[Peter Cohen]

Quote:

---

If it's not clear, the iPhone is NOT a gaming device (and the idea of spending $400 for a phone to play games on blows my mind).

---

That's a ridiculous assumption. For one thing, the SDK isn't available -- so it's yet to be determined what the iPhone is and is not going to be capable of, once programming tools are in the hands of developers.
Secondly, I can (and do) play plenty of games on my BlackBerry, which was a $400 device when it was new, and I know the same goes for Palm Treo devices and Windows Mobile handsets as well, all of which can tip the scales at $400 or so for their high-end models. So to brush aside the iPhone as not appropriate for gaming simply because of its price tag is little more than displaying ignorance about the present state of the market.

Quote:

---

I think it's clear Apple's NEVER intended to appeal to the gaming market, and once again, that's probably a smart decision.

---

I think you need a history lesson -- google "Apple Pippin."

Quote:

---

Do you want magazines like Macworld overrun with all those gaming ads, with half-naked Amazon women in drawings, all designed to appeal to zit-faced teenagers?

---

So you're not only ignorant about the mobile device market, but you're ignorant about the game market too.
In point of fact, the majority of people who buy and play games are adults, average age 38. 24 percent of them in 2007 are age 50 or over. 67 percent of people in the United States play computer and video games. 38 percent of them are female. Last year, gamers in North America spent $7.4 billion dollars.

I can't speak for the sales department of our magazine, but I can say that if I was working in ad sales, I'd do whatever I could to score a piece of that revenue for the book. It's an enormous, lucrative market, of well-educated, well-heeled consumers. It's an advertiser's dream market.

Quote:

---

But remember: the decision to release ANY item, including the iPhone or iPod Touch, is APPLE'S.

---

Apple doesn't make its decisions in a vacuum. It responds to consumer demand just as any other company does. Unless consumers consistently (and increasingly) deliver the message that they want Apple to pay more attention to games, they may very well not get the message.


source - The Entertainment Software Association 2007 "Essential Facts About the Computer and Video Game Industry" report.

[feefer]

Quote:

---

That's a ridiculous assumption. For one thing, the SDK isn't available -- so it's yet to be determined what the iPhone is and is not going to be capable of, once programming tools are in the hands of developers.

---

I'd argue that the fact an iPhone SDK has NOT been available to date is strong proof that Apple isn't thrilled at the prospect of opening the iPhone up to 3rd-party developers (and had relented after complaints from many groups, which includes gamers). As you say, it remains to be seen exactly what the iPhone SDK will bring to the table; until then, the value of a SDK is pointless if it's contents are unseen.
On the other hand, Apple always HAS clearly intended the iPhone to use 3rd-party web apps (including games: ever see the Tetris version on-line?). I'm inclined to believe Apple resisted the concept of an iPhone SDK exactly for the reason they offered, i.e. the security concerns it presents for ALL users (of course, the unofficial attempts to hack the platform have already opened Pandora's Box).
But as a non-gamer, I primarily want my iPhone to be secure for use as a PHONE, and if that means blocking development for GAMERS to have their "mobile gaming platform" (where an SDK no doubt will also help it become the "ultimate mobile hacking platform", using programs like iStumbler or KisMAC, etc), then so be it. But once again, the decision is ultimately Apple's, not mine or yours.

Quote:

---

Secondly, I can (and do) play plenty of games on my BlackBerry, which was a $400 device when it was new, and I know the same goes for Palm Treo devices and Windows Mobile handsets as well, all of which can tip the scales at $400 or so for their high-end models. So to brush aside the iPhone as not appropriate for gaming simply because of its price tag is little more than displaying ignorance about the present state of the market.

---

You missed my point: I'm not ignorant of the fact that some gamers are willing to pump $10,000's into liquid-cooled super-computers just to play Doom, just as street racers pump $100,000 into a tricked-out rice burner, ALA Fast And The Furious. Rather, I was commenting on the foolishness of wasting $$$ on expensive toys/games which offer nothing more than amusement, i.e. these users clearly are not using the gear for anything offering a ROI. Buying the iPhone primarily for the purpose of playing games on it is a waste, IMO. There's other devices out there that suit the role better.
I can see a musician/producer investing in a high-powered computing rig to write music (e.g. Hans Zimmer, or Pat Metheny), but it sure seems like a waste for some kid to make an ultimate gaming rig just to have an expensive gaming platform. But on the other hand, it's their money to spend, I guess, and if it helps our flagging economy... But still seems stupid and wasteful (hence why I mentioned how you COULD buy a refrigerator to convert it into a gaming console, I guess, if one were so motivated).

