Retina-optimized graphics are awesome, we all pretty much agree. But there comes a trade-off with such: file-size. TUAW’s Mike Schramm summarizes the issue:

The most obvious drawback is app size. Those bigger graphics take up more space, and for many graphics-heavy applications, that could put them over the cellular data download limit (now at 50 MB). Universal apps specifically are taking this hit, even if they’re not running with the new iPad-sized graphics on the iPhone hardware.

A good universal app today supports four resolutions:

1. Legacy graphics for the 2G iPhone, iPhone 3/3GS, and iPod Touch.
2. Legacy graphics for the original iPad and iPad 2.
3. Retina graphics for the iPhone 4/4S.
4. Retina graphics for the new iPad.

There are ways to mitigate the file size increase, such as recycling retina iPhone graphics for use on older iPads. In search of real-life examples for how an app is distributed, however, Lex Friedman at MacWorld compared the pre-retina and post-retina file sizes of Apple’s own universal iOS apps. In doing so, we see file sizes roughly 2.75 times greater post-retina.

Between this, camera improvements, and more computing power to push more detailed textures in 3D games, there’s a reason the 16GB new iPad isn’t recommended by a lot of bloggers.¹

While we can assume that support for older devices will drop in the future, we still have at least a generation or two to go before non-retina devices are no longer supported by new versions of iOS. And even when that time comes, dropping non-retina graphics files won’t drastically improve the footprint of app file sizes, since it’s the retina versions that are making file sizes much bigger. At the very least, we should expect next year’s iPad to offer a 128GB storage option.

In the meantime, we still maintain that better cloud tools would help immensely, especially with large iPhoto libraries that can take up considerable storage space. Another potential solution on Apple’s side is to somehow strip graphics from AppStore downloads that aren’t needed on a target device. For example, retina graphics would be removed from an app downloaded from a non-retina device, and iPad graphics would be stripped from a universal app if installed on an iPhone.

Then again, perhaps we’re making too large an issue out of one that’s easily rectified in one or two generations, as flash storage becomes cheaper. Still, it’s enough of a problem that some are pushing not to release universal apps in order to save on storage space, a proposal that we find to be a rather bittersweet solution.

Similar Posts:

• ]\ – We’ve been somewhat critical of the Apple TV as a gaming console, and when [we last wrote about the …
• iPad, the second generation. – Plenty of rumours about iPad 2.0 are hitting the blogosphere, complete with photos of “leaks” from c…
• Why we probably won’t get an iPad 2. – We say “probably” because if Target doesn’t have a line at 17:00 today, we may be tempted to stop in…

We expect that a lot of people don’t know what “PC” stands for, or at least give it any real thought. The idea of a “personal computer” came about at a time when computers were huge, expensive, and used by several people in research facilities and universities. At the time, what made a computer “personal” was that it was owned by a person instead of a company or organization. As more and more people relied on desktop computers at home, the “personal” half of the term had less and less meaning; in homes where several family members used a computer, the desktop and file structure became a mish-mash of the user’s personalities. Things changed a bit when home operation systems began to use local accounts, one for each user. But even then, the form factor of a typical computer simply doesn’t lend itself to the level of connectivity that something “personal” ought to.

Compare this to an iPod, for example. An iPod is cheap enough for most everyone to own, and its contents are a reflection of the owner, containing her tastes, styles, and interests. Even the exterior of the device can be customized by the owner, either by choosing a specific exterior color at purchase, else using cases and decals. Furthermore, the form factor of an iPod is perfect; most people can use their iPod at home, on their commute, at work, and in the gym.

While computers have become smaller, and notebooks more common, they still don’t reach the level of closeness that people have with their iPods, because they’re still very task-specific tools.¹ This is where mobile devices have stepped in to become the everywhere tool in a person’s life. While smartphones have been reasonably successful, their size makes certain tasks limited, or cumbersome. To great success, the iPad has found the middle road between what’s small enough to go most everywhere and what’s large enough to still be useful for most tasks. And the iPad form factor, a tablet, makes it ideal for tasks that most people would never have considered doing on a computer, or on a mobile device.

Stephen Hackett comments on several tasks he uses his iPad for:

I can do all of these things on my MacBook Pro, or even my Mac mini at home. The iPad, however, makes these tasks not only easier, but more enjoyable … especially on the couch, with a beer.

