Apple Extending Trademark to Include Hand Held Gaming

[diamond.g]

I think that apple could absolutely thrash the handheld competition. Apple has so many people with iPods who carry them everywhere. Now why don't people carry their nintendo DS everywhere? Because they're huge.

Still doesn't answer the question of how come there isn't an attach rate of at least 1 with respect to games and the iPod. Plus everyone said the same thing about Sony, didn't happen. I would love to eat my words, but I think Apple just couldn't compete with Nintendo in the game department.

What apple can do is draw on it's market of iPod users for a kind of user base. What everybody wants is a device that can do everything, it worked for the iPhone because people want their iPod and phone as one. I'm sure that there is a large market of people who want their handheld and iPod to be one device. I know i do.

Let me put it this way, Nokia once thought that since everyone carries a phone why not make the phone a gaming system. It was called the NGage. It tanked, even though it had decent (sounding) games for it.

So apple could create an iPhone/gameboy type device, it would be quite an interesting breed.
To be honest though, i really don't see this happening.

Like I said before, no one has ever toppled Nintendo's handheld reign. Sony is the closest. I just don't see Apple being able to translate iPod users into enough game players to make it a worthwhile thing.

It does seem like apple is good at F***ing up then many years later taking those same ideas and reusing them, like you said, the rokr, as well as the newton.



I don't know what kind of margins apple makes, but you should know that there is slim to no profit at all for retailers on most apple products.

Also, who says that apple will be competing with the PS3? How about the wii, it's kind of in it's own category.

Who said anything about retailer margins? I was talking about Apples margins. You know the PS3 cost 400 dollars to make, If they sell it to you for 399 how much are they making? (Hint: not a whole lot) Apple has never sold a device at a loss. Ever. Why would they start?

No the Wii is in the same category as the 360 and the PS3 the 5-99 category includes the 18-34 folks as well. But for the sake of the argument lets say Apple is going up against the Wii. Now what can Apple bring to the table that is going to best the Wii?

 

[AJsAWiz]

Yeah

Good news if it comes to fruition!

 

[diamond.g]

Good news if it comes to fruition!

Where are my analog nubs!? (and start, select, sholder buttons, etc)

 

[Quillz]

The idea of Apple making its own home console / handheld is awesome!!! I would just love that!!!

Knowing Apple, it would be sooo beautiful and sooo technologic.

The Pippin was neither. Judging by history, Apple's game consoles aren't so brilliant.

 

[w00master]

I think that apple could absolutely thrash the handheld competition. Apple has so many people with iPods who carry them everywhere. Now why don't people carry their nintendo DS everywhere? Because they're huge.

There are many more with DS and Gameboys. DS may be huge, but it's the right size for gaming. That's the key thing here, the device has to suit the medium and imho an iPod (classic) is a terrible formfactor for gaming.

iPod Touch/iPhone, on the other hand is a better form factor, so there are possibilities here. HOwever, once again you've segmented your audience. DS/PSP users vs. iPod Touch/iPhone? Not even close here.

People also forget the Nintendo fanbase. It's just as fervent (perhaps more so) than the Apple fanbase. I'd like to believe that Apple could crack that, but as of right now I just can't see it.

Ultimately, what I'd really like to see Apple doing is speak with game developers and come up with some games that are unique to Apple as well as come out with a number of games that target to different gamer "demographics": Casual, Mature, Kid-Friendly, Family, Hardcore. Without these moves, I just can't take any news about Apple getting into gaming seriously.

The real way to get a gamer's attention is content and a "killer must have game."

w00master

 

[akadmon]

OK, first things first: release the goddamn MBP, Apple! Do that, and you can work on busting the Cabbage Patch Dolls market, I don't care.

 

[-Noodles]

I'd love to see Apple acquire a couple of really good game development companies and start cranking out some kick-ass Mac-only titles, just to see what happens.

Now that apple is picking up market share with their computers it's only a matter of time before they will need to make a move on the last pillar of the youth market, namely games (the others being movies, and music). While an iMac may not be apple to compete with a pc for bleeding edge hardware it certainly trumps an xbox or playstation and that may be good enough for apple's purposes. If I were apple I would do exactly as you are proposing and buy some developers to do mac-only games once the user base was large enough to entice other developers to come and do the same.

Of course a mac game could be uniquely different from others in that some of the game content could be ported to an ipod to be played, then uploaded when attached back to the computer. Games within games so to speak.

Apple will not be able to ignore games forever.

 

[w00master]

OK, first things first: release the goddamn MBP, Apple! Do that, and you can work on busting the Cabbage Patch Dolls market, I don't care.

