Will consider the upcoming Apple streaming service if it offers the same movies and TV shows found on Amazon Prime Video (other than Amazon-only content) and if it allows content to be downloaded for off-network viewing on iPad and iPhone.
A simple AirPlay2 dongle & better integration licensing would drive Apple adoption in the home and business which they sorely need. Chrome-cast is already being shipped in TVs. Apple should be years ahead on this.
Ideally they should drop ATV into an S-package for other products (TVs, sound bars) to integrate, starting with HomePod.
Or they could rethink tvOS. Tim got it wrong throwing it open like a broader-purpose device. tvOS should be highly restrictive/centralised in media delivery with services providing content not Apps.
[...] tvOS should be highly restrictive/centralised in media delivery with services providing content not Apps.
I hadn't thought about that. I haven't decided yet if I agree, but so far the current model fails utterly to achieve one of its early stated goals, which was to consolidate content into a cohesive interface. Amazon supports the TV app but not the top row, Netflix includes the top row but not the TV app, and downloaded material sits off by itself and can't even be searched. I don't know if eliminating apps would help (not that I expect Apple would do that anyway), but it would sure improve my enjoyment of the device if apps were consistent in their presentation.
Apple could impose certain minimum requirements an app has to meet to be allowed on the tvOS Store, like top row, search, and compatibility with the TV app, but that may backfire. Is the Apple TV a big enough player in the streaming viewer market for providers to care about it? Would making it harder for providers to get an app on the Apple TV just result in some providers deciding not to bother?
[...] tvOS should be highly restrictive/centralised in media delivery with services providing content not Apps.
I hadn't thought about that. I haven't decided yet if I agree, but so far the current model fails utterly to achieve one of its early stated goals, which was to consolidate content into a cohesive interface. Amazon supports the TV app but not the top row, Netflix includes the top row but not the TV app, and downloaded material sits off by itself and can't even be searched. I don't know if eliminating apps would help (not that I expect Apple would do that anyway), but it would sure improve my enjoyment of the device if apps were consistent in their presentation.
Apple could impose certain minimum requirements an app has to meet to be allowed on the tvOS Store, like top row, search, and compatibility with the TV app, but that may backfire. Is the Apple TV a big enough player in the streaming viewer market for providers to care about it? Would making it harder for providers to get an app on the Apple TV just result in some providers deciding not to bother?
It's getting there.
"data firm Thinknum is out today with an interesting look at how the Apple TV 4K has soared in popularity over recent weeks. According to Thinknum’s data, which is based on Best Buy sales rank data, Apple TV is now a close second to the Amazon Fire TV Stick in terms of sales."
[...] tvOS should be highly restrictive/centralised in media delivery with services providing content not Apps.
I hadn't thought about that. I haven't decided yet if I agree, but so far the current model fails utterly to achieve one of its early stated goals, which was to consolidate content into a cohesive interface. Amazon supports the TV app but not the top row, Netflix includes the top row but not the TV app, and downloaded material sits off by itself and can't even be searched. I don't know if eliminating apps would help (not that I expect Apple would do that anyway), but it would sure improve my enjoyment of the device if apps were consistent in their presentation.
Apple could impose certain minimum requirements an app has to meet to be allowed on the tvOS Store, like top row, search, and compatibility with the TV app, but that may backfire. Is the Apple TV a big enough player in the streaming viewer market for providers to care about it? Would making it harder for providers to get an app on the Apple TV just result in some providers deciding not to bother?
It's getting there.
"data firm Thinknum is out today with an interesting look at how the Apple TV 4K has soared in popularity over recent weeks. According to Thinknum’s data, which is based on Best Buy sales rank data, Apple TV is now a close second to the Amazon Fire TV Stick in terms of sales."
One question left unanswered by the Thinknum piece is how many viewers even bother with a dedicated streaming device like the Fire Stick or Apple TV. How much of the streaming market accesses that stuff via a smart TV instead? Do sales of Fire Sticks, Apple TVs, Roku devices, et al constitute a large percentage of total viewers or just a small subset? If the latter, does being a major player in a minor market provide Apple with enough penetration to have leverage with content providers?
Either way, I'm glad to see the Apple TV doing well. Maybe success in that segment will motivate Apple to give tvOS more love.
Uh, if not Apple, who *IS* responsible for the decisions about how tvOS works? One can argue that integration with the TV app is up to the service providers, but even that is subject to debate. Every single other point is 100% on Apple.
