The problem I see with Google's Chromecast is it's lack of a Remote!! Being forced to use a App to control it? No thanks!!! I have 2 ROKU 2 XS boxes, 3 Apple TV 3's, besides a bunch of game consoles that can also stream content, I just got the Amazon Fire Stick which has been on back order for the low price of $19. It does come with a remote. It works pretty good and it's surprising snappy. The PLEX App on it though just doesn't seem to be all that great. Trying to stream some stuff on it, failed, where it works just fine on the ROKU for example. I just got it to screw around with.
Airplay works good if you want say PLEX on AppleTV or Amazon Prime on your AppleTV. You can Airplay to it. PLEX is like my own personal Netflix service. All my content I can watch anywhere in the world with a Internet connection. I ca go to my brothers house and throw up a Movie from my NAS Box using PLEX and Airplay to his AppleTV. It works great.
Apple hasn't done much of anything with AppleTV for a few years now other then software updates, which most of it I can't use being a Cable Cutter!!! AppleTV is getting OLD and yet the price is still the same!! It really should only cost $50 at this point. you want the $99 price point, it needs to be worth it. Update the freeken thing!!!
I agree with the sentiment of many here. Apple has truly ignored this market for far too long. I'm a die-hard Apple user. At home we have an AppleTV2 and a Roku3 in the living room. We have no cable/satellite TV, it's all streaming. The Roku is used almost constantly. The only thing I ever use the AppleTV for is if I want to mirror something from my iPad or laptop. Otherwise, I much prefer the Roku.
It's fast, the interface is even more intuitive than the AppleTV, and the available content is enormous. I don't feel "locked in" to the Apple ecosystem as there's an app/channel called Plex that will pull all my movies, etc., from another computer in the house just like the AppleTV.
Apple really has had zero innovation in this market. For years. It's probably already too late, sadly, unless Tim Cook really can wrestle content providers into a la carte pricing entirely separate from a cable/satellite subscription.
The problem I see with Google's Chromecast is it's lack of a Remote!! Being forced to use a App to control it? No thanks!!!
I see that as one of its charms. It makes it cheaper, and from what I gather people like it because it allows their Android-based devices to offer an AirPlay-like experience, which is obviously done from CE device.
But to your point, it's definitely not an Apple TV replacement. Ruck and Amazon Fire TV could be, but Chromecast and Amazon Fire TV Stick aren't, with or without a remote.
Why most AppleTVs purchased in the UK are never used:
No BBC iPlayer
No ITV Player
No 4OD
No Demand 5
Pretty much ALL of the competitive products support some or all of these, but Apple seemingly don't care at all about streaming TV in the UK, which has always historically been one of their strongest markets (after the USA).
Usage of streaming/catchup TV in the UK is booming (10% of all TV viewing, 50% of households) but Apple do not participate. In what way does that make the AppleTV a credible product? Even as a hobby it is just a big failure.
I know that Apple always want to be late-ish to the party, but this is just pathetic. They will turn up after the party has finished at this rate.
Now that HBO, Showtime and CBS have announced that next year you will be able to subscribe without a cable subscription, the clock has started. The device that offers those choices first and the many that will follow is going to win the race. After content I think it will come down to hardware. What more can you put into a device the size of an Apple TV that you cannot put into a Chromecast size device. Maybe nothing, in which case it will be interesting to watch.
The Roku device was originally developed by Netflix, and was going to be branded as such. The CEO then decided it was best that the device be not so closely linked to Netflix to ensure that other streaming services would get on board, so they spun off the company.
I think it's pretty clear from Apple's track record and M.O. that the reason AppleTV isn't being updated very often is that they are waiting to splash into the market with a true "Apple TV."
It's been reported before that Jobs had figured this out before he passed. As he knew then, the problem is that it would take years to line up the content deals and remake the cable/sat business model to work with the product. Apple can design an amazing product quickly and sell the you-know-what out of it. Remaking the entire content-delivery model (or at least waiting for it to change) is something else entirely.
Really, I view the current Apple TV as a developmental/stop-gap product. It seems to me that Apple has been using it to build their content delivery infrastructure in preparation to release a product that will compete with and eventually beat the cable and satellite model. To do this, they need an integrated product with a new content system. More than likely, they have been negotiating with providers for years. When they finally release the true "Apple TV," I'd expect this:
--Integrated display, blu-ray unit
--4K displays of varying sizes of 32-70 inches
--High speed internet connection only...no separate TV package required
--Content deals with many major channels, including premium channels
--Netflix and other streaming services
--According to Jobs, a super-simple and intuitive interface
--Total integration with iOS and Mac OS
I think the key is the content system. We'll see what happens...
