Why Apple Should Not Buy Nintendo
oddevan.com
oddevan.com
Next, it keeps comparing the non-sequitur of Apple buying Nintendo with the absolutely unique Apple purchase of NeXT, which was unlike any conceivable purchase because it amounted to Jobs taking a sabbatical to, having experienced creating Apple, see what he could do with a complete ground-up reboot of the process, and then folding that work back into Apple as a means to better advance the company without the consternation of wrenching the original company in that direction before figuring out where the target was. It amounted to branching the vision, doing independent work, then merging that branch back into the mainline.
Apple should not buy Maker's Mark either. Purchasing a flash storage fabrication facility was a much better decision.
Apple iOS 7 also allows external gamepads to this it an opportunity for nintendo as well to put out some nice gamepads and maybe other interesting motion controls.
Apple also recently bought PrimeSense and the Apple TV console is still on the way. It could be a perfect storm if that launches with Mario and Zelda.
It would be interesting, thats for sure.
I could possibly see the argument for locking them up as an iOS exclusive -- but Apple doesn't need to buy the cow, so to speak, to get that milk.
Killer argument. Apple doesn't need to buy Nintendo. Nintendo needs to choose to do just what Apple would make 'em do anyway: create/port games for iOS. If Nintendo goes there either way, they win ... and Apple gets 30% with zero effort.
That seems exceedingly unlikely without Apple doing something equivalent to a takeover. Nintendo does not release its games outside of its platforms. Nintendo wants the 3DS to be your mobile gaming platform, not iOS.
Nintendo, being a hardware company like Apple, would much rather you buy its games on 3DS (or whatever future system) than on iOS devices. But it may not have that choice indefinitely. Its hardware sales (Wii U and 3DS) have been in freefall. Its software is the one bright spot in its portfolio right now. Its overall financial health is tenuous.
Regardless, I don't really have a position on whether or not Nintendo should make iOS games. I'm addressing the "Should Apple buy Nintendo?" argument, to which my position is "Why?" Absent some sort of fire-sale opportunity to scoop up Nintendo if/when it approaches collapse, or to buy it on the cheap in a defensive move against Android, I don't see the pressing need.
http://hypercritical.co/2013/09/02/nintendo-in-crisis
discussing the Apple/Nintendo relationship
At the moment. Apple's collective online stores have been generating more and more revenue. It would not be surprising if Apple expands it's own software production beyond it's professional tools and iWorks.
But I agree with your first sentiment. What prompted this article in the first place?
There's enough games available to make iOS a leading gaming platform, with no need for Apple to jump in. Apple does as little software production as possible, done only to sell more hardware when necessary. Prime apps like Remote and Apple Store are obvious focus, yet Apple has been amazingly negligent; Apple really has very few application developers and has little interest in expanding their number.
The other question that isn't asked - "Why would Nintendo allow themselves to be bought by Apple?"
Why?
ETA: iOS is arguably the biggest/most-popular gaming platform ever. The increase in sales from "I would have bought an Android/whatever but didn't because game X is only on iOS so I bought an iPhone instead" would be, relatively speaking, vanishingly small.
Ben Thompson does a better job explaining the why than I do: http://stratechery.com/2013/casual-gaming-is-a-sustainable-b... but the tl;dr is basically that the casual games most people look for on iOS are either already on or easily portable to Android or Windows. If Apple wants people to buy iOS devices to play games (and they should; that's a lot of people!), they need to make sure there are good games on iOS that people can't find anywhere else; otherwise, people will buy cheaper Android/Kindle/nook devices instead.
I think assuming that the lack luster online services from both companies is the reason to avoid the merger is pretty absurd. Apple knows how to do online servies iTunes, AppStore, iCloud all serve massive audiences. And are just that, connected services.
Microsoft is also not a threat, their empire is slowly dwindling and I'm very literally, willing to bet, that it's going to get the nail in it's coffin with SteamOS pounding the head of it. Hardcore gamer's are what drive Microsofts platforms currently because your average consumer is voting with their dollars for Android and iOS (not Desktops/Laptops and not Microsoft products). SteamOS is the chance to remove one of the biggest arguments for Windows, that has existed my entire life, "it plays games, and your Mac or Linux box can't!" ... if a Battlefield or Call of Duty is releaed for the SteamBox I think it's game over (BOOM, PUN!).
The Xbox One falls flat for that market, as well-- out the door the PS4 is just better. Sony knows this is it's chance to rally, and that Microsoft is weak, and I think they've taken the opportunity to it's max by making a console that's just dollar for dollar unmistakbly better.
For one, Apple and Nintendo do one brilliant thing well, and it's the one thing that matters, they enchant their users. They provide an almost whimsical experience with their products that sets them far from the rest of the pack. They both drive innovation.
