Apple TV streams local content. You can do it either via AirPlay or via iTunes Home Sharing.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Comparison Chart of Chromecast, Apple TV and Roku Content Options
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple TV streams local content. You can do it either via AirPlay or via iTunes Home Sharing.
I have an older TV in my bedroom that isn't wifi capable. I don't even have a cable box hooked up to it because I only use it for a bit every night before I go to sleep.
It would be nice to be able to lay in bed and watch a movie on Netflix without getting out my iPad, hooking up the HDMI dongle, trailing the HDMI cord all the way across the bedroom just so I can browse and control a Netflix movie once in a while. And then there's the plus that I won't have to buy a new Apple dongle when I upgrade my iPad 3 to the new one with the lightening connector.
$35 for a very small device that I can easily control while laying in bed and don't have to worry about tripping over the cable if it's strung out is a real winner in my world. Why would I spend any more for my use case? And the fact that I can take it with me when I travel is just an added plus. Frankly I don't care about the comparisons. The size, price and mobility makes it worth while.
I'm picking up two, one for me and one for my son and his wife because, like me, when they upgraded their TV in the family room they regulated the older TV to the bedroom. I doubt that our use case is rare.
I think a lot of people out there will be very enticed with the price and simplicity of this device. Not everybody wants (or even knows how) to stream their 1TB of ripped movies or their library of music to their TV. They want to simply plug and go. It's will be a hit for Google.
It would be nice to be able to lay in bed and watch a movie on Netflix without getting out my iPad, hooking up the HDMI dongle, trailing the HDMI cord all the way across the bedroom just so I can browse and control a Netflix movie once in a while. And then there's the plus that I won't have to buy a new Apple dongle when I upgrade my iPad 3 to the new one with the lightening connector.
$35 for a very small device that I can easily control while laying in bed and don't have to worry about tripping over the cable if it's strung out is a real winner in my world. Why would I spend any more for my use case? And the fact that I can take it with me when I travel is just an added plus. Frankly I don't care about the comparisons. The size, price and mobility makes it worth while.
I'm picking up two, one for me and one for my son and his wife because, like me, when they upgraded their TV in the family room they regulated the older TV to the bedroom. I doubt that our use case is rare.
I think a lot of people out there will be very enticed with the price and simplicity of this device. Not everybody wants (or even knows how) to stream their 1TB of ripped movies or their library of music to their TV. They want to simply plug and go. It's will be a hit for Google.
Why not continue this comparison of Apple TV to something else completely unlike the Chrome Cast? Like a Mac Mini? Sure, it's 6x the size, and 6x the cost, but a Mac Mini does 6x as much as the Apple TV.(100x if you install Windows on it) I can't wait for the followup comparison of Apple TV vs the Mac Pro due out later this year.
Nah, not impossible, just look like crap unless you have an extra power socket around.
Remember most TV's are USB TARGET devices, not USB HOST devices. Target devices CANNOT power the USB bus.
Some TVs will be able to power chromecast directly through hdmi without having to power it through the USB too.
I have an ATV. It's just a fun little gadget to play with, since it has infinite uses.
He was a bit harsh, but if you read the reviews of Chromecast, it's probably not even worth $35. Apple TV is a much better option if you already own an iDevice and/or Mac.
Not to mention, as AI noted in their article, it looks like Google is giving these things away to push their own video standard. Once again, Google uses "open" as a veil to try and control access to the Internet.
ChromeCast is nothing more than just an "Airplay" device. Yeah it's like 1 feature of Apple TV. It's not a streaming device itself. People were overhyped about it. Oh, btw, only 4 apps can play now... Yeah 4. ChromeCast + Roku = Apple TV in functionalities.
Yeah give it to a person who doesnt have smart phone or tablet. He'll throw it back to your face.
Either people are dumb or lacking knowledge about it to compare ChromeCast with Apple TV or Roku. It's like comparing a computer monitor with a Smart TV.
Thing is you know a lot more are coming. I fully expect hulu support, amazon video support and others to come.
