You're mistaken. The 2013 AppleTV has special single core CPU, single GPU version of the A5 SoC. It's the thrird SoC since the first black puck version came out.
It originally was an A4 SoC, then a 32 nm A5 with one of cores fused off or they cherry picked failed A5 SoCs that were going to go in the iPod touch or iPad mini 1st gen. The 2013 AppleTV has a special 32 nm A5 that is half the size of the prior 32 nm A5.
There's no way they do that without getting rid of CPU/GPU cores, and maybe even one of the memory busses.
15% margins are low margins for Apple.
I see, but AnandTech has stated the original revision of the 3rd gen Apple TV did have one A5 core fused off and the rev 2 model has it physically removed. They also state it has both cores for the GPU, not one. It sounds like this Apple TV's A5 starts with 2 cores and then disables one as needed as noted by the wording "removes unused core" as opposed to never having a second core at all.
We originally speculated that this might be a harvested die with an ARM core or SGX 543 core disabled, and until someone X-rays the package it's hard to know for sure. At this point we also don't know anything about what clocks the A5R2 inside Apple TV 3 is running.
The old A5 package measured roughly 14mm x 13mm, while the new package is approximately 12mm x 12mm. Chipworks removed and de-lidded the new chip, determining that it’s truly a new piece of silicon with a single core ARM Cortex A9 and a dual-core GPU. The previous part was a die harvested A5 with one CPU core fused off (S5L8942), but this new chip physically removes the unused core (S5L8947). The GPU seems to be untouched. There are other changes however, resulting in a 37.8mm^2 die down from 69mm^2 in the previous A5 design.
Thanks to Chipworks’ analysis we know that both of these chips are still made on Samsung’s 32nm process, meaning that Apple’s experimenting with a new silicon revision isn’t to act as a pipe cleaner for a new process (as it was with the previous gen Apple TV) but rather to reduce cost.
The move to a smaller die directly impacts cost, as does the move away from a PoP stack and to external DRAM. It could very well be that Apple is finally selling enough Apple TVs to warrant a custom A5 of its own rather than continue to ship die harvested A5s from iPhones/iPads. The problem with relying exclusively on die harvesting is that eventually, as yields improve, you end up selling fully functional (and unnecessarily expensive) silicon into a market that’s unwilling to pay for the added performance. If you’ve got the volumes to justify it, it usually makes sense to bring out custom silicon for major price points. This is why Intel ships multiple configurations in its processor families (e.g. there are distinct dual and quad-core Ivy Bridge die in Intel’s lineup, this avoids Intel having to sell a disabled $300 quad-core chip as a $100 dual-core chip).
I agree that the iOS universe pretty much trumps everything else out there... but I don't agree that the Apple TV trumps everything out there -- it's too limiting in its scope. I mean, it doesn't even have access to Amazon Prime and I can't use things like Plex Media Server or even the Time Warner Cable app (we don't have a cable box in our bedroom, and running the straight cable to it only gives us the first 71 or so channels and only the local channels are in HD). With the TWC app, I can watch pretty much the full lineup; all in HD.
I understand what you are saying but think of how many people even know about Plex. It would be nice to have a Plex-like version of iTunes but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. My parents and inlaws get their Netflix. See pictures of the kids, and occasionally rent movies. They are satisfied customers.
Apple TV is a very basic product, in a lovely package. The A5 inside is 2 years old, it only has about 8GB of storage and, what 512BM of RAM - it's very cheap to build, no battery, no display. Apple are not losing money on it.
Roku 3 is actually cheaper but might even cost more to make given Roku's lower sales and lower buying power. If Roku can make money, Apple certainly can.
The guy is clearly an idiot.
I don't think he's an idiot. That's being a little harsh. He's just trying to keep things going as long as he can. He sees the writing on the wall.
What a douchebag CEO. Reminds me of the crap Ballmer or Blackberry would say.
I bought an ATV for my 74 y/o mom so she could stop filling her house with watched-once DVD's from Costco. She hesitated the first couple months as she is very tech-illiterate. Now, she loves renting iTunes movies and watching Netflix. Hasn't bought a DVD in ages, and the amount of gas saved driving around is great for her.
They make lots of money on the ATV outside of the USA, they charge an average of 25% premium everywhere else. So break even in the US and profit off the others.
Though he offered no evidence to prove it, the CEO of Roku said...
This is the interwebs, please leave facts and accountability for Fantasy Land.
(Most of these people think the truth only exists there anyway.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Apple TV is essentially an accessory for the iPad.
