Apple TV Dev Tidbits: First Emulator Available, Old Remotes Work With New TV, Siri Remote Limited for Gaming

[blackcrayon]

The track pad itself is a button that can be clicked, and the up down left and right positions are pretty intuitive for taps and swipes (they can even automatically remap depending on the orientation of the remote). It's not enough to satisfy everyone, but developers definitely have more than "one button" to work with.

I think the "one button" concern already takes into account the given that the trackpad is for directional controls. It's the "other" buttons that will be a problem for a ton of games. I mean moving and "shooting" or anything else with the same thumb is going to be pretty awkward and then there's only one button with your other hand that's usable.

The rule makes sense on the iPhone- no game can require a 3rd party controller. Because the iPhone can emulate, at least awkwardly, anything on a console controller. Any game you can imagine controlling with a controller you can pretty much do on a phone screen (analog "stick" with multiple buttons or context aware buttons to compensate for the lack of physical ones). The Siri Remote is just a different input device entirely and will limit drastically the types of games that can be released for the TV.

 

[doelcm82]

I think the "one button" concern already takes into account the given that the trackpad is for directional controls. It's the "other" buttons that will be a problem for a ton of games. I mean moving and "shooting" or anything else with the same thumb is going to be pretty awkward and then there's only one button with your other hand that's usable.

The rule makes sense on the iPhone- no game can require a 3rd party controller. Because the iPhone can emulate, at least awkwardly, anything on a console controller. Any game you can imagine controlling with a controller you can pretty much do on a phone screen (analog "stick" with multiple buttons or context aware buttons to compensate for the lack of physical ones). The Siri Remote is just a different input device entirely and will limit drastically the types of games that can be released for the TV.

Limit? Yes. Drastically? Debatable.

 

[tillsbury]

If this has Kodi I'll take four. If it runs Provenance the kids will want another one each...

 

[matrix07]

WebKit is open source, so shouldn't it be trivial to get it to compile for tvOS?

It should be trivial, and there might be browser app in App Store but Apple itself wouldn't do it, at least for now.

 

[Che Castro]

Wrong, they do care much about gaming which is why at every keynote for iPad or iPhone they always talk about their processors and how it's improved x amount of times in graphics etc.

They care so much about gaming they'll leave it up to other companies who've already done the r&d for controllers and collect a simple licensing fee for free! 100% margin on every made for iPad, iPhone or Apple TV whatever for free!

there was no demo of a third party gaming controller at the keynote

And developers are already saying how difficult is going to be. Making the games work with the Siri remote first

 

[Che Castro]

Double post

 

[/dev/toaster]

Were you trying in simulator or on device? I don't think it works in simulator, but should on device.

No looking through documentation and reading the official forums

 

[AxoNeuron]

You couldn't be more wrong. How much millions of Apple TV have they sold when it was just a hobby? Now they're actually pushing it and brought it front stage it's going to sell like iPods for Christmas!

It's going to "sell like iPods" for Christmas?

You've really had your fill of Apple flavored kookaid, haven't you?

 

[azajohns]

My question is what happens to all those extra buttons and controls on the MFI controller? Do they just do nothing? If all games effectively have only one button and one directional pad to work with, what's even the point of supporting a full game controller?

 

[TRIXXY DIXXY]

We need Taylor Swift to write another open letter to Apple. This time about the game controller situation.

 

[peterdevries]

Also, you say Apple is doing better than ever. This is true. TODAY it's true, they're still riding high off one-time-only recent successes that cannot be repeated. It's because they just entered the Chinese market and they're making unfathomable profits. But the problem is that for almost 5-6 years now they have completely relied on the iPhone to make the vast majority of their profits. Companies that rely on a single product like that eventually realize their mistake.

Apple is half heartedly trying to enter other markets, but they're making really DUMB decisions here. Cars...? Wasting $3 billion just to enter Internet radio/subscription music? Gaudy watches? None of these are ever going to replace the iPhone in terms of Apple's bottom line. So not only are they not finding a good new source of profits, they're wasting their time entering all of these different markets that they will never make any real money from.

If I was an investor, I would sell my AAPL shares quickly. They made the same *EXACT* mistakes in the 1990's.

You seem to be mixing up a few things: your feelings and business strategic logic.

