Analysis
Latest
WRUP: The desert of our dis-content
We're caught in the desert of very little news. But at least some news is starting to trickle in about 2014, such as the many contests for BlizzCon. (I hear they're on the left side, and must be handled.) We asked our intrepid staff what big hopes and dreams they were secretly harboring for BlizzCon 2014 this year. I'm hoping that we'll finally hear some hints of that mysterious project. I'd say a release date for WoD but there's no way it can wait that long, right? Right? Oh, gosh, I hope we're not still waiting for WoD by then.
An analysis of the Glitch auction house
Glitch is gone, but it lives on in our hearts, and it makes for a fascinating case study. The game arrived, enraptured, and departed so quickly that a great deal can be extrapolated about the game. A new analysis over on Gamasutra focuses on looking at the game's economy over time, seeing how it kicked off and where it wound up, and uses that to draw conclusions about handling player-run economies in other games as well. The article outlines how Glitch handled currency and items, then notes the market trends and how players interacted with both one another and the economy. It concludes that in addition to monitoring the economy, designers need to keep an eye on the small number of players who serve as major economic drivers and watch them closely. The behaviors of players will also vary over time, meaning that past data have to be checked against more recent data to be relevant. If this is your sort of analysis, by all means, read the article in its entirety.
WRUP: Just a little haiku
Some say that haiku is done. That as an internet art form, the haiku has been beaten to death and left on the roadside. But we few, we happy few, we band of bloggers, say that there is yet a little life one can drag free from the beaten style and left to your enjoyment. So this weekend, we've offered you not only the games that we will be playing. We also offer a bit of our souls in the form of a few poems. Make sure you don't miss out on Rossi's epic lyrics, in particular. I think they'll please even the most hardened prose addict. But what about you, dear reader? What will you be playing this weekend? We'd like to know. Leave a comment below so that we may know a little more about your deepest, darkest soul. We're curious, and we promise not to tell your family.
Breaking down Star Wars: The Old Republic's housing reveal
Are you still reeling from the revelation that Star Wars: The Old Republic will have player housing? So is Massively's Larry Everett, who took the time to break down the short video reveal on Hyperspace Beacon in order to extract as many details as possible for the game's faithful. Larry notes a few of the possibilities for player apartments, including an appearance designer kiosk, a cargo hold, a mailbox, a faction banner, a repair droid, a mission terminal, and a moonroof. Give the video a watch after the break and sound off: What features and decorations would you want in your SWTOR apartment?
Forbes argues Apple needs to make bigger acquisitions, but we disagree
A recent article in Forbes tacitly argues that Apple would do well to take a page out of Facebook's playbook and start snatching up companies instead of, you know, returning money to shareholders. While Facebook recently spent $19 billion to acquire WhatsApp, Apple in stark contrast spent $14 billion buying up its own shares, effectively investing in itself. This is apparently a no-no, the narrative goes, because it underscores Apple's position as a slow-moving company not nimble enough to keep up with the fast moving world of technology. Think of this for a second: Apple spent $14 billion on its own stock a few weeks ago and now the stock is lower from where it was after they announced it proudly. Facebook spent $16 billion on WhatsApp (before RSUs). Which company spent its money more wisely for the long-term health of the business? I also think Zuckerberg or [Tesla CEO Elon] Musk as Apple CEO would be highly acquisitive and not be afraid to use Apple's stock to do deals. The article posits that Apple should tap into its ridiculously large bank account to help shore up existing deficiencies in its software and add "mobile apps beyond things like iPhoto and iMovie." Apple needs to start playing offense. Apple needs to start picking off strategic assets as if their life depends on it, rather than continuing on with a plodding attitude that doesn't match the speed of their competitive environment. It's time for Apple to get aggressive. It's an interesting take, to be sure, but one that completely ignores Apple's business model, not to mention Apple's 2013 acquisition spree. Apple's acquisitions are strategic and surgical A close look at Apple's acquisition history reveals that Apple's strategy in this regard is quite simple. The company primarily makes strategic acquisitions for technology or talent that either help add value to an existing product line or help lay the groundwork for upcoming products. A few quick examples include Apple snatching up AuthenTec for its fingerprint technology, C3 Technologies for its 3D Mapping software, Emagic for GarageBand, and Siri for, well, Siri. So while acquiring companies for lots of cash sure makes for sexy and intriguing headlines, not every proposed deal actually makes sense once you delve deeper. The ill-guided notion that Apple should have acquired Nest Labs is a perfect example. Apple in 2013 acquired more companies than ever before All that said, Apple in 2013 purchased over 15 companies in 2013, representing Apple's largest acquisition spree in company history. The notion that Apple isn't taking measured steps to improve its product line is patently absurd. Just look at the plethora of apping companies Apple acquired just last year. Want more intriguing acquisitions to satisfy your palette? How about we look at Apple's March 2013 acquisition of WiFiSLAM or its November 2013 acquisition of PrimeSense. Forbes, nonetheless, suggests that Apple might do well to acquire Dropbox. Well newsflash, ya'll, Apple actually did try and purchase Dropbox but Drew Houston and Company weren't willing to sell. It's easy to get wrapped up in the day to day gossip of the tech world and miss the larger picture, namely that Apple makes more money than its competitors and has a strong record of setting new bars for innovation that permeate throughout the entire industry. The iPhone 5s, for example, introduced fingerprint authorization technology to the masses. The recently unveiled Samsung Galaxy S5, surprise surprise, comes with its own fingerprint technology, albeit with a much less elegant implementation. Now this isn't to say Apple should never make large acquisitions. Apple acquiring Tesla is of course intriguing, and Tim Cook recently said Apple wouldn't shy away from a 10-digit purchase price. Acquisitions for the sake of acquisitions, however, are patently absurd and can often result in money drains. Just look at Google's $12 billion purchase of Motorola Mobility. Apple is the next Microsoft vs. Apple should act like the old Microsoft At the same time that pundits warn that Apple is turning into Microsoft, other pundits seem to want Apple to turn into Microsoft of the mid-late 90s when the folks over at Redmond were snatching up companies faster than they could figure out do with them. Here's a quick and incomplete look back at Microsoft's acquisition history. From 1997 through 2007, Microsoft acquired a whopping 101 companies. Apple during that same timeframe purchased 21 companies. And just how did that work out? How did each company's product lines pan out during that 11 year period? Apple became a money making machine on the innovative strength of the iPod, iPhone, and the iPad while Microsoft found itself perpetually struggling to catch up in the mobile space. The takeaway here is that big-time corporate acquisitions is not and has never been a surefire guarantee of success or even relevancy in the world of tech.
