AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple selling half a million Apple TVs per quarter but no update planned for Q3
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple selling half a million Apple TVs per quarter but no update planned for Q3 - Page 3

post #81 of 138
7/29/11 at 1:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

There's an easy way Apple can do an end run around all of AppleTV's limitations: just make it stupid cheap. Sell it at a loss if need be. $49 tops.

Then, you sell at least as many to stand alone customers, probably a good deal more. But now it's also a near impulse buy as an iPhone/iPad accessory. Instead of having to convince lots of people that it's worth it to stream their iTunes library or look at Netflix and YouTube, you're telling tens of millions of iOS device owner that they can do games and AirPlay on their TV for the price of a BestBuy HDMI cable.

I know Apple doesn't do the loss leader thing, but making AppleTV explicitly a TV dongle for iOS devices and pushing it hard that way would likely quadruple sales overnight and go a fair ways towards locking up the living room.

I disagree with this. I think $99 is already low and don't think Apple should take a loss on a product if it doesn't have to.

Now, if they do offer an SDK and App Store that will increase economy of scale and supplement profits from selling content then I can see a natural lowering of the price point, but I don't think halving it would be best. Perhaps $79 after the sales from the $99 A5, 512MB RAM, 16GB NAND, 1080p AppleTV start to taper off as I don't see a reason for the hardware to be updated at the same rate as the other iOS-based devices.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #82 of 138
7/29/11 at 1:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

There's an easy way Apple can do an end run around all of AppleTV's limitations: just make it stupid cheap. Sell it at a loss if need be. $49 tops.

Then, you sell at least as many to stand alone customers, probably a good deal more. But now it's also a near impulse buy as an iPhone/iPad accessory. Instead of having to convince lots of people that it's worth it to stream their iTunes library or look at Netflix and YouTube, you're telling tens of millions of iOS device owner that they can do games and AirPlay on their TV for the price of a BestBuy HDMI cable.

I know Apple doesn't do the loss leader thing, but making AppleTV explicitly a TV dongle for iOS devices and pushing it hard that way would likely quadruple sales overnight and go a fair ways towards locking up the living room.

$99 in consumer electronics parlance is an impulse buy. Selling it at a loss is just plain silly.
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 138
7/29/11 at 1:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

As dissatisfied consumers return purchases of rival set-top-boxes in droves, Apple's market-leading Apple TV continues to achieve moderate success, selling roughly 500,000 units per quarter as the 2011 holiday shopping season approaches.

Apply should just sell the hardware inside as an Airplay-enabling module to the TV set manufacturers. Which TV company would not want their sets to be Airplay enabled? That's a lot of hardware and way north of 500,000 units per quarter.
Reply
Reply
post #84 of 138
7/29/11 at 2:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FredAppleHead View Post

$99 in consumer electronics parlance is an impulse buy.

Maybe in the circles you travel in, but not where I live.

Quote:
Selling it at a loss is just plain silly.

Why? They're still relatively few of these things, and there are enormous consequences to being the kind of the living room. Nobody has cracked it yet, but that's because everyone is still selling "set top boxes" that duplicate features already available on mobile devices.

Making the AppleTV explicitly an iOS extender (with also features iTune and Netflix functionality) you change the equation. You're iPhone/iPad is the device, the AppleTV becomes sort of a wireless HDMI cable with built in extras. But for that to work, you have to sell it at a certain psychological tipping point.

I don't think $99, viewed as an accessory to your $499 iPad, exactly hits that point. I think $49 does. I don't think Apple will ever do this, of course, but it seems to me that taking a hit on revenues in this one instance might be viewed as akin to the whole "break even" iTunes Store philosophy-- that is a very powerful ecosystem incentive that drives sales and locking across the board.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #85 of 138
7/29/11 at 2:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I know you're not new to Apple, so I'll just take this as a joke from you.

Why not offer the A4 Apple TV at $49 and the A5 Apple TV at $100?

Cheaper model does 720p, more expensive one does 1080p and has more features, like Channels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I disagree with this. I think $99 is already low and don't think Apple should take a loss on a product if it doesn't have to.