The success of the iPad isn’t in just in what all it can do, because contrary to what some may claim, the iPad is not “just another tool”. Rather, the iPad is successful because not only does it do a lot, but it lets you integrate the iPad into all your daily tasks, be it in the kitchen, at the office, on the couch, or even in the bathroom. The iPad is a more natural fit for how we live our lives, instead of constraining our tasks to a necessary time and place that most traditional computers require.

If anything, the iPad is a more personal computer than a PC, which is really what this “post-PC” hub-bub in the press is all about. “PC” has become a misnomer, because compared to the iPad and its emulators, PCs are not personal, they’re impersonal.² Inasmuch as what the iPad can do, it may differ little from a conventional PC, but the idea Apple is pushing with their post-PC nomenclature is that tablets are opening new doors for how computers can be used, and it’s about as drastic as the difference was between PCs and what came before.

Similar Posts:

• The theoretical 7.85″ Apple tablet. – Some have made the case, admittedly admirably, that _if_ Apple were to make a tablet smaller than th…
• The iPad as post-PC device. – Michael Gartenberg clarifies Steve Jobs’ statement that the iPad is a post-PC device by [pointing ou…
• The iPad can’t do work? – We’ve already written about our iPad serving as a Mac replacement for most tasks, but there’s still …

Recently, John Gruber linked to a new Kickstarter campaign for a fairly nice iPhone dock, called the Elevation Dock. As Gruber notes, it’s certainly a beautiful dock, but we question how useful it is. Particularly, in regards to FaceTime:

The dock’s acoustics make the iPhone sound great and less tinny than when laid on a desk, so speakerphone and FaceTime calls sound better. And its angled back 8 degrees, so you are perfectly in frame of the video.

Here’s the problem the Elevate, and most every other dock out there, have: they keep the iPhone in portrait mode. That’s fine for some features, but it’s horrible for FaceTime, which just looks so much better in landscape mode. We’ll admit that we’re starting to use our iPad in portrait mode a lot more often than in the past, but even for FaceTime, we set our iPad up in landscape mode because we prefer to see video maximized.

Similar Posts:

• Orienting the iPad for use with a keyboard. – The iPhone Blog posted [a poll](http://www.tipb.com/2011/05/18/poll-iphone-keyboard-portrait-landsca…
• UltimateWalls. – For most people, customizing an iPad involves simply changing its wallpaper, and this means relying …
• Gearing up with the WINGstand. – Searching for a good iPad stand solution that incorporates a keyboard has proven difficult. [We set…

06/28/2011

Not typically a fan of extended warranties, we do make an exception: AppleCare. And that’s because had we not invested in AppleCare in the past, we would have been royally screwed. This, contrary to the Apple-products-are-rock-solid belief that many, including Shawn Blanc, share:

For the record, I bought AppleCare once. It was for my first Mac; a 12-inch PowerBook. I never needed AppleCare for that Mac, nor have I needed AppleCare for any other Apple computer or device I’ve owned since then.

Shawn’s an Apple enthusiast, so we can assume he’s owned his fare share of Apple devices. Still, our own experience has made AppleCare invaluable, as we can’t even remember every time some Apple device needed this or that fixed/replaced. But, off the top of our head:

• Our iPod Mini needed replacement after the battery stopped, well, charging.
• The RAM in our 17″ Powerbook needed to be replaced after the computer stopped booting.
• The logic board in our 17″ Powerbook needed to be replaced after the screen developed random, horizontal lines.
• Our iPhone 3GS needed replacing after it stopped turning on.
• The RAM in out 17″ MacBook Pro needed to be replaced after the computer stopped booting.
• The logic board on our 17″ MacBook Pro needed to be replaced after the computer stopped booting.
• The battery on our 17″ MacBook Pro needed to be replaced after it exploded.¹
• Our TimeCapsule’s hard drive died and needed to be replaced.

It’s not even that we beat up on our hardware – we’re actually quite anal about our equipment staying in a pretty pristine condition. And again, this is just off the top of our head, as we’re fairly certain that we brought our 17″ monsters into a local Apple Store more than this in order to get stuff fixed. Between these problems and those our friends/family have encountered over the last several years, we consider AppleCare a pretty good deal, as we’re well ahead in what we otherwise would have paid on getting things fixed outside of the basic Apple warranty.

Mind you, this isn’t to say that Apple quality sucks (because we still consider Apple gear better than competing products), merely that any sufficiently complex technological device is bound to have problems. We’re just on the opposite end of the spectrum than Shawn, who has apparently been very lucky with his Apple gear.² We’ve had no problems with our more recent Apple purchases (Mac Mini, iPhone 4, iPad, and iPad 2), but three out of four are different beasts compared to traditional Apple computers. If anything, we’d recommend AppleCare for any traditional Apple computer purchase, but may be hesitant to recommend it for Apple mobile devices.

