Apple may release a cheaper Apple TV streaming device in 2022, says Kuo

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
Apple may release a new Apple TV hardware model in the second half of 2022 with a potentially lower price tag, according to analyst Ming-Chi Kuo.

Apple TV
Apple TV


Kuo made the prediction in a tweet Friday, claiming that Apple will launch a new Apple TV model that "improves cost structure" in the second half of the year. That implies a lower price point.

The analyst goes on to say that he believes Apple's "aggressive strategy" of integrating hardware, content, and services could help the iPhone maker close the gap with its TV hardware rivals. It's not clear what data points he bases the claim on, however.

There is a pricing and marketshare gap. Market share reports indicate that the Apple TV trails behind other cheaper streaming devices like Roku, Amazon Fire TV, and Google Chromecast. Smart TVs are also complicating matters and taking market share from all streaming device makers.

This is not the first time that we've heard rumors of a cheaper or lower-cost Apple TV model. However, reports have indicated that Apple may have once scrapped plans to introduce a cheaper TV streaming stick because it thought it would ruin its premium reputation.

The current Apple TV 4K model starts at $179 and the previous-generation Apple TV HD costs $149. Most other streaming device makers have options that retail for much less, including options under $50.

Read on AppleInsider
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 42
    dhawkins541dhawkins541 Posts: 101member
    Why don't they make the HD model at least somewhat cheaper it's got an A8 which is older than the iPod touch they just discontinued? Just a thought $99 that would be a way easier sell to people that want 4K but want in on the apple hardware. 
    darkvaderwilliamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 42
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 2,909member
    Why don't they make the HD model at least somewhat cheaper it's got an A8 which is older than the iPod touch they just discontinued? Just a thought $99 that would be a way easier sell to people that want 4K but want in on the apple hardware. 
    Do you mean with, or without, the $50 remote?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 42
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,989member
    Why don't they make the HD model at least somewhat cheaper it's got an A8 which is older than the iPod touch they just discontinued? Just a thought $99 that would be a way easier sell to people that want 4K but want in on the apple hardware. 
    Nope, not a chance. And as for wanting ‘in’ on Apple hardware, you have to pay for that.
    edited May 13 williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 42
    retrogustoretrogusto Posts: 945member
    Why don't they make the HD model at least somewhat cheaper it's got an A8 which is older than the iPod touch they just discontinued? Just a thought $99 that would be a way easier sell to people that want 4K but want in on the apple hardware. 
    Do you mean with, or without, the $50 remote?
    Yeah, they could probably afford to drop the price of the remote to $50, too. 
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 42
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,908member
    Making a worse Apple TV isn’t the solution. Make a premium version for once!
    lkruppqwerty52muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 6 of 42
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,694member
    Going forward in future if Apple's focus is AppleTV+ App and it's contents and subscribers than who cares if AppleTV box is expensive or cheaper ? Long as Apple's Chip department can create SOC for small cheaper dongle like Chrome Cast or Roku or Amazon fire streaming device that does good job with current AppleTV box interface than ALL GOOD.  Your current ApplTV box is neither good gaming console(like XBOX or PS5) or cheaper streaming device.
    edited May 13 stoneygOferwilliamlondon
  • Reply 7 of 42
    iOS_Guy80iOS_Guy80 Posts: 607member
    Why do people continue to use the word cheap when describing entry level and lesser expensive Apple device models. Apple does not make cheap products. They make premium quality products with different entry price points and features. The word cheap should never be used in an article regarding Apple.
    wood1208mike1jcs2305lkruppBeatsqwerty52williamlondondewmemwhiteramanpfaff
  • Reply 8 of 42
    I'd at least like the option of buying the Apple TV WITHOUT the overpriced $59 remote and just use the one already built into the phone.
    edited May 13 macminionwilliamlondondewme
  • Reply 9 of 42
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,694member
    Truth be Told and good to educate people about Apple's product philosophy. Cheaper(lower$) price is not cheap in Quality. Big distinction!
    edited May 13 jas99
  • Reply 10 of 42
    MadbumMadbum Posts: 74member
    Likely non 4k version with A11 chip or something 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 42
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,738member
    Beats said:
    Making a worse Apple TV isn’t the solution. Make a premium version for once!
    Apple has a conundrum with its Apple TV hardware. Displaying video content (TV shows, movies, etc.) doesn't require powerful silicon.

    The 1080p Roku stick is $25 at Amazon; last year's 4K version is $34. You can buy one of each for the price of an Apple TV remote. So any recent A-series SoC has enough horsepower; it can even be a heavily binned sample with some CPU and GPU cores disabled. A premium priced Apple TV doesn't provide any benefit to Joe Consumer in terms of watching video. A 16-core M-series SoC isn't going to make that latest Marvel Comics movie look any better.

