Is Apple making a game console?

[Radeon]

Well that would actually be: Is Apple making *another* game console....
their first was the Pippin of the mid 1990s which had a powerful
PowerPC 603 processor but lacked any hardware for 3D graphics which the
PlayStation and Nintendo64 had. the Pippin bombed far worse than the
3DO




http://www.joystiq.com/2006/01/03/blog-debate-is-apple-making-a-game-console/

Is Apple making a game console?
Posted Jan 3rd 2006 1:45PM by Christopher Grant
Filed under: Mac

What happens when Apple speculation and video game speculation meet:
platform wars of biblical proportions! Under speculation here is
whether or not Apple has any interest in reentering the console gaming
arena with the expected relaunch of their diminutive Mac mini.

Apple in the News proposed that a redesigned Mac mini could "advance
over the game market, a market that Microsoft is trying so fiercely to
conquer. With a new mac mini including a killer graphics board, Apple
could relatively easily attract a large number of game producing
companies."
Our blogeagues over at TUAW responded saying, "Apple hasn't been
interested in being in the gaming console market for more than a
decade" referring to 1995s ill-fated Apple/Bandai game console, the
Pippin. "Apple doesn't need to be in the gaming console market to
succeed in creating a successful media center product."
Cathode Tan offered their initial proposal of this very thing from
February '05, and a further rebuttal of TUAW's post. They explain: why
despite the failure of the Pippin, Apple still has its eyes on the game
industry; why ports are necessary for success; and why Apple's attempts
need not mirror Microsoft and Sony's war of attrition, but rather
Nintendo's struggle for innovation. They also explain why Apple should
be considering an entry into the console market: the Xbox can stream
video, music, has iPod support, plays games, and is cheaper than a Mac
mini; living room boxes should play games; and Apple already appeals to
a younger demographic.

Until a new Mac mini is announced (next Monday?) this debate will rage
on all across the Internets. We're going to stay out of this debate (we
have families you know), but I will say one thing... what if Apple has
a hand in Nintendo's Revolution (think Microsoft and the Dreamcast)?
The system already looks like it was designed by Cupertino... discuss.




-------------

http://apple-in-the-news.blogspot.com/2005/12/apple-mac-mini-next-game-console.html

Apple Mac mini the next game console?

As the year comes to an end, it is time for the predictions for 2006. I
am not a great fan of predictions in general, but I have some for the
next year, as I will show in this and the next post.

My first prediction for Apple in 2006 has to do with the mac mini.
Apple is a company that has always strived to create the best products
for the home user. And now they are clearly starting to rip the fruits
of this focus. But this also indicates that is time to go to a new
level, and in my view this has everything to do with the Mac mini.

The Mac mini was launched at the beginning of this year as a cheap
alternative to the more full-featured iMacs. However, I think that it
will become during this year not only a smaller version of the full
Macs, but also a major player in the Apple product line, with features
that will make it a highly desirable home entertainment product.

First, Apple has finally in the mac mini the opportunity to be
competitive, in terms of cost, as a multimedia digital hub. Also, it
already has the front row technology that was launched early in the
fall to the more expensive iMac G5. Now, It is easy to conclude that
the mac mini integrated with front row is not so far away, and with
such features it can become a clear winner as the digital hub of the
future home.

Even more importantly, the mac mini has enough software and
computational power to do much more than this: it can also advance over
the game market, a market that Microsoft is trying so fiercely to
conquer. With a new mac mini including a killer graphics board, Apple
could relatively easily attract a large number of game producing
companies. By doing this, Apple would be integrating into one product
the chief technologies of home entertainment: video, music, and games.

If this will become true, it is difficult to guarantee. But given the
high level of innovation coming from Apple, I have great hopes that
they will be following a development model similar to this. I think
that, combined with the recent success of other products, Apple can
deliver in not so much time a mac mini that would be a killer product
for 2006, as well as the iPod was for 2005.


--------------------------

http://www.igniq.com/2006/01/blog-speculation-apple-mac-mini-as.html

New Year predictions are always fun to read, and Joystiq has picked up
on a good one from the blogosphere.

It concerns one blogger's prediction that Steve Jobs will make a move
into the games industry with the Mac Mini in 2006.

The prediction is based on the idea of Apple positioning the Mini as an
all-in-one digital multimedia hub; the magic ingredient that would push
it into Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo's turf would be the inclusion of a
top graphics card in an updated Mini, that would attract games
developers fairly easily:

[Wegie]

that was a dumb post.

apple is moving away from the main Game Processor. PowerPC

microsoft is losing $100+ for every game machine it sells, it has lost
billions so far.

and apple is getting back into games?

not a chance in hell.

[Derek Currie]

Post by Wegie
that was a dumb post.
apple is moving away from the main Game Processor. PowerPC
microsoft is losing $100+ for every game machine it sells, it has lost
billions so far.
and apple is getting back into games?
not a chance in hell.

Agreed.

Here, for your enjoyment, is a signature I put together to help free
mankind from yet-another attempt by M$ to keep the computing community
in the Stone Age:

