Apple TV Refresh to Be Stealth Update, Will Not Affect Product Features

[nuckinfutz]

Originally Posted by macUser2007

Right.... Because we all loooove Apple and really want to pay for EVERYTHING we watch and listen to, even if available elsewhere for free, or for a flat fee.

Apple should get rid of that Netflix and YouTube stuff too -- it just gives people ideas about being unfaithful to the Apple Ecosystem.

Apple's goal is to promote iTunes and not their competitors.

[Ballis]

Well if anything, maybe it will be easier to jailbreak.

[osofast240sx]

So it will be a Bluetooth 4.0

[Shane1905]

Originally Posted by Dwalls90

Yea, tech crunch nailed this spot on.

I hope they don't give the iPad mini an A5X. The A5X will be far from over a year old by the time it would be put into the Mini, and as we can see from the iPad 3, requires way more battery power and thermal space.

I'd hope it would either be an A6X underclocked or A6 (it has less pixels to drive and isn't meant to be a performance beast like the iPad) so that it can be retina without getting thicker or killing battery life. The A5X was kind of a flop of a chip design if you ask me. The A6X is along those lines, but seems to be better on battery and heat dissipation.

But by moving to the A5X, which is more expensive to manufacturer, it's almost as if Apple is implying that the A5 isn't suitable for the current Apple TV. I don't see the point in changing what isn't broken. It may be a "silent update", but surely this is planning for something Apple has planned down the product pipeline.

I imagine it will be a smaller die cast of the A5X, this should lower the energy consumption and thermal footprint whilst giving it enough power to output smoothly at retina resolutions. It's the cheapest iPad they make so we can't expect top specs.

[ctdonath]

Originally Posted by iAmUndefined

Why would there be apps on Apple TV?

Example app I'd beg for:

Olympics.

For a couple weeks, there's a huge volume of live feeds, highlights, mainline feed, statistics galore, news features, on-demand replays, etc. - all part of the same package. All of this has nothing to do with anything else any other carrier would provide, and which in turn comes in its own package, so I want to not sign up for whatever channel (NBC?) it runs on, much less buy a whole package of channels I couldn't care less about. I'll shell out a nice wad of bills to get the whole package, on demand, no ads, and no 'package deal' commitments. Considering how much content that entails, after the live component ends I could still spend significant time over the next months/years working thru every event of interest. "In-app purchase" perhaps expands from a single mainline + basic stats app to more & more content, and then in time continues the event to the next Olympics.

It's the perfect example of "why TV apps?" Some shows are much bigger than just a timeslot or a series, breaking the bounds of "channels". And some of us will pay a serious premium for on-demand ad-free.

[Radio]

Originally Posted by macs4nw

It's a hobby, remember.....

A nicer way to say failure

[carl0sian]

Most important question is whether or not there will he a March keynote for the Apple TV

[nebo1ss]

Originally Posted by Peace

Safari
Twitter
Facebook
NFL
ESPN
Pandora
NPR
CNN
Stocks
Maps
Notes
Reminders
Messages
Weather




The list goes on and on and on.

You missed two of the ones most that cannot jailbreak the ATV 3 are waiting on. PLEX and/or XBMC.
For the UK Iplayer.

[ctdonath]

Originally Posted by nuckinfutz

Apple's goal is to promote iTunes and not their competitors.

Symbiotic relationships are a good thing.

iTunes is just a profitable way to promote hardware, ensuring there is massive & excellent content available for their products - and their products alone. isn't in the media content business per se, so it's very much in their interest to allow other content providers.

Apple's goal is to sell hardware. Competition isn't always where you think it is. iOS has Kindle, Nook, etc apps because allowing competition to iTunes sells more tablets.

[phillipduran]

Sorry if I missed it, but will the previous hockey puck versions of the Apple TV support Bluetooth keyboards?

[nuckinfutz]

Originally Posted by ctdonath

Symbiotic relationships are a good thing.

iTunes is just a profitable way to promote hardware, ensuring there is massive & excellent content available for their products - and their products alone. isn't in the media content business per se, so it's very much in their interest to allow other content providers.

Apple's goal is to sell hardware. Competition isn't always where you think it is. iOS has Kindle, Nook, etc apps because allowing competition to iTunes sells more tablets.

Normally I'd agree but there comes a point where Apple has to promote iTunes. It's great to have Netflix for streaming as they are the King but Apple does not need to be promoting Crackle, Amazon and other bit players IMO. They need to foster their own initiatives.

[ctdonath]

Originally Posted by Radio

A nicer way to say failure

Sorry, how many TVs have been sold? What's the sales curve? How does that compare to other set-top boxes?

It hasn't "failed" because sales are increasing, and it was never promoted hard. If anything, it's an exploratory product: build a simple cheap box that does something interesting and leverages content provided for other products, see how it sells, and use the experience to identify what customers really want. Opposite of "failure", it's a pretty darned successful "hey, what if we..." hobby.

