That's some good speculation right there. If the Apple versions of the same games had to be sold through the Apple App Store (not direct from Nintendo), Apple could preserve their big 30% cut right off the top. And/or as part of this hypothetical deal, allow the game to be purchased via Nintendo but Apple still gets their cut (because it is fulfilled through the Apple store- possibly behind the scenes- to account for every transaction).
This would also "prove" Silicon for gamers/gaming with Nintendo doing towards all of the work (and covering nearly all of the software dev cost) to deliver that proof. It would create a steady stream of new games to show in any kind of soft push for gaming on Silicon. And it would make third party devs develop for Silicon because they want to sell their games on the new Nintendo Silicon Switch... which might inspire a few of them to also code a few games direct for Mac too.
The catch: would Nintendo like to sign away 30% right off the top to NOT develop their own core SOC and/or source it from other players that don't want first big bite at the revenue table? 30% of the gross is a LOT. There are many companies in the world without the 30% to offer Apple because their margin is not big enough to scalp off such a large amount of every sale.
Maybe Apple sees a big win:win here and cuts a special deal with Nintendo where Apple demands LESS to then get the benefits that Nintendo would be bringing to the platform? That seems logical but given how hard Apple is battling Epic, I don't see such considerations on Apple's radar at all: the first big (30%) cut of gross seems paramount above all other considerations.
Err... I don't know you're seeing the same partnership as I am.
I'm saying Nintendo would just order M3s for their Switch Successor. The current Switch is already an ARM CPU, so it's not that big of a leap for Nintendo to go to it. It was speculated that the M1 cost $40-50 per chip for Apple a few years ago.
The Nintendo Switch uses an Nvidia Tegra X1, which costs Nvidia around $27 each, and they charge Nintendo $40 for each (around a 50% markup.) I think Nintendo would probably be willing to pay $60-70 for each M3 chip, and Apple would net $20-30 per chip sold, giving them a 30-50% markup comparable to what Nvidia was getting.
Alternatively, maybe Nintendo doesn't go with the M3. The Tegra X1 was already two years old when Nintendo launched the Switch. Maybe Nintendo goes for an M1 or M2 instead - it's still a massive performance boost over the X1, while as an older chip they could probably secure a lower price.
It doesn't quite matter which chip Nintendo goes with - it's a win for Apple no matter what, as it validates that the Mac's hardware is clearly sufficient for gaming, and it simplifies porting from Nintendo's console (where third party devs would mostly be targetting anyways) to the Mac.
You seem to be talking about Apple or Nintendo running an app store on each other's platform? Or what is the 30% cut you're talking about? Maybe Nintendo would accept Apple Pay on their new store... that's about the only thing I see happening along those lines. Actually, that could be cool/easy... Nintendo already has NFC built into the console for the different toys-to-games stuff (Amiibo or Skylanders or whatever)... I wonder if they could turn the console into a payment terminal where it accepts tap payments from cards or Apple Pay, instead of requiring a CC number to be typed in?
