Nintendo-Apple merger? Don't hold your breath. [update 1]
by Ross Miller 
{ Jun 10th 2006 at 4:25PM }
Repeat after me: Apple will not buy Nintendo; Nintendo will never be bought. If I'm wrong, I will let the entire Joystiq staff and our top 5 contributors punch me in the gut. There is an article from CNET that came out yesterday (bearing a striking similarity to an O'Reilly blog post from February) that has given Nintendo and Apple fanatics a heart attack, but that article has no basis of a fact and is pure - Similar corporate philosophies / design styles: "the DS Lite looks practically looks like [Apple designer] Jonathan Ive built it." So do a countless number of iPod knockoffs, but we don't think Apple will be buying those companies anytime soon. Size aside, even Microsoft's Xbox 360 appears inspired by Apple's sleek design philosophies, but it'd be a cold day in Hell if those two companies ever joined forces.
- "Cisco was rumoured to be looking at a purchase of Nintendo earlier in the year:" That would be a good support, except that the Cisco-Nintendo rumor spawned from another CNET article and was merely speculation by the author, with no factual basis (GameSpot denounced this rumor long ago).
- They makes a profit. Nintendo has been profitable practically every year since it moved into the video game industry over two decades ago. The Nintendo DS continues to sell at a phenomenal rate, and Nintendo has yet another hit on its hands with the New Super Mario Bros.
- They have a potential mega-seller on their hands. Every poll Joystiq has put up has placed the Nintendo Wii in the running for a comeback, and the mainstream audience has been given some positive news about it by way of outlets such as the New York Times. As Next Generation wrote, Nintendo is making some really smart moves in terms of marketing its new console.
- Nintendo does not want to sell. The last time a rumor like this surfaced was when Bill Gates commented on how he'd love to purchase Nintendo. At that point, the possibility of such a merger was laughed at by most analysts and Nintendo officials. And that was in 2004, before the DS took off and before the hype for the Wii.
[update 1: took out keiretsu principle, as it is not applicable. Sorry it took so long to change.]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Kevin @ Jun 10th 2006 4:34PM
Hellyeah
Kevin @ Jun 10th 2006 4:35PM
Nintendo Rocks Out Loud And Never Be Sold
filthy @ Jun 10th 2006 5:06PM
You might also remember that cnet predicted Apple switching to intel, and everyone thought that was crazy too. Just make sure you recognize that sentiment and corporate economics don't always mix. And what's wrong with Apple and Nintendo working together anyways?
Ben18 @ Jun 10th 2006 5:19PM
I could care less if those two merged, so long as each remained focused on their own ambitions. Hey if Apple thought of some creative ideas and wanted to share with Nintendo as a partner, so be it. I don't think Nintendo would ever make a pc game, but whatever. If each company acted independently then whatever. It's a similar idea to Alienware and Dell. Alienware says they will essentially manage themselves but benefit from big papa Dell's wallet. Now I'm not sure Apple has a deep enough wallet for it to matter to Nintendo, but if it didn't change the products, then big deal.
SuiXide @ Jun 10th 2006 5:39PM
If Apple ever bought Nintendo, gaming as we know it would be gone.
Think about it. Of ALL the OLD console manufactuers still actually MAKING consoles, Nintendo is the ONLY one left. If Nintendo was no longer Nintendo we'd lose that old school flavor. We'd lose what little dose of originality we have left.
thegrey @ Jun 10th 2006 5:39PM
First Apple buys Sony(or Sony buys Apple) now nintendo. I'll be the first to say Apple copmuter buys Apple copmuter.(notice how i had to say apple computer)
Grindstone @ Jun 10th 2006 5:42PM
Not that I eniterly care whether Apple and Nintendo merge, the second sentence -- the opportunity to gut-punch Ross Miller -- is incentive enough for me to push to get more stars.
Nothing personal, it's just been a while since I punched anyone.
Please increase my star count so I can participate in this pending event. Let me put it this way, if you increase my stars, I promise to hit like a girl (a Russian one post-Olympic steriod scandal).
Magenta steam @ Jun 10th 2006 5:46PM
This is never gonna happen if anything there's a higher chance of Nintendo buying out apple. Even Microsoft couldn't buy of Nintendo, they tried it once but The president was insulted by the way that the American corporates worked so he decided not to sell at the very last minute. At least that is what his interview said.