Similar Posts:

• The iPod Touch is a baby iPad. – One of the common quips about the iPad is that it’s nothing more than a “large iPod Touch.” It’s a s…
• Bridget Riley strikes. – My computer workhorse is a 17″ G4 Powerbook that replaced my old 15-incher. At the time, my PC was h…
• The MacBook Air and the iPad. – At the recent Back to the Mac event, Apple unveiled their redone Macbook Air, which now comes in two…

When Deutsche Bank’s Chris Whitmore claimed Apple would release a second iPhone model, we considered it just another random claim. After all, people have been saying for years that Apple would release an iPhone variant model, be it smaller than the original, or otherwise watered down. John Gruber weighed in on the claim and considers it a matter of fact; to Gruber, a second iPhone is just a matter of time.

Examine the history of the iPod to see how this will play out. They’ll press technologically at the high end, and they’ll expand into the mid-range market with lower priced models. Why not now?

The difference with the iPod is that all the iPod models did the same thing: they played mp3s. Some had larger storage options than others (just as the iPhone already does), but functionally they were all equal. The biggest difference between them, and still today, is storage, which comes down to a matter of form factor choice, not features. The only reason the iPod Shuffle lacks features (a visual screen) is because the form factor takes precedence. Just look at the iPod lineup today. The choice boils down to how much music you want at your fingertips, and how small you need your music player to be. The only exception here is the iPod Touch, which is the exception because it’s a phone-less iPhone; if storage costs weren’t an issue, then the Touch would replace the iPod Classic without consideration.

Taking the iPhone along a road similar to the iPod is problematic because the success of the iPhone isn’t in the core phone software. That is to say, the iPhone, unlike the iPod, is not a one-trick pony. It does a lot of things well, whereas the iPod did one primary thing well: play mp3s. This means the iPhone experience can’t be replicated by watering the device down and selling it for cheap, because customers will still want the iPhone experience, which means downloading, and using, all the same apps that other iPhone users have. That means the hardware needs to stay pretty much the same in every iPhone sold, which means the form factor can’t be tweaked too much.

Cellular telephone carriers have had success in selling older iPhone models for cheaper prices, this much is true. That’s because the features these devices offered weren’t too far different from the features available in the latest iPhone. So long as Apple rolls out the next iOS version and doesn’t abandon last year’s iPhones, everyone gets to play with the latest apps, even if there’s slight degradation in performance.¹ So Apple could just keep up production of last year’s iPhone when a new version comes out, and use that as a lower-cost alternative. But beyond that, there’s not much Apple can do to offer a next-gen, low-cost iPhone without cutting too many experiential features. Nixing things like the camera, gyroscope, or GPS would detract from the iPhone experience, and Apple wants to maintain consistency of user experience as much as possible across their lineup, which is why the only alternative versions of the iPhone we’ve seen to date have been storage or carrier based.

Moving to a smaller form factor doesn’t make much of a difference either; Apple would still need to cram all the latest technology into a smaller package, with maybe the only fair trade-off being storage. But that likely wouldn’t make up for the cut in price, and graphically, the device would have to fit at least the original iPhone’s resolution into a smaller screen. Not to mention, who’s complaining that the iPhone is too big? It made sense for Apple to offer smaller (and lighter) iPods for those wanting to take their tunes into the gym or on the trail, but the iPhone is a different beast.²

Maybe Apple will brand a totally different phone as an iPhone lite, but why would it sacrifice the very things that make the iPhone awesome just to sell a phone that’s cheaper? If carriers can sell the iPhone 3GS for $50 with a two-year contract, then Apple can figure out a way to keep up production of older iPhones models for another year or two just to make sales to those who still can’t afford a new iPhone. But for the time being, don’t expect “lite”, “mini”, or “nano”-like branding for a future iPhone variant.

Similar Posts:

• No seven-inch iPad on the horizon. – The rumour bandwagon is loose, talking about an upcoming 7″ iOS tablet device. Steven Sande at TUAW …
• European law aims to propagate the iPhone culture. – After Apple’s lawyers presumably spent many nights awake looking for looholes, they finally gave in …
• iPhone firmware 1.1.3 useless, just like 1.1.2. – According to PhoneDifferent, version 1.1.3 of the iPhone firmware is soon to be released, and as wit…

We’ve been somewhat critical of the Apple TV as a gaming console, and when we last wrote about the subject, we proferred that the key to Apple’s gaming platform success was already achieved in Apple’s mobile devices:

Technologies like AirPlay, or even video-out adapters, may well serve gamers to stream iPhone and iPad gaming to the big-screen, and this is where we expect to see additional innovation. Why tack on additional costs to the Apple TV by offering new controllers, or muse about potential storage solutions, when we already have capable storage on existing iOS devices?

