Apple TV hardware will never be more than a hobby, unless Apple changes direction

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
Apple made the wrong bet when it built the Apple TV around apps and an App Store when instead, it should have focused on streamlining the TV experience like Steve Jobs promised to do.

Apple TV needs to be rethought
Apple TV needs to be rethought


The Apple TV was Apple's "hobby" project that saw few hardware updates from its inception in 2006 to its reinvention in 2015. It was an exciting time as Apple finally declared Apple TV was no longer a hobby in 2014, then released the updated Apple TV in 2015.

That fourth-generation model introduced an App Store and the Apple TV app, and Apple promised "the future of TV is apps." The Apple TV app would be the great unifier of content, while entertainment apps would be easy to set up and sign in at launch.

Eventually, users would not need to have accounts or sign-ins. Instead, everything would flow through the Apple TV app and its channel system. Apps would only be necessary to play games or search for real estate, not fumble around for what to watch.

Instead, the Apple TV app was mostly ignored by the major players. Netflix refused to allow its service to be cataloged or added to the Up Next system. New services launching didn't bother with the Channels system, opting for separate apps that did the bare minimum to integrate with the platform.

It didn't have to be this way.

The future of television isn't Apple TV+

Before Steve Jobs passed in 2011, it seemed he had cracked the secret to simplified TV. The third-generation Apple TV we got in 2012 didn't seem to fit whatever vision Jobs had been talking about, as it emulated other simple set-top boxes of its time.

The third-generation Apple TV likely isn't what Jobs had in mind
The third-generation Apple TV likely isn't what Jobs had in mind


Whatever magical idea Jobs had, it would never surface. It seemed that Apple had attempted to create a unified service with cable company deals, but those deals never came to fruition as Eddy Cue toured into exhaustion.

Instead, the result was Apple TV+, a premium streaming service with exclusive content. It wasn't the future of television, nor was it the skinny cable bundle so many had predicted or hoped for. By 2020, the Apple TV experience was very similar to other platforms.

Apple had failed to revolutionize TV, though some parts of the platform were still unique or useful compared to the competition.

Things only grew worse from there as the great entertainment consolidation drove even more publishers away from Apple TV Channels. Now, users not only have to contend with the Apple TV app and its organization, but they also have to sign into the half-dozen popular streaming services separately, sometimes with frustrating methods.

Having an App Store on the Apple TV ultimately didn't do anything to simplify the TV-watching process -- which was the problem Apple was trying to solve. Developers could create their own streaming interfaces, ignore Apple's APIs for controls, and ensure that watching content was as confusing as possible when moving between apps.

The future of television isn't apps

The primary problem with Apple's approach is that it gave too much power to content distributors. There are multiple ways to watch content on Apple TV across various apps, each with its own interface and rule sets. There's nothing simple about it.

With the launch of the 4th Apple TV, Apple promised the 'future of TV is apps'
With the launch of the 4th Apple TV, Apple promised the 'future of TV is apps'


When navigating the Apple TV app, users are presented with every piece of content that can be launched from the app regardless of what service it belongs to. Tapping on content could either open another app, launch the program within Apple TV, or offer up a purchase window from iTunes.

That experience is made even more frustrating because apps like Amazon obscure which content belongs to Amazon Prime versus other streamers within the Amazon app. Users could click on a movie, see it as available on Amazon Prime, hit play, then be met with a "subscribe to HBO in Amazon" screen.

This issue is compounded by the lack of filtering or organization within the Apple TV interface. Once a content provider is added, everything that provider has in its catalog becomes integrated with the "Watch Now" tab.

Even when everything is working right and clicking on a piece of content opens the correct app and starts playing, the interface you're met with is a crapshoot. It could be an interface that supports the Siri Remote's jog wheel function, it could have an overlay of who's in this scene when the menu is opened, or it could do almost nothing except play and pause. Every app can be different.

Some apps don't support the jog wheel due to custom interfaces
Some apps don't support the jog wheel due to custom interfaces


Speaking of apps, the differences in interface and navigation can be quite jarring. The Apple TV app was meant to prevent this, but users end up jumping to third-party apps even when selecting content within the Apple TV app. It would be similar to Apple News opening a new Safari tab whenever an article is selected instead of showing it in the News app.

Users setting up a new Apple TV will also run into some issues. Every app could potentially use a different sign-in interface. One might simply ask for a password, another will ask users to open a website on their iPhone, while others still will ask users to open a specific app on the iPhone.

