Two weeks ago, rumours were running wild that Valve would jump into the console fray. The rumours were quickly squashed by Gabe Newell, but it didn’t stop some from dreaming. Maxator summed up the hopes of many gamers on his blog.

I think the stage is set for a new console player. If The Valve rumors are true, they choose their hardware well, throw in a slick interface, and court software partners, even those with competing online distribution systems, they will have a winner on their hands. So if Gabe Newell and company announce hardware at E3, I’ll be first in line to preorder a SteamBox. Who’s with me?

We weren’t with Maxator, because the notion of a Steambox doesn’t make sense. Maxator compared the state of today’s console gaming industry with the industry 12 years ago when Microsoft entered the fray, and similarities aside, it’s still comparing apples and oranges.

First and foremost, Steam is a Windows-based product, and a distribution method for Windows-based games. Microsoft was able to leverage their operating system (OS) expertise and enable developers to quickly port PC titles to a watered-down version of Windows still utilizing Direct-X. Valve doesn’t control an OS however, so they make for a poor parallel to Microsoft. More succintly put, Valve’s experience is with writing software for another company’s OS. For Valve to ship a Steambox, they’d need to license Windows, a cost Microsoft never had to endure.

If Valve didn’t license Windows, they’d need to delve into an area foreign to them: OS design. And if they did that, the ease of porting titles thanks to relying on Windows APIs and Direct-X is no longer possible, and that’s the biggest draw to a proposed Steambox.¹

Another important consideration is that PC gaming is very different from console gaming, and not just in genres and gameplay, but in the types of gamers themselves. Microsoft realized that their plan to rely on PC-based hardware wasn’t sustainable long-term, and that customized hardware needed to be developed for the XBox 360. That’s because PC games are designed to run on current-generation hardware, and PC games tend to push the envelope in regards to what that hardware can do. What we see is PC gamers who are constantly in an upgrade frenzy, swapping out video cards or more major components on a fairly routine basis, with developers generally supporting the latest hardware, rather than sticking to what’s been around. These types of upgrades aren’t possible with consoles, which is why custom hardware ensures that a console is relevent for a longer period of time.

The point here is that even if Valve found a way to license a Windows-based OS for use in a console and still pull a profit, and support PC control schemes that the target audience would want, it’s unlikely that PC gamers would care; since Steam is already available on PCs, and gamers want the flexibility to upgrade hardware as it comes out, why would they ever choose to buy a Steambox?

It comes down to a misunderstanding of what PC gamers and console gamers want. Just as you can’t lure a PC gamer over to a console full-time, you can’t get console gamers to buy into PC gaming, even if you ported select PC games to a console. It’s not about casual vs hardcore, either.

Ten years ago, Microsoft took advantage of Nintendo moving to casual gamers and Sony focusing more on Japanese gamers than profitable Western audiences. De Ja Vu? Now it is Microsoft shifting to casual gaming and social computing and Sony is still focused on the Pacific rim. Core gamers are hungry, advantage Valve.

What Maxator identifies as “core gamers” are a minority. Those who crave PC gaming titles game on the PC. The movement towards casual titles on consoles is driven by the market, because your average console gamer is now from the broader population, whereas PC gamers are still primarily younger, tech-savvy males. In every market that this demographic broadens, we see a move to more casual gameplay, which we can easily see in the evolution of games like World of Warcraft.

The bottom line is that if you want to play PC games and love Steam, get a PC and use Steam. Valve would be stupid to compete in the console wars offering the same old product wrapped up in a non-upgradeable package that gamers connect to their TVs. A much more innovative solution would be to leverage technologies that bypass the rapid upgrade cycle that defines PC gaming, and that’s where services like OnLive have come in and found success. For a Steambox to succeed, it has to offer everything Steam does today, and more. Simply dumping Steam onto a console isn’t going to do that.

Similar Posts:

• Gaming companies now foolish to ignore the Mac crowd? – When a Mac user walked into a room of gamers and started talking games, he was laughed at, beaten, b…
• The 8th console generation. – It’s hard to believe that we’re nearing the end of the life cycle for the 7th generation of video ga…
• Microsoft Kinect: a cute novelty. – We haven’t weighed in on Microsoft’s Kinect (formerly “Project Natal”) because we haven’t seen anyth…

Last November, when we talked about using the iPad almost exclusively since its debut, we touched on three things that we felt were still missing by the platform. The first was tethering to a computer for backups/updates, which sounds like it will be resolved come the release of iOS 5. The second, APIs, is an evolving issue that seems to be getting better over time, as there’s no shortage of great, innovative apps for iOS, and we’re not hearing nearly as much griping from developers as we did last year. The third issue pertains to accessing a Mac:

Screen-sharing: We mentioned how fantastic we find iTeleport, but why isn’t there a native solution to screen-sharing via an iPad? And, wouldn’t it be nice if we had a more powerful way to stream content from a server? We’re thinking something along the lines of OnLive, only connecting a video stream between you and a Mac you already own. While iOS 4.2 will allow us to stream audio and video from one iOS device to another on an app-specific level, being able to stream a Mac desktop to an iPad would be a fantastic ability to have.

