Apple Considering Low Cost Apple TV Dongle to Provide Wider Access to Upcoming Streaming Service

[Rob_2811]

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.

Recently bought this aswell. It's really very good, got it for £35 in Amazons Black Friday sale.

Agree that there are some real technical benefits over the Apple TV 4k the biggest plus being that at current prices I could've bought five of the Fire Stick 4k for the price of one Apple TV and still had change.

Its currently £144 cheaper than the Apple TV here in the UK. The Apple TV really is absurdly priced.

 

[Mac 128]

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.

Which is what I more or less suggested by saying not everybody needs AirPlay. That said, how many cord cutters are “advanced”? I’m certainly not. And I don’t know any who are. They’re all pretty much plug and play with whatever platform they’re on, or offers the best deal. That’s anecdotal, but it’s hard to see the average cord-cutting consumer getting into that higher level of use, which is what we’re really talking about here.

In my experience the average person just wants to plug in a dongle and stream a service, and maybe wants to be able to cast photos from their phone, including Apple customers. Apple is likely going after that person. I suggest Apple won’t even put AirPlay on this inexpensive dongle since any iPhone customer not already using AirPlay is likely casting through some third party app, and not using Photos, or other Apple apps. In which case, Apple had better have a few GOTs to draw customers to the platform.

I work in a creative industry where Apple definitely dominates the field, and we use AirPlay in business settings all the time. A mid-priced dongle that supports AirPlay will be a welcome addition to Apple’s lineup for us. But I recognize that’s also a niche case. So we’ll see. But I think Apple’s goal here is to get their upcoming content to customers who don’t use Apple products, or haven’t been sold on an expensive Apple TV, and need a cheap streaming dongle for their older TV.

 

[EdT]

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.

Thanks.

 

[UltimaKilo]

Apple TV. Great device, stupid price.

I get there being a slight apple premium price, but the current prices are completely out of line with everything else in the settop box market.

Roku's can be purchased from $40 with their highest end 4k full featured box being $120.
Chromecasts are $50-90
Amazon Fire devices are $40-120

Apple's TV device? STARTS at $149, and the 4k version is $179

this is craziness for the use case of this market.

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.

This is interesting. For years we have heard Apple should get into the gaming space and right now seems as good a time as any. They could release an Apple TV Pro with A12X (or better) at $299.99, lower the Apple TV 4K to ~$149.99 and Apple TV to $100 with the Apple TV stick sitting in around $50.

Seeing Sony's profits with gaming show's Apple could really take a bite out of the market share, especially from Microsoft with their lack of exclusives.

 

[Rob_2811]

Which is what I more or less suggested by saying not everybody needs AirPlay. That said, how many cord cutters are “advanced”? I’m certainly not. And I don’t know any who are. They’re all pretty much plug and play with whatever platform they’re on, or offers the best deal. That’s anecdotal, but it’s hard to see the average cord-cutting consumer getting into that higher level of use, which is what we’re really talking about here.

In my experience the average person just wants to plug in a dongle and stream a service, and maybe wants to be able to cast photos from their phone, including Apple customers. Apple is likely going after that person. I suggest Apple won’t even put AirPlay on this inexpensive dongle since any iPhone customer not already using AirPlay is likely casting through some third party app, and not using Photos, or other Apple apps. In which case, Apple had better have a few GOTs to draw customers to the platform.

I work in a creative industry where Apple definitely dominates the field, and we use AirPlay in business settings all the time. A mid-priced dongle that supports AirPlay will be a welcome addition to Apple’s lineup for us. But I recognize that’s also a niche case. So we’ll see. But I think Apple’s goal here is to get their upcoming content to customers who don’t use Apple products, or haven’t been sold on an expensive Apple TV, and need a cheap streaming dongle for their older TV.

It definitely is but that is only slightly less stupid that thinking that their TV content is going to temp people to buy an Apple TV at twice the price of a Roku or a Fire TV.

Seriously they should just put their service on the other platforms, thinking that your content is so good its going to sell your overpriced hardware is a recipe for failure.

I posted on the other thread, the reason subscription services like Spotify and Netflix have gained so much traction is because they are available everywhere, it doesn't matter if you've got the most expensive hardware. The person with a super cheap Chromecast can access Netflix the same as the guy with the Nvidia Shield or Apple TV.