Apple's sign-in interface using iPhone biometrics is the fastest and most accessible, but developers don't have to use that method.

Finally, there's the most significant problem with Apple TV -- Netflix. By not having its content surfaced in the Apple TV app's Up Next or within its catalog, Netflix is now a silo. That means people will only watch content on Netflix because it is all in one place, or they will completely forget it as an option until they go to the Home Screen. A lose-lose for everyone.

The future of television is a unified experience

A lot of Apple's initial promises with Apple TV had potential, but it gave too much wiggle room to developers. Perhaps it is too late to change anything now, but one thing is sure -- the future of TV isn't apps.

Having streaming entertainment spread out between multiple app silos with different interfaces makes things worse for most users. Instead, Apple should have built the Apple TV app at the center of the Apple TV experience.

Top-level menus could control the overall experience
Top-level menus could control the overall experience like on PS5


The Apple TV is an app on the Apple TV hardware, when instead, it should be the center of the interface. People have to choose to open the app rather than it be how the platform works, which makes it less attractive as a platform for third-party vendors.

To see how Apple could refocus the Apple TV app to become the main interface, look to Playstation 5 for an easy example. Its entire interface is video games by default, but tabs at the top let users switch between gaming and entertainment contexts.

Users should turn on the Apple TV and see Apple's unified interface right away with no option to enter some third-party-designed app. Think of the Apple TV app interface as it exists today, with Channels being the "apps" in this context.

Similar to the Apple Watch App Store or iMessage App Store, there should be an Apple TV App Store purpose-built for entertainment apps. Select which entertainment apps you'll be using within the Apple TV, offer a sign-in page using iCloud Keychain credentials, then add that content to the Apple TV interface.

The individual apps could still have their content siloed within their own Apple TV app pages, but they all belong to the same unifying interface. Users would never find themselves in a poorly-designed app that doesn't take advantage of Apple's APIs, it would all just work and be uniform throughout.

Apple TV+ is buried in the Apple TV app rather than being a separate location
Apple TV+ is buried in the Apple TV app rather than being a separate location


Up Next should be the main screen with a single timeline of what the user is watching, then below that, recommendations based solely on that list. The Watch Now section would be its own separate tab with human-curated content.

This system would basically make every app an Apple TV Channel without locking users into Apple's payment platform. It would be a win for users since the interface and video content would remain uniform while giving content distributors access to user data through sign-in.

At the top of the interface would be separate tab groups for different modes. Users would live in the Apple TV app, but other sections would include gaming, fitness, entertainment, and settings. What is shown here would be based on what users were subscribed to, like Apple Fitness+ or Apple Arcade.

The other tabs would offer small App Stores for their respective categories. Think of it like Focus Modes, where each section is purpose-built for the type of content being interacted with.

We're not sure what Steve Jobs's vision for Apple TV was, but simplifying the interface and unifying content would likely have been significant goals. Surely, he wanted to do for movies and TV what he did for music -- bring it all under a single banner like iTunes.

Apple TV hardware, the TV app, and Apple TV+ are not it. The proximate naming should be the first clue that something is amiss.

The future of television is within Apple's reach

Content distributors would surely buck up against losing access to siloed apps and interfaces, but ultimately, Apple is in control. If Apple chose to push a new, unifying interface, it could pull it off by using its weight and influence.

Despite issues, the Apple TV 4K is the best streaming box on the market
Despite issues, the Apple TV 4K is the best streaming box on the market


Of course, such a bold undertaking could trigger antitrust concerns, which may explain why Apple would be hesitant to do so. If done right, it will lower barriers and encourage users to sign up for more services, not fewer.

The Apple TV hardware would continue to benefit users with its access to other services like Apple Fitness+ and Apple Arcade. Non-Apple hardware would still have access to an Apple TV app, but one based on the new unified experience.

At a bare minimum, Apple and Netflix need to work out this silly problem so Netflix content can be surfaced in the Apple TV app and Up Next interface. It would be a win for Netflix and its users, especially at a time when the platform is seeing a lot of churn due to rising prices.

Apple should also mandate user interface guidelines and sign-in flows. Basic elements should be the same across every streaming app, and every app should just let the user sign in via their iPhone biometrics.