Quote:

---

I think you need a history lesson -- google "Apple Pippin."

---

Maybe I should've clarified: I doubt Apple released the iPhone to appeal to gamers. There's never been any mention of using the iPhone as a protable gaming device, AFAIK.
But even on the broader point of whether Apple has released ANY products to appeal to gamers: you're not going to argue that Apple HAS tried to market products to gamers, using the Pippin as your example, no less? Because if you ARE, the Pippin is a GREAT example of WHY Apple should stay OUT of the gaming business! The Pippin was a total failure (named as one of the 25 worst tech products of all time, by PC Magazine).
It sure seems Apple may have learned a hard lesson with the Pippin, and would be foolish to repeat the same mistake(s) twice (which included trying to include too much functionality on one product by marketing the Pippin as not just a gaming device, but as an networking computer, too. How exactly does repeating that mistake seem like a good idea for the iPhone?).
I'm guessing the Pippin wasn't a project that stemmed from Jobs, but someone else while he was running NeXT. I dare say the Pippin was canned as quickly as possible once Jobs was back in control (but I didn't look into the story, so I could be wrong).

Quote:

---

So you're not only ignorant about the mobile device market, but you're ignorant about the game market too.
In point of fact, the majority of people who buy and play games are adults, average age 38. 24 percent of them in 2007 are age 50 or over. 67 percent of people in the United States play computer and video games. 38 percent of them are female. Last year, gamers in North America spent $7.4 billion dollars.*
I can't speak for the sales department of our magazine, but I can say that if I was working in ad sales, I'd do whatever I could to score a piece of that revenue for the book. It's an enormous, lucrative market, of well-educated, well-heeled consumers. It's an advertiser's dream market.

---

Wow, you sure like calling your customers/readers ignorant, don't you? How exactly are you following your own advice (which appears below)? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Quote:

---

Apple doesn't make its decisions in a vacuum. It responds to consumer demand just as any other company does.

---

At any rate, I find those stats incredibly hard to swallow. For example, I bought a Wii for the kids within the past month (I'm in my mid-40's, and the kids are 10 and 17), so technically the warranty and purchase would show up as being registered in my name. That doesn't mean I'm the primary user.... The first thing any such research group attempts to do is build a case for why their market is more powerful than it truly is: believe me, I understand how such statistics work.
Back on point: the 17 y.o. has a PS3, too, but the idea of any adult wasting time playing with a PS3 is just embarrassing; what kind of loser does one have to be to admit to being a gamer outside of their teens? I mean, I can appreciate that you've turned your position into a paycheck-generating job (and game console purchases presumably are a tax write-off for you), but for anyone else? I don't get it...

Quote:

---

Apple doesn't make its decisions in a vacuum. It responds to consumer demand just as any other company does. Unless consumers consistently (and increasingly) deliver the message that they want Apple to pay more attention to games, they may very well not get the message.

---

Let's hope Apple gets the message from voices representing the traditional core user of Macs, too. Let's not forget those who use Apple's products for producing art/music/video, and those who break the boundaries, not just those who are content to run down the corridors of a virtual maze created by someone else. Nothing inherently wrong with games, but let's not forget the users who got Apple to where it is.

[Arcadia]

Quote:

---

But even on the broader point of whether Apple has released ANY products to appeal to gamers: you're not going to argue that Apple HAS tried to market products to gamers, using the Pippin as your example, no less? Because if you ARE, the Pippin is a GREAT example of WHY Apple should stay OUT of the gaming business! The Pippin was a total failure (named as one of the 25 worst tech products of all time, by PC Magazine).
It sure seems Apple may have learned a hard lesson with the Pippin, and would be foolish to repeat the same mistake(s) twice (which included trying to include too much functionality on one product by marketing the Pippin as not just a gaming device, but as an networking computer, too. How exactly does repeating that mistake seem like a good idea for the iPhone?).

---

You're taking a single, uniquely bad product and using it as a flimsy base for a sweeping argument. The Pippin was an example of the kind of ill-advised technological convergence that we saw a lot of in the '90s; it was very much a product of its time, and it has absolutely no relevance to what we're asking of Apple now. There are metric tons of precedent for both mobile and computer gaming that it need hardly even be stated - this isn't some out-of-left-field thing.