MetaHuman @ Jun 10th 2006 5:52PM
The first way to get me, a Nintendo fanboy/informed gamer, to hate a company is to think that buying an established company to attract established gamers and fans without substantiating the purchase/merger with their own gaming content is a good idea. Sony and MS both did it, trying to net gamer credibility [A $600 price-tag, Real-time weapon change, and Giant Enemy Crab cost a bit for Sony at E3 '06] by buying Nintendo.
Despite what harshness I had for MS because of their attempted buy-out, I am more happy towards the idea of getting a 360 because they really are backing up their hardware with content for gamers with Xbox Live, Arcade and relatively gamer-friendly prices and GAMES, not crazy-talk and a generic entertainment device.
Alex ~ @ Jun 10th 2006 5:54PM
"Size aside, even Microsoft's Xbox 360 appears inspired by Apple's sleek design philosophies, but it'd be a cold day in Hell if those two companies ever joined forces."
I do blieve there sir that in 1998 when apple hit a bad spot due to there operating system being ripped off by a certain other company, microsoft swept in and bought 60% non-voting shares of apple, so apple is owned by microsoft and the two companies have "joined forces" as it where. But then mind you, the shares where to do with the computing devision so any profit apple makes from ipods, etc is its own.
Find and watch the film "Pirates of Silicon Valley" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0168122/)
Ianc02 @ Jun 10th 2006 5:58PM
Hell this just gets crazier. Who will be next in line to desperately get linked with the almost etherial name Nintendo lol.
Drew @ Jun 10th 2006 6:05PM
Being a Machead and a Nintendo fanboy, it's difficult to say where I stand. On one hand, it would be a cold day in hell before Mario would let his mansion be sold, let alone to an American company. On the other hand, think what this could mean for Apple: suddenly this huge market of gamers that could be potential Mac buyers, if they integrate some gaming features into the relatively gaming-unfriendly (until recently) Mac OS. And it would only mean Nintendo devices would look even better, if that's possible.
I think this is pure speculation, merely because the DS Lite and soon the Wii play to the same chic, creative, try anything once types that the Macintosh has become a home for, not to mention the iPod. Trend-eee.
But hey, if it works, and Apple doesn't screw it up, could be good for both of them.
tranism @ Jun 10th 2006 6:32PM
^^^
Apple has since bought all those shares back, I believe in 2002-2003
Johnny M @ Jun 10th 2006 6:34PM
Apples' products cost too too much for the same power you can get from a cheaper Pc, Nintendo is more more bang for your buck with a couple of failed gummicky things on the side(card reader,Microphone,Virtual boy, GBA to GC connectivity) whereas Apple is all white Macs with some ipods and some more shit I dont care about
ill trooper @ Jun 10th 2006 6:38PM
Alex, yes, that _was_ correct, Microsoft bought shares to pump money into Apple (and as part of the out-of-court agreement to avoid an infringement lawsuit) but I think's it's changed:
The topic is brushed over here:
http://ask.metafilter.com/mefi/30833
And one of the posters, Mikel, linked to this:
https://us.etrade.com/e/t/invest/analysis?content=3&site=analysis&sym=AAPL&ah_flag=
Seems Microsoft isn't on the list shown there... So I'm guessing that debacle is over.
As for Apple and Nintendo? I don't see it happening, although I'm not against it. Two innovative companies, doing it their own way.
TaiZ @ Jun 10th 2006 6:39PM
If Apple bought Nintendo it would lead to overpiced Nintendo products that attrack fingerprints and break when you drop them, with no user replacable batteries. Don't forget the Pikachu themed iPod.
Jim @ Jun 10th 2006 6:40PM
I see no reason at all why Nintendo even should consider selling... they make a lot of money, are wildly successful and if everything works out will be stronger in the next-gen.
Also, Microsoft had talks about buying Nintendo several years ago... and if they didn't get it - why should any other company?
Christopher7xii @ Jun 10th 2006 6:49PM
...but I was looking forward to the iWii somewhere down the line =(
Felix Andrews @ Jun 10th 2006 7:21PM
I believe the story with Microsoft's 'attempted buyout' of Nintendo only made it as far as Microsoft's opening gambit. Nintendo basically told them to get stuffed from the get-go.
Johnny M @ Jun 10th 2006 7:24PM
I Wonder if I ask for stars will they give me some?
Dave @ Jun 10th 2006 7:29PM
I heard it was the other way around. Nintendo is looking to buy Apple.
