!!!) only cost Disney $4 billion, which is also how much Disney paid for Marvel ($4 billion). Gaming is a bigger industry than Hollywood now and was BEFORE covid-19 obliterated the film industry this year (AND caused a gaming boom).
If Apple is going to make Apple TV - and Apple Silicon generally - a real gaming platform beyond mobile titles that is just a hint of the investment that it would take.
I agree. That's why I'm of the mindset that Apple should acquire Nintendo. Nintendo has an extremely popular stable of first-party exclusives that are also family friendly. it would provide a huge boost to Apple's gaming efforts.
Nintendo and Apple have a lot in common like inventing technology to use and having everyone copy them. They truly belong together and admire each other but the chance of that happening is slim. Japan has this belief that they shouldn't sell their companies and Nintendo would be quite expensive. Nintendo is definitely the company Apple should own after Disney. But there are problems here.
Comments
Providing a cheap stick and 2 version of Apple Arcade is too much fragmentation. I think a better solution is an all new powerful Apple TV with a 64GB version for non-gamers or mild gamers and a 128-512GB for "hardcore" gamers. I hate the word "hardcore" since in the gaming community it implies nerdy 12-year-olds who cuss and play Call of Duty.
I think the Siri Remote is the greatest remote in history next to the expensive Logitechs and the Wii Remote. There's no statistics that show Apple TV sales have "cratered".
With that said, the remote should be improved with Find My support, taptic engine, speaker and better microphone. Apple TV needs the new Apple Silicon Mac chips.
"People have told us over and over and over again, they don't want to rent their music. Just to make that perfectly clear: Music's not like a video. Your favorite movie you may watch 10 times in your life; your favorite song you're going to listen to a thousand times in your life. If it costs you $10 a month, or over $100 a year, for a subscription fee to rent that song, that means for me to listen to my favorite song in 10 years I paid over $1,000 in subscription fees to listen to my favorite song 10 years from now, and that just doesn't fly with customers. They don't want subscriptions." - Steve Jobs
https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/04/03/steve-jobs-was-wrong-about-music-streaming.aspx
Glad to hear it. And your opinion is important how exactly?
There's no statistics that show Apple TV sales have "cratered"..
https://www.imore.com/apple-tv-still-trails-behind-competitors-wide-margin
https://toucharcade.com/2015/12/14/slow-apple-tv-games-sales-and-seemingly-booming-console-sales-mean-nothing-yet-the-carter-crater/
Ok not cratered, but in a market that is rapidly growing by leaps, Apple's been flat for the better part of a decade.
There's no statistics that show Apple TV sales have cratered.
Nintendo and Apple have a lot in common like inventing technology to use and having everyone copy them. They truly belong together and admire each other but the chance of that happening is slim. Japan has this belief that they shouldn't sell their companies and Nintendo would be quite expensive. Nintendo is definitely the company Apple should own after Disney. But there are problems here.