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.
Apple Considering Low Cost Apple TV Dongle to Provide Wider Access to Upcoming Streaming Service
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If every major TV incorporates casting, then why does Apple need to address it? I’m not convinced Apple would bring AirPlay to their cheapest dongle. It seems to me, Apple is offering exclusive access to their content via their products. Just like you have to subscribe to Netflix to see their content, Apple being a hardware company may restrict access to their hardware. If they have the right program, they could easily pull in millions of new Apple customers — customers who have a choice to make about which cheap streaming stick they’re going to buy. Casting nor Airplay even enter into it. Netflix came darn close to releasing Roku as a Netflix branded box. What if they had restricted their programming only to Roku? Then I’d bet most of us would have Roku boxes today. But with Netflix and amazon supporting all TVs, there’s not even much of a reason to have a cheap box for them at all. If Apple is giving away some quality programming for the price of a cheap stick, they might have a substantial number of takers, regardless of AirPlay or casting support.
Every major TV incorporates Chromecast casting, not Airplay. Chromecast protocol is pretty ubiquitous regardless of what device you are on. This is not the same case for Apple devices.
They didn't though. Even then if they did, there were MILLIONS of people on the Roku even before Netflix was in the picture. The Roku ecosystem is so deep for streaming media, people were fine with it already. Netflix unlike Apple has no creative limitations and are willing to step the boundaries. The nature of censorship by Apple on their content will limit their exposure.
This is different though. You can watch Netflix on any device. The whole programming rhetoric for Apple has yet to be proven, and in the streaming media industry I would never be optimistic about it unless there has been proof. The only companies that can possibly do this would be Disney because of the history and value of its programming.
The choice is $250 (in Canada) for an AppleTV or free for chromecast. I agree Airplay is better. But come on, there's no way it's worth that much more than chromecast. Apple under Timmy is a vile, pathetic company, and even though I actually do love the company, I hope their stock crashes hard. So hard the company will have no choice but to fire him.
The new owners of HBO plan to run it more like Netflix and put out more binge-able shows over "prestige" programming that HBO has been known for. Some industry-watchers speculate this could leave an opening for Apple (and even Disney) in that space.
Non player in streaming or non player in the streaming apps market? Netflix et. al. subscriptions initialed on the Apps store are probably a significant source of revenue.
Apple TV has about 15% of the discrete streaming device market . That's behind Roku's 37% but it is pretty fragmented. What Apple doesn't have which Android(Chromecast), Amazon, and Roku don't have is embedded deployments inside of TVs. As that becomes more commonplace (and the cable boxes Comcast X1 and Tivo derivatives with smaller cable players ) pick up steam is why they The embedded probably more than offsets Chromecast's drop last couple of years.
The problem Apple has is that service providers and the TV makers have a bigger leverage point if they can manage to put out some decent implementations.
I think Apple's rhetoric around Apple TV is partially the same they are using elsewhere. TVs that run off with user data. I don't think most folks appreciate 'Single sign on' after they get their devices configured.
The A10X in the newest Apple TV 4K units seems like overkill for something that is solely targeting streaming. There must be some long term plan to need that much horsepower. All the more so if Apple puts a A12X in the next upgrade. ( Apple saying that A12X has XBox like performance may be a hint toward that direction. )
I don't think Apple is going to try to compete on a short term basis with the embedded players. The TV vendors are likely to be similar to the Android phone vendors and bail on software updates eventually. Apple needs to do a better job of long term support than the others. Not 'infinitely' long, but longer enough to partially justify the price increase.
Apple doesn't have to dominate the market. Especially after the embedded TVs start to get more traction that is going to be pragmatically impossible. Apple has to find a niche hold onto a reasonable percentage to remain a viable player long term. if there content business is eventually suppose to support itself then they'll need players on other platforms. AppleTV will be the best way to get to there content but it probably won't be the only way (e.g., like restricting iTunes to Macs at first, but didn't 'break out' until had a Windows players too. )
Apple is considering creating a lower-cost Apple TV dongle that's similar to the Amazon Fire Stick or the Google Chromecast, reports The Information.
Apple has held discussions about introducing such a product, which would be priced lower than the Apple TV and would be able to be plugged into the back of a television set.
A lower-cost Apple TV dongle would make the service, which will be available only on Apple devices, more accessible to potential buyers.
Right now, Apple's only television product is the Apple TV, priced at $179 for the Apple TV 4K and $149 for the non-4K version. Current TV dongles from Amazon and Google are priced much lower, at $25 to $35.