Reality Absorption Field: NFC Not Fascinating Cupertino
The road to ubiquity is a rough one for most tech industry standards. Even when they become prevalent, it often is not long before a direct alternative or a general shift in the technology landscape comes along to try to bump them off the hilltop. For example, Wi-Fi is one of the most ubiquitous wireless standards in the world today. But few remember that it had a challenger in its early days, a standard called HomeRF that had the backing of Intel. Apple's endorsement of Wi-Fi was a gift to the standard that pushed it ahead in a race where it never had to look back. That said, Apple does not grant such gifts often. The company's reluctance to "think different" when it comes to broadly supported industry standards have led initiatives such as DLNA, Blu-ray, UPnP, MirrorLink, Miracast and the Qi wireless charging standard to claim they've received support from virtually "EBA" (Everyone But Apple). One of the highest-profile standards that Apple has opted not to support is NFC or Near-Field Communication, which allows the transfer of small bits of information, such as a Web address, from a chip so tiny and inexpensive that it can be embedded into credit cards, clothing and foot packaging. Reading NFC tags seems intuitive enough. Just place the phone next to the tag and it can prompt any number of actions. There's no question that NFC can enable some cool and useful functionality, but Apple has opted instead to support a technology called iBeacons based on Bluetooth LE. Bluetooth is not a perfect substitute for NFC. In fact, companies such as Sony and Nokia use the two as complements, taking advantage of NFC tags to facilitate pairing of Bluetooth devices. However, one can consider a few reasons why Apple is choosing not to play the near-field. Another radio. Smartphones have historically had to accommodate a wide variety of radios. Already, iPhones must include radios for LTE, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, so it's not surprising that Apple would be reluctant to add another radio and up the chip count in its smartphone. A need to mark. Because NFC radios are so weak, phones need to practically touch a tag in order for its signal to register. This means that their location for precise placement must be clearly marked, something that may not be desirable in many situations. Calling attention to an NFC opportunity often requires even more demarcation -- signage or even another poster. Serial interaction. NFC transactions work fairly well on a one-to-one basis, but if even a small crowd of 10 people wish to obtain information from an NFC tag, the tenth will have to wait until the first nine have had a go. Presentation. As anyone who has ever had an NFC-enabled ID badge in their wallet (the "hip bump" move) knows, getting the signal to work through clothing can be a challenge. Particularly with phones getting larger, it becomes more awkward to remove them from a pocket or purse to use them with NFC. Of course, some interactions, such as initiating a payment, may demand that kind of conscious interaction, but others, like passive information collection, may not. Bluetooth LE overcomes all these limitations; some of the tradeoffs are higher prices and shorter battery life on the part of the broadcasting device. A global standard supported by virtually every mobile phone, Bluetooth hardly needs the fundamental vote of confidence that Apple provided to Wi-Fi or USB in its early days. But the company could be instrumental in advancing the standard's brewing battle for short-range peer-to-peer transactions with NFC.
The Nexus Telegraph: Examining the Exiles of WildStar
It's a truism you can see in literally any project you undertake: As a project wears on, standards for success slip lower and lower. The Exiles of WildStar have seen their major project go on for a very long time now. It started with Brightland's rebellious activities, yes, but at the time, those were actions of protest. That was a long time ago now, down what seems like an almost unfathomably far road. The Exiles of today certainly aren't fighting to reverse policies or change the Dominion; they're fighting for a home. We're introduced to the game's setting as a conflict between two opposing factions, but let's not mince words. The heart of the conflict has been over for a very long time now. The Exiles lost. What players will be jumping into is not the latest part of an ongoing struggle but the last stand of one faction that survives partly on the simple ignorance of its greatest enemy.
