An Inside Look at Why Apple Hasn’t Revolutionized Television(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
An Inside Look at Why Apple Hasn’t Revolutionized Television
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-16/apple-vowed-to-revolutionize-television-an-inside-look-at-why-it-hasn-t
67 comments
«Apple hasn't been able to crack the code to get live TV channels yet, but neither has most anyone else.»
There's two reasons I don't think anyone has cracked live TV. The obvious one is technical: cable companies don't want to give away the keys to that kingdom because they make a ton of money in equipment rental still. (With the change of guard in the FCC, it doesn't look like that will change, now.)
But the other problem is more social. Even when the cable companies had a mandated technical solution (CableCard), "no one" used it. There are plenty of reasons given for this, but I think the main one is that "live TV" is probably a red herring. Outside of sports, certain types of "events" like award shows, and maybe news, no one actually seems to want Live TV. We'd all much rather have the option to pause, to rewind, to skip fast forward. Cable companies aren't differentiating themselves on how live their content is, they are competing for who offers the best DVR and/or On Demand platforms.
Of course, they'd be doomed to be easily beat by the cable cutters and the smarter software solutions of Netflix, Hulu, et al, if they weren't also gatekeepers to internet access at all on the one side and ancient content contracts on the other side. Which is why, as you point out, the real problem is the cable business model and the fact that we let the cable companies conglomerate into just a few monopolistic megacorporations that own giant vertical slices of content and internet access.
Cynicism suggests the cable companies aren't going to fracture or break: they will need to be regulated or destroyed.
There's two reasons I don't think anyone has cracked live TV. The obvious one is technical: cable companies don't want to give away the keys to that kingdom because they make a ton of money in equipment rental still. (With the change of guard in the FCC, it doesn't look like that will change, now.)
But the other problem is more social. Even when the cable companies had a mandated technical solution (CableCard), "no one" used it. There are plenty of reasons given for this, but I think the main one is that "live TV" is probably a red herring. Outside of sports, certain types of "events" like award shows, and maybe news, no one actually seems to want Live TV. We'd all much rather have the option to pause, to rewind, to skip fast forward. Cable companies aren't differentiating themselves on how live their content is, they are competing for who offers the best DVR and/or On Demand platforms.
Of course, they'd be doomed to be easily beat by the cable cutters and the smarter software solutions of Netflix, Hulu, et al, if they weren't also gatekeepers to internet access at all on the one side and ancient content contracts on the other side. Which is why, as you point out, the real problem is the cable business model and the fact that we let the cable companies conglomerate into just a few monopolistic megacorporations that own giant vertical slices of content and internet access.
Cynicism suggests the cable companies aren't going to fracture or break: they will need to be regulated or destroyed.
> The only reason sales declined over the previous model is that it's significantly more expensive.
And with no 4K UHD support. That's the one stopping me from buying an Apple TV.
And with no 4K UHD support. That's the one stopping me from buying an Apple TV.
but how many people have a TV that can actually display content at 4k?
I have kids that watch copious amounts of Disney Jr. Their app allows watching the live stream in addition to on-demand content. We were close to going 'headless' with our satellite cable provider, but held back due to Comcast being flaky.
This hybrid app model feels like a winning recipe for me. It seems to be only a matter of time before the content providers offer this directly without a bundled cable subscription.
This hybrid app model feels like a winning recipe for me. It seems to be only a matter of time before the content providers offer this directly without a bundled cable subscription.
Exactly, the cable industry isn't going to let go of their precious. I've had most of the tv "internet boxes" (Roku, Xbox, AppleTV, now Google via Shield) I still can't get live tv. Most of the TV apps require a cable login. The best I can get is youtube streams that is cast to the google box. But it's sub-optimal as it's prickly to find the content i want.
>"Most of the TV apps require a cable login."
This is reason I will never buy an Apple TV device again. There are regular "updates" to Apple TV. Those updates entail putting new crapware on the home screen which when you launch them want your Cable TV login. Why if I had cable TV would I use the Apple TV to access content I already have on Cable TV without the Apple TV?
This is reason I will never buy an Apple TV device again. There are regular "updates" to Apple TV. Those updates entail putting new crapware on the home screen which when you launch them want your Cable TV login. Why if I had cable TV would I use the Apple TV to access content I already have on Cable TV without the Apple TV?
