[The Godfather]

In reference to:
Microsoft to release cross-platform games on Windows, Windows Phone 7, and Xbox

If the Mac has less games than the iPhone, wouldn't playing iPhone games in the Mac be a huge incentive for iPhone users to buy an Apple computer? Moreover, wouldn't it prevent iPhone users from switching to Winphones?

It would require less than 90 days to develop and test, for Apple engineers. Apple TV too.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

It would require less than 90 days to develop and test, for Apple engineers. Apple TV too.

Problem is the lack of multi-touch.

Some games are heavily dependent on a multi-touch screen.
It won't work on Macs and ATVs.

-t

[Laminar]

[macaddict0001]

I think the developer kit allows that. For me at least the games would be underwhelming and the interface confusing.

[The Godfather]

so you people are saying that the Microsoft feature is as harmless as a toothless croc?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

so you people are saying that the Microsoft feature is as harmless as a toothless croc?

It works for games that are neither multi-touch, nor use a gyro feature.

In other words, most innovative games for the iPhone / iPod Touch are not possible.

Harmless.

-t

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

In reference to:
Microsoft to release cross-platform games on Windows, Windows Phone 7, and Xbox

If the Mac has less games than the iPhone, wouldn't playing iPhone games in the Mac be a huge incentive for iPhone users to buy an Apple computer? Moreover, wouldn't it prevent iPhone users from switching to Winphones?

It would require less than 90 days to develop and test, for Apple engineers. Apple TV too.

It also GUARANTEES that the game can not utilize the real potential of ANY of those platforms.

Another Microsoft "solution" that merely compounds existing problems by making them painfully obvious.

[nonhuman]

iPhone apps are executable on Macs using the iPhone emulator that comes with the iPhone SDK. It's useful for testing to make sure that your app compiles and the basic features work, but it wouldn't be any good for much else. This isn't a limitation of the emulator (which would be necessary regardless as iPhones use ARM processors, and there's no way that Apple's going to waste space on universal binaries for iPhone apps, it's an inherent incompatibility between two very different interface methods.

[Eug]

Since the iPhone apps are already intended to be cross platform (with the iPad), one could extrapolate to suggest a third platform could be added, for Macs.

A perfect location for many of them would be Dashboard (although I'm not considering the difficulties of implementation here).

Sure, interface issues are significant, but it's up to the developer to decide if a third version is justified. There are many iPhone apps that don't actually require a touch screen. Apps that wouldn't work without a touch screen simply wouldn't install.

Plus, all recent Mac laptops do have the multitouch keypad too. That could work for certain apps.

I'm not saying Apple will ever consider doing this. I just wish they could, and would.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Since the iPhone apps are already intended to be cross platform (with the iPad), one could extrapolate to suggest a third platform could be added, for Macs.

Not really true. Both the iPhone and the iPad use ARM-based processors, so while technically the iPad is a different platform, technologically speaking it's nearly identical. Obviously I don't know the details of the specific implementations, but it seems highly likely that iPhone apps do not need to be recompiled to run on the A4 processor. They do, however, need to be recompiled to run on an x86(-64) processor such as is present in all modern Macs, or they need to run in an emulator such as that provided with the iPhone SDK.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Not really true. Both the iPhone and the iPad use ARM-based processors, so while technically the iPad is a different platform, technologically speaking it's nearly identical. Obviously I don't know the details of the specific implementations, but it seems highly likely that iPhone apps do not need to be recompiled to run on the A4 processor. They do, however, need to be recompiled to run on an x86(-64) processor such as is present in all modern Macs, or they need to run in an emulator such as that provided with the iPhone SDK.

That wasn't my point. Obviously platform architecture is going to be an issue. That said, I'm 100% sure Apple has a working port to x86, for Atom. Remember, your argument was the same one used by some (including myself admittedly) to convince us why Apple would wouldn't port to Intel. It turns out Apple had been running a parallel development process all along for x86. Meanwhile, Microsoft implemented its Xbox 360 using PowerPC derived technology.

However, my main point was just that the touchscreen-ness of some apps isn't at all a barrier. The developer could simply indicate to the SDK that it would not run on Macs, and it won't run on Macs. Problem solved. For apps that easily would run on all three platforms, the developer would simply check off the iPhone/iPod touch, iPad, and Mac check boxes, and voila! It runs on all three platforms.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

They do, however, need to be recompiled to run on an x86(-64) processor such as is present in all modern Macs, or they need to run in an emulator such as that provided with the iPhone SDK.

There is no ARM-emulator in the iPhone simulator. Apps running in the simulator are compiled for Intel.

Anyway, I think the difference between the touch-based, fixed-sized small-screen iP* apps and the mouse-based, windowed, large-screen Mac apps are too big to make this work. iP* apps would make bad Mac apps. It's better not to have something, than to have something that is terrible.