Nintendo to Buy Apple, Release LuigiPod
http://thefunion.blogspot.com/2006/06/nintendo-to-buy-apple-release-luigipod.html
Jay @ Jun 10th 2006 7:40PM
"If Apple bought Nintendo it would lead to overpiced Nintendo products that attrack fingerprints and break when you drop them, with no user replacable batteries. Don't forget the Pikachu themed iPod."
As opposed to Microsoft making them which won't be upgraded for 6 years, which are bug ridden, with flawed security and frequent crashing? Built on an OS that EATS resources like XP and Vista?
I'd take non-replaceable batteries (which actually are replaceable for the most part, just difficult to do but hey. I have that ounce of skill required to open an iPod) over problematic systems any day. Thank you.
Gabriel Asseily @ Jun 10th 2006 7:44PM
If Apple bought Nintendo or merged with them, then I think I would rather not play games on a console again.
I can just see it now! DRM on your Wii, DS and Gameboy. White tacky plastic with a wheel to amuse the folk and call it intuitive.
I have nothing against the ipod, well done, it was a piece of kit that got people into a digital age. I do however find it overrated, annoying and itunes is definitely not on my list of favourite software.
iSuper Mario "Attack of the world standard non-proprietary stuff we do not like"
Oh, I forgot to mention! $200 dollar console launches? HAHAHAHA! Yeah right!
Jay @ Jun 10th 2006 7:57PM
Gabriel Asseily is a stupid.
$200 consoles? Even Sony could charge the same price if they release the Wii. Apple don't make much profit on their hardware - their systems generally (though I've yet to find this true) cost more because of higher quality hardware. My oldest Mac's HDD has survived being a BitTorrent drive for the past 4 years, where my Gericom's PC HDD gave up after a bit of Final Cut rendering.
I paid £950 for my PowerBook. It's a higher build quality and FASTER than the £999 windows laptop I also own, despite only being bought 2 weeks after the PowerBook. It's a slower CPU yet it runs HD video editing suites FASTER than my doubled clock-speed Pentium 4 system. Explain that.
iPod wheel intuitive? yes it is. Where them crappy Creative systems have scroll "sticks" that have 2 ends to them - the click wheel goes on. I've had 12 iPod "rivals" over the years and they are all utterly subpar compared to the iPod. thats why it's selling so well. Like the DS and everything else that's popular - it's good.
iTunes is the best music app I've used. It's not cumbersome like Windows Media Player and doesn't charge me to listen to free online radio stations. no crappy premium features. no stupid looking skins. Just what I find the easiest to use (thanks search and smart playlist functions) music software I've ever used. Winamp or Quicktime for playing single tracks, iTunes for playing my 16gb library. thank you.
Alex @ Jun 10th 2006 8:58PM
#4
apple is worth more than dell
mike @ Jun 10th 2006 9:25PM
microsoft swept in and bought 60% non-voting shares of apple, so apple is owned by microsoft
--------
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!
The company's worth about 60 billion now.. and you're referring to a 150 mil share investment..
The company hasn't grown THAT much. 60%!?!?! That's rich.
J.Goodwin @ Jun 10th 2006 9:27PM
The only thing Nintendo and Apple have in common is that Microsoft has tried and failed to buy both companies.
martinj88 @ Jun 10th 2006 9:57PM
maybe Nintendo are using an modified Mac OS on there system.....hay if Sony can have Linux and Mac why not......
nootau @ Jun 10th 2006 10:23PM
wow, talk about strange. I have been saying this in my blog for about a year or two now... lol well, not specifically buying nintendo, but actually partnering with nintendo...
http://thoughtsfortheages.blogspot.com/
basically i state that nintendo and apple will partner and jointly design the new nintendo system (i posted these things in 2004, and forgot it was actually out there till now..lol) visit, and laugh at my nintendo wii perdictions that i made even pre-DS lol
elmer @ Jun 10th 2006 10:26PM
Jay:
Apple make shit loadsa profit on hardware (in fact that's basically why they created the whole bootcamp thing).
I forget the name of the company, but there was a firm that reverse engineers hardware for cost analyses, and found that for instance a $200 nano (at the time) cost $103 dollars to manufacture (excellent margins). the Mac Mini had a $283 manufacturing cost at a retail price of $500 (again at the time).
Interestingly the same company did an analysis of the GBA Micro and found it had a $44 manufacturing cost. They also did a breakdown of Xbox 360 and as far as I remember found that it nominally cost $525 (premium version - Core version losses were higher). I say nominal because during the launch period MS burnt through a lot more money than that to eek out a few more units owing to poorer than predicted yields.
