It created a lot of hype when the rumours came up that Apple is creating a console. I don't think you can rule it out generally. But the programmers they hired a for the iPhone or the iPod Gaming Platform. Sooner or later I think there will be some sort of handheld of Apple even if it is a iPhone + Gaming Platform like the NGage (the new one is out soon which is great too with Nvidias new mobile graphic chip). I hope that Apple will make a console that is even more expensive than the PS3 and 10times faster. Steven Jobs is a visionary and he could blow our socks off.

Sony could only sell Sony-owned games for such a low, low price. And Sony doesn't make many games. 3rd parties would want a lot more than a dollar! (look what Nintendo's getting them for even older content!) Point: you can't give away other people's content as a loss-leader!!!

QFT I expect that a lot of the reason the Virtual Console games are "so expensive" is that the "hardware-developer" wants to make a fair ammount of money, the game publisher wants to make a fair ammount of money, and Nintendo wants to make a fair ammount of money. As an example: For a Sega Master System game Sega wants $1.50, the publisher wants $2.00 and Nintendo wants $1.50 ... Certainly, Nintendo makes a killing on their own games but I doubt that Sega would have allowed their systems to be emulated if Nintendo was going to have a dramatic price advantage ...

A prime example of how the online content system works is iTunes. The publisher gets 15cents. The artist gets 5 cents. RIAA gets 75cents. and Apple gets 5cents.

Too complicated and too pricey to trounce the Wii's price and mainstream simplicity.

Sony certainly has a lot of content (games, movies AND music) they can leverage, but I think a key question is how much are they asking consumers to change their behavior? If you look at something like Apple TV, they will be asking people to hook this box up to their television, which will stream their media straight from their computer. For those with an iPod, this is a great proposition. And iPod + Apple TV gives you complete interoperability from your home computer to work computer to television to portable device, while allowing you to manage all your media from your PC. The PS3 setup seems to be asking you to manage your media from your TV, and then gives you less flexability between devices. iPod + Apple TV relies on consumers to use their PCs as their media hubs (which I think is the established behavior at least in the US), while PS3 is trying to replace your PC. Now, the PS3 is such a versatile device that Sony have flexability in establishing a working business model. But I don't know what thats going to be. Of course that brings me to the other point discussed in this thread: Apple entering the VG business. Apple obviously wants to dominate the realm of digital media. But, I think they've still got an uphill battle. With Apple TV, though I think its in a better position than PS3, they've still got a problem. iPod is great because portability is such a big factor with music, and because it didn't ask you to stop buying CDs. The vast bulk of music sold is still in CD form, because that offers the most flexability--ripping to iTunes, but still playing the CD from your home stereo system. With video, most people only care about playing it from their computers or their televisions, which they can already do with their DVDs. So Apple TV doesn't seem to offer all the advantages iPod did. When they move to videogames, the problems compound. PCs are out of the loop, and handheld and home console gaming are entirely different spheres, which have recently been shooting in different directions control-wise, thanks to Nintendo. There's a lot of way they could do it, but Apple could not break into the games sphere in a traditional way, and maintain any of the great advantages they've had with iPod. I think the games market is something they're eyeing though, and we'll see developments throughout this current generation. Nintendo merging with Apple would be totally out-of-character for both companies.

Apple and Nintendo merging would be a disaster. I just think about the merger ATI and AMD did. It was a desaster.

Apple and Nintendo merging makes no sense: they're kicking ass all on their own. But it's clear they have common enemies and similar strategies, and I can see areas where they could help each other (e.g. the Wii could easily - with a firmware update - become a media viewer for iTunes... although that wouldn't help iTV sales )

An iTunes channel on Wii would own my soul. Twice.

I don't think there is a chance Apple and Nintendo will merge, ever. Microsoft buying Nintendo is more likely. It's just the nature of both companies. I don't think they like being told what to do and interference with their respective creative styles would be a huge faux pas and something they would not tolerate very well. But one can dream, of couse. I think both the relatively small creative entities can bring both giants, Sony and Microsoft, to their knees.