As for the article I'm sure we all didn't read it all but this kind of defensive writing is pointless. The first few paragraphs were arguing that the ATV wasnt a failure (at least as compared to the iPhone) because of the failure of WebTV, but in fact both can be a failure.
You know AI the more defensive you get about Apple the more you prove the point of what you're trying to dismiss? Does anyone really think apps are the future of TV? Does Apple know how to think beyond the app paradigm? Apps have not moved the needle for Apple Watch or Apple TV. One could even say the same for iPad where sales growth has been declinig for a while now. This story seems to indicate there were/are engineers inside Apple who wanted to do something different than just a grid of apps for Apple TV. I'm glad there are employees inside the company thinking outside the box.
My AppleTV was ok even tho it was only 720p. I bought th season of Downton Abbey, and that was a major convenience for Mrs Martinicat. But when I bought a new 4K screen, the remote had an Amazon prime button on it, and several other video service buttons that actually make it more convenient. I admit I was not thrilled to find the screen, a Vizio, by default collects viewing history, verifying pixel patterns, but since the TV is pretty much powered down 24-7 this was not a super minus. When the AppleTV stopped working I didn't see any reason to replace it. I may have taken it to electronics recycling but I don't remember
I can't see the point of putting console sales in there.
Consoles are not designed to be upgraded every two years and are aimed at a market that is infinitely smaller than the mobile phone market. They are not even designed as earnings providers but as earnings drivers.
The point of the console market and games is that it is a mult-billion dollar industry in itself. Lots of people said Apple should have entered that market but they chose not to.
The moment passed.
Console sales are in there because the Bloomberg article brought up the subject of consoles vs. Apple TV as part of it's argument regarding the lack of "groundbreaking, iPhone caliber" features. And you're confirming the problem with that argument with your own comment. If the Playstation or Xbox aren't really intended as earnings drivers in terms of their own unit sales, then is it fair to say that the Apple TV is? Or is the Apple TV really just part of a connected ecosystem that includes the iPhone, iPad, and Mac, as well as services like Apple Music, iTunes store, and App store?
If Apple copies the echo it won't be in the aTV. Because the echo needs to be in the middle of the room.
The only way to transform the living room is with an actual TV. Not a box.
Why is that? My Echo Dot sits next to my ATV about a foot from the far wall to the right hand side of the TV.
The Echo Dot in my bedroom sits on a shelf to the right hand side of the bed in a corner.
And the minute you put anything inside a TV you render it obsolete in 12 months unless you replace the complete television which in my case means shelling out £3.5k for a TV instead of £179 for a box or to be more exact £79 for a Fire TV to replace my ATV.
Mark Gurman is definitely an anti-Apple, professional troll. It's plain as day. The fact that he permanently blocked me on Twitter for saying so is absurd and reveals his hyper-sensitivity. Poor young snowflake...
There's nothing wrong with the Apple TV box. I've lots of 720p content on my 60" Kuro hanging on my large living room wall and it looks great—then again Kuro plasmas with their fuzzy pixels tend to make anything look great. The internal hardware isn't where it falls down.
So for my situation and point of view I don't need 4K at all. The OS isn't the problem either. I like a simple app-laden Home screen. It's easy to understand and you have folders to categorise sets of apps for a clean entertainment UI desktop and you've voice search to solve the search thing.
Where the Apple TV falls short is three-fold:
1. Apple needs a better video strategy. And POTA and Carpool Karaoke is not it. They need to either buy Netflix or build a truly competitive Netflix competitor. If people may want to subscribe to music, people desperately want to subscribe to a TV and film plan.
2. They need a first-party gaming controller at least as nice as the PS3 controller. It doesn't need to be included, but it needs to ready as a one click add-on at checkout and ready to be tested in stores with a big marketing push and a HUGE developer push behind it. You don't leave it to a third party to make your damn gaming controller.
