Overhauled $149 Apple TV features App Store, Siri remote and cross-service content search



  • Reply 321 of 333
    sflagel wrote: »
    Interesting. Which Porsche did you drive. Given the comparisons and your term "supercar", it probably wasn't the Carrera? Was it the GT3 or GT3 RS; yes, that's probably a different story altogether

    Sog: and also not in the price category of a Tesla; nor does it have the usability factor of the Carrera (which is a real GT, similar to the Tesla)

    The 991, which is the new 911. It wasn't the GT3, so referring to it as a supercar was overstating it.
  • Reply 322 of 333
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,756member
    sog35 wrote: »
    For $149 I can't see how anyone could expect anything more.

    Remote - love it. Simple yet a ton of usability.  Have a touch remote without a screen is such a great idea.  Love the addition of Siri. Typing has always been the worst part about using the AppleTV.  Love how you can filter results with Siri.  With physical buttons and motion sensors this will be a great gaming controller for causal games.

    Chipset - A8, 2GB Ram, 32/64GB flash.  Very powerful hardware for a $149 device.  Navigation should be buttery smooth and a ton of space for Apps.

    Ports - WiFi and HDMI should work for most.

    Size and Look - nothing exciting but I'm glad its still much smaller than a Xbox/PS3 or even a bluray player. Its a bit taller but necessary for upgraded WiFi.  Most of the time it will be hidden anyway since the remote supports blutooth.

    Content - Best in the business.  Will only get better with live TV, games, and Apps in the next 6 months

    Price - $149 is a sweet deal.  

    Overall -  9 out of 10 

    I can't really imagine adding anything else to this box that would allow it to still be $149.  Faster A9, 4K, larger flash memory would be nice but that would increase price, which is not an option IMO.  Remote and interface is 100x better than anything else out there.  Content is only going to get better.
    Weren't you wishing for and expecting a higher -priced product with additional features? I might be mistaken but think I remember you voicing displeasure at the news it might be just $149 and thus not offer what you hoped it would.
  • Reply 323 of 333
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,528member

    I am not certain it is exactly "main stream consumer" that would be purchasing an ?TV at all, but I agree with the point that the pricing is such that "price" is not going to be a factor affecting adoption to the target market.  Given that most would agree that Apple targets the premium market with their products, and that most who would buy and ?TV would have at least one other iOS device, this is still targeted at the top 25% of the market.


    Amongst all of the complaining and insults hurled in the last couple of days, there seems little talk about "why" Apple would shoot for this price level.  Doesn't Apple always go for the high end, where even the lowest iPod Touch is more expensive than this unit?  What were they thinking of?


    Maybe - just maybe - Apple does pay attention and understands the pricing for this (still emerging) market of TV streamer / Apps-for-living-room / extend-ecosystem devices.  That no matter the features, it will be hard to sell something once over $200-$300 - especially since one is needed for each TV in a household.  That only the real tech spec guys looking at maybe AAA gaming & 4K home entertainment would buy  - and aren't they kind of anti-Apple anyways?


    In order to "disrupt" in the video & application market, you need to get a certain size of footprint in order to have leverage with the owners of the content (to get the licensing terms you want), and get devs onboard.  That requires a price that will grow market quickly.  A price starting at $149 is likely that magic number to capture & reflect value (the new remote is best in class in the streamer market), while maximizing sales & thus installed base.

  • Reply 324 of 333

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post



    You are right.  A couple weeks ago I was thinking at least $299 with more features.


    But after listening to the event I'm convinced that Apple is taking the right approached.  They are concentrating on the main stream consumer so a $299 price tag is not reasonable. 

    I'm thinking they may be targeting, not the PS4, but the PS5.


    If they build a health app eco-system they could, esp. if the A series catches up to (but not necessarily catches) the types of processors in the Ps5/Xbox720, have an AppleTV Pro (or whatever) that can really keep pace with gaming.


    Of course, they may not, but that option is certainly more attractive if you've got scads of developers already working on TVos.

  • Reply 325 of 333
    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post



    The killer app is Siri with touch pad remote.  Games are just one of the many features of the product.  



    Uhm, nope. The remote is not an app. I was specifically talking about apps. And those that were demoed to me were totally unimpressive.

    That games are just one single feature is not under discussion.