Reality Absorption Field: The iPad triple
General: Conan! What is best in life? Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women. --Conan the Barbarian, 1982 A key reason for Apple's success has been that it has been more concerned with the customer experience than in trying to jostle for competitive position per se. Nonetheless, it has been striking to see how many of Apple's strongest PC competitors from its dark days have been struggling so mightily as of late. The Compaq and Gateway brands are all but gone after being swallowed up years ago by HP and Acer. Dell, with which Apple has had a particularly nasty history, has left the public market. And Microsoft is reeling from dwindling PC sales and a painful transition to a touch-enabled Windows. Only Lenovo seems to have much momentum. The iPod had a huge impact on the music industry, but it wasn't much of a factor for most device companies. (An exception was Sony, which had owned the portable music franchise with Walkman.) As Reality Absorption Field described in detail, many of the companies that entered the digital media player market had much more significant businesses in PCs or TVs and weren't threatened by Apple's little white toy. The iPhone -- while far more devastating to Apple's competitors -- was quite straightforward. After years of denying its relevance, companies such as RIM and Nokia scrambled to device responses to the iPhone, leaving them with OS options that represented a small slice of the market. Other feature phone giants such as Motorola and LG now have a sliver of the Android market, as does HTC. All have been massively outspent in marketing by Samsung, the only feature phone-era handset maker (and really only other handset maker besides Apple) to flourish since the iPhone's launch. The iPad, though, has had a profound albeit less direct effect on the PC industry, and one in which Apple has had an unlikely accomplice: Android. As one would expect, Apple's pricing on the iPad Air and iPad mini are at or near the top of the range for their size. They have kept a healthy distance from the Mac, but have cut more deeply into the price range of Windows notebooks. As was shown during the netbook era, PC makers can -- at least for a short time -- tolerate going even lower, but Android tablets have wiped out all chance of that. Walmart now offers 7" tablets running Ice Cream Sandwich for $69 (or less). Tablets may not be able to do everything people want a PC can do yet. For one, some people aren't ready to give up the keyboard and would rather not fiddle around with Bluetooth. Since early 2011, ASUS -- which retreated from Windows RT -- has offered its Transformer series of Android tablets that tuck neatly into docking keyboards. Now, the idea is being adopted by PC stalwarts such as HP with its Slatebook X2 and Lenovo with its IdeaPad A10 using a hinge inspired by its Yoga Windows products that won't be offered in North America. How long will it be, though, before we see the idea knocked off by low-balling brands at Walmart? There are already snap-on Bluetooth keyboard covers for the 7" Galaxy Tab and Nexus 7 that cost about $25. PC makers are flailing. The Windows 8.1 experience on x86 remains fractured. Windows RT lacks key apps. Both are profit-protecting paradises compared with Android. Then there are Chromebooks, which offer a clean, simple and streamlined Web experience as long as you're online. Cut off connectivity, and different services can behave quite differently. Are Apple's competitors "confused" as Tim Cook asserts? Maybe they have a sense of where they want to go, but the path that they're on now is proving a bumpy road. Ross Rubin is principal analyst at Reticle Research, a research and advisory firm focusing on consumer technology adoption. He shares commentary at Techspressive and on Twitter at @rossrubin.
Apple and the Gambler's Fallacy
For reasons that often defy explanation, the news swirling around Apple always tends to be framed in a negative light. Despite Apple's success and unparalleled ability to release hit product after hit product over a multi-year stretch, many in the tech industry would have you believe that Apple's demise is right around the corner. Horace Dediu this past August touched on this briefly while discussing Apple's share price. At this point of time, as at all other points of time in the past, no activity by Apple has been seen as sufficient for its survival. Apple has always been priced as a company that is in a perpetual state of free-fall. Indeed, if you pay any attention to the assortment of pundits, analysts and folks in the mainstream press who get paid to cover Apple, the company has seemingly been on the verge of collapse for years. Rather than seeing Apple's accomplishments as proof positive that it knows what it's doing, Apple's success is often touted as the very reason why it's doomed to flounder in the future. This notion is otherwise referred to as the gambler's fallacy. The gambler's fallacy is the mistaken belief that past events make the occurrence of a future event statistically less probable. The most common example of this flawed logic is in assuming that flipping two heads in a row on successive coin flips increases the odds that the next flip will yield tails. We've seen this play out with Apple many times over the past few years. To that end, here are 10 years' worth of analyst reports about Apple summarized in just a few sentences: Sure, the iPod was a game-changer, but Apple has nowhere to go now but down. Okay, the iPhone was revolutionary, but there's absolutely no way lightning can strike thrice. Wow, the iPad sure took the tech world by storm, but what are the odds that Apple can come out with yet another game-changing device? Apple's best days are clearly behind it. The narrative surrounding Apple is typically one of gloom and doom, with news reports often spun in such a way to fit some preconceived conclusion that Apple is destined to fail at any moment. To wit, here are a few examples detailing how tech pundits and bonehead analysts often try and spin stories about Apple. If Apple doesn't lower prices, its marketshare will take a hit If Apple lowers prices, its margins will take a hit If Apple's quarterly earnings beat on revenue, its profits that matter If Apple's quarterly earnings beat on profits, revenue is what matters If retailers like Walmart begin discounting iPhones, they must not be selling well If Android devices are heavily discounted, it's trouble for Apple ahead Now, the gambler's fallacy is truly meant to describe events that are inherently random, like the flip of a coin. That said, it's strange that this flawed logic is still applied to Apple when success in the tech world is slightly more ordered than random. In other words, if we take a look at an assortment of tech companies today, one can make reasonably educated guesses as to which are best positioned to drive innovation in the coming years. We can look at each of those companies' product portfolios, their leadership teams and a number of other factors to help paint a more vivid picture about which ones are more likely to thrive in the uber-competitive world of tech. In Apple's case, the company has billions of dollars in the bank, an impressive product line across the board and an impressive track record of introducing innovative new products and features that have historically set a new bar for others in the industry. None of this guarantees that Apple's innovation train will continue riding along unabated, but it's enough of a reason to take a "wait and see" approach instead of blindly proclaiming, without rhyme or reason, that Apple's future is doomed simply on account of its past success.