;-D

------------------------
Please boycott the Xbox 360:
1) It stifles competition in the game box market because Microsoft dump
Xbox machines at below cost.
2) It is estimated that every Xbox 360 package costs $525 in parts and
assembly, compared to the $399 retail price.
<http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/23/1549209>
3) In 2004 Microsoft's Xbox division lost $391 million on sales of $3.2
billion.
4) Microsoft can afford Xbox to be a loss leader because it has the
assets to waste.
5) Fair trade companies in the gaming market are unable to compete with
Microsoft's unfair trade practices.
6) The real purpose of the Xbox is to ruin the game machine market in
Microsoft's favor so that they can instigate another monopoly, as they
have with the PC market.
7) Microsoft do not innovate; they imitate, buy, or stifle alternatives.
Real innovators such as Nintendo and Sony suffer from Microsoft
parasitisim.
8) The gaming market can only thrive and benefit the consumer in a
marketplace of true competition and innovation.
9) Xbox 360 has proven to be highly crash-prone:
<http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000743069364/>
<http://www.xbox-scene.com/xbox1data/sep/EEFkZkkkyEHasmrPqu.php>
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/***@N00/>
10) Chicago resident Robert Byers is the first XBox 360 owner to sue
Microsoft regarding defects in the machine including the power supply
and CPU overheating, locking up the console. He is demanding either
replacement or recall of all Xbox 360 machines.
<http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051205/tc_nm/media_xbox_dc>
11) CNET has reported that the Xbox is "obscenely power hungry," drawing
160 watts of power, more than twice as much as the original Xbox or
rival game consoles. Four hours of game play per day can result in an
additional $35 per electric bill.
<http://news.com.com/2061-10797_3-5982822.html?part=rss&tag=5982822&subj=
news>
12) On 12/13/05 it was reported that the Xbox 360 file system had been
cracked. This provides "the foundation for work seeking to attack the
content protection put in place by Microsoft."
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/13/xbox_360_file-system_cracked/>

[Warren Oates]

In article

Post by Derek Currie
Here, for your enjoyment, is a signature I put together to help free
mankind from yet-another attempt by M$ to keep the computing community

What exactly is a "fair trade [company] in the gaming market?" Sony? A
fair trade company? Sony? SONY?

Why do you care about all this?

[Martin Kess]

Post by Derek Currie
1) It stifles competition in the game box market because Microsoft dump
Xbox machines at below cost.

Yet strangely, Nintendo and Sony also sell their consoles at below
cost, and did so before Microsoft came along. Oh, but they don't count.

Post by Derek Currie
2) It is estimated that every Xbox 360 package costs $525 in parts and
assembly, compared to the $399 retail price.

Assuming that they don't get volume discounts, which of course they do.
By your wonderfully inept logic, this means that a bank's strategy of
lending someone money (thus taking a loss) and then collecting interest
on it is a bad one. This is EXACTLY what Microsoft is doing.

Post by Derek Currie
3) In 2004 Microsoft's Xbox division lost $391 million on sales of $3.2
billion.

However, the game developers profited greatly. Look at Bungie, for
example. Microsoft said right from the start that they didn't plan on
making money off of the original XBox. They wanted to get into a
cut-throat market, and they did so quite successfully. The XBox 360
will be making Microsoft money by the end of this year (even with a
loss on each console sale).

Post by Derek Currie
4) Microsoft can afford Xbox to be a loss leader because it has the
assets to waste.

Yes it can afford it. What's your point?

Post by Derek Currie
5) Fair trade companies in the gaming market are unable to compete with
Microsoft's unfair trade practices.

You really don't have any idea what you're talking about, do you?
Microsoft's practices are completely fair in the console market, and
the major ones were used long before Microsoft came along.

Post by Derek Currie
6) The real purpose of the Xbox is to ruin the game machine market in
Microsoft's favor so that they can instigate another monopoly, as they
have with the PC market.

Hate to break it to you, but that's the goal of every business venture
- to control a certain market.

Post by Derek Currie
7) Microsoft do not innovate; they imitate, buy, or stifle alternatives.
Real innovators such as Nintendo and Sony suffer from Microsoft
parasitisim.

Of course things like bringing an incredibly well written online
environment (XBox Live) to the world isn't innovation. Nor is having
the most powerful console on the market. Or having the first console to
ever ship with a built in hard drive.

Post by Derek Currie
8) The gaming market can only thrive and benefit the consumer in a
marketplace of true competition and innovation.

No, but competition is a good thing. And this is against Microsoft how?
Here's a quick quiz: which group has more companies in it? Nintendo.
Nintendo, Sony. Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft.
Did you forget completely about the problems at the PS1 and PS2 launch
or the original XBox's launch? And the numbers are at about 2% - 3%,
with Microsoft doing a very commendable job at fixing broken consoles
(free shipping both ways, about 3 - 4 business days delay).

Post by Derek Currie
10) Chicago resident Robert Byers is the first XBox 360 owner to sue
Microsoft regarding defects in the machine including the power supply
and CPU overheating, locking up the console. He is demanding either
replacement or recall of all Xbox 360 machines.

Good for him.

Post by Derek Currie
11) CNET has reported that the Xbox is "obscenely power hungry," drawing
160 watts of power, more than twice as much as the original Xbox or
rival game consoles. Four hours of game play per day can result in an
additional $35 per electric bill.

Which is still less than a gaming PC. And it's more than twice as
powerful as the original XBox. Imagine that.

Post by Derek Currie
12) On 12/13/05 it was reported that the Xbox 360 file system had been
cracked. This provides "the foundation for work seeking to attack the
content protection put in place by Microsoft."

This is a good thing! One of my favourite things about the original
XBox was that it could be cracked and then filled up with
NES/SNES/N64/Arcade roms. Hardly a bad thing at all.

[Tim Smith]

In article

Post by Derek Currie
Here, for your enjoyment, is a signature I put together to help free
mankind from yet-another attempt by M$ to keep the computing community
;-D
------------------------
1) It stifles competition in the game box market because Microsoft dump
Xbox machines at below cost.

Since Sony does the same thing, please explain how this stifles
competition.

...

Post by Derek Currie
5) Fair trade companies in the gaming market are unable to compete with
Microsoft's unfair trade practices.

Sony and Nintendo are competing quite well.

[C Lund]

Post by Radeon
Well that would actually be: Is Apple making *another* game console....
their first was the Pippin of the mid 1990s which had a powerful
PowerPC 603 processor but lacked any hardware for 3D graphics which the
PlayStation and Nintendo64 had. the Pippin bombed far worse than the
3DO

I wouldn't be surprised. And the mini isn't far off as it is. Give it
a better graphics card, drop some of the ports, add a controller, make
a specialised version of OS X, and you're there. And if it could run
existing OS X games, then it wouldn't start out with such a weak
selection such as certain other consoles have in the past.

But I'd be happy if Apple let a better graphics card be an option for
existing minis.