I doubt that's the case. I think it comes down to Apple's typical MO: releasing only when everything is properly aligned.
I'm glad Apple isn't updating for the sake of it.
Apple Pay is a good example of Apple's approach. It's analogous to tech people whining for years about the iPhone's lack of NFC, only to be delighted when Apple Pay launches and just works with existing NFC terminals, out of the box. There's more to ApplePay than an NFC chip.
Then there are the spec-chasers who view AppleTV (and all hardware for that matter) as nothing more than the sum of their parts, so they whine about AppleTV still using the "stale" A5 chip.
8. A blu-ray drive... What the hell. Even start selling bluray discs right from the device... I would order them. Ship them to us from the online store...
9. I wont buy any good movies on appleTV, quality is insufficient and especially surround sound options are NOT state of the art. Bluray sounds And looks much better.
How about this: license the apple TV hardware so that it can be placed inside my oppo bluray player...
Put appleTV inside of a mac mini perhaps.
Basically I want convergence... And I want it yesterday!
none of that bluray nonsense is happening. apple doesnt do bluray hardware.
The Roku device was originally developed by Netflix, and was going to be branded as such. The CEO then decided it was best that the device be not so closely linked to Netflix to ensure that other streaming services would get on board, so they spun off the company.
from what i recall Reed's sentiment was he didnt want netflix to be constrained to a set-top box and trying to sell them -- he wanted a "netflix everywhere" strategy so freed up the roku team to concentrate on that while netflix worked on getting into all kinds of other hardware.
Seems like Apple is putting Apple TV on hold like the ipod.
no it doesnt. they continue to produce and sell ATVs, while theyve stated they are no longer getting the parts for the ipod classic and wont be selling them.
from what i recall Reed's sentiment was he didnt want netflix to be constrained to a set-top box and trying to sell them -- he wanted a "netflix everywhere" strategy so freed up the roku team to concentrate on that while netflix worked on getting into all kinds of other hardware.
It was a two fold strategy, they got other services to get on board the Roku, and they weren't blocked from other devices. Smart move, and I'm also impressed at how much market share they've gotten with little to no advertising.
The Roku device was originally developed by Netflix, and was going to be branded as such. The CEO then decided it was best that the device be not so closely linked to Netflix to ensure that other streaming services would get on board, so they spun off the company.
from what i recall Reed's sentiment was he didnt want netflix to be constrained to a set-top box and trying to sell them -- he wanted a "netflix everywhere" strategy so freed up the roku team to concentrate on that while netflix worked on getting into all kinds of other hardware.
that sounds interesting.. where did you guys dig up this info about Roku being developed by Netflix? Are these statement about Roku being a business spin off from Netflix, something to back up ? Or are we digging these out of a dark place? As far a I know Roku was started by the team that sold off ReplayTV. Founded by the same guy that started ReplayTV.
Original Netflix playback was on Windows only using Silverlight; priority 1 go to market strategy.. NOT set top boxes. A few months later they added Mac OS X. In parallel they were also also developing Netflix playback capabilities on top of Linux for the embedded market. In order to restrict and protect content under Linux, they partnered with various embedded HW player partners instead of releasing x86 Linux support into the wild. Roku was the first Embedded Linux Set Top Box (N1000) to add in support for the Netflix code. LG was the first embedded Linux Blu-ray player (3 month after Roku) to support the Netflix playback code.
btw, the next generation of Roku player after the N1000, supported Netflix's competitors. Hulu and Amazon. So what you are saying about Roku being a business spin off from Netflix, does not make any sense.
However, I am open to learning where you both got your information. If its legit, please post it.
ah.. I think I found the relationship and confusion here. The founder of Roku briefly took a VP position at Netflix for a 10 month period to help them get into embedded devices after Netflix rolled out playback on PCs and Macs via Silverlight. However, its important to point out the he remained as chairman of the board at Roku when he took the VP roll at Netflix and then 10 month later returned back as CEO. so I think we can read between the lines as to what the opportunity and agreement was with Netflix.
Roku was NOT a spin off from Netflix. A Roku embedded Linxu based network streaming player already existed before he took the job at Netflix. The goal for Netflix was to hire him to was create generally usable embedded Linux based playback functionality to run on different kinds of embedded linux devices driving TVs. Like the existing Roku HD1000, Blu-ray players and smart-TVs. The next gen Roku after the HD1000, the "N"1000 (also MIPS architecture), used this Netflix developed embedded Linux playback code developed by Roku founder while at Netflix (as VP). As did the LG blu-ray player (3 month later).
