Next-gen Apple TV priced at $149, will include universal search for finding content across providers

12357

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 135
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    rogifan wrote: »
    Glad to hear $149. I hope that turns out to be true. I think Apple will get a lot more people to upgrade and a lot more first time buyers at $149. The only thing I'm still a little skeptical on is the major Siri integration. One, if Siri plays a major role I hope Apple has nailed the integration. It better be super fast and accurate. Two, I'm still a bit skeptical people want to control their TV primarily by voice control. So I hope there are other ways to search besides Siri. One thing that would be really great is only having to enter your cable/satellite credentials once and they pass through to all the apps that require them.

    I think Siri is more useful here than on my phone. Walk into the room and ask Siri for the traffic and weather updates.

    tonton wrote: »
    Some stupidity in this thread.

    No, there will not be any DVR function.

    And $149 is not good when you consider that (unless there are games and browsing apps, etc.) it will be the exact same content as the box that currently costs $79. Hopefully that rumor is false.

    There will be games. It's a whole new " thing" running iOS. The old ATV ran on a browser.
    pmz wrote: »

    No. There is no reason for media storage on AppleTV. None.

    There may be storage options, but that will be for Apps only. There will not be any local storing of video content. None. None beyond the caching techniques that they use, which are far more useful and effective anyway.

    Well if there is a live TV recording app then maybe. But I don't think they will have DVR either.
    tonton wrote: »
    The other thing that could sell people on it (not me, living in a tiny Hong Kong flat) would be if it's an always-on SIRI-able hub for all your HomeKit devices.

    Sure. A huge amount of Apple API was set up for this. Home kit included.

    Siri boil the kettle.

    sog35 wrote: »
    hmm.  Not standard TV.

    Just iCloud to record TV shows.  Which does not make sense when I think about it.  There would be no reason for DVR.  

    Probably not.
    pmz wrote: »

    Anyone spending $100 million to produce a game should be thrown in jail for misappropriation of funds.

    If you really believe it costs 100 million dollars to produce the next minor evolution of Madden 7000, or the next clone of some clone of some other FPS, you're kidding yourself.

    Come now. They make billions.
    sog35 wrote: »
    Yes.  Its gone to far.  

    IMO, games should be first off all fun.  They are games after all.  There really is no reason for a game to cost $100 million to product.  

    Of course I'm a casual gamer and prefer to play games from the 80's-90's than modern games.  Why?  Because the older games don't require you to read a 100 page manual or use 15 buttons on a controller.  They were games of skill and were FUN.  I want to see more games like that on the AppleTV.  Those type of games don't cost $100 million to make.  Thus they don't have to sell for $60 a pop for the studio to make money.  I want fun quality games for $10 or less.

    I hate mobile games. Quirky retro bollocks. Give me the witcher on my iPhone.

    I am still very curious how they will handle the experience of bringing apps to the TV.  The challenge with resolution scaling is one but my main concern is controlling and interacting with he app...Any thoughts how they can effectively do this?  One attracting feature for me would be the ability to play the games I already have on my TV with ease.

    They will have a controller and possibly use prime sense ( which tracks your movements).
  • Reply 82 of 135
    Nope, nope, nope. "Console level games" has nothing to do with graphics, as many here continue to think. (The A8 is woefully behind anyway, matching 2005 hardware isn't impressive on a home box). The top end AAA titles these days have budgets of $100 million or more. No one is going to spend that on an app to go in a store where people complain about paying $3 for DLC which is as large as the original game. And I'm throughly unconvinced Apple would produce a controller that's even remotely comfortable to use.