I had my AppleTV long before my iPad. I always wondered why I bought it at the time? It just sat next to the TV while I waited to find a use for it. Thank god Apple released the iPad when they did, I was about to throw the it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Google also entered the fray last year with its $35 Chromecast
My, my. People are so busy and preoccupied with pointing out Apple's "failings" they conveniently forget those of others. Apparently GoogleTV never really existed. (And if you take sales into account, it never really did.)
I know. I know. To be fair, this is Google's first hardware device.
Let have a quick analysis: When Apple sell 99$ an Apple Tv the do a benefit! this is for sure. Know let have a quick look of the use of an Apple Tv: -Streaming iPhone / iPad / iPod / Mac -Buying Tv programs -Buying on iTunes
So to resume it's an accessory which generate new revenues to Apple.
I don't know where this CEO did get his analysis, but I think he should change the person in charge of it!
When anyone makes a statement, they need to back it up with evidence. Is there any evidence either way regarding the profitability of the Apple TV? I have not seen any. The CEO of ROKU would know what their comparable costs are, especially for the Roku 3. Is he saying Roku is losing money on their device? That is likely. But Roku does not have the supply chain nor bargaining power of Apple.
Apple will likely introduce a new Apple TV this year with more functionality than the current device. Apple's pricing will be interesting to consider.
If Apple's competitors only see Apple TV as an iPad accessory they are badly informed about their competition.
The Apple TV's primary purpose for Apple is to serve as the family room portal into the vast iTunes and ICloud ecosystem. That's exactly what differentiates Apple's offering from everyone else's and that's exactly why Amazon is jumping on the bandwagon with a me-too product. The fact that the Apple TV does a bunch of other things like iOS and OSX display mirroring, streaming, and home entertainment system integration is gravy. The Apple TV provides Apple customers with another way to consume (and purchase) content. I love having all of my iTunes music and my iCloud photo streams automatically appear on my Apple TVs. This has an immense value in reinforcing my satisfaction with being in the Apple ecosystem and staying there. The device itself, the Apple TV unit is nearly invisible and basically just gets out of the way. The Apple TV is simply a facilitator and just another delightful way of connecting Apple to Apple Customers. I wish more products were so adept at delivering value without exposing their guts to customers. (Think Windows BSOD if you want to see steaming entrails of a product thrown in a customer's face.)
In any case, even if Apple was losing more than 100% of the $100 unit price I don't see where a competitor would have any reason at all to bitch about it except to relish the sounds and sights of their own self pity. This is absolutely no different than the proverbial razor/razorblade model that's been in place for 100 years or more. Sell them the razor (handle) for a loss and then make all the profit on the replacement razorblades. This sales strategy exists absolutely everywhere, even your carrier subsidized iPhones and of course Kindles and Nooks.
If you're silly enough to try to compete in a razor/razorblade market when you don't have the razorblade side of the model nailed down - well I guess you didn't think about the big picture long enough before firing up your razor handle factory. If it wasn't so blatantly foolish I would have more compassion for these competitors, but this is such a basic concept that all I can say is Sorry Dude, you blew it.
I think Apple is going to surprise everyone with their next version of ATV by including their 64bit A7 chip and a SSD thereby instantly becoming the best and most affordable DVR available anywhere.
My only beef with ATV is the lag when rewinding a Netflix or Airplay streamed video. I see no reason the ATV cannot become the PREMIER DVR in the market. Imagine being able to connect your choice of thumb drives or hard drives (or multiple drives) to the ATV while having a small internal SSD inside providing the "buffering" needed to have instant rewind and/or providing a limited (size wise) DVR capabilities (i.e. holding just a few movies) which can then be "time machined" to the back-up of your choice via a wired USB3 or Thunderbolt connection...or even via WiFi during off hours.
Seems like a no brainer to me....or am I missing something?
And while they're at it, why not release iMessage and/or FaceTime for all platforms thereby leaving FaceBook's WhatsApp purchase price look silly.
I agree that the iOS universe pretty much trumps everything else out there... but I don't agree that the Apple TV trumps everything out there -- it's too limiting in its scope. I mean, it doesn't even have access to Amazon Prime and I can't use things like Plex Media Server or even the Time Warner Cable app (we don't have a cable box in our bedroom, and running the straight cable to it only gives us the first 71 or so channels and only the local channels are in HD). With the TWC app, I can watch pretty much the full lineup; all in HD.
You probably know this already but remember that AirPlay is your friend. Assuming you have an iOS device you can throw content from the Plex app and Amazon Prime app over to your Apple TV box. Some apps may not support AirPlay but many do. Concerning Plex you might be disappointed by the artifacts when playing on a big screen. I use Air Video HD with the same content and get a much nicer big screen picture. The metadata with Plex is much better but picture quality is more important.
