I've always been an iPhone owner since the 3G, but only because I'm a web design consultant for my father-in-law's company.  My wife and I are on the company plan and we get the previous generation iPhone for free when the new generation is released.  That being said, there is nothing that directly links my enjoyment of games or apps to Apple specifically.  I even sold my iPad (which I won in a contest nonetheless) because it gathered dust for 6 months.  In this house, if it sits for 6 months and isn't a future intellectual gain then it's gone.  At least that's how I've justified keeping so much of Warhammer 40K army around.

So I'm seriously considering going Windows with this new generation of phones and tablets.  I admit, the inclusion of Cortana as my new Siri is such a devious marketing ploy that I can't help but want.  I don't even plan on purchasing Xbox One until Halo 5 has a release date.  I have a 360 but I also have a Wii U and 3DS, and two PS3s and a Vita.  I'm more of Sony fanboy than anything, except that Microsoft always manages that one killer app that changes the landscape.  One item on its own doesn't justify a change of allegiance, but I think allegiances are becomeing null and void.

However, when it comes to tablets, if I can run Sony and Microsoft second-screen apps for my console games on a Windows tablet then what is the benefit of Apple?  I'll gladly buck the tradition and insist that my next phone is Windows or just go off on my own.  I know that the most recent Halo and CoD apps were on Apple, but I'm looking for a unified second-screen experience to supplement my console experience.

I own a top-of-the-line MacBook Pro but I also partitioned my harddrive in half for BootCamp and Windows 7.  I use both in equal measure - iOS for my work, school, and professional life, and Windows for my gaming/Steam/personal life.

I'm looking for sincere replies and thoughts weighing the positives and negatives.  I'm not coming from a die-hard fanboy perspective and I respect and enjoy every platform available for completely different reasons.  Any thoughts?

Believe it or not, I have no real opinion on either side of the debate.  I tend to take a neutral stance on most things regarding console wars because I tend to eventually own every console.  I've kept up with most of my best friends since I was young and we've spread out all over the world but games keep us in touch and together even with weddings and kids and the like.  Income is always a big worry so we generally agree on one console we'll play together and once a game comes along for another system that we all absolutely have to play we gradually adopt that as well.  

This generation Xbox had horrible hardware issues which were nearly universal and most of us are on at least our third or fourth Xbox because of the infamous RROD.  Sony has had numerous issues with their updates and online features and have also had hardware issues but none so pervasive as the near-universal and singular hardware killer that the Xbox suffered.

As gamers, we have to take into consideration the fact that consoles as early as Super Nintendo and Sega Genesis actually had online features, they were incredibly expensive and impractical and had almost no user base.  The Dreamcast really invented what we consider modern online play, as rudimentary as it may have been. Even though the PS2 and Xbox had stronger, yet still limited online multiplayer services, this is the first generation in which online functionality has been incorporated into the baseline architecture of the consoles of the Big 3.  

Xbox 360, PS3, and Wii all eventually had simplified versions of near-PC internet functionality and over time as these services have improved the gaming community has taken them for granted.  I remember waiting for my Dreamcast to make a dial-up connection so that I could play Phantasy Star online.  I remember my dad paying a huge telephone bill and then paying monthly fees to ISPs such as AOL or Juno - the gatekeepers of the interwebs - in much the same way that we now pay for broadband - and then an extra yearly fee to Sony or Microsoft for full online benefits.  Consoles have become what PCs were almost 20 years ago.

We used to pay $10-$20 a month to AOL for internet access and we now pay $50-$60 a year for similar (but drastically improved) services comparable to the early days of widespread internet access.  Just like those early ISPs, we end up paying for whichever service best meets our needs.  Xbox Live has an almost universal appeal to gamers who play online a great day, much the same way that AOL had a very rich and user-friendly service that could recognize and adjust its suggestions to our needs.  Sony is much more raw, like Juno or several of the other small providers.  The multiplayer features may not be as robust but the service is cheaper and provides ancillary benefits such as the monthly free games offers.

I predict that this generation will close the gap between the two services because Microsoft and Sony have learned not only from their own successes and failures, but those of the other brands as well.  Whether we choose one console or both, I imagine that we will find comparable experiences and a vast number of options that fit the styles of every player.