Damn, what was the name of that company? Does anyone remember? I something?
As for the merger thing, it clearly wouldn't make sense. Why go through the rigmerol of merging when a less binding partnership would work much better? No-one has to buy anyone; Apple and Nintendo could work off each other's strengths; Cross branding, compatible devices and software, combined content delivery, compare R&D notes etc. NO CARVING NECESSARY. Afterall, with two strong brands, it would be a fool who kills one for the other, and if you leave each brand intact there are better ways to work together.
Hey everybody, imagine a Mac Mini branded Wii, complete with bootcamp controlled by the Wiimote.
Alex Navarro @ Jun 10th 2006 10:29PM
I think it's only fair that I be given a free shot. Or, at least, Brian Ekberg. Or both. Yes, both.
Alex Navarro @ Jun 10th 2006 10:30PM
I think it's only fair that I be given a free shot. Or, at least, Brian Ekberg. Or both of us. Yes, both.
Markham @ Jun 10th 2006 10:56PM
Jay, your claim of "higher quality" doesn't really hold much water with my experience with Macs and PC's. I have a PC that is over a decade old, and all components are funcioning properly. In fact, almost all of the hard drives I've used have been replaced in favor of larger disc sizes, and not due to failure. The only one that failed was the one that came with my Compaq laptop, which I'm never buying from that company again. I've also seen Macs have hard drive failures.
As for the laptop comparison, it really depends on the brand of PC laptop you get. My Compaq is a peice of junk, and even though it's 2.6 ghz, my 900 mhz PC outperforms it pretty bad. Unless you're comparing it to a Toshiba laptop (they seem to be higher quality in the PC world), I'd say the Apple laptop has an unfair advantage of not sucking. :p Plus, the backlit keyboard is very cool. I've yet to see a PC laptop with one of those.
I haven't had problems with XP eating up resources, either. I use Firefox and Open Office.
Oh, and Gabe, Nintendo has used forms of DRM since the NES.
Epic @ Jun 10th 2006 10:58PM
Where there's smoke, there's fire. Maybe nobody has plans to acquire Nintendo, but the fact that it's being discussed demonstrates that the idea isn't downright preposterous. Nintendo is taking risks, and is already a marginal player in the next generation of consoles. They've even admitted that their console isn't made to compete with next-gen hardware. These kind of moves are narrowing Nintendo's focus from "video games" to "portable games" and "software IP."
They may eventually approach Sega status, abandoning hardware and developing their lucrative IP for other consoles. Or maybe they'll leverage their success in handhelds and merge with somebody like Apple for synergy.
Eric @ Jun 11th 2006 12:14AM
What's this? Joystiq...saying something positive about Nintendo? NOT saying Nintendo is teh doomed? Not lauging in Nintendo's face for their craptacular online service or their questionable naming choices? I'm amazed.
Oh yeah, and Epic...you MAY want to take a gander at Nintendo's profits. Your arguments are the same tired "Nintendo is t3h doomed" crap that Sony/MS fanboys have spewed since the N64 days.
Darth Pixel @ Jun 11th 2006 12:17AM
Talk about the pot trying to call the kettle black.
Joystiq never goes for sensationalism, right!?
FYI, profitable companies bound to become even more profitable make wonderful merger and acquisition targets.
This being said, I could see a partnership between Apple and Nintendo.
Doomstalk @ Jun 11th 2006 12:36AM
Just because Nintendo says it isn't competing directly with Sony and Microsoft doesn't mean they're accepting a marginalized status in the industry. Their strategy is simply so different from what everyone else is doing that direct comparisons don't make sense. They see an ever increasing arms race of faster and faster hardware as a dead end- it winds up costing everyone a lot more ($60 Xbox 360 games, and $500 Sony consoles) money for diminishing returns. The "true" next-gen consoles simply can't offer the jump we saw between the Saturn/PSX/N64 generation to the Xbox/PS2/GC. Furthermore, Nintendo doesn't see it as a good way to grow the market: the price is definitely prohibitive for newcomers, and a few thousand more polygons per scene isn't going to bring that many new people into the fold.
Instead Nintendo is going for cheaper games + more room for innovation. If the recent revelation of tilt-sensitivity to the Playstation 3 controller is any indication, even Sony sees at least some merit in this strategy. As Nintendo claims, they are poised to disrupt the market and, if they play their cards right, they just might have a phenomenon on their hands.