3. The regular remote control needs to be rethought. The touch area idea is sound. What's not sound is a TV controller that shatters if you drop it on a wooden floor. A TV controller shouldn't need a damn rubber third party case to be practical. And I think there's probably room for a couple more physical buttons on the remote to help with non-voice navigation. And more ergonomic and slightly larger.
That is what Apple TV is lacking. A Netflix-like solution from Apple: I'd acquire Netflix. They are the solution. Creating a studio by itself will be too much of a distraction for Apple. Netflix is turn-key, provided they can keep most their content deals—with enough money anything is possible. A very good first party gaming controller. And a far better TV remote.
And two years into sorting all that do a damn AIO TV on a subsidised contract and optionally as outright purchase.
I can't see the point of putting console sales in there.
Consoles are not designed to be upgraded every two years and are aimed at a market that is infinitely smaller than the mobile phone market. They are not even designed as earnings providers but as earnings drivers.
The point of the console market and games is that it is a mult-billion dollar industry in itself. Lots of people said Apple should have entered that market but they chose not to.
The moment passed.
Console sales are in there because the Bloomberg article brought up the subject of consoles vs. Apple TV as part of it's argument regarding the lack of "groundbreaking, iPhone caliber" features. And you're confirming the problem with that argument with your own comment. If the Playstation or Xbox aren't really intended as earnings drivers in terms of their own unit sales, then is it fair to say that the Apple TV is? Or is the Apple TV really just part of a connected ecosystem that includes the iPhone, iPad, and Mac, as well as services like Apple Music, iTunes store, and App store?
It doesn't really matter where the origin was. Comparing the two (in the way it was expressed) just doesn't make sense.
The only thing that really matters in this segment is content. Without good deals in place a competitor is dead in the water.
ABSOLUTELY! The technology for the features of AppleTV have been widely available for years. Many years. Various tech companies have attempted to enter the market with their tech solutions -- and died. They died because those who control the content killed them. Dead.
Think about what sets an IPhone apart from a Windows phone. It's the content (the apps). Media is the same.
AppleTV is most certainly not a failure, nor is it a terrible product. It's just... fine. In my own case, I find that I use it less and less.
To say that it's not comparable to the iPhone is an understatement.
I'm kinda in the same boat. I have the newest gen AppleTV and I rarely ever use it. I have little use for it and there aren't any compelling features on it to get me to consistently turn it on. What I really hope for is AppleTV to gain the actual TV part...so I don't need to have a cable subscription to watch TV. Its almost there...they just need to eliminate the cable/satellite subscription requirement and I'd be willing to use AppleTV exclusively for watching television.
Like others have said, it needs content and not just apps and games. Without the content, its just a pretty black expensive paperweight IMO. Who exactly is in-charge of getting content for AppleTV? I presume Eddy Cue?
I seriously doubt Apple ever intended on AppleTV being as successful as the iPhone.
They definitely need to put some serious effort into this product and stop calling it a hobby. Otherwise, it will be too late and they'll lose the opportunity in this segment.
AppleTV 4, when it was announced, came with the promise of introducing a real human-computer-voice interface for the TV. That was a great promise to simplify the experience of interacting with a TV, which until today, remains largely unintuitive. Unfortunately, Apple completely failed to live up to that promise, as even where Siri is supported, its functionality is minimal.
If Apple copies the echo it won't be in the aTV. Because the echo needs to be in the middle of the room.
The only way to transform the living room is with an actual TV. Not a box.
Why is that? My Echo Dot sits next to my ATV about a foot from the far wall to the right hand side of the TV.
The Echo Dot in my bedroom sits on a shelf to the right hand side of the bed in a corner.
And the minute you put anything inside a TV you render it obsolete in 12 months unless you replace the complete television which in my case means shelling out £3.5k for a TV instead of £179 for a box or to be more exact £79 for a Fire TV to replace my ATV.