Reality Absorption Field: The Crusaders
Is technology made to serve consumers, companies or causes? When Apple introduced the Macintosh, it famously invoked Orwell's vision of 1984 to promote how its little beige box would stand in the way of IBM's hegemony. In the coming years and for reasons that had little to do with the Mac, IBM would lose control of the PC's operating system, lose share in the PC market, and ultimately exit it altogether in selling the business to Lenovo. But that loss of PC market leadership came at the hands of Microsoft, which did in fact institute near-hegemony from the release of Windows 95 until at least up to the release of Windows Vista. More than a quarter century after the launch of the Mac and following up from iPod dominance that has been Reality Absorption Field has chronicled very thoroughly, Apple found itself on the more enviable side of market dominance with the iPhone. What would come to be known as iOS would leave in the dust every mobile operating system that preceded it. Customers flocked to AT&T to get access to it despite that carrier's notorious struggles providing it with satisfactory service. Competitors needed a way to compete with the iPhone and Google provided it in Android. At Google's developer conference, VP Vic Gondotra took up his own version of the screen-smashing mace, invoking some wording parallels with Apple's famous commercial. "If we did not act, we faced a draconion future. Where one man, one company, one carrier was the future." Indeed, Android debuted on T-Mobile but saw huge market share gains as Verizon based its strong-selling Droid line on Android. Now, coming full circle, the company that came to represent the establishment that Apple was rallying against -- Microsoft -- recently invoked the threat of oppression, if in less dramatic rhetoric. In explaining its acquisition of Nokia's device and service business, outgoing CEO Steve Ballmer noted, "We run the risk that Google or Apple will foreclose our ability to innovate, to integrate our applications the way we have in Office, to do distribution, or to impose economic terms." That makes sense with respect to Apple, which had developed, but has since improved, something of a reputation for being a stickler regarding its iOS developer terms and conditions, But for Google? First off, Microsoft has made so much from Android intellectual property licensing that it is a bona fide revenue stream for the company. Second, has the company not seen the Kindle Fire? It runs Android and, near as anyone can tell, doesn't suffer from much Google interference at all. Indeed, Amazon has even renamed its variant Fire OS. Google would only be a real inhibitor to Microsoft if it wanted the full suite of Google services on its devices, And still Microsoft competes with nearly all of those, it wouldn't be much of an issue. Unlike with the original Mac and with Android, there is no real bogeyman for Windows to fight on the mobile side, just plain old competition. And that's a worthy pursuit. But if Microsoft can't cut deeply into the mobile phone market, there will still be plenty of resistance from those willing to fight the next revolution. Ross Rubin is principal analyst at Reticle Research, a research and advisory firm focusing on consumer technology adoption. He shares commentary at Techspressive and on Twitter at @rossrubin.
The Nexus Telegraph: WildStar reveals; we analyze
We've gotten some substantial updates about WildStar over the last two weeks. Not as substantial as we might necessarily want, but I don't think anyone realistically expected this much news. Frankly, after an extended drought of worthwhile information, I'm happy to get as much as we have. Some of it has been hinted at before, some of it's completely new, and some of it is both unexpected and highly welcome. And then we've gotten some hints worth speculating upon, even if we haven't been told what's happening outright. So in the grand tradition of this column guessing at things only to be proven wrong not long thereafter, it's time to analyze and speculate a whole mess of things, starting with the biggest element that I didn't expect from WildStar at all, and that's all the cross-realm features. That's way more intriguing than mere class speculation.
The Mog Log: After the story of Final Fantasy XIV
First of all, putting this front and center: there are spoilers aplenty in the article past the cut. You have been warned, and will be warned again. I wrapped up the main story of Final Fantasy XIV a little while ago, got to see the final cutscenes that last for about a month, and was rewarded with a nice new mount for my trouble. I also got some big metaplot advancement and access to the endgame dungeons that I'll be running until we get more of them, so that was nice. But today I don't want to talk about how Amdapor Keep and Castrum Meridianum do an excellent job of being an endgame without being one, I want to talk about the actual story as a whole. Including the final revelations, the pacing of the plot, and where the game has to go from here. Again, spoilers past the cut. If you have not beaten the main story and want it to remain a secret, please, don't read past this point.
Why smartphone marketshare is overrated... and not Apple's top priority
If you listen to the pundits, Apple really messed up by not making the iPhone 5c more affordable. The underlying assumption by those so quick to second guess Apple's iPhone 5c strategy is that Apple is losing the marketshare war with Android. Consequently, the reasoning goes, Apple needs to churn out some cheap devices (and quick!), flood the market and gain some of those elusive marketshare points back. Apple, however, doesn't let marketshare be the overarching metric that guides its business strategy. Indeed, it's somewhat bewildering that analysts who get paid to make sense of the tech industry so often lose sight of the fact that marketshare in and of itself is not the be all and end all. In truth, the type of users you have can sometimes be more important than how many users you have. Indeed, this dynamic can be seen across many industries. This notion is why television shows with a core audience of 18-34 year old males, for example, can often command higher advertising rates than programs that otherwise have higher ratings. As a specific example, Friends during its heyday was able to command three times as much for ad-time than Murder She Wrote because the latter's viewership skewed much older. So what's the parallel? Apple doesn't view all users as created equal, a point Tim Cook touched on in his recent Bloomberg Businessweek interview, which was published in its entirety this weekend. When asked about the rise in $100 and $150 phones from Chinese and Indian manufacturers, Cook explained that Apple isn't interested in a race to the bottom while explaining that unit marketshare doesn't keep him up at night. I think it's important that we grow, but I don't measure our success in unit market share. So if there are a lot of $69 tablets sold that you're just pounding on to get something to work and get some responsiveness, and it's thick and fat and just a terrible experience, I don't really weigh that unit of share like I do a different unit of share. I don't weigh them to be equivalent. So I think in most markets in consumer electronics, there's always a large junk part of the market. We're not in the junk business. We don't want to make something for that. ... I think, fortunately, these markets we're in-the smartphone market, the tablet market-these are huge markets, and yes, the market might bifurcate. It has to some degree, as you just pointed out. There's a segment of the market that really wants a product that does a lot for them. And I want to compete like crazy for those customers and really convince those customers that the iPhone is the best experience for them. The tablet market is the same case. It sort of bifurcates. You've got the players down here that would say-you know, your kid is tugging at you saying, "Daddy, I got to have a tablet." And you just want to shut them up and buy something cheap. That's not a market I'm crazy about. I'd like to convince you that the iPad is a better experience and that your kid's going to learn a lot from using it. And the experience they're going to have talking to their grandmother across FaceTime is unbelievable, and it's going to change your life by doing that. I'm not trying to say "Pick me" to shut up your kid. So on this market, the market that cares about those things, I want us to just over-index like crazy on those. I want us to convince everyone to buy like that. I'm not going to lose sleep over that other market, because it's just not who we are. So while analysts obsess themselves over metrics like marketshare, Apple isn't terribly concerned with catering to users who aren't interested in a premium smartphone experience. And because Apple doesn't blindly go after the low end of the market, dangling cheap phones in front of customers who are just looking for something cheap that gets the job done, the iPhone is able to garner more customer loyalty than its Android counterparts. This past August, the Consumer Intelligence Research Partners (CIRP) collected a year's worth of smartphone loyalty information and found that 81% of iPhone users stuck with the iPhone when purchasing a new device, compared to 68% of Android users who stuck with Android. More telling is that over 40% of iPhone buyers came over from Android while approximately 5% of Android users come over from the iPhone camp. Put differently, once a user gets an iPhone they are more likely to stay within the iOS ecosystem than an Android user is to stay within the Android ecosystem. To that end, there is an undervalued benefit in focusing on the high end of the market where folks are willing to pay a little bit more in order to get a little bit more. What happened to both RIM and Nokia over the past few years should underscore how fickle marketshare is. RIM, for example, was able to appear healthier than it really was because it relied on "buy 1 get 1 free" programs as a means to flood the market with their devices. Their ability to keep their seemingly high marketshare afloat was nothing more than an illusion that eventually came crashing down. The iPhone, meanwhile, isn't close to rivaling Android when it comes to marketshare, but is second to none when you look at other metrics such as profitability, customer loyalty, and customer satisfaction. Marketshare of course isn't wholly irrelevant, but if it's the only metric analysts are focusing on, they're clearly missing the big picture.