John Gruber linked a comment from Phil Harrison, who was involved in the original Sony Playstation launch. The future of Apple, Harrison contends, is also the future of gaming. And Gruber responds by noting that the Apple TV doesn’t even support apps yet, as though to point out how the Apple TV will be another salvo aimed at the console industry. But as we pointed out back in April when we talked about the Apple TV as a console, the changes Apple would need to make to the platform to complete against the traditional console market is unecessarily complex, and the more likely scenario Apple will pursue is much easier to envision:

The Apple TV doesn’t need gaming apps, it simply needs to present the apps already on our iOS devices to the big-screen. Everyone thinks the Apple TV could be another platform for Apple to push, but its true strength is in acting as a bridge between our existing Apple devices and the television. Just as it already streams music, photos, and video from our devices, the Apple TV could be leveraged to present a gaming experience served up from these same devices. The issue then is not adding controllers and storage to the Apple TV, but adding an Apple TV to our iPhones, iPads, and Macs.

Or more simply put, mobile Apple devices shouldn’t be seen as accessories to the Apple TV; the Apple TV should be considered an accessory to mobile Apple devices. We can take this further to say that the Apple TV will never be a gaming console, but it will be the accessory that brings the console experience to the home, thanks to bridging audio and video from iPads and iPhones to the family TV. The proof-of-concept was playing iPad games on TVs thanks to a wired adapter, but the release version of this technology is AirPlay, which already works fairly well for conventional media. With iOS 5, AirPlay will work for streaming audio/video from games to the TV as well, and as Real Racing 2 for the iPad illustrates, the technology will allow mobile devices to display additional information, while the main visual output will show up on the TV.¹

There’s still the small issue of storage, because 64GB max on the iPad means that only a handful of truly deep games can sit in one’s future Apple console library at a time, but that storage limitation will slowly disappear. Plus, the reality is that many gamers are content playing games that don’t require massive storage requirements for graphics files and video, so just how serious this storage problem will be is questionable over the course of the next couple years.

We fully expect gaming developers to implement AirPlay functionality in future titles, to at least supplement the gaming experience There’s no need for Apple to compete for shelf-space in Gamestop, because beyond their digital distribution of games thanks to the AppStore, Apple’s console is already being shipped in several form factors thanks to the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad. The Apple TV is just icing on the cake.

Similar Posts:

• Apple TV, AirPlay, and Plex. – When we mentioned jailbreaking the Apple TV, we didn’t make clear that yes, a jailbreak for Apple TV…
• The Apple TV as a console. – Over the past couple days, we’ve seen considerable speculation about Apple’s involvement in televisi…
• Siri integration with the Apple TV? – Microsoft recently sent out a heads-up to the masses that XBox Live will undergo [another update](ht…

As a former World of Warcraft (WoW) gamer, we found ourselves intrigued when Order & Chaos (O&C) was announced for iOS. Gameloft titles are known for cloning gameplay, art, and themes from blockbuster titles, and O&C is no different. The title offers to do one thing that no one else hasn’t, however, and that’s delivering a solid MMO experience to mobile devices¹. And in this respect, Gameloft delivered.

WoW lite.

Let’s get this out of the way immediately: Order & Chaos isn’t going to replace WoW. At least not for most people. That’s because WoW has a rich, established setting that’s interesting the moment you enter the game. O&C may share an aesthetic style, but it’s WoW watered down. The quests are just as simple as vanilla WoW, and while the world appears to have a decent scope to it, the atmosphere isn’t reflective of racial or cultural differences. New characters are basically dropped right into the game, and while WoW eases new players into game mechanics in way that’s mind-numbingly slow your second or third time around, O&C throws you into the mix a bit quicker, expecting you to get the hang of things before you’ve even explored the full interface. So maybe the tutorial could use some buffing up for people new to the genre, but maybe Gameloft expects most people downloading O&C to already be MMO veterans.

Let’s back up a bit and talk about character creation. The game limits players to four races (two per “side”), and players can choose either male or female gender. Model customization is limited to skin and hair color, hairstyle, and face style. There are about four options in each category here, so the customization isn’t horribly robust, but it’s plenty for a first attempt. What surprised us is that there are no racial bonuses, so other than appearance, there’s no benefit to which race you decide to go with.