It isn't even as if Apple will make this device really low cost either it will just be low cost by Apple standards, same way the iPhone XR and the new MacBook Air were. They seem almost incapable of putting out anything like low to mid range hardware.

Like you say Apple will need to be pulling the next Game of Thrones out of the bag if they think it will make adopt their hardware.

 

[ds2000]

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?

No it’s not, it never drops out, all streaming services are absolutely fine on it as well. If you want airplay then of course it doesn’t work but as someone who doesn’t use any of apples music/movies/tv services it’s perfect. On the iPhone you get a little icon in the corner of the app, press it, it asks what device you want to cast to, select and offyou go

I had an Apple TV 3rd gen and found it incredibly cumbersome and a pain in the butt to get around. Maybe the new gens are better but I won’t be buying one ever again.
People rag on google products with apple glasses, everything in my house is apple apart from the chromecast. We’ve gifted 2x to our parents as well and they use them all the time to stream from their iPhones and iPads too.

 

[Mac 128]

No it’s not, it never drops out, all streaming services are absolutely fine on it as well. If you want airplay then of course it doesn’t work but as someone who doesn’t use any of apples music/movies/tv services it’s perfect. On the iPhone you get a little icon in the corner of the app, press it, it asks what device you want to cast to, select and log you go

I had an Apple TV 3rd gen and found it incredibly cumbersome and a pain in the butt to get around. Maybe the new gens are better but I won’t be buying one ever again.
People rag on google products with apple glasses, everything in my house is apple apart from the chromecast. We’ve gifted 2x to our parents as well and they use them all the time to stream from their iPhones and iPads too.

While my experience has obviously been different in casting from my iPhone as far as quality and reliability, I’ve never understood why anyone would prefer to cast from a phone or tablet, vs. using a dedicated device. Certainly Roku and Fire sticks offer a cheap alternative to ATV of Nvidia Shield. I had to cast from the Amazon app on my iPhone prior to Amazon releasing an app for the ATV, and it was a PITA, not to mention tied up the phone or iPad while using it. The only place I could see using a chromecast dongle was with a PC for screen mirroring, but that has always been dodgy and unreliable in my experience.

 

[ipponrg]

I’ve never understood why anyone would prefer to cast from a phone or tablet, vs. using a dedicated device.

1. They are at someone's place or office and there is no device available. Android TVs have Chromecast built in
2. They don't want to switch inputs. Casting will automatically switch for you.
3. Second screen experiences.
4. The cast icon is ubiquitous now. It's in Chrome browsers natively, and most streaming apps support casting.

These are some of the average person's use cases that I can think of right now based on focus group studies and actual A/B tests. Obviously the ideal user experience is to use a dedicated device app, but the convenience of casting is what people actually enjoy.

When it comes to portability and streaming sticks, people habitually will have a higher probability of having their phone with them than a streaming stick or dedicated device.

 

[Mac 128]

It definitely is but that is only slightly less stupid that thinking that their TV content is going to temp people to buy an Apple TV at twice the price of a Roku or a Fire TV.

Seriously they should just put their service on the other platforms, thinking that your content is so good its going to sell your overpriced hardware is a recipe for failure.

I posted on the other thread, the reason subscription services like Spotify and Netflix have gained so much traction is because they are available everywhere, it doesn't matter if you've got the most expensive hardware. The person with a super cheap Chromecast can access Netflix the same as the guy with the Nvidia Shield or Apple TV.

It isn't even as if Apple will make this device really low cost either it will just be low cost by Apple standards, same way the iPhone XR and the new MacBook Air were. They seem almost incapable of putting out anything like low to mid range hardware.

Like you say Apple will need to be pulling the next Game of Thrones out of the bag if they think it will make adopt their hardware.

It really boils down to the intent. Apple has always prized hardware over software — giving away the OS, giving away free Apps such as MacWrite, MacPaint, and now Pages, Numbers, Garage Band, iMovie, and more, making no effort to port these things over to another platform. Now Apple intends to give away programming.

Perhaps it’s a long shot to get people to buy a product just to get their free stuff, but then it must make a difference to some, or Apple wouldn’t keep doing it. If it boils down to buying a $25 Firestick which requires a minimum $120 annual subscription to use, or a $50 Apple dongle which comes with a free service, people might chose Apple.

