CaptainExplosion2 said: I'll have to just wait and see how the Switch is for myself.

That's the most reasonable way to react to these statements, nobody knows (outside of Nintendo and Nvidia) the specifics of the switch at this point, most of it is just speculation, let's just wait and see for ourselves.

Haters gonna hate in any case and most of the gamers that bought a WiiU are going to get a Switch, heck I'm betting most of the current 3DS owners are going to get a Switch just by knowing this is Nintendo's next handheld (/homeconsole). And the numbers will bring 3rd party support, just wait and see.

DonFerrari said: greenmedic88 said: Of course. It's the ability for every vendor to create their own version of Android that has resulted in the market fragmentation that makes iOS produce twice as much revenue on half as many downloads.  While I don't know whether Nintendo would want to use Android any more than you do, the only reason would be as a shortcut. You're probably thinking compatibility: the Android powered Switch would be able to play all the existing Android games/apps or something to that effect, but I'm thinking Nintendo wants to stamp its brand firmly on the Switch and the perception that it was powered by another flavor of Android, even if it was Nintendo's flavor wouldn't exactly help the product distinguish itself, and that would include having it run all the same Android apps that run on all the existing Android devices.  But, as I said, I don't know. Only Nintendo's engineers and presumably any 3rd party software developers know.  Even CNET reported: What operating system is it running? Great question. Nintendo typically rolls its own operating systems, and it probably will again, since purpose-built software is often more reliable and efficient. Or, it could be Android under the hood -- maybe a very, very lean, modified build of Android like the one Amazon uses on its tablets. And how is it good to differentiate yourself by being worse? Or is WiiU OS or even Wii top of class OSs to make it a good diferentiation?

How was it good for SCE to differentiate itself by developing the CBE when perfectly acceptable x86 based CPUs were available? How was it good for SCE to differentiate itself by developing the PS3 OS when it ran LINUX out of the box as well? 

You're asking the wrong question to the wrong person. Nintedo does what it wants to do; they always have with mixed results.

They like full control of their walled garden which is what started the grumblings of 3rd party developers way back with the original NES, and lost them the majority share of 3rd party support by the time SCE rolled around with the original PS as a direct result of their controlling policies. It was that exact mindset that led to the development of the original Playstation to begin with as it was originally supposed to be a Super Nintendo CD-ROM add on. 

You're making the mighty assumption that presumably by merit of being Android, it will be better for Nintendo, because it's a better OS than anything Nintendo wants for their hardware. 

Top of the class OSs are irrelevant here. Like the customized chipsets that go into the hardware, the OS is virtually always specifically tailored to the overall platform based upon the requirements and desires of the company.

XB ran an OS based upon Windows, as did the XB360 and the XBO, because it was their platform, their OS and they weren't paying Windows licensing fees to themselves. Why wouldn't Microsoft do this?

Whether Nintendo wanted to start from scratch, use segments of code from the Wii U, run Android or even start with a stripped down, bare bones version of Android is entirely up to their whims. 

Again, Nintendo does what they want. 

greenmedic88 said: DonFerrari said: And how is it good to differentiate yourself by being worse? Or is WiiU OS or even Wii top of class OSs to make it a good diferentiation? How was it good for SCE to differentiate itself by developing the CBE when perfectly acceptable x86 based CPUs were available? How was it good for SCE to differentiate itself by developing the PS3 OS when it ran LINUX out of the box as well?  You're asking the wrong question to the wrong person. Nintedo does what it wants to do; they always have with mixed results. They like full control of their walled garden which is what started the grumblings of 3rd party developers way back with the original NES, and lost them the majority share of 3rd party support by the time SCE rolled around with the original PS as a direct result of their controlling policies. It was that exact mindset that led to the development of the original Playstation to begin with as it was originally supposed to be a Super Nintendo CD-ROM add on.  You're making the mighty assumption that presumably by merit of being Android, it will be better for Nintendo, because it's a better OS than anything Nintendo wants for their hardware.  Top of the class OSs are irrelevant here. Like the customized chipsets that go into the hardware, the OS is virtually always specifically tailored to the overall platform based upon the requirements and desires of the company. XB ran an OS based upon Windows, as did the XB360 and the XBO, because it was their platform, their OS and they weren't paying Windows licensing fees to themselves. Why wouldn't Microsoft do this? Whether Nintendo wanted to start from scratch, use segments of code from the Wii U, run Android or even start with a stripped down, bare bones version of Android is entirely up to their whims.  Again, Nintendo does what they want.

