Piper Jaffray sees a revamped Apple TV set-top box being core of Apple's fall 2015 products

2456

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 105
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 2,492member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paxman View Post

     



    I like the idea of a stick but I am not sure that's the direction Apple will go. One thing a stick does not do is advertise its presence. Everything Apple is made to be seen and to create an invisible service (device) doesn't seem Applesque, to me. On the other hand - a larger visible box with increased functionality (gaming) will inevitably cost more so I just don't know.


    I would expect a big Apple Logo to flash on the screen when you light it off. :-) But I see your point. Given it was in "hobby" status for so long, it will be really interesting to see what it could turn into once Chairman Honeycrisp decides to get serious about it.

     

    That AppleTV interface needs some work. Hope Jony finds some time to give it a polish. You know...with al-u-min-i-um champhord edges...

  • Reply 22 of 105
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,312member

    I’m sitting here with a ATV2 and I really can’t wait that long.

  • Reply 23 of 105
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    canukstorm wrote: »
    Or maybe people do want smart TV's (and smart watches) but they're not buying the crop of products because they think they're shit.  A good example is the MS Surface Hub.  I see an Apple-branded TV being along those lines - a big-screen computer that can fit right in your living room or in the boardroom.

    Hmm..still skeptical. People don't replace TVs that often. I think they want a nice TV with good picture quality and let their smarts come from what they connect to the TV. But who knows. It's hard for a $99 hockey puck to move the needle on revenues like a $1500 or $2000 TV would. All depends on how many consumers would buy an Apple branded TV. That space is highly competitive and costs keep coming down.
  • Reply 24 of 105
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    Hmm..still skeptical. People don't replace TVs that often. I think they want a nice TV with good picture quality and let their smarts come from what they connect to the TV. But who knows. It's hard for a $99 hockey puck to move the needle on revenues like a $1500 or $2000 TV would. All depends on how many consumers would buy an Apple branded TV. That space is highly competitive and costs keep coming down.



    The main issue is the SKU's. TV's come in too many sizes.

  • Reply 25 of 105
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DimMok View Post

    Same here...I velcroed mine down...lol

    Stiff cables can be very annoying. Fortunately, there are HDMI cables that are thin, soft, and cheap. I am curious if you would be willing to buy a new cable.

  • Reply 26 of 105
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,788member

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

    Munster continues to believe that a full-fledged Apple television set is in the works  [...]   But in the interim, he sees a more powerful Apple TV set-top box launching this year ...

     

    Hey Gene, keep making random guesses and eventually you'll get one right.

    Maybe.

  • Reply 27 of 105
    Even a broken clock is right twice a day...
  • Reply 28 of 105
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post

     

    Because a watch is personal. You don't carry/wear your ?TV.




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    And? An ?TV hockey puck isn't something you carry/wear either. That said I don't think Apple is doing a TV set either mostly because people don't want smart TVs. They want dumb TVs and smart boxes/sticks.

    You both have good points. Making/selling TV and the hardware/software seemed like a decent idea 2 years ago, but seems that a dumb (but awesome) screen can just as easily be sold by others.

     

    Apple will focus on getting content and operability to people, but won't get distracted with making whole TV sets.

     

    Obviously the reason why Apple is so consumed with iPod/iPhone/iPad/AWatch is that in these cases the touch screen and interaction with the device itself is critical.  At some point, the input for TVs will be via iPhone/AWatch/voice/etc.

     

    But who's to say that a 'touch wall' is not coming in 3-5 years? :-)  I can see that.

  • Reply 29 of 105
    dimmokdimmok Posts: 359member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jj.yuan View Post

     

    Stiff cables can be very annoying. Fortunately, there are HDMI cables that are thin, soft, and cheap. I am curious if you would be willing to buy a new cable.




    Why you selling? lol No I paid big on my cables I have. Velcro I got free from work. 