Article Link: Apple Considering Low Cost Apple TV Dongle to Provide Wider Access to Upcoming Streaming Service
Not going to happen.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Err. Roku is a spinoff from Netflix.
https://www.fastcompany.com/3004709...in-forgotten-history-roku-under-reed-hastings
If there was no Netflix there would be no Roku. The spin-off in part happened because being separate was better for both sides. Roku could pursue other streaming alternatives ( but Netflix has always been treated as first class). Same with Netflix they don't have to skew "best player" only to Roku. Early on, Roku was pragmatically tied to Netflix. If Netflix hadn't grown quickly then Roku probably would have died or at very least been much smaller player.
Deep ( more like wide) now but that wasn't so at the beginning. Roku though is getting deeper into the 'trap' of being just the free content option. Increasingly they are going to advertising ( "the user's eyeballs and hbits' are the 'proeduct' ). Apple is probably not going to go down that path.
Apple doesn't unreasonably limited the content of the apps running on the platform. Netflix runs on AppleTV so Netlfix expansive editorial limits are covered on AppleTV too. As far as their content goes, A 'network' doesn't have to be everything to everybody to be competitive and profitable. All Apple has to do with their content is be a "value add' to the baseline that is generically available on other platforms. More boobs and salacious stuff isn't necessary to telling a good story.
It isn't clear yet that Apple is going to keep their content soley to Apple products. It could be that 'free' access comes with an Apple device but there isn't much of an indicator one way or other than they are going to 100% restrict (even turning down money to subscribe) access to the content.
It is in part a model that is working. BBC content is 'free' to those in the UK ( they pay taxes to support it) and have to pay elsewhere to get stuff like Britbox or Acorn to get to programming. There doesn't have to be a rigid uniformity of how to pay for a subscription. Similar the HBO GO / HBO Now. ( have a cable/sat subscription don't have to pay to get to context. No other subscription then pay. ). Some thing could be set up on Apple. Pay for Apple device and have paid the 'tax' (or at least part of it. access for 1-3 years. ) and no 'recently purchased' Apple device then haven't paid.
I don’t think you understood my point.
Since virtually every TV does include casting, Apple does not need to address it. Nor do they need to support airplay since this stick is aimed at either Android customers, or Apple customers who already don’t care about having airplay.
Check your facts, Netflix invented Roku. There was no Roku before Netflix.
I’m not going to argue creative with you. I have Netflix. Very little of Netflix original programming I care to watch. All it takes for Apple to sell ATV dongles is one hit show like GOT. For a one time purchase, viewers get it for free.
It’s all a gamble. But Apple has thrown their hat into the ring. I’ve proposed one way they could leverage their programming. Netflix took off with HOUSE OF CARDS. Hulu with HANDMAIDS TALE. I’m not sure Amazon has really found its hit yet, but the give Prime with free shipping, so...
[doublepost=1542915515][/doublepost]
The 1080p ATV 3 was $69 with AirPlay. Why would a $90 dongle have less? My bet is that it’s no more than $69, without airplay which isn’t needed for Android users, and Apple customers who are not interested in it, and at least 1080p which is going to support the majority of TVs currently in use. 4K TV customers will have already picked up a much more capable box.
[doublepost=1542916881][/doublepost]
That’s not the mandate. ATT wants to compete with Netflix, but not stop producing prestige programming. They intend to do both, and WBTV is likely the engine which will be producing that content for HBO.
That said, even if it turns out differently, or HBO just fails to produce new compelling prestige programming, Apple is not really taking a different approach — they are basically trying to launch a service with a full schedule of original programming, which I gurantee will not all be “prestige” either.
Rumors suggest that Disney will be leaning heavily on its FOX TV studio acquisition to save Disney’s own struggling TV arm. Maybe they will dive into original programming on their streaming service (which many think will be Hulu), but more likely they will be focusing on stripping theirs and the FOX catalogues from Netflix and Amazon and offering them exclusively on their service, a value proposition most parents are likely going to embrace over Netflix, especially if they can only afford one. If Hulu ends up being that for Disney, they already have their own prestige programming, as well as binge-able content.
Last edited:
They should just put their services on other peoples platforms. That is the only way to gain real traction.
Honestly this looks dope AF. I just don't really understand why a lighter one would be a plus, since it just sits on your TV table. One you can have in your pocket and bring to a party? If it could run power over HDMI you'd really be on to something with this.
