By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Do we really want Apple in the game console industry?

 

Do we really want Apple in the game console industry?

Yes, I dream of an Apple console 27 12.00%
 
No, Leave the games industry the hell alone 145 64.44%
 
I'm nuetral 53 23.56%
 
Total:225
Kantor on 07 November 2010
SpartenOmega117 said:

people are saying apple is the second largest company in the world. What is the first?? Microsoft?

It depends on the measure. According to the Fortune 500, Apple is 56th:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2010/full_list/

Wal-Mart is first, Exxon-Mobil second, and Chevron third.

I believe the "Apple is second" figure was based on market capitalisation, and is still wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporations_by_market_capitalization#2010

ExxonMobil, then PetroChina, THEN Apple (for Q3 2010). Microsoft's dropped to sixth for the quarter.

It's more a measure of investor confidence than actual company size, from what I've seen. It's authorised shares * share price. Apple's share price is enormous, but that doesn't make it a large company.

EDIT: I suppose it's also a measure of how much a company costs. But nobody's going to buy Apple. Apple also isn't going to buy Sony, which has a market cap of $24 billion (relatively low) and assets of $140 billion (triple those of Apple).



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Around the Network
radiantshadow92 on 07 November 2010

if they go about it like their phone business, i don't see a problem. Either way, i wouldn't say it would ruin the industry....No one company can do that. No matter what, there will always be PC gaming.



oldschoolfool on 07 November 2010

yes,competion baby!!!!!!! lol



Mr Khan on 07 November 2010
Kantor said:
SpartenOmega117 said:

people are saying apple is the second largest company in the world. What is the first?? Microsoft?

It depends on the measure. According to the Fortune 500, Apple is 56th:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2010/full_list/

Wal-Mart is first, Exxon-Mobil second, and Chevron third.

I believe the "Apple is second" figure was based on market capitalisation, and is still wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporations_by_market_capitalization#2010

ExxonMobil, then PetroChina, THEN Apple (for Q3 2010). Microsoft's dropped to sixth for the quarter.

It's more a measure of investor confidence than actual company size, from what I've seen. It's authorised shares * share price. Apple's share price is enormous, but that doesn't make it a large company.

EDIT: I suppose it's also a measure of how much a company costs. But nobody's going to buy Apple. Apple also isn't going to buy Sony, which has a market cap of $24 billion (relatively low) and assets of $140 billion (triple those of Apple).

Market Cap is a poor indicator anyway, just because it's really only useful if you're looking to buy the company, and even *then* it doesn't work, because trying to buy a publically traded company is only going to raise its market cap anyway

Not picking on you, btw, just making a general point. If you want to look at the strength of a company, market cap is only one of three factors (the other two being revenue and profits. Looking at only one of the three gives a distorted view)



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

radiantshadow92 on 07 November 2010
Silver-Tiger said:
rubido said:

Wow! I was the first one to welcome them.

They would bring innovation, as they always do. That would be great for me.


What innovation are you talking about?

The iPhone? No, smphones were there before the iPhone.

The iPad? No, Tablet PCs (it's not even a full Tablet PC) were there before the iPad.

The iPod or iTunes? don't make me laugh. MP3 players and MP3 shops came LONG before Apple did this.

 

Really, Apple doesn't innovate anything.  All they do is bring it under one hut and stamp their expensive name on it. The major selling point of Apple products is design and blind worship. They make it casual friendly and add widespread appeal, though, so much I give to them.

smartphones were there, but they were the first to truly implement the touch screen, or at least give it a chance. And Itunes shxts on ever other e-shop made *except for maybe live and psn*



Around the Network
Kantor on 07 November 2010
Mr Khan said:
Kantor said:
SpartenOmega117 said:

people are saying apple is the second largest company in the world. What is the first?? Microsoft?

It depends on the measure. According to the Fortune 500, Apple is 56th:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2010/full_list/

Wal-Mart is first, Exxon-Mobil second, and Chevron third.