There are also four classes to choose from, each being available to every race: Warrior, Mage, Monk, and Ranger. We’ve only played around with the Monk thus far, which looks like it can be specced to do extra healing, or be combat-proficient. It’s unclear to us as yet whether O&C is a true Diku-style MMO, but at first glance we didn’t see any threat-reducing spells available at our class trainer. By level nine, we had a one go-to healing spell, and we grouped up twice to take on some named monsters, where we were more useful healing than fighting.

There’s a talent tree for specializing, and it looks pretty deep, so the customization here may be interesting. There are some talent dependencies, and other talents that require a certain amount of pre-spent points in a given tree in order to buy them. Unlike WoW there are two trees per class, with the Monk being the sole healing class. The Ranger looks to be a cross between a WoW Hunter and Rogue, while the Warrior and Mage are more obvious. Again, without any indication of a threat meter, we don’t know whether the Warrior has a taunt-like effect, but we imagine this must exist, if only because his armour is clearly more robust.

Like WoW, each class has a trainer, but unlike WoW, you buy books that contain skills. So rather than buying the skill, you buy the book and then use the book to learn the skill, which is really just a pain in the ass considering the extra step. There are a lot of extra steps like this littered throughout the game, like when you click an item in your inventory, and you have to click another little icon in order to bring up a smaller window comparing it to the item already occupying the respective item slot. These things just go to show how polished WoW was when it came out in 2004, and how even after all this time, a clone isn’t getting everything right.

O&C includes crafting, which seems limited to tailoring, leather-working, and smithing. There’s a quest you can complete which lets you choose one of those three, and we don’t know why you wouldn’t choose the one that lets you craft your own gear. The only gathered we’ve yet seen is mining, and it doesn’t require special gear – you just click on a resource node on the map, and your character pulls a pick-axe out of her ass and starts hammering away.

Yet, decent gameplay.

It’s pretty remarkable that Gameloft got O&C to run well, particularly given the low resolution. The game does feel a tad cramped compared to playing WoW on your big-screen monitor, and we can’t help but think that reducing text sizes and some icons wouldn’t alleviate our virtual claustrophobia a bit. But the gameplay is pretty smooth, with a virtual control-stick appearing on the left side of the screen, wherever you decide to drop your thumb. This only gets in the way when you want to loot a mob whose corpse is on that side of the screen, but it’s not too annoying to move the camera to the left so you can loot easily. Yes, your right thumb controls camera movement, as well as jumping and using your hotkeys on the bottom-right of the screen. There are three hotspots near the jump button where you can place spells and items, but if you need more (and you will), you can place less-used abilities on a shelf that you can pull up or hide on the right side of the screen. This is where we stashed our potions and food, and definitely beats bringing up the player inventory just to use a potion mid-combat.

The lack of addons is actually nice. We don’t know how many hours we spent working on an ideal addon configuration, and compiling it for others to use. Needless to say, it’s somewhat refreshing knowing that every player is on equal footing, and that when you want to play, you don’t have to first update all your addons or mess with your screen layout. Since there’s no O&C version of wowhead, you have help with quests thanks to a blue arrow that points in the direction of a selected quest objective. Presumably, this won’t be as helpful when you have to travel half-way across the world, so paying attention to quest descriptions will be necessary, but in the initial levels of the game, it’s a foolproof guide.

WoW-like “groups” are called “teams” in O&C, and they work decent enough. The chat system includes a global channel, which, as in every game, can be a royal annoyance. This is perhaps even more true in O&C, if only because players come from various countries, using various languages. There are regional servers, but this hasn’t stopped Korean players from creating characters on the American servers, complete with names that we don’t have the proper keyboard set up for, even if we did want to type them.

About the only major gripe we have with the game is the business model. The game costs $7 to download, and after a free, three-month subscription, costs $1/month. That’s not bad, but there’s also a “freemium” model here, where players can buy gold and other items for real money. How this will affect balance is still up-in-the-air, but it seems as though many of the for-pay items are temporary buffs and aesthetic enhancements (like pets)².

Moving forward.

O&C is certainly deep, in the sense that player progression isn’t super-quick. It doesn’t seem to be super-slow, either, but we’ll have to play more to see what kind of curve the game offers. Right now, the game feels like more complex Gauntlet. That is to say, it’s a hack’n slash emporium with various MMO elements, but not offering enough to foster a complex community³. That’s not to say that Gameloft couldn’t expand on O&C as time goes on, offering new abilities, races, classes, emotes, customization, et al. If anything, O&C blows games like Dungeon Hunter out of the water, because of the MMO complexity.

