The market hasn't matured, especially the content side. You have niche needs (games on TV, big screen phone) that most people don't want.
You already bought a smart TV which raises the bar for requirements.
In the end, you're not bought into the Apple target market. And apparently, not into Amazons
Apple has rarely defined the market, and in the TV space, even less so, as the market (content) is so fragmented.
I do think that with iOS becoming a target for gaming, that in 5 years, 'TV' gaming will be part of the suite (a 'universal' app that can split the cycles between your hand device and the TV, or just run locally on your uber iPad/iPhone).
But your opinion appears to be 'what I want' rather than 'the 2 billion TV user market wants' which is a fair opinion, but not one share by a majority of people who own TVs and are thinking they need it to be 'internet connected.'
I do not intend to play games on my TV, as I have an xbox 360 that I rarely, if ever, use. There is a market for the TV gaming though. Much like smartphones have cut into the mobile gaming, Apple TV could cut into console gaming and I would like to see Apple hit this market, it is unlikely to break records doing so but it is better than nothing at all.
I just see so much more potential in the AppleTV and I am willing to bet Apple does too. Just hope they get to it. I know a few people whom opted for the Chromecast simply because it does enough where they are unable to justify another 60 bucks for the AppleTV.
We shall see. BTW, a large screened phone is far from "a few people" trying millions of handsets worth, look at all of the Androids. It is just a good idea for Apple to offer something in the 4.5-5'' range. They will too, just look at the rumors.
I feel that Apple dropped the ball here. They sat back, not introducing new features such as gaming, which has allowed Amazon to step in.
I'm speculating here, but I think Apple has played this just right -- let the others show their catch up offerings, then blow them away with a new/replacement AppleTV.
Timing means a lot!
Yes, that's true, but Apple is also known to raise the bar for competition, setting its own standards for others to catch up to.
If this could somehow be transformed into a legitimate streaming service through the likes of AppleTV it would be amazing.
I haven't watched a full movie, but the UI is great and the video looks fantastic on a 27" iMac. The latest movie releases are available through Popcorn-Time before DVD or RedBox, etc.
I feel there is something here that could force the hand of content-providers to embrace a solution similar to the music industry (iTunes) or see their sales nosedive.
Ya- pretty solid app- read about it a few weeks ago. Obviously, illegally torrenting- but the app itself just provides a gateway- not any actual illegal activity.
I assume by "legitimate" you mean the studios developing an app to get "in-theatre" movies to your TV to stream?
Yes!
The studios aren't hurting regarding ticket sales in theatres- almost identical the last 4-5 years and pretty close +/- 10% over the last 20 years.
Yeah, but that's just treading water in the theaters -- AIR, (no link) they're taking it in the shorts for DVD sales/rentals.
Outside of being a way to stream torrented (illegal) movies instead of downloading them- I don't see anything groundbreaking there from a legal standpoint. Illegally though- it's groundbreaking. :smokey:
The fact that it works so well (regardless of the backend) tells me this could be monetized as a legal subscription service -- maybe a premium service.
For example, for those who follow the Academy Awards the ability to see all the nominated movies before the awards -- as opposed to driving all over a 60-mile radius to theaters ... and still missing those movies that aren't in theaters at the time of the awards.
Analogous to subscribing to a sports channel to watch all the home team games.
A fair question. Pay per event sports. I don't want an expensive package for the season, or "all the games." I would pay a couple of bucks to watch the occasional game. ESPN is the gorilla in the room.
ESPN only has the rights to a few games. The sports leagues get a tremendous amount of money from networks that nobody is ever going to make a more lucrative offer. The only way around it is if a team has their own network, and as of now that's only the Yankees, the Mets, the Knicks, and the Dodgers.
I feel that Apple dropped the ball here. They sat back, not introducing new features such as gaming, which has allowed Amazon to step in.
I'm speculating here, but I think Apple has played this just right -- let the others show their catch up offerings, then blow them away with a new/replacement AppleTV.
Timing means a lot!
Yes, that's true, but Apple is also known to raise the bar for competition, setting its own standards for others to catch up to.
Has some nice features, but not sure I would pay $99. If it came free or at a discount with my Prime subscription, then OK.
OK, what makes this not worth $99 but not the Apple TV or the Roku 3, especially since this has more features than Apple TV (including the ability to actually stream Amazon, the #2 streaming service!)? Really, the only advantage that the Apple TV now has over this box is the Apple ecosystem. Which is great if you have an I-Phone, I-Pad or MacBook, but this is DEFINITELY the best option out there for those who do not.