So, are you equating gamers to the "Cabbage Patch Dolls market?"

Whatever dude.

w00master

 

[Bertmg]

Apple is not known for reinventing the wheal.. but you never know

I don't think its likely that apple will release an entirely different device for gaming. More likely is apple developed games for iPhone/iPod Touch which could be pretty cool with the use of the accelerometer.

I agree... but like with MacBook Air, Apple may be thinking that if they make a shinny product with their brand on it, blind Apple fans will buy it too.

 

[Bertmg]

... and another thing...

Unless Apple is seriously thinking about changing the whole gaming experience (which I doubt will be hard to beat now days), they should stick with closing the gaming gap between OSs and encouraging developers to develop games for exclusive Apple products like iPhone and iPods and also make sure that in the platform area, they develop the games for MS in tandem for OS X.

 

[SthrnCmfrtr]

I think the Pippin looked cool, but you're right. On Wikipedia, it says that Apple tried to make the Pippin a low powered computer rather than a game console. Wrong way to do it IMO.

Yeah, what a stupid idea.

Well, unlike many of the posters here, a huge percentage (about 100%) of the adult population actually went outside and played. Hard to believe, I know, in the rain, snow, heat, mud. None of the stuff required a power adapter or batteries. No adult supervision was needed. A bike (NO HELMETS--any nobody ever died because of this omission) or any kind of ball was enough to get started--no manuals (make up your own rules as you go) and scores were kept in your head. We could travel UNACCOMPANIED to other neighborhoods far, far away. None of it proved fatal, and no parental abuse lawsuits were filed as a result of these activities. THAT was fun.

And after you walked to school barefoot six miles in a blizzard, did your teacher read to you from the Good Book?

 

[diamond.g]

Now that apple is picking up market share with their computers it's only a matter of time before they will need to make a move on the last pillar of the youth market, namely games (the others being movies, and music). While an iMac may not be apple to compete with a pc for bleeding edge hardware it certainly trumps an xbox or playstation and that may be good enough for apple's purposes. If I were apple I would do exactly as you are proposing and buy some developers to do mac-only games once the user base was large enough to entice other developers to come and do the same.

Of course a mac game could be uniquely different from others in that some of the game content could be ported to an ipod to be played, then uploaded when attached back to the computer. Games within games so to speak.

Apple will not be able to ignore games forever.

Buying developers could be a bad thing for both Apple and the developers. If the games don't sell well how is Apple going to recoup the purchase of a dev house, especially a higher profile dev house?

 

[Bonte]

At the price point the PS3 is sold at, Apple couldn't give Sony a run for it's money. Apple has an adversion to selling hardware at a loss. With this being known how is Apple going to put toghter a system that can rival the PS3 and be able to sell it for a profit?

Apple indeed doesn't subsidize the hardware but neither is Nintendo, high-end hardware is not the end-all for console gaming.

Having a large library of games at $5 is also extremely competitive and the hardware has to be "good enough". The market for casual gaming on general purpose electronic devices is much bigger than the hardcore gaming we see on PS3 and 360. I agree we won't see much gaming on the AppleTV (unless we can run 3P apps) but the Touch and iPhone are perfect, dwarfing the PSP is almost a given and maybe we'll even beat the Gameboy.

High-end console gaming is a niche dominated by Sony and MS, indeed not a market for Apple.

 

[diamond.g]

Apple indeed doesn't subsidize the hardware but neither is Nintendo, high-end hardware is not the end-all for console gaming.

Having a large library of games at $5 is also extremely competitive and the hardware has to be "good enough". The market for casual gaming on general purpose electronic devices is much bigger than the hardcore gaming we see on PS3 and 360. I agree we won't see much gaming on the AppleTV (unless we can run 3P apps) but the Touch and iPhone are perfect, dwarfing the PSP is almost a given and maybe we'll even beat the Gameboy.

High-end console gaming is a niche dominated by Sony and MS, indeed not a market for Apple.

I don't think anyone else could do what Nintendo did and come out unscathed. Not even Nintendo thought what they did was going to work. But now that it did here comes people saying that Apple could do it better. I just don't get it, if they could why didn't they?

I am not sure what kind of games you are looking at that would sell for 5 dollars, but I am pretty sure games as complex as the DS/Wii games I have seen would have to go for at least 15 dollars. I am still unconvinced that Apple could do a better job than Nintendo. I keep looking at how the iPod has been able to play games for what 2 years now? How well have the games been selling?