If Apple and Nintendo were to merge, we would finally see real first party titles showing up on the Mac, iOS, and most presumably the AppleTV (Wii-U tech would do wonders here since their airplay gaming sucks [latency]). Apple would begin to have a foothold in the one industry it has typically done so poorly in-- gaming.
Culturally, they both strive for excellence. It's better to not release something at all than release it, if it's not perfect (grain of salt with that one, but most will follow me on it). Apple knows how to make great software, and hardware, nintendo knows how to translate these into story telling-- to enhance and enchat the viewer into a stouper not well known on other platforms.
Finally, in regards to "what customers actually want" I'd like to point out that one very famous person said quite the contrary. Customers don't know what they want, it's their job to tell them. Because their customers are not the innovators, they're the consumers. I forget the guy's name, he ran some big fruit company or something...
[edit] For those who are like, WTF prompted this article, I think this is just a nerd fantasy that makes its rounds every few months (it's one of mine!).
I am also excited to see what happens with SteamOS and SteamBox; if it does what Valve wants it to it will be a real... (sigh) game changer.
Again, thanks for reading!
They are already exclusive and this wouldn't change their business model much but it might mean less hardware from Nintendo, they haven't really been the best at hardware even though I loved the original NES that was better hardware.
I am positive developers would love this because developing for the Wii and Nintendo hardware nowadays means developing for a very small target, weak hardware and limits what can be done. Makes modern day ports a nightmare and we live in a multi-platform world for most games, starting with mobile (the new handheld) now.
Nintendo has made the best of that but kids all play tablets now. If they want to reach the kids they'll have to do something like this soon so they don't skip a large part of this generation. They were everywhere in the 90s, and a spike again with the Wii before mobile but their hardware just isn't as attractive now with all purpose devices like tablets and minis.
They are rolling on some nostalgia fumes still, but the Wii U might be a sign of things to come. Of course you could also say they didn't differentiate the Wii U enough, most people don't even know it is a new device, they think it is an add-on to the Wii. Horrible branding. They should have called it the Nintendo Revolution as is brought in their first tablet like device. (Nintendo Revolution was the code name for Wii during early dev).
But would they be more profitable? Pokemon X/Y's market price in retail ~$35 right now. Pokemon X/Y sold 4M units over the course of their first weekend [1]. And that's not counting console sales related to X/Y.
I imagine 2DS holiday sales are going be pretty healthy because of Pokemon X/Y by parents who bought into the FUD about the 3D in the 3DSes turning their kids' brains into mush.
My niece, who has access to both Android and iOS tablets is getting a 3DS just for Animal Crossing. If the software is compelling -- and one can make the argument that it is -- people will continue to support Nintendo.
1: http://www.polygon.com/2013/10/15/4840738/pokemon-x-y-sales
They might be immensely more profitable and they would be good to remake mobile games a little more fun. Super Smash Brothers would sell alot and with very smart in-apps or f2p like Halfbrick style would probably dwarf Angry Birds, many of Nintendo titles would. They are just not reaching tons of fans and sales.
Nintendo sells 4M units because that is a small set of good games on a small market like console 10-20million users (across all three bigs it is only 150 million). Mobile is billions of users, pretty much everyone would buy Nintendo games on mobile, they could also change premium pricing and sell easily at 5-10-15 even 20 maybe. In-apps would keep them alive in profitability and they could change mobile gaming in big ways even down to controller accessories.
Right now Apple makes platforms. Developers develop for those platforms and make lots of money. No shortage of good games on iOS, in case you haven't looked. And while I haven't seen anyone playing a Nintendo portable in a year or so, I see Android/iOS games everywhere. Nintendo haven't even got a worthy console in this generation. What does Nintendo even have that Apple would want?
Should Apple want Nintendo's IP (characters etc. - and I don't think that is Apple's style at all, just the only vaguely valuable thing there) they just have to wait a bit longer. If they did want Nintendo, the only risk to waiting would be that some other company would snap them up first. Nintendo certainly isn't going to worth _more_ in a year.
This should hopefully save some Googling. There is no official talk of an Apple purchase of Nintendo.
Pretty much everything a game console has going for it Apple has - standardized hardware and software, reasonably powerful hardware, and a large audience hungry to play games. That is in fact why a lot of large companies make mobile games - because iOS and Android have a lot in common with game consoles. Heck, with Airplay + controllers or devices like OUYA, iOS and Android are nearly indistinguishable from other game platforms.
I am a gamer so I understand how gamers might bristle at the notion of this, but Neil Young, former exec at EA and founder of ngmoco started ngmoco based on the premise that the iPhone was a game console and he went to build a very successful game company doing it.
Apple could very much make the Apple TV into a game console if they wanted, but I'm not so much sure that the product designers care that much about games as part of the core product concept.
Game consoles have always had their big-ticket exclusives; I'm concerned that iOS doesn't have enough.
[1]: http://stratechery.com/2013/casual-gaming-is-a-sustainable-b...