Amazon's anticipated Apple TV competitor not expected to launch until 2014
Amazon is still said to be working on a competitor to the Apple TV with its own set-top box, but such a device isn't expected to be out before Christmas, with the retailer reportedly eyeing a spring 2014 launch for the rumored device.
Though Amazon was originally thought to have been preparing the device to launch this year ahead of Christmas, it has seen internal delays at the company, according to AllThingsD. It's now expected to launch in the first half of next year.
Reporter Peter Kafka said he heard a few "theories" about why the device won't be coming out this year, including allegations that Amazon isn't happy with its performance, and that management at the company is "underwhelmed" with the product's ability to stand out from current options.
Word of the rumored device, said to be code-named "Cinnamon," first leaked earlier this month. It's said that the set-top box has been in development since at least April of this year.
Amazon's device is rumored to do the typical tasks, such as streaming movies, TV shows and music. But in addition, it was said that the Seattle-based company is in negotiations with cable companies and other content providers to build apps for the device.
Details on Amazon's apparent interest in the living room come as Apple is rumored to be cooking up its own hardware refresh for the Apple TV. The last time Apple updated its living room hardware was in March 2012, though a number of subsequent software updates have added new features and channels.
Though Amazon was originally thought to have been preparing the device to launch this year ahead of Christmas, it has seen internal delays at the company, according to AllThingsD. It's now expected to launch in the first half of next year.
Reporter Peter Kafka said he heard a few "theories" about why the device won't be coming out this year, including allegations that Amazon isn't happy with its performance, and that management at the company is "underwhelmed" with the product's ability to stand out from current options.
Word of the rumored device, said to be code-named "Cinnamon," first leaked earlier this month. It's said that the set-top box has been in development since at least April of this year.
Amazon's device is rumored to do the typical tasks, such as streaming movies, TV shows and music. But in addition, it was said that the Seattle-based company is in negotiations with cable companies and other content providers to build apps for the device.
Details on Amazon's apparent interest in the living room come as Apple is rumored to be cooking up its own hardware refresh for the Apple TV. The last time Apple updated its living room hardware was in March 2012, though a number of subsequent software updates have added new features and channels.
Comments
Opinion: Apple's next Apple TV should be years ahead of anyone else in order to stymie any chances from competitors. Personally, I would like to see a la carte offering of cable channels. I would LOVE to dump my cable subscription and only pay for the shows I want to watch.
Apple will never allow a direct competitor against it's rental/buy system.
I wish the networks would allow this and I would then drop in a flash.
Or, you know, every other conceivable service available on Apple TV. Make Amazon Prime irrelevant.
The more I think about it the more I believe they were waiting on the 64 bit ARM before releasing a complete AppleTV solution.
Amazon has to compete against Apple, Netflix and Hulu, so whatever they do they has to be better then all them. Amazon does not rent DVD, but sells them, they stream like Netflix and Apple and Hulu, however, Apple allow Netflix and hulu so what can Amazon offer this bets the combination.
Also, it still rumor that Apple is working a deal with Time Warner to stream cable content to apple installed based which is great idea for Time Warner since it extend their reach to customer which they have no access today
It depends on your needs, but Apple/iTunes already provides this survive. Purchasing seasons.
I agree but don't think you'll be paying less. My bet is that by the time we're all paying only for the programming we want most of us will be paying at least as much as today for the privilege.
I agree and most likely you will pay more. Today with Cable you pay for lots of garbage programming and there is nothing you can do about it.
Back in the day one place I lived they have two cables coming into your home, Cable A all the main networks and such, Cable B was mostly all the foreign language channels and you had an A/B switch to move between the two if your TV did not support two inputs. I use to call the Cable operator up from time to time and request they remove Cable B from my house and charge me 1/2 since more than half the channels I was paying for was actually on Cable B. I thought it was fair exchange, they did not and would not do it.
But today, part of the reason that Apple has made headway with all the content providers is the fact that have shown that consumers will pay more for a season of a show if they can download and watch how they like verses being subject to cable operators. Considering all the shows I watch on TV and if I have to purchase them separately it would cost more than the monthly fees. The other part of the money equation is the fact Cable and Broadcast operators make most of all the advertising $, they do not share any of this with the content providers. The NFL is the only one which does it own agreements with Advertisers so they make most of the money from ads when games are shown.
So if you want shows without ads you going to pay more since Cable operators spread the content costs over a larger group of people place they make fortune off advertising.
It depends on your needs, but Apple/iTunes already provides this survive. Purchasing seasons.