What we hope to see in the next 10 levels or so is more Diku styling, with areas that require grouping and the holy triad of classes (tank, healer, DPS)⁴. We also hope to see varied class builds, and a world with considerable atmospheric changes. The background “lore” has been weak thus far, and we hope this will change; right now, we don’t see a reason to separate races into Order and Chaos factions, because both races are seen pretty close to the get-go near starter areas. With no clear faction contest, Order and Chaos offer even less context than Alliance and Horde in WoW does.

O&C is an awesome next step in the future of mobile MMOs. While the inability to play over 3G is a hit against the game, the fact that you can take an MMO along on an iPhone, iPod, or iPad, is still remarkable. Even better is the proof-of-concept that Gameloft managed here, showing developers that an MMO on these devices is not only possible, but that the control scheme can be good, and needn’t be hampered by the lack of a physical keyboard. So even if O&C fails to deliver an experience even marginally as robust as beta WoW, it’s already challenged other MMO developers to create something better. For that alone, O&C should win a prize.

Similar Posts:

• Upcoming Order & Chaos patch. – Naysayers be damned: [Gameloft has posted](http://onlinegames-forum.gameloft.com/index.php?topic=106…
• RMT, and Order & Chaos. – The business model of Order & Chaos (O&C) is irking us a bit more now, and it might help us to have …
• A bit more on Order & Chaos. – Questions about Order & Chaos (O&C) are still making the rounds, because the game’s features aren’t …

Over the past couple days, we’ve seen considerable speculation about Apple’s involvement in television manufacturing; some wish to believe that Apple will delve into the TV production business, while others are critical in this regard. Others still are taking this opportunity to point out that doubting Apple’s entry in a given market has a poor track record, what with Apple having releasing the iPod, iPhone, iPod Touch, and Apple TV not long after pundits proclaimed these endeavors too risky, or too unlike Apple.

What’s certain, at least, is that Apple doubled down on their “hobby,” the Apple TV, when they released an iOS-based version costing just under a hundred bucks. The device is plug-and-play, easy-to-use, and is already offering alluring new features thanks to fancy licensing deals with Netflix, Major League Baseball, the NBA, et al. Indeed, the Apple TV is being positioned as an alternative to cable television, offering a consistent experience across markets that do not share the same cable provider. More importantly, the a la carte television and movie programming has gotten substantially better over time (addressing a chief complaint we’ve had with the Apple TV for years).

So Apple TV’s getting better, and that means Apple has an excellent weapon they can use to continue infiltrating an otherwise chaotic industry, offering a clean, consistent experience that potentially rivals the experience cable operators offer. Lessien believes that Apple can leverage apps, iAds, and subscriptions to even further promote the Apple TV, where apps pay homage to the living room gamer.

Apps, in particular games, give Apple an opportunity to extend their hugely successful mobile development platform into the living room. Low-priced apps, immediately downloadable, connected via GameCenter, controllable with iOS handheld devices just make sense. Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft should be nervous.

There’s still a question as to how apps will work on the Apple TV, because to date, third-party Apple TV apps have been part of official iOS updates, not voluntary installs from an Apple TV AppStore. And then, of course, are the issues with transforming the Apple TV into a console replacement.

What of the controller?

The Apple TV comes with a lone remote. It’s a nice, simplistic remote, and in no way capable of working as a good console controller. The notion of using iOS devices as controllers is a worthy one, with such functionality easily worked into Apple’s Remote app. But whether it can technically be done or not is hardly the issue. Rather, if Apple planned to situate the Apple TV as a console replacement, it wouldn’t drastically increase the adopter fee by requiring a controller purchase several times more than the cost of the Apple TV itself. While many people already have iOS devices they can use for this purpose, Apple won’t make that a requirement any more than they made having an iPhone a prerequisite for iPad cellular data service¹.

The alternative to buying up older, second-hand iPhones and iPod Touches is simply buying a new iController that only runs the Apple Remote app, or perhaps runs a specific iController app that allows developers to create skin-able controller layouts for various games. The controller wouldn’t need an A5 processor, much storage, or RAM, and could rely purely on bluetooth for connectivity. With a gyroscope for added functionality, this iController could probably come in at a reasonable price-point, so families could pick up an Apple TV, two iControllers, and a multi-iController charging dock for under 200 bucks.

