No, Apple's licensing of iTunes & AirPlay 2 isn't a 'strategy reversal' in any way

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 74
    robbyxrobbyx Posts: 433member
    robbyx said:

    Personally I'd like to see Apple make their TV app the center of the Apple TV experience.  Right now it's confusing with so many different apps and interfaces, some of which work with the TV app while others don't.
    It does this now -- the default is for the ATV home screen to be the TV app. (I didn't like this tho and immediately switched back to the home screen). If a video app doesn't support the TV app, that's their decision. Amazon Prime does, HBO Go does, Netflix does not. 
    True, but it's still a bit confusing.  In my opinion they should make (an updated) TV app the only interface for TV viewing and require developers to support it.  The TV app needs some work, but I like the direction it's going.  Every TV app having its own interface is not very user-friendly in my opinion.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 74
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,108administrator
    Someone please email this article to Mims.
    We have notable traffic from inside the WSJ networks.
    racerhomie3correctionsStrangeDaysd_2eideardwilliamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 74
    robbyxrobbyx Posts: 433member

    robbyx said:
    TVs supporting AirPlay2 and an iTunes app for TVs tell me two things:

    1) Apple has completely abandoned the idea of offering their own TV hardware (if that was ever really a possibility anyway)

    2) Apple's upcoming video service is going to be a lot more than just some free original content to sweeten the deal for existing Apple hardware owners (as some sources have suggested)

    Personally I'd like to see Apple make their TV app the center of the Apple TV experience.  Right now it's confusing with so many different apps and interfaces, some of which work with the TV app while others don't.


    1) Apples next Apple TV is gonna be a powerhouse. At least with an A10 chip. If Apple can go all out with an A12X chip with a focus on gaming there will be many benefits of owning one.

    2) Free on Apple devices but paid on on other devices would be wonderful!


    The TV App fails when it crams in purchasable content with your paid content. Makes me skip the mess. They could easily add an "iTunes" tab if they still want us to buy more but mixing it in with my viewable content is confusing.

    The TV app is not without its problems, I agree, but I think they're on the right track.  My big complaint is that all these different apps have different interfaces and that doesn't really make sense since they all essentially do the same thing.  It's counterproductive for the user.  In the end, we just want to watch the content, not have to learn a different app for each service.  And some of the streaming app interfaces are downright awful, like Hulu.  Some sort episodes most recent to oldest.  Others show the most recent at the bottom of the list, etc.  A standard streaming interface would be a great benefit to customers.

    I don't know how much it matters if the next Apple TV is a "powerhouse".  I mean, the current one packs a decent punch.  I've always hoped that Apple would get serious about gaming.  Apple TV games are pretty pathetic.  An updated Apple TV with a focus on gaming could be a winner, though, especially with a great first-party game controller.  I still wish Apple would buy Nintendo.  They might not have the most cutting edge hardware, but they always manage to impress with their user experience and game controllers.  Plus having all of the Nintendo franchises as Apple exclusives would be a huge selling point.

    I totally agree with you on #2, but I doubt that will happen!
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 74
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 1,966member
    nano said:
    It seems more like a confirmation that Apple is continuing to shift their strategy.  Apple is not likely to make a standalone TV now.  Yes, Apple Music was on android but further evidence that the shift is happening away from the walled-in strategy with their hardware. 

    On another note, having read Appleinsider for many years. Did WSJ do some sort of harm to AI?  The attacks and defensiveness of some recent AI articles is off-putting. 
    Apple was never going to make a stand alone TV, Why? It was and has always been a silly rumor.  Profit margins on TVs is small.  Few people are going to rush out and replace their perfectly good TV for a over priced Apple TV.  They are also large and take up a lot of space.  Really, what more is it going to do over a Small box that can be added to any TV and at a fraction of the price.

    I've had Airplay on my Yamaha surround sound receiver.   I access icloud on my Windows computers for years.  Really, Apple is doing what they've always done.  Steve Jobs was talking about having FaceTime on Android.  That didn't happen, but it still like to see it.  Let me know when imessage is on other platforms.  That would be nice.  Everyone could be blue bubbles.

    docno42watto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 74
    I find it funny people always complain about Apple and their licensing fees and that “greedy Apple” would never let anyone use any of their IP without paying. This way they can make Apple out to be the “bad guy”.