Heck, I’ve got Android TV OS on my state of the art Sony TV, and it’s so bad, I never use it. If I didn’t have an Apple TV, I would be looking for the cheapest option to improve my streaming experience I could find. Apple has a good reputation, and a simple interface, and now free streaming content too? That might be a deciding factor.

I agree any attempt by Apple to get into this market will be an uphill climb, so I guess we’ll see how they’re able to spin it in order to make their product a compelling alternative.
[doublepost=1543083512][/doublepost]

1. They are at someone's place or office and there is no device available. Android TVs have Chromecast built in
2. They don't want to switch inputs. Casting will automatically switch for you.
3. Second screen experiences.
4. The cast icon is ubiquitous now. It's in Chrome browsers natively, and most streaming apps support casting.

These are some of the average person's use cases that I can think of right now based on focus group studies and actual A/B tests. Obviously the ideal user experience is to use a dedicated device app, but the convenience of casting is what people actually enjoy.

When it comes to portability and streaming sticks, people habitually will have a higher probability of having their phone with them than a streaming stick or dedicated device.

I’m addressing why someone would opt for chromecast at home, and choose to stream from their device, rather than a dedicated experience (specifically the persons parents streaming from their iPads in their own living room). In other words, why would someone buy a chromecast dongle vs. a Roku or Fire stick which supports Chromecast.

I completely understand why someone would want to cast away from home. And while casting will automatically switch for you, you have to get the remote to switch back. And depending on how well the app is designed, it can create all kinds of problems with the TV interface. Second screen experiences don’t really apply to streaming movies, which is what we’re discussing in this thread. And yes casting is supported widely, but again it monopolizes the device. I also understand a person with limited means who may only have a phone for their internet connection, in which case casting makes perfect sense. But we’re talking about people who buy streaming dongles in this thread.

 

[ipponrg]

In other words, why would someone buy a chromecast dongle vs. a Roku or Fire stick which supports Chromecast.

My dad is 75 years old and not technical at all. I did not teach him how to cast, but he figured it out and is hardly technical. He streams from his iPad 3 to the Chromecast dongle to watch YouTube and his movies via an app. So take it for whatever that's worth. There's something easier about casting for my dad's profile than to use a dedicated streaming stick.

And while casting will automatically switch for you, you have to get the remote to switch back.

You don't though. I have a Sony TV (2016 Bravia XBR) just like you with Android. If let's say my input is on OTA antenna and I cast to it, the instant I stop casting, it switches back to the OTA antenna. You can replace OTA with ATV and the same behavior occurs. I have not had to switch inputs ever when casting. With ATV I sometimes still do because the Android OS bugs out on inputs occasionally.

Second screen experiences don’t really apply to streaming movies, which is what we’re discussing in this thread.

There are (and have been) attempts to figure out how second screen experiences can apply to streaming videos. One example is what Vizio did with SmartCast TVs and tablet controllers.

 

[Mac 128]

My dad is 75 years old and not technical at all. I did not teach him how to cast, but he figured it out and is hardly technical. He streams from his iPad 3 to the Chromecast dongle to watch YouTube and his movies via an app. So take it for whatever that's worth. There's something easier about casting for my dad's profile than to use a dedicated streaming stick.



You don't though. I have a Sony TV (2016 Bravia XBR) just like you with Android. If let's say my input is on OTA antenna and I cast to it, the instant I stop casting, it switches back to the OTA antenna. You can replace OTA with ATV and the same behavior occurs. I have not had to switch inputs ever when casting. With ATV I sometimes still do because the Android OS bugs out on inputs occasionally.



There are (and have been) attempts to figure out how second screen experiences can apply to streaming videos. One example is what Vizio did with SmartCast TVs and tablet controllers.

I’m not saying casting isn’t easy to figure out. But I’d rather not have to tie up my device doing it. Most people today multitask while watching tv, and asking an iPad 3 to stream video from the web and cast to a TV is not an optimal use for such a power limited device. I don’t even like doing it in my SE. And then there’s the battery drain. Whenever I used to do that to watch movies on Amazon, I had to plug my phone in, and that wasn’t near the couch, so I completely lost the use of it during the movie. Not to mention if a call comes in, I have to stop the movie for everyone watching.