The problem I have with the device is that it misses in a really critical market. The business presentations. Seriously, if I could put this into my conference room and be able the throw up my PowerPoint presentations onto it, that would be great! Even better is when we have 20 people in the room each giving their own little presentations and have to switch from one person's computer to another -- we do this now by passing around a long HDMI cable.
Second thing they need to make happen is integration with GoToMeeting and WebEx. Again, really makes it easier to share a webex meeting that way.
As for it's current use. Sharing my laptop's browser window? Meh. Seriously if I'm pulling up the video on my laptop, I'll just watch it there, rarely do I have to show it to others. When I do share with others, I just show them my laptop screen. If I want to stream movies from Netflix, I don't want to be bothered with my laptop or iPad, or iPhone (Thus Roku or ATV). Besides having the laptop 1.5' from me is almost the same as my 50" 12' from me.
I think it's a nice little device, but seems out of place for what it should be doing.
I dont get it. Webex sharing is 1 click away to pass control to presenter. Most meeting/conference rooms have projectors hung on ceiling, so good luck with ChromeCast to plug it in and look for power outlet on the ceiling. To me, ChromeCast is a $35 junk next to Apple TV
So did a computer monitor + Roku put some heat under Samsung or LG Smart TV? I dont think so. Same here, ChromeCast is a beaming video device, for god' sake, it needs a tablet, smartphone or computer with compatible apps (only 4 now) to work. It's not as powerful as Apple Airplay which beams whatever is on Aplle device's screen to TV.
Garbage is a bit rough. At the $35 price point it is impressive what chrome cast is accomplishing.
----------
As a Canadian this chart is vastly different. Most premium features of the Apple TV and the roku are unavailable. Literally the extra 85$ for Apple TV is to have airplay and iTunes. I can say I most definitely will own both devices.
AirPlay, iTunes, iCloud(photostream etc), flickr, vimeo, MLB TV, NHL, and a whole lot of other stuff too on the Apple TV. Plus whatever is on your computer screen, not just a chrome tab, in real time. $35 is a waste of money if it gets you far less than 1/3 the functionality. Some people prefer the bargain bin no matter what though.
Have to ask where do you expect the projector gets its power. Give you a hint there is almost always some standard power plugs in the ceiling above the tiles. Worse case they put a power strip on the tile and plug into that. You still never see it.
I originally bought a refurb Apple TV on a lark - but it's been a very useful device. AirPlay, especially, has been a bigger deal for us than I expected.
It's also the only device I've tried that never has trouble with some of the odd aspect ratios I've occasionally found in certain h.264 videos.
If they'd open the ATV up to the App Store, it would become an amazing bit of hardware.
It's also the only device I've tried that never has trouble with some of the odd aspect ratios I've occasionally found in certain h.264 videos.
If they'd open the ATV up to the App Store, it would become an amazing bit of hardware.
Apps!!!
This will all be a non issue comparison when Apple opens up the AppleTV to apps this fall.
This will all be a non issue comparison when Apple opens up the AppleTV to apps this fall.
well, although the apple TV and Roku offer more options chromecast has the benefit of being very inexpensive, it makes the chromecast stand out of the pack and that's why people love it so much. i'm more excited about the rumored google TV, that'd be awesome.
for me Roku is the best, it has the biggest content library and if money isn't the issue everyone should go for it.
Sorry but this article is so biased. It ignores the fact that the chromecast is brand new, hence why it has sparse support. It ignores the fact the its is OPEN, therefore great for owners if multiple ecosystems like me (nexus 4 phone, iPhone 4s, iPad and windows 8 laptop). I know where my (very small amount of) money will be spent.
For computers newer than 2011 model, there is no file format restriction, you can mirror the whole screen to AppleTV.
Sad part is that is a bs restrictions on Apple's part. Got to love forces obsolete.
As companies move to be more modern they are just buying large screen TV's instead of projectors and screens. Even so, projectors need power, most have a power plug in the ceiling as well.
But as for Webex, it is often, who's going to host the webex for the remote people when going into a meeting. Having anyone being able to do it instead of passing around a cable makes it easier. Plus when we have big meetings with a lot of people, no wire to trip over.