    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post



    Nothing embarrasing about the game demo's.  The system is targeted at casual gamers. If you were expecting high end graphics you are watching the wrong event.  


    First of all , Apple has always often touted the graphics' capabilities of their devices, and usually shows off at least one great app to underline this. Not so in the case of the ATV. 


    Second, casual gaming has nothing to do with graphics. A game can be casual and offer high end graphics, or can be anything else but casual and offer low end graphics.


    Third, I would consider Real Racing casual, and certainly more interesting to show off than this chicken game.


    Yes, I understand it is for casual gamers. Again, no reason to show off something lame. What's next? Pong? It's very casual...



    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post





    Dude you are a 1%.  Not many people use home servers to stream movies/music from a computer.  


    I'll say this again:  AppleTV is a mainstream device.  NOT an Audio/Video nerd device.  That is not a dig at you.  I'm an Audio/Video nerd also.  I have a dedicated home theater room with 7.1 setup and 115 inch screen.  But I'm realistic and I know Apple will not be targeting guys like us but rather Joe Blow who just wants a simple box to plug into his TV.


    So the problem was not with Apple but with your expectations.



    Did you actually read what I wrote? :-) That's why I explicitly said: "I expected - possibly wrongly".

    I agree that what Apple makes today is mostly "for the rest of us", not for the 1%. However, I am wondering just how much effort it would be to add this capabilities to the box, and sell it as a second line.



    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post





    WHO. CARES.  Main stream doesn't.  And with blutooth controls the Apple TV will probabily be hidden behind a shelf anyway.


    Again this is a $149 device. You can't expect it to have the design/materials of a $700 iPhone.


    The box HAD TO BE TALLER to support the new WiFi standards.  So you wanted Apple to made the box WIDER just so the proportions are better.  LOL.  



    Good point about the ability to hide it now. Still, the shape is less nice than the previous one, for whatever reason.




    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post




    A keyboard?  Really?  Seriously?  



    Did you actually read what I wrote? ;-) I didn't talk about a keyboard. And actually I said "No keyboard". I talked about the possibility to use the track-area for handwriting recognition. My car can do this. And I told you why.



    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post


    The time between updates should have nothing to do with expectations.


    Its your expectations that are unreasonable.  Once you realize this is a mass market device that sells for $149 you will realize Apple did an amazing job.


    What you were expecting was an all-in-one server media player.  Go look how much those cost.  THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS.  Expecting 4k, A9, massive on board storage, AAA games at launch, keyboard, TouchID, ForceTouch, is laughable.


    The device you wanted would cost $299-$599 or more. 


    Of course time matters. The longer the waiting time, the bigger the expectations. Reasonable, or not, but that's how it is. Especially when you lift something from the official state of "hobby" to "serious".



    I did not expect TouchID, keyboard, ForceTouch, AAA games, 4K.

    I wrote what I expected.

    And I did not say my expectations should have been met at $149 price point.



    Again, this is my view and very subjective and personal. Reasonable? That can be argued.

    And what you appear to have missed is that I am ok with the product, even though it did not fulfill my expectations. What struck me most is not the absence of a feature, but the way they presented it.

  • Reply 326 of 333

    Originally Posted by Bryant NorCal View Post


    I am positive AppleTV will be better than most cable boxes out there. Even the latest Xfinity box always crashes, nice On Demand features but will see what tvOS brings.

    I have the newest XFINITY box, and it is as sluggish and slow and buggy as every other product that isn't Apple.


    I can't wait for cable TV (and network TV in general) to be destroyed.  Why am I paying for BET???

  • Reply 327 of 333

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

    You should watch Vikings. That alone is worth the little bit you pay for History Channel.

    Yes this.

  • Reply 328 of 333

    Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post


    Except that cable does not represent the entire pay TV universe. The cable subscription stats are always cited in cord cutter articles written by tech bloggers. But, they fail to also show the gains made by satellite, fiber, and IPTV services, and the overall growth in pay TV households. It was only two years ago that the overall pay TV household count stopped growing. Household penetration for pay TV remains above 80%, so this is not yet a long-term trend. And there are still a lot of entrenched barriers to over-the-top streaming TV services.