Quote:

---

I was commenting on the foolishness of wasting $$$ on expensive toys/games which offer nothing more than amusement, i.e. these users clearly are not using the gear for anything offering a ROI.

---

Quote:

---

it sure seems like a waste for some kid to make an ultimate gaming rig just to have an expensive gaming platform.

---

Quote:

---

the idea of any adult wasting time playing with a PS3 is just embarrassing; what kind of loser does one have to be to admit to being a gamer outside of their teens?

---

These quotes show the origins of your position more than anything else in your posts.

Quote:

---

Let's hope Apple gets the message from voices representing the traditional core user of Macs, too. Let's not forget those who use Apple's products for producing art/music/video, and those who break the boundaries, not just those who are content to run down the corridors of a virtual maze created by someone else. Nothing inherently wrong with games, but let's not forget the users who got Apple to where it is.

---

I... what? What does this even mean? First, your description of gaming as a stifling, confining activity that's the polar opposite of creative occupations is one of the most psychotically bizarre things I've ever read. Second, you imply that any overtures from Apple toward gaming must come at the expense of other aspects of its platforms. Exactly what aspects would those be? How is it that gaming is an intrusion and not an enhancement? Do you really think Apple is incapable of pulling off that kind of expansion and image integration?

[Peter Cohen]

Quote:

---

Do you really think Apple is incapable of pulling off that kind of expansion and image integration?

---

This is exactly the fear that a lot of people have -- that if Apple does anything that isn't what they want them to do, it will diminish the company's ability to compete in other areas.
I'd written about this phenomenon, at least as I personally experienced it, when Apple introduced the iPhone. I've increasingly see Apple move away from the core market where I've invested my interest -- personal computing -- to diversify into products like iPod, Apple TV and iPhone. And I'll admit that at first I was worried that these new product lines would be distractions for them to the detriment of the Mac and Mac OS X, but I've seen the benefits, for sure.
I think the bottom line is that Apple would, if they wanted to, certainly be capable of developing a world-class operating system and hardware architecture that could really appeal to game developers and game players without taking away from their other products or focuses. It's certainly been an area of discussion on Apple development mailing lists.
It doesn't require a "$10,000" gaming computer. What it does require, though, is a sustained focus, both in development and marketing, that Apple really hasn't been willing to make. Apple's beginning to turn the corner on that end; you can see the EA games advertised in stores, for example, but they have a very long row to hoe if they want to be taken seriously by game players and game makers.
I think Gavriel State, the CTO of TransGaming (the company that developed the technology that made EA's games on the Mac possible, and that recently resulted in EVE Online coming to the Mac) has a healthy outlook on this. He recognizes the issue as the classic "chicken and egg" conundrum -- developers aren't likely to take the Mac seriously as a game platform unless there are enough gamers, and gamers aren't likely to take the Mac seriously until there are enough developers. In his view, technologies like TransGaming's Cider can help to bridge that gap -- but it's going to take a very sustained effort if that is so. And ultimately, what has to follow is original Mac game development, not the "me too" stuff we're seeing.
How this follows iPhone game development is largely incidental. It's a fresh platform, a new API, a new chance to get it right. And Carmack, polymath that he is, was talking about mobile platform development, but he is continuing to support the Mac with the idTech 5 engine that they're building their new game from, which is a very exciting development.
If we lived in a perfect world, what I'd love to see happen is for Apple to open its own internal development studio, similar to what the console makers did during the early days of their own systems. The studio would not only be responsible for creating stellar, A-list games for the Mac that would really showcase the platform's capability as a game system, but it would also be able to pass along its development tools and it would help Apple internally to structure APIs and frameworks for helping game developers wring the most out of the platform.
I've been saying this for years, and it still hasn't happened. I can dream, though. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[feefer]

Quote:

---

You're taking a single, uniquely bad product and using it as a flimsy base for a sweeping argument. The Pippin was an example of the kind of ill-advised technological convergence....

---

Need I remind you that it wasn't ME who brought the Pippin to this discussion, but Peter Cohen? He first mentioned the Pippin, offering it as an example of how Apple HAS produced a device for gamers: what a horrid example to bring to the discussion! This device was an abject failure for Apple/Bandai, and is the BEST explanation as to why Apple would be exceedingly gun-shy about trying to produce a gamer's platform (again).

Quote:

---

There are metric tons of precedent for both mobile and computer gaming that it need hardly even be stated - this isn't some out-of-left-field thing.