There’s no indication that AirPlay will allow anything like this, which remains unfortunate. However, a third-party solution exists in the form of Splashtop Remote, an app we picked up some time ago but which never worked. However, over the weekend we found an update to the server component available, which runs on a Mac and allows the iPad client to connect to it. Since this update, we’ve managed to connect to our Mac without issue, and the result simply blows VNC out of the water.

We’ve expressed our love for iTeleport several times in the past, but it was ultimately unseated by Screens, a VNC client that John Gruber put us on to. Screens is a beautiful VNC client that allows you to hide the mouse cursor on your connected screen, and allows you to tap the screen where you want the mouse to click. It really made for a rather intuitive VNC experience, and became our go-to method for accessing our Mac Mini to sync with our iOS devices and access server apps that the Mac Mini is responsible for. The downside of these apps, however, is that VNC effectively draws screenshots on the iPad screen, and that means not always getting immediate visual indicators of what’s going on.

Splashtop remote, on the other hand, works just like we wanted screen sharing to work; like Onlive, Splashtop Remote streams the video of the server computer, which in this case is our Mac Mini’s desktop. So rather than our iPad getting a slow collection of screenshots, we’re getting 30 frames per second (FPS) of desktop video. This means that we could watch movies, or even play games, remotely via our iPad.¹

While the video was occasionally laggy, performance was good overall. The added bonus of the system streaming audio as well as video is great. While Splashtop Remote intends to support it in the future, it currently doesn’t work with applications utilizing 3D graphics in fullscreen mode, though they work fine when in windowed mode.²

Playing around with Splashtop Remote this weekend, it didn’t take long for us to move Screens off our iPad’s home screen altogether. We’ll still keep a VNC app on the iPad for when we’re in areas that have poor bandwidth and where streaming video doesn’t make sense, but for use at home, or even where we have good bandwidth, Splashtop Remote is now our go-to remote access app.

Before Splashtop Remote, we pretty much left the Mac Mini’s dock layout as-is, and accessed the hidden dock using Screens’ screen-pull mechanic that revealed the dock. We now have the dock showing at all times, and created a stack for our most-recently used apps. The interesting part of this is in how we interface with the Mac Mini’s desktop physically; because the video streaming is so good, and the resolution perfect for the iPad³, accessing our Mac Mini truly makes it feel like we’re running OS X on the iPad itself, serving as a good proxy for what the iPad experience would have been like had Apple managed to get a full-blown version of OS X on a tablet. Whether this would have technically been feasible (with the response typical of OS X running on our Mac Mini) is a matter we won’t address. What we will say is that while it’s nice to have OS X accessible from our iPad, the iOS interface is definitely better suited for a tablet; nerds may have flocked to an iPad running OS X without a second thought, but what makes the iPad the tour-de-force that it’s become is the fact that it’s not running a desktop OS.

While we though Microsoft was betting their money on the wrong horse before, after using OS X on the iPad via Splashtop Remote, we’re absolutely sure their bet is bad, now.

Similar Posts:

• What would make OnLive Desktop a killer app? – The basic version of OnLive Desktop is already available, which leverages OnLive’s streaming video t…
• Week of tweets: 2012-01-22. – Week of tweets: 2012-01-15. http://t.co/zhT65isS. # This Rox Chox thing is pretty tasty. http://t.c…
• Apple TV, AirPlay, and Plex. – When we mentioned jailbreaking the Apple TV, we didn’t make clear that yes, a jailbreak for Apple TV…

In a response to Paul Thorrott on Apple not making giant leaps between major OS revisions, John Gruber points out the difference is clearer when you look at OS X from its first incarnation to today:

With Mac OS X in particular, to my recollection, Thurrott has had this same take for every single major (i.e., new cat name) release. Every single one, he’s considered to be “minor” and “evolutionary”. But man, compare Lion side-by-side with Mac OS X (“Cheetah”) and you’ll weep with joy at how much better it’s gotten. This is how Apple rolls — steady, relentless, incremental progress.

