Theorizing a Big Apple Push Into Gaming

Ian Lamont writes "Terrence Russell has outlined an interesting theory about what industry Apple intends to break into next. He points to games. Forget Pippin II, or an iMac gaming rig — he thinks the mobile realm is where Apple will make a big product push. It's not the first bit of speculation about Apple's renewed interest in gaming, but Russell's theory may have more legs, considering Apple's invitation to develop games on the iPhone SDK, its strong mobile product line, and a Apple trademark extension filed three months ago."

Graphics Cards

[neoform]

How about Apple fixes it's graphics cards lineup before shooting for the moon.

I have a Quad-Core 3.0 and I can tell you, with the GPUs that came with it, I can barely play WoW, nevermind any other new games.

I had to buy a new PC in order to play any of the new games out because my mac (as great as it is), cannot handle the games.

Re:iPippin?

[face_daddy]

GM tried the electric car once before, it failed, and they're doing it again. It's because the Gaming industry is one that hasn't been affected by a potential recession, it continues to expand in revenue and profitability. It's because games (much like electric cars) are what consumers want. Go where the market lies, don't be afraid of past failures, or you'll be doomed to irrelevance.

Re:iPippin?

[TheLazySci-FiAuthor]

They'd almost be better off making a console...

Apple systems already share some properties with gaming consoles, namely the harware homogeny of Apple systems.

While to me an annoyance, this standardization might actually work in Apple's favor when trying to woo game makers, as it could act to simplify development.

Re:iPippin?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe because it's 10+ years later and both Apple and the gaming industry have changed?

Because they have an already successful base

[SuperKendall]

Because this time, they are not trying to break into a market. They are already in a market, with a very popular device (iPhone/Touch), that has decent power and 3D capabilities along with some really good control systems (accelerometers/multitouch).

Anyone who saw the demo of Monkeyball running on the iPhone from the launch of the SDK, is crazy to think that a whole lot of cool games are not forthcoming.

Furthermore, gaming on the iPhone has the same kind of hook that Wii gaming does - it's going to be kind of unique. Exactly because there's really nothing like a D-Pad on the system games are going to have to figure out what games work best with controls using multi-touch and the accelerometers. Being unqiue is also helpful in that games for the syste,m will seem different than what people are used to, even from the DS which already has a touchscreen.

Re:Not Likely

[Anonymous Coward]

*points to japan*
Argument over.

Re:iPippin?

[omeomi]

The iPhone / iTouch actually has a pretty unique interface for casual games. The touch screen and accelerometer allow for some really unique games that don't translate as well onto other devices. For instance, there are a few marble-maze sorts of games available for Jailbroken iPhones that allow you to control work your way through a maze just by tilting the phone. It's like those old games with a little bead of mercury or a ball bearing, only without the problems of friction making the ball stick. And there's a partial port of Crayon Physics [experimentalgameplay.com] that's really slick. Given a handful of good games, I could easily see the iPhone becoming a great handheld gaming platform.

Um, no.

[rtechie]

Over the years, Apple has done everything short of spitting in the face of game developers.

Yes, there will be mobile games for the iPhone. I expect to see a Bejeweled port in short order. No, the iPhone will not be the next handheld gaming device a la Nintendo DS, Sony PSP, etc. It's capabilities will be similar to Windows Mobile, with fewer games. All development will be done by third parties who Apple will do nothing to encourage and whom Apple will end up screwing over (because they always screw over the developers). i.e. "We've just released the mandatory iPhone update X, which breaks all 3rd-party apps, and we didn't bother to tell developers this would happen, and no, we won't tell you what we changed to make it easy to fix your apps. We hate you."

Re:Graphics Cards

[abigor]

Key word from the summary: "mobile".

Re:Graphics Cards

[grahamd0]

The lowest-end iMac comes with a Radeon HD 2400XT. The high-end iMac has a GeForce 8800. The MacBook Pros have Geforce 8600/8800s. You can get a geforce 8800 on a Mac Pro.

Mac Minis and Macbooks aren't targeted in any way toward anyone who's interested in gaming.

Unless you're uber-l337, modern Macs are just fine in the graphics department.

Re:Graphics Cards

[abigor]

As a guess, I'd say it's because desktop computer gaming is dwindling, while mobile sales are exploding and it's a ripe new market for a convergence device. Meanwhile, the stationary gaming experience is owned by consoles.

Re:Graphics Cards

[Moridineas]

Ok, I'm 99% sure you're a blatant troll, but to give you the benefit of doubt..