New Apple TV (4th gen) doesn't automatically add new apps to your home screen anymore! No more crapware on update.
IMO the new Apple TV is substantially better/more usable than the old Apple TV. It made me hate my cable box & DVR UI even more.
> "Why if I had cable TV would I use the Apple TV to access content I already have on Cable TV without the Apple TV?"
Because cable TV UI sucks super hard. Cable TV UI is slow, unresponsive, confusing. Pausing, rewinding sucks. Apple TV has an nice analog scrubber feel to it, which makes it quick to jump around and rewind an episode. Did I mention it's slow, and gets slower the longer the cable box has been on?
I can watch non-live HBO on Apple TV and cable TV. Whenever possible, I use the Apple TV. Closed captions render better and more pleasant with ATV. I have an easy way to activate "loudness"/"compression" for nighttime viewing, instead of having to fudge with my amplifier's settings to accomplish the same.
I use my cable box because I have to. If I want to watch the "Daily Show" the same night it aired, I have no choice but to use the cable box DVR. And then there's the live TV.
Unfortunately, because there is no effective competition in the cable market, and because consumers do not complain loudly about shitty technology (cable box user experience), and because cable companies do not seem to care either, we are stuck in god knows how many more years of terrible cable box UI.
Meanwhile, I'll be trying to use my Apple TV whenever I can.
IMO the new Apple TV is substantially better/more usable than the old Apple TV. It made me hate my cable box & DVR UI even more.
> "Why if I had cable TV would I use the Apple TV to access content I already have on Cable TV without the Apple TV?"
Because cable TV UI sucks super hard. Cable TV UI is slow, unresponsive, confusing. Pausing, rewinding sucks. Apple TV has an nice analog scrubber feel to it, which makes it quick to jump around and rewind an episode. Did I mention it's slow, and gets slower the longer the cable box has been on?
I can watch non-live HBO on Apple TV and cable TV. Whenever possible, I use the Apple TV. Closed captions render better and more pleasant with ATV. I have an easy way to activate "loudness"/"compression" for nighttime viewing, instead of having to fudge with my amplifier's settings to accomplish the same.
I use my cable box because I have to. If I want to watch the "Daily Show" the same night it aired, I have no choice but to use the cable box DVR. And then there's the live TV.
Unfortunately, because there is no effective competition in the cable market, and because consumers do not complain loudly about shitty technology (cable box user experience), and because cable companies do not seem to care either, we are stuck in god knows how many more years of terrible cable box UI.
Meanwhile, I'll be trying to use my Apple TV whenever I can.
>"Because cable TV UI sucks super hard. Cable TV UI is slow, unresponsive, confusing. Pausing, rewinding sucks."
In my opinion this is yet one more reason to get rid of Cable TV altogether. However if you use the Apple TV like this you still have to pay a monthly charge for that ugly cable box and te remote uses 1980s technology. What does a cable box rental cost these days 8 - 10 dollars a month? And the remote rental(yes you pay for that separately) 2 dollars a month?
I'm not sure complaining to the company about their hideous cable box/UI/remote would do anything. The loudest complaint you can make is to cancel TV service. It's a dying business and it can't die fast enough in my opinion. I think as soon as ESPN comes around for live sports it will go much more quickly.
In my opinion this is yet one more reason to get rid of Cable TV altogether. However if you use the Apple TV like this you still have to pay a monthly charge for that ugly cable box and te remote uses 1980s technology. What does a cable box rental cost these days 8 - 10 dollars a month? And the remote rental(yes you pay for that separately) 2 dollars a month?
I'm not sure complaining to the company about their hideous cable box/UI/remote would do anything. The loudest complaint you can make is to cancel TV service. It's a dying business and it can't die fast enough in my opinion. I think as soon as ESPN comes around for live sports it will go much more quickly.
How old is your cable box? It might be worth calling your cable co and see if there are newer generations that you can upgrade to for free.
I cut the cord 5+ years ago because it's not worth $50+ a month to me. That said, I definitely miss having a DVR and cable. Cutting the cord is becoming a worse and worse experience as the content has fragmented behind multiple paywalls, forced ads have been added to many of the free offerings, and cable companies have resisted any attempts to make this all easier (for example, the slow/pathetic roll-out of Apple's single-sign on feature).