It certainly wasn't positive to Sony, and I was under the impression it would be better to Nintendo to do it, instead of you just thinking they would do just because that is how they do it.

The merit I'm going is that it would enhance the number of apps and cheap games available to Nintendo. While you said that since Nintendo is such a majestic SW developer they would be better doing their OS than modifying Android, and I gone on Wii and WiiU which doesn't have a good OS and then it wouldn't be positive diferentiation so not a worth marketing point.

Yunta said: CaptainExplosion2 said: I'll have to just wait and see how the Switch is for myself. That's the most reasonable way to react to these statements, nobody knows (outside of Nintendo and Nvidia) the specifics of the switch at this point, most of it is just speculation, let's just wait and see for ourselves. Haters gonna hate in any case and most of the gamers that bought a WiiU are going to get a Switch, heck I'm betting most of the current 3DS owners are going to get a Switch just by knowing this is Nintendo's next handheld (/homeconsole). And the numbers will bring 3rd party support, just wait and see.

The 3DS userbase is arguably the Nintendo market demographic more likely to early adopt the Switch, but a large degree of that probability lies strictly on price. It certainly is the much larger and arguably more relevant demographic, given the small size of the Wii U base.

Yes, it's boring to boil it down to MSRP, but given that the New 3DS currently retails for $199 and I believe the entry 2DS has a $129 MSRP, the price of the Switch can't be much higher than $100 more than the 3DS without pushing their audience to wait until the price drops and the library builds. 

But maybe I'm thinking the wrong way here as the core Nintendo audience tends to buy multiple handhelds and more importantly, they buy because they prefer Nintendo game IPs, so early adoption hinges less on price, while still being reasonable. $299. 

Nintendo did originally manage to sell the 3DS for $249 afterall. 

DonFerrari said: greenmedic88 said: How was it good for SCE to differentiate itself by developing the CBE when perfectly acceptable x86 based CPUs were available? How was it good for SCE to differentiate itself by developing the PS3 OS when it ran LINUX out of the box as well?  You're asking the wrong question to the wrong person. Nintedo does what it wants to do; they always have with mixed results. They like full control of their walled garden which is what started the grumblings of 3rd party developers way back with the original NES, and lost them the majority share of 3rd party support by the time SCE rolled around with the original PS as a direct result of their controlling policies. It was that exact mindset that led to the development of the original Playstation to begin with as it was originally supposed to be a Super Nintendo CD-ROM add on.  You're making the mighty assumption that presumably by merit of being Android, it will be better for Nintendo, because it's a better OS than anything Nintendo wants for their hardware.  Top of the class OSs are irrelevant here. Like the customized chipsets that go into the hardware, the OS is virtually always specifically tailored to the overall platform based upon the requirements and desires of the company. XB ran an OS based upon Windows, as did the XB360 and the XBO, because it was their platform, their OS and they weren't paying Windows licensing fees to themselves. Why wouldn't Microsoft do this? Whether Nintendo wanted to start from scratch, use segments of code from the Wii U, run Android or even start with a stripped down, bare bones version of Android is entirely up to their whims.  Again, Nintendo does what they want.  It certainly wasn't positive to Sony, and I was under the impression it would be better to Nintendo to do it, instead of you just thinking they would do just because that is how they do it. The merit I'm going is that it would enhance the number of apps and cheap games available to Nintendo. While you said that since Nintendo is such a majestic SW developer they would be better doing their OS than modifying Android, and I gone on Wii and WiiU which doesn't have a good OS and then it wouldn't be positive diferentiation so not a worth marketing point.

"Powered by Android" or the Nintendo Switch Android would have zero marketing value. 

I don't know if you remember, but way back during the original XB, a lot of developers were laughing that it ran off of Windows as if that was somehow lazy or defeating the purpose of developing a console. As in why not just sell a Windows branded gaming PC. 

I don't think Nintendo wants to have a boatload of apps and cheap games that run on other platforms that can't be monetized by them. 