    Now when Airplay comes to TVs (and especially iTunes on Samsung) suddenly it’s Apple paying someone else to get their services onto their devices. This way they can claim Apple is “desperate” and “shifting strategy”.

    The only thing consistent is that Apple is somehow always on the losing end.
    StrangeDaysasdasddocno42williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 74
    Notsofast said:
    nano said:
    It seems more like a confirmation that Apple is continuing to shift their strategy.  Apple is not likely to make a standalone TV now.  Yes, Apple Music was on android but further evidence that the shift is happening away from the walled-in strategy with their hardware. 

    On another note, having read Appleinsider for many years. Did WSJ do some sort of harm to AI?  The attacks and defensiveness of some recent AI articles is off-putting. 
    There's no shift.  Apple never announced, nor likely ever intended, to make a standalone TV and compete in the low profit commoditized world of TV screens. Never made any sense.  There's nothing for Apple to offer, when they are all buying their screens from a couple of manufacturers and bundling them in their own package.  In contrast, Apple TV is a high margin, very differentiated product that enhances the Apple ecosystem for its customers.

    Are you referring to the Apple TV box? How is it a very differentiated product? It’s basically an overpriced TV streaming box. If it was everything you say why would Apple be offering AirPlay and iTunes on other people’s hardware? And everyone here talks about TVs as being low margin commodities but if Apple got in the TV set business tomorrow you’d all be singing a different tune explaining why it makes perfect sense.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 27 of 74
    Notsofast said:
    Anyone who thinks this isn’t a significant shift in strategy is blind. And stop bringing up iPod. The Mac in the early 2000s was nothing like iOS is today. The only way Apple was going to grow iPod (and iTunes) sales was via Windows. That is absolutely not the case today. Of course if Apple is building something to compete with Netflix/Amazon/HBO then yeah that services needs to be everywhere. But that is a strategy shift.

    The latest episode of Ben Thompson’s excellent podcast explains it well.

    https://exponent.fm/episode-158-a-significant-shift/

    If DED thinks this is the right strategy then that’s what he should be arguing and providing reasons why he thinks it’s the right business move.

    Ben Thompson is often wrong.  His problem is he looks at the present and then mistakenly believes that there are always a small number of variables that controlled an outcome that he is uniquely able to divine, and then he makes a broad prediction, when in reality there are so many variables that control an outcome. For example, just a short while back he scoffed at Apple ever being a major player with services, saying they were terrible at it and could never compete with Google that was so far ahead.  In reality, Apple was already a major player in Services (the App Store anyone?) and Apple's services will soon hit $50 Billion in revenue.  In the issue at hand, he wrote his article too soon, as more news came out, it turns out that Samsung and others actually experienced greater declines because of China.
    The bulk of Apple’s services come from their cut of IAP as well as what they charge for cloud storage. And I think AppleCare and MFI is thrown in that line item too. Technically you could consider those services but I wouldn’t treat them the same as other companies services, especially software as a service companies.
  • Reply 28 of 74
    jbdragon said:
    nano said:
    It seems more like a confirmation that Apple is continuing to shift their strategy.  Apple is not likely to make a standalone TV now.  Yes, Apple Music was on android but further evidence that the shift is happening away from the walled-in strategy with their hardware. 

    On another note, having read Appleinsider for many years. Did WSJ do some sort of harm to AI?  The attacks and defensiveness of some recent AI articles is off-putting. 
    Apple was never going to make a stand alone TV, Why? It was and has always been a silly rumor.  Profit margins on TVs is small.  Few people are going to rush out and replace their perfectly good TV for a over priced Apple TV.  They are also large and take up a lot of space.  Really, what more is it going to do over a Small box that can be added to any TV and at a fraction of the price.

    I've had Airplay on my Yamaha surround sound receiver.   I access icloud on my Windows computers for years.  Really, Apple is doing what they've always done.  Steve Jobs was talking about having FaceTime on Android.  That didn't happen, but it still like to see it.  Let me know when imessage is on other platforms.  That would be nice.  Everyone could be blue bubbles.

