Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple History: Jobs 'Raged' Over Microsoft's 2000 Acquisition of 'Halo' Developer Bungie
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wahhhh cry some more Jobs
Geez what a tool Steve Jobs is.
I would have told him to go blow himself. Its a free country, M$ can buy anything they want. If it was so important to Apple, why didnt they buy it first. I got some bad news for you Jobs, the world doesnt revolve around you buddy.
Geez what a tool Steve Jobs is.
I would have told him to go blow himself. Its a free country, M$ can buy anything they want. If it was so important to Apple, why didnt they buy it first. I got some bad news for you Jobs, the world doesnt revolve around you buddy.
Halo - "Combat Evolved" is still very much alive and well on the Mac. Beware of Radman when playing... I think everyone that plays is 40 or older. 
swingerofbirch
macrumors 68040
I agree, but it's a hard lesson for him to learn when much of the world does seem to revolve around him.
So far from true that it's not funny.
Just because you wouldn't want your mom to be pimped out, doesn't mean you wish you were pimping her out instead. I'm sure Apple and Bungie both wish that Bungie could have stayed financially successful. Just because Apple may not have been in a position to buy Bungie, doesn't mean he can't be upset about their being bought by their rivals immediately after they demoed some pretty cool shiet on stage at MacWorld.
Actually, he acted more like a normal person than someone that the world revolves around.
A normal person gets upset when things go wrong.
A personal that the world revolves around solves their problems by buying out companies
Mistrblank SAD*FACED*CLOWN said:
Um, only 5?
Halo
Halo 2
Halo 3
Halo ODST
Halo Reach
Unless you are counting Halo Wars, which was not done by Bungie.
Actually, he acted more like a normal person than someone that the world revolves around.
A normal person gets upset when things go wrong.
A personal that the world revolves around solves their problems by buying out companies
A normal person doesn't blame everybody else, including the customers for having a failed device.
Oh grow up. Apple is monopoly-free, right? Er, no. Yet you'll happily buy various products from them, right? Really, while I'm not fond of MS and their monopoly in the OS market it doesn't mean I'm going to vow to not buy anything related to the company because of this monopoly - that's just immature. And nothing creative after Halo 1? Have you played any of the others? Or is this just typical fanboy drivel?
Apple and many other companies have had debilitating issues with their products, you don't have to look far on these forums to understand that no company is really perfect when it comes to quality control and design issues.
I agree Myth was also a GREAT game, especially for its innovative terrain/gfx/controls...however, the immersive experience provided by Durandal is, to date, unsurpassed...it had lots of weapons, VERY intelligent multi-level puzzles, totally varied environments (lava, water, outdoors and indoors), creative swimming and jumping moves, deep storyline, and great, non-pixelated gfx for that time...
I reiterate: it's gonna take a long time before a game of such a quality is launched again.
I'm sorry, but wtf are you talking about? Did you just go off on a huge tangent that started in left field? Nothing you said appears to apply to what we were talking about, i.e. the forum topic.
I agree with you one hundred percent, except for that little bit about jumping. Marathon had no ability to jump, thus the "Rocket Jump" was born, fueling inventive ways of getting to many areas in games, even ones that had a jump key
Yeah, I played Myth for years on end. The balance and strategy in that game was amazing. It put games like SC to shame, which was launched after Myth was. I truely expected every game after with in the RTS world to have a fully 3D world that mattered to the outcome of combat. Instead all I got was a fixed camera (or one that was pointless to move) and a "chance to hit" when someone was technically "higher" than you. Even Warcraft 3 failed this test
Of course, I still played SC and WC3 like it was crack cocaine. But I still maintain that they weren't amazing games
Edit: Did I seriously just reply to the same post twice, thinking it was two different posts by two different people? Ugg.
The consoles are about much, much more than gaming.
They have become the elusive "media hub" that the industry has been looking for in the past 20 years. Yeah, they do games. They also do music, photos, movies (download and DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-Ray), and just about everything you can think of, all on your big-screen TV.
Game consoles blow Apple TV out of the water in terms of being a digital media hub.
Not so sure they "Blow it out" of the water. Maybe put small holes in their boat. I certainly use my 360 to watch Netflix, however the 360 can't pull in digital content that I own, only web based content I don't own, or physical media. And there is nothing special about playing physical media.
Consoles are great, and they are making out to be a great media center. However I don't think they are far and away the best media center yet.
Which features to you does the 360 have as a media center, that enables it to blow the Apple TV "out of the water" ?
There are just so many things both consoles do that make Apple TV look bush league. The 360 and PS3 can play your content with DLNA media servers (in the case of the 360 start with Windows Media Connect but other servers can do it too). You can also plug in your iPod or other PMP into a USB port and play content from it. The 360 can remote display content from your Windows Media Center PC, which opens it up to playing back all sorts of content including live TV tuners. Both the 360 and PS3 do Netflix and both already have their own content stores not unlike iTMS. The consoles are also both 1080p. The PS3 can surf the web.
And I'd say there is something special about playing physical media, as Apple TV can't do it. You can fire up the latest Blu-Ray release on your PS3, not only can't Apple TV do it, no Apple product can.
We'll count them off
1.
If we're talking about the early push by media centers into the home, or about Consoles being sleeper-media-centers, than this hardly seems like a major selling point. How many people with a console suddenly "discover" that they can use their console as a media center AND have a DLNA media server in the back room? If we want to change the discussion to "The best money can buy", we can do that, however I won't argue the Apple TV is worth much in that discussion. It's obvious that the Apple TV is aimed at people that don't know what a media center is, which is the audience I thought we were talking about.