I stated some apps don’t handle things consistently. I don’t really use his method as it has been unreliable for me, so I can’t speka to all of them. My Sony 900E responds randomly in some apps, launching the Android movie app engaging a movie, then regardless of what I do on the phone continues streaming. And this is far from isolated. I have to force quit the TV movie app, which is not at all easy in Android TV OS. I have never had any problems with using the Apple TV and Android TV OS.

Regardless, I don’t see the lack of picking up a remote and switching inputs to be a major concern. It’s one thing if someone is only using the phone as the primary interface for the TV. I can do this with my Sony if I wanted to, but I find using a remote App far more tedious than picking up the physical remote, and this includes the ATV. To switch into the ATV, I merely pick up the remote, press the input button twice, and it switches to the ATV. To switch back I press TV on the remote. Alternately, I can merely press the menu button on the ATV and the TV switches right to it.

 

[mi7chy]

I’m not saying casting isn’t easy to figure out. But I’d rather not have to tie up my device doing it.

I don't think you understand the differences. Casting is different from mirroring in that it doesn't tie up the originating device that casts content to Chromecast while it does for mirroring. One method isn't better than the other as they have different use cases. For example, casting is fine to use any phone/tablet/PC as a remote to command your TV to play content. Mirroring is good to share your desktop for a presentation. Chromecast does both reliably. Fire TV has the added versability of running apps plus a working browser with accelerated video because some content is only available through web and not app. Apple TV is the most limited of the three and why I gave mine away.

 

[Mac 128]

I don't think you understand the differences. Casting is different from mirroring in that it doesn't tie up the originating device that casts content to Chromecast while it does for mirroring. One method isn't better than the other as they have different use cases. For example, casting is fine to any phone/tablet/PC as a remote to command your TV to play content. Mirroring is good to share your desktop for a presentation. Chromecast does both reliably. Fire TV has the added versability of running apps plus a working browser with accelerated video because some content is only available through web and not app. Apple TV is the most limited of the three and why I gave mine away.

I understand the difference. But the device is still using processor and radios to facilitate streaming a movie and sending it to the stick. This is less optimal than having a dedicated box, regardless of brand. I also don’t want to drain the battery on my phone doing it, and have to plug my phone in often away from my seating area, making it hard to do anything else.

I have not found casting to be particularly reliable or consistent, especially from a PC.

I agree not having a browser on ATV makes it less desirable in some respects than other options. However that’s exactly why I use an Apple TV, as I can mirror my browser, or just send video from it directly to the ATV just like casting. This in my experience is the only area I need Apple to improve. Otherwise I find it to be a superior experience than casting, other than widespread availability, but that’s not really an issue for me.

 

[mi7chy]

I understand the difference. But the device is still using processor and radios to facilitate streaming a movie and sending it to the stick. This is less optimal than having a dedicated box, regardless of brand. I also don’t want to drain the battery on my phone doing it, and have to plug my phone in often away from my seating area, making it hard to do anything else.

Wrong. You've never used a Chromecast before if you believe that. I just casted a YouTube video to my TV then turned off the phone and the video still plays. The Chromecast device is the dedicated box and the phone is just a remote with no processing or drain on it. You love your ATV but don't spread FUD.

 

[Mac 128]

Wrong. You've never used a Chromecast before if you believe that. I just casted a YouTube video to my TV then turned off the phone and the video still plays. The Chromecast device is the dedicated box and the phone is just a remote with no processing or drain on it. You love your ATV but don't spread FUD.

Easy there tiger, I’ve used chromecast plenty. The fact you just tested it before responding suggests you weren’t sure yourself. Are you saying the phone transferred the stream to the chromecast dongle? And then you powered it down, or merely turned the screen off? If that’s how chromecast works now when there’s a WiFi connection available, what happens when the dongle is disconnected from WiFi?

EDIT: A quick test shows me that’s exactly what it does. So my phone and TV have to both be on the same network, which is something AirPlay does not require. I suppose I could configure the TV to set up a closed network which may or may not force the phone to cast via its own internet connection, which makes this an attractive proposition for someone who does not have home WiFi, or otherwise access. It that’s a little more complicated than that happening automatically regardless of the source. Maybe a dongle does this where my TV doesn’t?