    Every time I’m in Best Buy the TV section of the store is the most crowded. Over the holidays I’ve had numerous family members and friends upgrade their non-smart TVs to smart TVs. Smart TVs are incredibly popular. It’s very convenient to have the capabilities built right into the TV with no need to spend additional money on a separate box and separate cables. If Apple ever got into the TV set business it wouldn’t be about making large profits on the TV it would be about using the TV to sell their original content programming service. For now Apple has decided to just give the service to existing TV makers. But I think Apple is great with displays and could probably make a really great TV. Maybe it wouldn’t have iPhone like margins but if it’s there to sell TV subscriptions so what.
  • Reply 29 of 74
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,218member
    I find it funny people always complain about Apple and their licensing fees and that “greedy Apple” would never let anyone use any of their IP without paying. This way they can make Apple out to be the “bad guy”.

    Now when Airplay comes to TVs (and especially iTunes on Samsung) suddenly it’s Apple paying someone else to get their services onto their devices. This way they can claim Apple is “desperate” and “shifting strategy”.

    The only thing consistent is that Apple is somehow always on the losing end.
    No one really cares about that. People like convergence. People don't like barriers to things that don't need barriers. People don't live in Apple bubbles.

    As for 'shifting strategy', of course it is shifting strategy. As the company continues to reduce its dependence on iPhone it is enhancing and expanding its services arm. The mere move into content creation itself is indicative enough of a huge shift.

    The TV remains a centrepoint of family life. Apple doesn't make one and ATV requires a purchase. There is the option of bundling an ATV with every ATV-content subscription but the cleanest option IMO, would be to simply include an App for Apple content on TV platforms (some of which run Android TV,) and offer AirPlay 2 to manufacturers.

    If the decision has been taken to make Apple's content as widely available as possible, that means providing support for as many platforms as possible.
    asdasdmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 30 of 74
    WSJ is DEaD. Long live DED.
    firelockbrucemc
  • Reply 31 of 74
    gatorguy said:
    NY1822 said:
    Does Apple have to pay these tv manufacturers to have iTunes on their hardware? Or since they both receive benefits it's a wash?
    At present, we believe the manufacturers are paying a license fee to Apple in the same way that audio companies do. We're still working on this.
    It's actually the other way around when it comes to TV's. Content providers pay TV manufacturers to have apps on their TV's. My guess is Apple is paying Samsung. 

    EDIT: I wanted to add it's possible Samsung and Apple agreed on Samsung not collecting money from Apple for iTunes App in exchange for licensing AirPlay. 
    Yes, I've read before that services pay TV manufacturers and platforms for placement on-screen and on the remote, and never seen that it's the other way around.

    It makes sense that Apple has offered some profit-sharing arrangement to entice Samsung, Sony, etc if incorporating profit-making Apple services. Don't know tho if Air Play would be considered one of those, but  if we're talking about iTunes I think it's a given that the platform provider is getting a share of the wealth.  IMO how else to explain everyone jumping on board at the same time? 
    I'm really curious about the agreement between Samsung and Apple, but we will probably never know what it is. Best guess is Samsung is making something off of the deal. The only time TV manufacturers pay for something is licensing for things such as Dolby Vision, Dolby Atmos, etc. 
  • Reply 32 of 74
    Notsofast said:

    Ben Thompson is often wrong.  His problem is he looks at the present and then mistakenly believes that there are always a small number of variables that controlled an outcome that he is uniquely able to divine, and then he makes a broad prediction, when in reality there are so many variables that control an outcome. For example, just a short while back he scoffed at Apple ever being a major player with services, saying they were terrible at it and could never compete with Google that was so far ahead.  In reality, Apple was already a major player in Services (the App Store anyone?) and Apple's services will soon hit $50 Billion in revenue.  In the issue at hand, he wrote his article too soon, as more news came out, it turns out that Samsung and others actually experienced greater declines because of China.
    The bulk of Apple’s services come from their cut of IAP as well as what they charge for cloud storage. And I think AppleCare and MFI is thrown in that line item too. Technically you could consider those services but I wouldn’t treat them the same as other companies services, especially software as a service companies.
    That is incorrect. 
    n2itivguyradarthekatbrucemc
  • Reply 33 of 74
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,818member
    Notsofast said:
    Anyone who thinks this isn’t a significant shift in strategy is blind. And stop bringing up iPod. The Mac in the early 2000s was nothing like iOS is today. The only way Apple was going to grow iPod (and iTunes) sales was via Windows. That is absolutely not the case today. Of course if Apple is building something to compete with Netflix/Amazon/HBO then yeah that services needs to be everywhere. But that is a strategy shift.