Now, if they do offer an SDK and App Store that will increase economy of scale and supplement profits from selling content then I can see a natural lowering of the price point, but I don't think halving it would be best. Perhaps $79 after the sales from the $99 A5, 512MB RAM, 16GB NAND, 1080p AppleTV start to taper off as I don't see a reason for the hardware to be updated at the same rate as the other iOS-based devices.

See my post above. I realize this isn't Apple's style, I just think it would be a huge enhancement to the system approach that Apple is taking with iOS. The last link in the chain, as it were.

I wouldn't even mention this if AppleTV was selling in anything like the numbers of the other iOS devices, but it obviously isn't.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #86 of 138
7/29/11 at 4:58pm
Interestingly Apple TV is not even available in all major markets. Especially China, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Singapore, etc. It would most certainly be popular with current customers. When people visit my home in China and I demonstrate my US purchased ATV to them they are blown away and immediately want one.
Reply
Reply
post #87 of 138
7/29/11 at 5:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You're now arguing my point. You responded to my post to AppleStud where he suggested that an AppleTV SDK and App Store was pointless when you can mirror content via AirPlay. I disagree with him and you disagreed with me so your position can't switch to an iOS-based iDevice being used a basic remote, not as mirrored content, as that is part of the core statement.

The point is that once you have an iOS device as a remote there is no need to run the app on the AppleTV, you can run it on the remote. That is why an AppleTV SDK is pointless.
Reply
Reply
post #88 of 138
7/29/11 at 5:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

See my post above. I realize this isn't Apple's style, I just think it would be a huge enhancement to the system approach that Apple is taking with iOS. The last link in the chain, as it were.

I wouldn't even mention this if AppleTV was selling in anything like the numbers of the other iOS devices, but it obviously isn't.

I think the AppleTV's sales issue is a result of utility not of price point. If they update the OS to make it more useful it will catch on very quickly.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #89 of 138
7/29/11 at 5:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post

The point is that once you have an iOS device as a remote there is no need to run the app on the AppleTV, you can run it on the remote. That is why an AppleTV SDK is pointless.

You want to run down the battery in your iPhone to have stocks an weather constantly available on your AppleTV. Or not have the ability at all if your iPhone isn't around? That's insane! It's like releasing a tablet called the PlayBook and then telling people that you have no native email or calendar app unless you tether your Blackberry to it. That model isn't working for RiM so why do you think it would make the AppleTV sales better for not having native apps.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #90 of 138
7/29/11 at 5:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by apophis View Post

Why doesn't Apple allow the ATV to play more codecs/video formats like VLC? Currently the ATV is only good for playing over-priced content from the iTunes Store.

I find Handbrake not to be overpriced. Apple's iOS devices have hardware acceleration for h.264 but not for other codecs. The only legal place in my country to get movies is either via DVD/Bluray or iTunes or the telecos/cable companies. Ripping Bluray is not easy but that has nothing to do with codecs the AppleTV supports. And what the telecos and cable companies offer anyway only plays via proprietary hardware. So, I am not sure what other sources there are that I cannot play on the AppleTV.
Reply
Reply
post #91 of 138
7/29/11 at 5:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You want to run down the battery in your iPhone to have stocks an weather constantly available on your AppleTV. Or not have the ability at all if your iPhone isn't around? That's insane! It's like releasing a tablet called the PlayBook and then telling people that you have no native email or calendar app unless you tether your Blackberry to it. That model isn't working for RiM so why do you think it would make the AppleTV sales better for not having native apps.

No, I don't want to navigate between much more than the existing apps (iTunes, Netflix, MLB, Youtube) with a cursor-based UI, thus I would not even want to start navigating anything substantial without my iPhone at hand. And why would an almost static image, like a weather app cost much battery?

And do you realise that asking for an SDK and asking for a handful of fairly static apps (ie, with very little user interaction) are two rather different things?
Reply
Reply
post #92 of 138
7/29/11 at 5:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post

And why would an almost static image, like a weather app cost much battery?

Because it... ...

Really? You really think having this stuff on an iDevice is the right thing to do instead of just having weather up in the corner of the interface on the screen? REALLY?
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #93 of 138
7/29/11 at 5:40pm
Wow, no wonder the AppleTV is a hobby. To Apple's standards that's pretty low volume.

