Gamers never want to hear this, but high end games is a sub market it is only a small group of users who live and die this stuff. Most people move on and stop playing video games. I agree apple will never come close to a game console product and I agree Wii is now really dead even though my older teens and their friends still cover over and break out the Wii and play it for hours. I think Apple is looking to land they middle ground between high end game console and DS/Phone based games. I will be like games on the phone, most people have a few games on their phone and use it to pass time or to interact with their friends the same could be true for apple TV. It is not going to be a big revenue thing for apple.
It's not as small as you'd like to claim, and it's also highly profitable when done right. Activision doesn't rake in billions every year by accident.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justp1ayin
Yeah this is exactly why an iOS App Store would fail. I say they should cut their losses and remove games from ios. The playstation portable has way better graphics and doesn't get replaces yearly. Or maybe Apple can pay you to buy an Apple TV just so they can report a loss
I don't get people who are complaining that it is competing with 2005 technology by competing with the PS3 on graphics.
The PS3 came out at the end of 2006 and sold for $600 at a loss. It was rumored to cost more than $800 to manufacture at the time.
Apple TV will be much less expensive (I'm estimating $129). Wifi speeds will be much faster (20x). It can support much higher resolution (4K vs 1080p). It has much faster disk space (SSD vs HD). It is much more energy efficient (5W versus 200W). Much smaller. Much more stable. Much quieter.
I don't get people who are complaining that it is competing with 2005 technology by competing with the PS3 on graphics.
The PS3 came out at the end of 2006 and sold for $600 at a loss. It was rumored to cost more than $800 to manufacture at the time.
Apple TV will be much less expensive (I'm estimating $129). Wifi speeds will be much faster (20x). It can support much higher resolution (4K vs 1080p). It has much faster disk space (SSD vs HD). It is much more energy efficient (5W versus 200W). Much smaller. Much more stable. Much quieter.
The problem is that it's not a stationary target. The PS3 got cheaper and dropped the power consumption too.
The PS4 runs about 100W at the moment, and has faster (and a larger quantity of - 8GB) RAM than Apple would ever put in an SoC (GDDR5).
AppleTV won't be $129 if it's going to be as powerful and capable as people claim, try $199 minimum.
Parenting 101 my friend. My 3 kids and I love our video games. We also program a bit. My daughters (all 3) are in 2 travel basketball programs, competitive cheer and play 2 instruments each. Not bragging by any means but to point out that they are active as hell and also are gamers and coders...as for in app purchases they do not spend a dime unless I approve it so all is good. My comment is based upon the assumption your post was serious.
Apple has huge potential here. There are many games that could be ported over and the opportunity to make new console level games is ripe for the picking. Plus you add in the fact that many younger generation do not need high end games to be entertained...(minecraft...ect) the potential is limitless...
2. Game consoles are designed to last for several years, not be replaced and updated yearly.
3. There's an incredible amount of risk in games, and you need first-party titles to distinguish yourself, which costs a lot of money.
4. Hardware is almost always sold at a loss, with the cost decreasing over time, and the intention being to make up the money on accessories, services, and licensing. Apple doesn't do that.
Could? Possibly. Should? Not at all. Apple has better markets to work in.
Whoa...you are so far off it is crazy to think you actually hit the submit button. You are speaking from the console market as it has been. Apple already turns a profit on the AppleTV. Apps for this cost significantly less. The masses are entertained by simple titles not blockbusters that cost mega money to develop. Your points do not hold water.
I just don't think many here get it. It doesn't need to beat PS4.. This catches a much larger market of consumers that don't get the Apple TV as a gaming console.. They get it for movies and TV's, then DiSCOVER the games available.
These games won't be the big Halo or the like at first.. the Smash hits will be Candy Crush on the big screen.. which outsells PS4 game sales and makes it look like a chump.. LOL
Plus, it will sell for much less than a PS4, at $100-150.. making any 'true' console look expensive.. funny really.