Not only is the improvement obvious in a more macro-level view across several revisions, but we’d argue that the lack of major design changes between revisions is a blessing. While there may be obvious differences between Cheetah and Lion for computer nerds, the average person will find Cheetah and Lion to be similar beasts, and only by digging a bit deeper will they stumble upon the more obvious differences. The only major shakeup to the Mac was when MacOS was scrapped and OS X took off.

Things are different on Windows; almost every major revision has irked users. Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista, and now Windows 7. Ups and downs. No real consistency in whether an upgrade ended up being preferential to a previous version or not (with the obvious flops being WinME and Vista). And the confusion hasn’t just been with interface changes and application compatibility, which is pretty clear when you look at the vast list of versions that have hit the market.

Apple, meanwhile, has put out only two versions of OS X at a time: the basic version and a server variant, with prices more in line with what consumers can afford. And all versions have been “OS X,” with mere numerical differences and cat names serving as layman code-names. So even the naming_convention that Apple uses is consistent with their design philosophy, which is simple_yet_elegant. How Microsoft hasn’t learned to do better yet is a a curiosity that truly boggles the mind.

Similar Posts:

• Old computers in Shady Land. – There are better technologies for businesses these days than relying on desktop PCs and Microsoft Wi…
• Ten-percent of all iPhones unlocked. – This number, 10%, is not unrealistic, despite what others are claiming. In fact, this “analysis” by …
• Gaming companies now foolish to ignore the Mac crowd? – When a Mac user walked into a room of gamers and started talking games, he was laughed at, beaten, b…

John Gruber countered Jared Newman’s writeup defending Windows 8, and we won’t rehash the whole deal. But we will comment on Newman’s ridiculous statement about blogging on the iPad:

While it’d be nice if Microsoft created touch-based versions of its productivity software — and don’t rule it out just yet — there’s only so much work you can do with a touch screen. Trust me, I’ve tried to blog on my iPad countless times, but I can never get farther than tapping out a rough draft and switching to a laptop to finish the job. It’s not just the mouse and keyboard that makes the difference. It’s the little things, like keyboard shortcuts, right clicks and easy access to a file manager.

Gruber wonders how this statement is not a denouncement of the lack of keyboard and mouse, but then acknowledges that the iPad isn’t a catch-all solution, and is merely a tool for certain jobs, not all of them¹. Fair enough. But it’s a response to a rather ridiculous assertion: that the iPad is a poor tool for blogging. If Newman were talking about doing CAD work, Photoshop designs, or something for which there is no adequate software for on the iPad, then Gruber’s response would be more appropriate, but here Gruber almost acknowledges Newman’s complaint, which is just silly.

So what’s Newman’s issue with blogging on the iPad, considering others seem to be able to do it just fine? If his problem is with the lack of a keyboard, then he has a simple solution: get a bluetooth keyboard. If his concern is with the lack of a mouse, we wonder why he needs to right-click so badly? This sounds more like the complaint of someone who doesn’t want to do things differently than from someone who can’t do the task efficiently because it’s outright impossible on this newfangled device.

If Newman’s problem is with the software, then why doesn’t he download something better? Out-of-box, there’s no reason he can’t draft blog posts in the default Notes app, or even on the web using his blogging platform directly. There are a handful of good blogging apps on the AppStore, some of them even offering TextExpander support. Plus, there are a wide number of text editing apps that offer file management beyond the coverflow-esque approach that Apple’s Pages app touts. Either Newman is blatantly ignorant of the variety of iPad apps and accessories, else he simply wants to slam the iPad in whatever way he can, regardless of whether the complaints are truly valid. If we were to base a platform’s capabilities on only what comes in the box, then no platform would be considered a true workhouse.

Similar Posts:

• Splashtop Remote lets us run OS X on our iPad. – Last November, when we talked about using the iPad almost exclusively since its debut, [we touched o…
• More on keyboards and iPads. – One of the iPad’s greatest strengths is its touch interface, which has proven itself more intuitive …
• Not “getting” the iPad. – A lot of people still don’t understand how the iPad could replace a notebook. Mainly, this seems to …

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…

There are better technologies for businesses these days than relying on desktop PCs and Microsoft Windows, at least as far as most tasks are concerned. Marco Ament spoke about the issues surrounding adoption of ChromeOS, but the same goes for the iPad, or even Macs in general. Simply put, the immediate strain on the current year’s budget becomes an argument against such an IT revolution.

