I honestly hope not I think there is a market for both.  I want my high end graphics powerhouse with hardcore games.  I like the WII and wish it all best but not my kind of system

i think apple may entre but in the handheld not console market

if ea created the own consoles that would be horrible for sony and microsoft because most of the games that they get are from ea

I doubt it. Steve Jobs has had plenty of opportunities to use gaming to help Apple's bottom line but has refused to do so. Carmack has remarked on this on several ocassions.

That's not necessarily true. Patents surfaced of a Wii-like interface for some kind of hardware being designed by Apple a month or two ago as revealed from IGN.  And Apple was in the industry once before (albeit, unsuccessfully) with the Apple-Bandai Pippin during the 32/64-bit (Fifth) Generation. 

We're at the slimmest point ever in console gaming--we have only three competing machines from only three competing commpanies.  Go back a few years and it was a much more crowded realm with a lot more choices.  The 2nd and 5th generations were the most crowded.

2nd:  Atari 2600, 5200, ColecoVision, Vectrex, Intellivision, Fairchild Channel F, Odyssey II, etc.
5th:  N64, Saturn, Playstation, Jaguar, 3DO, CD-i, Pippin, and the follow-up to the TurboGrafx-16/CD (it's name escapes me at the moment--it was the first designed like a tower), ill-fated Nuon, etc.

Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing another entrant or two.  Apple seems very likely to jump in, although I don't think that being able to play games on the iPhone will threaten either the PSP or DS in any way.  After all, the installed userbase of iPhones is only about a million or so which is next to nothing compared to the PSP 30+ million or the DS as it approaches 80 million.  EA is a company that I've theorized may try entering the fray by the next generation based on the way they gobble up other studios and their belief that the industry should be streamlined to run on just one dedicated console.  I'd much prefer Apple to come in over EA.

As for the original post, Nintendo, Sony, and MS are all hard at work on their next consoles.  Several ideas will be made, tested, and scrapped over the next few years until new designs, specs, costs, and features are ironed-out.  I still believe, however, that this current generation will be fairly long-lived simply due to the now immense cost of developing games on these high-powered machines.  Any console maker that tries to rush the next generation (like MS did this one) will likely end up shooting themselves in the foot where fiscally-conscious 3rd party companies are concerned.  Many will only just begin turning profits in 2010, most finished the last two fiscal years with painful losses due to the much higher cost of transitioning to this new generation.

I agree that we are in the slimmest time for consoles, but you have to think, is there a reason for that? Looking at the list you compiled from those two previous generations, the answer to my question is yes. Companies have learned that getting in the console industry is a lot harder than it looked to Panasonic, Phillips, Apple-Bandai, Hudson, and anyone who wasn't named Atari in the 2nd generation. They all lost boat loads of money, respect, sometimes there entire businesses due to trying to jump on in to the party.

That is why we don't have 7 systems this generation. Because 75% of people that try to get in, get out in a hurry and people have become savy to this fact.

I think we will just have all the same companies

This round of consoles everything cost so much more.

@Gamerace -- Good reasoning. But Apple is not about mass market pricing for its hardware. So it is doubtful it can do what you describe.

@Res_Hazard -- Slimest point was right after the crash with just the NES vs. the home computers (C-64 and Atari 8-bit) and later with SMS and re-released Atari 7800 replacing those home comptuers as the game and computer markets shifted.

Mike from Morgantown

Apple isn't going to enter games console market, since they already have a platform for games with installbase of millions. Still they aren't pushing it.
If they are going to enter the livingroom, they may push a "Web 2.0" hub.

Why does it need a shitload of money to enter console market (if you think it doesn't, go ahead, make your own console. Nintendo makes a billion per quarter, PS2 has sold 120M, so it's not about you couldn't make profit. Easy money. Right?), is because first you need R&D, money for manufacturing, a shitload of games developers (Nintendo staff is somewhere above 3000) or you need to pay the 3rd parties for them to develope games for you (tens of millions a game, as M$ have shown) and still without having a decent first party, who makes games to push HW sales (this is why M$ will never "win"), your chances are bad, and after that you have to have retail channel ready (or to create one, which costs money). There aren't many companies in the world that fit the criteria.

@Woopah: They buy games for the Wii. Why should they get PS360, when with 50€ investment you are going to get the same anyway, with the exception of familiar controls and familiar brands. Even Nintendo will face a problem to get the new audience to upgrade to Wiis successor. If Nintendo doesn't manage in doing that, the new audience is going to quit gaming as soon as Wii isn't getting any games anymore. That's one of the major reasons why Miyamoto is talking about "upgrading" the new audience with bridged games. To get them going along the industry.