[Sandman]

Post by C Lund

Post by Radeon
Well that would actually be: Is Apple making *another* game console....
their first was the Pippin of the mid 1990s which had a powerful
PowerPC 603 processor but lacked any hardware for 3D graphics which the
PlayStation and Nintendo64 had. the Pippin bombed far worse than the
3DO

I wouldn't be surprised. And the mini isn't far off as it is. Give it
a better graphics card, drop some of the ports, add a controller, make
a specialised version of OS X, and you're there.

Or, re-ignite the Newton OS and put it in such an environment, to test it, then
release a PDA with Newton... Just drop the object oriented stuff that doesn't
sync very well to desktop apps. Make the Newton OS have media center
functionality.

But, of course, stuff like quartz extreme is already in OSX, which would have
to be added to Newton as well, I suppose. But Newton is a light weight OS,
which I think would suite this better.

Post by C Lund
And if it could run existing OS X games, then it wouldn't start out
with such a weak selection such as certain other consoles have in the
past.

Existing OSX games are really desktop games, not console games, so I don't
think that would be much of a benefit. Plus, you don't release a new game
console today without having some huge game developer signed.

[ZnU]

Post by C Lund

Post by Radeon
Well that would actually be: Is Apple making *another* game console....
their first was the Pippin of the mid 1990s which had a powerful
PowerPC 603 processor but lacked any hardware for 3D graphics which the
PlayStation and Nintendo64 had. the Pippin bombed far worse than the
3DO

I wouldn't be surprised. And the mini isn't far off as it is. Give it
a better graphics card, drop some of the ports, add a controller, make
a specialised version of OS X, and you're there. And if it could run
existing OS X games, then it wouldn't start out with such a weak
selection such as certain other consoles have in the past.
But I'd be happy if Apple let a better graphics card be an option for
existing minis.

This market is insanely competitive, and it's difficult to see what
unique advantage Apple would bring to the table. Unless they feel like
burning all their iPod profits on a project that doesn't directly
further their larger strategic goals and isn't very likely to succeed, I
suspect they'll stay very far away.

It would make much more sense for Apple to introduce something that was
just a set-top media appliance. If that was successful, Apple could
possibly leverage as a means to enter the game console market on decent
footing, although the extra R&D required to build a competitive game
console these days would be huge. If you look at the architectures of
the PS3 and the Xbox 360, you can see this is *not* just a matter of
shipping a Mac mini with an improved graphics chip.

[Sandman]

Post by ZnU

Post by C Lund

Post by Radeon
Well that would actually be: Is Apple making *another* game
console.... their first was the Pippin of the mid 1990s which had a
powerful PowerPC 603 processor but lacked any hardware for 3D
graphics which the PlayStation and Nintendo64 had. the Pippin
bombed far worse than the 3DO

I wouldn't be surprised. And the mini isn't far off as it is. Give it
a better graphics card, drop some of the ports, add a controller,
make a specialised version of OS X, and you're there. And if it could
run existing OS X games, then it wouldn't start out with such a weak
selection such as certain other consoles have in the past.
But I'd be happy if Apple let a better graphics card be an option for
existing minis.

This market is insanely competitive, and it's difficult to see what
unique advantage Apple would bring to the table. Unless they feel like
burning all their iPod profits on a project that doesn't directly
further their larger strategic goals and isn't very likely to succeed,
I suspect they'll stay very far away.

I can see it:


+- iPod --+
iMac -+ | +-- TV/Stereo
+- iGame -+

The iMac is for iTunes and iPhoto
The iPod syncs with that
The iGame is for playing games, watching/recording TV, listening to music,
watching photo slideshow, either from the iMac (like EyeHome) or from the iPod
via the built in iPod base station.

iGame has a built in hard drive, wireless handcontroller, mouse and keyboard -
which is the same you can use for you iMac - just fetch it from the iMac when
you're not using it.

Post by ZnU
It would make much more sense for Apple to introduce something that
was just a set-top media appliance. If that was successful, Apple
could possibly leverage as a means to enter the game console market on
decent footing, although the extra R&D required to build a competitive
game console these days would be huge. If you look at the
architectures of the PS3 and the Xbox 360, you can see this is *not*
just a matter of shipping a Mac mini with an improved graphics chip.

Indeed, but as you say - gaming might not have to be goal number one for the
appliance - but should be on the roadmap. It should be souped up EyeHome
married with Front Row + live TV. That would kick som major ass.

[ZnU]

Post by Sandman

Post by ZnU

Post by C Lund

Post by Radeon
Well that would actually be: Is Apple making *another* game
console.... their first was the Pippin of the mid 1990s which had a
powerful PowerPC 603 processor but lacked any hardware for 3D
graphics which the PlayStation and Nintendo64 had. the Pippin
bombed far worse than the 3DO

I wouldn't be surprised. And the mini isn't far off as it is. Give it
a better graphics card, drop some of the ports, add a controller,
make a specialised version of OS X, and you're there. And if it could
run existing OS X games, then it wouldn't start out with such a weak
selection such as certain other consoles have in the past.
But I'd be happy if Apple let a better graphics card be an option for
existing minis.

This market is insanely competitive, and it's difficult to see what
unique advantage Apple would bring to the table. Unless they feel like
burning all their iPod profits on a project that doesn't directly
further their larger strategic goals and isn't very likely to succeed,
I suspect they'll stay very far away.

+- iPod --+
iMac -+ | +-- TV/Stereo
+- iGame -+
The iMac is for iTunes and iPhoto
The iPod syncs with that
The iGame is for playing games, watching/recording TV, listening to music,
watching photo slideshow, either from the iMac (like EyeHome) or from the iPod
via the built in iPod base station.
iGame has a built in hard drive, wireless handcontroller, mouse and keyboard -
which is the same you can use for you iMac - just fetch it from the iMac when
you're not using it.

Post by ZnU
It would make much more sense for Apple to introduce something that
was just a set-top media appliance. If that was successful, Apple
could possibly leverage as a means to enter the game console market on
decent footing, although the extra R&D required to build a competitive
game console these days would be huge. If you look at the
architectures of the PS3 and the Xbox 360, you can see this is *not*
just a matter of shipping a Mac mini with an improved graphics chip.