Furthermore, Nintendo has no reason to abandon their hardware manufacturing operations. When Sega bowed out of the hardware market, they were in the midst of a proverbial cash hemorrhage, whereas Nintendo has only posted a single quarterly loss in the history of the company. They aren't in the video game business to claim 1st place bragging rights- that's the realm of bickering console fanboys. They're in it to make money, and they're exceedingly good at it. So long as they're profitable, there's absolutely no reason for Nintendo to make such a radical change to their business model.
CRP Addict @ Jun 11th 2006 1:26AM
Speaking about sensationalism, Slashdot is linking to an article citing an editorialist who "trolls the Mac community with inflammatory opinions to pump his [website] stats".
http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/06/06/10/1529257.shtml
It's not the first time that CNet is posting an article citing "insider" sources.
epobirs @ Jun 11th 2006 1:35AM
There has rarely been a year since the 80s when somebody hasn't rotted out a story claiming Nintendo or Apple was a acquisition target. Only the acquisition of Apple during certain periods has remotely held any validity.
A company seeks to be acquired for a few simple reasons.
First, the company is teetering on collapse and needs an infusion of cash and stable management to keep it from complete dissolution and its assets put up for auction to settle debts. Neither company, Ninendo moreso, has ever been in that state. Apple has had some rough patches but employees never feared their paychecks would bounce. At worst, there were layoffs that were embarassing due to the then CEO's intense disdain for layoffs in a book he'd written about corporate management technique. Angry protesters carried signs noting the page number and text of that statement. Most companies the size of Apple would regard it as getting off easy if that were the worst public animosity they'd ever experienced.
Second, a company may seek acquisition to gain access to capital and other resources needed for growth. Again, this simply doesn't apply to either Nintendo or Apple. Both have far more cash and lines of credit available than they'd need for any likely project.
Both companies had periods early on when they sought the support of existing titans. The Apple founders went to HP and later Atari for backing. HP didn't see the value of the Apple I and Atari was pusuing its own ideas for a consumer oriented computer exploiting its arcade technology. The Atari 800 had many superior features to the Apple II when it finally arrived but also had some features removed at the demand of the new Atari corporate owners, Warner Comm., which caused Atari founder Nolan Bushnell to quit with a massive payoff contingent on his staying out of specific businesses for a number of years. One of those features was internal expansion slots (the 800 had RAM slots that could be applied for other purposes but the design imposed by Warner Comm. made this painful at best) of the sort that allowed the Apple II to offer things like a Z80 card for running CP/M business software.(The card was Microsoft's first hardware product, BTW.)By the time Warner Comm. had realized their mistake it was too late. Apple was taken seriously in business applications and Atari wasn't. On the down side for Apple, they remained hostile to game developers for many years, partly as a result of their need to not be looked upon as another Atari.
Nintendo approached Atari for distribution when they were first investigating the US console market but the Atari of that moment was hardly able to manage its own affairs and if such a deal had been reached would likely have been a disaster for Nintendo. The difficulty of doing it on their own was well rewarded.
The third reason is really a variant of the second reason. The company founders want to get rich sooner than later and want to avoid the hassle of an IPO. Having a big company with deep pockets come along and give them millions for their ownership positions while getting to keep their jobs is very attractive to folks who spent years struggling to reach that point.
Again, this has little application to Apple or Nintendo.
Neither company has anything to offer the other that cannot be had in a partnership that otherwise leaves them completely separate entities.
#3 C/net was hardly to first or only to make such a prediction. The major issues were those of managing the transition. Other than the difficulty of maintaining compatibility with existing MacOS software, everything had long been in favor of Apple switching to a CPU supplier who, unlike IBM or Motorola, had the motivation to compete for the desktop PC market. That came down to just Intel or AMD. As the sole customer for PC-type processors, Apple couldn't offer IBM enough business to make them match Intel and AMD level of investment and effort. IBM could keep itself busy just as easily with higher margin products and mass market products that didn't require frequent performance upgrades, notably processors for game consoles that retain the exact same performance level throughout the console's lifetime as a product. A die shrink every two or so years is leisurely compared to PC market's demand for faster chips every quarter.
#8 Can you document that? There has never been any respectable report of Microsoft ever making overtures to Nintendo. The closest that has ever been reported was a journalist asking Bill Gates if he would buy Nintendo. His answer was that he'd surely be interested if they were looking to sell but he wasn't staying home at night waiting for the phone to ring.
