[eng2prog]

I see Apple following the path of Nintendo. They don't need to compete on performance, their users aren't buying for performance. Vertical integration puts you at tremendous risk of falling behind.

The future is keeping Apple "fresh", "cool", etc... While keeping product costs low to compensate for a falling market share.

Really says something that Apple is willing to compromise on long term hardware performance.

[jitl]

How are they following the Nintendo path? These machines are clearly faster than the market segment, and apple is the leader in ARM CPU technology at this point, and they’ve been the mobile CPU leader for about 7 years, whereas Nintendo’s latest offering integrated mostly commodity technology from Nvidia Tegra. I don’t see how you can draw this parallel.

[zepto]

Can you explain how they are ‘compromising on long term performance’?

I don’t see any logic that supports this claim.

[ascagnel_]

Nintendo has, since the Wii, shied away from bleeding-edge or custom components, preferring to use cheaper, proven tech that they can more easily maintain but is still strong enough for their needs. Just look at the Switch -- it uses the Tegra X1 in a device that launched in March of 2017, despite the X2 having been available for more than a year.

Apple, on the other hand, has been running rings around Qualcomm and other ARM vendors for a while now, and sharing tech makes it all the more important that they continue to be competitive.

[danbolt]

I think only really the SNES/N64 years embodied the cutting-edge solutions associated with novel games. Their whole ethos to entertainment (especially the handheld line becoming the core product in a way) still feels embodied in Yokoi's "lateral thinking with seasoned technology" philosophy.