Game On: Smartphones pose little threat to gaming as we know it
Gaming is in a transitional period right now. We're approaching the end of a console generation, new handheld systems are attempting to gain a foothold, and smartphone gaming is just starting to put on its big boy pants and doing its best to swing with the big dogs. In short, it's a rather exciting time. A recent article by Horace Dediu and Dirk Schmidt of Asymco suggests that rather than standing before the scheduled rebirth of home gaming -- as we do every 5-7 years or so -- we are actually witnessing its last days, and the smartphone craze will be the executioner. I disagree. Before I dive in, I think it's important to separate mobile gaming and home console gaming. These are two very different beasts, and while you might see headlines for portable games alongside their console counterparts, the markets don't always share each others problems. First, let's look at home consoles. Couch gaming is king Nearly all of what Asymco's article uses as evidence of an industry on the verge of demise is taken from the current (7th) console generation, with little in the way of a historical perspective. So just to make things clear, the consoles that have been on store shelves since 2006 have overall handily trumped their predecessors in total sales. Gamecube: 21 million PlayStation 2: 155 million Xbox: 24 million Total: 201 million consoles Wii: 100 million PlayStation 3: 78 million Xbox 360: 78 million Total: 256 million consoles It's important to remember that the previous generation of consoles also has an additional 6+ years of sales at this point, and the Wii, PS3, and Xbox 360 have not yet approached their final sales numbers. The iOS App Store opened for business in 2008, so to take the twilight days of the 7th console generation and suggest that the products are somehow dipping in sales due to the emergence of gaming on smartphones appears a bit shortsighted. Nintendo Nintendo is featured prominently in the article because its tale of woe has been well documented and the company is extremely open with its sales numbers. What we see is a company that hit its sales peak in late 2008/early 2009 and is now coming back down to Earth. There are, of course, reasons for this: The Wii: The original Wii resonated with consumers in a way that no console before it managed to. This was thanks to its intuitive controller and a suite of games that even your grandmother could play -- and she probably did. It had all the appeal of a must-have holiday toy, a la Tickle Me Elmo, combined with a bargain price and, oh, it also had Mario. It was a perfect storm for Nintendo and they bathed in the riches for a long, long time. Now, the honeymoon is over and both the non-gamer and gamer markets have had their fill. The Wii U: It's still relatively new, but the fact remains that there has been very little in the way of must-play games for the console. There were already countless critics that pointed out the system's shortcomings even before we all realized its sales figures were nosediving, but it's extremely clear at this point that Nintendo dropped the ball here. It's an undesirable product, which has nothing to do with outside factors. Taking the flash-bang success of the Wii and following it up with a product like the Wii U produces a pretty convincingly negative trend on a graph, but there is no data that shows that smartphones are the cause. The only party to blame for this turn of fortune is Nintendo. I recently made the case that Nintendo needs to strongly consider using iOS as a platform for its own first-party games. I didn't suggest this because I think the console market is unsuitable for standalone gaming systems, but rather because after a string of very poor decisions it may be the one play Nintendo has that could both win favor with disenfranchised gamers and bring new fans into the fold. Consoles make money, but not in the same way smartphones do When Apple sells an iPhone 5, the company makes as much as $442 in profit. When Sony launched the PlayStation 3 it lost upwards of $300 per console. This is what makes debating console sales figures so difficult; It's a much more complicated metric than just listing how many iPhones were sold and calling it a success. Microsoft lost $125 on every Xbox 360 it sold during launch, but when the company turns around and sells 4.2 million copies of Halo 3 at a minimum of $60 each, things start to look a lot different. Halo 3 had a reported budget of $60 million (roughly half of which was spent on marketing), but the game made over $300 million in just its first week. That's why companies like Sony and Microsoft have historically sold their systems at a loss -- it's about building the install base that will buy your games later, not about how much money is made from selling the console. The number of consoles sold is still important, which is why it's significant that more consoles were sold in the current generation than the previous one, but the point here is that Apple (or any smartphone manufacturer) needs to sell more and more of the profitable hardware each time. Console makers don't have to worry about selling a new system every year, or even every five years, because the profit comes from licensing content, selling first-party games, collecting subscription fees from online services like Xbox Live and PS Plus, and several other avenues. If home game consoles in general were hemorrhaging cash from their respective companies it would be pretty hard to explain why we're just a few weeks away from the third Xbox and fourth PlayStation. Apples and oranges Suggesting that an at-home gaming experience could somehow be replaced by a device like the iPhone or even the iPad is a bit like saying microwaves will soon replace stoves. Sure, your microwave can do some of the same things, and it may be more convenient, but when you want a hearty, home-cooked meal the microwave just can't do what your stove can do. Yes, there are first-person shooters on the iPad that -- at least in screenshots -- look like they could have been taken from an Xbox 360, but you'd never consider one as a replacement for the other. That's why home versions of Call of Duty regularly shatter previous sales records while portable versions of the franchise pop up out of nowhere with zero fanfare or anticipation. These aren't two sides of the same market; They cater to completely separate needs. The easiest way I can prove that is with a little help from the Angry Birds. Angry Birds is one of the most recognizable