However, I’m not really interested in using my phone to navigate my entertainment selections, if for no other reason than I’d want it plugged in charging, so it’s ready when I leave the house. An iPad would be a different story, I suppose as it has a larger battery and its intended for home use, so long as it’s only offloading content from the web to the TV, and not mirroring content directly from the device.

I also see another problem is that I have to exit whatever other app I’m using to control the volume. For me it’s just easier to have the actual remote to control the volume. I see I can at least pause it in the control panel, but I have to go to the app to lower the volume, as well as disconnect from the TV in order to return to the TV. I’d just rather use the remote to switch between sources.

Odd that I can’t cast from the Chrome Browser on my iPad. Maybe it’s just unsupported on the iOS app, but works on an Android browser.

 

[macfacts]

This is a mistake. The ATV 4 and ATV 4K are worth every penny. At first I was underwhelmed with my ATV 4 but I know use it more than my PS4. It is fast, consumes just 5W and I get my full internet bandwidth over 5 GHz ac. The quality of Netflix is superb on it.

A cheap dongle like the Chromecast doesn’t belong in Apple’s lineup. They should stick to making premium products. Leave budget to everyone else.

A cheaper atv dongle would allow apple to price the next version of the apple tv at a higher price.

 

[ipponrg]

Are you saying the phone transferred the stream to the chromecast dongle?

He is saying you don’t need your phone on the entire time for the Chromecast to work.

Think of your phone as a sender and the app on the TV as a receiver. The receiver only needs your phone to tell it to play something. After it starts playing and depending how the dev programmed the receiver, it’s possible for the receiver to not care if your phone was still connected to it or not.

Having both devices on the same WiFi is a plus. You must not live in close proximities to people so I can understand why you don’t value that. Also, there are ways to Cast to a device by just being in proximity. I have had neighbors accidentally Cast to my TV

 

[lec0rsaire]

A cheaper atv dongle would allow apple to price the next version of the apple tv at a higher price.

The prices are already high enough. I would say probably just right. Any higher and they will lose sales. You can still buy an Xbox One S with 4K Blu-ray for $200. Not only do you get most of the best apps, but 4K Blu-ray and games as well. That makes it really hard to recommend the ATV 4K for anyone except those that have all the other Apple devices.

IMO AirPlay itself is worth the price and is really the “killer app” for the ATV.
[doublepost=1543178525][/doublepost]

Apple needs to diversify and with all the new cheap, great sticks like Fire TV 4K and Smartt s, Apple is falling behind. They need to push all this new content and give more reason to join the Apple ecosystem and push it's services division. What you suggest would be quite dumb.

What I suggest has worked out better than anyone could’ve ever imagined for Apple thus far. Apple is a premium/luxury goods company that is still within the reach of the mainstream. Very similar to Louis Vuitton, Mercedes and Rolex in their respective markets.

Any cheaper and you lose brand cachet and high-end customers. Any more expensive and you definitely lose the majority of your mainstream costumers (Hermès, Bentley and Audemars Piguet).

Apple’s products start at relatively high minimum prices and go well into luxury territory (fully loaded 15” MBP and iMac Pro). Similar to entry-level steel Rolex around 5 grand going up to half a million for limited references with diamonds and gems, Mercedes starting in the mid 30s all the way up to 200 grand plus with their AMG coupés and Louis Vuitton selling accessories and some handbags for under $1000 and going up to the 5 figures.

But the ingenuity is that the cheaper versions and products aren’t seen as lesser. This is the result of excellent brand recognition, build quality across the board and heritage.
[doublepost=1543178948][/doublepost]

I find it funny the way Apple has trained it's fans. Firstly why should Apple "should stick to making premium products" can't they just make products for everyone? Secondly why is the Chromecast "A cheap dongle"? that's just how much they cost. I've got a feeling it's inverse-snobbery that Apple fans tell themselves to justify high prices.

Apple is a premium/luxury company in case you haven’t realized. They’ve always been one. They made affordable products during the second coming of Steve Jobs with the iPod, first couple of iPhones, regular MacBook and first couple of iPads but everything else throughout their history has been more expensive compared to their competitors.