When you add to it that this thing is a full-on gaming console with capabilities similar to the original Wii, the idea that it isn't worth $99 just doesn't fly. Even without the gaming component, it already didn't offer anything that Apple TV doesn't offer, including doing the same things with Amazon's PC applications (Amazon has theirs that can organize and store movies and music) that Apple TV does with I-Tunes. And it does full screen mirroring with a Kindle tablet (something that Google was dumb enough not to include with Chromecast even though an open standard called Miracast that supports every version of Android past 3.0 supports)? Sorry. Just false.
This is a common trope. Someone does something feeble but because Apple isn't doing it Apple is weak and pathetic. Apple was wrong not to release a phone with a keyboard. Apple was wrong not support Flash Lite. Apple was wrong not to make a tablet that ran Mac OS X. Apple was wrong to support USB.
We waited decades for a proper tablet from Apple and it finally arrived it was considered a failure and yet soon after all those asshats were eating those words and yet years later the iPad is far and away the dominate tablet platform with a few low-lying copycat competitors eating up the low-end. There is something to say with building it right over building it first. Some people apparently never heard the story of the Three Little Pigs as children.
There's no reason to call anyone an asshat, you asshat (just kidding lol).
I would hardly call Apple a failure at anything. They're an extremely successful company with record sales across the board.
The problem is that Android tablet sales are exploding.
Apple dominated this category as recently as 2010. Now they're the smaller player.
Apple dominated the smart phone market, now outside of the US they are by far a niche player.
So am I a nervous nellie (lol!) as a shareholder to be concerned about an Amazon box that capitalizes on Amazon's streaming services while providing voice input and gaming capabilities?
No, I don't think I'm a nervous Nellie. The Amazon box is unproven, but the history of Android's continued explosive growth compared to Apple's slow steady growth, gives some reasons for a shareholder to be concerned!
I hope Apple blows it out of the water in 2014. Woah, Nellie!
I've been monitoring the goings on at MS Build over at TechCrunch. Seems like a sleeping giant has awoken -- rested and ready for battle, e.g. free Windows on devices with displays smaller than 9".
Also, MS showed Office Touch for Windows. They only showed PowerPoint -- no Word or Excel. They admit it is a work in progress for Windows. IMO, this is significant because they were willing to release Office for iPad now!
Now if Apple comes out with a set top box that incorporates many of these features, will you accuse them of copying Amazon?
Or if Apple goes the other way and comes out with a dongle, will you accuse them of copying Google?
Unless Apple comes out with a set top box with a completely new set of features, it will be impossible for them to not be guilty of what folks rail against Microsoft, Samsung, Google etc. on a daily basis here. (Funny that no one attacks Roku, the first company to make a commercially viable Apple TV competitor, although one wonders how viable Roku would be if they weren't being heavily subsidized by Netflix. Oh yeah I forgot ... a company has to be successful first before anyone here resents them.)
Apple dominated this category as recently as 2010. Now they're the smaller player.
Apple dominated the smart phone market, now outside of the US they are by far a niche player.
So am I a nervous nellie (lol!) as a shareholder to be concerned about an Amazon box that capitalizes on Amazon's streaming services while providing voice input and gaming capabilities?
No, I don't think I'm a nervous Nellie. The Amazon box is unproven, but the history of Android's continued explosive growth compared to Apple's slow steady growth, gives some reasons for a shareholder to be concerned!
I hope Apple blows it out of the water in 2014. Woah, Nellie!
1) I didn't call anyone an asshat.
2) They dominated the tablet market as recently as 2010? WTF?! The iPad didn't launch until April 2010.
3) Apple is not a niche player in any of their categories. They clearly dominate the profits for the entire world's market in all four of the legs.
4) You know how you prove Apple isn't a niche player because trolls come here claiming Apple is weak and pathetic and yet I have a hard time believing there are droves of people signing up on WebOS, HP Slate, WinMo, et al. sites just to say that Apple is going to wipe their ass with the market. Trolls come here because they know that Apple has all the mindshare. When that stops happening then you can be worried about Apple becoming a niche player.
They also probably got the idea thanks to that idiot Walter Isaacson.
1) I would call that voice search once removed which means it's not as useful as what Amazon showed today. Apple's Remote app also doesn't have any intelligence features like "play the next unwatched episode of Top Gear" which is something I desperately want to see in any of these media extenders.
2) I think voice activated is a natural evolutions so I wouldn't put any blame on Isaacson. It's certainly not a break-through conception in and of itself that will radically change the living room.
Comments
I'm not sure I follow... the Fire TV supports Plex, just like the Roku 3 and unlike the Apple TV. So if you want Plex, there ya go.
