-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Apple Will Debut New Apple TV In September
- Thread starter giga
- Start date
- Status
This will launch exclusively for the US first, for sure.
It'll probably have HDMI-CEC, so that would mostly take care of the TV. The streaming service should replace your cable box. The only others left are your blu ray player and your receiver. The former you can't expect them to care about, so you're left with your receiver remote.
This might be new for Apple, but it's kinda old hat in the market. Particularly I don't know that power is much of a draw, certainly wasn't for Shield. People mostly buy these to watch shows unless something changes, and it's not like nobody has tried other angles.
Wasn't there also a rumor that Apple/Beats was working on a Sonos competitor to replace all your receivers?
Did a search, didnt see anything. Do you have any hard links or you're relying on memory?
Lol
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
1) The "take over the living room" goal of this device would include replacing a lot of the additional devices you currently want/need a "universal" remote for, so it's not at all a mistake if their remote doesn't work with non-Apple stuff. No need for a cable box and blu-ray player if the Apple TV has a streaming digital cable service and rentable/buyable 1080p (and eventually 4K) movies.
2) The remote isn't the "key selling point". Back to the original question and context, and the post you responded to, it's just 1 of 5 things giga listed that will differentiate it from the $50 sticks.
Lots of things are "old hat" to the market, and then Apple comes in and implements them and it's the first time the mainstream starts using those features. Don't underestimate the power and reach of their user base and marketing.
The Shield didn't have the developer and app ecosystem that Apple has. People don't know what they want until it's delivered to them the right way. Not to mention as far as I know, the Shield never tried to be a Homekit-esque hub for smart devices around the house.
Time warner. Includes DVR and on demand for most networks. And again, not subject to bandwidth issues. 40 as the starting point is too high.
Not sure if you know, but there's a market for that model due to it being jail breakable. I sold mine for 130 two months ago.
Why? If Apple even has ambitions for TV services in other countries we won't see them before way past this device.
It should be a typical rollout like with the iPhone if they have enough units.
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
You pay less than $40 per month for cable, DVR, and on-demand, and that also includes the rental fee for all of the equipment? That's a pretty incredible deal. Are you still on some kind of promotional period price?
I cut the cord a while ago, but I always hear horror stories of people paying $100-200 per month for their cable + Internet after all of the taxes, fees, rental costs, etc are added up. Maybe that's only people that have HBO, Showtime, sports packages, etc?
TheAbsolution
Member
Because those channels are only available in the US.
It's 119 a month for 50 meg Internet, basic cable including ESPN, and phone. Also includes two DVRs.
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
I'm a little confused about your math, then, if you're calculating that the TV portions of your package cost less than $40 per month. Obviously the fees and bundles different depending on ISP and where you live, but my 85 meg internet is ~$65 per month, so with slower internet + the bundle discount, the internet portion of your package should definitely be cheaper than that, which would make the cost of the TV/cable part quite a bit more than $40.
I guess what it will ultimately come down to is: will Apple offer DVR with its cable-replacement TV service, and what channels will be included.
outunderthestars
Banned
Dear lord, I'm paying $38 a month for 50 meg internet and HBO Go. I can't imagine spending $120+ to my cable company.
What company? Where do you live?
Has Apple struck a deal with the content providers yet? Apple can't announce a streaming service is coming in 2016 if there's no gurantee that they'll have a deal before then. Such an announcement would also give leverage to the content providers in the negotiations as Apple has a hard deadline by which to deliver for customers and shareholders. Instead Apple analysts are speculating that Apple wants to release the TV now, rack up lots of sales over the holiday period, and use that to pressure and convince the content providers to agree to a favourable deal...
If Apple launches it at $200 though that's out of impulse purchase pricing and creeping into game console territory...
That's just the bundle price. Alone TV costs less than 40 dollars. I don't know a single person that would dump cable for a 40+ dollar solution from Apple or anyone else whose quality rises and falls based on bandwidth. It's a horrible price. The people I know that have left just use Netflix and occasionally grab a month of HBO Now or Showtime. 40+ isn't going to get them back.