I cut the cord 5+ years ago because it's not worth $50+ a month to me. That said, I definitely miss having a DVR and cable. Cutting the cord is becoming a worse and worse experience as the content has fragmented behind multiple paywalls, forced ads have been added to many of the free offerings, and cable companies have resisted any attempts to make this all easier (for example, the slow/pathetic roll-out of Apple's single-sign on feature).
"I cut the cord 5+ years ago because it's not worth $50+ a month to me"
I agree, and that's that's not even that pricey by cable standards. I know plenty of people that pay much more.
I think you can do pretty well these days without cable, live sports aside with Hulu, Netflix, Amazon etc. I'm surprised think its miserable. What all streaming services are you using?
I agree, and that's that's not even that pricey by cable standards. I know plenty of people that pay much more.
I think you can do pretty well these days without cable, live sports aside with Hulu, Netflix, Amazon etc. I'm surprised think its miserable. What all streaming services are you using?
I have the latest Verizon Quantum TV box, for which I am paying extra.
It's hardly Apple's fault that the content providers choose to do business this way - the same cable login is required to use those apps on a Roku or FireTV.
As for the updates, the previous generation of AppleTV didn't have an app distribution model, so adding new apps via updates was the only way they could do it. The current one that's been out for the last few years doesn't do this - if you want the CBS or NFL app you go to the app store and download it yourself.
As for the updates, the previous generation of AppleTV didn't have an app distribution model, so adding new apps via updates was the only way they could do it. The current one that's been out for the last few years doesn't do this - if you want the CBS or NFL app you go to the app store and download it yourself.
>Why if I had cable TV would I use the Apple TV to access content I already have on Cable TV without the Apple TV?
Maybe you don't want to pay the monthly fee for another cable box. Maybe you're on vacation and brought your Apple TV. Or maybe the on demand access sucks (U-verse) and you can get full access to HD shows via AppleTV apps.
Once these apps allow a DIRECTV now or SlingTV login I'll never buy cable again.
Maybe you don't want to pay the monthly fee for another cable box. Maybe you're on vacation and brought your Apple TV. Or maybe the on demand access sucks (U-verse) and you can get full access to HD shows via AppleTV apps.
Once these apps allow a DIRECTV now or SlingTV login I'll never buy cable again.
Sling TV has apps on every platform...
> Apple hasn't been able to crack the code to get live TV channels yet
They haven't really cracked the on-demand channel problem yet either. imo Apple TV is the best platform in terms of technology as a TV set top box but Amazon Fire TV is superior because Amazon cracked the content issue. They even have add-on channels now
They haven't really cracked the on-demand channel problem yet either. imo Apple TV is the best platform in terms of technology as a TV set top box but Amazon Fire TV is superior because Amazon cracked the content issue. They even have add-on channels now
The touch sensitive remote in the latest Apple TV is fantastic. Sliding exactly where you want to be in an episode is great and navigating the menus with it is good.
You can now subscribe to Sling($20 to $50 a month), Direct TV Now($40 to $80 a month) and Playstation Vue to watch live TV over the web or whatever device. Soon Hulu will offer the same too for $40.
Apple hasn't offered the same, but all these other services do. Overall none of exciting to me, as I just want and need Internet and watch things thru my TV connected to my Mac Mini (free & oodles of stuff to watch).
Apple hasn't offered the same, but all these other services do. Overall none of exciting to me, as I just want and need Internet and watch things thru my TV connected to my Mac Mini (free & oodles of stuff to watch).
It's still not a bad product. I don't need my TV guide to be revolutionary. Tiles of apps are widely used now.
Apple the TV Provider assumed Apple would be able to make iTunes like deals to get TV and Movies like they got Music. This didn't come to fruition, so we got a pretty standard media streaming device with pretty standard prices.
If you use other Apple products, AirPlay is probably the best screen sharing software out there. Try to get a Windows computer to do that with an Xbox without at least an hour of Googling and shady streaming software.
In the last 2 decades Apple has made a single revolutionary product, the iPhone. The rest have been polished version of existing products. The Apple TV falls into the latter category.