Even if Nintendo were looking for a buyer, it would be extremely difficult to get the Japanese regulatory agencies to approve the transaction. Nintendo would have to be verging on extinction with no suitable Japanese buyer to be found before it would be even considered.
#10
Microsoft made a public gesture of support. The $`50 million worth of non-voting shares were nowhere remotely close to a controlling interest in the company, nor was Apple in desparate need of the money. It was a public gesture of support for a platform that had generated quite a lot of revenue for Microsoft. The company that has made the most money from Apple computers, other than Apple itself, is Microsoft. Early on it was programming tools and the Z80 card that allowed the Apple II to run the OS from yet another company, Digital Research. Later, it was highly popular apps like Word and Excel for the Mac. Even at times when Apple was losing money Microsoft was making a profit on their Mac support. It isn't Microsoft's core business but it is very worthwhile.
Microsoft later sold those Apple shares for a substantial profit.
Contrary to what people think, Microsoft has alway been platform agnostic. Windows only became a serious OS effort after Apple and then IBM failed to understand the mainstream PC market. If Linux seriously offered a sufficient revenue stream and a unified platform there would be MS Office for Linux. They go where the paying customers are. The problem with Linux for MS is that in the desktop sector there is no single version to target and its adherents pride themselves on not paying for software. Not an encouraging platform for a software company. (It's very different on the server side where companies like Oracle can sell high priced packages.)
For a few years, Nintendo completely owned the US console business. The attempted competition to the NES had no counter for Nintendo's stranglehold on third party publishers. A lawsuit by Sega and settlement of same changed that forever. Nintendo has had a declining marketshare ever since.
BUT
The video game market as a whole has grown considerably. What portion Nintendo still holds is measured in the billions of dollars in the US, hundreds of billions of yen in Japan, not to mention a nice pile of poundage and Euros.
Nintendo isn't the titan it once was relative to the then market but Nintendo the video game hardware and software company is in very good shape.
Overburdened @ Jun 11th 2006 2:35AM
Why is everyone so defensive about this? I think it would be great if they merge...
daddycool @ Jun 11th 2006 3:22AM
If Apple owned Nintendo right now, the Wii would be the one being released for $600.
Apple got lucky with the iPod which will eventually play out one day. Macs will always be a niche, don't get it twisted.
If Apple bought Nintendo they would bungle the product line for about 4 years and then just suddenly cancel all of the products and the support with no remorse whatsoever.
This merger can not and should not happen.
Gabs @ Jun 11th 2006 3:31AM
To Jay,
Glad to see I caused a stir. First I am not stupid.
Ok now to the serious point. I hate to tell you this but Nintendo on their own have had a history of launching consoles at $200 a pop. Check it, its been done since the NES and Joystiq had an article about console launches ages ago.
Second, Mac make huge profits on their machines. Markham is right.
The point I am trying to get across is that unfortunately, Mac has continuously tried to defy standards in hardware.
This cannot really apply to consoles because every console uses their own proprietary systems but it is an issue for PCs.
As for your comments about Macs being superior. Not necessarily true. I am not going to get into flame wars because I have better things to do and it would just end up with silly baseless facts on both sides.
Mac took the ipod, made it into something wonderful (I personally am not a fan). I acknowledged that they were pivotal in the digital revolution.
However they are not very creative in the games industry. They would take Nintendo shove an apple on it and probably just innovate the case. Big whoop!
The ipod has actually not changed all that much. Please do not rant and rave about video because that was out on mobile phones. The whole thing that Mac did and kudos to them was to bring out the simplicity.
I am not suggesting Nintendo merge with MSoft or Sony either! I want to see all three develop their ideas.
A fusion of two large companies can be detrimental and in my case, I would not particularly like to see Apple merge with Nintendo. Now if that offends any Apple fans out there I am sorry. We are all entitled to our own points of view.
Anywho, can someone remind me why we are debating an implausibility? We should maybe come back to this post Wii launch :-)!
Gabriel Asseily @ Jun 11th 2006 3:44AM
Sorry my name for post 41 was changed. I just wanted to say that epobirs (post #38) has a great summary! Big thumbs up!
Me @ Jun 11th 2006 3:47AM
They makes a profit
Ivan_PSP @ Jun 11th 2006 4:38AM
It would be cool if Apple buys Nintendo so they can sink and another Sega...