At least ONE guy here gets it! The Apple TV Hybrid would not be a dedicated gaming console. It will not compete with the PS4 and doesn't have to. It would be a multimedia streaming device that can play top games already sold on the wildly successful (and profitable I might add) App Store. I saw a rumor / prototype of this over 6 months ago and ever since then, felt the Apple TV was outdated. I've since bought an Amazon FireTV Stick and can now confirm that the Apple TV is outdated. They are getting their asses handed to them by freaking Amazon! The Stick is a fraction of the price, connects to Netflix, Amazon Prime & now Sling TV, has all the apps offered by Apple TV, PLUS does games already. Lastly, the UI is just as nice, if not nicer. What I don't get is what's taking Apple so long to get on board. They already have the back-end setup. The hardware should be a piece of cake to put together, and they already have the customer base installed... What more can you ask for?
New Apple-TV does not need to be PS4 or XBOX One. Those are for limited set of die hard game players. Apple needs to address 90% smartphones,tablets,laptop,desktop game users who will be very happy to play same games while sitting in teir living room on sofa on large screen. TV using Apple TV box. Besides that, Apple TV is Home Control(gadgets,appliances,security, etc) and Home entertaining(streaming, browsing, Apps, etc) HUB. So, this set-top box is living room HUB playing a role of consolidated functions in a one device in a interconnected devices world.
When you look Apple-TV with those functions than it is success before lunch and after launch is also a success because it addresses all.
Given the reasonable price, I've been considering get an Apple TV when the new model comes out%u2014assuming it has the new features described in this article. After all, I need something attached to my den TV other than a DVD player, something that keeps it from sitting idle for weeks on end.
But I keep running into a wall labeled "Why?" What would an Apple TV do that my Mac and iPad won't do? I'm not into games. I gave up on TV as a total bore about two years ago. I don't want to get into the Netflix 'watch lots of movies because I've paid for them' trap. When I have free time, I'd much rather go for a walk and listen to audiobooks or podcasts.
Nothing, nothing, nothing. Apple should probably give up on me. I'm not in need of any additional entertainment and that's what they're selling here.
and...? if as you say youre not into digital content at all, then what's the relevance of your anecdot? I don't see anything relevant about it whatsoever.
The problem is that it's not a stationary target. The PS3 got cheaper and dropped the power consumption too.
The PS4 runs about 100W at the moment, and has faster (and a larger quantity of - 8GB) RAM than Apple would ever put in an SoC (GDDR5).
AppleTV won't be $129 if it's going to be as powerful and capable as people claim, try $199 minimum.
You are talking from a US perspective. Not that that isn't valid but outside of the US the ?TV is much less useful due to lack of content. The lack of content such as movies and television is problematic and as we know it is a giant task t resolve this quickly due to every market needs to be dealt with individually. In many markets there is much friction. Introducing apps / games, on the ?TV will go a long way in making it a more desirable item outside of North America.
Just because I'm not interested in games, TV shows or watching that many movies doesn't mean I'm not into digital content. I like writing and reading, hence my Mac mini and iPad. I like podcast and audiobooks, hence my iPhone. I just can't come up with what I'd do with an Apple TV attached to my oft-ignored TV set.
So yes, I like the Apple TV price, but what would I get in return that'd justify even that modest price. I have about as much use for an Apple TV as I have for a tractor for my tiny, city-sized yard.
Apple wants to drop all bombs at the same time: gaming, Full App store, LiveTV, Home automation, new user interface. This will go along with a higher price tag. Probably between $199-$399.
Now imagine if Apple added a full app store and gaming to the current AppleTV a couple years ago. Would people pay 3x more to buy the new hardware? Probably not. Apple will use all these new services to convince people to buy the new more expensive AppleTV.
It will be like Apple-TV carpet bombing covering all we know or want/need features.
Nothing, nothing, nothing. Apple should probably give up on me. I'm not in need of any additional entertainment and that's what they're selling here.