Well I must apologize as you've made yourself more clear the 2nd time around. But still, your post came off as the typical Apple-must-save-the-world crap.
As far as who is responsible for adopting the TV app? Well, that would still be the app developers. Maybe Apple should require TV App integration soon like they did with 64-bit support.
Also Apple please remove movies you have to purchase from the TV App. It's confusing looking through your content and then have a cool movie pop up that sends you to iTunes. Really killed the experience for our family.
Uh, if not Apple, who *IS* responsible for the decisions about how tvOS works? One can argue that integration with the TV app is up to the service providers, but even that is subject to debate. Every single other point is 100% on Apple.
Well I must apologize as you've made yourself more clear the 2nd time around. But still, your post came off as the typical Apple-must-save-the-world crap.
As far as who is responsible for adopting the TV app? Well, that would still be the app developers. Maybe Apple should require TV App integration soon like they did with 64-bit support.
Also Apple please remove movies you have to purchase from the TV App. It's confusing looking through your content and then have a cool movie pop up that sends you to iTunes. Really killed the experience for our family.
No apology necessary, I just don't understand how you came to the conclusion you did. I listed examples of ways the Apple TV either fails to live up to the claims Apple itself made about what it's supposed to be, or outright malfunctions. What part of that warranted correction? Did I write something that's not true?
[...] tvOS should be highly restrictive/centralised in media delivery with services providing content not Apps.
I hadn't thought about that. I haven't decided yet if I agree, but so far the current model fails utterly to achieve one of its early stated goals, which was to consolidate content into a cohesive interface. Amazon supports the TV app but not the top row, Netflix includes the top row but not the TV app, and downloaded material sits off by itself and can't even be searched. I don't know if eliminating apps would help (not that I expect Apple would do that anyway), but it would sure improve my enjoyment of the device if apps were consistent in their presentation.
Apple could impose certain minimum requirements an app has to meet to be allowed on the tvOS Store, like top row, search, and compatibility with the TV app, but that may backfire. Is the Apple TV a big enough player in the streaming viewer market for providers to care about it? Would making it harder for providers to get an app on the Apple TV just result in some providers deciding not to bother?
It's getting there.
"data firm Thinknum is out today with an interesting look at how the Apple TV 4K has soared in popularity over recent weeks. According to Thinknum’s data, which is based on Best Buy sales rank data, Apple TV is now a close second to the Amazon Fire TV Stick in terms of sales."
One question left unanswered by the Thinknum piece is how many viewers even bother with a dedicated streaming device like the Fire Stick or Apple TV. How much of the streaming market accesses that stuff via a smart TV instead? Do sales of Fire Sticks, Apple TVs, Roku devices, et al constitute a large percentage of total viewers or just a small subset? If the latter, does being a major player in a minor market provide Apple with enough penetration to have leverage with content providers?
Either way, I'm glad to see the Apple TV doing well. Maybe success in that segment will motivate Apple to give tvOS more love.
You’ve got to realize that most TVs aren’t smart TVs, and for many that are, support has long since been discontinued for them. That’s who most of these cheap boxes are for. Apple TV is a high end box, as is the Android Shield. Add to that, what I expect Apple to do, is only offer their programming on the Apple platform, which means for many Android users, and Apple users who have previously not been interested in AirPlay, will have a cheap way into the Apple ecosystem to watch what Apple hopes will turn out to be must see TV.
Given how poorly the existing models work, it's hard to get excited about a new version. I'd be much, much happier to read that Apple has committed to bringing tvOS up to the standards we enjoy with its other products.
The list of weirdness got a little longer yesterday. In addition to the long-standing issues, such as...
1. Locally-stored content and cloud based content are listed in separate sections, so finding a title requires looking in two different places. 2. "Looking" is the only option for rips and downloaded content, because tvOS doesn't search local content. 3. Some services appear in the TV app, others don't. 4. The OS routinely fails to notice that we've already watched something, so when we go to watch a new episode we're presented with the last one we watched instead. 5. It does not allow purchases of individual songs. The only music acquisition option is a subscription to Apple Music.
...we can now add:
6. Despite being signed in to my iTunes account, it now occasionally reports that I have no purchases to view. I have to restart it to get it to "see" my purchases.
This is the kind of thing I might expect and tolerate in a $50 off-brand device, but it's really disappointing in an Apple product that costs two hundred bucks.