---

Yes, but how much of that metric tonnage is coming from Apple? Hardly very little, I'd say. Perhaps from Sony and Microsoft, but not Apple.
So how exactly could Apple benefit by entering a hotly-contested market where it has almost no market presence, especially when the multi-national corporate competitors are already doing a GREAT job of producing devices? In another current thread, Peter Cohen admits the strong contenders/competitors in the gaming console field.
Realize the situation was VERY DIFFERENT for cell phone manufacturers before the iPhone entered the arena; these manufacturers (Nokia, etc) were basically asleep at the wheel, resting on their laurels, and willing to continue ignoring OS X users. No more.
For Apple, the iPhone's success was like taking candy from a baby, especially when you realize the iPhone IS the 'native' cell phone choice for OS X users, with many sales virtually assured amongst their user/customer base. A market opportunity existed, and Apple filled the need for IT'S customer base: it makes a lot of sense for users, as the iPhone integrates (syncs) easily with Apple OS X and iTunes. I dare say no one except Apple could've produced the iPhone.
How exactly does any 3rd-party game offer the same level of integration with the entire system? I just don't see any "fit", or potential benefit here...

Quote:

---

These quotes show the origins of your position more than anything else in your posts.

---

Uh, yes they do: thanks for stating the obvious. You cannot say I was trying to hide my beliefs and biases?

Quote:

---

I... what? What does this even mean? First, your description of gaming as a stifling, confining activity that's the polar opposite of creative occupations is one of the most psychotically bizarre things I've ever read.

---

What exactly is so bizarre to you? Do you not recognize the difference between reading a poem and writing one, or perhaps creating a piece of art vs. looking at one? Playing a guitar vs. enjoying listening to a great guitarist? The tools required by the creator are different from those used to enjoy the work: what's so bizarre, so hard to grasp?

Quote:

---

Second, you imply that any overtures from Apple toward gaming must come at the expense of other aspects of its platforms. Exactly what aspects would those be? How is it that gaming is an intrusion and not an enhancement? Do you really think Apple is incapable of pulling off that kind of expansion and image integration?

---

What you're asking for IS a reallocation of limited resources, and those resources are Apple's, not mine or yours. They might easily be able to "pull it off" as you say, but the risks/rewards you'd have Apple gamble with is THEIRS, and it's their decision to make.

[Peter Cohen]

Quote:

---

So how exactly could Apple benefit by entering a hotly-contested market where it has almost no market presence, especially when the multi-national corporate competitors are already doing a GREAT job of producing devices?

---

Funny, that's exactly what some folks were wondering before the iPhone began shipping.

[Dan Frakes]

Quote:

---

Back on point: the 17 y.o. has a PS3, too, but the idea of any adult wasting time playing with a PS3 is just embarrassing; what kind of loser does one have to be to admit to being a gamer outside of their teens?

---

Considering that most gamers are indeed out of their teens, I guess there are a lot of losers out there /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[bigpics]

Quote:

---

So how exactly could Apple benefit by entering a hotly-contested market where it has almost no market presence, especially when the multi-national corporate competitors are already doing a GREAT job of producing devices? In another current thread, Peter Cohen admits the strong contenders/competitors in the gaming console field.
Realize the situation was VERY DIFFERENT for cell phone manufacturers before the iPhone entered the arena; these manufacturers (Nokia, etc) were basically asleep at the wheel, resting on their laurels, and willing to continue ignoring OS X users. No more.
For Apple, the iPhone's success was like taking candy from a baby, especially when you realize the iPhone IS the 'native' cell phone choice for OS X users, with many sales virtually assured amongst their user/customer base. A market opportunity existed, and Apple filled the need for IT'S customer base: it makes a lot of sense for users, as the iPhone integrates (syncs) easily with Apple OS X and iTunes. I dare say no one except Apple could've produced the iPhone.
How exactly does any 3rd-party game offer the same level of integration with the entire system? I just don't see any "fit", or potential benefit here...

---

Actually there is a gaming hook in the overall MS computing ecology I don't recall being mentioned elsewhere in this thread. The X-Box 360 is not only many people's HD-DVD player, and in multi-player over the net mode where they end up doing much of their interacting, there are also some new hooks between the 2nd gen Zunes and the 360 which may end up making the Zune the gamer's media playing device of choice.
So Apple doesn't have the only holistic approach to being everything to everybody in their daily digital lives, and they do have powerful gaming assets which are part of theirs, red rings of death notwithstanding.