I believe the "Apple is second" figure was based on market capitalisation, and is still wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporations_by_market_capitalization#2010

ExxonMobil, then PetroChina, THEN Apple (for Q3 2010). Microsoft's dropped to sixth for the quarter.

It's more a measure of investor confidence than actual company size, from what I've seen. It's authorised shares * share price. Apple's share price is enormous, but that doesn't make it a large company.

EDIT: I suppose it's also a measure of how much a company costs. But nobody's going to buy Apple. Apple also isn't going to buy Sony, which has a market cap of $24 billion (relatively low) and assets of $140 billion (triple those of Apple).

Market Cap is a poor indicator anyway, just because it's really only useful if you're looking to buy the company, and even *then* it doesn't work, because trying to buy a publically traded company is only going to raise its market cap anyway

Not picking on you, btw, just making a general point. If you want to look at the strength of a company, market cap is only one of three factors (the other two being revenue and profits. Looking at only one of the three gives a distorted view)

The list on Wikipedia ranks by market cap, and the Fortune 500 ranks by revenue and profit, so between them, we have all three.

As I was saying, revenue, profits and assets are all better measurements of a company's size/strength.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Shadowblind on 07 November 2010
Kantor said:

In the words of Inon Beracha, CEO of the company which provided the technology for Kinect, "Apple is a pain in the ass".

They waltz into an industry with their billions of advertising dollars, get their users to make all of their content, slap on an exorbitant price tag, spray on the Apple symbol and sell 100 million copies. It's really not fair.

And, because it's made by Apple, everyone says "Hey, I bought my phone, MP3 player, tablet PC and computer from them! I'll buy this!"

To get an indication of the degree to which an Apple purchase is an informed purchase, 1/3 of iPad users have neglected to download a single app. No paid apps. No free apps. It's widely agreed that what sets iOS apart from all other smartphone operating systems is the app store (incidentally, the one part of the OS which the designer has no part in creating), and thus any purchase of an iPhone, iPod Touch or iPad should be based on the apps, right? I mean, you could pay half the price, and get a tablet PC capable of browsing the web, watching videos, listening to music and much more besides.

Sane and sensible people become insane and act on the spur of the moment when Apple is involved. I have seen it first hand. Something about their bright silver logo just drives people completely insane, and that's the last thing the gaming industry needs. In the PS1, PS2 and Wii, we had consoles which catered to casual gamers, but also had enormous numbers of quality games in a variety of genres. Apple wouldn't have that. Hell, there probably wouldn't be a single first party game, and everything available would be of the sort of quality of iPhone and iPad games. And it would sell.

Thumbs up for a good post.

For a good summary of Apple and it's fans, one need look no further then theonion parodies:

"I'll buy almost anything if it's shiny and made by Apple. I like how the e-mail says 'sent from a Macbook wheel so people know you have one'." http://www.theonion.com/video/apple-introduces-revolutionary-new-laptop-with-no,14299/ "And the computer is virtually unbreakable unless dropped or hit."

And this: http://www.theonion.com/video/new-apple-friend-bar-gives-customers-someone-to-ta,17693/



GOTY Contestants this year: Dead Space 2, Dark Souls, Tales of Graces f. Everything else can suck it.

famousringo on 07 November 2010
Kantor said:

In the words of Inon Beracha, CEO of the company which provided the technology for Kinect, "Apple is a pain in the ass".

They waltz into an industry with their billions of advertising dollars, get their users to make all of their content, slap on an exorbitant price tag, spray on the Apple symbol and sell 100 million copies. It's really not fair.

And, because it's made by Apple, everyone says "Hey, I bought my phone, MP3 player, tablet PC and computer from them! I'll buy this!"

To get an indication of the degree to which an Apple purchase is an informed purchase, 1/3 of iPad users have neglected to download a single app. No paid apps. No free apps. It's widely agreed that what sets iOS apart from all other smartphone operating systems is the app store (incidentally, the one part of the OS which the designer has no part in creating), and thus any purchase of an iPhone, iPod Touch or iPad should be based on the apps, right? I mean, you could pay half the price, and get a tablet PC capable of browsing the web, watching videos, listening to music and much more besides.