Three things could change the numbers for the better significantly:

1) More content - They still don't have all of the major content providers onboard.
2) The App Store on the AppleTV - It is well known that the AppleTV is an iOS device in many respects. There has to be some way to get at least the web apps to work on the AppleTV and for that matter Safari.
3) A subscription plan like Netflix for streamed content.

All of those updates would cement the AppleTV and expand it to 500,000 units a month rather than per quarter. Netflix is looking fairly weak now that they have significantly raised rates. Apple needs to go for the kill. Redbox and others certainly will if Apple won't. I know I'll be canceling my Netflix subscription come September.
Tory Hagen
Break the Wedge!
Reply
Tory Hagen
Break the Wedge!
Reply
post #94 of 138
7/29/11 at 5:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jukes View Post

I mean that the current ATV only seems to support 720p. There's almost no current content that I'd view through the ATV that is higher res, but I can already get some 1080i stuff through netflix streaming so it's on the way. It seems silly to buy an ATV without 1080p.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jukes View Post

Nope. I'm pretending that I'm not likely to buy a higher res TV any time soon.

The word is that iOS5 will allow full 1080p. We now can get that. real Racing 2HD enables full 1080p into the monitor or Tv. Supposedly, the aTv will get that ability as well. We'll have to see. But WiFi isn't good for 1080p right now. I've seen a lot of problems with it.
Reply
Reply
post #95 of 138
7/29/11 at 5:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I think the AppleTV's sales issue is a result of utility not of price point. If they update the OS to make it more useful it will catch on very quickly.

I don't disagree with that, but the problem is adding utility to an iOS device without touch input. My impression is that Apple sees this a problem as well, since they don't seem to be in any hurry to add any functionality that requires more than simple clicks and an alphanumeric onscreen keyboard to navigate.

However, asking your customers to purchase an iOS device to get full utility from their AppleTV is pretty much a nonstarter as well. By pricing AppleTV so low that it becomes a plausible accessory to iOS devices, you reverse that equation, where the upsell is to the AppleTV rather than the other way around-- not to mention you sell a lot more standalone units as well.

I know it's not a conventional solution, particularly not for Apple, but the touch problem for sofa distance device requires something nonconventional.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #96 of 138
7/29/11 at 5:43pm
Humors me how Android /iHate Apple folks always say these comparisons aren't fair cuz you can only compare if they are released the same hour of the same day in the same country(ies), etc. Yet anything that says how Android/MS beat Apple in anything those same people claim how Apple stinks and doomed and Android will kill iOS in 6 months. Can't have it both way folks.
Reply
Reply
post #97 of 138
7/29/11 at 5:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Then use the Remote app over the included remote, but to suggest that mirroring your content between both devices makes the more sense is silly. The AppleTV needs to interact in the HEC the way a HEC works, not the way the iPad works. They are different devices with different uses.

And what if you don't have an iPad or your iPad, being the mobile device that it is, is not there. Are you really suggesting that people shouldn't have access to their AppleTV apps without their $500+ remote controller? Again, Netflix and MLB seem to work pretty well as native apps.

Well then, the native apps you seem to be talking about are just a very limited subset of what apps are. When people think about apps over the aTv, they're talking about games and other things as well as Tv apps. While Tv type apps will do very well without a touch controller, as they work well with the simple controller that comes with it, most other apps require more complex touch manipulation, and need an iPhone, or iPad. In fact, most apps will.
Reply
Reply
post #98 of 138
7/29/11 at 5:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You're conflating two things. One is using an iOS-based iDevice as a remote (which isn't mirroring the content between devices) and the other is mirroring the content between devices (as seen in Racing HD).

As I pointed out RR2 Hd isn't mirroring. They present the game itself, that is the cars on the track on the monitor in 1080p, and the top view of the course on the iPad. Two different things at once.
Reply
Reply
post #99 of 138
7/29/11 at 5:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post

Hey Apple, when ya gonna add NFL? Training Camp has started -- we could be using our ATVs to watch training camp too at this point in time, which could be interesting...

They'll add it when the NFL adds it. Apple has no control over any of this.
Reply
Reply
post #100 of 138
7/29/11 at 5:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Well then, the native apps you seem to be talking about are just a very limited subset of what apps are. When people think about apps over the aTv, they're talking about games and other things as well as Tv apps. While Tv type apps will do very well without a touch controller, as they work well with the simple controller that comes with it, most other apps require more complex touch manipulation, and need an iPhone, or iPad. In fact, most apps will.

