5 ms·

I'm willing to bet that the Apple TV has a very weak processor and a similarly weak graphics card, or none at all. Without those, you're limited to (essentially

by 14113 13y ago

I'm willing to bet that the Apple TV has a very weak processor and a similarly weak graphics card, or none at all. Without those, you're limited to (essentially) angry birds, and other games that aren't really associated with the big screen. I think that Apples reluctance to add gampad/app support is because of the experience. Apple knows that all its devices sell on the seamlesness experience they provide. Assuming that the Apple TV has lower end hardware, they're only going to be able to provide a sub-par experience, which will essentially be a loss to them, brand wise. EDIT: Ok, so the processor is the A5, with 512Mb of RAM. This (like I said) is only really good enough for fairly simple games, or poor quality complex ones. Definitely not what you'd expect to play on a "big" screen, so a degraded experience, and not one able to compete with the other big players in the market.

Millennium 13y ago
Most of the best games ever made fit into systems with far fewer resources than this. It's just a matter of focusing on the things that matter.
- 14113 13y ago
  Your point about choosing the things that matter is the pertinent sentence. Apple doesn't want to put any focus on game, as media streaming is the focus of the device. Consider the possibilities: 1) Apple implements amazing support for games on the Apple TV. Consumers who want to play AAA games on their TV won't buy it - they'll get a traditional console instead. Consumers who play the kinds of games that the iPhone/iPad/iPod support also won't be drawn to it, as they've already got their iPod/iPad/iPhone, so why would they want to play the game using a worse interface, slower, and when they could be watching TV. 2) Apple implements mediocre support for games on the Apple TV. This (like I said) will muddy their brand, as well as possibly taking personnel away from the core focus of the device - streaming, and again muddying their brand. Either way, it's really not worth it for Apple. In the first case, the fraction of consumers they attract is really so tiny that it's not worth it for them to implement gaming. In the second case it's a net loss for them, both in terms of effort/payoff, and in terms of damage to the brand.
  - Tloewald 13y ago
    What if Apple releases a $499 AppleTV / iOS game console / Mac Mini? Heck, they could probably make it more expensive and still sell a buttload.
    - potatolicious 13y ago
      At $499 that's squarely in AAA-console pricing territory, and Apple is not geared up to fight the PS4 and Xbox One... nor do they particularly want to. I think there is a miscomprehension of the iOS gaming market, or casual gaming on mobiles in general. People don't play Angry Birds or Temple Run because they are fans of the games (in the same way you'd play Halo or Civilization), they do it to kill time. Mobile games are intentional time-wasters for when you're standing in line, riding a bus, sitting in the doctor's office, etc. This is diametrically opposite to AAA-console gaming where users actively seek it out as something to do and dedicate time towards it. Platforms like the PS Vita straddle this weird middle ground - and it's arguable that Apple could potentially capture this middle ground also. Either way, an AppleTV/Mac Mini fusion device wouldn't.
      - 14113 13y ago
        Thanks for saying what I've been finding difficult to put into words.
  - Diamons 13y ago
    Apple could have made a huge impact in the games market. Their knack for polishing their products to the finest detail is exactly what games need these days.
robmcm 13y ago
that chip can power some impressive games (real racing 3) on a retina device. It's not far off 720, and if you look at a retina iPad it can't be far off 1080p. So if next week they release a new apple TV with the A6, it should be doable.
blktiger 13y ago
Don't forget, many games already support the Apple TV. Instead of installing the game on the Apple TV, you play the game on your iPhone/iPad/iPod and the game streams videos to the Apple TV. Some games even have a dual screen mode. http://www.macstories.net/stories/the-untapped-potential-of-dual-screen-airplay-games-apps/ http://www.macstories.net/stories/the-untapped-potential-of-...

by 14113 13y ago

Millennium 13y ago

Most of the best games ever made fit into systems with far fewer resources than this. It's just a matter of focusing on the things that matter.

14113 13y ago
Your point about choosing the things that matter is the pertinent sentence. Apple doesn't want to put any focus on game, as media streaming is the focus of the device. Consider the possibilities: 1) Apple implements amazing support for games on the Apple TV. Consumers who want to play AAA games on their TV won't buy it - they'll get a traditional console instead. Consumers who play the kinds of games that the iPhone/iPad/iPod support also won't be drawn to it, as they've already got their iPod/iPad/iPhone, so why would they want to play the game using a worse interface, slower, and when they could be watching TV. 2) Apple implements mediocre support for games on the Apple TV. This (like I said) will muddy their brand, as well as possibly taking personnel away from the core focus of the device - streaming, and again muddying their brand. Either way, it's really not worth it for Apple. In the first case, the fraction of consumers they attract is really so tiny that it's not worth it for them to implement gaming. In the second case it's a net loss for them, both in terms of effort/payoff, and in terms of damage to the brand.
- Tloewald 13y ago
  What if Apple releases a $499 AppleTV / iOS game console / Mac Mini? Heck, they could probably make it more expensive and still sell a buttload.
  - potatolicious 13y ago
    At $499 that's squarely in AAA-console pricing territory, and Apple is not geared up to fight the PS4 and Xbox One... nor do they particularly want to. I think there is a miscomprehension of the iOS gaming market, or casual gaming on mobiles in general. People don't play Angry Birds or Temple Run because they are fans of the games (in the same way you'd play Halo or Civilization), they do it to kill time. Mobile games are intentional time-wasters for when you're standing in line, riding a bus, sitting in the doctor's office, etc. This is diametrically opposite to AAA-console gaming where users actively seek it out as something to do and dedicate time towards it. Platforms like the PS Vita straddle this weird middle ground - and it's arguable that Apple could potentially capture this middle ground also. Either way, an AppleTV/Mac Mini fusion device wouldn't.
    - 14113 13y ago
      Thanks for saying what I've been finding difficult to put into words.
- Diamons 13y ago
  Apple could have made a huge impact in the games market. Their knack for polishing their products to the finest detail is exactly what games need these days.

robmcm 13y ago

that chip can power some impressive games (real racing 3) on a retina device. It's not far off 720, and if you look at a retina iPad it can't be far off 1080p. So if next week they release a new apple TV with the A6, it should be doable.

blktiger 13y ago

Don't forget, many games already support the Apple TV. Instead of installing the game on the Apple TV, you play the game on your iPhone/iPad/iPod and the game streams videos to the Apple TV. Some games even have a dual screen mode. http://www.macstories.net/stories/the-untapped-potential-of-dual-screen-airplay-games-apps/ http://www.macstories.net/stories/the-untapped-potential-of-...