Apple has not at all "relied" on iPhone profits. The iPhone is Apple's biggest earner, but Apple would be fine (albeit) smaller if the iPhone would drop away. What you are saying is similar to assert that Burger King is in trouble because they make 70% of their revenue from the Whopper. It is not a trivial thing and likely impossible to pull any other product from the line up to the same level as the iPhone.

What we are experiencing is a maturing of the mobile computing market (that includes phones, tablets, laptops etc). It will therefore become progressively more difficult to earn large profits in this markets. The technologies have become easy to acquire and produce and low cost new entrants (e.g. Hawei) are creating trouble for the big incumbents (e.g. Samsung, but not yet Apple).

So, they need to differentiate into new markets that are leveraging their existing technology competencies. The car industry and health are two sectors that are in dire need of disruption and so it is only logical that Google and Apple try to enter these markets. You might not like it because you personally might have more of a need for an internet connected frying pan, but this is what makes sense and is where the actual future growth is.

The watch is the first step into the health sector. It currently only has fitness related stats, but I know that the sensor Apple uses is also able to measure blood pressure using the correct algorithm. My company has a prototype running that tech. We get daily requests from startups to discuss technology consulting jobs in this space. It might not mean anything to you from where you are sitting, but if Apple goes down this road, then they will be successful with their cash, marketing and retail machine and power to negotiate with the FDA on regulation.

 

[azajohns]

 

[StoneJack]

I think Apple's approach does have some merits.
First, all games play with TV remote. It aint a dedicated game controller, but it will be ok for casual games.
Second, all games play with iPad, iPods, and iPhones, on which you can specify unlimited number of keys.
Third, since its iOS based, it can work with BT controllers of your preference (just like any iOS game can play with BT controllers now).
You get a minimum controller with ATV, if you want toy wheels, guns, swords, and guitars, you can buy em.
but for play itself, the remote will be OK, and it will not need additional costs.
Good and reasonable approach.

 

[peterdevries]

Good and reasonable approach.

I agree. It clearly shows that Apple things of this thing as a TV device first and a gaming device second. It is reasonable to demand all games be compatible with the standard setup. That way there will be no disgruntled users that buy a game requiring a controller, which many just will not need and get.

 

[Piggie]

Can someone please 100% clarify the rules here, as there was some childish arguments being thrown back and forth yesterday which I got sick of.

So, please. I just wish to ask this clear and simple question to get a answer:

Apples rules regarding games and the new Apple TV remote control:

Has the game got to be actually "playable" using the Apple remote.
Or has the game only got to be able to be "Started" and "Options Selected" via the Apple remote.

But then, for all practical purposes, you will then need to use a 3rd party controller to play the game.




In other words:

Do Apple's rules state that any game must be "Realistically Playable" via the Apple Remote?

 

[Gudi]

Without an official Apple Gamepad TV stays their hobby and won't become mine.

 

[blackcrayon]

I agree. It clearly shows that Apple things of this thing as a TV device first and a gaming device second. It is reasonable to demand all games be compatible with the standard setup. That way there will be no disgruntled users that buy a game requiring a controller, which many just will not need and get.

It sounds reasonable on paper, but devs just concerned that the remote and a gaming controller are so different in capability that they can't imagine being required to support both in the same game. There are 3 GTA games in the top selling list. Do you think they'll be able to come up with a control scheme using 2 action buttons? Or does Apple just not want certain games on the TV?

I can see them relaxing or modifying this rule again once app store submissions start coming in.

 

[peterdevries]

It sounds reasonable on paper, but devs just concerned that the remote and a gaming controller are so different in capability that they can't imagine being required to support both in the same game. There are 3 GTA games in the top selling list. Do you think they'll be able to come up with a control scheme using 2 action buttons? Or does Apple just not want certain games on the TV?

I can see them relaxing or modifying this rule again once app store submissions start coming in.

Oh yeah, I don't dispute what you are saying at all. I also agree that this remote will not be able to satisfy the demands of some of the games that are already currently in the App Store. I just applaud Apple's focus on consumer satisfaction in the sense that they require all games to work with the basic setup. Nevertheless, it would be good to create a solution for this. A simple pop-up upon buying in the app store would suffice to warn people that a particular game needs an MFI controller and does not work with the remote.