    Most notably, the sports programming contracts are iron clad and long-term, and would be prohibitively expensive as a standalone offering (right now, the carriage fees for RSNs are typically the second most expensive behind only ESPN), especially since many of them are owned by the carriers (i.e., Comcast and TimeWarner Cable). The availability of local RSNs is the moat that pay TV carriers have carved out for themselves, and it has an influence on market decisions. For example, Comcast was able to exploit a loophole in the FCC regs to keep the Comcast-owned RSN off of satellite in the Philly region for over a decade -- no Phillies, Flyers, or Sixers games on Directv or Dish. As a result, the Philadelphia market had the lowest satellite penetration rate, and among the highest penetration rates for cable.


    Young people don't like to pay for traditional cable. But, that has been the case for decades. Older people are dying, yes. But, young people all have this habit of getting old.

    We could stop watching stupid sports and solve this and many other problems quickly.

  • Reply 329 of 333

    Originally Posted by williamlondon View Post


    This is what I'm excited about, I think we'll be seeing some very clever apps come to this little box once the developers start working their magic. Sure, some we sort of expect and make lots of sense, but then we'll get some real gems coming that we never expected, and that's going to be pure joy. The iOS developer community is so large and varied, I think we'll see some very interesting apps for it.


    Also I think the pent-up demand for apps on TV will blow a little extra oxygen on the fire. 

  • Reply 330 of 333
    techlover wrote: »
    4K streaming boxes are already on the market.

    Nvidia, Sony, and Samsung all have have 4K streaming boxes you can buy right now.

    Whether or not they are worth the money or are what the consumer wants to buy is another question. But they are here now.

    How much do they cost? Last time I checked the Sony box was 499 or 599. Maybe the price has come down? The issue with 4k isn't content, it is do they add that cost to every box when most boss won't connect to 4k TVs. While I would have preferred 4k support now, Apple can always have an Apple TV 4k box in 6 months to a year and have it work like their other devices moving to retina displays.

    It is perhaps a missed opportunity to have 4k support before 4k blue ray players. Whoever keeps saying the 7 people with 4k doesn't know what they are talking about. The industry is transitioning to pretty much all 4k displays. 4k isn't just about more pixels. The color spectrum and dynamic range has also improved in the standard.
  • Reply 331 of 333
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,528member
    Originally Posted by alandail View Post

    How much do they cost? Last time I checked the Sony box was 499 or 599. Maybe the price has come down? The issue with 4k isn't content, it is do they add that cost to every box when most boss won't connect to 4k TVs. While I would have preferred 4k support now, Apple can always have an Apple TV 4k box in 6 months to a year and have it work like their other devices moving to retina displays.

    4K content (streaming) is indeed an issue today.  A quick search will direct you to forums which provide up-to-date info (I posted one earlier).  The best I saw boasted "500 hours" of content, but little of that content is what you would call new release movies, or many popular programs.  You would rapidly run out 4k content to watch once you started.  When you factor in the 4k content available, the bitrates required to stream it, the availability of ultra-fast broadband, the base of 4k TV's, that you need to have a large TV to make any visual difference - it is simply no where near the "tipping point".  In 2-3 years will be a good point to introduce a mainstream device.



    Originally Posted by alandail View Post

    It is perhaps a missed opportunity to have 4k support before 4k blue ray players. Whoever keeps saying the 7 people with 4k doesn't know what they are talking about. The industry is transitioning to pretty much all 4k displays. 4k isn't just about more pixels. The color spectrum and dynamic range has also improved in the standard.

    I don't see it at all as a missed opportunity.  And anyone who has followed Apple knows that they are not early movers on things like this.  4K displays (computer monitors in most cases) have use cases beyond streaming TV - photo and video applications primarily.  This is also something to note for those that say "4k on 6s is useless without a 4k AppleTV" - the application there is to allow the 6s camera to provide value to the users now that it has the capability.  Many may use this as part of their video hobby or business - it is not held back by the AppleTV.

  • Reply 332 of 333
    calicali Posts: 3,495member
    sog35 wrote: »
    I was responding to someone who said Apple does not make exciting products.

    I asked him who does?  And he said Tesla and Uber.  LOL.

    I mean Tesla is a great product for someone who wants something different and that can transport 4 people.  But for the price it is NOT exciting.  There are far more exciting products for a fraction of the price.

    I Hope whoever said that doesn't own a smartphone.
Sign In or Register to comment.