    The latest episode of Ben Thompson’s excellent podcast explains it well.

    https://exponent.fm/episode-158-a-significant-shift/

    If DED thinks this is the right strategy then that’s what he should be arguing and providing reasons why he thinks it’s the right business move.

    Ben Thompson is often wrong.  His problem is he looks at the present and then mistakenly believes that there are always a small number of variables that controlled an outcome that he is uniquely able to divine, and then he makes a broad prediction, when in reality there are so many variables that control an outcome. For example, just a short while back he scoffed at Apple ever being a major player with services, saying they were terrible at it and could never compete with Google that was so far ahead.  In reality, Apple was already a major player in Services (the App Store anyone?) and Apple's services will soon hit $50 Billion in revenue.  In the issue at hand, he wrote his article too soon, as more news came out, it turns out that Samsung and others actually experienced greater declines because of China.
    The bulk of Apple’s services come from their cut of IAP as well as what they charge for cloud storage. And I think AppleCare and MFI is thrown in that line item too. Technically you could consider those services but I wouldn’t treat them the same as other companies services, especially software as a service companies.
    According to Apple's previous announcements the "Services" category revenue comes primarily from the App Store, AppleCare, iTunes, Apple Music, iCloud and Apple Pay. What they don't really mention much is Google Search revenue, essentially licensing activities, which might be the 2nd largest contributor to Apple's services revenue behind the App Store which is estimated to account for upwards of 35% of the total.  

    Fun Stat: The largest driver of App Store revenues is games and the in-app sales from them, estimated to command as much as 75% of Apple's total cut of app sales. 
    edited January 11 asdasdmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 34 of 74
    robbyxrobbyx Posts: 433member
    gatorguy said:
    Notsofast said:
    Anyone who thinks this isn’t a significant shift in strategy is blind. And stop bringing up iPod. The Mac in the early 2000s was nothing like iOS is today. The only way Apple was going to grow iPod (and iTunes) sales was via Windows. That is absolutely not the case today. Of course if Apple is building something to compete with Netflix/Amazon/HBO then yeah that services needs to be everywhere. But that is a strategy shift.

    The latest episode of Ben Thompson’s excellent podcast explains it well.

    https://exponent.fm/episode-158-a-significant-shift/

    If DED thinks this is the right strategy then that’s what he should be arguing and providing reasons why he thinks it’s the right business move.

    Ben Thompson is often wrong.  His problem is he looks at the present and then mistakenly believes that there are always a small number of variables that controlled an outcome that he is uniquely able to divine, and then he makes a broad prediction, when in reality there are so many variables that control an outcome. For example, just a short while back he scoffed at Apple ever being a major player with services, saying they were terrible at it and could never compete with Google that was so far ahead.  In reality, Apple was already a major player in Services (the App Store anyone?) and Apple's services will soon hit $50 Billion in revenue.  In the issue at hand, he wrote his article too soon, as more news came out, it turns out that Samsung and others actually experienced greater declines because of China.
    The bulk of Apple’s services come from their cut of IAP as well as what they charge for cloud storage. And I think AppleCare and MFI is thrown in that line item too. Technically you could consider those services but I wouldn’t treat them the same as other companies services, especially software as a service companies.
    Fun Stat: The largest driver of App Store revenues is games and the in-app sales from them, estimated to command as much as 75% of Apple's total cut of app sales. 
    More reason to take gaming seriously in the next Apple TV revision by offering beefier hardware and, more importantly, an innovative Apple game controller.
    n2itivguydocno42
  • Reply 35 of 74
    robbyxrobbyx Posts: 433member
    Notsofast said:

    robbyx said:
    TVs supporting AirPlay2 and an iTunes app for TVs tell me two things:

    1) Apple has completely abandoned the idea of offering their own TV hardware (if that was ever really a possibility anyway)

    2) Apple's upcoming video service is going to be a lot more than just some free original content to sweeten the deal for existing Apple hardware owners (as some sources have suggested)

    Personally I'd like to see Apple make their TV app the center of the Apple TV experience.  Right now it's confusing with so many different apps and interfaces, some of which work with the TV app while others don't.
    This idea of an Apple TV never made any sense as Apple doesn't get into low margin, commoditized businesses unless it has something to differentiate it and command a suitable profit margin.  Heck, major players like Panasonic and Sony have been pulling back because low margin companies like Vizio have cannibalized sales as consumers can't tell a meaningful difference between the screens (for the most part, now that we are well into HD, 4K, etc., the TV's are all great), leaving the companies to compete on price--not Apple's market. 
    The correct thing to do - the best strategy would have been to make the Apple TV half as much and make it the premium offering over a Firestick but to populate the installed base of iOS with basic affordable set top boxes that would have rendered this conunumdrum already solved.