Ha that is for TV shows, which I don't watch. I want UFC fights, Discover, Nat Geo, Cooking, FNC, etc.
I agree but don't think you'll be paying less. My bet is that by the time we're all paying only for the programming we want most of us will be paying at least as much as today for the privilege.
I guess it does depend on what you want. My needs are quite limited to perhaps 10 stations max (FNC, FoxSports1/2, PPV, Nat Geo, Discover, DIY, HGTV, Out)
Or, you know, every other conceivable service available on Apple TV. Make Amazon Prime irrelevant.
Most people get Amazon prime for the overnight shipping even without the streaming service, so it won't ever be irrelevant.
What on Earth does that have to do with anything we’re discussing?!
It's on the iPad/iPhone/iPod.
It's actually 2 day shipping.
I always forget that you get that as part of Amazon Prime, as well as some other features. I only purchased it for the 2-day shipping after finding that my normal deliveries, which used to only take about 2 days from order to door due to my proximity to an Amazon hub, were taking longer and longer just to prepare for shipment.
I was able to get a discount by ordering it though my student discount, which was doubly nice because they prorated me a refund for having already purchased it at a regular rate.
The more I think about it the more I believe they were waiting on the 64 bit ARM before releasing a complete AppleTV solution.
I think you're right. Living room devices aren't updated very often. They're just appliances like any other. So if and when Apple rolls out a more full-featured Apple TV set-top, it would be 64-bit from day 1. Apple could target just the 64-bit devices with updates and new features going forward, and the legacy 32-bit devices would still run but wouldn't ever get the new features.
But I have no idea what Apple would do with all that 64-bit bandwidth and processing power. 4K video? Maybe, but there's just so little actual 4K content available. And few actual 4K monitors. I suppose Apple could future-proof the Apple TV 4K video capability, but there's no need for it yet.
Gaming? Maybe, but does Apple really want to go to all the trouble to make the Apple TV a better gaming machine? It's not just a matter of adding wireless controllers. It might even be necessary to create a separate Apple TV App Store, because it's possible that the interaction model would be totally different than for iPhone & iPad apps. Playing games by mashing buttons on a hardware controller would require a totally different UI programming framework than multi-touching directly on a screen. Also, if Apple made it possible to create 3-way Universal Apple TV / iPhone / iPad apps, it might be a huge pain for developers. The screen geometries of the three devices will all be different (1136x640 iPhone, 2048x1536 iPad Retina, 1920x1080 HDTV.) And they'd probably require totally different storyboards in Xcode because of the radically different interaction models.
On the other hand, let's think freely about screen sizes, geometries, etc. There are already rumors of a "big screen" iPhone next year. And it might have 1920x1080 resolution just like HDTV. After all, the screen aspect ratio of the iPhone already matches the 16:9 aspect ratio of HDTV, just at a lower pixel count. It's possible that there will only be two iOS screen geometries to deal with in the future: 1920x1080 (16:9) and 2048x1536 (4:3). I'd say it's possible that Apple could be heading in that direction.
But does it make sense to allow just any developer to write apps that run universally on iPhone and Apple TV? Rovio could make millions more by milking Angry Birds for another few years. But does it make sense to run the Yahoo Weather app and iPhoto and Yelp app on Apple TV? It would end up like Google TV: combining the worst of both the TV and personal computing worlds. Awkward long-range on-screen input and navigation while you're hogging the communal living room TV to check your tweets or surf the web. This is a scenario that nobody likes. Apple (and Google) already know that.
No, I think Apple will expand what they're doing now. Invite a select group of high-profile incumbents to write apps for Apple TV, or develop the apps for them. And the apps would be customized and beautiful and show off ABC's and NBC Sports Network's and The Disney Channel's catalog of contents and live streams. And they'd all work with the iTunes Store, so you could either 1. buy TV shows or movies ad hoc like now, or 2. pay monthly for the exact channel lineup you want, not the craptacular bundle the cable and satellite TV providers think they can get away with. Monthly payment for subscriptions is already a done deal in Newsstand. A similar technique could be applied to renewing TV subscriptions.
Anyway, all of this new stuff probably won't get rolled out until there's a 64-bit Apple TV. That would eliminate one more development variable. All 64-bit all the time in iOS land-of-the-future.
The Apple TV’s future hinges on cutting its content’s ties to existing cable/satellite providers. The day I can use even just the content already on Apple TV without overpaying some archaic system for the privilege of never using its services is the day the Apple TV stops being a hobby.