What advantage does the iPhone/ iPod Touch bring that is sorely missing from the DS?

 

[neoelectronaut]

Hehehehe anyone seen the iBox spoof on youtube? i love that..

http://youtube.com/watch?v=D_KxN0Nepus

I seriously doubt that apple would ever make a games console, but if they ever did then i can say if its anything like the Nintendo Wii i shall hate it, Wii is for kids, i like REAL games.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_iYBmAVuBns

...wait a minute? The Wii doesn't have real games?

Those damn liars at Gamestop! How could they! I'm going to burn the damned place down!

 

[Cygnus311]

Gamers are loser, I could think of a thousand better things to do with my time.
Apple shouldn't focus on gaming.

Like make insulting posts on a geek-laden message board about them? Spoken like a true tool.

 

[-Noodles]

Buying developers could be a bad thing for both Apple and the developers. If the games don't sell well how is Apple going to recoup the purchase of a dev house, especially a higher profile dev house?

They may not recoup the cost. However if their market share is wide enough it would be the most logical direction for them to go in for a couple reasons.

Anything they do with video games is almost guaranteed to not make money for some time, so going in this direction is not a reflection of the need to make a profit so much as a need to widen their appeal, image, audience, longevity etc. (besides with 16bil in the bank they can afford to take risks) Realizing this, the question becomes where will the investment make the most impact, be most beneficial etc. In asking this I don't see much point to a console. The market is already crowded with competitors and a failure there could be a black eye for the brand as a whole.

However, the iMac is an all in one system of sorts. Taking the price of a ps3 plus the cost of a screen and you've practically got the cost of an iMac. If apple took charge with some mac only games followed up by developer interest, it could increase its already great appeal.

Finally having osx as with a solid stable of game development is the last blow to making apple a complete alternative to the pc. Apple may not offer the uber video cards but assuming its market share has grown wide enough it won't matter as long as it is able to keep a healthy crop of titles developed for it. There is certainly both the need and demand.

 

[Syrus28]

It seems like some people cringe at the though of a competitor that Apple can't beat. [Besides M$]

Now that apple is picking up market share with their computers it's only a matter of time before they will need to make a move on the last pillar of the youth market, namely games (the others being movies, and music). While an iMac may not be apple to compete with a pc for bleeding edge hardware it certainly trumps an xbox or playstation and that may be good enough for apple's purposes. If I were apple I would do exactly as you are proposing and buy some developers to do mac-only games once the user base was large enough to entice other developers to come and do the same.

Misconception. The average gamer is age 33. That's hardly a "youth market." And after the Wii, games will be even more "mainstream". A computer such as an iMac can certainly not outperform a PS or Xbox, unless your talking about the last generation machines, which are OLD. The Xbox is almost 6 years old, while the PS2 is from the 90's. If thats an accomplishment, then Apple should stay out of this business. Apple can't be serious about gaming and only sell 1[maybe 2] computer that can seriously play these games. PC games are all about performance. And developers want games that sell. The Mac Platform is a already small, and their best selling machine has integrated graphics. Not a good sign.

Of course a mac game could be uniquely different from others in that some of the game content could be ported to an ipod to be played, then uploaded when attached back to the computer. Games within games so to speak.

The only controls the iPod has is a scroll wheel. Its just not good enough for your ideas, unless Developers only plan on developing games such as pong or Brick for their Macs/iPods

 

[Syrus28]

They may not recoup the cost. However if their market share is wide enough it would be the most logical direction for them to go in for a couple reasons.

Anything they do with video games is almost guaranteed to not make money for some time, so going in this direction is not a reflection of the need to make a profit so much as a need to widen their appeal, image, audience, longevity etc. (besides with 16bil in the bank they can afford to take risks) Realizing this, the question becomes where will the investment make the most impact, be most beneficial etc. In asking this I don't see much point to a console. The market is already crowded with competitors and a failure there could be a black eye for the brand as a whole.

True, but is Apple really willing to dump billions of dollars for Gaming? It goes against everything they've did to get where they are now. Sell a product at a loss? Go for market share over profit? I can't see it happening.

However, the iMac is an all in one system of sorts. Taking the price of a ps3 plus the cost of a screen and you've practically got the cost of an iMac. If apple took charge with some mac only games followed up by developer interest, it could increase its already great appeal.

Comparing a PS3 to a iMac in this regard is silly. A PS3 is $400 and offers vastly better graphics than anything an iMac can throw at it. And most people have screens you know, they are called TV's. Also, game development costs these days are skyrocketing. The only developers that would be able to pony up a Mac only game are people like EA or Activision. The money just isn't there.