"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Steve Ballmer, 2007
And this is one of the reasons why he's gone.
Who cares if Apple is breaking even? The AppleTV is to consume content, which is where Apple makes their money. If they wanted to, they could cut the price to $49 and get even more marketshare.
It fascinates me that CEO's have to say things like this. All it does is make them look stupid.
"Apple TV is essentially an accessory for the iPad. They lose money, which is unusual for Apple," Roku's Anthony Wood said at the Re/code conference, according toCnet. "If you're losing money, why would you want to sell more?"
This joker is the CEO of a company and he doesn't understand the basic business concept of a loss leader? Are you kidding me? This is just more evidence to support my claim that the majority of upper-management executives are dimwits and can easily be replaced by anyone with half a brain and some common sense.
A breakdown of costs involved with the Apple TV 2 back in 2010 show it to cost apple approximately $64.00
An iSuppi summary of parts cost does not include R&D, manufacturing, shipping, packaging, marketing, customer support, software development, warranty costs, etc. The margin could be slim to none, but the parts cost certainly doesn't tell the whole story.
I'm also pretty certain Roku isn't taking 30% on all the people that sign up for Netflix and Hulu, as Apple does from AppleTV....
Also pretty certain Roku doesn't have a comparable offering to the iTunes Store, which is a cash cow.
I don't think Apple nor Roku get 30% from either Netflix, and Hulu. Apple does get a cut from TV show/movie rentals and purchases. Roku recently partnered with a company called MGo that offers rentals/purchases that I'm almost certain they get a cut from.
I like how everyone is trying so hard to make money on their set-top boxes, and Apple considers it a hobby.
It's all Roku does, and it's actually quite impressive that they are able to compete with a company like Apple. They're probably the biggest competitor Apple has.
Comments
That was my first thought too ... so the Roku is either a piece of cheap crap, or they lose more money than Apple ... which is it I wonder?
I see, but AnandTech has stated the original revision of the 3rd gen Apple TV did have one A5 core fused off and the rev 2 model has it physically removed. They also state it has both cores for the GPU, not one. It sounds like this Apple TV's A5 starts with 2 cores and then disables one as needed as noted by the wording "removes unused core" as opposed to never having a second core at all.
I understand what you are saying but think of how many people even know about Plex. It would be nice to have a Plex-like version of iTunes but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. My parents and inlaws get their Netflix. See pictures of the kids, and occasionally rent movies. They are satisfied customers.
I don't think he's an idiot. That's being a little harsh. He's just trying to keep things going as long as he can. He sees the writing on the wall.
I bought an ATV for my 74 y/o mom so she could stop filling her house with watched-once DVD's from Costco. She hesitated the first couple months as she is very tech-illiterate. Now, she loves renting iTunes movies and watching Netflix. Hasn't bought a DVD in ages, and the amount of gas saved driving around is great for her.
ATV is a gateway drug to the Apple ecosystem.
They make lots of money on the ATV outside of the USA, they charge an average of 25% premium everywhere else. So break even in the US and profit off the others.
We don't know what Apple's cut is for in app purchases on the Apple TV. The App store rules do not apply.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Though he offered no evidence to prove it, the CEO of Roku said...
This is the interwebs, please leave facts and accountability for Fantasy Land.
(Most of these people think the truth only exists there anyway.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Apple TV is essentially an accessory for the iPad.
I had my AppleTV long before my iPad. I always wondered why I bought it at the time? It just sat next to the TV while I waited to find a use for it. Thank god Apple released the iPad when they did, I was about to throw the it out.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Google also entered the fray last year with its $35 ChromecastMy, my. People are so busy and preoccupied with pointing out Apple's "failings" they conveniently forget those of others. Apparently GoogleTV never really existed. (And if you take sales into account, it never really did.)
I know. I know. To be fair, this is Google's first hardware device.
When Apple sell 99$ an Apple Tv the do a benefit! this is for sure.
Know let have a quick look of the use of an Apple Tv:
-Streaming iPhone / iPad / iPod / Mac
-Buying Tv programs
-Buying on iTunes
So to resume it's an accessory which generate new revenues to Apple.
I don't know where this CEO did get his analysis, but I think he should change the person in charge of it!
Apple will likely introduce a new Apple TV this year with more functionality than the current device. Apple's pricing will be interesting to consider.
If Apple's competitors only see Apple TV as an iPad accessory they are badly informed about their competition.
