Piper Jaffray sees a revamped Apple TV set-top box being core of Apple's fall 2015 products

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 105
    bobschlob wrote: »
    What he's talking about (though, may not know it) is, what will eventually become the next iteration of the iMac.

    If you had the App Store then you could hook up apple tv to an monitor and have a $100 computer.

    It would be like the chrome box. Because of the massive loss in revenue I don't think we will ever see that come to pass.

    Apple will become more and more protective of profits and eventually turn into another Microsoft. They are halfway there being proprietary.
  • Reply 82 of 105
    Apple have always been a hardware company and will continue to be. The all-important software is given away free. That's why you won't see WatchKit on any third party watches.

    Similarly for TV. Unless Apple can see a way to market a significant volume of Apple branded TV related hardware then they're unlikely to put a lot of effort into it. That requires either a subscription service or better content access via iTunes. But who needs a subscription service that locks you into one brand when pretty much all content is already available legally by both subscription and pay-per-view elsewhere?

    That doesn't mean it won't happen, it just means that they haven't yet figured out how to achieve customer lock-in on TV.
  • Reply 83 of 105
    g-newsg-news Posts: 1,107member

    An app and game capable Apple-TV, essentially turning it into a console would, in my opinion, make a lot more sense than the AppleWatch. Of course though, the two things could and probably will be combined, so you can use the watch as a remote for AppleTV.

  • Reply 84 of 105
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,368member
    mcdave wrote: »
    Easy Tiger! Kids read this blog (& comment)

    LOL
  • Reply 85 of 105
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,368member
    solipsismy wrote: »
    You're right, I completely ignored the still available SD versions. Perhaps 720p will become the new SD.


    PS: Remember when iTunes Store videos used to be 320x240? (I think I got that right.)

    I'm the same usually but I just started watching a series on Netflix that is all SD. I have to hold the iPad as far away as possible to tolerate the lousy picture and no way would I watch it on a 60" TV.

    I remember so many folks saying they couldn't tell the difference and HD was a gimmick! Ha!

    720p is the new SD for sure and soon 1080p will be. The way time passes faster and faster these days it won't be that long now either! It is such a shame there is a period in TV history when they used video rather than film. I realize at the time that was cost effective but given how well they can restore film from the pre video era and how NTSC SD video is stuck for ever (upscaling is a joke) it is literally a lost era in terms of IQ.
  • Reply 86 of 105
    Oh, is it time for the annual AppleTV vaporware rumors again?

    I have no doubt that Apple has hardware that works and it's ready for production, but I also don't think they can get the direct content agreements signed and I doubt that's going to change any time soon. I'm so sick of the rumors on the TV product.
  • Reply 87 of 105
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,715member
    mj web wrote: »
    It appears Munster is grasping at straws. Having owned an Apple TV for years -- and comparing it to a recently purchased Samsung Smart TV replete with quad core, STB intercept, voice activated, point and click, sophisticated program guides -- I can't envision what Apple might do to top Samsung in the smart TV space. SJ's claim to to crack television has been usurped by Samsung.

    Did you write that with a straight face? RIM couldn't believe the iPhone was possible. If Apple were to produce a set, it would be the entire package and not just a spec list.
    pazuzu wrote: »

    Hopefully the new Apple Tv is an actual TV as Steve Jobs envisioned.