Indeed, but as you say - gaming might not have to be goal number one for the
appliance - but should be on the roadmap. It should be souped up EyeHome
married with Front Row + live TV. That would kick som major ass.

I'm not so sure it should be on the roadmap. Compared with just shipping
a media appliance, this requires spending hundreds of millions of extra
dollars on R&D, at least, and probably adopting a model where the
hardware is sold at a loss.

Actually, it doesn't even make sense to sell a game console which
doubles as a media appliance when you think of it like that, because
some people will buy it *just* as a media appliance, and won't buy any
games, and you'll lose money on those customers. And if the system ran
Mac games, it would be an open platform, unlike the current consoles, so
Apple would have no way to make sure it got a cut of the game sales
anyway.

The alternative would be for Apple to sell the device for what it
actually cost, plus a decent profit. That could easily be something like
$700, factoring in the new R&D, which I think is more than most people
would be willing to pay for such a device.

[Sandman]

Post by ZnU
I'm not so sure it should be on the roadmap. Compared with just shipping
a media appliance, this requires spending hundreds of millions of extra
dollars on R&D, at least, and probably adopting a model where the
hardware is sold at a loss.

Hopefully not - I think Apple would still add on their premium pricing. I don't
think they would do it to become a major game console player, but to become a
major media appliance player - which will interoperate with the iPod, which
means loads of people would probably buy it and game developers would look at
Apples way because of that.

I bet developing a competitive game console takes tons of money, but a Apple
game/media console would be Just Right, so even if it doesn't gat a great
market share in gaming, it would still sell well, methinks.

Post by ZnU
Actually, it doesn't even make sense to sell a game console which
doubles as a media appliance when you think of it like that, because
some people will buy it *just* as a media appliance, and won't buy any
games, and you'll lose money on those customers.

How do you figure? They're still paying for functions they aren't using. Plus,
lots of people buy computers without using some of the features of them. I
rather think of it being a plus that this appliance has more features than just
gaming, or just TV shows, or just iTunes broadcasting or whatever. It's an
all-in-one device

Post by ZnU
And if the system ran Mac games, it would be an open platform, unlike
the current consoles, so Apple would have no way to make sure it got a
cut of the game sales anyway.

As far as I know, Sony and Microsoft doesn't get a cut of game sales for games
they didn't develop or co-develop, like Halo or Gran Turismo. Maybe I'm wrong.

But, Apple do get a cut on the TV show sales that are viewable on this device,
they do get a cut of music sold and played on it and so on.

Plus, iTunes should be renamed to iMedia and handle all purchases for this -
selling music, tv shows, movies and games online in the iMedia Store for this
console, via an on-screen interface would also kick ass.

Post by ZnU
The alternative would be for Apple to sell the device for what it
actually cost, plus a decent profit. That could easily be something like
$700, factoring in the new R&D, which I think is more than most people
would be willing to pay for such a device.

Indeed, but some would, and then they release the iGame mini for those that
just want to play games or just want a media appliance? Nah, maybe not. :)

[ZnU]

Post by Sandman

Post by ZnU
I'm not so sure it should be on the roadmap. Compared with just
shipping a media appliance, this requires spending hundreds of
millions of extra dollars on R&D, at least, and probably adopting a
model where the hardware is sold at a loss.

Hopefully not - I think Apple would still add on their premium
pricing. I don't think they would do it to become a major game
console player, but to become a major media appliance player - which
will interoperate with the iPod, which means loads of people would
probably buy it and game developers would look at Apples way because
of that.
I bet developing a competitive game console takes tons of money, but
a Apple game/media console would be Just Right, so even if it doesn't
gat a great market share in gaming, it would still sell well,
methinks.

There might be a market for something like set-top Mac mini with
slightly more serious graphics hardware. It wouldn't be a Playstation or
Xbox replacement, but it could probably play quite a range of games
pretty well.

However, I'm not sure how such a device could be marketed. If it was
promoted as a game console, people would be unimpressed, and it would
probably be seen as a failure. Apple might do better just shipping it as
a media appliance, and quietly encouraging game publishers behind the
scenes to support the Mac platform, using their installed based figured
for the set-top as a talking point.

Post by Sandman

Post by ZnU
Actually, it doesn't even make sense to sell a game console which
doubles as a media appliance when you think of it like that,
because some people will buy it *just* as a media appliance, and
won't buy any games, and you'll lose money on those customers.

How do you figure?

Because instead of selling them a media appliance at a profit, which you
could probably do for $400 or $500, you'd be selling them a gaming
console at a loss. Which you'd pretty much have to do, or it would be so
expensive nobody would buy it.

Post by Sandman
They're still paying for functions they aren't using. Plus, lots of
people buy computers without using some of the features of them. I
rather think of it being a plus that this appliance has more features
than just gaming, or just TV shows, or just iTunes broadcasting or
whatever. It's an all-in-one device

Post by ZnU
And if the system ran Mac games, it would be an open platform,
unlike the current consoles, so Apple would have no way to make
sure it got a cut of the game sales anyway.

As far as I know, Sony and Microsoft doesn't get a cut of game sales
for games they didn't develop or co-develop, like Halo or Gran
Turismo. Maybe I'm wrong.

You can't develop games for a console platform unless you're a licensed
developer, and that requires paying lots of money to the console vendor.

You also, if you want to make money as a console vendor, do need to
develop or at least publish your own games. So, shipping a gaming
console requires Apple to put some serious resources into that as well.

Seriously, Microsoft can't make money in the console business -- and
honestly, they've got a pretty good product, and aren't doing anything
obviously wrong. It's just a really, really hard market.

Apple can make a set-top media appliance with practically no additional
R&D, and there are essentially are no products presently on the market
that would compete with it. If the iPod is any guide, they might be able
to get better margins on such a product than they do on low-end
computers.