There's something terribly wrong with your computer. I could crawl along in warcraft with my old Geforce2 on an AthlonXP. Very, very slow, and very low quality, but it could run. WoW ran fine on my powerbook 1.25ghz g4.

What's the worst GPU that comes with a quadcore? The ATI 2600? With quadcore, 2gb ram (I don't think you can get mac pro with less?), and a HD2600, you should be fine. Probably not max graphics nor max resolution, and I would guess you would dip into the 20s of fps at times if you're pushing your graphical settings, but very playable.

If you paid the approximately $100 extra bucks to get a Geforce 8800, you should be rolling along at just about any resolution and maxed out graphics.

Apple offers plenty of good CPUs.

Re:iPippin?

[molotovjester]

...it was because they were pissed at Microsoft and hated DirectX.

I realize this comment was more or less off the cuff - but to say that THE strategic decision to use one platform over another was because they were 'pissed' at Microsoft is absurd. How do you account for the fact that all of their software is developed first for Microsoft based OS and not for Apple OS?

So they started developing on OpenGL and as a result have HUGE market!!!

Secondly, you state that the reason they have a huge market is because they chose OpenGL. I am willing to bet that the majority of their user base had no information as to whether their games were developed using DirectX or OpenGL.

I can in fact prove to you by pointing to the system requirements of their pre-WCIII games that they did in fact require DirectX.

So besides adding fanboy momentum to this movement...what exactly are you saying here that is worth any value?

Let me make you a Fanboy Sandwhich, it is made of Irrational Appreciation wedged between two slices of Untruths.

Re:iPippin?

[hackstraw]

Just anecdotal evidence, but I certainly see more than 4/100 laptops being Apple laptops when I'm out and about. And I believe that laptops are a significant number of sales for computers today.

And as Douglas Adams said:

"The Macintosh may only have 10% of the market, but it is clearly the top 10%." (Douglas Adams)"

Unlikely

[El Cabri]

The video game market is one of the most expensive and toughest to crack into of all global markets. Only two new companies managed to make it from scratch in more than 10 years : Sony and Microsoft, each of them gambling huge amounts of money over many years. Apple certainly "could" theoretically make it, it has the talent and the cash, but as a business decision it would not make sense for a company that is mostly known for breaking changes and creating whole new markets. As for the "mobile" focus, doesn't make any difference : that field is crowded already, by Nintendo and Sony no less.

Re:iPippin?

[Darundal]

Yes, Vista is a flop. You can't just compare sales numbers for a product from one company and a product from another. You have to consider the sales of products that came before it. Considering Vista in comparison to XP, yes, it is a flop. When you have OEMs trying to figure out how to continue to sell the old product on their machines because people don't want your new product, then yes, it is a flop. At least Apple manages to make every OS release sell decently in comparison to their last one.

Re:iPippin?

[peragrin]

fix bugs? no the reason there are no games for OSX is because developers are lazy and MSFT has everyone coding for directX, instead of OpenGL.

Why do you think doom came out on the mac at the same time as on Windows, with a linux client a few weeks later?

It's because ID codes to an OpenGl backend while everyone else codes to directX and finds they can't actually port the code they have already written.

It's like adobe. Carbon from day one has a api set to help transition applications to Cocoa. Adobe used it exclusively and never bother to upgrade. Several years later as The full features of Cocoa are being used Adobe is stuck and way behind everyone else. They had plenty of time they just couldn't be bothered to write their code cleanly and are now stuck.

MSFT is there now too. they have good API's but because they inist on backward compatiblies developers use the win16 method for calling files instead of the new .NET api which is far safer.

Re:Graphics Cards

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Mac Minis and Macbooks aren't targeted in any way toward anyone who's interested in gaming.

I disagree. They are both targeted at the mainstream PC gaming crowd. You know, the ones who have made the Sims 2 the best selling game for 2007. Mainstream game developers target midrange systems from two years ago. Macs fit right in. It is a pretty similar casual gaming market as the Wii.

Mac minis and Macbooks aren't targeted at the niche, extreme gaming market where people need high end graphics cards costing significant cash. The problem is one of perception, because so many geeks and people on Slashdot are in this category, they assume it is the mainstream market and don't bother to actually see what is selling.

Re:iPippin?

[CodeBuster]

no the reason there are no games for OSX is because developers are lazy and MSFT has everyone coding for directX, instead of OpenGL.