Finally having osx as with a solid stable of game development is the last blow to making apple a complete alternative to the pc. Apple may not offer the uber video cards but assuming its market share has grown wide enough it won't matter as long as it is able to keep a healthy crop of titles developed for it. There is certainly both the need and demand.

If your talking Mac-only titles, again, I can't see it happening. Games costs million and billions of dollars to develop, and who would be willing to vastly limit their success just to cater to the Mac crowd? No one. I can imagine some lower budget titles happening, but that really wouldn't establish the Mac platform as a alternative to PC. Also, the Mac crowd is kinda different than the PC crowd. These are people who are use to a closed system, with very little user upgradable parts, and were willing to give up the "Gaming" to go to the Mac. It just doesn't scream supply and demand for gaming.

 

[Bonte]

What advantage does the iPhone/ iPod Touch bring that is sorely missing from the DS?

Millions buy a Touch or iPhone, presumably 20 million before 2009 starts. This alone makes it more popular than the Gameboy, i say it has more than one advantage over the DS except for the games. A nice game library is all it needs to be a successful game console, we already have the users and now we only have to wait for the SDK and the games.

Apple will never promote it as a game console because it degrades the device, people expect a console to be cheap.

 

[-Noodles]

It seems like some people cringe at the though of a competitor that Apple can't beat. [Besides M$]

Misconception. The average gamer is age 33. That's hardly a "youth market." And after the Wii, games will be even more "mainstream".

The average age of a gamer doesn't really say anything against what younger people spend their time doing which is still largely divided between music, movies, and video games. Any product that tries to sell itself on brand identity will typically want to market a portion of themselves to younger audiences hoping they will retain these customers for life. Think Nike, McDonalds, etc. I was simply trying to say that games may represent a way for apple to do this. Although admittedly I'm not sure what that "young" target age group would be for them specifically.

A computer such as an iMac can certainly not outperform a PS or Xbox, unless your talking about the last generation machines, which are OLD....

I was talking about the current generation, and on this I agree as is they probably done but given that games are ported instead of natively written for mac I take it, in its current state it's not quite a fair comparison as is compared to what might be. Also I assume the graphics card in the current iMac or mac pro is ahead of the 2 or 3 year old xbox 360, so there's at least potential in the way of updated technology.

PC games are all about performance. And developers want games that sell. The Mac Platform is a already small, and their best selling machine has integrated graphics. Not a good sign.

Again this is a what is scenario. We're speculating that apple will do something with games so perhaps their working on these types of issues. To describe their current state as a barometer for what's to come is not to allow for progress.

The only controls the iPod has is a scroll wheel. Its just not good enough for your ideas, unless Developers only plan on developing games such as pong or Brick for their Macs/iPods

I was actually thinking of something like final fantasy's card game where you discover cards within the game that you can then use to play a separate card game with. But yes there are limits I agree.

 

[-Noodles]

True, but is Apple really willing to dump billions of dollars for Gaming? It goes against everything they've did to get where they are now. Sell a product at a loss? Go for market share over profit? I can't see it happening.


Comparing a PS3 to a iMac in this regard is silly. A PS3 is $400 and offers vastly better graphics than anything an iMac can throw at it. And most people have screens you know, they are called TV's. Also, game development costs these days are skyrocketing. The only developers that would be able to pony up a Mac only game are people like EA or Activision. The money just isn't there.


If your talking Mac-only titles, again, I can't see it happening. Games costs million and billions of dollars to develop, and who would be willing to vastly limit their success just to cater to the Mac crowd? No one. I can imagine some lower budget titles happening, but that really wouldn't establish the Mac platform as a alternative to PC. Also, the Mac crowd is kinda different than the PC crowd. These are people who are use to a closed system, with very little user upgradable parts, and were willing to give up the "Gaming" to go to the Mac. It just doesn't scream supply and demand for gaming.

Talking about profitability is a game of numbers and it's not very reasonable to make such bold generalizations as you're doing with out having them.

What can be said generally is that thus far apple's user base has been wide enough to support a small market of games to be ported to its platform. Second it's recent history has shown a dramatic increase in its market share along with its projected market share. Given this there may be a tipping point at which apple realizes there is increased demand for games and tries to develop this aspect of its business further.

Noticing the rumor today we may assume they have taken such notice and are working towards something, what? - who can say. But to carry the notion that apple will continue in the same direction indefinitely in regard to games is out of step with what we know.