    The app on one and not the others and some available on old ones but not other old ones - these are terrible omens for this TV service and Apple TV. It’s already been handled the wrong way in the press, and it’s confusing already and most people don’t care about AirPlay 1 or 2. They just look at the phone. The End. If they want Apple content at all - they’d want iTunes and now it’s only in Samsung and Samsung QLED tech is well behind OLED. To say nothing of Tizen. 
    Apple TV is ridiculously overpriced.  I just had a (non-techie) friend text me a little while ago asking what to buy, Fire, Chrome Cast, or Roku.  I responded, since they are an Apple household, why not Apple TV?  Her response was simple: it's 3x more expensive and for what?

    I really don't understand what they are doing with Apple TV.  I have one and I like it, but aside from the Apple "experience", what does it offer over the competition?  Nothing.  I also agree that these latest announcements are not the best omens.  I'm confused, and I'm a seasoned Apple user.  Will the Samsung TVs only offer iTunes content?  Will they get the rumored TV service?  Is the TV service falling under the iTunes umbrella?  We shall see...
    asdasdwilliamlondon
  • Reply 36 of 74
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 2,935moderator
    Anyone who thinks this isn’t a significant shift in strategy is blind. And stop bringing up iPod. The Mac in the early 2000s was nothing like iOS is today. The only way Apple was going to grow iPod (and iTunes) sales was via Windows. That is absolutely not the case today. Of course if Apple is building something to compete with Netflix/Amazon/HBO then yeah that services needs to be everywhere. But that is a strategy shift.

    The latest episode of Ben Thompson’s excellent podcast explains it well.

    https://exponent.fm/episode-158-a-significant-shift/

    If DED thinks this is the right strategy then that’s what he should be arguing and providing reasons why he thinks it’s the right business move.

    Regarding AirPlay, the shift is that Apple has become the defacto standard at the high end of the market, and if you want to play there, you should support the standards.  So Samsung, el al, comes to Apple.  Not the other way around. 
    edited January 11 MisterKitwilliamlondonbrucemc
  • Reply 37 of 74
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 2,935moderator
    jbdragon said:
    nano said:
    It seems more like a confirmation that Apple is continuing to shift their strategy.  Apple is not likely to make a standalone TV now.  Yes, Apple Music was on android but further evidence that the shift is happening away from the walled-in strategy with their hardware. 

    On another note, having read Appleinsider for many years. Did WSJ do some sort of harm to AI?  The attacks and defensiveness of some recent AI articles is off-putting. 
    Apple was never going to make a stand alone TV, Why? It was and has always been a silly rumor.  Profit margins on TVs is small.  Few people are going to rush out and replace their perfectly good TV for a over priced Apple TV.  They are also large and take up a lot of space.  Really, what more is it going to do over a Small box that can be added to any TV and at a fraction of the price.

    I've had Airplay on my Yamaha surround sound receiver.   I access icloud on my Windows computers for years.  Really, Apple is doing what they've always done.  Steve Jobs was talking about having FaceTime on Android.  That didn't happen, but it still like to see it.  Let me know when imessage is on other platforms.  That would be nice.  Everyone could be blue bubbles.

    Every time I’m in Best Buy the TV section of the store is the most crowded. Over the holidays I’ve had numerous family members and friends upgrade their non-smart TVs to smart TVs. Smart TVs are incredibly popular. It’s very convenient to have the capabilities built right into the TV with no need to spend additional money on a separate box and separate cables. If Apple ever got into the TV set business it wouldn’t be about making large profits on the TV it would be about using the TV to sell their original content programming service. For now Apple has decided to just give the service to existing TV makers. But I think Apple is great with displays and could probably make a really great TV. Maybe it wouldn’t have iPhone like margins but if it’s there to sell TV subscriptions so what.
    Nope.  Better to NOT integrate the smarts with the big expensive display.  You want to upgrade the smart bits more often than the expensive bits, so it makes sense to keep the streaming/gaming/content bit apart from the big expensive display.  
    robbyxwilliamlondonbrucemc
  • Reply 38 of 74
    rgh71rgh71 Posts: 108member
    robbyx said:
    Notsofast said:

    robbyx said:
    TVs supporting AirPlay2 and an iTunes app for TVs tell me two things:

    1) Apple has completely abandoned the idea of offering their own TV hardware (if that was ever really a possibility anyway)

    2) Apple's upcoming video service is going to be a lot more than just some free original content to sweeten the deal for existing Apple hardware owners (as some sources have suggested)

    Personally I'd like to see Apple make their TV app the center of the Apple TV experience.  Right now it's confusing with so many different apps and interfaces, some of which work with the TV app while others don't.
    This idea of an Apple TV never made any sense as Apple doesn't get into low margin, commoditized businesses unless it has something to differentiate it and command a suitable profit margin.  Heck, major players like Panasonic and Sony have been pulling back because low margin companies like Vizio have cannibalized sales as consumers can't tell a meaningful difference between the screens (for the most part, now that we are well into HD, 4K, etc., the TV's are all great), leaving the companies to compete on price--not Apple's market. 
    The correct thing to do - the best strategy would have been to make the Apple TV half as much and make it the premium offering over a Firestick but to populate the installed base of iOS with basic affordable set top boxes that would have rendered this conunumdrum already solved.

    The app on one and not the others and some available on old ones but not other old ones - these are terrible omens for this TV service and Apple TV. It’s already been handled the wrong way in the press, and it’s confusing already and most people don’t care about AirPlay 1 or 2. They just look at the phone. The End. If they want Apple content at all - they’d want iTunes and now it’s only in Samsung and Samsung QLED tech is well behind OLED. To say nothing of Tizen. 
    Apple TV is ridiculously overpriced.  I just had a (non-techie) friend text me a little while ago asking what to buy, Fire, Chrome Cast, or Roku.  I responded, since they are an Apple household, why not Apple TV?  Her response was simple: it's 3x more expensive and for what?

    I really don't understand what they are doing with Apple TV.  I have one and I like it, but aside from the Apple "experience", what does it offer over the competition?  Nothing.  I also agree that these latest announcements are not the best omens.  I'm confused, and I'm a seasoned Apple user.  Will the Samsung TVs only offer iTunes content?  Will they get the rumored TV service?  Is the TV service falling under the iTunes umbrella?  We shall see...
    And movie rentals are cheaper from Amazon and FandangoNow!  I’ll still pay the premium when I’m using my ATV on my main Panny plasma, but I save with other smart tv options on my Vizio.  Apple better lower their prices or how can they compete?
    robbyxwilliamlondon
  • Reply 39 of 74
    I think it’s a brilliant move on Apples part. They will bring more people into the Apple ecosystem and the TV manufacturers will ride Apples coattails. Everyone wins. I believe we are seeing the early stages of Apple being a major player, if not dominant, in TV content delivery.
  • Reply 40 of 74
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 1,780member
    robbyx said:
    TVs supporting AirPlay2 and an iTunes app for TVs tell me two things:

    1) Apple has completely abandoned the idea of offering their own TV hardware (if that was ever really a possibility anyway)

    2) Apple's upcoming video service is going to be a lot more than just some free original content to sweeten the deal for existing Apple hardware owners (as some sources have suggested)

    Personally I'd like to see Apple make their TV app the center of the Apple TV experience.  Right now it's confusing with so many different apps and interfaces, some of which work with the TV app while others don't.


    1) Apples next Apple TV is gonna be a powerhouse. At least with an A10 chip. If Apple can go all out with an A12X chip with a focus on gaming there will be many benefits of owning one.

    2) Free on Apple devices but paid on on other devices would be wonderful!


    The TV App fails when it crams in purchasable content with your paid content. Makes me skip the mess. They could easily add an "iTunes" tab if they still want us to buy more but mixing it in with my viewable content is confusing.

    Re-focusing the ATV on being a hardcore gaming console is the only reason for it to exist at this point
    robbyxwilliamlondon
Sign In or Register to comment.