It is not lazy developers but rather market realities that limit gaming on Apple platforms. First, Microsoft invested in DirectX, even though it lost money as a division for years, specifically to attract game developers to their platform whereas Apple made no such special effort to attract third party game developers. Second, OpenGL, has not received the same amount of usability enhancements (making the libraries easier to work with and supporting other game features like sound and exotic input devices) and promotion that DirectX has. There are other reasons too, but the end result of all of this is that it is cheaper to develop a game for Windows than it is for Mac AND there are more potential customers (i.e. gamers) on the Windows platform than the Mac. Why would a game developer want to spend MORE to create his game and then be forced to sell it into a smaller market? It is tough enough to make money in game development without having to worry about crap like that.

Why do you think doom came out on the mac at the same time as on Windows, with a linux client a few weeks later?

Because John Carmack is one of the rare game developers who is wealthy enough due to his previous and ongoing successes (and being first and best into a massively successful niche...the first-person shooter) to own and run his own company which means that he calls all of the shots. Obviously Mr. Carmack enjoys proving the technical superiority of his code and games by running them on many platforms, even if those platforms don't earn a lot of extra revenue, but most game developers don't have these luxuries.

As for Adobe, Microsoft, and backwards compatibility, there are always trade-offs to be made with regard to supporting existing customers and ditching the old in favor of the new. These include not just technical issues, but money issues too. It is easy to Monday morning quarterback previous corporate decisions when one has the benefit of hindsight, but for those of us who are not prescient we make the best choices (or what we believe are the best choices) we can with the information that we have in the time available.

Re:iPippin?

[kesuki]

"If it wasn't for the iPod they would have been edged out by now."

Which computer company has the strongest 1st quarter PC sales? you know the post Christmas, not yet tax refund season when people are swimming in Christmas debt?

Apple computer, they are usually within 1 million units or so of their 4th quarter (the strongest quarter for any PC maker) numbers in the 1st quarter... what does that spell to me or to you or to anyone else?

There are people who because they couldn't get an apple computer for Christmas tucked that money away and bought it in the 1st quarter. There are enough of these people who couldn't get it in Christmas, that the 1st quarter sales for apple are insanely high.

So what if anything does the I pod having 75% of the mp3 player market have anything to do with the massive massive popular demand for new apple products since Steve Jobs took back control of apple?

basically, nothing. if the apple computers weren't so popular they'd have abysmal 1st quarters just like everyone else in the PC sector. But they Don't.

Keep in mind that a significant percentage of 'total' annual computer sales are purchased by businesses, almost none of which buy apple, because they're looking for the most stripped down and cheapest PCs they can deploy for their companies employees. Apple has the strongest consumer market out there as demonstrated by how many apple purchasers buy in the 1st quarter because they simply couldn't buy what they wanted in the 4th quarter.

Doing good when all your competitors are doing bad is a strong sign of having a good consumer brand. Ipods definitely affect apples bottom line though, and they definitely saw the company through some lean years, but they have nothing to do with apple's 1st quarter PC sales.

Re:I'm definitely not knowledgeable with Mac, but.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is - GCC has an Objective-C frontend. The real problem is apps that use Apple frameworks like CoreAudio, CoreVideo, CoreData etc - those don't have implementations on Linux.

Re:iPippin?

[DECS]

As you point out, sales in relation to cost is one factor. MS bragged that Vista cost something like $6 billion to develop. It's certainly a flop by that standard.

The OP was comparing MS' license sales to Apple's Mac sales, which is a false comparison. MS makes all its money from license fees. Apple produces software in order to add value to its hardware sales. Apple brings in half MS' revenue from sales to 5% of the PC market. Certainly, comparing unit sales of their respective OS licenses is not useful.

Apple doesn't want to sell OS licensees to PC users, it wants to sell them Macs. It's doing far better selling Macs than it would if it were to trade its hardware business for 5% of Microsoft's software business and ineffectually scratch against the monopoly as NeXT, OS/2, BeOS, and Linux have.

Re:Of course they're heading into games

[Have Blue]

Universal binaries are easy because the compiler is running two well-understood processes (compiling for x86 and compiling for ppc) and doing a little reorganizing at the end. Compiling for the Cell is a very new field all by itself; targeting both a traditional processor *and* a cell *and* having them interact in such a way as to provide a meaningful performance benefit would be a serious problem for a team of expert humans.

Apple would be better off investing in GPGPU technology if they do decide to get into this sort of thing. There's already a version of CUDA for OS X.

Re:iPippin?

[DECS]

You might as well keep going and tell us that the iPod is too expensive for people who just want to listen to music and that the iPhone is too expensive for people who just want to make calls.