That’s why that PC on your banker’s desk is probably running Windows 2000, an 11-year-old platform: because it’s extraordinarily expensive to update it, and the current system works acceptably without any massive, one-time expenditures on this year’s budget.

The same is true in Shady Land, where finding a modern computer appliance warrants a “Eureka!” The reality is that Shady Land computing is abysmal: computers run operating systems that have already surpassed Microsoft’s “end of life” date, and where the base word processing application is three versions old. Database queries are done on a daily basis using what amounts to a VAX back-end, and there is no consolidated attempt to streamline this access. Why? Not only are there cost issues like in big-business enterprises, but here we have to deal with “lowest cost” bids that get us little bang for our buck.

And then there’s the issue of perceived longevity:

In the context of replacing business software platforms, longevity is a major requirement. For Chrome OS to be considered by any reasonably large business, their IT decision-makers are going to want to know that Chrome OS is going to be around and supported by Google many years from now.

At least as far as Apple is concerned, there are small waves being made in Shady Land to adopt Apple computers to support certain functions, even though the mainstay computer remains a Microsoft Windows machine. As Apple’s future is now more certain than it was back when OS X was released, IT managers should be able to lean on Apple products more now, yet there’s still resistance. Resistance likely linked to cost.

But when it comes to a platform like ChromeOS, or even something more solidly defined in the consumer space like the iPad (which can easily manage most tasks a typical Operator needs to perform in the office), the resistance from IT managers is fierce. For one, will the platform be around long-term? And two, how can security issues pertaining to the cloud ever be juggled?

That second question is a huge issue, because even if there was a guarantee that ChromeOS and iOS will be around for a long time to come, and requisite apps are available, Shady Land will never rely on a platform solution that stores data in the cloud, or even pulls updates from a server wirelessly. In fact, unless enterprise customers can roll out updates through their own servers instead of directly through Apple, and on a wired connection, it’s likely that Shady Land will never see these types of devices adopted.

Similar Posts:

• Positioning to dominate. – A little over half a year ago, we reported on [our experience](http://mendax.org/2010/11/18/our-ipad…
• What would make OnLive Desktop a killer app? – The basic version of OnLive Desktop is already available, which leverages OnLive’s streaming video t…
• The iPad is the volkscomputer. – We love this quote by Ed Finkler, which we spied over at Daring Fireball: When folks need an elevato…

It’s hard to believe that we’re nearing the end of the life cycle for the 7th generation of video game consoles. With speculation growing about what the 8th console generation will bring, Maxator threw his thoughts into the mix.

This generation was extended by the horrific economy and the late addition of motion sensing hardware by Microsoft/Sony and improvement of the Wiimotes with the Motion Plus dongle. That said, the Wii, PS3, and Xbox 360 have all exceeded the previous standard of four or so years between console generations…

It does seem like the current console generation has lasted awhile, but per Wikipedia, that’s not entirely true. It turns out that gauging generation length isn’t straightforward.

One way to determine the duration of a generation is to look at the length of sales for a given technology (e.g. 8-bit). The problem here is that sales length doesn’t account for technology availability causing generational overlap. For example, Playstation sales continued even after the Playstation 2 was launched, and new titles still continued to appear on the Playstation. Disregarding availability of newer technology means that the duration of older generations appear longer. (This would mean that the 3rd console generation lasted a solid 12 years.)

A second method for determining generation length is to consider a generation over once newer technology is available for sale. In other words, rather than factoring in the Playstation’s full sale’s life, we can consider it dead as soon as newer technology (e.g. the Playstation 2) became available. Under this method, the 4th generation has lasted the longest, with a record nine years.

Still, this means the current console generation has already lasted six years, and puts it in a position to last another year or two depending on how quickly the Big Three can bring a new console to market.

Nintendo, the old stand-by.

Compared to its competitors, Nintendo made waves with the Wii by introducing comparatively weak hardware, but at a cheaper price point and with an innovative control system. Maxator believes the “Wii HD” will be revealed at E3 in June.

I expect more of an iterative approach, then an all out new console, similar to Nintendo’s market strategy with the DS. I see a vastly improved processor with the same architecture allowing backwards compatibility with older Wii games. HDMI output for HD resolution is a no brainer and I don’t see a change in the controller…

Backwards compatibility is a must for the Wii, but a small, iterative approach won’t do. Considering that most Wii gamers are casual and/or younger, buyers will be more likely to ask what the huge differences are to justify a hardware swap-out. Merely adding a small speed bump and 1080p resolution isn’t enough, and we wouldn’t gamble against Nintendo finally jumping back into the competitive fray and offering a true graphics-monster. Hardware isn’t taking huge leaps like it did several years ago, which means incorporating cutting-edge graphics into a next-gen console isn’t as costly as it once was.