Apple the TV Provider assumed Apple would be able to make iTunes like deals to get TV and Movies like they got Music. This didn't come to fruition, so we got a pretty standard media streaming device with pretty standard prices.
If you use other Apple products, AirPlay is probably the best screen sharing software out there. Try to get a Windows computer to do that with an Xbox without at least an hour of Googling and shady streaming software.
In the last 2 decades Apple has made a single revolutionary product, the iPhone. The rest have been polished version of existing products. The Apple TV falls into the latter category.
"Try to get a Windows computer to do that with an Xbox without at least an hour of Googling and shady streaming software."
My TV has Miracast, which is natively supported by my Android and Windows PCs and casting on the TV is literally a button away, but neither my iPhone nor my Mac supports ... and Miracast is a better technology.
My TV has Miracast, which is natively supported by my Android and Windows PCs and casting on the TV is literally a button away, but neither my iPhone nor my Mac supports ... and Miracast is a better technology.
Not quite an XBox, but my PS4 does this quite nicely out of the box with Plex.
As an aside I'd also highly recommend "Sofaplay" which is by far the easiest way I've found to beam video to my Samsung Smart TV from my MBP. Literally "just works" dragging a file onto a drop-target. Does the transcoding and everything with '0' fuss.
As an aside I'd also highly recommend "Sofaplay" which is by far the easiest way I've found to beam video to my Samsung Smart TV from my MBP. Literally "just works" dragging a file onto a drop-target. Does the transcoding and everything with '0' fuss.
Xbox One has built-in Miracast support, too. There's a free Miracast app on the Xbox One to receive Miracast and stream it to your TV. (The app is called something like "Wireless Streaming", published by Microsoft themselves. I don't think they currently bundle it onto the Xbox out of the box, but they should.)
Not sure I understand what you or the article consider "revolutionary."
I would consider products like the iPod, Mac Air, iPad, hell even iTunes or the App Store concept (which wasn't released at the same time as the first iPhone, but shortly fast-followed), to be "revolutionary" If, as an example, you're going to claim that the iPod is just a polished WalkMan or Mp3 player, that's a _real_ oversimplification in a way that can be applied to the iPhone = a polished cell phone with a bigger screen (touch screen cell phones were rare, but around before the iPhone.)
I would consider products like the iPod, Mac Air, iPad, hell even iTunes or the App Store concept (which wasn't released at the same time as the first iPhone, but shortly fast-followed), to be "revolutionary" If, as an example, you're going to claim that the iPod is just a polished WalkMan or Mp3 player, that's a _real_ oversimplification in a way that can be applied to the iPhone = a polished cell phone with a bigger screen (touch screen cell phones were rare, but around before the iPhone.)
The iPod was not revolutionary. Arcos did a superior product before apple. They failed to market it.
The iPad and mac air are not revolutionary. They are evolutions of iphone and mac book. A good idea don't make something revolutionary. Making something bigger or thiner is not a revolution unless you talk about 2 orders magnitude.
iTune and the app store concepts are not revolutionary. They are just paid version of existing concepts. Linux had official software repo for decades. We used pirated music download services online for years.
Apple products are never revolutionary. This word is just, literally, the one used in all their PR and people repeat it again and again.
They take good existing idea (touch screens finger control, phone PDA, mp3 players), use them, make them better, integrate them better. They build great hardware, add solid software on top of it and design friendly beautiful UI to use them.
The only apple revolution is their ability to always improve the user experience. Not their products.
The apple watch has a poor user experience, and hence nobody uses it.
This is not to diminish apple's merit. What they do is hard. It's just not revolutionary. Inventing the paper print is. Inventing the vaccine is. Inventing Internet is.
Creating a better phone you manipulate by touching the screen years after Palm existed is not revolutionary. It's innovation.
The iPad and mac air are not revolutionary. They are evolutions of iphone and mac book. A good idea don't make something revolutionary. Making something bigger or thiner is not a revolution unless you talk about 2 orders magnitude.
iTune and the app store concepts are not revolutionary. They are just paid version of existing concepts. Linux had official software repo for decades. We used pirated music download services online for years.
Apple products are never revolutionary. This word is just, literally, the one used in all their PR and people repeat it again and again.