Breaking into console gaming in a serious way would require Apple to
spend billions of dollars, just to even make a credible attempt. And
that would be just to get in the door, in a market where it's very, very
hard to make money.

Post by Sandman
But, Apple do get a cut on the TV show sales that are viewable on
this device, they do get a cut of music sold and played on it and so
on.

Sure, but Apple barely makes any money on that stuff, after operating
costs.

Post by Sandman
Plus, iTunes should be renamed to iMedia and handle all purchases for
this - selling music, tv shows, movies and games online in the iMedia
Store for this console, via an on-screen interface would also kick
ass.

Post by ZnU
The alternative would be for Apple to sell the device for what it
actually cost, plus a decent profit. That could easily be something
like $700, factoring in the new R&D, which I think is more than
most people would be willing to pay for such a device.

Indeed, but some would, and then they release the iGame mini for
those that just want to play games or just want a media appliance?
Nah, maybe not. :)

[Sandman]

Post by ZnU

Post by Sandman
I bet developing a competitive game console takes tons of money, but
a Apple game/media console would be Just Right, so even if it doesn't
gat a great market share in gaming, it would still sell well,
methinks.

There might be a market for something like set-top Mac mini with
slightly more serious graphics hardware. It wouldn't be a Playstation or
Xbox replacement, but it could probably play quite a range of games
pretty well.

Exactly, and it could evolbe pretty much like any Mac evolves, instead of PS,
PS2 and PS3, you'd have a new media box out just as often as you have a new
iMac or Mac mini. It should have some form of specialized gaming CPU though,
and not a ordinary G4, so that the prospect of more advanced games wouldn't be
too far away.

Post by ZnU
However, I'm not sure how such a device could be marketed. If it was
promoted as a game console, people would be unimpressed, and it would
probably be seen as a failure. Apple might do better just shipping it as
a media appliance, and quietly encouraging game publishers behind the
scenes to support the Mac platform, using their installed based figured
for the set-top as a talking point.

Or market it as both, much like how they market any Mac - good for home movies,
home music, rip, mix, burn, organize your organizer. Or how they market the
iPod - music, videos, tv shows, podcasts and more - most people doesn't use all
the features of an iPod either, and don't consider it to be a failure if they
don't.

Post by ZnU

Post by Sandman

Post by ZnU
Actually, it doesn't even make sense to sell a game console which
doubles as a media appliance when you think of it like that,
because some people will buy it *just* as a media appliance, and
won't buy any games, and you'll lose money on those customers.

How do you figure?

Because instead of selling them a media appliance at a profit, which you
could probably do for $400 or $500, you'd be selling them a gaming
console at a loss. Which you'd pretty much have to do, or it would be so
expensive nobody would buy it.

*if* you build a xbox-killer gaming concole. If you buy a media appliances that
also play games better than any Mac but not as good as xbox or ps3 or even a
high end PC, you'd still have the midrange. I don't think Apple should go after
sony, nintendo and MS in this area. They should do it right, where the number
of polygons might not be the most important thing.

Remember, PS2 is now the slowest game console on market, and it still gets TONS
of titles weekly. Really innovative stufff like Buzz, EyeToy and that kareoke
thing are released for playstation in spite of it being the slowest.

Make the iHome/iGame/iConsole/iHub or whatever slightly better than a PS2 - or
maybe just as goood as the first X-box. Don't focus on performance. Most people
doesn't buy performance, they buy the platform that have the most interesting
games, which might not be the iHome, but you still want it since it does so
much more.

I.e. slap gaming on as a bonus for those that choose between a Xbox or a iHome
and have an iPod. maybe they'll consider the iHome more if it also plays games
just as good as the (1st gen) xbox.

Post by ZnU

Post by Sandman
As far as I know, Sony and Microsoft doesn't get a cut of game sales
for games they didn't develop or co-develop, like Halo or Gran
Turismo. Maybe I'm wrong.

You can't develop games for a console platform unless you're a licensed
developer, and that requires paying lots of money to the console vendor.

Exactly, but that's not necessarily a percentage of sales figures, right? Not
that I know, though.

Post by ZnU
You also, if you want to make money as a console vendor, do need to
develop or at least publish your own games. So, shipping a gaming
console requires Apple to put some serious resources into that as well.

Or buy a serious gaming company, like MS did, whichever is cheapest. :)

Post by ZnU
Seriously, Microsoft can't make money in the console business -- and
honestly, they've got a pretty good product, and aren't doing anything
obviously wrong. It's just a really, really hard market.

For the new, high end - I agree. I wouldn't want Apple there. At least not yet.

Post by ZnU
Apple can make a set-top media appliance with practically no additional
R&D, and there are essentially are no products presently on the market
that would compete with it. If the iPod is any guide, they might be able
to get better margins on such a product than they do on low-end
computers.

Without R&D? Surely you're not suggesting putting OSX on it? Shouldn't it have
a custom OS, like Newton or a variant of the iPod OS (which might be bad, since
I've understood it's quite limited).

Post by ZnU
Breaking into console gaming in a serious way would require Apple to
spend billions of dollars, just to even make a credible attempt. And
that would be just to get in the door, in a market where it's very, very
hard to make money.

Indeed.

Post by ZnU

Post by Sandman
But, Apple do get a cut on the TV show sales that are viewable on
this device, they do get a cut of music sold and played on it and so
on.

Sure, but Apple barely makes any money on that stuff, after operating
costs.

Barely? Still, it's a profit. Hmmm

[ZnU]

[snip]

Post by Sandman

Post by ZnU
However, I'm not sure how such a device could be marketed. If it
was promoted as a game console, people would be unimpressed, and it
would probably be seen as a failure. Apple might do better just
shipping it as a media appliance, and quietly encouraging game
publishers behind the scenes to support the Mac platform, using
their installed based figured for the set-top as a talking point.

Or market it as both, much like how they market any Mac - good for
home movies, home music, rip, mix, burn, organize your organizer.

Thing is, there aren't other products in those markets which are
obviously superior to the Mac. That wouldn't be the case with this
hypothetical gaming system. It makes the marketing message much harder.