The original comment I replied to and which noirdesir disagreed with me on is about the validity of mirroring all content from your iDevice to your AppleTV. Not simply using it as a remote control or complementary output device for gaming.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #101 of 138
7/29/11 at 6:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post

1080i looks like CRAP unless it's standing still. Sports are 10X better in 720P than 1080i for this reason.


Sports can look better on 720p than 1080i, but 1080i does not look like crap. In fact, it looks pretty good.
Reply
Reply
post #102 of 138
7/29/11 at 6:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

See my post above. I realize this isn't Apple's style, I just think it would be a huge enhancement to the system approach that Apple is taking with iOS. The last link in the chain, as it were.

I wouldn't even mention this if AppleTV was selling in anything like the numbers of the other iOS devices, but it obviously isn't.

At current sales levels, that would be a loss of $100 million a year, far too much. And remember that Apple stated that sales are up 70% YOY. If that continues, then next year sales would be 3.5 million units. Now, it would be getting serious.

I don't think dropping the price would make much of a difference.
Reply
Reply
post #103 of 138
7/29/11 at 6:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

The original comment I replied to and which noirdesir disagreed with me on is about the validity of mirroring all content from your iDevice to your AppleTV. Not simply using it as a remote control or complementary output device for gaming.

But you've been talking about apps on the aTv as well. If you talk about apps, you must talk about all apps, not just a few. And the greater discussion over apps on the aTv has always been about the entire app store, not just a handful of Tv apps.

Mirroring is just a subset of all this, and not even the most important part.
Reply
Reply
post #104 of 138
7/29/11 at 6:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

At current sales levels, that would be a loss of $100 million a year, far too much. And remember that Apple stated that sales are up 70% YOY. If that continues, then next year sales would be 3.5 million units. Now, it would be getting serious.

I don't think dropping the price would make much of a difference.

If it drove rapid adoption of the "iOS living room" I think it would be money well spent.

It's not an entirely theoretical exercise, either, since whoever figures out how to get their device widely adopted as the the link between computer, mobile and TV culture will have an enormous advantage in all three venues. Doing something radical, and soon, could give Apple that position. Continuing to treat aTV as a hobby, accepting merely acceptable sales, just means someone else might get there first before Apple has a chance to build market share for such a device.

For instance, if Google figures out a better approach to GoogleTV (simplify it, get better content deals, sell it for less, get more TV vendors onboard with built in functionality) that could rapidly take off as a must-have device/feature. Suddenly the Android ecosystem is playing nice with your Samsung LCD, allowing you to do cool things. It becomes an expectation, rather than a novelty, just as Netflix seems to have become almost required in any device that connects to your TV.

At that point, if Apple hasn't already locked up a lot of buyers with Apple TV, they're facing a real problem for their iOS devices. 100 million a year doesn't seem like a lot to spend to head such a scenario off at the pass.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #105 of 138
7/29/11 at 8:36pm
Quote:
For instance, if Google figures out a better approach to GoogleTV (simplify it, get better content deals, sell it for less, get more TV vendors onboard with built in functionality) that could rapidly take off as a must-have device/feature. Suddenly the Android ecosystem is playing nice with your Samsung LCD, allowing you to do cool things. It becomes an expectation, rather than a novelty, just as Netflix seems to have become almost required in any device that connects to

I think this is unlikely. First off, google burned bridges with content providers with not only this product but also their music locker. Second, the android ecosystem is so fractured that getting seamless purchasing of content is a bumpy ride with Google. Look at Netflix. They don't run on all android devices and can depend on the drm of the video. Because android is "open" there is nothing stopping google from banning bottom of the barrel set top makers which will tarnish any brand equity of the category.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #106 of 138
7/29/11 at 11:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

As dissatisfied consumers return purchases of rival set-top-boxes in droves, Apple's market-leading Apple TV continues to achieve moderate success, selling roughly 500,000 units per quarter as the 2011 holiday shopping season approaches.