They take good existing idea (touch screens finger control, phone PDA, mp3 players), use them, make them better, integrate them better. They build great hardware, add solid software on top of it and design friendly beautiful UI to use them.
The only apple revolution is their ability to always improve the user experience. Not their products.
The apple watch has a poor user experience, and hence nobody uses it.
This is not to diminish apple's merit. What they do is hard. It's just not revolutionary. Inventing the paper print is. Inventing the vaccine is. Inventing Internet is.
Creating a better phone you manipulate by touching the screen years after Palm existed is not revolutionary. It's innovation.
I had the Arcos product you mentioned. For those that are curious, this is what it looked like: https://www.amazon.com/Archos-Jukebox-6000-Player-Drive/dp/B...
It was not a superior product to the iPod.
But I agree with your general point about there being a difference between "revolutionary" and excellent polish/UI/integration.
It was not a superior product to the iPod.
But I agree with your general point about there being a difference between "revolutionary" and excellent polish/UI/integration.
Great find! The fact that it's still selling as an $80 product is amazing to me...
"They take good existing idea (touch screens finger control, phone PDA, mp3 players), use them, make them better, integrate them better. They build great hardware, add solid software on top of it and design friendly beautiful UI to use them.
The only apple revolution is their ability to always improve the user experience. Not their products."
If all of that is so easy, why didn't anyone else do it?
If all of that is so easy, why didn't anyone else do it?
You are trying to make me say something I didn't. I specifically said:
> This is not to diminish apple's merit. What they do is hard. It's just not revolutionary.
You don't need revolutionary to be great.
People confuse "apple has a great impact in their industry and society" and "apple products are revolutionary".
"revolutionary" is marketing. And reading your comment, good marketing. It works.
> This is not to diminish apple's merit. What they do is hard. It's just not revolutionary.
You don't need revolutionary to be great.
People confuse "apple has a great impact in their industry and society" and "apple products are revolutionary".
"revolutionary" is marketing. And reading your comment, good marketing. It works.
First, it's not that easy. But also, historically Apple was really much better at design for a long period. But i think some competitors have learned that skill, sometime after the iPhone and the app revolution.
And furthermore, Apple had unique wealthy user base, somewhat locked(songs,apps,messaging) and stronger marketing power than others and we're a strong status symbol, and that allowed them to things that others could not - like selling expensive phones,build great app ecosystems, getting content rights, and selling expensive watches.
And furthermore, Apple had unique wealthy user base, somewhat locked(songs,apps,messaging) and stronger marketing power than others and we're a strong status symbol, and that allowed them to things that others could not - like selling expensive phones,build great app ecosystems, getting content rights, and selling expensive watches.
Again, why couldn't any other company build those same capabilities or get the same user base demographics? It's not like in 1997 an almost bankrupt Apple was operating from a position of strength.
I would also include the iMac, which was badly needed when it came out. A computer people actually wanted to own rather than grudgingly accept. Also the "it just works" philosophy which almost overnight raised the bar for what customers should expect in terms of UX. Also, the availability of Microsoft Office was key to early success, which other new platforms of the time (e.g. BeOS, the budding desktop Linux) just couldn't muster.
Similarly the Macbook Pro for raising the bar in terms of what users could expect from the high end (aluminium body, sleek bevel, rock-solid reliability, high performance).
Just to underline iTunes a little more - hand in glove with the iPod and eventually the iPhone completely turned the music industry upside down and gave it a new impetus since being destroyed by illegal downloading.
App Store and iPhone revolutionised lifestyle computing (ad hoc: there's probably a better term) by getting the balance between the walled garden and innovation just right (various others had attempted this before but fell between these two stools).
Also iCloud deserves a footnote for the automatic cloud backups if nothing else, which is still one of the killer features that keeps me with the platform.
It's an interesting correlation that most of these innovations (perhaps all?) proceeded under Steve Jobs' watch. Interesting that not much has happened since ... the watch maybe is kind of cool but I don't think we're seeing the same kind of stellar revolutionary uptake and ROI with these other products.
I wonder if he was around still would apple have made inroads into TV yet? Not much higher walled gardens than Film (Pixar), Music or Telecomms ... it would at least have been interesting to watch.
Many say he wasn't the nicest guy going but for me that's beside the point. Innovator on a global scale.