The Apple TV's primary purpose for Apple is to serve as the family room portal into the vast iTunes and ICloud ecosystem. That's exactly what differentiates Apple's offering from everyone else's and that's exactly why Amazon is jumping on the bandwagon with a me-too product. The fact that the Apple TV does a bunch of other things like iOS and OSX display mirroring, streaming, and home entertainment system integration is gravy. The Apple TV provides Apple customers with another way to consume (and purchase) content. I love having all of my iTunes music and my iCloud photo streams automatically appear on my Apple TVs. This has an immense value in reinforcing my satisfaction with being in the Apple ecosystem and staying there. The device itself, the Apple TV unit is nearly invisible and basically just gets out of the way. The Apple TV is simply a facilitator and just another delightful way of connecting Apple to Apple Customers. I wish more products were so adept at delivering value without exposing their guts to customers. (Think Windows BSOD if you want to see steaming entrails of a product thrown in a customer's face.)
In any case, even if Apple was losing more than 100% of the $100 unit price I don't see where a competitor would have any reason at all to bitch about it except to relish the sounds and sights of their own self pity. This is absolutely no different than the proverbial razor/razorblade model that's been in place for 100 years or more. Sell them the razor (handle) for a loss and then make all the profit on the replacement razorblades. This sales strategy exists absolutely everywhere, even your carrier subsidized iPhones and of course Kindles and Nooks.
If you're silly enough to try to compete in a razor/razorblade market when you don't have the razorblade side of the model nailed down - well I guess you didn't think about the big picture long enough before firing up your razor handle factory. If it wasn't so blatantly foolish I would have more compassion for these competitors, but this is such a basic concept that all I can say is Sorry Dude, you blew it.
I think Apple is going to surprise everyone with their next version of ATV by including their 64bit A7 chip and a SSD thereby instantly becoming the best and most affordable DVR available anywhere.
My only beef with ATV is the lag when rewinding a Netflix or Airplay streamed video. I see no reason the ATV cannot become the PREMIER DVR in the market. Imagine being able to connect your choice of thumb drives or hard drives (or multiple drives) to the ATV while having a small internal SSD inside providing the "buffering" needed to have instant rewind and/or providing a limited (size wise) DVR capabilities (i.e. holding just a few movies) which can then be "time machined" to the back-up of your choice via a wired USB3 or Thunderbolt connection...or even via WiFi during off hours.
Seems like a no brainer to me....or am I missing something?
And while they're at it, why not release iMessage and/or FaceTime for all platforms thereby leaving FaceBook's WhatsApp purchase price look silly.
Others
I agree that the iOS universe pretty much trumps everything else out there... but I don't agree that the Apple TV trumps everything out there -- it's too limiting in its scope. I mean, it doesn't even have access to Amazon Prime and I can't use things like Plex Media Server or even the Time Warner Cable app (we don't have a cable box in our bedroom, and running the straight cable to it only gives us the first 71 or so channels and only the local channels are in HD). With the TWC app, I can watch pretty much the full lineup; all in HD.
You probably know this already but remember that AirPlay is your friend. Assuming you have an iOS device you can throw content from the Plex app and Amazon Prime app over to your Apple TV box. Some apps may not support AirPlay but many do. Concerning Plex you might be disappointed by the artifacts when playing on a big screen. I use Air Video HD with the same content and get a much nicer big screen picture. The metadata with Plex is much better but picture quality is more important.
And this is one of the reasons why he's gone.
Who cares if Apple is breaking even? The AppleTV is to consume content, which is where Apple makes their money. If they wanted to, they could cut the price to $49 and get even more marketshare.
It fascinates me that CEO's have to say things like this. All it does is make them look stupid.
Even if it were true (it isn't)- all it proves is the Apple TV is a tremendous value.
So uhh... What's the angle?
"Apple TV is essentially an accessory for the iPad. They lose money, which is unusual for Apple," Roku's Anthony Wood said at the Re/code conference, according to Cnet. "If you're losing money, why would you want to sell more?"
This joker is the CEO of a company and he doesn't understand the basic business concept of a loss leader? Are you kidding me? This is just more evidence to support my claim that the majority of upper-management executives are dimwits and can easily be replaced by anyone with half a brain and some common sense.
A breakdown of costs involved with the Apple TV 2 back in 2010 show it to cost apple approximately $64.00
An iSuppi summary of parts cost does not include R&D, manufacturing, shipping, packaging, marketing, customer support, software development, warranty costs, etc. The margin could be slim to none, but the parts cost certainly doesn't tell the whole story.
I don't think Apple nor Roku get 30% from either Netflix, and Hulu. Apple does get a cut from TV show/movie rentals and purchases. Roku recently partnered with a company called MGo that offers rentals/purchases that I'm almost certain they get a cut from.
It's all Roku does, and it's actually quite impressive that they are able to compete with a company like Apple. They're probably the biggest competitor Apple has.