The Chromecast is a cheap device. It has no internal storage and poor surround sound capability. You must rely on the TV’s ARC instead of having a direct connection to an A/V receiver. It is similar to just the AirPlay function of the ATV. Apple already has a great product in the ATV.
[doublepost=1543179162][/doublepost]

Roku boxes can pass DTS Master and Dolby True HD on to receivers via HDMI. A Chromecast might not be able to do that, but a Roku can. And you can get a much more capable device for the same price as a Chromecast. If you want to go up to the $100 level, you can get a USB port on the Roku and a headphone jack on the remote.

I know and the Roku 4K is an excellent product for everyone but those who are completely invested into the Apple ecosystem with a MacBook, iPhone and iPad. You get AirPlay mirroring which is a killer feature, enough apps, access to your music library (iTunes Match/Apple Music) and your movie library (HD digital copies or iTunes purchases), podcasts and tv shows.

The Chromecast makes more sense for Android users as well as Chromebook users. Not so much for Apple customers regardless of how good a value it is.
[doublepost=1543179889][/doublepost]

ECON 101 proves you wrong. If you don't have enough hardware (viewers) to support production, production stops and vice versa. One of the reasons that Apple TV is so overpriced is because there is little content and sales are poor. A lower priced option could change everything. Apple would never make something cheaper than the competition, but being in the ballpark might just help.

Sorry but you’re wrong. What was the MSRP of the ATV 2 and ATV 3? $100. The ATV 4 added 32-64GB of flash storage and an App Store. That alone is worth $50 more. Since they wanted to keep the ATV 4 for their 1080p customers instead of replacing it with the ATV 4K, they had to charge a premium. $30 is a little bit hefty bringing the starting price to $180 but it makes sense as long as the ATV 4 is still sold.

Remember that Apple is a premium/luxury or rather mainstream luxury company. The customers they target sometimes overlap with those of Google and Microsoft towards the lower end of the price range. The people buying 2-3k+ BTO MBPs, iMacs and iMac Pros are not the same people buying Windows notebooks and Chromebooks.

Those who want Apple products usually aren’t considering anything from the competition. It’s like someone in the market for a Sony OLED A8F or A9F. They will consider an LG C8,E8 or W8 but probably not much else.

Likewise the Chromecast and Roku buyer is not going to consider buying an Apple TV 4 or 4K.
[doublepost=1543180040][/doublepost]

I would tend to agree with you, if it weren't for the HomePod. I think if they do release such a low-cost dongle, it would be complementary to the HomePod. Just speak and control your TV. No remote needed.

I forgot about the HomePod. I don’t have one and don’t plan on buying on but yes, they could work together. Similar to LG OLEDs with ThinQ and their appliances/phones and Google Home.

The Siri Remote while good is not actually needed since you can use the control center “remote” on iPhone and iPad and it has text input.

 

[Mac 128]

He is saying you don’t need your phone on the entire time for the Chromecast to work.

Think of your phone as a sender and the app on the TV as a receiver. The receiver only needs your phone to tell it to play something. After it starts playing and depending how the dev programmed the receiver, it’s possible for the receiver to not care if your phone was still connected to it or not.

Having both devices on the same WiFi is a plus. You must not live in close proximities to people so I can understand why you don’t value that. Also, there are ways to Cast to a device by just being in proximity. I have had neighbors accidentally Cast to my TV

Yes I’m aware, as I mentioned further in my post. I fired up some chromecast apps and tested them with my TV, and observed this behavior directly.

But are you saying anybody can cast to my TV? I absolutely live in close proximity to others...I’m surrounded by WiFi accounts. No one has ever hijacked my TV though. When I turned the WiFi off on my TV, it stopped showing up on my chromecast options. And I don’t see any others on it. Is this something the dongle supports, but perhaps not my TV?

The difference between chromecast and ATV is that without being on my WiFi network, anyone can chose to airplay to the TV, but they must be able to see the TV to enter the access code. That’s a much simpler method than logging into my network in order to cast to the TV.

The Apple TV also hands off a stream from the phone to the ATV, freeing up the phone, but not if the source is on my phone, only something on the internet.

So far it seems like I can’t stream from my phone’s LTE connection to a chromecast. I think it is possible to do that on the ATV? That’s what I thought chromecast was doing so a cord cutter only needed their phone account to stream from the internet.

Of course, even if the phone hands the stream off in casting, I still need to access the phone to control the stream, whereas with airplay, I have a remote. In fact, I love controlling my phone via the remote control through airplay.

 

[LordVic]

This is interesting. For years we have heard Apple should get into the gaming space and right now seems as good a time as any. They could release an Apple TV Pro with A12X (or better) at $299.99, lower the Apple TV 4K to ~$149.99 and Apple TV to $100 with the Apple TV stick sitting in around $50.

Seeing Sony's profits with gaming show's Apple could really take a bite out of the market share, especially from Microsoft with their lack of exclusives.

if Apple can get "AAA" titles to be ported for their devices there is no reason that they can't make a go of a game console.

the problem is that this is a very VERY Stiff competing industry. Apple marching in would be fine. we've seen new big players (remember when Sony came in out of left field?). The problem for Apple will be cost. Consoles generally need to be affordable. To the point where historically both Sony and Microsoft have taken per unit losses on the physical devices to push software sales.

Is Apple prepared to fight in that market or do they think they can shake it up with premium pricing?

Like most gaming consoles, it'll be the titles available that sell the console. Apple would need to convince the AAA dev's to develope for yet a 3rd (or even 4th) system.

 

[ipponrg]

But are you saying anybody can cast to my TV?

Yes if you have that enabled where they can be discovered. I had to go into my Android TV to turn that feature off because I was surprised by this.

When I turned the WiFi off on my TV, it stopped showing up on my chromecast options

Yeah you need to have WiFi enabled. Chromecast uses your router to broadcast itself. Unlike Airplay, its ideal purpose is to add media streaming capabilities which I would think at a minimum requires an IP address.

That’s a much simpler method than logging into my network in order to cast to the TV.

It really depends on the situation. There are times when I want to Airplay something when I’m in another room. So I’d say the best method for the situation

That’s what I thought chromecast was doing so a cord cutter only needed their phone account to stream from the internet.

That is not what the purpose of the Chromecast is, i.e it’s not targeting cord cutters per se. It’s to allow users to take an app’s content and stream it to their TV. In most cases, people just want to see their content on a bigger screen. The app must have a coinciding receiver app. It has nothing to do with a phone account.

The app developer simply has to support the Chromecast protocol within their app, and that is basically it. Chromecast receiver apps are basically webpages that are loaded on the Chromecast via a unique ID sent from the sender apps.

 

[Joey2250]

New AppleTV with multi-video stream support. Each dongle is a receiver. Solves the need for 1-3 Apple TVs per house. Yes please!

 

[UltimaKilo]

if Apple can get "AAA" titles to be ported for their devices there is no reason that they can't make a go of a game console.

the problem is that this is a very VERY Stiff competing industry. Apple marching in would be fine. we've seen new big players (remember when Sony came in out of left field?). The problem for Apple will be cost. Consoles generally need to be affordable. To the point where historically both Sony and Microsoft have taken per unit losses on the physical devices to push software sales.

Is Apple prepared to fight in that market or do they think they can shake it up with premium pricing?

Like most gaming consoles, it'll be the titles available that sell the console. Apple would need to convince the AAA dev's to develope for yet a 3rd (or even 4th) system.

Totally agree with you. However, I wouldn't jump in, just stick a toe in the water.

I would focus on using R&D money to use gaming as a way to expand its services and invest in game streaming like Microsoft and SONY are, since nobody has cornered that market yet. By 2020 the average US internet speed will be 20 Mbps and is already higher in a lot of other places. The adoption of 5G will only help so 2020/2021 would be an excellent time for such a service.

 

[HighFlyer001]

I wish Apple would go the other way. Merge Home Pod, Apple TV with a FaceTime camera and Siri to create a TV sound bar that can plug into the TV and yet also play music. The so called Home Bar can also act as a hub for Home Kit.

 

[lederermc]

I wish Apple would go the other way. Merge Home Pod, Apple TV with a FaceTime camera and Siri to create a TV sound bar that can plug into the TV and yet also play music. The so called Home Bar can also act as a hub for Home Kit.

I would like this. It's like what everyone thought an Apple TV would be but without the screen.