The Apple TV interface hasn't changed much over the years
The Apple TV interface hasn't changed much over the years


With the release of the 2022 Apple TV 4K, it is clear that Apple is committed to the existing app distribution and interface it introduced in 2015. The operating system hasn't changed much over the years, so perhaps, an overhaul is in order soon.

To be clear, we love the Apple TV and believe it is the best place to stream content today. Its fast processor and Apple-like interface make the experience much better than the ones found on Chromecast or Roku. However, Apple's experience doesn't feel unique to its platform, it's just an improved version of its competitors, and we believe Apple can do better.

Read on AppleInsider
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 29
    Yeah, no. While sure it could be improved, it is far from a hobby device. The AppleTV works really well for most people. In my case, it is mostly for Plex, for my mom it is mostly for YouTube & AirPlay.

    The actual hobby things are the Apple Services and only serve to dilute the brand image of Apple. Last time I tried Apple Arcade, in mid-2022, it had 1 game that I liked, which was HitchHiker. Apart from that it was just a mish-mash of small indie games. Games which are normally FREE on the Epic Store or sell for few bucks. To illustrate my point, Epic Games had "Alba" for a price of FREE just last week iirc. Even HitchHiker is regularly on sale on Steam & other storefronts.

    AppleTV+ still makes some sense due to the deep ties that Apple has to the creative movie-making world, which comes out in the quality of their shows.
    edited November 2022 StrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 29
    danoxdanox Posts: 2,950member
    Apple Music and Apple TV are lame, hopefully the next CEO will cut back and focus on Mac, iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch computer software and hardware which is where Apple makes the big bucks leave content to the outside creatives, all the online Apple stores need UI overhauls for readability, search and just general browsing. 
    edited November 2022 williamlondonentropysmacplusplus
  • Reply 3 of 29
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,799member
    I honestly do not see any point to the AppleTV. We’ve subscribed to AppleTV+ a couple of times, and played it on our iPads, sometimes our iPhones. Same with other streaming services. Same with AppleArcade. There is no reason whatsoever I would need or want to get an AppleTV box, there is nothing it does that I can’t already do.
    Oferwilliamlondongatorguy
  • Reply 4 of 29
    DAalseth said:
    I honestly do not see any point to the AppleTV. We’ve subscribed to AppleTV+ a couple of times, and played it on our iPads, sometimes our iPhones. Same with other streaming services. Same with AppleArcade. There is no reason whatsoever I would need or want to get an AppleTV box, there is nothing it does that I can’t already do.
    Aside from the fact that Apple TV is absolutely the best streaming hardware on the market - I completely agree with you. 
    RudeBoyRudylolliverappleinsideruser
  • Reply 5 of 29
    OferOfer Posts: 246unconfirmed, member
    Spot-on. I have yet to see any hugely compelling reason to switch from my simple (and inexpensive) Roku to an appletv. Nothing about it justifies the increased cost to me. And yeah, the interface, with each provider providing their own interface paradigm, is a jumbled mess. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 6 of 29
    AppleInsider's writer begins with the premise that the weaknesses in the experience of using the Apple TV set-top box and the Apple TV app are solvable by Apple if only they gave this platform more attention. Then he goes on to disprove his own premise, noting that Apple couldn't get the entertainment industry's myriad of competing companies to allow Apple to aggregate their content in the same app. He also correctly notes that the government would probably claim antitrust violations if Apple forced content owners to present their programming via Apple's preferred methods.

    Yes, of course Apple could have made some decisions differently — and I too hate the inconsistency of the myriad visual interfaces provided by each content owner's distinct Apple TV apps. But I disagree with the writer's premise that things would have turned out differently for Apple TV or that Apple is empowered today to make wholesale changes that could solve these problems. Define the problems, yes, but don't blame Apple for the handcuffs it is forced to wear by disparate companies like Disney, Viacom, NBCUniversal, Netflix, WarnerMedia, and all the other companies who refuse to cede any ounce of control that would allow Apple improve the experience for consumers.
    DAalseth said:
    I honestly do not see any point to the AppleTV. … There is no reason whatsoever I would need or want to get an AppleTV box, there is nothing it does that I can’t already do.
    I own several Apple TV set-top boxes because Apple's tvOS provides the best television user interface out there, plus having one on each TV provides consistency of experience throughout my home (which is true despite the fact that my Apple TV models are from different years, 2015 to present). Even so-called "smart TV" models from the same manufacturer have user interfaces that differ wildly from year to year, and most of us who own multiple televisions (even if we consistently buy the same TV brand) did not buy all our TVs in the same year. Further, I haven't seen any TV with a built-in interface that strikes me as superior to Apple's tvOS.