2.
I was not aware of this. I must give it a try. Not that it would serve me personally all that much. An input switch on my reciever switches the source from XBox to AirportE, at which point I can use my iPhone/iPod touch to remotely control my computers iTunes content from anywhere in and around my house. Wired technology is so last decade
Still, if a friend comes over and insists on playing a song, this would serve as a convenient alternative. But is this really a key feature of a media center? I want my media center to stream my media library. My MP3 player is not where my library is, my computer is where it is.
3.
$5 says that 90%+ of all the people buying Apple TVs do not have a Windows Media Center PC setup. And why would you take your paid for cable channels, plug them into a paid for TV tuner, in a paid for desktop, steam them to a paid for XBox 360, to be displayed on a paid for TV? Do you know how much those little boxes that take cable signals and stick them on your TV are? I could sell a shoe for one, ASSUMING your TV doesn't already have the ability.
Perhaps those with a WMC PC already set up would find that feature really useful. But then they are also unlikely to have a vast iTunes library setup. Tell me how I can easily move my iTunes content or movie library from my OSX machine to my 360 without hacking it up. This also seems like a nice feature, but can't possible "blow" the Apple TV out of the water. It trades iTunes for WMC, how helpful is that?
4.
Ugg. Don't remind me of my XBox 360 Netflix experience. Did you know they don't have a search on that stupid thing? I scrolled through every single last show looking for the one I wanted and couldn't find it. Do you know how I finally found it? Whipped my iPhone out, opened up my Netflix app, searched netflix for the show I wanted, and added it to my instant queue. THEN it showed up on my XBox. Heaven help those that don't know how to piece technology together as well as I.
Also, these are not points that help the Consoles. You just pointed out two areas that the Apple TV has, and does better. So these are counter points.
5.
I'll give you that. However where do I get 1080p Content in the XBox 360 ecosystem? Larger numbers aren't a selling point if I can't take advantage of them.
6.
Really? I think we both know you are reaching now
I'll admit, that is nice. However most people with blu-ray libraries already have dedicated devices for that. And if not, a quick trip to Amazon shows dedicated blu-ray players can be had for around $80 these days. Oh how times change...
One huge advantage of the AppleTV is price.
$99 vs $199 for the cheapest XBox 360.
Now add the cost of "Gold membership" subscription service which is required for services like netflix, and the price goes Higher.
It seems to me that for consumers looking to enter the media hub age, that the AppleTV is very competitive. Sure, if you've invested in a large Blu-ray library and don't have a blu-ray player than the Apple TV can't help you. If you have a DLNA server in the back room you can't connect to it, and if you have a desktop with a TV tuner you can't stream it. But I don't personally believe that those are huge draw backs for the average consumer, which is what the inexpensive $99 price point AppleTV is aimed at.
We'll count them off
If we're talking about the early push by media centers into the home, or about Consoles being sleeper-media-centers, than this hardly seems like a major selling point. How many people with a console suddenly "discover" that they can use their console as a media center AND have a DLNA media server in the back room? If we want to change the discussion to "The best money can buy", we can do that, however I won't argue the Apple TV is worth much in that discussion. It's obvious that the Apple TV is aimed at people that don't know what a media center is, which is the audience I thought we were talking about.
Yet, that's exactly what Apple TV does but in a dumbed-down fashion. OK, I'll grant the new one is less dependent on iTunes, but iTunes+aTV is a proprietary, dumbed-down version of what the DLNA ecosystem offers.
I was not aware of this. I must give it a try. Not that it would serve me personally all that much. An input switch on my reciever switches the source from XBox to AirportE, at which point I can use my iPhone/iPod touch to remotely control my computers iTunes content from anywhere in and around my house. Wired technology is so last decade
Still, if a friend comes over and insists on playing a song, this would serve as a convenient alternative. But is this really a key feature of a media center? I want my media center to stream my media library. My MP3 player is not where my library is, my computer is where it is.
Well, they can do both -- play off a local PMP like an iPod, and they can also stream music from a server. I'm sure there are lots of (unwise) kids who only keep their music on an iPod. I think you can transfer content to your local HD but I'm not entirely sure on that as I don't use it.
That argument is a red herring, because Apple TV does not work with it in the first place, so why would people have both? IMO one of the biggest flaws in Apple TV is that they eschew industry-standard DLNA streaming for prorietary Apple streaming.
Never heard of slingbox, I take it. Do you have all your premium content on every TV with a separate DVR? And what if you have content on your DVR that you want to watch on another TV?
Also, what do you think video streaming with the new version of Airplay is? Wanna play a video on your phone on your big screen TV?
My point is, when you look at Apple TV in the ecosystem of other media streaming devices, like most other Apple products it is akin to a pair of mittens -- they do they job but restrict the user.
If you want to get pedantic, I didn't provide a fully comprehensive list but enough to give you a taste that the Apple TV is nowhere near as versatile as the game consoles. Some of the things I missed include social networking, mail, messages, chat, voice chat. The PSP Remote Play is what Apple's Remote app for the iPhone wishes it could be. -- it can actually play media! Then I forgot the Wii, with it's widgets such as time and weather on the home screen.
I didn't even touch upon their main purpose, playing games.
"we started building much higher performance 3d hardware into every computer we make"
HAHAHAHAHAH yeah ok.. onboard video with shared ram isnt high performance in anycase.