[Speedy2]

Originally Posted by lunarworks

Apple's not going to give you those particulars in a $99 device. They'd rather you buy a Mac Mini, which is still cheaper than an unlocked iPhone.

You get them in a $199 device, so why not?

[GregAndonian]

It'll be a stealth update, huh?

You mean like iOS 6?

(Oh, no he didn't! )

[Mike MA]

Since when does Apple comment such things?

[chrmjenkins]

Originally Posted by Mike MA

Since when does Apple comment such things?

It is odd. They made no mention of the A5 die shrink in the apple TV or new iPad 2. They didn't even advertise the superior battery life.

[M-O]

Safari WHY?
Twitter WHY?
Facebook WHY?
NFL
ESPN
Pandora
NPR
CNN
Stocks
Maps WHY?
Notes WHY?
Reminders WHY?
Messages WHY?
Weather

[profets]

Originally Posted by M-O

Safari WHY?
Twitter WHY?
Facebook WHY?
NFL
ESPN
Pandora
NPR
CNN
Stocks
Maps WHY?
Notes WHY?
Reminders WHY?
Messages WHY?
Weather

100% Agree.

I'd love to see an app store but why need these things when you have an iOS device in your hands??? You want safari on your TV? Mirror your screen from iPhone/iPod/iPad/Mac. Can't imagine how you'd even browse safari on an apple TV without an iDevice anyway.

You know what people want on their TVs? Media content. Sports/Olympics, News, Music Services, Video Services, etc. That's what an app store for the Apple TV should include.

[smulji]

Originally Posted by Shane1905

I imagine it will be a smaller die cast of the A5X, this should lower the energy consumption and thermal footprint whilst giving it enough power to output smoothly at retina resolutions. It's the cheapest iPad they make so we can't expect top specs.

Even if it is a smaller die cast of the A5X, which I honestly think it will be, that will only improve battery life. As has shown in the iPad 3, the A5X processor is just barely powerful enough to properly drive the 2048x1536 display. If the iPad mini does go retina this year, at the bare minimum it would need the A6X in the iPad 4, and that would love leave the rumored iPad 5 getting the A7X.

[rbrian]

Originally Posted by Shane1905

Sounds more like a crappy router to me

A crappy router that works perfectly with everything except for one single client?

OK, it was a crappy ISP-supplied router... but a brand new Airport Extreme isn't much better. A little, but not a lot. Sometimes it lasts for 20 minutes before dropping out. The problem is a combination of a saturated spectrum and a crappy chip. The crappy chip would work fine with no interference, the interference wouldn't be a problem if the chip was better.

[can.rules]

Originally Posted by ctdonath

It's the perfect example of "why TV apps?" Some shows are much bigger than just a timeslot or a series, breaking the bounds of "channels". And some of us will pay a serious premium for on-demand ad-free.

I would definitely pay to get a Tennis app that would get me detailed live coverage on the tennis Grand Slam tournaments. TennisTV app for appleTV anyone?

[imageWIS]

The case will be 1/8" smaller: Revolutionary!

[Elbon]

Originally Posted by iAmUndefined

Why would there be apps on Apple TV?

In addition to the examples already provided by others, think about the vast number of games and other apps already available for iOS. If Apple can figure out a way to get those apps (which currently require a touch-based interface) to work on the Apple TV, they would suddenly have a VERY compelling product...

----------

Originally Posted by profets

You want safari on your TV? Mirror your screen from iPhone/iPod/iPad/Mac.

Screen mirroring sucks. Always has.

Originally Posted by profets

You know what people want on their TVs? Media content.

And games.

[tomjleeds]

Originally Posted by Sir Ruben

As an Apple fan I often wonder why apple never allow their products to unleash their full potential.

As an example I jailbroke my ATV2 and now I am able to stream from my network drive. It works FLAWLESSLY and has replaced my PS3 as my media streamer. Plus it does so consuming very little electricity. Why on earth would you not allow it to do this as standard?!?!

Many companies try and add as many features as they can, while Apple deliberately remove things it can do with ease.

...this is obvious?

Your way, you're not paying Apple anything for content.

Originally Posted by ctdonath

Symbiotic relationships are a good thing.

iTunes is just a profitable way to promote hardware, ensuring there is massive & excellent content available for their products - and their products alone. isn't in the media content business per se, so it's very much in their interest to allow other content providers.

Apple's goal is to sell hardware. Competition isn't always where you think it is. iOS has Kindle, Nook, etc apps because allowing competition to iTunes sells more tablets.

Er, have you used iTunes in...the last ten years?

[Dorje Sylas]

For me, I'm not really interested until it can form an ad-hock networks between itself (AppleTV) and other iOS devices. For my usage I'd want it for connecting to my portable projector and mirrioring my iPad/iPod while I present. Having to get an extra external router involved is just stupid.

People are obsessing on the processor, maybe with the better WiFi chip it'll have that capacity.... although considering Apple hasn't made a move toward interdevice connectivety in iOS I will again be sitting on that 100 bucks.