    So there is most definitely a place in the market for Apple TV hardware and competing options like Roku. If it's not for you, hey, no problem — but for those of us who use these products, we definitely prefer having them to the alternative.
    lolliverStrangeDaysFileMakerFellerbestkeptsecretcypresstreewatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 29
    Yes, there is a local electronics shop selling a  device that will allow streaming various international tvs for free. Does AppleTV do this? 
  • Reply 8 of 29
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,799member
    DAalseth said:
    I honestly do not see any point to the AppleTV. We’ve subscribed to AppleTV+ a couple of times, and played it on our iPads, sometimes our iPhones. Same with other streaming services. Same with AppleArcade. There is no reason whatsoever I would need or want to get an AppleTV box, there is nothing it does that I can’t already do.
    Aside from the fact that Apple TV is absolutely the best streaming hardware on the market - I completely agree with you. 
    Well that may be, I don’t know. But I can’t complain about the Roku that’s built into our TV. It does what we want and I don’t need another box/wall wort/and cables dangling behind the table. 
  • Reply 9 of 29

    The one thing I want from my TV is to remember what shows I watch and what streaming channels I watch them on. I don't have cable, but I subscribe to a LOT of streaming channels (in alpha order): Amazon Prime, Apple+, BritBox, Disney+, HBOMax, Hulu, Paramount+ and occasionally Showtime. I'm constantly annoyed that I need to remember what show is offered on what service... shouldn't my smart TV be smart enough to do that for me?

    If Apple can put all my music into a single interface (regardless is whether I bought the single, or the album or streamed it), can’t they do the same for TV?

    edited November 2022 FileMakerFellerwatto_cobramacplusplus
  • Reply 10 of 29
    entropysentropys Posts: 4,192member
    I suspect Apple was interested in streaming multiple services and global search through the ATV service, but no matter how many media companies it approached, had trouble getting a dance partner, as those companies wanted to develop their own solo routine. Apple will have to wait until those services fail through poor profitability, and the execs who pushed them “move on”.

    also, as a streamer only, the Apple TV is seriously overpowered. If all you do is stream, if you have a reasonably new Tv, well smart Tv apps are good enough, and if after a year or two your TVs smart Tv functions are no longer being updated, a chromecast with Google TV or a  firestick 4K do everything streaming for less than half the price, often a quarter the price on sale.

    What the Apple TV has is power, lots of power, rivalled only by the NVIDEA Shield, which is roundly thrashed by the Apple TV. While it has the best GUI, that power and storage means it is also pretty good with games and services via apps, and the best GUI and updating system of all the streamers.
    The fitness + app is a good example of the kind of add on apple can do with the Apple TV. But that demand is limited, especially now the Covid pandemic is over.

    what apple hasn’t exploited is the games to undercut the consoles. While I am not a gamer, quite clearly the third party games app developers for the Apple TV don’t have the resources to build a must have game for the Apple TV it drive sales from those that otherwise wouldn’t even look at an Apple TV. A chicken and egg problem.  Perhaps just like Microsoft did with the original xBox by buying Bungie and seizing Halo from the Mac and making it xBox only, or even Apple’s own fitness +, Apple will have to do something similar to get gamers want to buy an Apple TV for an exclusive game that uses all that power.
    edited November 2022 OferFileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 29
    OferOfer Posts: 246unconfirmed, member
    entropys said:
    I suspect Apple was interested in streaming multiple services and global search through the ATV service, but no matter how many media companies it approached, had trouble getting a dance partner, as those companies wanted to develop their own solo routine. Apple will have to wait until those services fail through poor profitability, and the execs who pushed them “move on”.

    also, as a streamer only, the Apple TV is seriously overpowered. If all you do is stream, if you have a reasonably new Tv, well smart Tv apps are good enough, and if after a year or two your TVs smart Tv functions are no longer being updated, a chromecast with Google TV or a  firestick 4K do everything streaming for less than half the price, often a quarter the price on sale.