Also - stop buying music song by song genius... wait wait the Telegraph is tapping brb
Apple TV is a high end box [...] a cheap way into the Apple ecosystem to watch what Apple hopes will turn out to be must see TV.
Cheap compared to what, though? Compared to a Mac, yes. Compared to a $50 Fire Stick, not so much.
I'm not saying that the Apple TV is overpriced or that a the Fire Stick is equivalent. I do think the average buyer will make that comparison though, and the price may be high enough to be a deterrent to easy adoption. Look at it like this:
- Amazon wants me to subscribe to its streaming service. I need a device to do that. The device is $50. That's low enough that I probably won't think too much about it.
- Now Apple wants me to subscribe to its streaming service. I need a device to do that. The device costs more than three times as much as nearest thing I can find to compare it to. It's a better device, but it's also much more expensive. I may balk at that.
You and I know it's not fair to compare an Apple TV to a Fire Stick, but I don't know if most people will make the distinction, or even care if shown the difference. The Apple TV may simply be more device than most people need or want, the same way a discrete 5.1 speaker system seems excessive to someone who is satisfied with a sound bar.
Of course, like you say, the unknown in the scenario you describe is the desirability of Apple's content. It may be so awesome that people will be enticed to buy a more expensive device to get access to it. If they're not, maybe a cheaper, simpler option -- like an Apple equivalent to the Fire Stick -- would be a good idea.
Given how poorly the existing models work, it's hard to get excited about a new version. I'd be much, much happier to read that Apple has committed to bringing tvOS up to the standards we enjoy with its other products.
The list of weirdness got a little longer yesterday. In addition to the long-standing issues, such as...
1. Locally-stored content and cloud based content are listed in separate sections, so finding a title requires looking in two different places. 2. "Looking" is the only option for rips and downloaded content, because tvOS doesn't search local content. 3. Some services appear in the TV app, others don't. 4. The OS routinely fails to notice that we've already watched something, so when we go to watch a new episode we're presented with the last one we watched instead. 5. It does not allow purchases of individual songs. The only music acquisition option is a subscription to Apple Music.
...we can now add:
6. Despite being signed in to my iTunes account, it now occasionally reports that I have no purchases to view. I have to restart it to get it to "see" my purchases.
This is the kind of thing I might expect and tolerate in a $50 off-brand device, but it's really disappointing in an Apple product that costs two hundred bucks.
Also - stop buying music song by song genius... wait wait the Telegraph is tapping brb
So despite not knowing me, anything about my listening habits or preferences, budget choices, devices, or anything other than the content of a single post, you consider it appropriate not only to counsel me on how to manage my music library but also throw in an insult?
You'll perhaps understand if I don't worry too much about what you think. Actually, given that you thought your post was a good idea, you probably won't.
I too love my Apple TV 4th gen, we use it daily. Oddly we have none of the problems claimed — not sure what we’re doing wrong?
Claiming it’s Apple’s fault service providers aren’t oboard with features like TV app inclusion or search ability is hogwash, it’s on them alone.
And whether this guy wants to admit it or not, the entertainment industry which owns the movies licenses does indeed consider ripping of DVDs to be piracy as they encrypted it with CSS to prevent it. Again, barking up the wrong tree when complaining “But Apple!” Typical tho.
I’m not a fan of the remote, however. Had to get a rubber sleeve for it that makes orienting and operating it in the dark easier.
My only problem with the remote is that it’s so small and light, the cat can walk off with it.
Orientation in the dark is not a problem. I can tell when the smooth part is under my thumb (said the actress to the vicar).
I always thought the USB/HDMI dongle was a much better form factor than the Apple TV. The only drawback is it doesn’t allow an LAN connection, but I suspect very few people use that anyway.
I agree with other posters that Apple TV is one of Apple’s poorer products. The idea is good, but the execution is awful. We have a 2nd ( maybe 3rd?) Gen AppleTV and using the remote is incredibly painful. It’s a classic example of form over function rather than form following function. It sounds like the 4th gen device is better, but after being burned with the first unit, I couldnt’ get myself to fork over more money for another one.
The only way to make it usable is to use your iphone as a remote. It definitely works better, but that means you have to turn your phone on every time you need to use the remote, or swap back and forth between remotes - neither is a stellar example of usability. Beyond that, we routinely have problems with the remote app not connecting with the AppleTV.
