By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Smashchu2 on 22 June 2010
Edit Thread
padib said:
Smashchu2 said:
padib said:

Smashchu2 said:

Systems tend to peak in their 3rd year, so they are naturally going to have lower revenue for that year (and Nintendo has not released any big software for the system since Pokemon back in 2007).

When you say systems peak in their 3rd year, do you mean in terms of software sales or hardware sales, or both? Do you have charts to support it? (I remember reading an article on this, showing the peaks of console sales after a certain number of years.) I ask because the 19% here refers to revenue for gaming software. 

System sales tend to peak after 3 years. If sales for the hardware slow after 3 years, then so to will the software sales.

Anyhow, I still fail to see how 20% of the total gaming software revenue is a percentage you find uninteresting, despite the peak phenomenon. I guess the charts you'll post will help me see it clearer. Now, if Apple had won say 60% of total revenue, would you still maintain your argument?

19% is relative. 19% in 2004 (when the systems launched) is different then 2009 (when they are getting less software and are declining). So I don't think Apple is preforming that well. Also, look at the number of games they have. Compair the last time you heard of an iPhone game everyone had to have and compair that with a DS game or a Wii game (or even a game on the HD twins).

Of course, Apple will never have 60% of a market they don't compete in.

Anyway, I'll suggets 2 interpretations of the scenario in the quote:

1. Apple increased the total market revenue from r to R, and embodies the difference. Here, Apple steals future/undiscovered market from Nintendo/Sony and can be seen as indirect competition.

Or,

2. Apple gobbled up a piece of revenue r from Nintendo/Sony. In this case, Apple is a direct competitor to Nintendo.

(or a mix of both)

What is your take on it?

Neither will happen. What is going to drive Apple as a competitor is software. Software, software software. now, Apple wants to be competitive, but they think just because they release it, it can be successful. No. It must have software. While third parties came make software for it (and boy do they want to), it will always be the first party outings that will make the system. Until Apple can compete with Nintendo's software (which Microsoft and Sony can't even do) then they will not be a competior.

So far, there is little evidence that they can compete. hey've gotten less then a fifth of the market in a slow season. Let's see how they do with a new syste, launch.

I think we differ on what it means to be a competitor then. To me, you are a competitor if your platform steals sales from another company's platform, whether its your software that is purchased or 3rd party software. To my advantage, I think I understand software slightly better than you do (I am a Software Engineering major, if you really want to wave your diploma).

Although this sounds mean, you dont actually. My major let's me know how all of the formulars work and how the reports interact. I also know a little bit about business. Being a software engineer does not mean you know games, and this may be your problem.

Video games are actually not in the technology business. They are in the entertainment business. They compete with movies, books and music. Now, video games are reliant on technology, but they are not in the technology business themselves. Apple is in the technology business. They do not make products to entertain. They make products to do a set job. They make iPod so you can listen to music. They make iPhone so you can call people. And as Apple, they put a twist on it to make it easier to use and intergrate into people's lives better. But, they do not make the entertainment for those products. Nintendo actually makes the entertainment for their systems. Until Apple can make entertainment on the iPhone, they can not compete with Nintendo. Apple is in the technology business, so they don't know the first thing about entertaining you. They make the product and the entertainment flows in (iPod worked so well because there is so much music. They just needed to make an music device that worked).

The reason I point this out is because it's a huge misconception about video games. People who think about technology think Nintendo and Apple compete. To them, it makes sense. They are both in the technology business right? Well, no, they are not. Video games are heavily integrated with technology, but they are not technology focused (remember that Reggie said that technology is a tool).