While that's kinda true there's usually a different take they can wedge in, or reuse an existing monopoly. Apple certainly has mindshare clout but it's still hard for them to move into established markets. While Shield is an interesting beast for several reasons it is ultimately an Android TV device with additional input from PC devs. Really, Apple is unlikely to do much better in terms of app support because that's nearly everyone, even FireTV hasn't really seen huge success in apps either and they have both the largest ecosystem for TV apps and exclusive first party development. We just aren't seeing a lot of take from consumers or devs here. I think people just see these devices differently, cheaper hardware to provide Netflix and it seems that all the software mindshare is solely on consoles. What benefit there was to using mobile platforms in the living room is a complete eroded with the current gen because they all support those things. I think the only open software avenue right now is to see if maybe you could get business users.
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
So the bundle costs more than buying the services separately? That makes no sense.
It's probably a good thing that Apple markets to more than just the "people you know" then, although I'm sure the size of those 2 groups is comparable ; )
I imagine this is aimed less towards cord-cutters and more towards current cable subscribers. Let's be honest -- if cord-cutters are getting by just fine on Netflix and an occasional month of HBO Now and Showtime, they're never going to come back to regular cable (or an equivalent streaming version) no matter what the price. They're kidding themselves if they think $15-20 (or maybe they expect even less!) per month for a full cable package is realistic.
It's not like the Kindle Fire and Phone are seen huge success in apps either, yet the iPad and its app support are doing quite well. Again, wait and see how that looks once Apple enters the market and gets some traction. Are you really using Amazon as an example of strong first-party development, and the Android marketplace as a developer friendly and supported ecosystem?
I think you're holding onto a really narrow view of what's possible, here. Home automation and smart devices, the Internet of Things, etc are just really starting to take off. IMO your stance here would be like dismissing apps on smartphones right when the first gen iPhone was announced because "no one has gotten it to work so far".
infiniteloop
Member
Who are the current players for TV apps? Amazon and Roku? Apple TV will likely out rank those the day it's released.
What first party apps are only available on FireTV?
How will Apple TV outrank other established players on the day of release? How many developers do you think Apple is sharing the SDK with right now / how many exclusive apps do you think Apple will launch with?
Apps are a non factor. Most of the apps people care about are already available on AppleTV (Netflix, HBO etc) and/or are decidely multiplatform (Plex etc).
Apple's selling point will be first and foremost their new interface.
No, the Phone service is 20+ and the internet is 55. Then factor in a couple DVRs and those new cable boxes that are mandatory just to receive a signal on Time Warner's network.
If the service is aimed at non-cord cutters, they're already dead.
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
If they're mandatory, why would you exclude them from the price? Wouldn't someone also be saving money by "not" have to pay for those cable boxes and DVRs if they go with a streaming alternative?
Why? The price is either cheaper or at worst equivalent (all based on the info you've given me), and they don't have to deal with contracts or the cable companies (which receive some or the worst customer satisfaction scores out there) and instead can turn on and off their service whenever they please and get to deal with Apple (who scores in the top for customer satisfaction) directly if they have any issues.
There are both pros and cons (for example, as you said, for a slow internet connection a cable TV signal will be more reliable), but they certainly aren't "already dead".
"How will the iPhone outrank other established players on the day of release? How many developers do you think Apple is sharing the SDK with right now / how many exclusive apps do you think Apple will launch [the iPhone App Store] with?
Apps are a non factor. Most of the apps people care about are already available on the iPhone (Phone, SMS, Visual Voicemail).
Apple's selling point will be first and foremost their new interface."
You're selling the entire development community short with their ability to innovate and come up with new app categories and ideas, especially with a device and market that's relatively nascent and untapped.
Apple TV 4 coming in October for under $200, Apple TV 3 stays & gets new streaming service
$199 is a steep price point, even with the app store functionality.
$199 is a steep price point, even with the app store functionality.
Meus Renaissance
Member
$200 to stream content you've already paid for? I thought Apple were taking the TV business seriously? Looks like it'll continue to be relegated to a pet-project.
Really now? People were saying the same thing about the Apple Watch last year, that Apple would just sweep in and have tons of great useful apps compared to Pebble, Android wear and Samsung. How did that turn out for them? Apple doesn't own excluive TV or Gaming IP; there won't be a killer app at launch
If the remote is as good as it sounds, it might be worth it. I'm hoping either the remote has a headphone jack on it or they add bluetooth headphone support to the box.
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
Where did I say anything about having a killer app at launch? Why do you think it's at all valuable to evaluate a product's success after less than a year on the market? Especially markets that are so young like smartwatches and home automation stuff.