IPs in all of digital entertainment, with billions of downloads and fans in every corner of the globe. So, if portable games are reaching a point where they are making home consoles irrelevant, a console port of three of the franchise's most popular titles -- Angry Birds, Angry Birds Seasons, and Angry Birds Rio -- would probably flop pretty hard, right? Nope. In fact, sit-on-your-couch-and-play versions of these mobile hits are so popular that the crossover title Angry Birds Star Wars is scheduled to hit PS3, Xbox 360, Wii, and Wii U next month. Portable gaming may feel the effects Consoles are one thing, but when it comes to games you can play on a bus ride or during a break at work, smartphones may soon push out the competition. I say this because unlike the systems we play in our living rooms, the portable gaming scene has long been unpredictable and prone to dramatic shifts. The 3DS, for example, was a hot preorder item only to see sales wane and then explode again a few months later. I still think there is room for dedicated handheld gaming systems and judging by the fact that we've seen new entries from both Sony and Nintendo within the past month, the companies believe so, too. In fact, the renewed life of the 3DS -- thanks to the 3DS XL and new software titles -- was the biggest factor in helping Nintendo turn a profit after the dismal Wii U launch. That said, the 3DS and PS Vita will definitely serve as the canaries in the gaming coal mine, offering us a more concrete glimpse as to what effect as smartphones and tablets gain gaming clout. But until Apple releases an iPhone with a pair of analog sticks, there's no need for gamers to panic.
Looking at Samsung Note 3 with Apple-centric eyes
There's a lot to like about the Galaxy Note 3. The new phablet's got a screen the size of a baby dolphin. It offers several interaction and multitasking innovations -- I particularly like the circle-to-copy and the pull-up calculator. Its fine-grained, stylus-based input gives users a lot more control than they get using touch. It's even got multi-unit screen-expanding built in, which is cool -- even if I imagine the chances of people using this feature in real life are quite low. In many ways, this new unit seems more like the descendant of the Palm than the iPhone, with a focus on a paper metaphor with stylus-based entry. I suspect that a lot of serious users whose workday used to focus on the Blackberry with its fine text-entry control will welcome this device. Samsung has thrown down a business user's phone, daring Apple to pick up that gauntlet at its event next week. While I'm not enamored by the beauty of the interface or the overall intuitive simplicity, it has smartly targeted its market -- users getting work done on the go. Hop over to Engadget for more details and a device walkthrough.
Nintendo needs to embrace iOS as a games platform
In 2011, Nintendo president Satoru Iwata vowed that his company would absolutely not create games for iOS devices. That same year saw the launch of the 3DS, Nintendo's new hope for mobile gaming dominance. Now, in 2013, with its marquee home console, the Wii U, thoroughly underperforming in sales and the 3DS falling considerably short of its predecessor's performance over the 28 months since its release, it's time for Iwata-san to reconsider. I believe Nintendo could be successful making games for iOS, and it's the kind of "creative destruction" that's necessary to keep the gaming giant relevant in the App Store era. Times have changed When the original Nintendo DS hit the market in 2004, the Motorola RAZR was all the rage. Since then, Nintendo has launched an all-new platform in the 3DS. Fliphones have given way to smartphones, with current devices like the iPhone 5 producing gaming experiences that oftentimes surpass those of dedicated portable gaming systems. Mobile gaming is now dominated by app stores, and a franchise like Angry Birds can draw downloads by the billions. There's still room for a console like the 3DS, and that's made clear by the fact that its sales are still climbing. Profits from the 3DS have saved Nintendo from fiscal disaster with the Wii U. However, with 32.5 million units sold over the first 27 months of availability, the 3DS still falls well short of the 40.3 million units the original DS was able to move in the same amount of time. The ground is ever so slowly shrinking beneath Nintendo's feet. On top of this, Nintendo -- perhaps more than any other company -- has franchises that are perfectly suited to life on the iPhone and iPad. Pokémon, Animal Crossing, and even the various iterations of Mario could be easily adapted for iOS. With the generally outstanding quality of first-party Nintendo releases, there should be little doubt that these games would be fantastic. It's hard to imagine a Mario Kart, Pikmin, or WarioWare title not taking the App Store by storm. "But why iOS? Why not Android?" Simple: Apple already caters to many principles Nintendo believes in. Most notable in this regard is piracy prevention. It's the reason Nintendo often chooses irregular media formats for its devices, such as the tiny GameCube optical discs, and why the company has aggressively fought the sale of devices like the R4 card which mimics a DS game card. Unlike Android, Apple's marketplace is highly policed even before software is put up for sale, meaning Nintendo would have less concern over losing money to cracked versions of its games. Google Play generates more app downloads overall, but when it comes to monetization the iOS App Store blows the doors off of Google Play. iOS apps generated more than double the revenue of Google Play, and if there's one thing that would push Nintendo to build mobile games for a platform other than its own, it's cash. Will it happen? I'm not going to say it will definitely happen, but it could, and it most definitely should. Nintendo has already shown that it's not entirely against the idea of iOS apps in general with the release of its Pokédex app. Right now, the Pokédex is seated in the top 25 of the reference section, after having been released in March. But it's not a game, and games are what Nintendo is (obviously) known for. The company may have been just testing the waters with the release of the Pokédex, but from there it's not exactly a stretch to publish a proper game, whatever it might be, on the App Store as well. Nintendo knows that people would buy its titles on iOS, and it knows the money is here waiting, so it may be just a matter of time before it decides to cash the check.