Post by Sandman
Or how they market the iPod - music, videos, tv shows, podcasts and
more - most people doesn't use all the features of an iPod either,
and don't consider it to be a failure if they don't.

Most of the extra features of the iPod, though, are software features.
They cost Apple a small bit of R&D investment, but it probably amounts
to pennies per unit. Sticking better 3D in a Mac mini set-top could cost
$50/unit easily, which could be over 10% of the cost of the device. If
people aren't taking advantage of the capabilities provided by that
hardware, that's a big mistake.

[snip]

Post by Sandman
Make the iHome/iGame/iConsole/iHub or whatever slightly better than a
PS2 - or maybe just as goood as the first X-box. Don't focus on
performance. Most people doesn't buy performance, they buy the
platform that have the most interesting games, which might not be the
iHome, but you still want it since it does so much more.

Well, a mini probably already does gaming better than a PS2. Like I've
said, I don't think it's an bad idea in theory -- I'm just not sure I
see how to market it.

Maybe in a couple of years, when the PS3 and Xbox 360 are getting dated
relative to what's happening in the computer industry, and their
replacements aren't out yet.

[snip]

Post by Sandman

Post by ZnU
Apple can make a set-top media appliance with practically no
additional R&D, and there are essentially are no products presently
on the market that would compete with it. If the iPod is any guide,
they might be able to get better margins on such a product than
they do on low-end computers.

Without R&D? Surely you're not suggesting putting OSX on it?
Shouldn't it have a custom OS, like Newton or a variant of the iPod
OS (which might be bad, since I've understood it's quite limited).

Why would Apple want another OS on it? Set-top hardware is quite capable
of running OS X now, and this would allow Apple to share apps between
its set-top and the Mac, with nothing more than a few interface tweaks.
They've already got iPhoto, iDVD, iMovie, iTunes, etc. all of which
would be enormously valuable on a set-top -- those are the things that
would make it more than just another TiVo-like device. It would be nuts
to have to develop all that stuff for two platforms. And it works the
other way, too. If Apple developed a PVR app for its set-top, that could
be shipped on the Mac as well.

And, of course, third-party developers could target both the Mac and the
set-top without much extra work as well.

[snip]

[Sandman]

Post by ZnU

Post by Sandman

Post by ZnU
However, I'm not sure how such a device could be marketed. If it
was promoted as a game console, people would be unimpressed, and it
would probably be seen as a failure. Apple might do better just
shipping it as a media appliance, and quietly encouraging game
publishers behind the scenes to support the Mac platform, using
their installed based figured for the set-top as a talking point.

Or market it as both, much like how they market any Mac - good for
home movies, home music, rip, mix, burn, organize your organizer.

Thing is, there aren't other products in those markets which are
obviously superior to the Mac. That wouldn't be the case with this
hypothetical gaming system. It makes the marketing message much harder.

Hum.. or easier, since you can't focus only on your inferior gaming aspect...

Post by ZnU

Post by Sandman
Or how they market the iPod - music, videos, tv shows, podcasts and
more - most people doesn't use all the features of an iPod either,
and don't consider it to be a failure if they don't.

Most of the extra features of the iPod, though, are software features.
They cost Apple a small bit of R&D investment, but it probably amounts
to pennies per unit. Sticking better 3D in a Mac mini set-top could cost
$50/unit easily, which could be over 10% of the cost of the device. If
people aren't taking advantage of the capabilities provided by that
hardware, that's a big mistake.

I know what you mean, I just don't think it has to be such a big problem if the
gaming aspect isn't cutting edge, and thus wouldn't add that much of an extra
cost, hardware wise. You still need the hand controller R&D and API's and
developer environment for game developers, though.

Post by ZnU

Post by Sandman
Make the iHome/iGame/iConsole/iHub or whatever slightly better than a
PS2 - or maybe just as goood as the first X-box. Don't focus on
performance. Most people doesn't buy performance, they buy the
platform that have the most interesting games, which might not be the
iHome, but you still want it since it does so much more.

Well, a mini probably already does gaming better than a PS2. Like I've
said, I don't think it's an bad idea in theory -- I'm just not sure I
see how to market it.

Fair enough. :)

Post by ZnU
Maybe in a couple of years, when the PS3 and Xbox 360 are getting dated
relative to what's happening in the computer industry, and their
replacements aren't out yet.

Sure, but people will continue to use PS2 for years to come also...

Post by ZnU

Post by Sandman
Without R&D? Surely you're not suggesting putting OSX on it?
Shouldn't it have a custom OS, like Newton or a variant of the iPod
OS (which might be bad, since I've understood it's quite limited).

Why would Apple want another OS on it? Set-top hardware is quite capable
of running OS X now, and this would allow Apple to share apps between
its set-top and the Mac, with nothing more than a few interface tweaks.

Well, a few major ones, I'd say, if it is to be totally controlled with a
remote and/or a hand controller. Sure, Front row is easy with a remote
controller, but what about other stuff like using iPhoto on the iHome to
extract from a camera, or buying music/tv shows from the music store?

Post by ZnU
They've already got iPhoto, iDVD, iMovie, iTunes, etc. all of which
would be enormously valuable on a set-top -- those are the things that
would make it more than just another TiVo-like device.

Indeed, and their interface wouldn't work. You'd need a "TV-mode" for them,
just like Front Row, only full featured.

Post by ZnU
It would be nuts to have to develop all that stuff for two platforms.

Well, how portable is Cocoa? :) I don't know, so I can't say really. What is
needed for it to run. Since you can install OSX without the BSD subsystem, I
guess you could make a miniature OSX or something.

Post by ZnU
And it works the other way, too. If Apple developed a PVR app for its
set-top, that could be shipped on the Mac as well.

Good point.

Post by ZnU
And, of course, third-party developers could target both the Mac and the
set-top without much extra work as well.