    The A8 and the soon to be released A9 have always been clocked down and the integrated GPU are selected for maximum battery performance and minimum heat issues in the iPhone. The Apple TV can take advantage of a fully powered CPU/GPU. It could be a hybrid of the A8/A9 or just a fully clocked version. No one doubts the budgets of the high end gaming developers. Now take a look at the number of Sony and Microsoft systems that are sold of the current version. Then think of the tens of millions of households that would prefer a more casual gaming experience (similar to the wii). Now go way out on a limb and consider the current financial situation of Nintendo and they agree to license their games and characters to Apple with exclusive rights to run on the new ATV. (It's a precarious limb so don't beat me up too bad. If you were Nintendo and willing to license who would you partner with? Not Sony or Microsoft I'm sure. Some of the ATV rumors have included wireless motion sensing controller.)
  • Reply 83 of 135
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Inkling View Post



    The price is right for what Apple is likely to be offering in return. And $149 new probably means that in a few months refurbs will be selling for $99. That should set Amazon to worrying.



    My chief objection here is my ongoing objection to what Silicon Valley in general and Apple in particular are doing. Snobbish, elitist and cut off from most of the country, they are devoting their efforts to turning us into a nation of couch potatoes who are work-shy and addicted to entertainment. Short term, that makes the Valley's billionaires still richer. Long term, it means that our economy will slide downward. We won't be able to afford their expensive gadgets any more.



    Apple, which targets its products to the middle and upper-middle class, is particularly vulnerable to the woes the middle class in this country are facing. Its policy of creating a relatively few domestic jobs in but a few locations will backfire.



    A better business model is GE in the 1950s when it manufactured, warehoused and serviced appliances in hundreds of locations scattered across the U.S. GE created domestic jobs for people who could then afford its products. In contrast, Apple hordes money and creates very few domestic jobs. Overseas it and the rest of Silicon Valley are responsible a steadily moving wasteland. They create factories where labor is the cheapest and then abandon them when labor costs are cheaper elsewhere.



    There are few things more foolish that a narrow policy of rational efficiency that neglects human values and broader responsibilities to society in the pursuit of immediate profit. That's Apple. That's the Silicon Valley.



    --Michael W. Perry, author and editor at Inkling Books

     

    I was going to go into a long discussion about how many jobs Apple has brought to the U.S., but I think I will just let Apple speak for itself:

     

    http://www.apple.com/about/job-creation/

     

    The highlights though:

    - 1,027,000 jobs created or supported by Apple

    - 66,000 U.S.-based Apple (of which just 30,000 are retail store employees) 

     

    So, where are the few domestic jobs that you are referring to? 

     

    You also stated: "they are devoting their efforts to turning us into a nation of couch potatoes who are work-shy and addicted to entertainment"

     

    I disagree, and I use the Apple Watch as an example.  The Watch is not an "entertainment" device.  It is at least a "fitness" device, which goes against your couch potato theory.  Pretty much all of Apple's devices support music, which people are often moving to (working out, dancing), not always just sitting and listening to.  And most of their devices - except for AppleTV - serve as productivity devices.  Before the iPhone, most of us had to use a computer to check our e-mail or do any personal work (pay bills, make flight reservations, check the weather forecast or radar), because our dumbphones couldn't do these things.  Now we can do those things anywhere, without requiring a computer.

  • Reply 84 of 135
    bitmodbitmod Posts: 267member

    I've been waiting for 3 years for this upgrade - and I hope the upgrade is a lot more than this rumor.

     

    I was hoping for an Apple TV / Airport Express combo device.

    - 3.5 headphone jack

    - Functional USB port

    - Decent DAC - less jitter

    - scrap the 48hkz re-sampling of everything

  • Reply 85 of 135

    Would be nice if they would add some OTA software as well.  Even if its a USB dongle, i would purchase. 

  • Reply 86 of 135
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mnbob1 View Post





    The A8 and the soon to be released A9 have always been clocked down and the integrated GPU are selected for maximum battery performance and minimum heat issues in the iPhone. The Apple TV can take advantage of a fully powered CPU/GPU. It could be a hybrid of the A8/A9 or just a fully clocked version. No one doubts the budgets of the high end gaming developers. Now take a look at the number of Sony and Microsoft systems that are sold of the current version. Then think of the tens of millions of households that would prefer a more casual gaming experience (similar to the wii). Now go way out on a limb and consider the current financial situation of Nintendo and they agree to license their games and characters to Apple with exclusive rights to run on the new ATV. (It's a precarious limb so don't beat me up too bad. If you were Nintendo and willing to license who would you partner with? Not Sony or Microsoft I'm sure. Some of the ATV rumors have included wireless motion sensing controller.)