Leeroy Jenkins @ Jun 11th 2006 6:22AM
#38. Your statement that Nintendo has lost marketshare ever since Sega was introduced into the mix is slightly inaccurate.
Nintendo did lose market share once the Sega Genesis came out, actually losing market majority. However, they also regained marketshare once the Super Nintendo was released, once again gaining market majority. They have subsequently lost marketshare with the N64 and GC, but if you include handheld consoles in the mix, Nintendo's overall marketshare has grown considerably, largely thanks to their dominance of the handheld market that has exploded since the Gameboy Advance.
As a side note, the PSP has done exceptionally well, taking significant portions of the market, although not a plurality. It has gained a higher marketshare than any handheld competitor to date, including the Game Gear (although the site I found on this was sketchy). Another thing that is of interest is that Bandai WonderSwan and WonderSwan Color actually grew to an 8% handheld marketshare in Japan, where it was released.
The reasons why I don't think Apple and Nintendo will merge:
Both companies wouldn't benefit.
Apple does have some gains to make through this acquisition. Apple has been notoriously weak in gaming support, although acquisition of Nintendo wouldn't necessarily mean better computer gaming support. People mention the PowerPC processor similarties, but Apple is switching to Intel. Perhaps more importantly is the handheld aspect of the acquisiition. Acquiring a game library that can be digitally distributed to iPods could catapult the already popular iPod into a handheld replacement. Think PSP with large hard drive and good games. iPods seem to be the bread and butter of Apple currenty, and I'm not particularly a fan. Other than the 30 GB video iPod, the other iPod version are overpriced for their size and functionality. An iPod shuffle doesn't even have a screen, but I digress.
Nintendo, does NOT have much to gain from Apple. Nintendo has consistently posted a profit, unlike Apple. If the iPod fad dies out, in favor of other MP3 players, which may or may not happen, what is Apple's future? Steve Jobs is an excellent CEO and Mac fanboys shouldn't worry. Too much... The DS lite is selling better than ever, and hype for the Wii is alarmingly large. Nintendo is about to establish their own library of digitally distributed games.
Finally lets look at the company philosphies, which I think people feel, inaccurately, are similar.
Nintendo is focused on gaming directly, nothing else. Affordable, quality gaming.
Apple seems focused on trendy expensive form-factor and sometimes very high quality products. Yes, the Apple notebooks are quality products, but they are also overpriced due to Apple's form-factor agenda. This is a far cry from the Nintendo Wii, which does not have cutting edge tech, rather is built to be affordable.
Someone mentioned earlier that Apple does not profit much on hardware. This is a key point in the 2 companies differences, since Nintendo very much plans to. Although launch consoles generally lose money, as the system ages, production is cheaper, while the cost remains relatively the same. Therefore the company eventually makes a profit. The Wii launch is expecting minimal losses, making the profit margin appear that much earlier (this is unique to the launch of the Wii). Nintendo also makes profits off of its redesigned handhelds, which use many of the same components, now cheaper, for a system that sells as well as a brand new one does. Sometimes better.
It just wouldn't make sense for Nintendo to sell their company.
Dan @ Jun 11th 2006 6:45AM
If fanboyism didn't exist this whole fiasco never would have started, and stupid posts divined from thin air about ridiculous mergers would never get written. And thus it follows that fanboys are to blame for causing these collosal wastes of time...down with fanboys, power to the unbiased gamers.
epobirs @ Jun 11th 2006 8:01AM
#45
You have the wrong era. The change in Nintendo's fortunes came during the SNES era, which is when they settled out of court with Sega over their excusivity contrats with third party publishers. The Sega Genesis barely made a scratch in the NES' marketshare. The Genesis struggled for recognition until Madden and Sonic made people pay attention.
It also helped that Nintendo couldn't meet demand for the SNES during its first Xmas. The shortage was such that entire truckloads were stolen by mobsters. This was unusual because the games by weight and volume are far more valuable theft targets than the consoles themselves. Thanks tot he SNES shortage a lot of people bought a Sega Genesis instead and saw what they'd been missing.
The lack of major third party support, except for EA and they weren't yet paying royalties on console games, was still a big problem for Sega. Only after Nintendo saw the likely outcome in court and gave in to no longer requiring third party exclusivity without compensation did Sega finally manage to get on even footing. That only lasted a few years before they started their far more severe decline but left things wide open for Sony and later Microsoft.
The GameBoy was already the dominant handheld by a large margin by this point, so things were stable there and did little to offset Nintendo's slide in console marketshare. The GBA is successful not so greatly more than its predecessors as to change the overall numbers.