Of course, Wiimotes will likely stick around, and they may see small, iterative improvements. Nintendo will either continue playing up their ground-breaking motion controllers and keep them primary to the experience (unlike add-ons like Move and Kinect), else reveal an even more innovative control scheme (which is unlikely).

Lastly, for licensing and cost reasons alone, DVD is much more likely than BluRay… Look for a $250-300 price tag.

We’re rather inclined to suggest that Nintendo might forego optical media entirely and just push on with digital distribution. The Wii has been a successful platform for this already, and the technology is no longer proof-of-concept, with XBox Arcade having solidified the concept in gamer’s minds. If a new Nintendo console doesn’t compete graphically with other 8th-gen consoles, then digital distribution is even more likely, since it’s graphics that primarily increase file size. Either way, Nintendo will likely try to come in at the same price-point the Wii did, managing to beat the competition by at least $50 at the register.

Sony, the other Japanese Empire.

The biggest problem Sony had is fragmented, inconsistent hardware. Early PS3s sported on-chip backwards compatibility and a slew of USB ports, while later versions had software-based backwards compatibility that was later phased out. Unlike other consoles, the PS3 has lost more features than it’s gained, and that phenomenon has put many would-be owners off.

Given their entirely unimaginative and conservative hardware philosophy, I see a faster processor, same “gnome hands only” blocky controller, and of course included BluRay and hard drives. Boring but powerful and probably at a significantly lower price point than the PS3 started at, likely $350-400.

Sony has indeed played it safe, focusing its energies on what’s worked in the past, and the next-gen Sony console likely won’t be any different. Cutting edge hardware, a similar controller scheme, and a high price tag are to be expected, being traditional Sony fare. Even Nintendo and Sega played more loosey-goosey with hardware reveals in the past, whereas Sony is sticking to an old formula that may not play out well in the long-run. We’ve argued in the past that Sony’s largest benefactor is its reputation, but with poor moves like removing features over time, that reputation isn’t as strong as it used to be. If Sony doesn’t do more than react to its competitors (e.g. Move), then its 8th generation console will be like the Nintendo 64.

Microsoft, the Evil One.

Microsoft has been reactive to its competition as well, but they’ve taken better notes than Sony. While everyone expected a Wiimote copy-cat accessory, Microsoft responded with Kinect, and they’ve refined their UI and online offerings well. (The 360 UI still sucks, but it’s gotten better.) The big question will be how well Kinect does, and whether a more powerful Kinect accessory will be standard-fare in Microsoft’s next-gen entry.

I still see the “Xbox Next” being drive-free with an optional BluRay drive, ala their approach to the failed HD DVD.

It’s doubtful that Microsoft would suddenly jump on the BluRay bandwagon; they’ve actually signed onto a multi-company agreement not to adopt BluRay, along with such faux allies as Apple. Few companies are hedging their bets on BluRay anymore, and it’s arguably the last optical media format anyway. Just as the Wii has proven to have a good online marketplace, XBox Arcade has proven itself quite successful, offering many indy and older titles. Chances are, the next-gen Microsoft console will keep Arcade alive, and offer bigger, more spectacular games.

Of course, by offering digital downloads for blockbuster titles, Microsoft’s next console will absolutely need a larger hard drive, and for this they may take Apple’s cue and consider going with more reliable SSDs. The only obstacle here is cost, but with a Microsoft 8th generation console release in 2012, that may not be a huge issue, especially if they can skirt optical media and take a larger cut of indy sales.

Apple, the unlikely player.

It shouldn’t be a huge surprise that iOS has become a huge platform for mobile gaming, and with iOS now entering the living room thanks to the new Apple TV, it’s not a huge stretch to assume that Apple may use this as a springboard for home video gaming. We agree with Maxator, however, that full-on support of this isn’t going to happen anytime soon.

Don’t expect Apple to join the console wars anytime soon. Jobs has never made an effort to support gaming and with the entry costs of the console market being so high, I can’t see him hurting his stock price on a longterm risky investment. Plus, they are already happily making 20% on every repackaged Atari game on the iPad/Phone.

While Jobs has spoken to Apple gaming in the past, each Apple gaming headline has stood alone, with no real followup from Apple. With one failed console already on their books, Apple’s only now getting real gaming press because of how successful iOS has become. Apple’s 30% cut on all iOS apps is definitely helping the company out, and the large number of iOS gamers is notable by Apple using games in first-party advertising. But, most huge iOS gaming titles are casual games, and while deeper games on iOS do exist, they’re only now starting to really take off (e.g. id’s Rage).