  • Reply 30 of 105
    chasmchasm Posts: 1,671member
    thewhitefalcon nailed it, just what I was going to say, I think (for want of a much better term) "TVPlay" is what Apple was ever working on, and probably developed a prototype TV to test it. That's probably where that got started, but seriously Gene's been on that kick for literally a decade.
  • Reply 31 of 105
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,788member

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    Why make a watch when you could just make WatchKit?

     

     

    In the short term, I think WatchKit is another way for Apple to add value to iPhone.  The number crunching and internet connectivity are handled by the iPhone.  The ?Watch acts as a remote display, remote controller, and perhaps most importantly a remote Siri mic.  It's a natural fit, and it makes using your iPhone even easier.  No need to drag it out of your pocket for many simple tasks, phone calls, etc.

     

    In the longer term, I think Apple is probably going to use the iPhone to drive additional devices.  CarPlay for example: the computing is done on the iPhone itself (with some Siri requests sent to Apple's servers, of course.)  The CarPlay touchscreen is kind of like a big ?Watch display.  And, to me anyway, ?Watch and CarPlay feel like the next step beyond simple AirPlay to ?TV.  Because of the touchscreens.  The average home TV doesn't have a touchscreen, and may never have one.  Too far away.

     

    So what's next after CarPlay and ?Watch?  How about a massively expanded ?TV home entertainment experience?  Not just the hockey puck and probably not an Apple television set.  Complete control of your home entertainment environment.  As in "Hey Siri, show me the first episode of Better Call Saul.  With surround sound, not the built-in TV speakers.  Then ask me if I want to sign up for the series.  Room lights at 40 percent.  And close the blinds."

  • Reply 32 of 105

    So i hear all about 4k and i would like to see it available on the ATV but can the current infrastructure even support streaming 4k?  I have decently fast internet and every once and a while i get buffering or the resolution drops for a few seconds. 

  • Reply 33 of 105
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,011member

    Absolutely right. Apple needs to pull lot of things together and works well to make it Home Media Hub. If anyone can do it than Apple will. Look little deeper. Apple was busy with products like larger iphone , watch, retina macbook air, etc so Apple-TV was on side but as a stepping stone towards Home Media Hub, Apple released Hoomekit. In order to have decent Home Media Hub to do many things in one box, you need powerfull custom processor with excellent graphics(4K video) support on chip and runs at low power/heat. It seems the Apple have those pieces in place to do all home related stuff and decent game console. I believe, Apple wants to provide Home media hub but with great user experience. Apple is consumer company and will go hard home front conquered and win.

  • Reply 34 of 105
    So i hear all about 4k and i would like to see it available on the ATV but can the current infrastructure even support streaming 4k?

    Sure. 4K/H.265 is probably less than double the bandwidth needed for 1080p/H.264, and when you consider how bandwidth increases since the Apple TV 3 and then original Apple TV two generations before it supporting only 720p/H.264 from the iTunes Store, I don't think it's a big issue for customers.
  • Reply 35 of 105
    misamisa Posts: 827member
    Here's what I think, Apple could do this and get away with it...

    Release new Apple Thunderbolt 2 screens in 4K/5K pixel depths at sizes near Television (32", 48", 60") sizes in addition to the standard 24" model. Then make the new AppleTV have an actual docking mount on the back of it. So you can effectively futureproof the TV out the door instead of the silly contraption that Samsung has for an "evolution kit" ([URL=http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs-accessories/SEK-2500U/ZA]SEK-2500U[/URL]). The AppleTV would have a bi-directional HDMI connector with the TB connector (meant to go to the TV), so you can plug the HDMI into your surround sound receiver. If you don't have an Apple TV or TB monitor, or surround receiver(acting as a HDMI switch,) you can instead plug the HDMI into the HDMI port of the TV directly. If you want to daisy-chain your cable box, AppleTV can just pass it through.

    Throw away the ATSC tuner, Cablecard, and analog inputs. Nothing currently shipping uses them. (These parts sell separately for 150$ (ATSC receiver/PVR), Cablecard-tuner(99$), Video scaler(250$)) if you really can't live without it. Saves maybe 30$ in parts for the television.