The PC serious gamer market is not big enough for Apple to attack. The desktop PC market is reaching a plateau. Apple is growing far faster than the industry overall, with consistent ~35% growth while the PC market chugs along at 4% on average.

Apple's percentage of the worldwide market for PCs and x86 servers (which is the numbers IDC and Gartner throw around) include lots of markets Apple does not even compete in. Those numbers are designed to marginalize anyone who does not sell x86, Windows-based PCs.

For the first time in decades, Apple is revealing how absurd those figures are. The reason everyone sees Apple logos on computers in every cafe, concert, conference, and campus is that Apple now has a large chunk of the consumer market, and is working its way into corporations because of that.

 

Re:That'll work.. COMPLETELY

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

That's pretty much the issue. From what I understand Microsoft bled out the ears just getting to where it is in the market. One assumes Apple is going to have to expect to do nothing but lose money on their first gen console. Which I assume would probably have to go up against the next gen consoles from Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony.

True enough.

So Apple can release a console that does what? Provide good graphics, streaming music and video, and online capabilities? That's pretty much what everyone's doing already...

Apple doesn't excel at graphics or streaming music or online capabilities. They excel at taking markets and removing pain points for normal users, usually thus expanding the market to new customers. It is possible they can do that with a gaming system, but I'm not really convinced. Still, there certainly are significant pain points on current consoles.

Areas for improvement include interoperability among devices. Think, your iPhone rings, your AppleTV notices and pauses the game you're playing while you answer it. Think, Macs and AppleTV integrating for communication, like video phone technology. Think buying and renting video games, movies, TV shows all from one connected system without any discs to insert. These are all areas to improve game consoles that Apple could still beat the competition to getting right. There is some opportunity.

...plus they all have big libraries of games to back all that up with.

This is an issue. MS solved it by leveraging relationships with PC game makers and by buying up a lot of game companies. They further leveraged DirectX to allow developers to target both the Xbox and Windows at the same time with little work.

Apple, is actually in a position to do something of the same. They have dev tools. They have OpenGL, etc. which are already used on the Mac and which Sony and Nintendo also use. They could create a kick ass set of dev tools that would let game developers target OS X, AppleTV, and iPod/iPhone. If they were even more cut throat, they could partner with Sony and Nintendo and make it target both of those platforms as well as Windows. Right now they all share technology, but not in a way that makes it easy to target all of them at once. Still, Apple has missed similar opportunities in the past and it would be a big risk for them.

Apple would have to be pretty arrogant to think that they could slam anybody in that market.

Before the Wii, I would have disagreed with you. As it is, Nintendo has really harvested the ow hanging fruit for bringing game consoles to a level of usability for the mainstream audience. At this point I think Apple might be smarter to try partnering with both Sony and Nintendo and letting them help counter MS's monopoly influence from creeping into video game consoles.

Re:Of course they're heading into games

[Blakey Rat]

But wait, didn't I say something about games? Well, if you're selling a computer with a Cell in it already, along with a graphics card, (how long could it be before Apple starts offering Blu-ray on Mac Pros...), could they license PS3 compatibility from Sony? They wouldn't even have to license it, Sony could sell a PS3 compatibility client for Mac Pros. Before you say "Sony would never do that," remember that Sony loses money on each PS3- they're in this for market dominance, not hardware profits.

Charging $2200 for a gaming machine severely limits your market. Hell, Sony found out a couple years ago that charging $600 severely limits your market. Additionally, I don't think Apple and Sony have ever worked on anything together since the original Macintosh 3.5" floppy drive, so I don't really see that relationship happening.

Re:iPippin?

[Weedlekin]

"Alot of game developers and studios are moving towards OpenGL these days not just because of the popularity of the Mac as a platform and because more college aged people are getting Macs but because they are disatisfied with Windows and DirectX."

It's actually more likely that they're developing for OpenGL because they can target the PlayStation 3, Wii, Symbian, iPhone, and in the future, Android with it. Macs are definitely icing on the cake that provide an added attraction, but they aren't the primary motivation, especially when many DirectX games can be fairly easily ported to (Intel) Macs with Cider.

Personally I don't see

[UnknowingFool]

Apple has succeeded in areas where they take something complicated and make it easy enough for general public. That has been their advantage The original Mac freed users from using command lines. The current lineup makes things like Wi-Fi making movies easy. iPod made digital media players accessible. iTunes made buying music online for your media player easy. The iPhone made surfing and making phone calls less of a headache. Gaming consoles these days are pretty idiot proof. The games are hard but running the console is easy. There isn't an advantage for Apple.