RIP
Similarly the Macbook Pro for raising the bar in terms of what users could expect from the high end (aluminium body, sleek bevel, rock-solid reliability, high performance).
Just to underline iTunes a little more - hand in glove with the iPod and eventually the iPhone completely turned the music industry upside down and gave it a new impetus since being destroyed by illegal downloading.
App Store and iPhone revolutionised lifestyle computing (ad hoc: there's probably a better term) by getting the balance between the walled garden and innovation just right (various others had attempted this before but fell between these two stools).
Also iCloud deserves a footnote for the automatic cloud backups if nothing else, which is still one of the killer features that keeps me with the platform.
It's an interesting correlation that most of these innovations (perhaps all?) proceeded under Steve Jobs' watch. Interesting that not much has happened since ... the watch maybe is kind of cool but I don't think we're seeing the same kind of stellar revolutionary uptake and ROI with these other products.
I wonder if he was around still would apple have made inroads into TV yet? Not much higher walled gardens than Film (Pixar), Music or Telecomms ... it would at least have been interesting to watch.
Many say he wasn't the nicest guy going but for me that's beside the point. Innovator on a global scale.
RIP
I use https://www.airserver.com/ on my Windows computer and I can stream all of my devices to it.
As a matter fact the only thing I want plugged into my TV is a Windows computer. It's the best. I get all the content that I want plus video games. I feel bad for people who are stuck with locked down walled garden devices.
As a matter fact the only thing I want plugged into my TV is a Windows computer. It's the best. I get all the content that I want plus video games. I feel bad for people who are stuck with locked down walled garden devices.
It may not be a bad product but the prices are annoyingly high compared to netflix, amazon prime, or just about any other service. And the device itself is fairly lackluster, especially compared to Amazon Fire.
Apple TV is one of my more disappointing purchases.
Apple TV is one of my more disappointing purchases.
AirPlay screen mirroring used to be good. They crippled the frame rate a few years ago to discourage casting pirated content from computer to Apple TV.
I considered an apple tv at one point. My fiancee is all in on apple otherwise, and the roku/blu ray/smart tv for various services was getting a little cluttered.
Then I went to a friends house, and used his xbox one. It does everything all of these systems do, streams every major provider, and uh, it's also an xbox. Since then we've ditched every other device in the living room.
Then I went to a friends house, and used his xbox one. It does everything all of these systems do, streams every major provider, and uh, it's also an xbox. Since then we've ditched every other device in the living room.
It's also physically huge, draws more power, and costs more. And the UI is a bit "clunky" compared to tvOS.
Yeah, if you play games, it makes sense. But, for straight media streaming, I'll take the Apple TV.
Yeah, if you play games, it makes sense. But, for straight media streaming, I'll take the Apple TV.
For straight media streaming, most people will just take "nothing" though, since their TV does the job fine (and even a better job if you watch UHD content).
Until the embedded app in your smart TV is orphaned/deprecated when streaming providers change protocols etc.
When that happens I'll get something cheap that supports UHD, it's really impossible to justify the price of an Apple TV when the competition does more for less.
Or you get pwned when exploits some terrible unpatched security flaw in your unupdated TV software.
Honest question... do any TV manufacturers provide a high-quality UI for their "smart" features? I've used a few and they are all usually pretty awful.
the newer 4K Samsung's have a stripped down version of Android for TV's to make them 'smart'. You get some limited apps and can cast. I've tried it out on friends setup and it works decently. For the average consumer it's probably awesome.
Samsung smart TVs use Tizen, not Android TV.
Any TV with built in Roku support.
Vizio's mid-range TV's are just integrated Chromecasts, which I like quite a bit.
WebOS and Android TV are pretty decent.
Apple TV seems overkill for straight media streaming; a Chromecast likely draws even less power, is even smaller, and costs much less. :)
Most people will simply evaluate this on the fact that Apple TV is $150. But if you want streaming, Chromecast/Fire/Roku are $35 and for streaming + high-end gaming, PS4/XBone are $250. The pricing of Apple TV makes no sense at all among the competition.
It would make perfect sense if they'd bundled a controller (and/or made it more straightforward to have ipads/ipods/phones usable as controllers) and put an A8X in it.
It would've been the middle ground. Not just streaming, but not as hardcore as an XBox/PS4 (which weren't $250 when the AppleTV launched.)
The big mis-step of the 4th gen AppleTV is that they didn't pick any direction for it. It's a bit like the first-gen Watch. They just threw a bunch of crap at the wall and expected the early adopters to sift through it.
It would've been the middle ground. Not just streaming, but not as hardcore as an XBox/PS4 (which weren't $250 when the AppleTV launched.)
The big mis-step of the 4th gen AppleTV is that they didn't pick any direction for it. It's a bit like the first-gen Watch. They just threw a bunch of crap at the wall and expected the early adopters to sift through it.
I have not used an Xbox, but I vastly prefer our Roku to the others we have tried (Chromecast, Apple TV, Fire stick, 'Smart TV'). It's just so refreshingly neutral. We use several services (Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime, Sirius XM, Pandora) and it has a nice top level search. It's UI is simple and uncluttered.
I liked my roku a lot for a while. The feature I bought it for though was the headphone jack in the remote, and I think they've ignored the remote users because most people use phone apps to control it, and as a result the remote just stopped working after an update.
The ui is pretty easy, though definitely a little more geared towards the gaming side. I did end up buying their tv remote for it because it's not always intuitive using the gaming controllers
tldr/+detail/trim;
Apple hired Amazon's Fire TV chief to run its TV operations. He brings hardware and content experience and this may signal renewed focus on Apple TV.
5th gen ATV is currently being tested that may release as soon as this year, codename: J105. Supports 4k streaming and HDR sources say.
The ATV improvements are needed to stay competitive as 4K TVs become mainstream, but these alone probably will not make it a groundbreaking, iPhone-caliber product.
Apple engineers have repeatedly been forced to compromise on their vision of revolutionizing the living room sources say.
Apple's difficulties in this space are a combination of difficulties negotiating iTunes style efficient/cheap deals and innovative, fast competitors
Apple hired Amazon's Fire TV chief to run its TV operations. He brings hardware and content experience and this may signal renewed focus on Apple TV.
5th gen ATV is currently being tested that may release as soon as this year, codename: J105. Supports 4k streaming and HDR sources say.
The ATV improvements are needed to stay competitive as 4K TVs become mainstream, but these alone probably will not make it a groundbreaking, iPhone-caliber product.
Apple engineers have repeatedly been forced to compromise on their vision of revolutionizing the living room sources say.
Apple's difficulties in this space are a combination of difficulties negotiating iTunes style efficient/cheap deals and innovative, fast competitors
IMHO the real thing that Apple has been missing is not live TV, but interactive gaming. The weak performances of Nintendo with the Wii U presented/presents a very good opportunity for Apple to create an environment, APIs, and accessories for interactive gaming, e.g. Wiimote-type accessories or actual Wiimote bluetooth pairing, multiplayer with iPhone paired to the AppleTV etc. There are some APIs and MFI specs for controllers, but it could go much further, and they need a killer-game that demonstrates the power of the ecosystem.
I have a 3rd and a 4th gen Apple TV and while I use them daily they feel like unfinished products. That is what it comes down to. For whatever reason (lack of time, budget, manpower, leadership, vision, whatever) they just are missing that final level of Apple polish that my iPhones and Macs have.
IMO they nailed it with the 4th gen. Siri is really the killer feature that makes navigating through a bunch of apps and searching for content substantially better than other offerings in the space.
I enjoy my Apple TVs and use them nearly daily (3rd and 4th gens). It's a nice product and what it does it does well. There has always been this expectation that it will one day replace my cable TV, without which keeps it limited to little more than a Roku/Fire device.
I'm deeply embedded in the Apple ecosystem (Macbook Pros, iPhone, Apple TV), and now I feel locked in to the device because of my decision to buy a lot of content through the iTunes store. I now have a large library of movies and TV shows that cannot be accessed via Roku, XBox, etc. It's partly because of this that I root for Apple and their TV products to succeed.
I'm deeply embedded in the Apple ecosystem (Macbook Pros, iPhone, Apple TV), and now I feel locked in to the device because of my decision to buy a lot of content through the iTunes store. I now have a large library of movies and TV shows that cannot be accessed via Roku, XBox, etc. It's partly because of this that I root for Apple and their TV products to succeed.
