Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar) on November 22, 2020 10:17 am wrote:
> Jukka Larja (roskakori2006.delete@this.gmail.com) on November 21, 2020 8:16 pm wrote:
> > David Hess (davidwhess.delete@this.gmail.com) on November 21, 2020 7:43 pm wrote:
> > > NaNon (uh-huh.delete@this.gmail.com) on November 21, 2020 3:01 am wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Well, a strong CPU and a strong GPU might make for a compelling games console?
> > > > Roll that in with Apple TV, subscription this, that and the other all sitting
> > > > under the family TV. Then add VR/AR into the mix for extra cash.
> > > >
> > > > Seems to me there are some potentially large markets beyond pure
> > > > mobile could have a fair bit of potential growth for Apple.
> > >
> > > Those markets do not require more CPU than Apple now has.
> >
> > I'd say most of the non-compelling bits of current Apple TV as a console have little to do
> > with hardware and more to do with software, Apple's focus and attitude. They aren't making
> > developing easy (requirement to use Apple APIs like Metal, and Apple tools like Xcode on Macs)
> > nor are they offering money upfront to gain titles and relevance (without that, one can't
> > expect to targeting Apple TV to be profitable at this point) or funding exclusives.
> >
> > There's nothing stopping Apple from fixing these things, so if they wish to start
> > competing with MS and Sony they can do so at any time. Google decided to do that,
> > though we'll have to wait some years to see how successful they are going to be.
>
> There's plenty of space between "compete with Sony and MS"
> and "Apple's current involvement in the gaming market".

Sure.

> Apple's presence is mostly in mobile, with a little bit on the Mac. Now that the Mac is
> going ARM and they are making it easy for them to build apps that can run mobile AND Mac,
> they could add the same capability for running them on Apple TV so you could run them on
> the small screen, the "medium" screen (i.e. the Mac) or the big screen, your TV.

I don't really see the point. Most mobile games are not going to be fun to play on PC or on big screen (that's why they are only published for mobile in the first place). As far as I'm aware it's not difficult to get a game that runs on iPhone to run on Apple TV today, if one wishes to do that. It's probably not that hard to port an iPhone app to x86 Mac either, if all you care about is getting it to run, technically.

In casual conversation, it is usual to just talk about "games", but comparing mobile game to an AAA title on a console or PC is a bit like comparing documentary film made for local TV station to a Hollywood blockbuster. Sure, there are similarities, but both target audience and people creating the work are different.

> No one would say that Nintendo competes in consoles on the level of Sony and MS, they are more
> "casual gaming" - and with the Switch they kind of straddle the mobile and console worlds. If
> Apple got more involved in gaming they would be competing on Nintendo's turf, not Sony's.

Nintendo is special, but mostly because of very strong exclusive titles (like Mario and Zelda games). That matters much more than their hardware. What Nintendo has in common with Sony and MS is cost and amount of games. Google's Stadia seems similar in that it seems to be focusing on getting AAA titles (ported or as exclusive) and selling them for full price (+ monthly fee). It's not like it would make sense for Google to reinvent Android games market.

-JLarja