Any Apple entry into the console wars will be natural, built on developer desire rather than Apple outright declaring a gaming console. Whereas most console companies have positioned their devices as gaming devices first and media devices second, Apple will work the other way around if they do eventually want to offer big-screen gaming. This means that any Apple console effort will remain dependent on the success of the Apple TV, which could easily evolve to support a solid gaming platform built on existing hardware. (Imagine multi-touch, mostly buttonless controllers that look like a handheld Magic Trackpad, complete with gyroscope.)

Dreams aside, Apple is already doing what many thought impossible: challenging Nintendo on the mobile gaming front. Apple doesn’t need to position their devices as gaming devices, because developers have already embraced them as such, even though they’re not really considered gaming devices as far as their primary functionality goes. Still, expect better games on iOS devices as the 8th generation console wars rage, but don’t expect to Apple to take this market on head-to-head just yet.

OnLive, the underdog hero.

While OnLive may not be able to compete in the motion-control arena, it’s a notable platform that deserves mention, even if it wasn’t on Maxator’s list. OnLive is a platform that bridges the gap between PC games and console games, and with it’s “console” client being offered for a mere $100, it already competes with the Big Three on graphical terms. They key to OnLive will be leveraging the success of big-name MMOs, which console gamers might want access to, but may not have the PC desktop power to play well. Since OnLive should be able to scale to play these titles as well as its current library (which is more console-centric), OnLive immediately establishes a niche market that’s still unrealized. The big question here is how fast OnLive can offer blockbuster titles compared to the Big Three, and how fast they can grow their infrastructure. Potentially, however, OnLive can challenge any of the Big Three as far as traditional console gaming goes, and could make hardware upgrades for PC gaming a thing of the past, too.

Similar Posts:

• Nintendo must be high. – The rumour band-wagon is hastily moving forward that a gyroscopic controller from Microsoft will ful…
• Microsoft Kinect: a cute novelty. – We haven’t weighed in on Microsoft’s Kinect (formerly “Project Natal”) because we haven’t seen anyth…
• Another generation battles. – In the early days of console gaming, one’s choices were pretty limited. When ATARI wasn’t the main p…

We haven’t weighed in on Microsoft’s Kinect (formerly “Project Natal”) because we haven’t seen anything exciting about it yet. Maybe it’s better than Sony’s Move, and advancing what the Wii provided from a technological perspective. But let’s step back for a moment and look at where this all began, with Nintendo’s current console offering.

We picked up a Wii on release. We waited in line overnight, for crying out loud. And we did thoroughly enjoy the initial titles we played, but let’s be clear: they weren’t groundbreaking titles. Good titles with motion control, yes, but not groundbreaking titles in and of themselves. Maybe motion control is what made the Wii unique, and sold casual gaming to the masses, and maybe even pushed consoles into family entertainment centers where parents were previously skeptical of consoles as family-friendly entertainment. But as far as titles go, there’s no single Nintendo Wii game that’s more fun to play than any great title on any other console lacking motion control. (For example, the original Mario Kart was no less fun than the current Mario Kart is today.)

Yes, we’ll make a small exception for workout titles; EA Sports is a fantastic at-home workout for those without a gym who want to get into better cardiovascular shape, and traditional control schemes obviously wouldn’t work in this regard. But EA Sports, and games of this ilk, are not exactly fun gaming titles in the traditional sense.

So now with Kinect set to release late this year, we have another motion control scheme, albeit without a physical controller necessary. And this may work well for casual games, and probably pretty good for workout titles also (there will, after all, be an EA Sports title for Kinect). But for other gaming? If anything, Microsoft is looking to grab more Wii users and capitalize on the fact that a good chunk of gamers own both a Wii, and an XBox/PS3. Capturing the “casual” gaming crowd is an expected move for Microsoft, who has already moved in that direction during the XBox dashboard re-do (avatars, et al).

We’re highly skeptical that Kinect will bring anything worthwhile to the table if one already has a Wii sitting next to their XBox; Kinect is the Wii peripheral for the XBox. It’s a cool idea, but nothing more than a novelty, which conveniently comes out mid-way through the XBox 360 lifecycle. If anything, it combats Nintendo’s move of potentially releasing an HD Wii, forcing Nintendo to up their ante and delay a new product release more in line with Microsoft and Sony’s next generation, else simply throw in the towel like Sega did after the Dreamcast.