Still there would be scores of people buying the games anyway and a number of threads on this board demanding a class action law suit. There have been initiatives like that over more mundane things. There is always someone trying to make a dishonest buck by suing over a non-issue.

 

[millerlite]

anyone know about pre-orders? I really don't want the hassle of waiting at a store...

 

[Piggie]

Oh yeah, I don't dispute what you are saying at all. I also agree that this remote will not be able to satisfy the demands of some of the games that are already currently in the App Store. I just applaud Apple's focus on consumer satisfaction in the sense that they require all games to work with the basic setup. Nevertheless, it would be good to create a solution for this. A simple pop-up upon buying in the app store would suffice to warn people that a particular game needs an MFI controller and does not work with the remote.

Still there would be scores of people buying the games anyway and a number of threads on this board demanding a class action law suit. There have been initiatives like that over more mundane things. There is always someone trying to make a dishonest buck by suing over a non-issue.

It could be like old PC games used to be, and as I have also said in this thread.

Go back many years, and you had a PC game, that, if you had a "SoundBlaster Card" you got amazing stereo multi channel sound in the game.
If you did not have such a car, you just god beeps and buzzing from a PC speaker.
So, over time more and more games said they were "SoundBlaster Compatible" and buying such a sound card became pretty much "The Norm" for any PC owner who wished to play games etc.

One strong brand "Creative Labs" built a product that got picked up on and snowballed to the point every dev supported it and it because basic standard hardware and almost ever PC, other than those used in just an office.

Likewise that's what we all need with the Apple TV.
Apple are being typical Apple, so let's ignore that.
We have a grotty little standard controller, great for TV use, but not designed at all well for playing games on.
It's just a unsuitable secondary function, as no one would design any games controller to look like that.

So we need this 3rd party to snowball into a standard everyone buys.

The question I have asked, and still waiting for a clear answer is, does Apple insist that all games must be "playable" in a good way with their TV remote, or just, as was said by one person yesterday, it only needs to be able to select some game options and start the game?

Will Apple allow games that are basically pretty much unplayable unless you have a proper games controller?

 

[peterdevries]

Likewise that's what we all need with the Apple TV.
Apple are being typical Apple, so let's ignore that.

No, you are wrong. None of us, especially the less-computer-literate need to go back to that situation. The people most hurt by those times were in that group. These were the people that bought a game and did not understand the list of criteria the computer needed to adhere too. They came home and couldn't play the games due to their hardware being incompatible. Technology has moved on and so have we. There are easier ways to do this. And, the solution is definitely not to fragment the App Store into different sections targeted at users with different hardware.

I'm not saying that Apple's current implementation is ideal, but it is commendable that they aim to create a solution that works for everyone. Just wait until you have the thing at home and experience the usability. It is amazing how many are freaking out here, while the product is not even in the store.

 

[Piggie]

No, you are wrong. None of us, especially the less-computer-literate need to go back to that situation. The people most hurt by those times were in that group. These were the people that bought a game and did not understand the list of criteria the computer needed to adhere too. They came home and couldn't play the games due to their hardware being incompatible. Technology has moved on and so have we. There are easier ways to do this. And, the solution is definitely not to fragment the App Store into different sections targeted at users with different hardware.

I'm not saying that Apple's current implementation is ideal, but it is commendable that they aim to create a solution that works for everyone. Just wait until you have the thing at home and experience the usability. It is amazing how many are freaking out here, while the product is not even in the store.

The annoying thing is that the answer is so easy.

1: Make the new Apple TV.
2: Market it as the TV Devices and don't be scared to admit it's also created for some family light entertainment also (games)
3: Insist all games must be at least be able to operate with the default controller no no-one misses out.
4: Offer and optional proper controller for those who wish an "enhanced experience" in that area.

Make everyone away of these 4 points, and everyone is happy.

So so simple.

 

[peterdevries]

The annoying thing is that the answer is so easy.

1: Make the new Apple TV.
2: Market it as the TV Devices and don't be scared to admit it's also created for some family light entertainment also (games)
3: Insist all games must be at least be able to operate with the default controller no no-one misses out.
4: Offer and optional proper controller for those who wish an "enhanced experience" in that area.