Err market leading? Microsoft and Sony both sell more Xbox's and Playstations than that. Wouldn't be surprised is BT in the UK had sold more of their internet streaming set top box's as well.
Reply
Reply
post #107 of 138
7/30/11 at 1:30am
The Apple TV is awesome, even if all you ever do is use it as a music streaming receiver. Which pretty much describes what I do with it every single day. I can't get Netflix or the sports services, and I don't have a simple way to add value to my US iTunes account, but I do watch movie trailers (a great, underrated feature) and YouTube on occasion. But honestly, the AppleTV is by far my number one music playing device.

That said, for watching (torrented) TV shows and movies, I love my Patriot Box Office. Copying .mkv videos wirelessly or via USB hard drive or USB flash drive to play is a hell of a lot easier and faster than re-encoding for iTunes.
Reply
Reply
post #108 of 138
7/30/11 at 6:19am
I'm sure a lot of you have already seen this from Daring Fireball, but ...

'The top 4 devices (Playstation 3, Xbox 360, PC and Wii) account for more than 85% of total Netflix traffic.'

This is why Apple needs to seriously consider an API for the ATV and indeed increasing it's power to be of the same order as the Wii. The ATV could be a hugely successful console, and it could successfully extend the ecosystem down-market without in any way cannibalizing iPhone or iPad.

http://daringfireball.net/linked/201...tflix-sandvine
This is important! Someone is wrong on the internet
Reply
This is important! Someone is wrong on the internet
Reply
post #109 of 138
7/30/11 at 7:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

I'm sure a lot of you have already seen this from Daring Fireball, but ...

'The top 4 devices (Playstation 3, Xbox 360, PC and Wii) account for more than 85% of total Netflix traffic.'

This is why Apple needs to seriously consider an API for the ATV and indeed increasing it's power to be of the same order as the Wii. The ATV could be a hugely successful console, and it could successfully extend the ecosystem down-market without in any way cannibalizing iPhone or iPad.

http://daringfireball.net/linked/201...tflix-sandvine

The PDF linked in that post is pretty interesting. If you combine the percentage of all iOS devices and AppleTV, you barely make a dent compared to the Wii, the console with the least Netflix streaming use. Roku is doing 3x better than Apple TV in Netflix usage.
Reply
Reply
post #110 of 138
7/30/11 at 7:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

Err market leading? Microsoft and Sony both sell more Xbox's and Playstations than that. Wouldn't be surprised is BT in the UK had sold more of their internet streaming set top box's as well.

I'm in the US and not the UK so not sure what a BT is but The Xbox, Playstation and the Wii are gaming consoles that also include streaming abilities. I wouldn't count the Apple TV in the same market as those devices at all. I would think the Roku, Popcorn Hour and Boxee box would be a more comparable market hence the term market leading (although I would think the author would disclose how well those devices are selling before definitively saying it's a market leader).

Even if Apple used the device to go into gaming, it would be more casual games like the Wii and nothing that would compete with either the Xbox or the Playstation.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #111 of 138
7/30/11 at 7:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

Even if Apple used the device to go into gaming, it would be more casual games like the Wii and nothing that would compete with either the Xbox or the Playstation.

I'd say Wii is the better target anyway, given that it's the market leading console, more than twice the installed base compared to PS3 and 35% more installed units than 360. And it fits the kind of games that are offered on iOS devices anyway, mostly casual, inexpensive, simple & quick games. AppleTV can be supported very quickly by adapting games from other iOS devices. This gives devs a quick market and some time to feel it out for more in depth games.
Reply
Reply
post #112 of 138
7/30/11 at 7:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I'd say Wii is the better target anyway, given that it's the market leading console, more than twice the installed base compared to PS3 and 35% more installed units than 360. And it fits the kind of games that are offered on iOS devices anyway, mostly casual, inexpensive, simple & quick games, so the AppleTV can be supported very quickly by adapting games from other iOS devices, give devs a quick market and some time to feel it out for more in depth games.

I definitely agree with this. There is also the Game Center to help out as well.

Just thought of something. I had originally said that I doubted there would be an SDK unless there was a hardware refresh to add additional onboard storage. I wonder if Apple could pull it off with current hardware if they incorporated icloud into the scenario. Games could be hosted by Apple and streamed to the device like the iTunes rentals.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #113 of 138
7/30/11 at 8:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

I definitely agree with this. There is also the Game Center to help out as well.