Takes all of two minutes to set up PlexConnect with your ATV, no jailbreak required.
But I think he was complaining about the Plex-style UI.
The market hasn't matured, especially the content side. You have niche needs (games on TV, big screen phone) that most people don't want.
You already bought a smart TV which raises the bar for requirements.
In the end, you're not bought into the Apple target market. And apparently, not into Amazons
Apple has rarely defined the market, and in the TV space, even less so, as the market (content) is so fragmented.
I do think that with iOS becoming a target for gaming, that in 5 years, 'TV' gaming will be part of the suite (a 'universal' app that can split the cycles between your hand device and the TV, or just run locally on your uber iPad/iPhone).
But your opinion appears to be 'what I want' rather than 'the 2 billion TV user market wants' which is a fair opinion, but not one share by a majority of people who own TVs and are thinking they need it to be 'internet connected.'
I do not intend to play games on my TV, as I have an xbox 360 that I rarely, if ever, use. There is a market for the TV gaming though. Much like smartphones have cut into the mobile gaming, Apple TV could cut into console gaming and I would like to see Apple hit this market, it is unlikely to break records doing so but it is better than nothing at all.
I just see so much more potential in the AppleTV and I am willing to bet Apple does too. Just hope they get to it. I know a few people whom opted for the Chromecast simply because it does enough where they are unable to justify another 60 bucks for the AppleTV.
We shall see. BTW, a large screened phone is far from "a few people" trying millions of handsets worth, look at all of the Androids. It is just a good idea for Apple to offer something in the 4.5-5'' range. They will too, just look at the rumors.
I feel that Apple dropped the ball here. They sat back, not introducing new features such as gaming, which has allowed Amazon to step in.
I'm speculating here, but I think Apple has played this just right -- let the others show their catch up offerings, then blow them away with a new/replacement AppleTV.
Timing means a lot!
Yes, that's true, but Apple is also known to raise the bar for competition, setting its own standards for others to catch up to.
Also Siri has an advantage over ATV search by having intelligence, making a calculated guess what your typed nonsense is trying to ask.
It does?
Yes!
Yeah, but that's just treading water in the theaters -- AIR, (no link) they're taking it in the shorts for DVD sales/rentals.
The fact that it works so well (regardless of the backend) tells me this could be monetized as a legal subscription service -- maybe a premium service.
For example, for those who follow the Academy Awards the ability to see all the nominated movies before the awards -- as opposed to driving all over a 60-mile radius to theaters ... and still missing those movies that aren't in theaters at the time of the awards.
Analogous to subscribing to a sports channel to watch all the home team games.
ESPN only has the rights to a few games. The sports leagues get a tremendous amount of money from networks that nobody is ever going to make a more lucrative offer. The only way around it is if a team has their own network, and as of now that's only the Yankees, the Mets, the Knicks, and the Dodgers.
So I checked this out at Amazon.com and they have some nice features but they are definitely missing a few things:
It looks like it might sit nicely underneath an ATV, though that processor they used will probably generate too much heat.
The bolded one is huge for me (makes my @TV a de facto multimedia center in my family room0. And AirPlay.
Very good point!
Problem is that one can live a long time threading water. A lot of companies survive just fine with their nose just above the water.
Has some nice features, but not sure I would pay $99. If it came free or at a discount with my Prime subscription, then OK.
OK, what makes this not worth $99 but not the Apple TV or the Roku 3, especially since this has more features than Apple TV (including the ability to actually stream Amazon, the #2 streaming service!)? Really, the only advantage that the Apple TV now has over this box is the Apple ecosystem. Which is great if you have an I-Phone, I-Pad or MacBook, but this is DEFINITELY the best option out there for those who do not.
When you add to it that this thing is a full-on gaming console with capabilities similar to the original Wii, the idea that it isn't worth $99 just doesn't fly. Even without the gaming component, it already didn't offer anything that Apple TV doesn't offer, including doing the same things with Amazon's PC applications (Amazon has theirs that can organize and store movies and music) that Apple TV does with I-Tunes. And it does full screen mirroring with a Kindle tablet (something that Google was dumb enough not to include with Chromecast even though an open standard called Miracast that supports every version of Android past 3.0 supports)? Sorry. Just false.
This is a common trope. Someone does something feeble but because Apple isn't doing it Apple is weak and pathetic. Apple was wrong not to release a phone with a keyboard. Apple was wrong not support Flash Lite. Apple was wrong not to make a tablet that ran Mac OS X. Apple was wrong to support USB.