For the record, at no point did the words "majestic SW developer" ever come off my keyboard prior to this with regards to Nintendo. Actually that would be the first time with regards to anyone and that was a direct quote. 

But I'll repeat myself because that's how this works. Nintendo likes having full control over their gaming ecosystems. If that means starting from scratch with a proprietary Switch OS, whether for security, monetary, creative or even pure whimsical reasons is entirely up to them, regardless of whether it results in a crap OS with a crap UI so long as it serves their purposes. They have shown time and time again to make a lot of really bizarre decisions, but hey; that's Nintendo. 

greenmedic88 said: DonFerrari said: It certainly wasn't positive to Sony, and I was under the impression it would be better to Nintendo to do it, instead of you just thinking they would do just because that is how they do it. The merit I'm going is that it would enhance the number of apps and cheap games available to Nintendo. While you said that since Nintendo is such a majestic SW developer they would be better doing their OS than modifying Android, and I gone on Wii and WiiU which doesn't have a good OS and then it wouldn't be positive diferentiation so not a worth marketing point. "Powered by Android" or the Nintendo Switch Android would have zero marketing value.  I don't know if you remember, but way back during the original XB, a lot of developers were laughing that it ran off of Windows as if that was somehow lazy or defeating the purpose of developing a console. As in why not just sell a Windows branded gaming PC.  I don't think Nintendo wants to have a boatload of apps and cheap games that run on other platforms that can't be monetized by them.  For the record, at no point did the words "majestic SW developer" ever come off my keyboard prior to this with regards to Nintendo. Actually that would be the first time with regards to anyone and that was a direct quote.  But I'll repeat myself because that's how this works. Nintendo likes having full control over their gaming ecosystems. If that means starting from scratch with a proprietary Switch OS, whether for security, monetary, creative or even pure whimsical reasons is entirely up to them, regardless of whether it results in a crap OS with a crap UI so long as it serves their purposes. They have shown time and time again to make a lot of really bizarre decisions, but hey; that's Nintendo.

 

On the majestic you know I was being hyperbolic, sorry if you took it wrong. You aren't wrong that it isn't marketable that it's being powered by Android, but they don't need to market the OS, I just don't see any reason on differentiate by being worse, and if you market that you can end up doing worse. But I do agree that Nintendo may decide on proprietary for a plethora of reasons and it may end up good or bad. About the MS OS I don't remember that, even more because dreamcast already had a version of Windows CE (i think) on it.

Posting here because I didn't think it really deserved it's own thread:
Qualcomm is first to announce product on Samsung's new 10nm process, to be released 1st half 2017
https://www.engadget.com/2016/11/17/qualcomm-snapdragon-835-fast-charging/
Qualcomm has unveiled its next-gen Snapdragon 835 flagship SoC (system on a chip) and confirmed rumors that it will be built by Samsung using its 10-nanometer FinFET process. Compared to the current 14-nanometer Snapdragon 821 (also built by Samsung), the new processor packs 30 percent more parts into the same space, yielding 27 percent better performance while drawing up to 40 percent less power, the company says.

NVIDIA is partnered with both Samsung and TSMC for production of their designs.
I honestly don't see why Nintendo shouldn't design around this from the beginning with Switch.
It may not be 100% as cheap at very beginning, but they would save a redesign in future SKU.
And more importantly be able to leverage it's benefits for a higher performing product.
Of course, I don't actually expect them to do that, but they SHOULD.
It just makes sense when launching a console if you can time it to coincide with new process/architecture.
MS really should also with Scorpio, although I don't think AMD has any relationship with 10nm fab.

Yunta said: CaptainExplosion2 said: I'll have to just wait and see how the Switch is for myself. That's the most reasonable way to react to these statements, nobody knows (outside of Nintendo and Nvidia) the specifics of the switch at this point, most of it is just speculation, let's just wait and see for ourselves. Haters gonna hate in any case and most of the gamers that bought a WiiU are going to get a Switch, heck I'm betting most of the current 3DS owners are going to get a Switch just by knowing this is Nintendo's next handheld (/homeconsole). And the numbers will bring 3rd party support, just wait and see.

Well those sure are nice odds. :)