App Store's revenue grew 15% between February and July
The analytics wizards at Distimo have released their July report on mobile trends, this time comparing the top apps for the App Store, Google Play and Amazon's Appstore for Android. Tucked away in their findings, however, is an interesting look at how Apple's App Store for iOS has grown in the last six months. Between February and July of 2013 the App Store grew by 15 percent while Google Play saw its own store grow by 67 percent. While the discrepancy between each store's growth rate may seem unfavorable for Apple, it's important to point out the App Store still generated more than twice as much revenue as Google Play during that same period. (It's easier to grow by big percentages from a smaller base, in other words.) The app that generated the most revenue globally, Candy Crush Saga, was the same for each company, meaning that regardless of what kind of smartphone your friends are working with, you're probably being asked for candy assistance on Facebook at this given moment. Interestingly, none of the normally paid apps that were offered for free as part of Apple's App Store 5th Anniversary sale made it into July's top five free paid apps. BADLAND came close, but was unable to move past number six on the charts. The next closest anniversary sale title to chart in the Top 10 was Infinity Blade II, at number nine. Worldwide, the United States spends the most money on apps, followed by Japan and South Korea, which account for a majority of the growth Google Play's store enjoyed during the six-month period.
The Elder Scrolls Online answers questions about its livestream
If you're a fan of The Elder Scrolls Online, you were probably glued to the livestream earlier this month. But a single stream doesn't give you nearly as many answers as you'd like to have. So the development team took the opportunity to answer questions that potential players had about the stream, from game mechanics to elements as innocuous as UI components. And even if you were watching the stream with rapt attention, there are probably details that you missed. For example, the answers reveal that the game no longer includes a minimap, using a compass instead to encourage more player exploration. The party seen in the dungeon was also roughly level-appropriate, meaning that the healing and damage on display was roughly indicative of what players can expect from actual combat. Several of the animations shown were more or less finalized, but other elements (such as first-person mode) are still being tweaked. You can catch a few more tidbits from the full set of answers on the official site.
WWDC Redux: Don't Worry, Be Happy
Let's say you go to a restaurant almost every day for years. It's your favorite restaurant, and you've practically memorized the menu. The staff knows you, your favorite dishes and you know a little about the chef. Then one day you walk in and everything has changed. The menu looks weird, there's a bunch of new dishes and the staff is a little distracted-- but the food is amazing. Everything else is throwing you off but you cannot deny that the food is better. It's as if the chef changed out the kitchen entirely and got 10 times better overnight. After over a week of hearing pundits work their magic, I keep returning to my notes from chats with developers who were at WWDC and AltWWDC. For anyone who is worried about iOS 7 or Mavericks let me tell you right now: breathe, relax, things are going to be great. Beauty is skin deep Yes, iOS 7 looks really different. As one writer said, it will be polarizing. Consumers as a blob of people are scared of changes in technology. Forcing users to grok some new interactions, no matter how much more sense they make, will prove a little problematic for Apple. I anticipate slower uptake from existing users at first. But as word spreads about how much better iOS 7 is, I think those people will jump on board. If you're only looking at stills of iOS 7 you really aren't seeing the full picture. Parallax is a subtle thing, maybe the new active desktops are useless, but the zooming hints of depth. There are so many cognitive touches that will make iOS "just work" better that it's hard to delineate them all (never mind that I'm going to try to avoid chatting too much about things that are covered in Apple's non-disclosure agreement with developers -- although I am not a developer and have signed no such agreement). Suffice it to say that what you'll see when you start using iOS 7 is a better sense of where you are in the OS at any given moment. By zooming in and out, by seeing what pages are open as you multi-task, you'll feel like you have more context at any given point. This intriguing method for using 3D spatial cues has prompted some interesting thoughts, like this great opinion piece by Jeff Rock. When you get designers thinking about this stuff, great things happen. Something that is impossible to understand when simply looking at frozen pixels on a screen is the interaction when using the OS. iOS has relied on buttons for many interactions, and iOS 7 does away with a good bit of this. Last week I kept joking with developers about the "Oregon Trail" your thumb takes as it traverses down, left, up, right, etc. just to do a simple thing. In iOS 7's Settings, however, if you want to go "back" you no longer have to reach way up to the left corner to tap a little button -- you just swipe to bring the previous screen back, much as you do on the iPod nano today. All of those little interactions add up to a significantly enhanced experience in iOS 7. Anyone who has been fixated on the pixels they see within a tiny rounded square is missing the forest of UX for the trees of UI. New kitchen, new rules Folks, there are 1,500 new frameworks. More importantly, those frameworks are all coming together to enhance the user experience and build better apps. Some of those frameworks may even hint at future Apple products. Every single developer I spoke to was excited about what they saw at WWDC sessions. iOS 7 isn't just "flat" design and a few new interactions, it's a significant boost to an already powerful mobile operating platform. There are new tools and toys that developers are still wrapping their minds around. In the end, you're going to see another app Renaissance. I don't think I'm overstating it -- users have no idea how much better apps about about to become. As one example, I was told by a source that at some point Eddy Cue corralled more engineers to fix the iCloud Core Data sync issues. Apple finally woke up and realized it had a serious problem on this one, and dedicated the resources to fix it. If anyone wonders whether Apple listens to developers or users, there's your answer. Apple listens. But as the WWDC keynote hammered home, Apple does its best not to ship features until they are ready. When something breaks, it works to fix it, but not in a haphazard