Either way, the Kinect alone won’t win Microsoft the battle here; the Kinect is a reactive move by Microsoft. Not in the way that the Move is Sony’s reaction to the Wii (which is playing catch-up more than anything else), but in the sense of allowing the XBox to be a competitor to the Wii on all angles – not just meeting the Wii’s capabilities, but arguably exceeding them without adding cumbersome, physical controllers. This move will likely pay off in keeping the 360 situated as the premiere US console, but probably won’t force Nintendo out of the console business entirely, unless Microsoft is able to capture some choice IP for Kinect-based games.

We just don’t see the Kinect doing much to sway the console wars one way or the other at this point. The Wii has already been widely adopted, and so the potential installation-base in Wii-less households appears very small. Unless there are some killer titles out there that make having Kinect outrageously desireable (and we haven’t seen any yet), why drop the money on Kinect?

Similar Posts:

• Project Natal: death knell to the Wii. – Reviewing the news coming out of E3 this week has shown itself to be a dreary affair. One, because w…
• The 8th console generation. – It’s hard to believe that we’re nearing the end of the life cycle for the 7th generation of video ga…
• Nintendo must be high. – The rumour band-wagon is hastily moving forward that a gyroscopic controller from Microsoft will ful…

One of the common quips about the iPad is that it’s nothing more than a “large iPod Touch.” It’s a statement the naysayers are fond of making, along with those who lash out at anything made by Apple as though Microsoft were still the only developer putting out a useful, solid operation system anymore; it’s not 1999, people.

We’ve now had an iPad since Friday, the day the 3G iPads were released, and we’re quite happy with it as a replacement for our now-sold 17″ Macbook Pro. We’ve fielded numerous questions, but the most common is, “Why would someone want an iPad?” And that’s a loaded question, because it comes with a pre-established bias. But let’s answer it anyway: “Maybe you don’t. Not everyone would.”

That answer isn’t side-stepping the argument, either. The reality is, if you’re already happy with an existing portable computer, or you don’t need a portable computer in the first place, then the iPad isn’t for you, just as a roadster isn’t the ideal car for a family of four. If you’re in the market for a portable computer, however, and what you need it to do is the same thing 99% of computer users need a computer for, then the iPad fits the bill splendidly. It’s a fantastic entertainment and news device, is great for writing, and the distribution system for apps makes the iPad a headache-free device which you won’t need to reformat every six months because something’s broken.

And for techies who need the latest and greatest, and have the disposable income to make that need a reality, then the iPad is an obvious choice over an existing sub-notebook: it’s snappier, has a great app library w/associated distribution system, has a longer battery life, and has a data connection built in.

With four days of iPad use behind us, we’re not disappointed with the device at all, and look forward to the benefits that OS 4.0 will bring later this year. One side-effect of using the iPad, however, is our changed perception of using the iPhone. Quite simply, the iPhone no longer feels as revolutionary, or as spectacular, as before. Indeed, we’re making an effort to not run iPhone apps on the iPad, because most simply don’t look great when scaled up. That’s not to say that the iPhone still isn’t the best smartphone on the market, but merely that the iPhone now feels more like a phone with cool features, and less like a backup computing device; the iPhone feels almost cluttered now, what with its dense app icon distribution on the SpringBoard, and the lack of “whitespace” in apps.

In this respect, the iPad has set for the computing industry a new standard. What early, greyscale sub-notebooks were to their later, more powerful notebook brethren, the iPod Touch is to the iPad. In other words, the iPad isn’t a big iPod Touch, in much the same way the modern Mini Cooper isn’t just a bigger version of the old Mini. Yes, there are keen visual similarities, but one was effectively a prototype for the other. In the end, the Touch is a smaller, more restricted version of the iPad, which is a more apt description if any can be made, and it pinpoints the answer to the aforementioned question as to why one would want an iPad: early iPod adopters didn’t ask why they should pick up an iPod instead of one of the many non-Apple mp3 players on the market. Rather, the reason was obvious: the iPod was better, not because it offered much more functionality, but because it was highly polished. Those who didn’t see this would end up buying an iPod a year or three later. Same with the iPad: if you don’t get it now, just wait a couple years when the early-adopters have made the reasoning all to clear.