There is a restence by some to clutter up their TVs with yet another box that has to be plugged into a power source, take up space, and have wires run to the TV, especially give the current price of the ATV. Having something that just plugs into a port hidden behind the TV seems to appeal to people, especially if all they want to do is stream Netflix, and the cost of such devices is minimal compared to the more full featured and larger counterparts.
And yes, being able to travel with something like that would be great. Just plug it into your AirBnB TV and all the comforts of home.
Why not cut the cost of the currently Apple TV lineup? The margins on those products I'm guessing is massive.
Too late; Chromecast has been around for ages and is super cheap. I've got THREE of them plus an Nvidia Shield TV that has chromecast built in. And knowing Apple, they WILL make it more expensive, needlessly, of course.
Why would I need airplay when my native apps on my phone can connect and stream to it? I can then turn my phone off and they keep playing. Spotify / YouTube / Netflix / Plex, all perfect.
I would be interested in an airplay stick for use in the classroom. Hook it up to the projector so I can mirror my iPad to the screen. Better than running a long hdmi cable all the way to the power point located in the corner of the room.
That wasn't the question I asked. From your response, I assume the answer is it doesn't.
That may work for you, but you’re not going to be able to stream Apple Music, Podcasts, any movies purchased through iTunes, and native iPhone apps like photos, much less mirror the device to view apps that don’t support chromecast. For anyone who have those needs, AirPlay is important. Moreover, I’ve used ChromeCast and have friends with ChromeCast and it’s a bag of hurt, unreliable, and inferior quality to AirPlay.
Chromecast doesn’t work with AirPlay.
That said, I’m not sure Apple’s goal would be to supply an AirPlay dongle, if they really want to compete with Roku and Firestick. Apple sold the ATV3 for $69 with AirPlay, but if an Apple customer hasn’t bought an ATV yet, then they likely don’t need AirPlay, and Android users definitely don’t. So Apple could drop the price under $50 and still make a profit offering only HD streaming services and access to iTunes. It would be the least expensive way for Apple to attract new customers to the platform since the Shuffle. Once they’re in the ecosystem, perhaps they will start exploring more expensive AirPlay products and other Apple devices.
Maybe $49 for the basic stick/remote, $69 for AirPlay, $99 for the ATV 4, $129 for the 4K, $149 for the ATV 5.
Last edited:
Ok, not trying to be a smart ass here, but is ChromeCast that unreliable and inferior? I tend to avoid Google products because they data mine anything and everything, so I have never used ChromeCast. But is the actual physical technology inferior?
I can’t speak to the technology, but it’s been my experience. Dropouts are a big problem I’ve experienced, which never happens with AirPlay. In the past, the way you have to go into and out of casting was always complicated and frustrating, maybe that’s improved but it seems like my friends still wrestle with this when streaming from their PCs. I use a few chromecast only apps on my iPhone now to cast to my state of the art smartTV, and I have stuttering, dropouts and disconnects. I have none of that with AirPlay.
This idea is confirmed dead on arrival after experiencing the new Amazon Fire TV Stick 4K for $25.
The AFTV4K is not only one of the best 4K HDR10/HDR10+/HLG/Dolby Vision media players but also a HTPC replacement since you can connect a keyboard/mouse for light productivity, mobile gaming with proper PS4/Xbox One controller, support for external expandable storage, has proper browser with video acceleration for Twitch/YouTube VP9, a local Linux shell with installable packages with Termux for unix enthusiasts and developers, etc. It already does so much more than the ATV4K.
The AFTV4K is not only one of the best 4K HDR10/HDR10+/HLG/Dolby Vision media players but also a HTPC replacement since you can connect a keyboard/mouse for light productivity, mobile gaming with proper PS4/Xbox One controller, support for external expandable storage, has proper browser with video acceleration for Twitch/YouTube VP9, a local Linux shell with installable packages with Termux for unix enthusiasts and developers, etc. It already does so much more than the ATV4K.
Then it’s surely a Roku killer? If true, it makes you wonder why anyone still competes in this space.
If this is already more powerful than an AppleTV 4K, the one thing they can’t bring to the table is Apple’s premium content. Based on your review, it looks like that’s all Apple has left in this space to drive sales.
Of course Amazon doesn’t have AirPlay, but then not everybody needs or wants that.
Advance cord cutters don't care about proprietary Airplay. They use standard universal cross-platform protocol like unpnp/dlna to share content on the LAN which works with iOS, MacOS, Android, Android TV, Windows, Linux and more.
Last edited: