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

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 42
    MadbumMadbum Posts: 161member
    Beats said:
    Making a worse Apple TV isn’t the solution. Make a premium version for once!
    The one now is the most premium box out there, Nvidia shield is not close
  • Reply 22 of 42
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,903member
    mike1 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.


    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.
    The average American consumer doesn't care about image quality. They will buy what's cheapest.

    And when it stops working in a few years, they'll toss it out and buy whatever's cheapest then.

    It's not like Apple TV is a new product; it has been around for years and pretty much everyone has seen one in action at a friend or family member's home.

    And it's not like the build quality of a streaming stick matters much (I have a Roku Streaming Stick, a Google Chromecast Ultra and an old Apple TV). It's plugged into a USB port in the back of your television set or A/V receiver; it will probably stay there untouched until it dies. It's not something you stick in your pocket and carry around with you everywhere you go.
    edited May 13 williamlondon
  • Reply 23 of 42
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,251member
    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. 
    Apple is doing very good in mobile gaming when you look at it as a platform.  But if you look closer to Apple as a gaming company, they aren't doing good.  Their "console", the Apple TV, is far behind of the competition, same as Apple Arcade.  And extending those games to Mac's and TV's are not changing anything.  Compare that to Nintendo, Sony and MS, where customers purchase their consoles looking forward to play games from their libraries.  And these companies, as publishers and developers, have a large libraries of games and IP's, and are acquiring more publishers and developers every year.  Compare that to Apple, that as today, have zero games, and still don't have a game controller.  

    Maybe your are right the MS / Epic are concerned about the competition in iOS, but personally I think MS is more focused in expanding their gaming ecosystem / GamePass.  You also have to consider the possibility that the one concerned is Apple, considering they blocked the cloud gaming services from MS, Sony and Nvidia from the App Store.  This could be the future of gaming, and Apple is not ready yet.  Who knows...
    elijahgBeats
  • Reply 24 of 42
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,251member
    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.
    If you are thinking about a device with the M1 processor, it would be to play at least in 4k.  Considering the sizes of 4K games in the PS5 and XBox Series X, 256GB is not enough.  At least it would need 1TB of storage, and current devices today.  Do you think a device from Apple with those specs will be at $499?  I don't think so. 
  • Reply 25 of 42
    entropysentropys Posts: 3,610member
    The current box is expensive for what it is, but of all set top boxes it has the best UI and capability.  
    It’s closest competitor, the Shield, is similar priced. 

    These set top boxes have two purposes: streaming services; and gaming (Apple is trying on the home fitness angle, but that is the same as gaming really, just a different kind).
    the Apple TV is in between and thus suffers market share issues, just like the Shield.

    Apple could easily do a USB stick (it would have to be USBA btw) for about a $50-$70 that would be a serious competitor to Google and Amazon products. On performance, UI and AppStore capability alone.

    On the gaming side, for the hardware side a more capable SOC would be important yes, but also bundling with a decent controller, just like NVIDEA does with the shield. But even more importantly, the software side needs attention with some serious, must have, genre changing AAA games. Not something Apple does.

    But I don’t think it has room to increase the price on the gaming version, so the current device will stay like it is and we might get a usb stick.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 26 of 42
    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.

    The easy way to give the Pro hungry what they want is to revive Front Row. If you don't recall, Front Row was a pretty good variation of the AppleTV UI app for Macs. People especially loved to hook a Mac mini to the their TV, run Front Row and enjoy the most powerful AppleTV-like device available. 

    It should be EASIER to make a Front Row 2 since the code runs on Apple Silicon already... maybe the infamous "just flip a switch in the compiler" easy. 

    Then, an app and a M1 Mac Mini or even Studio could be the new "Power AppleTV." 

    Conceptually, an M2 Mini will show at some point and there will be a lot of M1 Minis out there that might be looking for something to do in potential early retirement. If so, perhaps it could move to the TV and be the new Power AppleTV? Just a crazy idea to efficiently feed some of this want. 
    entropyselijahg
  • Reply 27 of 42
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 1,913member
    What is the need for a stream only stick when most smartTV have had AppleTV streaming built in for a few years now. 

    I assume Apple does need to drop the lower model as the SOC in it uses GPUs that the license is expiring on when they moved to their own GPU 

    williamlondon
  • Reply 28 of 42
    stoneygstoneyg Posts: 43member
    mattinoz said:
    What is the need for a stream only stick when most smartTV have had AppleTV streaming built in for a few years now. 

    I assume Apple does need to drop the lower model as the SOC in it uses GPUs that the license is expiring on when they moved to their own GPU 

    For me, personally, I prefer the entire AppleTV interface over almost any Smart TV I've had. The AppleTV app on my Samsung is only for watching AppleTV+.
    williamlondonBeats
  • Reply 29 of 42
    lkrupp said:
    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.
    Not chance is what you say, but unless you're the CEO that isn't up to you. Apple can do whatever they want but fact is selling that old hardware for $30 different from the 4k model with updated specs is kinda silly with or without the remote. 
    williamlondonasdasdelijahg
  • Reply 30 of 42
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    Madbum said:
    Beats said:
    Making a worse Apple TV isn’t the solution. Make a premium version for once!
    The one now is the most premium box out there, Nvidia shield is not close

    Nvidia is garbage.

    I’m talking about making an Apple-standard box, not just a Netflix machine. Even iPad crushes Apple TV. 
    edited May 13 williamlondon
  • Reply 31 of 42
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    danvm said:
    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.
    If you are thinking about a device with the M1 processor, it would be to play at least in 4k.  Considering the sizes of 4K games in the PS5 and XBox Series X, 256GB is not enough.  At least it would need 1TB of storage, and current devices today.  Do you think a device from Apple with those specs will be at $499?  I don't think so. 

    Apple TV already plays 4K games. It’s a powerful box which Apple does not fully exploit with their low end standards like Apple Arcade.

    Apple TV is already more powerful than Nintendo Switch but the games don’t reflect that.

    Best Apple TV graphics(non-Arcade):

    https://youtu.be/VdMoDtoWz_E

    Best Switch graphics:

    https://youtu.be/6lRpoGucGA0

    I won’t even compare with Apple Arcade because then it gets embarrassing.

    I did address storage issues. Since Arcade+ would most likely stream most of the content plus iCloud, you wouldn’t need much storage, IN THEORY. I could be wrong.

    But correct, you’ll need higher storage or an ugly SD card slot if the content is 100% stored on-device (which I doubt Apple would do). Modern SD cards can reach 1TB. Knowing Apple, they’ll probably introduce some crazy 2TB SD card alongside such a device.
  • Reply 32 of 42
    entropysentropys Posts: 3,610member
    mattinoz said:
    What is the need for a stream only stick when most smartTV have had AppleTV streaming built in for a few years now. 

    I assume Apple does need to drop the lower model as the SOC in it uses GPUs that the license is expiring on when they moved to their own GPU 

    Depends on the TV tbh. Some brands are better than others, and some TV UIs are so bad the appleTv gets used in preference. I know myself we use the AppleTV mostly on our budget hisense. 

    And then of course there is a TV more than 2-3 years old that doesn’t get software updates anymore.
    stompyBeats
  • Reply 33 of 42
    saareksaarek Posts: 1,397member
    I’ve owned an Apple TV since the original version came out.

    The main reason I own my current one is for the privacy aspect.

    I also have a 4K Fire TV stick that the kids use that only cost me £29 in one or Amazons usual sales.

    To my mind Apples biggest problem is that, for the average person, the Apple TV doesn’t really do anything for £169 that the Amazon Fire TV Stick does. Yes, it had a nicer UI, yes, it’s a tad faster and yes, it does look slightly better with certain content. 

    But all of those “slightly better” features does not, to the average Joe, equal £140 more.

    Whats frustrating is that you know the Apple TV could do a lot more. The hardware packed inside isn’t really being used, it’s a waste.

    Apple Arcade has the opportunity to turn the Apple TV into the equivalent of a modern Nintendo Wii. You don’t need games to have the latest Unreal graphics engine to be fun. The Wii demonstrated that you can own the family living room on the cheap, it’s all about accessibility and the experience.

    The new remote is far better than the terrible old one, but why do they not have an Apple gaming remote, at least as an optional extra?

    Why with Apple fitness are we still stuck with just one person being tracked at once?

    Why not chuck in a couple of movie rentals each month with the Apple One Bundles?

    Theres so much more they could do in this space.
    asdasdBeats
  • Reply 34 of 42
    slow n easyslow n easy Posts: 197member
    For me, I would only consider the tv. A significantly cheaper price would be nice, but I have to have Apple's UI regardless of the price. The fact that my shows just show up in Up Next whenever a new episode or new season drops is critically important for me. I will not even consider a streaming device that just has apps and having to go to each individual app every time you want to watch a show and having to go to each individual app just to see if a new episode is available. That is totally unacceptable to me.
  • Reply 35 of 42
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    saarek said:
    I’ve owned an Apple TV since the original version came out.

    The main reason I own my current one is for the privacy aspect.

    I also have a 4K Fire TV stick that the kids use that only cost me £29 in one or Amazons usual sales.

    To my mind Apples biggest problem is that, for the average person, the Apple TV doesn’t really do anything for £169 that the Amazon Fire TV Stick does. Yes, it had a nicer UI, yes, it’s a tad faster and yes, it does look slightly better with certain content. 

    But all of those “slightly better” features does not, to the average Joe, equal £140 more.

    Whats frustrating is that you know the Apple TV could do a lot more. The hardware packed inside isn’t really being used, it’s a waste.

    Apple Arcade has the opportunity to turn the Apple TV into the equivalent of a modern Nintendo Wii. You don’t need games to have the latest Unreal graphics engine to be fun. The Wii demonstrated that you can own the family living room on the cheap, it’s all about accessibility and the experience.

    The new remote is far better than the terrible old one, but why do they not have an Apple gaming remote, at least as an optional extra?

    Why with Apple fitness are we still stuck with just one person being tracked at once?

    Why not chuck in a couple of movie rentals each month with the Apple One Bundles?

    Theres so much more they could do in this space.

    Yes it’s being wasted.

    It’s insanely frustrating that iTunes isn’t being advertised!! It’s the biggest video store in the world! I can’t tell you how many times I hear people say “where do I watch that?” And if it isn’t on Netflix/Disney/Hulu they assume they have to track down the DVD somewhere when it’s on sale for 5 bucks on iTunes!!!

    Throwing in rentals into Apple One is genius and would advertise iTunes to the millions who don’t know you can buy shows and movies on there too!
    edited May 14 asdasd
  • Reply 36 of 42
    dewmedewme Posts: 4,405member
    The thing that keeps me liking the Apple TV is the fact that I can access most of my Apple ecosystem content like my Photos, Apple Music, movies directly and from locally connected Macs. AirPlay is a big deal for me too. Being able to use the Apple TV as a substitute for my cable company's set top box is a bonus as well. I can use an Apple TV plugged into any HDMI monitor that has audio (or use in conjunction with a HomePod) to get a full TV experience anywhere on my property that has network coverage, no cable required. I even have one Apple TV connected to a monitor and my old analog HiFi system through an inexpensive DAC.

    Last but not least, having a wired Ethernet connection on the Apple TV is actually a big deal for me. Given a choice I always prefer wired for devices that don't get moved around.

    Sure, some or most of these capabilities are available via other devices that cost far less than an Apple TV. But the Apple TV has proven to be a very reliable and minimal-fuss workhorse. The only problems I've ever had with Apple TV are due to the devices becoming obsolete or losing support for an app that mattered to me, like YouTube. Apple's move to two-factor authentication for Apple ID based authentication made using the Gen 2 and Gen 3 Apple TVs a royal pain in the ass to use. There were some workarounds like appending the 2FA code to the end of your password, but it was ridiculously easy to get into an ambiguous timing and sequence state with the handshake and more often than not you ended up with your Apple ID locked. It's too bad because the Gen 3 Apple TV was otherwise quite usable.

    Any talk of cost reducing the Apple TV would have to include a list of features you're willing to give up. I'd prefer that rather than cutting features to drive the cost down, Apple throw in a couple more features to justify its current price. I'd really like to see Safari on the Apple TV. I'd also like to see Apple include a remote desktop client app on the Apple TV that would allow me to remote into my Macs, locally and remotely. I suspect Apple will never allow the remote access feature, but it would clearly differentiate the Apple TV from the budget competitors while further enhancing the value of the Apple ecosystem. Yes, you would need to use a Bluetooth keyboard & trackpad or the Apple Remote app on an iOS or iPadOS device. No big deal.
    Beats
  • Reply 37 of 42
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 2,717member
    ATV is an interesting subject. Like all consumer electronics, your choices on this are very personal, and depend greatly on what you value. 

    I don't like the ATV UI at all. YMMV. However, I don't watch a lot of TV, and much of it is OTA. Yes, I understand that the ATV app built into my TCL/Roku tv comes at some loss of "privacy." I would buy an Apple branded TV, but one is not coming, much to the chagrin of one Gene Muenster. There's no money in making a TV screen (and the Apple branded Studio Monitor may backfire on them.)

    Apple doesn't make products because people want certain things or features: they make products based on people buying products that turn a profit; and the best profits are ones that come with subscriptions and recurring charges. ATV started as a "hobby." Now that Apple is into the entertainment industry as "services" (and investing heavily in making content) maybe the hardware box makes sense....if it offers an alternative to other devices that is valued. It doesn't seem (to me) that the current ATV box offers anything of value to really get a following. 

    It is unlikely I will buy another ATV box. It doesn't offer anything I value. YMMV.

    What would I value? An ATV box that has next gen OTA tuners and an antenna coax connector on it. Apple will never make such a thing, as there is no revenue stream to that. 

    I do hope Apple continues to pursue offering live sports on ATV+. Some interesting rumors about the NFL package floating about.
  • Reply 38 of 42
    designrdesignr Posts: 740member
    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.
    This is the fundamental problem. The device doesn't appear to have much value in the eyes of consumers. Some—like me—even just prefer to use the apps built into the TV (Samsung) I buy just to avoid Yet Another Device Cable Power Cable And Remote.

    While I seriously doubt it will ever happen (though I'm sure they considered it), a full-on Apple TV (the panel with the Apple TV guts built-in) would be an appealing option. Great UI. Gaming. Full Apple ecosystem integration. Fewer cables. Etc. I just don't see Apple doing it. I think the TV market is tough. Low margin. Distribution is wide and broad (e.g., well beyond Apple retail stores). And it's unclear what else Apple TV would provide over the current players (though an Ultra Wide camera integrated with Center Stage and Face Time could be nice...we sometimes do video calls with geographically remote family and doing it in the living room in a clean, seamless way would be nice.)

  • Reply 39 of 42
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 1,913member
    dewme said:
    The thing that keeps me liking the Apple TV is the fact that I can access most of my Apple ecosystem content like my Photos, Apple Music, movies directly and from locally connected Macs. AirPlay is a big deal for me too. Being able to use the Apple TV as a substitute for my cable company's set top box is a bonus as well. I can use an Apple TV plugged into any HDMI monitor that has audio (or use in conjunction with a HomePod) to get a full TV experience anywhere on my property that has network coverage, no cable required. I even have one Apple TV connected to a monitor and my old analog HiFi system through an inexpensive DAC.

    Last but not least, having a wired Ethernet connection on the Apple TV is actually a big deal for me. Given a choice I always prefer wired for devices that don't get moved around.

    Sure, some or most of these capabilities are available via other devices that cost far less than an Apple TV. But the Apple TV has proven to be a very reliable and minimal-fuss workhorse. The only problems I've ever had with Apple TV are due to the devices becoming obsolete or losing support for an app that mattered to me, like YouTube. Apple's move to two-factor authentication for Apple ID based authentication made using the Gen 2 and Gen 3 Apple TVs a royal pain in the ass to use. There were some workarounds like appending the 2FA code to the end of your password, but it was ridiculously easy to get into an ambiguous timing and sequence state with the handshake and more often than not you ended up with your Apple ID locked. It's too bad because the Gen 3 Apple TV was otherwise quite usable.

    Any talk of cost reducing the Apple TV would have to include a list of features you're willing to give up. I'd prefer that rather than cutting features to drive the cost down, Apple throw in a couple more features to justify its current price. I'd really like to see Safari on the Apple TV. I'd also like to see Apple include a remote desktop client app on the Apple TV that would allow me to remote into my Macs, locally and remotely. I suspect Apple will never allow the remote access feature, but it would clearly differentiate the Apple TV from the budget competitors while further enhancing the value of the Apple ecosystem. Yes, you would need to use a Bluetooth keyboard & trackpad or the Apple Remote app on an iOS or iPadOS device. No big deal.
    What if the smaller AppleTV was a power brick like the old AirPortExpress. With enough room for HDMI/Ethernet and a couple USBc to power an HomePodMini or two.  Could be then used in a secondary room and power charging cables for devices.

    Or they just updated HomePodMini 2 that has 2 USBc ports instead of fixed cord so one can be used for HDMI output. 
  • Reply 40 of 42
    dewmedewme Posts: 4,405member
    mattinoz said:
    dewme said:
    The thing that keeps me liking the Apple TV is the fact that I can access most of my Apple ecosystem content like my Photos, Apple Music, movies directly and from locally connected Macs. AirPlay is a big deal for me too. Being able to use the Apple TV as a substitute for my cable company's set top box is a bonus as well. I can use an Apple TV plugged into any HDMI monitor that has audio (or use in conjunction with a HomePod) to get a full TV experience anywhere on my property that has network coverage, no cable required. I even have one Apple TV connected to a monitor and my old analog HiFi system through an inexpensive DAC.

    Last but not least, having a wired Ethernet connection on the Apple TV is actually a big deal for me. Given a choice I always prefer wired for devices that don't get moved around.

    Sure, some or most of these capabilities are available via other devices that cost far less than an Apple TV. But the Apple TV has proven to be a very reliable and minimal-fuss workhorse. The only problems I've ever had with Apple TV are due to the devices becoming obsolete or losing support for an app that mattered to me, like YouTube. Apple's move to two-factor authentication for Apple ID based authentication made using the Gen 2 and Gen 3 Apple TVs a royal pain in the ass to use. There were some workarounds like appending the 2FA code to the end of your password, but it was ridiculously easy to get into an ambiguous timing and sequence state with the handshake and more often than not you ended up with your Apple ID locked. It's too bad because the Gen 3 Apple TV was otherwise quite usable.

    Any talk of cost reducing the Apple TV would have to include a list of features you're willing to give up. I'd prefer that rather than cutting features to drive the cost down, Apple throw in a couple more features to justify its current price. I'd really like to see Safari on the Apple TV. I'd also like to see Apple include a remote desktop client app on the Apple TV that would allow me to remote into my Macs, locally and remotely. I suspect Apple will never allow the remote access feature, but it would clearly differentiate the Apple TV from the budget competitors while further enhancing the value of the Apple ecosystem. Yes, you would need to use a Bluetooth keyboard & trackpad or the Apple Remote app on an iOS or iPadOS device. No big deal.
    What if the smaller AppleTV was a power brick like the old AirPortExpress. With enough room for HDMI/Ethernet and a couple USBc to power an HomePodMini or two.  Could be then used in a secondary room and power charging cables for devices.

    Or they just updated HomePodMini 2 that has 2 USBc ports instead of fixed cord so one can be used for HDMI output. 
    An Apple TV + HomePod Max fusion in a sound bar form factor would be a very compelling product in my opinion. This would allow audio and video streaming, casting, and with an optional camera attached, full room FaceTime. I suppose they could integrate the camera into the sound bar unit, but I’m not sure the placement would be ideal. Since we’re dreaming, why not optional wireless sub and satellites too - hence the “Max” designation. 
    designr
Sign In or Register to comment.