Such an iController would clearly be wireless, and would have a sufficient battery life for prolonged gaming sessions. But, without tactile feedback, and being limited to virtual buttons on the device face, there’s an obvious question of how capable the device would be compared to the multi-button monstrosities that modern gaming controllers have become. That’s not to say that a simpler, more polished interface isn’t an attractive proposal, but this could be considered a major flaw when compared to consoles whose controllers offer a button for every conceivable action in a given game; Apple TV games may inherently need to be simpler.

The only other option is let the Apple TV interface with bluetooth-enabled gaming controllers of a more conventional form, but this then becomes a contrary force to the multitouch philosophy that Apple has pushed for iOS. In order for Apple to remain consistent in this regard, we see it challenging devices like the Wii, but not button-heavy consoles like the XBox 360 and Playstation 3. Ultimately, if the Apple TV is to compete in the console wars, it needs to find a way to offer the same titles that other consoles do, and that means offering a controller scheme that’s not weaker in comparison.

What of the storage?

The Apple TV doesn’t have a lot of storage. In fact, it’s designed to stream content, not download it. So when we talk of games, anything substantial is no longer a possibility. Yes, Apple could allow the attachment of an external hard-drive, but now we’re again pumping up the cost of the device and making it less accessible. If Apple decided to increase the Apple TV’s storage, we could get away with simpler, casual games, but to truly compete with the big boys, we’d see games many gigs in size. That’s not to say that Apple couldn’t position the Apple TV as a casual-friendly console and compete exclusively with the Wii in this regard, but why limit market penetration to such a niche role?

The only other option is to stream video, and here, Apple may have a sound strategy. That is to say, Apple has already proven it can get content owners on board with its platform, as seen with record labels, movie studios, and TV broadcasters. So, if Apple decided to take on OnLive, and use the Apple TV to stream gaming video feeds, then storage isn’t an issue. However, this seems contrary to the AppStore ecosystem Apple has established to date, and makes rolling out a nation-wide, consistent experience difficult. That’s not to say such a move isn’t plausible, merely unlikely.

What of established iOS gaming?

With no clear solution to the problems of offering low-cost controllers and storage for the Apple TV, there’s nothing Microsoft and Sony need to worry about just yet². Apple would likely do a much better job than OnLive for getting a streaming library of games available to a wide audience, but the technology here is still too young for widespread adoption. Apple is better off focusing on how they can situate the Apple TV as an every-man device, and look to entering the set-top console fray at a later date.

Where traditional gaming companies need to watch out is Apple’s continued domination of the mobile space. Technologies like AirPlay, or even video-out adapters, may well serve gamers to stream iPhone and iPad gaming to the big-screen, and this is where we expect to see additional innovation. Why tack on additional costs to the Apple TV by offering new controllers, or muse about potential storage solutions, when we already have capable storage on existing iOS devices?

The Apple TV doesn’t need gaming apps, it simply needs to present the apps already on our iOS devices to the big-screen. Everyone thinks the Apple TV could be another platform for Apple to push, but its true strength is in acting as a bridge between our existing Apple devices and the television. Just as it already streams music, photos, and video from our devices, the Apple TV could be leveraged to present a gaming experience served up from these same devices. The issue then is not adding controllers and storage to the Apple TV, but adding an Apple TV to our iPhones, iPads, and Macs.

Similar Posts:

• ]\ – We’ve been somewhat critical of the Apple TV as a gaming console, and when [we last wrote about the ...
• Siri integration with the Apple TV? - Microsoft recently sent out a heads-up to the masses that XBox Live will undergo [another update](ht…
• Apple TV, AirPlay, and Plex. – When we mentioned jailbreaking the Apple TV, we didn’t make clear that yes, a jailbreak for Apple TV…

iDevice evolution may be headed in the direction of deprecating the “home” button, which to date is an integral part of the iOS experience. It’s really no surprise, however, seeing as Apple previously removed physical controls from the iPod too, moving to a touch-based interface even long before the release of the iPhone. Removing the home button from mobile iOS devices is a logical step.

Still, TUAW was keen on pointing out potential obstacles if such a move were executed.