Similar Posts:

• 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 …
• No seven-inch iPad on the horizon. – The rumour bandwagon is loose, talking about an upcoming 7″ iOS tablet device. Steven Sande at TUAW …
• Point of the iTablet? Try these variants. – All this talk about the iTablet, and we’re still confused as to what the ultimate point is. Not abou…

And we love it because it just makes people sound ignorant, or flat-out trollish. That’s not to say that the iPad wasn’t over-hyped by much of the media and the Apple faithful: in our hands-on with the iPad on release day, it lived up to our expectations but didn’t surpass them. It was definitely cool, we look forward to our 3G version arriving later this month, and getting a chance to play with iPad-specific software (the upscaled iPhone apps we tried didn’t look great). But the device was heavy – heavier than we thought it would, which doesn’t mean anything other than the fact that we wouldn’t hold it out in front of us for long periods of time, but we didn’t really expect to do that anyway.

But we still think the device is a potential game-changer. HP just announced their pricing and specs for their Slate, and if you think that’s a coincidence in light of the iPad’s release on Saturday, then you’re high. The Slate, after all, was announced before the iPad, and the Slate has everything to gain after critics’ lukewarm reception of the iPad on Saturday, versus a preemptive announcement that would have been drowned out by the iPad fanfare. But here’s the thing: the Slate is a Windows 7-based machine, and who the fuck wants that? And yes, we’re ignoring from the Slate-drooling-set the people who think they’ll be able to run modern Windows-based games and those who want to get their old-school emulation game on, because the iPad has already been hacked, and we’d sooner trust a jailbroken iPad than a buggy Microsoft/HP product any day.

But back to the iPad hate, Gruber already refutes Dave Winer on the position that the iPad may fail because its users can’t develop applications for the iPad on the iPad: gaming consoles have shown success for decades despite the fact that none have offered reasonable application development suites on the consoles themselves.

But Winer has other arguments that need addressing, because they’re plain wrong. Especially when this one follows with Winer’s iPad-on-iPad-development argument:

It’s definitely not a writing tool. Out of the question. This concerns Jeff Jarvis, rightly so. This is something my mother observed when I demoed it to her on Saturday. Howard Weaver writes that not everyone is a writer. True enough, and not everyone is a voter, but we have an interest in making it easy for people to vote. And not everyone does jury duty, but easy or not, we require it. Writing is important, you never know where creative lightning will strike.

The problem with Winer’s argument(s) isn’t just his stream-of-consciousness blathering, but the missing evidence as to the iPad’s writing prowess (or lack thereof). Is he basing his argument on the fact that Pages is an extra $10 purchase? Or that a slew of high-quality writing apps isn’t already available on the AppStore? At what point does the iPad fail at writing where other mobile devices (e.g. netbooks) succeed? And don’t start with the multitasking argument, please, because if multitasking isn’t indeed a feature of iPhone OS 4.0, then state-saving between apps is still a work-around, especially if load-times between apps is negligible.

Winer goes on to condemn the iPad for not supporting his bookmark synchronization tool of choice: Xmarks. And a sillier argument he couldn’t make, because to judge an Apple product for not supporting a third-party product is as nonsensical as us condemning every Android and Windows-based device because we can’t run Ulysses on them.

Three days into the iPad’s public availability, we haven’t seen one single, comprehensive review of the iPad where the final verdict isn’t positive. Those like Winer who paint a poor picture of the device either flatly refuse to adapt to the iPad’s new way of doing things, else simply don’t get it.

But here’s who did get it: when working with a computer illiterate family member this weekend, jumping back and forth between her iPhone and MacBook, she touched an icon on the MacBook’s screen, and later an entry field, because it’s a natural thing to do. And that’s the first time when we realized just how intuitive a touch interface is, because it’s finally a better input mechanism than a mouse. And when explaining how apps didn’t need to be installed by disc, and could be downloaded wirelessly, and how the chances of breaking an app, losing windows, overburdening a CPU, et al, we next to nil on the upcoming iPad, our family member wondered why it wasn’t so easy to begin with. Well, now it is, and she and thousands of others will pick an iPad up because it makes more sense than a traditional computer, and she and those thousands of people won’t be concerned with whether or not a random third-party app exists (because they’ll find one on the AppStore to do what they want to do), and won’t worry about developing iPad applications (ever). And that great force will undoubtedly trickle down to the unbelievers who want a lightweight computer, because the reality is, they too can do 99% of what they need a computer for, on the iPad.

And in the meantime, all the winers [sic] will realize that the iPad is as capable a writing machine as most any other.

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…
• What new Flash content? – We wonder what sites Dave Winer visits when he argues that Apple’s boycott of Flash for its iOS devi…
• The iPad as post-PC device. – Michael Gartenberg clarifies Steve Jobs’ statement that the iPad is a post-PC device by [pointing ou…