Yep! I want my monitor to be a good monitor. That's it. How it connects to the world is an evolving paradigm. I don't want to replace an entire TV just because it won't play nice with this source or that source.
By the way: the same is true for my car audio system. I don't want it to be smart -- because in a year or so it will be obsolete. Let me drive it with my phone -- or even an IPad which are both replaceable as technology changes. ... Already, Apple Music has replaced both my car radio and its CD player.
Apple had a huge head start with Apple TV, and it held a lot of promise. But it really did blow it. Where's gaming? Where was Siri support when everyone was sure it would become Alexa before Alexa was even a thing. Today, as much as I love Apple, the Apple TV, as well as Roku are objects perfect for smashing with melon sized boulders. insanly awful. anyone would be a fool not to go with the much cheaper less UI muck of Chromecast device.
my Apple TV is in a box in a closet. Roku is still on one of my TV's and a constant reminder of frustration and desire to smash into a billion bits.
1. Apple needs a better video strategy. And POTA and Carpool Karaoke is not it. They need to either buy Netflix or build a truly competitive Netflix competitor. If people may want to subscribe to music, people desperately want to subscribe to a TV and film plan.
2. They need a first-party gaming controller at least as nice as the PS3 controller. It doesn't need to be included, but it needs to ready as a one click add-on at checkout and ready to be tested in stores with a big marketing push and a HUGE developer push behind it. You don't leave it to a third party to make your damn gaming controller.
3. The regular remote control needs to be rethought. The touch area idea is sound. What's not sound is a TV controller that shatters if you drop it on a wooden floor. A TV controller shouldn't need a damn rubber third party case to be practical. And I think there's probably room for a couple more physical buttons on the remote to help with non-voice navigation. And more ergonomic and slightly larger.
That is what Apple TV is lacking.
1. Has Apple said that Planet of the Apps or Carpool Karaoke are the sum total of their original content strategy? No. They've said that it's a starting point for them.
2. The 3rd party controllers are getting quite good. I have the SteelSeries Nimbus and the only thing I can think of that Apple could improve on would be the addition of the W1 chip for bluetooth. Is that a compelling enough addition for a game controller? Not sure it would have the same usability impact as it does with headphones.
3. The remote isn't perfect, but it's a huge improvement on the previous Apple TV remote...touch control, accelerometer/gyroscope, Siri microphone. Apple is also allowing plenty of alternative input scenarios with keyboard support, game controllers, and iPhone/iPad input.
AppleTV is most certainly not a failure, nor is it a terrible product. It's just... fine. In my own case, I find that I use it less and less.
To say that it's not comparable to the iPhone is an understatement.
I'm kinda in the same boat. I have the newest gen AppleTV and I rarely ever use it. I have little use for it and there aren't any compelling features on it to get me to consistently turn it on. What I really hope for is AppleTV to gain the actual TV part...so I don't need to have a cable subscription to watch TV. Its almost there...they just need to eliminate the cable/satellite subscription requirement and I'd be willing to use AppleTV exclusively for watching television.
Like others have said, it needs content and not just apps and games. Without the content, its just a pretty black expensive paperweight IMO. Who exactly is in-charge of getting content for AppleTV? I presume Eddy Cue?
I seriously doubt Apple ever intended on AppleTV being as successful as the iPhone.
They definitely need to put some serious effort into this product and stop calling it a hobby. Otherwise, it will be too late and they'll lose the opportunity in this segment.
Why don't you just use Playstation Vue on AppleTV? That's what I use. And its GREAT.
Here is my AppleTV setup:
But how do you see your TV with all your stacks of money in the way?
DED is incredibly smart and insightful. I suspect some folks who read this article and then complain about AppleTV not being a revolutionary success didn't really read the article, or didn't grok the main message of the article. Oh well.