It is rumored that the new ?TV will serve as a portal to access your HomeKit devices both while at home and away, as well as stream TV/games/apps, which doesn't interest me all that much as I don't watch much TV anymore either.
For me, HomeKit integration would be worth the price, all by itself. I'm in the market for a new ?TV so I'm anxious to see what they are releasing.
Apple has huge potential here. There are many games that could be ported over and the opportunity to make new console level games is ripe for the picking. Plus you add in the fact that many younger generation do not need high end games to be entertained...(minecraft...ect) the potential is limitless...
Now that Microsoft owns Minecraft, they may want to create some exclusivity for their Xbox One.
I'd be more interested in HomeKit is it really were smart. What I've heard described is more like convenient, i.e.
1. Turn on your heating/cooling on the way home.
2. Have your heating/cooling adapt to your schedule automatically.
Years ago, I worked in energy management that really was smart, tailoring heating and cooling to save energy. An even smarter version of that would interest me. It'd:
1. Turn on ventilation fans to cool my interior at night during the summer, eliminating a lot of need for air conditioning.
2. Vent the attic when necessary, not when not necessary.
3. Know when a heat wave is about to hit and cool my house down during the cool early morning hours rather than making the heat pump labor when its 100 degrees out.
4. In winter, run the heat pump during the warmest part of the day, soaking the interior and coasting through the night when that heat pump isn't efficient. Tolerate a swing from 55-65 and you can save a lot of energy.
As is, I find I can do all that better manually or with simple timers. Last summer, I ran a fan all night to bring in that cooler night. This summer it'll be on a timer that'd only turn in on for a couple of the cooler hours around 4-6 am. Only run that fan when it is coolest out.
There don't seem to be smart products out that sense indoor/outdoor temperatures and respond accordingly and none that look for shifts in the weather and anticipate a hot or cold blast. Their goal is comfort and convenience not cleverly saving energy by taking advantage of day/night cycles.
I agree with others that Apple is unlikely to compete for the same market as X Box and PlayStation. An App Store for the Apple TV seems entirely likely though, probably divided into a channel store where you can choose to subscribe to content, the iTunes movies store of course, and then a game-like store. The iPhone has all kinds of sensors and power, so I imagine a combination between a suped up Wii remote, Kinect, Smartglass etc. Apple would of course work behind closed doors with developers to come up with some great apps well beforehand. Perhaps fitness would be feature heavily.
Comments
Gamers never want to hear this, but high end games is a sub market it is only a small group of users who live and die this stuff. Most people move on and stop playing video games. I agree apple will never come close to a game console product and I agree Wii is now really dead even though my older teens and their friends still cover over and break out the Wii and play it for hours. I think Apple is looking to land they middle ground between high end game console and DS/Phone based games. I will be like games on the phone, most people have a few games on their phone and use it to pass time or to interact with their friends the same could be true for apple TV. It is not going to be a big revenue thing for apple.
It's not as small as you'd like to claim, and it's also highly profitable when done right. Activision doesn't rake in billions every year by accident.
Yeah this is exactly why an iOS App Store would fail. I say they should cut their losses and remove games from ios. The playstation portable has way better graphics and doesn't get replaces yearly. Or maybe Apple can pay you to buy an Apple TV just so they can report a loss
Different markets.
The PS3 came out at the end of 2006 and sold for $600 at a loss. It was rumored to cost more than $800 to manufacture at the time.
Apple TV will be much less expensive (I'm estimating $129). Wifi speeds will be much faster (20x). It can support much higher resolution (4K vs 1080p). It has much faster disk space (SSD vs HD). It is much more energy efficient (5W versus 200W). Much smaller. Much more stable. Much quieter.
Great, so my kids can spend "60 dollars" on tchotchke coins, in a stupid app!... When that money would be better spent on outdoor equipment.
Remember if a kid spends to much time indoors they may become myopic!...
http://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia-boom-1.17120?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews
Don't fcking blame technologies, but yourself who failed to educate your kids.