    A few months ago when Nintendo first started talking about their next generation console I brought that up in these message boards.  You aren't alone in your thinking.

  • Reply 87 of 135
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 3,094member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post



    I think Siri is more useful here than on my phone. Walk into the room and ask Siri for the traffic and weather updates.

    I'm really hoping this feature can work well. I'd like a customizable option like a screen saver to do this. I turn my TV off when I'm not using it, but if the new ATV could be configured to wake from a black screen, and display Siri controlled content, then go back to black after a few minutes (or adjust as I tell Siri to do so!) we'd really have something. I'd leave that on continuously.

  • Reply 88 of 135
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 3,094member

    Cult of Mac is reporting CBS is going to do some live NFL streaming through their app.

     

    Betcha you'll need to authenticate via your cable TV package.

  • Reply 89 of 135
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    eightzero wrote: »
    I'm really hoping this feature can work well. I'd like a customizable option like a screen saver to do this. I turn my TV off when I'm not using it, but if the new ATV could be configured to wake from a black screen, and display Siri controlled content, then go back to black after a few minutes (or adjust as I tell Siri to do so!) we'd really have something. I'd leave that on continuously.

    Yeah I bet we might see screen savers making a come back here.
  • Reply 90 of 135
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 4,056member
    sog35 wrote: »
    Disappointing.  Hope this is false.

    $149 price means this won't be big jump from the original AppleTV.  Probabily won't have much more than 32GB onboard storage.

    Looks like any DVR function will need to use iCloud.  Crap.


    I was hoping for $199 for 64GB model and $299 for 256GB.
    You hoped wrong. Just like I predicted Apple make money on program subscription so they want to keep the hardware price affordable. Apple Hub? Maybe it's the updated Airport Express.
  • Reply 91 of 135
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,354member
    eightzero wrote: »
    Cult of Mac is reporting CBS is going to do some live NFL streaming through their app.

    Betcha you'll need to authenticate via your cable TV package.
    Unless you're willing to be dishonest it negates the advantage for those trying to pare back their reliance on cable. There's some content you just are not going to get without a companion cable subscription.
  • Reply 92 of 135
    eightzero wrote: »
    Cult of Mac is reporting CBS is going to do some live NFL streaming through their app.

    Betcha you'll need to authenticate via your cable TV package.

    Nope.
  • Reply 93 of 135
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by davygee View Post



    $149 for 16GB and $199 for 32GB? Is this likely? Would be nice to be $149 for 32GB and $199 for 128GB?

    From what another well-connected site suggested, it's going to be a choice between 8GB and 16GB, which is ridiculous if Apple is serious about the device as a Games mini-console - some iOS games are HUGE (GBs) in size. 

  • Reply 94 of 135
    $149 for AppleTV means EVERY ROOM IN THE HOUSE can have one.
  • Reply 95 of 135
    h2ph2p Posts: 331member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bizzare View Post

    Unfortunately nothing to boast about, unless it has its own App Store, with games and more. No bundle?

    It sounds disappointing.

     

    Sounds like you'll be THRILLED because an App Store and games are the MAIN feature of the (reported) upgrade! What's with the "unfortunately?"

  • Reply 96 of 135
    mj webmj web Posts: 918member

    I wish Apple TV all the best, however these features are rudimentary on many smart TVs. My Samsung 8550, for example, has a mouse shaped controller with voice, touch, and laser input. I use my Apple TV on an older LCD that predates smart features. I reserve my opinion until I see Apple TV's implimentation next week but its hard to envision this appealing to people with smart TVs.  