• No way to take screenshots (power/sleep + home)
• No way to activate Voice Control (press and hold home)
• No access to VoiceOver features (triple-click home)
• No way to hard-reset (hold power/sleep + home until Apple logo appears)

Replacing home/power hotkey combinations is simple: use the new gestures in iOS 4.3 that bring up the multitasking bar. When bringing up this bar today, a left swipe presents you with an orientation lock button and iPod controls. How difficult would it be to simply include, in that same menu, a button to activate Voice Control and access VoiceOver? This may not be as elegant as double or triple-clicking the home button, but if you threw the VoiceOver on the main multitasking bar, then we’d argue VoiceOver to be more accessible than it is now, especially when in a moving vehicle.

Screenshots could be handled in a similar way, or attached to quick two-button press of the power button. Hard-resets could also be performed by holding the power button down for a longer period of time.

Removing the home button would also mean that Apple could cut down on the bevel around the iDevice screen, which would certainly make the devices more attractive. We wouldn’t be surprised to see such a device this summer, else next spring for the third-gen iPad.

Similar Posts:

• Sending off the home button. – The iPad home button may be an iconic piece of iPad history, but iconic doesn’t mean practical. Peop…
• Still no iOS app data backup in iTunes? – We’ve now seen four generations of iPhones, have witnessed iterations of the iPod Touch, and seen th…
• Free Sidekick games. – While I’ve checked out the catalog of available games for the Sidekick series of cellular phones, I’…

The rumour bandwagon is loose, talking about an upcoming 7″ iOS tablet device. Steven Sande at TUAW notes that Apple has already created a rather broad range of iPods, begging the question as to whether they’ll do similar with iOS devices.

Apple, however, has managed to turn the iPod line into four completely different products — the minimalist shuffle, the tiny touch screen nano, the Classic, and the iPod touch.

The difference between the iPod lineup and iOS device lineup, however, is that the former is in a transitionary state. The iPod Classic is the only staple iPod model, with the others initially holding niche markets; the Classic was the generic model for most people, and in a way, still is. Apple introduced the iPod Mini for those people who didn’t need a lot of storage space, and giving them a smaller iPod footprint was a bonus. The Nano has since replaced the Mini, and has consistently gotten smaller. The Shuffle targeted that group of people who didn’t need a full-featured MP3 player, and simply wanted something lightweight and simple to take on workouts. And of course, the Touch was the quintessential iOS prototype.

But as some have noted, this lineup doesn’t feel final, and it shouldn’t. The only thing keeping the Classic around is its large storage capacity, but as solid-state storage sizes continue to grow, the Classic will eventually be phased out by a large-capacity Touch. And footprint wise, the Nano and Shuffle are very similar now, so it’s quite conceivable that the Shuffle will eventually be phased out as well, leaving the lineup with different capacity Touch and Nano iPods (though a 2GB Nano probably won’t hit the $50 price-point of the Shuffle for a little while, yet).

So when it comes to the iOS lineup, which is much younger and therefore definitively more final, we shouldn’t see much redundancy. If a 7″ iPad was designed to eventually replace the current iPad, or even the Touch, then maybe it would make sense, but let’s be clear: Apple isn’t going to phase out either, because they’re both great sellers, and are clearly targeted at different markets. A 7″ iPad is a device in limbo, not really filling the purpose of either device.

The Touch is ultra-portable. It’s the light-weight iOS device on the market, and ultimately the flagship of the iPod lineup, so it’s definitely here to stay. The iPad isn’t just a multimedia machine, however, which the Touch is designed to be. Rather, it’s a multimedia machine that’s much more comfortable to use for creating things; it’s a capable notebook replacement for most people, working wonderfully for writing, and even serving as a content creation system in other areas as well, thanks to its larger screen.

A 7″ iOS device doesn’t offer anything new, however. It’s not that much smaller than the iPad, but it’s small enough to be less useful as a canvas for word-processing and graphics. It’d have a smaller battery than the iPad also, and you’d still have to throw it in a bag, because unlike the Touch, it won’t fit in your pocket. This thing wouldn’t cannibalize sales of the Touch or iPad, it simply wouldn’t sell in the first place, especially when costing within $135 of either the iPad or Touch.

Apple isn’t going to jump on the multiple-size tablet bandwagon just because a bunch of other manufacturers are doing so with Android; Apple’s lineup works, and there’s no reason to dilute their strategy with tablet sizes that make no sense.

Similar Posts:

• Don’t expect an iPhone lite. – When Deutsche Bank’s Chris Whitmore claimed Apple would release a second iPhone model, we considered…
• iPad extensibility: the key is in the adapters? – While the iPad won’t sport much more than a dock connector for interfacing with other devices, that …
• Weekly tweets for 2010-09-05. – There aren't enough people like this out here: http://is.gd/eLPOy (via @gruber) # What about t…