Just thought of something. I had originally said that I doubted there would be an SDK unless there was a hardware refresh to add additional onboard storage. I wonder if Apple could pull it off with current hardware if they incorporated icloud into the scenario. Games could be hosted by Apple and streamed to the device like the iTunes rentals.

I think a lot can be done with existing hardware, the current generation has the A4 chip, offers WiFi and Bluetooth connectivity, just update the software and add controllers. The A5 chip can do a lot better with a second core and about 9x better graphics, so who knows? I'd be willing to give it a shot.
Reply
Reply
post #114 of 138
7/30/11 at 10:28am
  • e1618978
  • will burn in the Fiery Pit of Hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

What do you mean by a "future proof 1080p capability"? 1080p capability is just that.

A human with 20/20 vision can see lines spaced 1 arc minute from each other, and 30 degrees of viewing angle provides a good immersive experience.

So a "future proof" TV would be able to display 3600 discrete lines horizontally - 7200 pixels across (one pixel for the line, one for the space between the lines). Something like a 3600 vertical by 7200 horizontal progressive scan at 75 Hz would be "future proof" until we develop bionic eyes - maybe 4000x8000 if you want to include the rare people with exceptional vision.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #115 of 138
7/30/11 at 10:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

A human with 20/20 vision can see lines spaced 1 arc minute from each other, and 30 degrees of viewing angle provides a good immersive experience.

So a "future proof" TV would be able to display 3600 discrete lines horizontally - 7200 pixels across (one pixel for the line, one for the space between the lines). Something like a 3600 vertical by 7200 horizontal progressive scan at 75 Hz would be "future proof" until we develop bionic eyes - maybe 4000x8000 if you want to include the rare people with exceptional vision.

Super Hi-Vision! Yay!

I've always said that we'll never need anything beyond that.
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #116 of 138
7/30/11 at 2:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

I'm in the US and not the UK so not sure what a BT is but The Xbox, Playstation and the Wii are gaming consoles that also include streaming abilities. I wouldn't count the Apple TV in the same market as those devices at all. I would think the Roku, Popcorn Hour and Boxee box would be a more comparable market hence the term market leading (although I would think the author would disclose how well those devices are selling before definitively saying it's a market leader).

Even if Apple used the device to go into gaming, it would be more casual games like the Wii and nothing that would compete with either the Xbox or the Playstation.

They are consoles but the lines are bluring between set top boxs, games consoles etc. Microsofts stats are that only 40% of Xbox use is to play games now. ATV doesn't appear to do much that Xbox doesn't so id say they are in the same market.
Reply
Reply
post #117 of 138
7/30/11 at 5:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

They are consoles but the lines are bluring between set top boxs, games consoles etc. Microsofts stats are that only 40% of Xbox use is to play games now. ATV doesn't appear to do much that Xbox doesn't so id say they are in the same market.

I disagree. When people buy game consoles, they expect to play games. Playstation (IMO) had one deviation from that where people did in fact buy it for a cheap Blu Ray player. An Apple TV is a streaming media box. Totally different markets unless you want to lump any and all living room devices as the same (TV's, receivers, gaming consoles, Blu Ray players, DVD players, etc.).
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #118 of 138
7/31/11 at 7:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

They are consoles but the lines are bluring between set top boxs, games consoles etc. Microsofts stats are that only 40% of Xbox use is to play games now. ATV doesn't appear to do much that Xbox doesn't so id say they are in the same market.

If you take someone that wants a device that does three things, you don't recommend a device that does two of them and pretend you didn't hear item #3 (or #2 or #1, depending on the user's priorities). So no, XBox doesn't magically serve the same market as the AppleTV because you choose to ignore one of a competitor's core features. Fourty percent is smaller than I'd expect, but that's still a significant portion of the use.
Reply
Reply
post #119 of 138
8/1/11 at 5:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Super Hi-Vision! Yay!

I've always said that we'll never need anything beyond that.

Until we need Super Duper Hi Retina-Vision(tm).

Actually, I've always wanted a retina-resolution display that covers my bedroom ceiling.
Reply
Reply
post #120 of 138
8/1/11 at 5:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Until we need Super Duper Hi Retina-Vision(tm).

But he said (and I agreed) that Super Hi-Vision IS, for all intents and purposes, the maximum resolution needed to be a retina display.
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple selling half a million Apple TVs per quarter but no update planned for Q3