If Nintendo had never had a lock on third party publishing in the US it's probable the Sega Master System and NEC TurboGrafx would have done far more business. Both had far better libraries in Japan than in the US, including superior versions of many titles only seen on the NES in the US.
John Lucas @ Jun 11th 2006 8:44AM
Nintendo won't EVER sell for the reasons posted by people ahead of my post (I especially like the way #45 Leeroy Jenkins broke it down).
But other reasons Nintendo will never sell is because of:
1) Pride
2) Control
Nintendo is a whole 'nother world as a company. They have a certain mindset & philosophy which is integral to their success. This is the same company that said 'when we leave the hardware market, we also leave the software market' or something like that. Meaning if they can't make their products then all Nintendo properties die with them. It's all Nintendo or nothing at all.
I need to study Japanese business history because I have a faint feeling that Nintendo operates out of old school business philosophies. They're not greedy ethicless pure capitalists who look for the quicker buck, the bigger buck at all costs. Shigeru Miyamoto, basically the heart of Nintendo artistically, doesn't even SEEK to get paid what he is obviously worth to that company. He's content on his modest livable salary & the knowledge that he has a platform to exercise his visions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shigeru_miyamoto
"Despite being an influential figure in video games and responsible for multi-million dollar franchises, Miyamoto is said to be very humble, insisting on being given an average income, and often rides a bicycle to work."
That doesn't happen in America at ALL. How many sports superstars stick with a team for a more modest salary passing up opportunities to trade to higher paying teams? Right. And that's not to say that's a bad thing but in Nintendo it seems to be a certain kind of loyalty to the company that's reciprocal to its staff.
When other companies get ahead in the industry they release their next systems at higher prices. When Nintendo ruled gaming with the NES they kept the SNES at the same $200 DESPITE their runaway success. As they do for EVERY system they release home-console wise. That's an example of the company mindset I was talking about. Their commitment to quality & affordability MUST show a unique company vision that wouldn't exist if they were to merge with another company or be bought out (which will also never happen).
Basically put Nintendo does things "The Nintendo Way". And all that that phrase conjures up in the imagination signifies a self-respect & honor that can only be kept if the company was to remain autonomous.
When Nintendo tried associative ventures with Sony & Phillips it turned out badly.
The whole reason the Playstation exists is because of the joint venture between Nintendo & Sony that fell through after Pres. Hiroshi Yamauchi reread the 1988 contract & subsequently dropping Sony like a sack full of cow patties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation
"In 1991, the SNES-CD was to be announced at the June CES. However, when Hiroshi Yamauchi read the original 1988 contract between Sony and Nintendo, he was furious. He deemed the contract totally unacceptable, and secretly cancelled all plans for a joint Nintendo-Sony SNES CD attachment."
Then they went to Phillips for that CD drive add-on that eventually watered down into the Phillips CD-i. Nintendo compromised & let their characters (without input from Nintendo) be used on that system to disastrous results. Who remembers the Zelda games from this system?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link:_The_Faces_of_Evil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelda:_The_Wand_of_Gamelon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelda%27s_Adventure
Link: The Faces of Evil (clips)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNpLXo55yfw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imlyVV0yYKo
Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon (clips)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mHw5g55oC4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaHlUlWHNTo
After seeing these clips is it any wonder why Nintendo will NEVER sell or merge with anyone?
Not just that but each Nintendo system is designed with the games in mind. Super Mario 64 dictated the N64 controllee design for example.
Nintendo can't do things "The Nintendo Way" by allowing outsiders to have influence on their production. Doing things "The Nintendo Way" is why Nintendo can profit comfortably ANYWHERE while the competitors flush money down the drain as "loss leaders" trying to compete. A leader in loss is a loser, plain & simple.
At best Nintendo oversees game production with other companies like Namco or Hudson Soft. That's as far as you'll ever see another company having their hooks inside Nintendo.
Until they lose the benefits of doing things "The Nintendo Way" you can forget about any mergers or sellouts to other companies. Just put it out your mind.
And honestly I would have it no other way.
John Lucas
the_game_master @ Jun 11th 2006 8:46AM
I think its the other way around
Nintendo can financially by out the fledging Apple corp.
The Mac PCs are already 6 inches under. How fitting the company to merge with Nintendo and be sold out bit by bit. Reminds me of the old Atari corp getting bought out by that JDS company that tanked.