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.
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.
$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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
$99 in consumer electronics parlance is an impulse buy.
Maybe in the circles you travel in, but not where I live.
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.
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?.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.