Make everyone away of these 4 points, and everyone is happy.

So so simple.

This is exactly what they are doing. I don't see where your problem is. The optional controller from your step 4 are the MFI controllers.

There is nothing that stops any MFI or game developer to map additional functionality to the controller buttons.

 

[patohi]

Let's get one thing straight here.

This remote requirement is BAD for the Apple TV.

The Apple TV WILL sell less units because of this!

With the remote requirement we will see mostly bad games. Or maybe not necessarily a bad game, but the remote controls will make it unplayable. A game like Crossy Road will play much worse on the Apple TV then on iPad or iPhone. Actually most current iOS games won't be playable with the remote requirement.

The A8 chip with 2 GB ram is very capable for gaming.
Most current iOS games need to support older devices to reach a wide audience. With an A8 for a baseline it is possible to achieve PS3 or X360 graphics.

Why would Apple do this?

Control!

They have no control of the Mfi controller supplies. They can't tell steel series "hey you need to have this many controllers on hand" etc.
It's probably the reason they flip flopped last minute.

I have a Mac mini I use with my tv right now. And was excited to see what developers might come up with. But with them hampered now, I will be a no sale. And I'm sure this will go for many others as well.

 

[AxoNeuron]

You seem to be mixing up a few things: your feelings and business strategic logic.

Apple has not at all "relied" on iPhone profits. The iPhone is Apple's biggest earner, but Apple would be fine (albeit) smaller if the iPhone would drop away. What you are saying is similar to assert that Burger King is in trouble because they make 70% of their revenue from the Whopper. It is not a trivial thing and likely impossible to pull any other product from the line up to the same level as the iPhone.

What we are experiencing is a maturing of the mobile computing market (that includes phones, tablets, laptops etc). It will therefore become progressively more difficult to earn large profits in this markets. The technologies have become easy to acquire and produce and low cost new entrants (e.g. Hawei) are creating trouble for the big incumbents (e.g. Samsung, but not yet Apple).

So, they need to differentiate into new markets that are leveraging their existing technology competencies. The car industry and health are two sectors that are in dire need of disruption and so it is only logical that Google and Apple try to enter these markets. You might not like it because you personally might have more of a need for an internet connected frying pan, but this is what makes sense and is where the actual future growth is.

The watch is the first step into the health sector. It currently only has fitness related stats, but I know that the sensor Apple uses is also able to measure blood pressure using the correct algorithm. My company has a prototype running that tech. We get daily requests from startups to discuss technology consulting jobs in this space. It might not mean anything to you from where you are sitting, but if Apple goes down this road, then they will be successful with their cash, marketing and retail machine and power to negotiate with the FDA on regulation.

The car industry is in need of disruption I agree. But if the Microwave oven industry were in need of disruption would it be a good idea for Apple to make a microwave? Probably more relevant to their current skills than an entire car.

Last time I checked, the iPhone made up 70% of Apple's profits. If that's not a one-horse-company I don't know what is. They've failed to make any significant progress into other markets. The iPad and Apple Watch are never going to replace the iPhone. And neither is some ridiculous car.

By the time the global middle class can afford autonomous cars they will already be commoditized and the profit will have already been largely sucked out of the industry by competition. And that's where the real big money is, selling things to the global middle class. That's what Apple really needs to be looking for, some consumer technology with high margins that don't have a lot of existing competition. There are so many potential areas that could meet this criteria, I'm not sure why Apple thinks they need to move in the automotive space, a space that is so notoriously difficult to make any money in. They cannot really use their existing manufacturing lines to make a car.

This proverb usually applies to the aerospace industry but it seems to work equally well for the car industry. "How do you make a small fortune in the car industry? Start with a large one".

Google has so much more knowledge about the world than Apple does just because their core business requires it. Apple has no business entering the autonomous car industry. It's going to be a gigantic mistake. It's good to enter new markets, but not new markets that have so little in common with your existing experience. Tesla is starting to find this out the hard way. The car industry is not the tech industry. A lot of clueless tech executives think they can barge into the car industry because they think they have some "killer app", some technological advantage, and they usually realize a bit late in the game that the car world doesn't always follow the same rules that apply to the tech industry.