We waited decades for a proper tablet from Apple and it finally arrived it was considered a failure and yet soon after all those asshats were eating those words and yet years later the iPad is far and away the dominate tablet platform with a few low-lying copycat competitors eating up the low-end. There is something to say with building it right over building it first. Some people apparently never heard the story of the Three Little Pigs as children.
There's no reason to call anyone an asshat, you asshat (just kidding lol).
I would hardly call Apple a failure at anything. They're an extremely successful company with record sales across the board.
The problem is that Android tablet sales are exploding.
http://www.tech-thoughts.net/2013/05/tablet-market-share-trends-android-ipad-windows.html#.UzxkUI6sRtE
Apple dominated this category as recently as 2010. Now they're the smaller player.
Apple dominated the smart phone market, now outside of the US they are by far a niche player.
So am I a nervous nellie (lol!) as a shareholder to be concerned about an Amazon box that capitalizes on Amazon's streaming services while providing voice input and gaming capabilities?
No, I don't think I'm a nervous Nellie. The Amazon box is unproven, but the history of Android's continued explosive growth compared to Apple's slow steady growth, gives some reasons for a shareholder to be concerned!
I hope Apple blows it out of the water in 2014. Woah, Nellie!
I've been monitoring the goings on at MS Build over at TechCrunch. Seems like a sleeping giant has awoken -- rested and ready for battle, e.g. free Windows on devices with displays smaller than 9".
Also, MS showed Office Touch for Windows. They only showed PowerPoint -- no Word or Excel. They admit it is a work in progress for Windows. IMO, this is significant because they were willing to release Office for iPad now!
Now if Apple comes out with a set top box that incorporates many of these features, will you accuse them of copying Amazon?
Or if Apple goes the other way and comes out with a dongle, will you accuse them of copying Google?
Unless Apple comes out with a set top box with a completely new set of features, it will be impossible for them to not be guilty of what folks rail against Microsoft, Samsung, Google etc. on a daily basis here. (Funny that no one attacks Roku, the first company to make a commercially viable Apple TV competitor, although one wonders how viable Roku would be if they weren't being heavily subsidized by Netflix. Oh yeah I forgot ... a company has to be successful first before anyone here resents them.)
The problem is that Android tablet sales are exploding.
http://www.tech-thoughts.net/2013/05/tablet-market-share-trends-android-ipad-windows.html#.UzxkUI6sRtE
This is nonsense data, and has been debunked repeatedly, including here at AI. (I am too lazy to give you a link).
1) I didn't call anyone an asshat.
2) They dominated the tablet market as recently as 2010? WTF?! The iPad didn't launch until April 2010.
3) Apple is not a niche player in any of their categories. They clearly dominate the profits for the entire world's market in all four of the legs.
4) You know how you prove Apple isn't a niche player because trolls come here claiming Apple is weak and pathetic and yet I have a hard time believing there are droves of people signing up on WebOS, HP Slate, WinMo, et al. sites just to say that Apple is going to wipe their ass with the market. Trolls come here because they know that Apple has all the mindshare. When that stops happening then you can be worried about Apple becoming a niche player.
You can use your iPhone to do voice search with the AppleTV today.
The disadvantage is that there isn't a dedicated button to search across services.
You would have to search iTunes, YouTube, Vimeo, etc. separately.
When the keyboard input appears on your AppleTV, you can dictate your search query.
They also probably got the idea thanks to that idiot Walter Isaacson.
1) I would call that voice search once removed which means it's not as useful as what Amazon showed today. Apple's Remote app also doesn't have any intelligence features like "play the next unwatched episode of Top Gear" which is something I desperately want to see in any of these media extenders.
2) I think voice activated is a natural evolutions so I wouldn't put any blame on Isaacson. It's certainly not a break-through conception in and of itself that will radically change the living room.
So does the Apple TV via airplay.
A non-elegant, and expensive solution.
Originally Posted by 512ke
The problem is that Android tablet sales are exploding.
http://www.tech-thoughts.net/2013/05/tablet-market-share-trends-android-ipad-windows.html#.UzxkUI6sRtE
Apple dominated this category as recently as 2010. Now they're the smaller player.
While technically speaking more Android tablets are being sold every year, it is not an apples-to-apples comparison.
A very high percentage of these Android tablets are used solely for watching video and playing free games.
They don't buy apps or even make purchases in free apps.
The other thing obscuring the real picture is the android based TV-dongles such as the Chromecast also count as tablets.
These are also used almost exclusively for watching video and playing free games.
These are not great customers who are willing to pay for great software, content or services.
That is why developers target iOS first and Android second, if at all.
There's no reason to call anyone an asshat, you asshat (just kidding lol).
I think I just proved that wrong.