Why Apple Should Not Buy Nintendo(oddevan.com)
oddevan.com
Why Apple Should Not Buy Nintendo
http://www.oddevan.com/2013/why-apple-should-not-buy-nintendo.html
12 comments
The only huge benefit to Apple would be exclusive Nintendo games. Especially when they launch the Apple TV, if they alone have Mario on that first it would be massive. I don't think Apple would be interested in a merger, they essentially recreated their handheld business the right way. They would only want the exclusive games and Nintendo still makes some of the best games that are perfect for the casual market. i.e. Apple TV, tablets, pods, minis, the new consoles and handhelds.
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.
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.
The Mario and Zelda franchises alone would probably smash App Store download records. The time would seem to be ripe too, as the value of this kind of nostalgia is probably at its peak point.
It would be interesting, thats for sure.
It would be interesting, thats for sure.
Why does Apple need to own the company behind that IP in order to win? If Nintendo releases the games for iOS, Apple gets a cut anyhow.
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.
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.
> Why does Apple need to own the company behind that IP in order to win? If Nintendo releases the games for iOS, Apple gets a cut anyhow.
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.
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.
A lot of the theory behind "Apple should buy Nintendo" is premised on the idea that Nintendo would release its games on iOS -- something it is under a lot of pressure to do, regardless of whether Apple were ever to buy it.
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.
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.
If Nintendo releases the games for iOS, Apple gets a cut anyhow.
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.
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.
[deleted]
Thanks for your feedback. The article was prompted by just some general "what-if" thinking. Apple needs exclusive games, Nintendo has game. Nintendo needs to survive, Apple has money. It's a what-if scenario that people (or maybe just me) keep coming back to, and I can almost guarantee you that there are people at Apple that have considered the situation and rejected it for probably more reasons than I had in the article. :)
Apple needs exclusive games
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.
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.
Any platform needs exclusive apps to draw people to it and only to it. I'm probably never going to get a Windows Phone no matter how good the platform looks because I can't get apps like Tweetbot and Reeder.
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.
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.
There are articles like the following:
http://hypercritical.co/2013/09/02/nintendo-in-crisis
discussing the Apple/Nintendo relationship
http://hypercritical.co/2013/09/02/nintendo-in-crisis
discussing the Apple/Nintendo relationship
Pure speculation. iOS is a serious competitor, and Nintendo is having trouble, so ... Nintendo should persuade Apple to buy them? Nintendo has long survived against other major platforms, and Apple only buys companies when it's important to their core goal of selling hardware. iOS is already a persuasive gaming platform without Apple buying a gaming company, so there's no incentive for doing so.
Sure, the games are good, but there's enough games for iOS & OS X out there; remember, Apple only creates software as a reason to persuade people to buy more hardware, and there's certainly enough compatible games out there to make that happen.
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?
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?
Those professional tools and iWorks only exist to persuasively fill a gap which others are not adequately filling. Final Cut etc are quality gutsy products needed because nobody else is going to put that much effort into selling at that low a price on a platform otherwise not attractive enough to make enough money to fund the venture; those are loss leaders for showing "this hardware is AWESOME, the kind of thing you need as the centerpiece of your studio/whatever". iWorks is cheap enough and good enough to provide basic tools most people need without putting in the effort & cost to match MS Office, which is available and which most people willing to pay that much will buy anyway.
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.
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.
[deleted]
>> What's missing is any explanation of why the author considers the precursor question of "Why would Apple even think of buying Nintendo?"
The other question that isn't asked - "Why would Nintendo allow themselves to be bought by Apple?"
The other question that isn't asked - "Why would Nintendo allow themselves to be bought by Apple?"
They wouldn't unless they absolutely had to. As mentioned, desperation has a way of forcing compromise.
I think the opposite of this article and would be happy to argue it... First, I would like to point out the failure that was the nintendo bandai experiment was from an Apple that was failing at everything. Their stock price was in the gutter, the outlook was bleak, and that was a shot in the dark. This was not the Apple that would make OS X, iPod, iOS, and iPhone.
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 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!).
Thanks for the feedback. I think the point I was trying to make at the end (with mixed results, obviously) was that both companies are still learning about online services. Apple would be the leader in this case if only because their store structure (same account across all stores, redownloads to same account whenever legal) is exactly where Nintendo is trying to get to. My concern is that Apple's still not an expert, and it's hard to learn and move out of a comfort zone when there's a merger in progress.
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!
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!
Agreed, a merger is probably a bad idea, but if Nintendo was to exclusive all Nintendo games to Apple and coincide with the Apple TV apps/game SDK/console they would sell a ton more on Apple devices.
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).
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).
>> they would sell a ton more on Apple devices.
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
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
I do hope more kids get Nintendos and the handheld stays strong but also I hope it doesn't relegate them to the back and fade away. I got all Nintendo's through Wii for my son but they end up on the computer or tablets for other things.
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.
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.
Is Apple even considering buying Nintendo? Did I miss something?
It's a commonly suggested thought from people that like both companies. In a happy-go-lucky sort of way it is a fun thought experiment, but I've never heard anyone seriously suggest it.
That's it right there. :)
Why not? Both Apple and Nintendo have shown puritanism and obsession with content control.
What? This is an insane idea to begin with. It's right up there with Compaq buying Digital and HP buying Compaq. Companies with too much money and no clue do things like this. Apple has too much money but absolutely no lack of critical thinkers who would realise this is a dumb idea.
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.
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.
I just bought a 3DS XL.
I just want nintendo to release their grasp on Pokémon and release that for iOS/Android. Touch screens are IMO the best input device for JRPGs (Pokémon, Final Fantasy, etc.) or Turn-based Strategy games (XCom, Disgea, FFT, etc.)
The two companies seem to have certain similarities: A willingness to think different in pursuit of their own hardware standards and form factors (remember how the Gamecube used mini-discs and had a handle for carrying?), huge success from pursuing the Blue Ocean Strategy, the capability to inspire consumer cults (possibly because they are seen as somewhat "purer" than their competitors), and even similar aesthetics (clean off-white plastic-porcelain hardware, the lower-case letter 'i', very family-friendly content, minimalist form over high-performance function).
It's worth noting that Apple has a sordid history with video game hardware: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Pippin
It's noted in the article. :)
For anyone wondering why the author felt compelled to write this article, there is no answer.
This should hopefully save some Googling. There is no official talk of an Apple purchase of Nintendo.
This should hopefully save some Googling. There is no official talk of an Apple purchase of Nintendo.
[deleted]
One minor, but important point. Apple has already made 2 very successful "game consoles" - the iPhone/iPod Touch and the iPad.
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.
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.
I agree; iOS devices are AMAZING game consoles. The problem I'm worried about is the one mentioned in [Ben Thompson's article][1]: that easily portable casual games don't differentiate platforms. If you can get Fruit Ninja on iOS, Android, and Windows Phone, then it's one less reason for you to choose iOS over any other platform.
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...
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...
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.