    I hope not. How many sizes do they need to produce? How much more expensive than comparable sets? The upgrade cycle is also a lot longer than iPhone and Macs.
  • Reply 88 of 105
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    Two-a 49 and an 80. And convert the present 27 iMac into one.
  • Reply 89 of 105
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,715member
    pazuzu wrote: »
    Two-a 49 and an 80. And convert the present 27 iMac into one.
    Well 49" is too small for my room and 80" is way too big. 49" is probably too big for most apartments.
  • Reply 90 of 105
    crowleycrowley Posts: 6,017member
    mac_128 wrote: »
    "Hey Siri" is great ... but about 3x an hour Siri currently activates on my iPhone due to a similar combination of words broadcast over the TV when my iPhone is near it. So that doesn't seem to be an ideal controller for a TV unless they do a LOT of work on Siri between now and then.
    I've had Hey Siri activate in a (to my ears) completely silent room before. Definitely needs some work.
  • Reply 91 of 105
    I am not hopeful for the next update, but a volume control on the Apple TV remote is sorely missed. Using AirPlay currently requires the user to juggle three 'remotes'. You need the iDevice for content selection, volume control on the TV remote, and the AppleTV remote (to wake up AppleTV in order to start the whole process). Of course you also need a non-Apple switch to control the input source.

    If Apple had pass through HDMI that was controlled with a new AppleTV remote (and volume control), we could eliminate at least one remote in the process. Allow a robust App Store for third party apps on AppleTV (to eliminate the need for the iDevice) and you could have a great TV experience with one small elegant remote from Apple.

    AirPlay is a nifty hack, but it is just a hack. A mass consumer product (i.e. not a hobby) needs elegance, not cleverness.
  • Reply 92 of 105
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,229moderator
    solipsismy wrote: »
    paxman wrote: »
    I agree the stick concepts is the best one if it can retain its capabilities. I have never used one either so I don't know how well they work.

    They work fine, but I find the solution lacking because they still need an external power source.

    The sticks take power from the USB ports on TVs:

    1000

    This means they don't need an internal power converter for the mains like the Apple TV. They lack audio output though and ethernet in for a more stable network connection. The audio would go through the HDMI so audio would default to being through the TV speakers. There are external adaptors to get optical audio:

    http://www.amazon.com/BlackRock-Adapter-Google-Chromecast-Extractor/dp/B00I4A12JG

    "We got the Chromecast in an effort to ditch cable and the only issue I had with it was the inability to use our sound system"

    The Apple TV internally looks like this;

    1000

    https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Apple+TV+3rd+Generation+Teardown/8293

    The black part to the right is the power supply so that whole part could go if they switched to USB. It already has a USB port and that's only used for servicing. They could perhaps move the HDMI and optical audio to the opposite end of the ethernet and USB and make it narrower and longer. This way, it would sit inline with the cables rather than being a box. It wouldn't plug directly into the TV but would look like an in-line cable adaptor:

    1000

    Sticks like the Chromecast are designed to stream everything from devices so they have basic chips inside. The Apple TV is more of a standalone product and can store its own full-featured apps rather than relying on separate devices for this. Netflix for example on the Apple TV runs on the Apple TV itself.

    Apple could decide to change tactic and start building TVs. OLED UHD TVs will have some growth and they have the technology to make amazing displays. Laminated glass with anti-glare plus OLED would look really nice. I don't know if they'd be able to laminate glass at those sizes. They manage 27" ok, I doubt they'd go as high as 60" but 30-50" would be ok. 40" seems to be the most popular by a long way but is a bit small for UHD content. The following 55" seems like a more suitable size:


    [VIDEO]


    Although it wouldn't appeal to people who have really large TVs, over 95% of buyers have one 55" or less. They have a long upgrade cycle of about 7 years so it depends on what they want to do with content delivery. With an actual TV, they hit fewer people with their services than with a box but can make 10x the profit per unit and the Apple TV only sells about 8m units per year. They can do both the TV and the box and hope that cheap TVs plus the box don't affect their TV sales too much. Having the box also means that people who buy a TV don't get left out of major upgrades.

    Games would help sell units a little but they really need an official controller. There's no way people will buy a $199 box with hardly any games plus multiple $79 controllers when the main consoles are below $400 with a controller included and have way more high-end games. Ouya discovered this:

    http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/189089-the-stillborn-revolution-ouya-fails-to-sell-developer-seeks-buyout

    It even had streamed games so had access to high-end games:


    [VIDEO]


    If it sold over 1 million units, it wouldn't be much over. It seems more likely it was below 1 million since the best-selling games were selling under 10k units. The PS4 and XBox have each sold over 10m units in less than a year and nearing 20m. Still, the Apple TV already has the audience and a gaming model would have extra storage that can be used for media.