way, because we've all seen how "quick fixes" can sometimes make things worse. The biggest disappointment among developers: A continuing lack of inter-app communication. Yes, there's a way to do it with URLs, like LaunchCenter Pro and other apps have utilitized, but that's not a round-trip solution and it's often confusing to your average user. We're talking about true connections between apps that allow real-time data sharing and cross-talk. My theory is this is still on a whiteboard at Apple, but the intricacies of doing it "just right" will mean a wait for at least another year. Developers tended to agree with this theory -- or maybe they're just being hopeful. Don't Worry, Be Happy There are some incredible things coming in Mavericks and iOS 7. Macworld has a nice rundown of some features you might have missed in Mavericks. How about this for you power users: I heard AppleScript has been seriously beefed up and it can now dip into Cocoa. If tagging didn't float your boat, maybe that will. Every single thing I heard at WWDC and AltWWDC indicated that Apple continues to relentlessly perfect its product. For someone like myself who has followed the company his entire life, this is not a surprise. For those who are younger and maybe grew up in an era where Windows NT was a common fixture and Apple was relegated to the design department, this might be a revelation. Apple's "Designed in California" and other propaganda videos shown at and after WWDC point to its core values of making the best products it can, and helping people do more with those tools. And if it's any indication of progress, I took a hands-up poll at AltWWDC's panel on the keynote. About half of the people who had jailbroken their iPhones said they wouldn't continue to do so after they saw what they wanted in iOS 7. "Can't innovate, my ass." -- Phil Schiller It should go without saying that iTunes Radio will be a hit and likely introduce people to streaming radio who, until now, have resisted Spotify, Rdio or Pandora (there's a good opinion piece on this over at Engadget). It should also go without saying that the new Mac Pro will be a hit. The folks at Aerohive were impressed with the new Airport and Time Capsule hardware, and who isn't loving more battery life on the new MacBook Airs? In-between the propaganda films and dizzying array of new stuff, there was a steady drumbeat last week of Apple messaging to its core constituents: We are here, we are still innovating, we are still kicking ass. If you don't believe this, prepare for some tasty claim chowder in 300 days after sales and update numbers come out. I'm happy to report that Apple is still unafraid to tear down its own creations to build something new. While Mavericks is getting a good overhaul, iOS 7 fully embraces the ethos of radical change for the better. Those who don't get this don't really get Apple's core values. Developers are on notice to update their apps. iOS 7 will be radically different, and it should be. And that's a very good thing for everyone. I can't wait to see what's next.
Reality Absorption Field: iPod's trail of tears, part 2
The last Reality Absorption Field discussed how most of the big names in the PC industry tried to take on the iPod and the fates of their eventual efforts. This week's column will look at PC peripherals companies and how the consumer electronics giants reacted, while next week's final installment will finish a look at the CE companies as well as discuss some of the pure plays that competed with the iPod. PC Peripherals Companies Diamond Multimedia and Creative. For many years, these two companies were two of Apple's most tenacious competitors. Diamond Multimedia, primarily known for its video cards, introduced the Rio PMP300 that opened many people's eyes to the promise of MP3. It also bore the brunt of the labels' wrath, which sued it into bankruptcy. However, the Rio name would resurface under the SonicBlue.brand (I was particularly fond of the microdrive-based iPod mini competitor Rio Carbon, which felt great in the hand.). Most of its portable devices were flash-based (including models it built for Nike and Motorola) but it created hard drive-based fixed devices for the home (Rio Central) and car (Rio Car). However, SonicBlue eventually went out of business as well, ending the line. Like Diamond Multimedia, Creative was early in the MP3 player market with the hard drive-based, Discman-shaped Nomad Jukebox. It produced a slew of hard drive and flash-based players, including some large-screen video players under the Zen brand. Creative was also noteworthy for a patent dispute with Apple that resulted in Apple paying royalties. The company is still around, of course, but mostly focused on its roots as a PC periperhals and speaker company. You can still find a few MP3 players listed on its site, including the Zen Touch 2 that runs an old version of Android. Iomega. A footnote in the history of MP3 players, the creator of once-adored Zip drives tried to crack the market smaller devices with a 40 MB disk cartridge called PocketZip and, later, Clik! Iomega convinced Ricoh to adopt the format in a camera and made its own MP3 player, the HipZip, which could not only play back MP3s on the disks but funciton as a general drive for reading them. The format couldn't compete with flash memory, and thus the HipZip had to RIP. The company was purchased by enterprise storage giant EMC in 2008. Consumer Electronics Giants Samsung and Sony. These two premium TV market rivals represented different kinds of competition to Apple. Sony, a pioneer in portable music, sought to maintain its Walkman heritage as it initially positioned Mini-Disc against the iPod. But the discs required transcoding the MP3 format to Sony's ATRAC codec with poorly received software called SonicStage. The company gradually came to adopt MP3 natively and drop ATRAC across mostly flash-based players and eventually even brought its Walkman brand to a series of feature phones it created in its Sony Ericsson venture. Sony remains in the category today with a relatively robust lineup that includes music-playing Sports earbud models, the E and Wi-Fi Android-infused F series that roughly correspond to the 5th-generation and current-generation iPod nano, and the Android-based Z series that competes with the iPod touch. Today, Samsung is Apple's strongest competitor in the smartphone space where it operates its own media store, but it was less successful competing against the iPod with a huge array of music players under the Yepp brand that spanned six full product lines of different form factors. Samsung now mostly competes with the iPod touch as a smartphone variant with a handful of products under the Galaxy Player brand. Ross Rubin is principal analyst at Reticle Research, a research and advisory firm focusing on consumer technology adoption. He shares commentary at Techspressive and on Twitter at @rossrubin.