Yeah, you're right. I was just concerned with the OSX overhead that's not
needed on such a device. It's not like you need AMP on it or anything. OSX
Server, Client and Media? It's the Media Center version of OSX - which pretty
much brings us full circle back to Microsofts solution. :)

[ZnU]

[snip]

Post by Sandman

Post by ZnU
They've already got iPhoto, iDVD, iMovie, iTunes, etc. all of which
would be enormously valuable on a set-top -- those are the things that
would make it more than just another TiVo-like device.

Indeed, and their interface wouldn't work. You'd need a "TV-mode" for them,
just like Front Row, only full featured.

Sure, but 90% of the interface changes could probably be handled by just
writing some new standard controls, and having the application teams do
some drag-and-drop in Interface Builder.

Post by Sandman

Post by ZnU
It would be nuts to have to develop all that stuff for two platforms.

Well, how portable is Cocoa? :) I don't know, so I can't say really. What is
needed for it to run. Since you can install OSX without the BSD subsystem, I
guess you could make a miniature OSX or something.

The 'BSD subsystem' package isn't as significant as it sounds. It would
be more accurately termed the 'optional command line utilities' package.

There's really not much point in trying to scale back OS X for a device
like this. Given the RAM and hard drive capacity it would need to
perform its various media-related tasks, a full OS X installation
wouldn't be a big deal.

Post by Sandman

Post by ZnU
And it works the other way, too. If Apple developed a PVR app for its
set-top, that could be shipped on the Mac as well.

Good point.

Post by ZnU
And, of course, third-party developers could target both the Mac and the
set-top without much extra work as well.

Yeah, you're right. I was just concerned with the OSX overhead that's not
needed on such a device. It's not like you need AMP on it or anything. OSX
Server, Client and Media? It's the Media Center version of OSX - which pretty
much brings us full circle back to Microsofts solution. :)

Sure, only Apple's operating system is better at all three.

[Sandman]

Post by ZnU

Post by Sandman

Post by ZnU
They've already got iPhoto, iDVD, iMovie, iTunes, etc. all of which
would be enormously valuable on a set-top -- those are the things that
would make it more than just another TiVo-like device.

Indeed, and their interface wouldn't work. You'd need a "TV-mode" for them,
just like Front Row, only full featured.

Sure, but 90% of the interface changes could probably be handled by just
writing some new standard controls, and having the application teams do
some drag-and-drop in Interface Builder.

Hopefully - which any developer could use for their apps. And in the display
preferences, you set a given display to be a "media display" or something,
which means that applications that are displayed on it will use the alternate
interface.

Post by ZnU

Post by Sandman

Post by ZnU
It would be nuts to have to develop all that stuff for two
platforms.

Well, how portable is Cocoa? :) I don't know, so I can't say really.
What is needed for it to run. Since you can install OSX without the
BSD subsystem, I guess you could make a miniature OSX or something.

The 'BSD subsystem' package isn't as significant as it sounds. It would
be more accurately termed the 'optional command line utilities' package.
There's really not much point in trying to scale back OS X for a device
like this. Given the RAM and hard drive capacity it would need to
perform its various media-related tasks, a full OS X installation
wouldn't be a big deal.

If the interface could be solved, then sure.

Post by ZnU

Post by Sandman

Post by ZnU
And it works the other way, too. If Apple developed a PVR app for
its set-top, that could be shipped on the Mac as well. And, of
course, third-party developers could target both the Mac and the
set-top without much extra work as well.

Yeah, you're right. I was just concerned with the OSX overhead that's
not needed on such a device. It's not like you need AMP on it or
anything. OSX Server, Client and Media? It's the Media Center version
of OSX - which pretty much brings us full circle back to Microsofts
solution. :)

Sure, only Apple's operating system is better at all three.

That goes without saying. :)

[C Lund]

Post by ZnU
There might be a market for something like set-top Mac mini with
slightly more serious graphics hardware. It wouldn't be a Playstation or
Xbox replacement, but it could probably play quite a range of games
pretty well.

I'd probably buy it.

[Wayne Stuart]

Post by ZnU

Post by Sandman

Post by ZnU
I'm not so sure it should be on the roadmap. Compared with just
shipping a media appliance, this requires spending hundreds of
millions of extra dollars on R&D, at least, and probably adopting a
model where the hardware is sold at a loss.

Hopefully not - I think Apple would still add on their premium
pricing. I don't think they would do it to become a major game
console player, but to become a major media appliance player - which
will interoperate with the iPod, which means loads of people would
probably buy it and game developers would look at Apples way because
of that.
I bet developing a competitive game console takes tons of money, but
a Apple game/media console would be Just Right, so even if it doesn't
gat a great market share in gaming, it would still sell well,
methinks.

There might be a market for something like set-top Mac mini with
slightly more serious graphics hardware. It wouldn't be a Playstation or
Xbox replacement, but it could probably play quite a range of games
pretty well.
However, I'm not sure how such a device could be marketed. If it was
promoted as a game console, people would be unimpressed, and it would
probably be seen as a failure. Apple might do better just shipping it as
a media appliance, and quietly encouraging game publishers behind the
scenes to support the Mac platform, using their installed based figured
for the set-top as a talking point.

That's pretty much what I was thinking too. I've thought for a while
that Apple *really* needs to put some effort into getting the Mac back
into gaming if they want wider acceptance from the masses. As you say,
while competing with the consoles is out of the question, first step has
to be having consumer level machines that can do the job of at least a
consumer level PC with a decent level graphics card. Currently, they
don't have that, and non-upgradable graphics hardware makes the Mac
pretty unattractive to even the most casual of gamer, and conversely,
widespread gaming development, or vise-versa.

So yes, by all means, make the right cooing noises towards the gaming
industry behind the scenes, provide the tools, and provide hardware
capable of supporting games to a 'casual' gaming level, but do not
market them it as games machines.

The only stumbling block I can think of, of making the bottom level Mac,
i.e. the Mini, more viable for gaming, as far as the marketing of the
Mac range goes, you can't really have the Mini beating the range higher
up the ladder, e.g. the iMac, in any area. So if you give a Mini
kick-ass graphics hardware, the iMac has got to have at least something
as good, or upgradable to such. Which brings us back to the much
requested 'headless pizzabox iMac' concept.