  • Reply 97 of 135
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    mj web wrote: »
    I wish Apple TV all the best, however these features are rudimentary on many smart TVs. My Samsung 8550, for example, has a mouse shaped controller with voice, touch, and laser input. I use my Apple TV on an older LCD that predates smart features. I reserve my opinion until I see Apple TV's implimentation next week but its hard to envision this appealing to people with smart TVs.  

    Not everyone wants a smart tv. I bet there are more non smart tvs than smart tvs despite what creepy Eric predicted.
  • Reply 98 of 135
    tenlytenly Posts: 710member
    I have a genuine question about TV add on devices - and admittedly, I only have hands-on experience with the Apple TV 2 and 3, Chromecast and the base level Roku...but is there some real reason that none of these devices contain a built-in web-browser? Apple and Google own web-browsers so I can't imagine it's a software licensing based decision, but it's also a fairly well known fact that many hotels and other internet access points require a couple of clicks on a web page to enable the Internet service...so I also doubt that it's an oversight...

    My best guess would be that the inclusion of a web-browser would turn it into a different class of device which may be regulated or taxed differently....? But that's just a guess. Does anybody know the real reason?

    In the past, most hotels i stay at would activate the device for me given the MAC address but recently, a couple of the properties I've stayed at have started charging an additional fee for the manual activation - so although it's always been a pain in the ass, it's now becoming a costly pain in the ass...

    One possible solution to the problem would be to authenticate to the hotel internet with a PC and then enable Internet Connection Sharing on the PC to create a personal hotspot...but I don't always travel with a PC and I'd be willing to bet that I'd be violating the hotels Internet Usage Policy by doing so.

    Anyhow...does anyone know why a browser is not included on these devices?
  • Reply 99 of 135
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    tenly wrote: »
    I have a genuine question about TV add on devices - and admittedly, I only have hands-on experience with the Apple TV 2 and 3, Chromecast and the base level Roku...but is there some real reason that none of these devices contain a built-in web-browser? Apple and Google own web-browsers so I can't imagine it's a software licensing based decision, but it's also a fairly well known fact that many hotels and other internet access points require a couple of clicks on a web page to enable the Internet service...so I also doubt that it's an oversight...

    My best guess would be that the inclusion of a web-browser would turn it into a different class of device which may be regulated or taxed differently....? But that's just a guess. Does anybody know the real reason?

    In the past, most hotels i stay at would activate the device for me given the MAC address but recently, a couple of the properties I've stayed at have started charging an additional fee for the manual activation - so although it's always been a pain in the ass, it's now becoming a costly pain in the ass...

    One possible solution to the problem would be to authenticate to the hotel internet with a PC and then enable Internet Connection Sharing on the PC to create a personal hotspot...but I don't always travel with a PC and I'd be willing to bet that I'd be violating the hotels Internet Usage Policy by doing so.

    Anyhow...does anyone know why a browser is not included on these devices?

    Ever tried searching for something without a keyboard by pointing or navigating to one letter at a time? It's so frustrating. Plus people who have these boxes generally have a smart phone and/or computer.
  • Reply 100 of 135
    tenlytenly Posts: 710member
    jungmark wrote: »
    Ever tried searching for something without a keyboard by pointing or navigating to one letter at a time? It's so frustrating. Plus people who have these boxes generally have a smart phone and/or computer.
    I have, and I agree it's frustrating - but not nearly as frustrating as not being able to use the device at all! The devices are travel-sized and I'm sure I'm not the only one to travel with them. Obviously the browser I am asking about would be there for the single purpose of authenticating with these sign-on pages.

    On the simplest systems, even for free internet, there's usually a checkbox you have to check to agree to their terms and conditions, and then a submit button. The most complex page requires me to select one of 3 different connect packages, the number of days I need it for, my last name, room number and then click submit. I think I could handle that using the Apple TV remote. They already have a built in keyboard for doing searches and configuring other settings.

    So, in short, I guess what you're saying is that you have no idea either...
Sign In or Register to comment.