They already did.
I don't get people who are complaining that it is competing with 2005 technology by competing with the PS3 on graphics.
The PS3 came out at the end of 2006 and sold for $600 at a loss. It was rumored to cost more than $800 to manufacture at the time.
Apple TV will be much less expensive (I'm estimating $129). Wifi speeds will be much faster (20x). It can support much higher resolution (4K vs 1080p). It has much faster disk space (SSD vs HD). It is much more energy efficient (5W versus 200W). Much smaller. Much more stable. Much quieter.
The problem is that it's not a stationary target. The PS3 got cheaper and dropped the power consumption too.
The PS4 runs about 100W at the moment, and has faster (and a larger quantity of - 8GB) RAM than Apple would ever put in an SoC (GDDR5).
AppleTV won't be $129 if it's going to be as powerful and capable as people claim, try $199 minimum.
Great, so my kids can spend "60 dollars" on tchotchke coins, in a stupid app!... When that money would be better spent on outdoor equipment.
Remember if a kid spends to much time indoors they may become myopic!...
http://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia-boom-1.17120?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews
Parenting 101 my friend. My 3 kids and I love our video games. We also program a bit. My daughters (all 3) are in 2 travel basketball programs, competitive cheer and play 2 instruments each. Not bragging by any means but to point out that they are active as hell and also are gamers and coders...as for in app purchases they do not spend a dime unless I approve it so all is good. My comment is based upon the assumption your post was serious.
Let me list reasons.
1. There's room for three competitors, not four.
2. Game consoles are designed to last for several years, not be replaced and updated yearly.
3. There's an incredible amount of risk in games, and you need first-party titles to distinguish yourself, which costs a lot of money.
4. Hardware is almost always sold at a loss, with the cost decreasing over time, and the intention being to make up the money on accessories, services, and licensing. Apple doesn't do that.
Could? Possibly. Should? Not at all. Apple has better markets to work in.
Whoa...you are so far off it is crazy to think you actually hit the submit button. You are speaking from the console market as it has been. Apple already turns a profit on the AppleTV. Apps for this cost significantly less. The masses are entertained by simple titles not blockbusters that cost mega money to develop. Your points do not hold water.
I just don't think many here get it. It doesn't need to beat PS4.. This catches a much larger market of consumers that don't get the Apple TV as a gaming console.. They get it for movies and TV's, then DiSCOVER the games available.
These games won't be the big Halo or the like at first.. the Smash hits will be Candy Crush on the big screen.. which outsells PS4 game sales and makes it look like a chump.. LOL
Plus, it will sell for much less than a PS4, at $100-150.. making any 'true' console look expensive.. funny really.
At least ONE guy here gets it! The Apple TV Hybrid would not be a dedicated gaming console. It will not compete with the PS4 and doesn't have to. It would be a multimedia streaming device that can play top games already sold on the wildly successful (and profitable I might add) App Store. I saw a rumor / prototype of this over 6 months ago and ever since then, felt the Apple TV was outdated. I've since bought an Amazon FireTV Stick and can now confirm that the Apple TV is outdated. They are getting their asses handed to them by freaking Amazon! The Stick is a fraction of the price, connects to Netflix, Amazon Prime & now Sling TV, has all the apps offered by Apple TV, PLUS does games already. Lastly, the UI is just as nice, if not nicer. What I don't get is what's taking Apple so long to get on board. They already have the back-end setup. The hardware should be a piece of cake to put together, and they already have the customer base installed... What more can you ask for?
New Apple-TV does not need to be PS4 or XBOX One. Those are for limited set of die hard game players. Apple needs to address 90% smartphones,tablets,laptop,desktop game users who will be very happy to play same games while sitting in teir living room on sofa on large screen. TV using Apple TV box. Besides that, Apple TV is Home Control(gadgets,appliances,security, etc) and Home entertaining(streaming, browsing, Apps, etc) HUB. So, this set-top box is living room HUB playing a role of consolidated functions in a one device in a interconnected devices world.