Post by ZnU

Post by Sandman

Post by ZnU
Actually, it doesn't even make sense to sell a game console which
doubles as a media appliance when you think of it like that,
because some people will buy it *just* as a media appliance, and
won't buy any games, and you'll lose money on those customers.

How do you figure?

Because instead of selling them a media appliance at a profit, which you
could probably do for $400 or $500, you'd be selling them a gaming
console at a loss. Which you'd pretty much have to do, or it would be so
expensive nobody would buy it.

This reminds me of the 3DO. As I understood it, unlike the competitor
consoles from the big players of the time, gaming development on their
machine was not on the licensing method. Much like on PCs, anyone could
develop for it. The good news was that potentially, the games could be
cheaper because 3DO were not taking a cut. The bad news was, being as
they had to make money off the sales of the console itself, as opposed
to being a loss leader, it was comparatively expensive. The concept
failed! A precedent was set, and it's highly unlikely anyone will try
that route again.

[Radeon]

I agree.

a new Mac Mini with a better graphics chip would still get its ass
kicked in hard by Xbox 360 and PlayStation3, and probably even the
not-ultra powerful Nintendo Revolution (we don't yet know what the ATI
Hollywood GPU for Rev can do)


Apple would have to develop a new game-oriented CPU with Intel, and
partner with either Nvidia or ATI for a custom GPU that. I dont see
Apple doing all that. I could just see them making an improved Mac
Mini with multi-media and PC/Mac game support.

it will be basicly "Pippin3"

(Pippin 2 was in development in the mid 1990s but never made it out
after the original Pippin choked)

[Tim Smith]

Post by ZnU
This market is insanely competitive, and it's difficult to see what
unique advantage Apple would bring to the table. Unless they feel like

What would perhaps make sense would be for Apple and Nintendo to do
something together...perhaps a box that works both as a Mac and as a
Nintendo Revolution.

In many ways, Nintendo is to the game console world what Apple is to
computers. Nintendo has the lowest market share now, but they are the
only one that is profitable.

The DS is the iPod of the gaming world. On paper, everything about the
PSP looks better, but DS sales totally blow PSP sales out of the water,
largely because Nintendo understands gaming way better than Sony does.

Through excellent software design and programming, they get much more
out of older hardware than anyone else.

Look at the controller for the Revolution. That's the kind of design
and thinking different that you'd expect from Apple.

[Radeon]

If Apple does decide to take another stab at a game console, it better
not be anything like Pippin, or the recent "Phantom" effort which is
basicly a low-end PC. If Apple tries again, it better put in a
graphics card / chip that is significantly more powerful than Xenos
(the ATI GPU in Xbox 360) and also significantly more powerful than
RSX (the Nvidia GPU going into PS3).

It would also need a very powerful Intel CPU, something that we have
not yet seen. a Pentium 4 of any flavor will not cut it ..... ok I
take that back, kinda, because Sega has a pretty impressive new arcade
board called Lindbergh that runs
VirtuaFighter5 which uses a P4........... but the GPU is really
important. whatever is in the current MacMini is a piece of shit
compared to the new consoles and not much better than Xbox1 and
Gamecube.

[Martin Kess]

Apple doesn't have enough money to go into the incredibly competitive
gaming market.

Making a gaming Mac would be a tough sell. Sure, there are mac games.
Like six. UT2004, Warcraft 3 and WoW are the only real ones that I can
think of worth playing. So if someone was looking for a gaming PC, why
go with a Mac?

What I could see happening though would be Apple making a gaming iPod.
Something that has all of the iPod's functionality along with some
slight design modifications to make it better for portable gaming. Then
Apple could sell games through the increasingly poorly named iTunes
music store. Download them onto your computer, load them onto your iPod
and you're good to go.

[Wegie]

Post by Martin Kess
Apple doesn't have enough money to go into the incredibly competitive
gaming market.

yeah, Apple one of the wealthiest companies on the planet doesn't have
enough Billions in extra cash to successfully compete with a Monopoly
based cash flow is more like it. (Apple has around 7 billion in pure
cash at last count, and zero long term debt)

Post by Martin Kess
Making a gaming Mac would be a tough sell. Sure, there are mac games.
Like six. UT2004, Warcraft 3 and WoW are the only real ones that I can
think of worth playing. So if someone was looking for a gaming PC, why
go with a Mac?

Macs have most of the best games, just not "all the games".

Post by Martin Kess
What I could see happening though would be Apple making a gaming iPod.
Something that has all of the iPod's functionality along with some
slight design modifications to make it better for portable gaming. Then
Apple could sell games through the increasingly poorly named iTunes
music store. Download them onto your computer, load them onto your iPod
and you're good to go.

yes, iTunes is more and more improperly named. ipod for games? no way.

[Martin Kess]

Post by Wegie

Post by Martin Kess
Making a gaming Mac would be a tough sell. Sure, there are mac games.
Like six. UT2004, Warcraft 3 and WoW are the only real ones that I can
think of worth playing. So if someone was looking for a gaming PC, why
go with a Mac?

Macs have most of the best games, just not "all the games".

No, Macs have a few of the better games.

Post by Wegie

Post by Martin Kess
What I could see happening though would be Apple making a gaming iPod.
Something that has all of the iPod's functionality along with some
slight design modifications to make it better for portable gaming. Then
Apple could sell games through the increasingly poorly named iTunes
music store. Download them onto your computer, load them onto your iPod
and you're good to go.

yes, iTunes is more and more improperly named. ipod for games? no way.

I think that there is very little chance that iPod for games doesn't
happen. First off, iTunes would be a perfect distribution method.
Secondly there are a lot of people in the market for a music player as
well as a hand held system. Look at what Sony's PSP does so well -
plays video games and movies on an incredible screen. What it doesn't
do is music, due mostly to the lack of a hard drive. Apple's player
could do all three AND you'd be able to download your games instead of
having to go to the store to try and find it. We'll see though.