    What the Apple TV has is power, lots of power, rivalled only by the NVIDEA Shield, which is roundly thrashed by the Apple TV. While it has the best GUI, that power and storage means it is also pretty good with games and services via apps, and the best GUI and updating system of all the streamers.
    The fitness + app is a good example of the kind of add on apple can do with the Apple TV. But that demand is limited, especially now the Covid pandemic is over.

    what apple hasn’t exploited is the games to undercut the consoles. While I am not a gamer, quite clearly the third party games app developers for the Apple TV don’t have the resources to build a must have game for the Apple TV it drive sales from those that otherwise wouldn’t even look at an Apple TV. A chicken and egg problem.  Perhaps just like Microsoft did with the original xBox by buying Bungie and seizing Halo from the Mac and making it xBox only, or even Apple’s own fitness +, Apple will have to do something similar to get gamers want to buy an Apple TV for an exclusive game that uses all that power.
    Agreed on all your points above! I wish Apple would invest in some great gaming house to provide some top quality AAA games. Like you said, their platform has more than enough horsepower to run them.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 29
    The only thing I quibble with in this article is the idea that apple can easily solve the problems. The content owners saw what happened to the record labels and they don’t want to suffer a similar fate.

    Maybe the best thing Apple can do is to indirectly support piracy. Only the pirates can force the content owners to offer a better experience. We need a video equivalent of Napster. 
    FileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 29
    jibjib Posts: 56member
    writerguy said:

    The one thing I want from my TV is to remember what shows I watch and what streaming channels I watch them on. I don't have cable, but I subscribe to a LOT of streaming channels (in alpha order): Amazon Prime, Apple+, BritBox, Disney+, HBOMax, Hulu, Paramount+ and occasionally Showtime. I'm constantly annoyed that I need to remember what show is offered on what service... shouldn't my smart TV be smart enough to do that for me?

    If Apple can put all my music into a single interface (regardless is whether I bought the single, or the album or streamed it), can’t they do the same for TV?

    The AppleTV device DOES do that integration to a large extent. I subscribe to all the services you mention plus Discovery+, Acorn, Hulu+TV, and a few others.  My Now Playing list shows the programs I watch, and what the next episode is and I can click it and see the show regardless of the network/app that it comes from. (With the glaring exception of NETFLIX). There are some glitches, and often a show is available on more than one service, so I have to dig a little deeper and ask for Details which shows all the places I can view it (some free and some not).  It is also integrated with the streaming titles I have purchased from Apple.  This is the key advantage of the AppleTV to me over using Apple TV+ on any other device.  

    It works pretty well, although it needs NETFLIX integration. The problems described in the main article are there, and I'd like to see some of them improved, but this is the best watching experience I have ever had.
    StrangeDaysmike1appleinsideruserwatto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 29
    writerguy said:

    The one thing I want from my TV is to remember what shows I watch and what streaming channels I watch them on. I don't have cable, but I subscribe to a LOT of streaming channels (in alpha order): Amazon Prime, Apple+, BritBox, Disney+, HBOMax, Hulu, Paramount+ and occasionally Showtime. I'm constantly annoyed that I need to remember what show is offered on what service... shouldn't my smart TV be smart enough to do that for me?

    If Apple can put all my music into a single interface (regardless is whether I bought the single, or the album or streamed it), can’t they do the same for TV?

    Wait a minute.  All the shows I'm currently watching appear in Up Next on my Apple TV.  I just choose whatever program I want to continue watching and it goes directly to that service.  Does that not happen for you?  Are you describing something different than Up Next?  Just curious.

    As for Apple TV hardware itself, it's the interface and the sound and picture quality that keeps me buying it.  I have a dedicated home theater so when streaming Dolby Atmos, it's pretty darn good.  Depends on the movie though.
    watto_cobratenthousandthings
  • Reply 15 of 29
    Ignorant article

    Apple TV is fine and I love it.

    anyone  with slight knowledge of Apple knows what you see today was conceived and planned and set  3-4 years ago. So if Jobs had any magical Tv ideas, it would have manifested in 2014-15

    We all love jobs but please stop writing non sense
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 29
    Apple seem to have done a better content aggregation, than the other stream service I use - SKY Glass here in the UK. A lot of content is available fairly quickly on ATV, with Sky miles behind. Sky Glass also uses the streamers own apps and their own controls, so not a unique issue to Apple. Netflix started out allowing their content to aggregate into the Glass interface, then pulled it similar to the ATV. This in my view is very short sighted as, we as a family often forget Netflix as its not on our Home Screen on either Glass or ATV. Honest opinion, Apple do a better interface etc. than Sky / Comcast do. If some of the sky content was available on ATV, I would ditch the Sky system (yes I know there is NOW TV - a Sky company, but the output quality is dreadful).
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 29
    writerguy said:

    The one thing I want from my TV is to remember what shows I watch and what streaming channels I watch them on. I don't have cable, but I subscribe to a LOT of streaming channels (in alpha order): Amazon Prime, Apple+, BritBox, Disney+, HBOMax, Hulu, Paramount+ and occasionally Showtime. I'm constantly annoyed that I need to remember what show is offered on what service... shouldn't my smart TV be smart enough to do that for me?