Sane and sensible people become insane and act on the spur of the moment when Apple is involved. I have seen it first hand. Something about their bright silver logo just drives people completely insane, and that's the last thing the gaming industry needs. In the PS1, PS2 and Wii, we had consoles which catered to casual gamers, but also had enormous numbers of quality games in a variety of genres. Apple wouldn't have that. Hell, there probably wouldn't be a single first party game, and everything available would be of the sort of quality of iPhone and iPad games. And it would sell.

I'm sure it's impossible to change your opinion on anything, but Nielsen actually corrected their stats on iPad downloads. Apparently only 9% of iPad owners don't download apps. Didn't they have some similar screwups on console play time?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/25/nielsen_restates_ipad_stats/

Oh, and Apple's advertising budget is only half a billion dollars, actually. Much smaller than Dell or Microsoft, and a full order of magnitude smaller than Sony's $5 billion budget. They must do an amazing job with that $500 million to make you think it's so huge. I guess the mind control lasers built into those logos are cheap to build:

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2009/10/28/apples-2009-ad-budget-half-a-billion/

http://www.campaignasia.com/Article/211782,sony-overhauls-advertising-budget-to-focus-on-core-products.aspx



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

jarrod on 07 November 2010

Apple should buy SEGA.  I'd buy that console in a heartbeat.



Squilliam on 07 November 2010
Kantor said:

In the words of Inon Beracha, CEO of the company which provided the technology for Kinect, "Apple is a pain in the ass".

1. They waltz into an industry with their billions of advertising dollars, get their users to make all of their content, slap on an exorbitant price tag, spray on the Apple symbol and sell 100 million copies. It's really not fair.

2. And, because it's made by Apple, everyone says "Hey, I bought my phone, MP3 player, tablet PC and computer from them! I'll buy this!"

3. To get an indication of the degree to which an Apple purchase is an informed purchase, 1/3 of iPad users have neglected to download a single app. No paid apps. No free apps. It's widely agreed that what sets iOS apart from all other smartphone operating systems is the app store (incidentally, the one part of the OS which the designer has no part in creating), and thus any purchase of an iPhone, iPod Touch or iPad should be based on the apps, right? I mean, you could pay half the price, and get a tablet PC capable of browsing the web, watching videos, listening to music and much more besides.

4. Sane and sensible people become insane and act on the spur of the moment when Apple is involved. I have seen it first hand. Something about their bright silver logo just drives people completely insane, and that's the last thing the gaming industry needs. In the PS1, PS2 and Wii, we had consoles which catered to casual gamers, but also had enormous numbers of quality games in a variety of genres. Apple wouldn't have that. Hell, there probably wouldn't be a single first party game, and everything available would be of the sort of quality of iPhone and iPad games. And it would sell.

1. That can also be said similarly for the PS2 which was no better if not worse value than other last generation consoles except for the fact that it had the Playstation name and the momentum from the previous generation. Many have argued that without those it would have been a very even generation much like this one.

2. A lot of people buy Sony TVs, Sony consoles, Sony computers, Sony stereos etc. Its the same effect.

3. 1/3rd of Xbox 360 users have neglected to go online. Whilst Live is what sets the Xbox 360 apart its not the only reason why people buy the Xbox 360 and the same applies to the iPad and the app store. Also show me the $249 or $300 tablet PC which is anywhere near as capable as an iPad? You could be talking about a netbook but thats something entirely different and suits a different need. The only competitors I have seen coming out have been different form factors or significantly more expensive. In any case not every user needs to get apps on their iPad because several of the killer applications such as the iTunes store and book store are included IIRC.

4. There wouldn't be any quality games? Thats up to the market place to decide. Unless you have a first party like Nintendo it has been well proven that you can subsist large upon the work of 3rd party developers. Theres also no reason to believe that the games would be of low quality, the quality of the iPad games especially given their higher price have been improving substantially. A lot of genres are starting to be represented on the system. All Apple would need to do is create a 'blockbuster' category to seperate and highlight the games which are coming in at above the $15 U.S.D price point.





Tease.