[Eug]

Well, there ya go. The compiler work is already done.

Now all Apple needs to do is implement iPhone support in Dashboard.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Eug 

That wasn't my point. Obviously platform architecture is going to be an issue. That said, I'm 100% sure Apple has a working port to x86, for Atom. Remember, your argument was the same one used by some (including myself admittedly) to convince us why Apple would wouldn't port to Intel. It turns out Apple had been running a parallel development process all along for x86. Meanwhile, Microsoft implemented its Xbox 360 using PowerPC derived technology.

It is a problem, however, when we talk about 3rd party apps. It would require all 3rd party app makers to recompile their apps either as a second x86 binary or as a universal binary. I find this approach unlikely because it will increase the size of the executable on devices where storage is still at somewhat of a premium (though perhaps most people won't see that as an issue with their 16 GB iPhones or whatever).

As for Apple's own apps, I agree that there's a 100% chance that there are x86 versions of them.

However, my main point was just that the touchscreen-ness of some apps isn't at all a barrier. The developer could simply indicate to the SDK that it would not run on Macs, and it won't run on Macs. Problem solved.

True, though I feel like that would create a lot of confusion among users. How would Apple market it? 'Use some of your favorite iPhone apps on your Mac! But not all of them! And ignore the fact that most of them make no sense as they already exist as separate Mac or web apps with a proper interface!'

I think that if we're ever going to see iPhone apps coming to the Mac we'll probably first see some sort of 'touchification' of standard Mac hardware first.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

There is no ARM-emulator in the iPhone simulator. Apps running in the simulator are compiled for Intel.

Are they? Interesting!

I guess it makes sense since you've got the source code right there in Xcode. Why cross-compile it for a different platform?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

It is a problem, however, when we talk about 3rd party apps. It would require all 3rd party app makers to recompile their apps either as a second x86 binary or as a universal binary. I find this approach unlikely because it will increase the size of the executable on devices where storage is still at somewhat of a premium (though perhaps most people won't see that as an issue with their 16 GB iPhones or whatever).

For the reason you cite, I don't consider this a major issue. It will take up more storage space, but iPhone apps are small to begin with. The extra space we have on these things is for data-gobbling multimedia, not apps. More importantly only the appropriate version in a universal binary will load (not the entire binary), so memory usage isn't an issue either.

True, though I feel like that would create a lot of confusion among users. How would Apple market it? 'Use some of your favorite iPhone apps on your Mac! But not all of them!

Apple has already introduced this "confusion" with the iPad, to a certain extent. All iPhone apps should run on the iPad, but if not built for the iPad, you only get an iPhone sized application, and that will almost be pointless for some apps on an iPad sized device. OTOH, you can't run some apps for the iPad properly on the iPhone. Or, in the very least, even if Apple forces 3rd parties to make iPhone versions for all iPad apps, many will not run well on the iPhone, because of size limitations. ie. A developer might specifically develop for the iPad, so any forced iPhone version might just be an afterthought. Ironically, such an iPad sized application might actually be more appropriate for a Mac than an iPhone, depending on the interface requirements.

And ignore the fact that most of them make no sense as they already exist as separate Mac or web apps with a proper interface!'

That's why Dashboard seems appropriate to me, at least for some apps. The size and simplicity of some apps would fit well there. Then again, some wouldn't, especially iPad sized ones, so in that context actually running outside of Dashboard would be more appropriate. That's a possibility too.

I think that if we're ever going to see iPhone apps coming to the Mac we'll probably first see some sort of 'touchification' of standard Mac hardware first.

Maybe, but I'll mention again that all Mac laptops do have a multitouch pad now.

[The Godfather]

iPhone games in an AppleTV would be less of a possiblity, then.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

I think apple will transform the AppleTV into a casual game device. It will keep its current features but they will add some sort of wii controller or natal camera.

There will be a game platform for the iPod/Pad/Phone.

A separate one for AppleTV with different way to interact with games but same development environment. Most games can be ported rather easy if they are just point and click.

No way in hell will Apple let people have games all over the OS X Dashboard. It loads slow enough now with just weather and stocks. Plus there is no interface reason it should be there in the first place.

Laptops are lousy gaming devices for casual users. They keyboard absolutely sucks for most users and they dont' have multitouch. People also dont' drop over $1000 for a laptop and then want to jerk it around to play a motion control game or push a screen with multitouch that pivots uncontrollably.

I'm hoping that Apple comes out with an App store for the Mac as an alternative to the usual methods.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

I think apple will transform the AppleTV into a casual game device. It will keep its current features but they will add some sort of wii controller or natal camera.

They can call it Pippin!

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

They can call it Pippin!

Yep and the iPhone should have been called the Newton 2.