Lots of Apple's current flagship products had mediocre 1st (and sometimes 2nd and even 3rd) generations. That's not the point. It doesn't need to be a smash hit day one. This is much more about getting a foot in the door as more and more home products get upgraded to "smart" devices.
Again, if you're limiting your view on this to just a "TV and 'maybe' gaming product", you're being narrow-minded about it IMO.
infiniteloop
Member
New interface? Who would care about that? People have been asking for an App Store for years. How are Apps a non factor? It'll be one of the biggest selling points.
If it's being announced September and released in October they'll be a ton of apps day one.
um, maybe you missed the original post I was replying to claimed Apple would have tons of apps besting other competing devices at launch. Here he is again:
Early adopters and the vocal minority of power users on the internet care about tons of apps. The mainstream doesn't care about Plex or playing Angry Birds on their TV.
The interface, signified by the new remote and the better TV experience it enabes, will be what attracts the mainstream to the thing.
You are being pretty narrow minded about the potential of apps.
Look don't let bias tell you Android is not equally the platform iOS is in terms of developer interest. But the comparison is Apple wouldn't have first party game development at all and they'd be pulling for the same pools of developers who are either building for something like Roku and FireTV or the few dipping a toe in with Shield. All of those will support consoles though because that's where the audience is. I'm willing to concede Apple magic bridges that gap but what is it?
I'd seriously doubt home automation. Not only has HomeKit been hit with setbacks getting out the door nobody is really supporting it. That and newer products like Echo are already challenging the idea that people really want to use mobile and wearables for home automation. Now Apple TV could conceivably have similar functionality via Siri, but if it's visual-centric I have strong doubts about the effectiveness. At least that would leave it somewhere in line with Windows 10 or Kinect in terms of how people use it.
That's kinda my point, there aren't many despite fairly substantial user bases. The main thing is centered around video services of which most are on everything (notable exceptions are Amazon is not on AndroidTV and VUDU isn't on FireTV). Apple's rumored TV service may or may not matter (I'm guessing not as it's not inline with the way video content is consumed in 2015) but what can they do? F2P isn't going to translate so the existing dev pool is useless, AAA games aren't going to win over people looking at PS4 even if they could convince some of them to make tech demos, the video services are the same but the box is more expensive?
I mean if HomeKit had taken off already, Apple had some killer exclusive video content, we saw some sort of life from TV apps, or Apple hadn't dragged on so badly to lose all their marketshare I'd see this different. But an angle doesn't immediately jump out for how they'll succeed other than patented "Apple Magic." Maybe that is enough?
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
He didn't mention anything about Apple having "tons of apps" at launch (edit: in his initial post that you responded to -- he did later say that, but only after you responded the way you did). He just said Apple would "out rank" Amazon and Roku, which is absolutely true. Apple's track record alone with developing apps and encouraging devs to develop apps puts them ahead of Amazon and Roku in that department.
Don't developers make way more money on iOS apps than Android apps? And aren't there far more iOS-first or iOS-exclusive dev shops than Android-first or Android-exclusive? That might've changed recently, but I know for a while it was the case. I'll see if I can dig up any sources.
edit: Here are some:
http://bgr.com/2015/04/15/ios-vs-android-developers-revenue-apps/
http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/14/revenue-gap-between-ios-and-android-apps-grows-thanks-to-china
I disagree that they're just pulling from the same pool of existing developers. I think Apple entering the market will pull in an entirely new group. Developers trust their apps to perform better (success and revenue-wise, not benchmarks, just to be clear) on Apple products vs the other 3.
Here's where we disagree, I guess. I think the only push HomeKit really needs at this point to start taking off is a really solid, strongly supported first-party hub that can bring together disparate other simpler smart devices, which the Apple TV 4 has the potential to be. We'll have to wait and see what happens over the next few years.
How so? Sure apps have some potential. Maybe by 3rd generation some enterprising developer will create the TV equivalent of Facebook or Snapchat. But the poster I'm responding to, infiniteloop, is claiming that Apple is going to sell the device on the potental of apps to the mainstream and have tons of meaningful apps by October! That's not how the world works. Only if Apple allows easy piracy apps (like PopcornTime noob level) would the mainstream care
Why are you so sure about the potential of apps anyway? We've had the TV for decades and it seems to be mostly a passive medium. It's hard enough getting the mainstream to care about 'fun' TV apps (i.e. games) I'm struggling to see why people would care about apps instead of watching Netflix, ESPN, YouTube... First person to figure out a social network for the AppleTV probably makes 1 billion dollars though...
Actually there is HomeKit support already, manufacturers have been demoing products since CES earlier this year an have just been waiting for the release of the new AppleTV. Adoption will be slow though as not many are that eager to spend $40 for a lightbulb yet
metalslimer
Member
This thing better be incredible at that price.
Zeyphersan
Banned
I didn't even think of the ATV4 as a possible home kit hub. That sounds incredible
infiniteloop
Member
ATV3 works as one now. If ATV4 can replace the 2 smart home hubs i already have then yum.
Sure. what else is going to be the main selling point? Siri? HomeKit?
There was 3,500 apps available at launch for the Apple Watch, 1,000 for iPad when that device launched in April of 2010, and 500 apps available when the iPhone’s App Store first debuted in July 2008. No reason to think devs won't jump on the TV.
FireTV has 2,098 apps. Seems pretty beatable.
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
Go back in time to the launch of the App Store on the iPhone and replace "TV" with "Phone" and "Netflix, ESPN, YouTube" with "browsing the web in Safari and sending SMS".
Oh, and the first person who figured out a social network on the iPhone did make 1 billion dollars (Instagram).
You seem to be stuck on the idea that this is just a device that's tethered to a large television set and its only purpose is to broadcast content for consumption onto it. As if it's just a smartphone or tablet with a much, much bigger screen. That problem has already been solved. Leave that to the USB sticks.
sometimes i game
Member
After current Apple Tv and Apple Music, can't say I'm highly anticipating revolution here.
I really like how Roku handles apps. Compare Roku Netflix to Apple TV netflix. Clear winner.
And for all the talk about $40 can't happen! - Sling TV is basic cable for $20, PlayStation Vue is a ton of channels and DVR for $50.
So, let's see what makes this special? Because UI and pricepoint aren't things I'd bet on.
I really like how Roku handles apps. Compare Roku Netflix to Apple TV netflix. Clear winner.
And for all the talk about $40 can't happen! - Sling TV is basic cable for $20, PlayStation Vue is a ton of channels and DVR for $50.
So, let's see what makes this special? Because UI and pricepoint aren't things I'd bet on.
Zeyphersan
Banned
If Siri can do deep-searches within my streaming services then Apple wins (though I think Roku does this)
Essentially, "Hey Siri, start playing X" and then it opens the app that has X available and starts playing. Plus all the controls up there:
Essentially, "Hey Siri, start playing X" and then it opens the app that has X available and starts playing. Plus all the controls up there:
infiniteloop
Member
Why's Roku Netflix better? Just curious, haven't used it.
The iPad has tons of apps but most most people just use it as a consumption device for Netflix, reading books, browsing the web.
The iPhone didn't get Whatsapp, Instagram, Uber, SnapChat etc on the day the App Store launched (and developers had over a year, plus 3 months with an SDK, to get ready for that launch).
The Apple Watch is a recent example that useful apps don't just magically appear once Apple gives developers an SDK. It's presumptuous to claim AppleTV apps are going to be a mainstream thing
enanogrande
Member
What's wrong with 16gigs? The vast majority of people that use this box will just use it to stream. Those that like to keep their own library of content (people like me), will mostly
opt for NAS drives that the box connects to, not internal storage.
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
* source needed
Again, you're arguing with the wrong person about timing. I would never claim that an app ecosystem for a relatively new device category (and the first entry for the ecosystem's parent company) would sprout up overnight. These things take time -- often years. And the Apple Watch definitely has some useful apps. As many as the iPhone and iPad? Of course not. As you said, the iPhone didn't get its innovative apps on the day the App Store launched.
badcrumble
Member
AirPlay 2.0 would be nice, and yeah, it'd be nice if the new AppleTV could also function as a receiver and WiFi router replacement. But that'd require it to have a bunch of HDMI inputs and an Ethernet input.
I can see $200 being justifiable but the user experience had better blow everything else away. That's way more important than the number of channels because the vast majority of consumers only use stuff that's already on the existing AppleTVs anyway (with the glaring and hopefully-soon-to-be-rectified exception being Amazon, of course - nobody who matters gives a shit about, like, CrunchyRoll).
- Status