One minor gripe. I'm amazed, as intelligent as DED is, that he uses the term Facial Recognition. There are literally thousands of technical papers on the science, all of which use the term Face Recognition. Facial Recognition, like Face Detection, is a subset of the science of Face Recognition, and is not the correct term to describe what's being discussed. Sheesh!
Comments
To say that it's not comparable to the iPhone is an understatement.
The only way to transform the living room is with an actual TV. Not a box.
The Echo Dot in my bedroom sits on a shelf to the right hand side of the bed in a corner.
And the minute you put anything inside a TV you render it obsolete in 12 months unless you replace the complete television which in my case means shelling out £3.5k for a TV instead of £179 for a box or to be more exact £79 for a Fire TV to replace my ATV.
So for my situation and point of view I don't need 4K at all. The OS isn't the problem either. I like a simple app-laden Home screen. It's easy to understand and you have folders to categorise sets of apps for a clean entertainment UI desktop and you've voice search to solve the search thing.
Where the Apple TV falls short is three-fold:
1. Apple needs a better video strategy. And POTA and Carpool Karaoke is not it. They need to either buy Netflix or build a truly competitive Netflix competitor. If people may want to subscribe to music, people desperately want to subscribe to a TV and film plan.
2. They need a first-party gaming controller at least as nice as the PS3 controller. It doesn't need to be included, but it needs to ready as a one click add-on at checkout and ready to be tested in stores with a big marketing push and a HUGE developer push behind it. You don't leave it to a third party to make your damn gaming controller.
3. The regular remote control needs to be rethought. The touch area idea is sound. What's not sound is a TV controller that shatters if you drop it on a wooden floor. A TV controller shouldn't need a damn rubber third party case to be practical. And I think there's probably room for a couple more physical buttons on the remote to help with non-voice navigation. And more ergonomic and slightly larger.
That is what Apple TV is lacking. A Netflix-like solution from Apple: I'd acquire Netflix. They are the solution. Creating a studio by itself will be too much of a distraction for Apple. Netflix is turn-key, provided they can keep most their content deals—with enough money anything is possible. A very good first party gaming controller. And a far better TV remote.
And two years into sorting all that do a damn AIO TV on a subsidised contract and optionally as outright purchase.
The technology for the features of AppleTV have been widely available for years. Many years. Various tech companies have attempted to enter the market with their tech solutions -- and died. They died because those who control the content killed them. Dead.
Think about what sets an IPhone apart from a Windows phone. It's the content (the apps). Media is the same.
Like others have said, it needs content and not just apps and games. Without the content, its just a pretty black expensive paperweight IMO. Who exactly is in-charge of getting content for AppleTV? I presume Eddy Cue?
I seriously doubt Apple ever intended on AppleTV being as successful as the iPhone.
They definitely need to put some serious effort into this product and stop calling it a hobby. Otherwise, it will be too late and they'll lose the opportunity in this segment.
By the way: the same is true for my car audio system. I don't want it to be smart -- because in a year or so it will be obsolete. Let me drive it with my phone -- or even an IPad which are both replaceable as technology changes.
... Already, Apple Music has replaced both my car radio and its CD player.
2. The 3rd party controllers are getting quite good. I have the SteelSeries Nimbus and the only thing I can think of that Apple could improve on would be the addition of the W1 chip for bluetooth. Is that a compelling enough addition for a game controller? Not sure it would have the same usability impact as it does with headphones.
3. The remote isn't perfect, but it's a huge improvement on the previous Apple TV remote...touch control, accelerometer/gyroscope, Siri microphone. Apple is also allowing plenty of alternative input scenarios with keyboard support, game controllers, and iPhone/iPad input.
But how do you see your TV with all your stacks of money in the way?
One minor gripe. I'm amazed, as intelligent as DED is, that he uses the term Facial Recognition. There are literally thousands of technical papers on the science, all of which use the term Face Recognition. Facial Recognition, like Face Detection, is a subset of the science of Face Recognition, and is not the correct term to describe what's being discussed. Sheesh!