There's no money in a TV streamer so whats the point?
To be in the game and keep them relevant.
Terrestrial broadcast TV in the UK is excellent and if you do not support it then people will not use the product - they will use something else. Sky are one example of a smart organisation that totally gets this - they make a fortune out of people subscribing to their services but you can get all of the free broadcast services via their satellite service. Their set-top box even supports ALL of the catchup/streaming services.
I can only imagine that people who don't get this model are totally parochial in their outlook - I do understand that in the USA "free" TV is almost unwatchable because of all the ad breaks and so on, so people may be looking for a total alternative, but this does not apply in the UK or many other countries.
Come on, broaden your outlook! All of the other boxes support the UK internet-delivered services - are they just STUPID, or maybe do they understand that if they want people to use their boxes they need to make them attractive.
You can't just say "there's no money in it, so what's the point". That is the total opposite of being customer-focused, and customer-focus is the one thing that has kept Apple alive through the years. Abandon that and they are at the start of a long slippery slope...
ah.. I think I found the relationship and confusion here. The founder of Roku briefly took a VP position at Netflix for a 10 month period to help them get into embedded devices after Netflix rolled out playback on PCs and Macs via Silverlight. However, its important to point out the he remained as chairman of the board at Roku when he took the VP roll at Netflix and then 10 month later returned back as CEO. so I think we can read between the lines as to what the opportunity and agreement was with Netflix.
Roku was NOT a spin off from Netflix. A Roku embedded Linxu based network streaming player already existed before he took the job at Netflix. The goal for Netflix was to hire him to was create generally usable embedded Linux based playback functionality to run on different kinds of embedded linux devices driving TVs. Like the existing Roku HD1000, Blu-ray players and smart-TVs. The next gen Roku after the HD1000, the "N"1000 (also MIPS architecture), used this Netflix developed embedded Linux playback code developed by Roku founder while at Netflix (as VP). As did the LG blu-ray player (3 month later).
I've been a Netflix customer for a long time, and was excited when I heard that they were developing a streaming box, because it would mean no waiting for DVDs to arrive, so I followed the story closely. They hired the CEO of Roku, but initially weren't going to use that name. I don't remember where I read it, and how it was decided is unknown, but the CEO of Netflix decided it was best if they weren't so closely associated to the box. Allowing competitors on your device sounds like a bad idea, but it would lead to increased sales, and increased subscriptions of their own service. So the current box is the birth child of Netflix, but nurtured and raised by Roku.
Apple TV needs to become more Android friendly. there are more Android phone users than Iphones and making a utility that gives the funcitionality of Remote Control to Android phones would go far to bringing the device to new markets.
That said, Remote Control itself really needs an update.
Comments
The problem I see with Google's Chromecast is it's lack of a Remote!! Being forced to use a App to control it? No thanks!!! I have 2 ROKU 2 XS boxes, 3 Apple TV 3's, besides a bunch of game consoles that can also stream content, I just got the Amazon Fire Stick which has been on back order for the low price of $19. It does come with a remote. It works pretty good and it's surprising snappy. The PLEX App on it though just doesn't seem to be all that great. Trying to stream some stuff on it, failed, where it works just fine on the ROKU for example. I just got it to screw around with.
Airplay works good if you want say PLEX on AppleTV or Amazon Prime on your AppleTV. You can Airplay to it. PLEX is like my own personal Netflix service. All my content I can watch anywhere in the world with a Internet connection. I ca go to my brothers house and throw up a Movie from my NAS Box using PLEX and Airplay to his AppleTV. It works great.
Apple hasn't done much of anything with AppleTV for a few years now other then software updates, which most of it I can't use being a Cable Cutter!!! AppleTV is getting OLD and yet the price is still the same!! It really should only cost $50 at this point. you want the $99 price point, it needs to be worth it. Update the freeken thing!!!
It's fast, the interface is even more intuitive than the AppleTV, and the available content is enormous. I don't feel "locked in" to the Apple ecosystem as there's an app/channel called Plex that will pull all my movies, etc., from another computer in the house just like the AppleTV.
Apple really has had zero innovation in this market. For years. It's probably already too late, sadly, unless Tim Cook really can wrestle content providers into a la carte pricing entirely separate from a cable/satellite subscription.