    Apple, could literately ship a "DumbTV" with an AppleTV box to make it a "SmartTV" and probably get more people to buy the two parts separately and Apple could just make slightly different models of AppleTV, ones with multiple HDMI inputs and PVR-like capabilities, and one that's like the exiting one with a single output for use with any television.

    Of course, this is really just theorizing what people actually want, as opposed to the horrible current state of SmartTV's trying to guess where Apple's puck is heading. An "all-in-one" SmartTV that can't be upgraded like an iMac might not go over as well since Cable companies aren't doing IPTV, only DSL/Fibre connections are (former Microsoft Mediaroom technology.) So it's not terribly useful to have a "SmartTV" that only works with one internet provider and doesn't let you actually access the TV services.

    Personally I'd love to get rid of the separate tuner boxes. I know I can with the Microsoft Mediaroom stuff, because it's all multicast that I can actually stream to VLC on the desktop with a bit of adjustments to the buffering. Likewise you can watch some of it on the iPad or Xbox 360. So it's completely reasonable to have a SmartTV actually work directly with it.

    PS the Samsung box essentially replaces the entire connection array, or basically the entire "brain" of the TV. For 400$. Many smaller screens aren't even worth this much.
  • Reply 36 of 105
    ingelaingela Posts: 217member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wood1208 View Post



    More powerfull Apple-TV set-top box was expected last year when Apple had 64-bit custom processor with better graphics support. Whole idea of Homekit in-line to be center of home hub is not only to connect and control home appliances, lights, security, gadgets, streaming video but also becomes decent gaming platform. It seems time is right for 2015 fall line up for updated Apple-Tv



    It's the big screen iPhone all over again. Money on the table that Apple didn't pick up.

    If they can pull this off, this thing will fly off the shelves. It's becoming that the ability of streaming from Netflix, Amazon, Hulu+ has become a must for consumers and it will only snowball from here on in. And add gaming to the list! It's past due and it's going to be big.

  • Reply 37 of 105

    The way Gene Muenster talks about "set top boxes" I'm thinking he still uses a 20" CRT-based TV, and has a 40-pound betamax tape player sitting on top of it.

  • Reply 38 of 105
    Hobby to "centerpiece"? That's a leap. I thought the tech geeks dismissed AppleTV as not elite enough to compare to Roku/Boxee/Chromecast/generic living room PC.
  • Reply 39 of 105
    sockrolid wrote: »

    In the short term, I think WatchKit is another way for Apple to add value to iPhone.  The number crunching and internet connectivity are handled by the iPhone.  The ?Watch acts as a remote display, remote controller, and perhaps most importantly a remote Siri mic.  It's a natural fit, and it makes using your iPhone even easier.  No need to drag it out of your pocket for many simple tasks, phone calls, etc.

    In the longer term, I think Apple is probably going to use the iPhone to drive additional devices.  CarPlay for example: the computing is done on the iPhone itself (with some Siri requests sent to Apple's servers, of course.)  The CarPlay touchscreen is kind of like a big ?Watch display.  And, to me anyway, ?Watch and CarPlay feel like the next step beyond simple AirPlay to ?TV.  Because of the touchscreens.  The average home TV doesn't have a touchscreen, and may never have one.  Too far away.

    So what's next after CarPlay and ?Watch?  How about a massively expanded ?TV home entertainment experience?  Not just the hockey puck and probably not an Apple television set.  Complete control of your home entertainment environment.  As in "Hey Siri, show me the first episode of Better Call Saul.  With surround sound, not the built-in TV speakers.  Then ask me if I want to sign up for the series.  Room lights at 40 percent.  And close the blinds."

    You forgot "make me a sandwich!" Lol.
  • Reply 40 of 105
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    Munster continues to believe that a full-fledged Apple television set is in the works --

     

    Captain Gene - "Arrrgh, it be a big whale - a white one - and it be out there... somewhere."

Sign In or Register to comment.