What's missing is any explanation of why the author considers the precursor question of "Why would Apple even think of buying Nintendo?" What prompted the article in the first place? 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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. :)
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.
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?
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.
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.