I see that as one of its charms. It makes it cheaper, and from what I gather people like it because it allows their Android-based devices to offer an AirPlay-like experience, which is obviously done from CE device.
But to your point, it's definitely not an Apple TV replacement. Ruck and Amazon Fire TV could be, but Chromecast and Amazon Fire TV Stick aren't, with or without a remote.
Why most AppleTVs purchased in the UK are never used:
No BBC iPlayer
No ITV Player
No 4OD
No Demand 5
Pretty much ALL of the competitive products support some or all of these, but Apple seemingly don't care at all about streaming TV in the UK, which has always historically been one of their strongest markets (after the USA).
Usage of streaming/catchup TV in the UK is booming (10% of all TV viewing, 50% of households) but Apple do not participate. In what way does that make the AppleTV a credible product? Even as a hobby it is just a big failure.
I know that Apple always want to be late-ish to the party, but this is just pathetic. They will turn up after the party has finished at this rate.
Now that HBO, Showtime and CBS have announced that next year you will be able to subscribe without a cable subscription, the clock has started. The device that offers those choices first and the many that will follow is going to win the race. After content I think it will come down to hardware. What more can you put into a device the size of an Apple TV that you cannot put into a Chromecast size device. Maybe nothing, in which case it will be interesting to watch.
The Roku device was originally developed by Netflix, and was going to be branded as such. The CEO then decided it was best that the device be not so closely linked to Netflix to ensure that other streaming services would get on board, so they spun off the company.
All this really says is that Google is taking share from Roku more than taking share from Apple "if" this data is even accurate.
Exactly. The shrinkage of Apple goes to Amazon Fire TV instead.
Seems like Apple is putting Apple TV on hold like the ipod.
I think it's pretty clear from Apple's track record and M.O. that the reason AppleTV isn't being updated very often is that they are waiting to splash into the market with a true "Apple TV."
It's been reported before that Jobs had figured this out before he passed. As he knew then, the problem is that it would take years to line up the content deals and remake the cable/sat business model to work with the product. Apple can design an amazing product quickly and sell the you-know-what out of it. Remaking the entire content-delivery model (or at least waiting for it to change) is something else entirely.
Really, I view the current Apple TV as a developmental/stop-gap product. It seems to me that Apple has been using it to build their content delivery infrastructure in preparation to release a product that will compete with and eventually beat the cable and satellite model. To do this, they need an integrated product with a new content system. More than likely, they have been negotiating with providers for years. When they finally release the true "Apple TV," I'd expect this:
--Integrated display, blu-ray unit
--4K displays of varying sizes of 32-70 inches
--High speed internet connection only...no separate TV package required
--Content deals with many major channels, including premium channels
--Netflix and other streaming services
--According to Jobs, a super-simple and intuitive interface
--Total integration with iOS and Mac OS
I think the key is the content system. We'll see what happens...
Apple Pay is a good example of Apple's approach. It's analogous to tech people whining for years about the iPhone's lack of NFC, only to be delighted when Apple Pay launches and just works with existing NFC terminals, out of the box. There's more to ApplePay than an NFC chip.
Then there are the spec-chasers who view AppleTV (and all hardware for that matter) as nothing more than the sum of their parts, so they whine about AppleTV still using the "stale" A5 chip.
8. A blu-ray drive... What the hell. Even start selling bluray discs right from the device... I would order them. Ship them to us from the online store...
9. I wont buy any good movies on appleTV, quality is insufficient and especially surround sound options are NOT state of the art. Bluray sounds And looks much better.
How about this: license the apple TV hardware so that it can be placed inside my oppo bluray player...
Put appleTV inside of a mac mini perhaps.
Basically I want convergence... And I want it yesterday!
none of that bluray nonsense is happening. apple doesnt do bluray hardware.
The Roku device was originally developed by Netflix, and was going to be branded as such. The CEO then decided it was best that the device be not so closely linked to Netflix to ensure that other streaming services would get on board, so they spun off the company.
from what i recall Reed's sentiment was he didnt want netflix to be constrained to a set-top box and trying to sell them -- he wanted a "netflix everywhere" strategy so freed up the roku team to concentrate on that while netflix worked on getting into all kinds of other hardware.
Seems like Apple is putting Apple TV on hold like the ipod.
no it doesnt. they continue to produce and sell ATVs, while theyve stated they are no longer getting the parts for the ipod classic and wont be selling them.
It was a two fold strategy, they got other services to get on board the Roku, and they weren't blocked from other devices. Smart move, and I'm also impressed at how much market share they've gotten with little to no advertising.
