They could wreck other ones.....if they actually make it right. So any thoughts on if they should make one?
If it's not like any other gmaing system they have done, then yes. But, slow approoval times that are biased, limitations galore, half games, a dump called the app store, and more make this horrible. But I love it
They did have one, but it didn't turn out so well. I'm guessing apple will just stick to the iPod Touch as their gaming system for now.
All great consoles took time to involve into what they are today. Something new would have to be beyond mind-blowing to even survive in the market. Kinda like the iPod Touch with the AppStore (but then again, it's not a dedicated console).
Apple doesn't care about your television, they've done everything humanly possible to stay clear of that market. What you've got to ask is, what's the motivation? In the case of the Apple TV they absolutely needed a product that could run their DRMed content through a TV and so far that's the only thing their interested in bringing to a set top box. Microsoft saw the XBOX not only as a gaming system but a gateway to eventually selling downloadable content and DRMed media and they've become quite adept at doing both. From a philosophical standpoint Apple is a lot like Nintendo, they release the products they want and you can ether jump on board or get the hell out of the way and the consumers opinion means absolute dick to them. If anything what makes the App store a success is how much they took from the existing console marketplaces that have been growing since 2005.
And thus this is the gateway for an Apple platform on which you'd game in your living room: Or, at least, it could be, if Apple would release an update to the hardware (a next gen Apple TV) and bundle it with that Wiimote style remote control they're apparently trying to patent. Or, better yet, tie in the idea of the accelerometer and IR motion sensing control with the touch surface interface of the Magic Mouse. Do that, and they'd basically have the sort of control used for iPhone/touch gaming on the new Apple TV remote. Give it bluetooth capabilities, so you can, if you choose, use your iPhone/touch (if you have one) as a controller replacement for the motion/touch remote idea (if you wish) and/or even other things like bluetooth keyboards and such. It wouldn't be a home game console just as iPhone/touch isn't a portable game system. This new Apple TV would be a digital set top box computing platform, kind of a new wrinkle in the entertainment set top box market, just as iPhone/touch was in the mobile market. Music, movies, games, productivity and creativity apps. It would establish a new cornerstone that, IMHO, would likely have a larger potential market than the iPad. Think about it. $299-399. 500GB - 1TB HDD. 1080p video. Tied to the iTunes store. An AppleTV specific section of the App Store. Ability to play your current iPhone/touch games on your TV set via the Apple TV just like what Sony's done recently with PSP games on PSN being playable on PS3. New Apple TV exclusive apps that really take into account the extra horsepower (this would be quite a great deal more powerful than iPhone/touch or the iPad). And because it would have things like photo editing software, office software, etc. via apps, it would be an "entry" model into Apple computing or a good secondary model for those who already have Macs. Now I fully expect Hodapp to come in with his usual misunderstanding of what I've clearly stated....
And that, IMHO, is honestly the one really bad decision they've made. They are poised to do for the living room what they did in the mobile market with iPhone/touch, but they need new Apple TV hardware, and they need to have an open SDK for it as well as open up an App Store. They need a renewed focus on the product. It really shouldn't be "just a hobby". Exactly my point. Their disinterest in bringing anything "new" to the table is a big gaffe on their part. When they launched Apple TV, it was basically just a product used to stream what you already had on your Mac or PC to your TV set. It was a very limited use product. Then, Apple wisely repositioned the device as an "iPod for the living room", giving it direct access to iTunes itself, and launching HD movies on iTunes as well. But they didn't go far enough. It's still too closed. They need to open it up as much as they did iPhone/touch (after, of course, releasing a new hardware configuration, because the current AppleTV is too costly and not powerful enough). Then it'll be like opening the floodgates. Developers will come through.
Always thought the Mac Mini - with its compatibility with most TVs - was an attempt to move the Mac to the living room. iPad works much better.
Actually, it was an attempt to have a midpoint between nettop and desktop tower/box builds. Apple's only other tower builds are the Mac Pros, which are really professional grade hardware configurations. Mac Minis were seen as an "entry" point to Mac computing for those that didn't want an all-in-one and wanted to use their own keyboards, monitors, etc. Mac Minis have "compatibility with most TVs" the way other Macs and PCs do: via VGA or DVI connection. Apple TV on the other has clear cut component and HDMI outputs. No, it really doesn't compared to a renewed Apple TV. Compared to a Mac Mini? Sure. Mac Mini isn't really a "living room" appliance though. It can be used as such, but the "official" use is, was, and quite frankly always will be a cheap "entry" Mac computer for those that want to use their current peripherals and not invest in an all-in-one. It has, IMHO, the likelihood of a more limited market potential than new Apple TV hardware with an open SDK and its own section of the App Store. Price alone is one factor (~$200 less for Apple TV, even if the hardware is upgraded). Plus, there's no potential crossover loss from other Apple hardware, and it has what is most likely a clearer cut base of potential consumers.
It's rumored that Apple isn't really into the gaming business and wasn't happy about how people were embracing the ipod touch as a gaming platform but they went with it anyways. I guess that's where the money is at these days so they hired a person who used to work for ID software to help create more Apple branded ipod touch/iphone games. One of the reasons why consumers love ipod touch games is because Apple allows anyone to make games for them and set them at any price and we get to see developers compete with each other buy undercutting the prices for the games to get noticed more on the App store. I don't know how well this strategy would work for a console though because 99 percent of the indy made games on xbox live are really bad.
Well technically anybody could wreck the other gaming consoles... if they made it right. But Apple's would have to be different, in a good and spontaneous way.
