

Let’s Have Fun Reading Way Too Much Into the Preliminary Schedule for WWDC 2012  - Braasch
http://daringfireball.net/2012/05/reading_way_too_much_into_wwdc_schedule

======
bobbles
Would an Apple TV with apps potentially become a games console? I don't know
much about the connectivity available in terms of controllers, etc.

It would mean apple could infiltrate the lounge room gaming market without
having to actually produce a competitor directly to the xbox/ps consoles

~~~
cobychapple
Your comment about controllers made me wonder about the possibility of using
iPhones, iPods, and iPads as the controllers for games on ATV. People already
play plenty of games using those devices anyway, so why couldn't they be used
to control games on something bigger?

~~~
Kronopath
That's a terrible idea for several reasons.

1\. As people have mentioned, touchscreens were never designed around gaming.
A standard gamepad with buttons and sticks works much better.

2\. A big part of living room gaming is local multiplayer, about having your
friends and family around you while you play a couple of rounds of Halo or Wii
Sports. To support this, controllers must be affordable — common controllers
are between $20 and $60 nowadays. You can't support local multiplayer when
your controllers cost several hundred dollars.

3\. AppleTV should be able to sell to people who don't have an iDevice.
Requiring this would mean buying an AppleTV as a serious gaming platform would
require, at least, another $199 for an iPod Touch. There are _consoles_ that
sell for less than that _with_ a bundled game.

~~~
6ren
Re. 3: the first iPod required a Mac, cutting the market down. This worked
because it enabled a great experience (fast download with firewire). So the
issue here is: "Are iPhones as controllers awesome?" IMHO, no (at least, not
for gaming _as we know it..._ )

------
mrtron
His analysis and conclusion seem sound.

Apple TV is ready for apps, and it would likely involve a range of
partnerships with HBO, Showtime. High quality, reliable streaming to your
iPhone, iPad, and TV is a desirable market for paid subscribers and
advertising both.

------
jsz0
Apps on a TV don't really make sense to me. You've got this super high
resolution multi-touch display in your hand in the form of a tablet or
SmartPhone that offers direct manipulation. Who wants to bother with pointers
and gestures on a lower resolution TV? I think we're just past that now. Games
and video content of course make total sense on a TV and maybe interactive
features too. A live stream of some silly reality show could include built-in
voting. A sports program could offer multiple angles you can choose from and a
customizable score-board. I think that's where we are heading. If Apple
doesn't do it someone else will soon enough. I think Apple is probably about
the only company who could get the content providers on-board though.

~~~
niels_olson
And let's not forget, Cook is a sports fan.

------
6ren
My guess: major third-party game franchises, for iPad and/or AppleTV.

The next-generation GPU in the series Apple uses (PowerVR G6200) is equivalent
in power to the Xbox360 GPU (Xenos). So, you could port Black Ops/MW3/BF3. The
next expected process-shrink enables this with the same battery life. But
Apple's not due for a new iPad, and not everything may be possible yet (e.g.
display's power consumption). AppleTV doesn't have the power constraint, so,
with GPU upgrade, it could be first announced there.

The reason to rush is to get established as a competitive alternative game
platform before being overshadowed by the next generation of game consoles.
Game consoles may pay the ultimate price for holding off so long...

------
zs11
Not sure why he would jump to the Apple TV conclusion. It might just be that
they're releasing APIs for Siri, and/or some Intents-like cross-app
collaboration API. Those would be big deals too.

------
nthitz
You certainly have a different idea of fun than I do.

~~~
planetguy
Well _I_ had fun reading this article, because I read it while abseiling off a
sixty-story building naked. If you didn't, that's your own problem.

------
nirvana
There's something missing here. The Apple TV is still a hobby. 3M units a year
is not significant enough to sustain an app ecosystem similar to the iOS
platform.

Apple has been in this position before with small platforms. A good example is
webobjects. They lowered the price and relaxed the license on several
occasions hoping it would take off, but so long as it didn't they didn't
invest in it too significantly.

I think John might be right that there is a new platform being announced, and
certainly this level of TBC implies some very significant software
announcements, but I don't think its AppleTV. Or at least not the current
AppleTV.

Either some major new functionality in iOS, or a significant new TV product or
something else completely seems more likely to me.

~~~
klausa
I think he's trying to say more or less: "boy, they sold 3 million of those
without any kind of support for apps, imagine how many would they sell if they
would run apps!".

That said, iPhone was selling like crazy even before 2.0, so I'm not sure
whether that line of reasoning makes sense.

~~~
kemiller
There was plenty for iPhone to do without apps. Phone + web browser + email
was pretty great. The Apple TV is ALL about content, there is very little
point to it otherwise. Airplay, while awesome, is not going to sell devices in
Peoria because it doesn't fit into an existing slot in people's lives. But if
Apple has secured content deals that make the ATV a viable cable alternative,
apps or no apps, they're really on to something.