The Roku device was originally developed by Netflix, and was going to be branded as such. The CEO then decided it was best that the device be not so closely linked to Netflix to ensure that other streaming services would get on board, so they spun off the company.
from what i recall Reed's sentiment was he didnt want netflix to be constrained to a set-top box and trying to sell them -- he wanted a "netflix everywhere" strategy so freed up the roku team to concentrate on that while netflix worked on getting into all kinds of other hardware.
that sounds interesting.. where did you guys dig up this info about Roku being developed by Netflix? Are these statement about Roku being a business spin off from Netflix, something to back up ? Or are we digging these out of a dark place? As far a I know Roku was started by the team that sold off ReplayTV. Founded by the same guy that started ReplayTV.
Original Netflix playback was on Windows only using Silverlight; priority 1 go to market strategy.. NOT set top boxes. A few months later they added Mac OS X. In parallel they were also also developing Netflix playback capabilities on top of Linux for the embedded market. In order to restrict and protect content under Linux, they partnered with various embedded HW player partners instead of releasing x86 Linux support into the wild. Roku was the first Embedded Linux Set Top Box (N1000) to add in support for the Netflix code. LG was the first embedded Linux Blu-ray player (3 month after Roku) to support the Netflix playback code.
btw, the next generation of Roku player after the N1000, supported Netflix's competitors. Hulu and Amazon. So what you are saying about Roku being a business spin off from Netflix, does not make any sense.
However, I am open to learning where you both got your information. If its legit, please post it.
ah.. I think I found the relationship and confusion here. The founder of Roku briefly took a VP position at Netflix for a 10 month period to help them get into embedded devices after Netflix rolled out playback on PCs and Macs via Silverlight. However, its important to point out the he remained as chairman of the board at Roku when he took the VP roll at Netflix and then 10 month later returned back as CEO. so I think we can read between the lines as to what the opportunity and agreement was with Netflix.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/netflix-appoints-anthony-wood-who-founded-and-led-replaytv-as-vp-of-internet-tv-58342017.html
4 years PRIOR to taking the job at Netflix, Roku had an embedded linux network streaming product, based on a MIPS architecture called the HD1000.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/media-streamer-reviews/roku-hd1000-review/
Roku was NOT a spin off from Netflix. A Roku embedded Linxu based network streaming player already existed before he took the job at Netflix. The goal for Netflix was to hire him to was create generally usable embedded Linux based playback functionality to run on different kinds of embedded linux devices driving TVs. Like the existing Roku HD1000, Blu-ray players and smart-TVs. The next gen Roku after the HD1000, the "N"1000 (also MIPS architecture), used this Netflix developed embedded Linux playback code developed by Roku founder while at Netflix (as VP). As did the LG blu-ray player (3 month later).
There's no money in a TV streamer so whats the point?
To be in the game and keep them relevant.
Terrestrial broadcast TV in the UK is excellent and if you do not support it then people will not use the product - they will use something else. Sky are one example of a smart organisation that totally gets this - they make a fortune out of people subscribing to their services but you can get all of the free broadcast services via their satellite service. Their set-top box even supports ALL of the catchup/streaming services.
I can only imagine that people who don't get this model are totally parochial in their outlook - I do understand that in the USA "free" TV is almost unwatchable because of all the ad breaks and so on, so people may be looking for a total alternative, but this does not apply in the UK or many other countries.
Come on, broaden your outlook! All of the other boxes support the UK internet-delivered services - are they just STUPID, or maybe do they understand that if they want people to use their boxes they need to make them attractive.
You can't just say "there's no money in it, so what's the point". That is the total opposite of being customer-focused, and customer-focus is the one thing that has kept Apple alive through the years. Abandon that and they are at the start of a long slippery slope...
I've been a Netflix customer for a long time, and was excited when I heard that they were developing a streaming box, because it would mean no waiting for DVDs to arrive, so I followed the story closely. They hired the CEO of Roku, but initially weren't going to use that name. I don't remember where I read it, and how it was decided is unknown, but the CEO of Netflix decided it was best if they weren't so closely associated to the box. Allowing competitors on your device sounds like a bad idea, but it would lead to increased sales, and increased subscriptions of their own service. So the current box is the birth child of Netflix, but nurtured and raised by Roku.
That said, Remote Control itself really needs an update.
Fixed.
Fixed.
Apple doesn’t care about the Android “market”. It’s predicated on stolen IP.