I would also echo Lorin’s complaints of AppleTV’s crappy job of accessing local content. We have a ton of DVD’s that we have purchased over the years as well as music CDs. Accessing either of those via Apple TV is so painful and tedious that it’s virtually useless.
Another problem with AppleTV was Apple’s policy of only allowing 24 hours to watch a rented movie. Not infrequently, my wife and I wanted to watch a movie but knew we wouldnt’ be able to stay awake for the entire film. Apple did eventually change that, but I have to wonder if that was another factor pushing people away.
In the end, I suspect one of the biggest factors was the fact that Roku is $100+ cheaper and many people have amazon prime subscriptions. Those two dwindle the number of people willing to fork over $150-200 on an AppleTV.
While the TV industry is clearly headed towards streaming services, the technology side still seems fragmented and divided.
I would like a single box/monitor that functions to integrates all these things into a seamless package:
-- Home automation
-- Gaming
-- Cable
-- Streaming
-- Telephone/Facetime
It seems to me that the technology is there to do it -- and has been for awhile. But the individual fiefdoms refuse to relinquish their stranglehold.
Agreed! (Well except that I don’t care about gaming)
Unfortunatly, the market seems to be getting more fragmented. Apple TV has the potential to unify things a bit by allowing individual apps, but all that would do would be to put all the fragments in one box.
In some ways, though, we had a more unified option with the cable providers - they have Cable, streaming and phone options. Along with high prices and crappy service enabled by a virtual monopoly. Maybe the fragmentation is the price we pay for breaking the cable companies’ monopoly. Still, it’d be nice to have come competition without the fragmentation.
People complain how expensive ATV is and still demand the top performance CPU and such. Tell you what, subscribe to Direct TV stream and you don’t pay a penny for ATV. I owed 3 ATV and paid $0 for them. I subscribed Direct TV 3 times and kept it for 3 months. That’s it. Btw, ATV 4K remote works the wonder...touch sensitive remote is the king for moving around menus or holding down the TV button to turn off entire media systems of mine: surround sound system, TV and ATV itself.
While the TV industry is clearly headed towards streaming services, the technology side still seems fragmented and divided.
I would like a single box/monitor that functions to integrates all these things into a seamless package:
-- Home automation
-- Gaming
-- Cable
-- Streaming
-- Telephone/Facetime
It seems to me that the technology is there to do it -- and has been for awhile. But the individual fiefdoms refuse to relinquish their stranglehold.
Agreed! (Well except that I don’t care about gaming)
Unfortunatly, the market seems to be getting more fragmented. Apple TV has the potential to unify things a bit by allowing individual apps, but all that would do would be to put all the fragments in one box.
In some ways, though, we had a more unified option with the cable providers - they have Cable, streaming and phone options. Along with high prices and crappy service enabled by a virtual monopoly. Maybe the fragmentation is the price we pay for breaking the cable companies’ monopoly. Still, it’d be nice to have come competition without the fragmentation.
In the early days cable operators were government regulated private monopolies and tightly controlled -- like any utility (or at least like they were back then). We should have never left that model. Now we have monopolies whose only reason to add services or improve them is to improve their profit.
Apple TV was without a doubt the worst Apple product I ever bought.
Odd that you don’t actually like Apple kit, but keep buying it. 🤔
Avon b7’s charade was up a long time ago. We all know who and what it is, and it ain’t an Apple kit owner.
Mac II Performa 630 G4 Sawtooth iMacs (21 and 27) eMac Different laptops (intel) MacBook Air Apple TV Different iPhones Time Capsule Dongles galore! AppleCare galore! iPads
That's off the top of my head.
Don't worry, I've invested enough in Apple to be able to form an opinion.
Comments
Ideally they should drop ATV into an S-package for other products (TVs, sound bars) to integrate, starting with HomePod.
Or they could rethink tvOS. Tim got it wrong throwing it open like a broader-purpose device. tvOS should be highly restrictive/centralised in media delivery with services providing content not Apps.
Apple could impose certain minimum requirements an app has to meet to be allowed on the tvOS Store, like top row, search, and compatibility with the TV app, but that may backfire. Is the Apple TV a big enough player in the streaming viewer market for providers to care about it? Would making it harder for providers to get an app on the Apple TV just result in some providers deciding not to bother?