    Redesigning it to work over USB alone wouldn't be a major update. They probably haven't done an update because there's not much to add to it. It could do with 802.11ac support, they could add touch input to the controller, they can add H.265 decoding for 4K at 20Mbps. It's just a basic device so there's very little that can be done to it.
  • Reply 93 of 105



    I don't think it would be out of the realm of possibility that Apple might do both: produce an updated, super-de-duper ATV as the premier product with higher resolution, apps, etc., and shrink the current capabilities of the existing ATV into a USB thingy for the basic connection to iTunes and streaming services.

  • Reply 94 of 105
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,229moderator
    The 4K issue might be what's holding the Apple TV update back. I could see them wanting to be able to Airplay at 4K, which can be done over 802.11n and ac bandwidth but it would be best to have H.265 real-time hardware encoding and decoding. 4K-capable GPUs were only introduced with the iPhone 6. These are higher-end chips. The last Apple TV update 3 years ago was to the A5 chip, which was a shrunken version of the previous year's iPhone chip. Given that the previous year's iPhone chip is now the A8, which is 4K-capable, it's possible that the next Apple TV will arrive later this year with a die-shrunk version of it with some CPU cores disabled.
  • Reply 95 of 105
    Marvin wrote: »
    The 4K issue might be what's holding the Apple TV update back. I could see them wanting to be able to Airplay at 4K, which can be done over 802.11n and ac bandwidth but it would be best to have H.265 real-time hardware encoding and decoding. 4K-capable GPUs were only introduced with the iPhone 6. These are higher-end chips. The last Apple TV update 3 years ago was to the A5 chip, which was a shrunken version of the previous year's iPhone chip. Given that the previous year's iPhone chip is now the A8, which is 4K-capable, it's possible that the next Apple TV will arrive later this year with a die-shrunk version of it with some CPU cores disabled.

    And we know the A8* offers real time H.265 encoding and deciding for FaceTime between iPhone 6 series devices.


    * or a discreet H.265 chip on the board but I would bet it's baked in.
  • Reply 96 of 105
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

    Given that the previous year’s iPhone chip is now the A8, which is 4K-capable…

     

    Wait, I thought we established the A8 ran just shy of 2160p30. We’ll have to wait for the A9.

  • Reply 97 of 105
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,229moderator
    Given that the previous year’s iPhone chip is now the A8, which is 4K-capable…

    Wait, I thought we established the A8 ran just shy of 2160p30. We’ll have to wait for the A9.

    There's a test here that managed 2160p at 50Mbps bitrate, it should be at least 30fps:

    http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/11/21/apples-a8-soc-reportedly-capable-of-4k-video-output-may-pave-way-for-ultra-high-resolution-apple-tv
    http://www.tuaw.com/2014/11/21/exclusive-the-iphone-6s-a8-chip-can-play-4k-video/


    [VIDEO]
  • Reply 98 of 105
    Improve the content, open it up to the AppStore for a total home entertainment system. License WATSON from ibm for the ui
  • Reply 99 of 105
    February 3015:

    Munster continues to believe that a full-fledged Apple television set is in the works -- a point he made clear once again in his latest note to investors.
  • Reply 100 of 105
    mac_128 wrote: »
    "Hey Siri" is great ... but about 3x an hour Siri currently activates on my iPhone due to a similar combination of words broadcast over the TV when my iPhone is near it. So that doesn't seem to be an ideal controller for a TV unless they do a LOT of work on Siri between now and then.

    Just turn it off.

    It's rude to refer to Siri as "Hey," anyway.
Sign In or Register to comment.