 

[Syrus28]

Millions buy a Touch or iPhone, presumably 20 million before 2009 starts. This alone makes it more popular than the Gameboy, i say it has more than one advantage over the DS except for the games.

uh? More popular than Gameboy? Lets take a look at some numbers

Original Game Boy: 70 million units
Game Boy Color: 50 million units
Game Boy Advance: 80 million units

Nintendo DS: 65 million units
Nintendo DS Lite: 46 million units

A nice game library is all it needs to be a successful game console, we already have the users and now we only have to wait for the SDK and the games.

Not true at all. It needs good controls, looks, and stability. The 360 by far has the best game library yet it was quickly surpassed by the Wii, who's game library can be considered lackluster. In Europe, the PS3 is outselling the 360 also, despite its lackluster game library.

As they don't release iPod touch #'s separate, and the iPhone has about 4 million users, what numbers are you talking about? Its nothing compared to the DS's 46 million and growing. Lets not forget how poor the controls of the iPod touch/iPhone lend itself to simply games such as Mario Bros. Have you tried the NES emulator? No tactile feedback is horrible.

Apple will never promote it as a game console because it degrades the device, people expect a console to be cheap.

I don't really see how a game console is degraded as apposed to a PMP [assuming your talking about the Touch, the iPhone i can understand] The game industry is a $17 billion dollar industry after all.

 

[Syrus28]

Talking about profitability is a game of numbers and it's not very reasonable to make such bold generalizations as you're doing with out having them.

Well we can take a look at Microsoft. They have lost a total of $6 billion dollars since the Xbox debuted in 2002. However, in that time the established the behemoth known as Halo, mainstreamed online console gaming, and established a very recognizable brand. Now, for the first time in 6 years, the Xbox division turned a profit last quarter. Some $531 million dollars.

What Im saying is that Apple has shown NO history of ever selling a product at a loss of profit, or ever trading profit for market share [think Macs]. Im not saying they are no capable of it, but I can't imagine Apple just dumping billions of dollar into something that's not guaranteed to return a profit. That's just not what Steve Jobs does. For example, without Halo, Microsoft probably would have still been in the red for their Xbox division.

What can be said generally is that thus far apple's user base has been wide enough to support a small market of games to be ported to its platform. Second it's recent history has shown a dramatic increase in its market share along with its projected market share. Given this there may be a tipping point at which apple realizes there is increased demand for games and tries to develop this aspect of its business further.

I totally agree. I just don't think that their market share is nearly high enough to create high quality games exclusive to the Mac like you proposed earlier. Really, Apple's Mac OS X Market share has grown what, like 300% since 2003? Its when you put it in perspective, Mac still only has 8% of the PC business, that it starts to look less attracting. At that, only a portion of the existing Macs are really suited to gaming.

Noticing the rumor today we may assume they have taken such notice and are working towards something, what? - who can say. But to carry the notion that apple will continue in the same direction indefinitely in regard to games is out of step with what we know.

I agree.

 

[Syrus28]

The average age of a gamer doesn't really say anything against what younger people spend their time doing which is still largely divided between music, movies, and video games. Any product that tries to sell itself on brand identity will typically want to market a portion of themselves to younger audiences hoping they will retain these customers for life. Think Nike, McDonalds, etc. I was simply trying to say that games may represent a way for apple to do this. Although admittedly I'm not sure what that "young" target age group would be for them specifically.

Ahh, well... I agree then.

I was talking about the current generation, and on this I agree as is they probably done but given that games are ported instead of natively written for mac I take it, in its current state it's not quite a fair comparison as is compared to what might be. Also I assume the graphics card in the current iMac or mac pro is ahead of the 2 or 3 year old xbox 360, so there's at least potential in the way of updated technology.

Im not so hot on Graphics card, but I cannot imagine that the iMac's graphics card can produce better graphics than the 360. As for the Mac Pro, I would hope so as it starts at $2800. However, Im still not so sure. But as proven by the PC gaming industry, even with comparable specs, the console industry has been edging it out with its ease of use, and tighter performance.

Again this is a what is scenario. We're speculating that apple will do something with games so perhaps their working on these types of issues. To describe their current state as a barometer for what's to come is not to allow for progress.

I agree, however, Im looking at the NOW as a base for what's to come. If Apple really wants to get serious about it (which im not so sure they are), then get ready to change their ways. The integrated graphics will have to go, and get ready to "invest" a couple billion dollars to make it work [in the case of hand held/console]

I was actually thinking of something like final fantasy's card game where you discover cards within the game that you can then use to play a separate card game with. But yes there are limits I agree.

Im not too sure I know what you mean.