"data firm Thinknum is out today with an interesting look at how the Apple TV 4K has soared in popularity over recent weeks. According to Thinknum’s data, which is based on Best Buy sales rank data, Apple TV is now a close second to the Amazon Fire TV Stick in terms of sales."
https://9to5mac.com/2018/11/21/apple-tv-sales-rank/
One question left unanswered by the Thinknum piece is how many viewers even bother with a dedicated streaming device like the Fire Stick or Apple TV. How much of the streaming market accesses that stuff via a smart TV instead? Do sales of Fire Sticks, Apple TVs, Roku devices, et al constitute a large percentage of total viewers or just a small subset? If the latter, does being a major player in a minor market provide Apple with enough penetration to have leverage with content providers?
As far as who is responsible for adopting the TV app? Well, that would still be the app developers. Maybe Apple should require TV App integration soon like they did with 64-bit support.
Also Apple please remove movies you have to purchase from the TV App. It's confusing looking through your content and then have a cool movie pop up that sends you to iTunes. Really killed the experience for our family.
I'm not saying that the Apple TV is overpriced or that a the Fire Stick is equivalent. I do think the average buyer will make that comparison though, and the price may be high enough to be a deterrent to easy adoption. Look at it like this:
- Amazon wants me to subscribe to its streaming service. I need a device to do that. The device is $50. That's low enough that I probably won't think too much about it.
- Now Apple wants me to subscribe to its streaming service. I need a device to do that. The device costs more than three times as much as nearest thing I can find to compare it to. It's a better device, but it's also much more expensive. I may balk at that.
You and I know it's not fair to compare an Apple TV to a Fire Stick, but I don't know if most people will make the distinction, or even care if shown the difference. The Apple TV may simply be more device than most people need or want, the same way a discrete 5.1 speaker system seems excessive to someone who is satisfied with a sound bar.
Of course, like you say, the unknown in the scenario you describe is the desirability of Apple's content. It may be so awesome that people will be enticed to buy a more expensive device to get access to it. If they're not, maybe a cheaper, simpler option -- like an Apple equivalent to the Fire Stick -- would be a good idea.
You'll perhaps understand if I don't worry too much about what you think. Actually, given that you thought your post was a good idea, you probably won't.
Orientation in the dark is not a problem. I can tell when the smooth part is under my thumb (said the actress to the vicar).
“This will knock your southern socks off, Tim! An AppleTV dongle that’s cheaper—”
Tim Cook walks out of the room.
I agree with other posters that Apple TV is one of Apple’s poorer products. The idea is good, but the execution is awful. We have a 2nd ( maybe 3rd?) Gen AppleTV and using the remote is incredibly painful. It’s a classic example of form over function rather than form following function. It sounds like the 4th gen device is better, but after being burned with the first unit, I couldnt’ get myself to fork over more money for another one.
The only way to make it usable is to use your iphone as a remote. It definitely works better, but that means you have to turn your phone on every time you need to use the remote, or swap back and forth between remotes - neither is a stellar example of usability. Beyond that, we routinely have problems with the remote app not connecting with the AppleTV.
I would also echo Lorin’s complaints of AppleTV’s crappy job of accessing local content. We have a ton of DVD’s that we have purchased over the years as well as music CDs. Accessing either of those via Apple TV is so painful and tedious that it’s virtually useless.
Another problem with AppleTV was Apple’s policy of only allowing 24 hours to watch a rented movie. Not infrequently, my wife and I wanted to watch a movie but knew we wouldnt’ be able to stay awake for the entire film. Apple did eventually change that, but I have to wonder if that was another factor pushing people away.
In the end, I suspect one of the biggest factors was the fact that Roku is $100+ cheaper and many people have amazon prime subscriptions. Those two dwindle the number of people willing to fork over $150-200 on an AppleTV.
Unfortunatly, the market seems to be getting more fragmented. Apple TV has the potential to unify things a bit by allowing individual apps, but all that would do would be to put all the fragments in one box.
In some ways, though, we had a more unified option with the cable providers - they have Cable, streaming and phone options. Along with high prices and crappy service enabled by a virtual monopoly. Maybe the fragmentation is the price we pay for breaking the cable companies’ monopoly. Still, it’d be nice to have come competition without the fragmentation.
Performa 630
G4 Sawtooth
iMacs (21 and 27)
eMac
Different laptops (intel)
MacBook Air
Apple TV
Different iPhones
Time Capsule
Dongles galore!
AppleCare galore!
iPads
That's off the top of my head.
Don't worry, I've invested enough in Apple to be able to form an opinion.