When you look Apple-TV with those functions than it is success before lunch and after launch is also a success because it addresses all.
and...? if as you say youre not into digital content at all, then what's the relevance of your anecdot? I don't see anything relevant about it whatsoever.
Just because I'm not interested in games, TV shows or watching that many movies doesn't mean I'm not into digital content. I like writing and reading, hence my Mac mini and iPad. I like podcast and audiobooks, hence my iPhone. I just can't come up with what I'd do with an Apple TV attached to my oft-ignored TV set.
So yes, I like the Apple TV price, but what would I get in return that'd justify even that modest price. I have about as much use for an Apple TV as I have for a tractor for my tiny, city-sized yard.
Here's what I do: http://inklingbooks.prosite.com
Apple wants to drop all bombs at the same time: gaming, Full App store, LiveTV, Home automation, new user interface. This will go along with a higher price tag. Probably between $199-$399.
Now imagine if Apple added a full app store and gaming to the current AppleTV a couple years ago. Would people pay 3x more to buy the new hardware? Probably not. Apple will use all these new services to convince people to buy the new more expensive AppleTV.
It will be like Apple-TV carpet bombing covering all we know or want/need features.
The gaming market cares very much about graphics, and they're the market you want.
Not really, again, as proven by the Wii and most people who play games. Graphics whores are only a subset of them.
Died? They botched the marketing and design of WiiU. Their games are still the most popular, even without the newest wave of casuals playing anymore.
Nope.
Xbone’s complete bungle in initial marketing and capabilities probably helped.
Sony being the Microsoft to Nintendo’s Apple has left me cold to them.
Nothing, nothing, nothing. Apple should probably give up on me. I'm not in need of any additional entertainment and that's what they're selling here.
It is rumored that the new ?TV will serve as a portal to access your HomeKit devices both while at home and away, as well as stream TV/games/apps, which doesn't interest me all that much as I don't watch much TV anymore either.
For me, HomeKit integration would be worth the price, all by itself. I'm in the market for a new ?TV so I'm anxious to see what they are releasing.
Apple has huge potential here. There are many games that could be ported over and the opportunity to make new console level games is ripe for the picking. Plus you add in the fact that many younger generation do not need high end games to be entertained...(minecraft...ect) the potential is limitless...
Now that Microsoft owns Minecraft, they may want to create some exclusivity for their Xbox One.
I'd be more interested in HomeKit is it really were smart. What I've heard described is more like convenient, i.e.
1. Turn on your heating/cooling on the way home.
2. Have your heating/cooling adapt to your schedule automatically.
Years ago, I worked in energy management that really was smart, tailoring heating and cooling to save energy. An even smarter version of that would interest me. It'd:
1. Turn on ventilation fans to cool my interior at night during the summer, eliminating a lot of need for air conditioning.
2. Vent the attic when necessary, not when not necessary.
3. Know when a heat wave is about to hit and cool my house down during the cool early morning hours rather than making the heat pump labor when its 100 degrees out.
4. In winter, run the heat pump during the warmest part of the day, soaking the interior and coasting through the night when that heat pump isn't efficient. Tolerate a swing from 55-65 and you can save a lot of energy.
As is, I find I can do all that better manually or with simple timers. Last summer, I ran a fan all night to bring in that cooler night. This summer it'll be on a timer that'd only turn in on for a couple of the cooler hours around 4-6 am. Only run that fan when it is coolest out.
There don't seem to be smart products out that sense indoor/outdoor temperatures and respond accordingly and none that look for shifts in the weather and anticipate a hot or cold blast. Their goal is comfort and convenience not cleverly saving energy by taking advantage of day/night cycles.
Too many folks are underestimating the casual gaming market.
Look at the iPhone and iPad. Casual games (Angry Birds) consistently beat out the AAA title ports from other consoles.
There is a huge casual gaming market that is untapped in the living room. These people wouldn't even think about an XB1 or a PS4.