We've had an Apple TV for about a year, and in a post-cable world, it's a perfect device.
We don't have cable. My wife is much more picky about technology than I am and also watches way more TV than I do. She loves the thing. The apps have all of the shows that she used to watch when we did, and things like Siri make it easy to pull up whatever you want without having to dig through apps to find it.
The bigger issue is this: a couple can watch TV in the middle of Oregon at decent quality without having fast Internet. You need fast Internet for the Apple TV to function. Much of America doesn't have access to this.
We don't have cable. My wife is much more picky about technology than I am and also watches way more TV than I do. She loves the thing. The apps have all of the shows that she used to watch when we did, and things like Siri make it easy to pull up whatever you want without having to dig through apps to find it.
The bigger issue is this: a couple can watch TV in the middle of Oregon at decent quality without having fast Internet. You need fast Internet for the Apple TV to function. Much of America doesn't have access to this.
Unless you are buying movies and tv shows from Apple, I just don't see any appeal to the appletv. I have a firetv and I don't feel any need to even consider apple's solution
It's a bizarre article.
People have been nipping at Apple for this crap for ages, and they just keep printing money. They're capitalized higher than giant oil conglomerates at this point.
When I see quotes like: "To a certain extent, the Apple TV is handcuffed by its parent's addiction to fat margins. Apple is constitutionally allergic to losing money on a product..." you need to eyeroll.
The product is probably a moderate success, and is really a margin enhancer product.
People have been nipping at Apple for this crap for ages, and they just keep printing money. They're capitalized higher than giant oil conglomerates at this point.
When I see quotes like: "To a certain extent, the Apple TV is handcuffed by its parent's addiction to fat margins. Apple is constitutionally allergic to losing money on a product..." you need to eyeroll.
The product is probably a moderate success, and is really a margin enhancer product.
> The features will probably boost Apple TV sales as consumers increasingly upgrade to 4K television sets, but those enhancements alone probably aren't enough to turn the gadget into a groundbreaking, iPhone-caliber product.
What a stupid thing to say. With the iPhone, one can:
Pay bills
Play games
Text your friend in another country
Call your mom
Check your bank statement
Deposit checks
Call you dad
Tweet your grandmother
Watch a video
Play music
The list goes on, all while being completely mobile.
Apple TV? Not so much.
The next iPhone-caliber product will be whatever comes AFTER smartphones. And it likely will have absolutely NOTHING to do with TV.
What a stupid thing to say. With the iPhone, one can:
Pay bills
Play games
Text your friend in another country
Call your mom
Check your bank statement
Deposit checks
Call you dad
Tweet your grandmother
Watch a video
Play music
The list goes on, all while being completely mobile.
Apple TV? Not so much.
The next iPhone-caliber product will be whatever comes AFTER smartphones. And it likely will have absolutely NOTHING to do with TV.
Snapchat is doing it. They went at it from the right angle. Limited options and curated constant with instant access(you just tap). The user isn't overwhelmed with options and the content is of a decently high standard.
Apple TV is way too cumbersome for most people for a dying medium.
Apple TV is way too cumbersome for most people for a dying medium.
[deleted]
Most analysts have no clue what it takes to run a business, they are focused on balance sheet and income statements separate from the reality that created them (which is the exact opposite of what Buffett does). The Apple Watch was about as successful as was possible (probably the best selling watch in history by revenues), and some analysts flipped out that it wasn't as big as the iPhone (even though Apple Watch outsold iPhone in their first year).
The latest AppleTV is great, a substantial improvement to the previous model, and very competitive in every way other than cost (it's ease of use premiums is worthwhile though IMHO). I use Siri, play games with my kids, subscribed to HBO/Netflix, etc. The only reason sales declined over the previous model is that it's significantly more expensive. But the reality is the hardware can't ever be a big product for Apple, other than opening the door to getting a piece of subscription revenues for streaming content.
The only thing left holding back AppleTV, Xbox, Roku, Fire, Google, et al, is access to live and current tv content. Apple hasn't been able to crack the code to get live TV channels yet, but neither has most anyone else. The real problem is the cable business model, and it needs to fracture a little more before it breaks entirely and all the set top boxes get access to all the content.