    However Apple is also marketing Apple TV as a casual gaming console. This does require more graphics horsepower but since the Apple Arcade games are relatively lightweight, today's Apple TV doesn't need to compete technology-wise with the Xbox Series X|S or the PlayStation 5.

    If you get a $500 Xbox Series X and subscribe to Xbox Game Pass, how appealing would an $800 Apple TV with an Apple Arcade+ subscription look? And what if you can AirPlay your iPhone to your television set and play games on that instead?

    If Apple wants to pursue the videogame market, they will likely need separate video streaming hardware and videogame playing hardware.

    The biggest issue is original content. Apple doesn't have enough compelling exclusive games for a $300+ console to survive today. Remember that at that price level, they would be competing with Nintendo Switch which has sold over 110 million units between the original and OLED models.

    Remember that another competitor is Nvidia Shield ($150, thirty dollars cheaper than the entry-level Apple TV 4K box) which runs GeForce NOW at 120Hz with the 3080 subscription.

    Apple will need to double down on original videogame content if they are going to compete in that market. They will also need to consider pricing very carefully because there are compelling alternatives where Apple TV is already priced.

    Videogame industry revenue surpassed Hollywood box office revenue back in the Nineties so it's clear to Apple where people's eyeballs are spending.
    edited May 13 stoneygBeatswilliamlondonirwinmauricewatto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 42
    stoneygstoneyg Posts: 39member
    wood1208 said:
    Going forward in future if Apple's focus is AppleTV+ App and it's contents and subscribers than who cares if AppleTV box is expensive or cheaper ? Long as Apple's Chip department can create SOC for small cheaper dongle like Chrome Cast or Roku or Amazon fire streaming device that does good job with current AppleTV box interface than ALL GOOD.  Your current ApplTV box is neither good gaming console(like XBOX or PS5) or cheaper streaming device.
    I have a number of AppleTVs, but this is my biggest properly with it right now. It's positioned in no-man's-land relative to the rest of the market. It's a better qualify device than most streaming sticks so it can also provide some casual gaming. But it's not a better experience than playing on iPhone, which means we don't use Apple Arcade on AppleTV at all.

    I would prefer a slimmed down AppleTV "stick" that focuses solely on streaming. I love the AppleTV interface and the new remote (even though it's ridiculously expensive). Something in the $79-$99 range would be perfect.

    Then, I wish Apple would really take gaming seriously and try to get good Nintendo-quality content for a higher-end gaming device. A $349 AppleTV with premium Apple Arcade games would be amazing with my Apple One subscription.
    OferBeatsroundaboutnowwilliamlondonthtwatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 42
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,694member
    stoneyg said:
    wood1208 said:
    Going forward in future if Apple's focus is AppleTV+ App and it's contents and subscribers than who cares if AppleTV box is expensive or cheaper ? Long as Apple's Chip department can create SOC for small cheaper dongle like Chrome Cast or Roku or Amazon fire streaming device that does good job with current AppleTV box interface than ALL GOOD.  Your current ApplTV box is neither good gaming console(like XBOX or PS5) or cheaper streaming device.
    I have a number of AppleTVs, but this is my biggest properly with it right now. It's positioned in no-man's-land relative to the rest of the market. It's a better qualify device than most streaming sticks so it can also provide some casual gaming. But it's not a better experience than playing on iPhone, which means we don't use Apple Arcade on AppleTV at all.

    I would prefer a slimmed down AppleTV "stick" that focuses solely on streaming. I love the AppleTV interface and the new remote (even though it's ridiculously expensive). Something in the $79-$99 range would be perfect.

    Then, I wish Apple would really take gaming seriously and try to get good Nintendo-quality content for a higher-end gaming device. A $349 AppleTV with premium Apple Arcade games would be amazing with my Apple One subscription.
    Apple knows better but in my humble opinion, either create gaming console with A-series 25+ cores to compete with PS5, XBOX with home HUb and or cheaper device that works as good Streaming device and probably decent home HUB. 
  • Reply 14 of 42
    mpantone said: Videogame industry revenue surpassed Hollywood box office revenue back in the Nineties so it's clear to Apple where people's eyeballs are spending.
    The thing to remember is that mobile gaming now generates more revenue than desktop/console gaming combined. Apple is not in a bad position at all when it comes to gaming. iOS does really well per gaming revenue and Apple Arcade extends that by putting similar style games onto bigger screens like Macs/TVs. 

    That's one of the reasons that gaming oriented behemoths like Microsoft/Epic are suddenly so concerned about "competition" on iOS. 
    edited May 13 Beatsstoneygwatto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 42
    mike1mike1 Posts: 2,956member
    iOS_Guy80 said:
    Why do people continue to use the word cheap when describing entry level and lesser expensive Apple device models. Apple does not make cheap products. They make premium quality products with different entry price points and features. The word cheap should never be used in an article regarding Apple.

    Yep. The correct term is "less expensive".
    jas99watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 42
    mike1mike1 Posts: 2,956member
    I'd at least like the option of buying the Apple TV WITHOUT the overpriced $59 remote and just use the one already built into the phone.

    The new remote is awesome and always there without needing to open the Remote App from Control Center when you need to use it. Having the phone as a backup remote, though, is always great too.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 42
    mike1mike1 Posts: 2,956member
    mpantone said:
    Beats said:
    Making a worse Apple TV isn’t the solution. Make a premium version for once!
    Apple has a conundrum with its Apple TV hardware. Displaying video content (TV shows, movies, etc.) doesn't require powerful silicon.

    The 1080p Roku stick is $25 at Amazon; last year's 4K version is $34. You can buy one of each for the price of an Apple TV remote. So any recent A-series SoC has enough horsepower; it can even be a heavily binned sample with some CPU and GPU cores disabled. A premium priced Apple TV doesn't provide any benefit to Joe Consumer in terms of watching video. A 16-core M-series SoC isn't going to make that latest Marvel Comics movie look any better.


    Not totally true. The Apple TVs do a phenomenal job of scaling up HD content to 4K. Right now all live sports and a lot of content is still recorded in HD. I've had 4K Firesticks, Roku and whatever is built in to the TVs and the picture quality is nowhere near is good as anything I watch through my ATV 4K. So, processors, software and careful engineering can make a difference.
    jcs2305williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 42
    jcs2305jcs2305 Posts: 1,262member
    I'd at least like the option of buying the Apple TV WITHOUT the overpriced $59 remote and just use the one already built into the phone.
    I have used Apple Tv's exclusively for years now.. Using your phone as the sole remote would get old pretty darn QUICK! Haha  No way!

    It sounds reasonable when you aren't actually forced to use it constantly. No volume control for the receiver, TV or soundbar with the phone. Just too large to be comfortably used with one hand like a Siri remote. I use a 13 Pro Max so maybe it would be a tiny bit easier with a smaller phone?

    It's not as if the remote is flimsy plastic garbage... It's sturdy aluminum..easy to find ( unlike the nightmarish 1st gen )  and worked with my 1st gen 4k ATV's with no issue. It allows touch/swipe function like the 1st gen or if you prefer straight use of the buttons to navigate. If it hits the floor no glass to break.. I love them! B)

    I was able to get them at $53.00 a piece using perkspot through work so it was a win win for me B) Good quality remote and the wonderful feeling of knowing I would NEVER have to use that 1st gen remote ever again.

    mike1watto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 42
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,908member
    mpantone said:
    Beats said:
    Making a worse Apple TV isn’t the solution. Make a premium version for once!
    Apple has a conundrum with its Apple TV hardware. Displaying video content (TV shows, movies, etc.) doesn't require powerful silicon.

    The 1080p Roku stick is $25 at Amazon; last year's 4K version is $34. You can buy one of each for the price of an Apple TV remote. So any recent A-series SoC has enough horsepower; it can even be a heavily binned sample with some CPU and GPU cores disabled. A premium priced Apple TV doesn't provide any benefit to Joe Consumer in terms of watching video. A 16-core M-series SoC isn't going to make that latest Marvel Comics movie look any better.

    However Apple is also marketing Apple TV as a casual gaming console. This does require more graphics horsepower but since the Apple Arcade games are relatively lightweight, today's Apple TV doesn't need to compete technology-wise with the Xbox Series X|S or the PlayStation 5.

    If you get a $500 Xbox Series X and subscribe to Xbox Game Pass, how appealing would an $800 Apple TV with an Apple Arcade+ subscription look? And what if you can AirPlay your iPhone to your television set and play games on that instead?

    If Apple wants to pursue the videogame market, they will likely need separate video streaming hardware and videogame playing hardware.

    The biggest issue is original content. Apple doesn't have enough compelling exclusive games for a $300+ console to survive today. Remember that at that price level, they would be competing with Nintendo Switch which has sold over 110 million units between the original and OLED models.

    Remember that another competitor is Nvidia Shield ($150, thirty dollars cheaper than the entry-level Apple TV 4K box) which runs GeForce NOW at 120Hz with the 3080 subscription.

    Apple will need to double down on original videogame content if they are going to compete in that market. They will also need to consider pricing very carefully because there are compelling alternatives where Apple TV is already priced.

    Videogame industry revenue surpassed Hollywood box office revenue back in the Nineties so it's clear to Apple where people's eyeballs are spending.

    I agree with this and everything has a solution (which is scary if you think 500 years ahead).

    The 4K Apple TV is too expensive. They should drop the price to $99 and keep it to only 32GB. This would be the “base” Apple TV. Then if they decided, the can make a cheaper option that is $49 with no remote or those original AppleTV remotes.

    Here’s where it gets fun:
    Apple can then develop a high end device for the rest of us. The crappy Arcade dilemma also has a solution.

    Speculators have come up with some pretty cool names.

    Apple TV Pro
    and
    Apple Arcade+

    The Pro version can have an M1 Pro and 256GB hard drive. With Arcade being partly streamed and iCloud, it in theory could be sufficient space.

    Now Apple can hire big studios to create big games for Arcade+. The subscription would be higher like $9.99 and included with Apple One high tiers.

    I don’t know where you got that $800 number from. I’d imagine it being closer to $499. 

    The problem didn’t seem to be with limitations or pricing but with Apple just not caring enough for gaming. They have more money than MS/Sony/Nintendo but aren’t willing to spend it on high end studios or original titles.
    edited May 13 williamlondonmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 20 of 42
    JapheyJaphey Posts: 1,302member
    Beats said:
    mpantone said:
    Beats said:
    Making a worse Apple TV isn’t the solution. Make a premium version for once!
    Apple has a conundrum with its Apple TV hardware. Displaying video content (TV shows, movies, etc.) doesn't require powerful silicon.

    The 1080p Roku stick is $25 at Amazon; last year's 4K version is $34. You can buy one of each for the price of an Apple TV remote. So any recent A-series SoC has enough horsepower; it can even be a heavily binned sample with some CPU and GPU cores disabled. A premium priced Apple TV doesn't provide any benefit to Joe Consumer in terms of watching video. A 16-core M-series SoC isn't going to make that latest Marvel Comics movie look any better.

    However Apple is also marketing Apple TV as a casual gaming console. This does require more graphics horsepower but since the Apple Arcade games are relatively lightweight, today's Apple TV doesn't need to compete technology-wise with the Xbox Series X|S or the PlayStation 5.

    If you get a $500 Xbox Series X and subscribe to Xbox Game Pass, how appealing would an $800 Apple TV with an Apple Arcade+ subscription look? And what if you can AirPlay your iPhone to your television set and play games on that instead?

    If Apple wants to pursue the videogame market, they will likely need separate video streaming hardware and videogame playing hardware.

    The biggest issue is original content. Apple doesn't have enough compelling exclusive games for a $300+ console to survive today. Remember that at that price level, they would be competing with Nintendo Switch which has sold over 110 million units between the original and OLED models.

    Remember that another competitor is Nvidia Shield ($150, thirty dollars cheaper than the entry-level Apple TV 4K box) which runs GeForce NOW at 120Hz with the 3080 subscription.

    Apple will need to double down on original videogame content if they are going to compete in that market. They will also need to consider pricing very carefully because there are compelling alternatives where Apple TV is already priced.

    Videogame industry revenue surpassed Hollywood box office revenue back in the Nineties so it's clear to Apple where people's eyeballs are spending.

    I agree with this and everything has a solution (which is scary if you think 500 years ahead).

    The 4K Apple TV is too expensive. They should drop the price to $99 and keep it to only 32GB. This would be the “base” Apple TV. Then if they decided, the can make a cheaper option that is $49 with no remote or those original AppleTV remotes.

    Here’s where it gets fun:
    Apple can then develop a high end device for the rest of us. The crappy Arcade dilemma also has a solution.

    Speculators have come up with some pretty cool names.

    Apple TV Pro
    and
    Apple Arcade+

    The Pro version can have an M1 Pro and 256GB hard drive. With Arcade being partly streamed and iCloud, it in theory could be sufficient space.

    Now Apple can hire big studios to create big games for Arcade+. The subscription would be higher like $9.99 and included with Apple One high tiers.

    I don’t know where you got that $800 number from. I’d imagine it being closer to $499. 

    The problem didn’t seem to be with limitations or pricing but with Apple just not caring enough for gaming. They have more money than MS/Sony/Nintendo but aren’t willing to spend it on high end studios or original titles.
    I agree with this. Apple should go both big and small at the same time. There were rumors back in 2020 that they were going to do just that. These same rumors also claimed that Apple was working with AAA developers to create new games for the “Pro” version of the two. Then, the current 4k model came out and all those rumors stopped. Maybe (hopefully) the current box is just a placeholder and those rumors end up panning out after all. One can only hope. 
    edited May 13 Beatswilliamlondonmuthuk_vanalingam
Sign In or Register to comment.