    If Apple can put all my music into a single interface (regardless is whether I bought the single, or the album or streamed it), can’t they do the same for TV?

    This exactly.  Source shouldn’t matter.  It’s all going to evolve/devolve to individual show or episode.  Owners (Netflix, Hulu, showtime, etc) would all get paid behind the scenes just like artists of music get paid on Spotify.  I also wish I could have “list of shows I follow” and get a notification in the list when there is a new episode.  I don’t want to remember which app to go check!  
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 29
    MadbumMadbum Posts: 536member
    danox said:
    Apple Music and Apple TV are lame, hopefully the next CEO will cut back and focus on Mac, iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch computer software and hardware which is where Apple makes the big bucks leave content to the outside creatives, all the online Apple stores need UI overhauls for readability, search and just general browsing. 
    Apple TV is not lame lol. High quality programming all formatted in Dolby Vision and Atmos , if you love quality , you will like Apple TV . But I do agree it doesn’t have enough programming to stand on its own yet 

    Apple Music lossless and Atmos is better than anything quality wise other than Tidal. Way bette than garbage like Spotify. Think Hyundai be BMW
    StrangeDaysmike1williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 29
    I like the idea of re-thinking the top level interface that loads when the ATV is first turned on. I'm not familiar with the PS5, and maybe there's some concepts that are shown in the article example that might be worth borrowing, but I don't see that the current top level ATV UI is all that bad.

    I have a Roku Soundbar and Subwoofer* and a couple of Roku smart TVs. Their "Home Screen" is OK, somewhat similar to ATV, with whatever "apps" you want there. On the Roku smart TVs, you can also place an app-like icon to represent a specific input of the TV on the Home Screen, but what I really like is the "Live TV" app/icon. "Live TV" integrates all the cable (or OTA channels) with all the free Pluto TV channels available online onto the same program guide. No STB, no switching inputs required (unless of course you want to go to one of the streaming subscriptions). The downside is that the remote does not have a number keypad, so with a gazillion of those free Pluto TV internet channels, it's hard to jump around (the Roku iPhone app has a "remote" feature that does have a keyboard option, so there is a way to enter a specific channel number).

    Spectrum cable has an option to use an ATV with their app instead of one of their STBs. I occaisonally use the app on my iPhone or iPad at home, but I don't have an ATV at the moment. While this would seem to complicate the ATV experience, the reason I mention it here is that Spectrum offers their own ATV remote. I think you get it if you buy the ATV from them, but I also think you can buy it separately. Still no number keypad, but there is a channel up/down button and a program guide button that the standard ATV remote does not have, which should help navigating the Spectrum TV lineup. Something to consider.

    Another concept to borrow would be something like what the Reelgood app or others like it do. In Reelgood, you indicate what services you subscribe to and then you can search or browse across all subscribed platforms, including Netflix. If you select a particular show to watch, the appropriate app can be launched and away you go (but only on the device running the app). From what I can tell, the current ATV gets pretty close to doing this, except for Netflix. An argument could be made that the AppleTV app should be relegated to just AppleTV+ content, since any other content "channels" are accessed from a higher level menu.

    *Too bad Apple does not have a soundbar/sub with integrated AppleTV. The Roku soundbar is fairly cheap, so was able to add the sub without breaking the bank. Having the sub really helps. Together, the audio quality is not bad, especially considering the price of both combined. I'm sure an ATV soundbar would cost more, but it would do more and probably have much better sound.

    edited November 2022 watto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 29
    JinTechJinTech Posts: 1,032member
    Not sure why people seem to think it is a hobbyist device? I have an LG smart TV. I have no desire to use the smart features of the TV and prefer Apple hardware, hence why I bought the AppleTV to use their smart TV features. I'm sure I am not the only one who does this for this exact reason.
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.