Apple TV App Now Available on Google's Latest Chromecast Device

[MacRumors]

Google today announced that the Apple TV app has launched on the $50 Chromecast with Google TV, which is the latest version of the Chromecast dongle.

Google said in December that the Apple TV app would be coming to Chromecast early in 2021, with the app set to expand to other Android TV devices in the future.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1362447046830137348

With the Apple TV app now available, Chromecast users can access Apple TV+ content with an Apple TV+ subscription, watch content from Apple TV channels, and access purchased and rented TV shows and movies.

TV shows and movies from Apple TV+ can be added to the Google TV Watchlist, and Google Assistant voice commands are available.

Article Link: Apple TV App Now Available on Google's Latest Chromecast Device

 

[Localcelebrity]

Apple can make the Apple TV app for a $50 device, but it can't make a $50 Apple TV?

*sigh*

 

[MacStreamer]

One of the smartest things Apple did was allow the TV app to be on non-Apple devices.

 

[nickt2009]

Would it be possible to AirPlay to the Chromecast?

 

[satchmo]

One of the smartest things Apple did was allow the TV app to be on non-Apple devices.

True. But they're leaving so much money on the table by not having their own $50 device.

 

[JCUT42]

Does anyone know if there is any workaround or is this capable of casting audio to stereo HomePods?

 

[bluespark]

True. But they're leaving so much money on the table by not having their own $50 device.

I'd buy multiple $50-ish Apple TV's on day 1.

 

[VARTV]

Would it be possible to AirPlay to the Chromecast?

We have the new Chromecast with Google TV and it doesn't come up in the AirPlay list...

 

[840quadra]

True. But they're leaving so much money on the table by not having their own $50 device.

How much do you expect them to make on the $50 devices? Not asking to be argumentative, but just the component costs, licensing fees for technologies included within them, manufacturing, packaging, shipping, etc, I’d have to imagine they don’t make much if any profit on that $50 device.

 

[MauiPa]

How about airplay2?

 

[mi7chy]

True. But they're leaving so much money on the table by not having their own $50 device.

Apple is thinking in terms of profit so let other companies subsidize the low cost $50 device while profiting off of delivering service. Doubt you're going to see a $50 Apple TV device.

 

[JonLa]

What about just allowing the app on my phone to cast to the original chromecast that still works like a charm?

 

[MacinMan]

I have a Chromecast 3rd generation. Is this supported? I didn't see a list of supported devices listed in the article.

I have 2 Apple TVs, and 2 Roku's so having third party supported devices isn't any question here. Just wondered if I can use my existing chrome cast to access iTunes content.

Thanks.

 

[Td1970]

How much do you expect them to make on the $50 devices? Not asking to be argumentative, but just the component costs, licensing fees for technologies included within them, manufacturing, packaging, shipping, etc, I’d have to imagine they don’t make much if any profit on that $50 device.

Take a loss on the hardware. Build up services more. They can afford it.

 

[840quadra]

Apple is thinking in terms of profit so let other companies subsidize the low cost $50 device while profiting off of delivering service.

That is essentially how I see it too. I don’t think Google makes any profit at all from Chromecast sales, they count on some sales of services, and likely get more from data gathering they can obtain from what people are watching / doing on those devices in their homes.

 

[mi7chy]

What about just allowing the app on my phone to cast to the original chromecast that still works like a charm?

Original Chromecast was great for its time but it's a dog now with limited h.264 and vp8 codec support at 1080p30 max. Prefer Fire TV Stick 4K hardware and remote over Chromecast with Google TV but prefer Android TV interface. Suggest waiting for new devices that supports AV1 hardware decode which none of the current popular devices from Amazon, Google and Apple have.

https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/media

 

[UndefinedxJoker]

True. But they're leaving so much money on the table by not having their own $50 device.

Those $50 devices are super slow and clunky. Don’t think Apple would want to put out such a cheap product just to compete.

What they really need to do is release a real TV already.

 

[JonLa]

Original Chromecast was great for its time but it's a dog now with limited h.264 and vp8 codec support at 1080p30 max. Prefer Fire TV Stick 4K hardware and remote over Chromecast with Google TV but prefer Android TV interface. Suggest waiting for new devices that supports AV1 hardware decode which none of the current popular devices from Amazon, Google and Apple have.

https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/media

It still works with everything though! Powers the old tv quite nicely in the bedroom, Apple are the only service that it can't cast.

 

[Charlie_Croker]

Apple can make the Apple TV app for a $50 device, but it can't make a $50 Apple TV?

*sigh*

Apple doesn't need to invest engineering and development resources to develop a $50 AppleTV anymore than Porsche need to develop a $20,000 911. What profit would Apple make? and it would cannibalise sales from the ATV 4K. (Where I'm guessing they make a very nice profit, why build 15 $50 ATVs to make the same profit you can from 1 ATV4K sale?). It's about profit not marketshare.
Google can do that for them and that way apple make money on ATV+ subscriptions from people who would never have paid for an ATV in the first place.

 

[armandxp]

I bought one of these just to check it out and if you’re a movie fan, it’s a piece of crap. Once you set the resolution, it doesn’t auto change to match the content and play back correctly at 24fps for most movies or 60fps like other media. It will only playback at whatever you set it to.

 

[Canyda]

What they really need to do is release a real TV already.

I'm half surprised they haven't just for the hilarity that would ensue trying to explain how you watch your Apple TV+ shows on the Apple TV app on your Apple TV box which is hooked up to your Apple TV, er, TV.

 

[Oblivious.Robot]

Does anyone know if the next gen Apple TV is incoming soon?

I wanted to upgrade from ATV 4 to 4K, but I gotta feeling that they'd announce the next gen immediately after the return window is over if I were to get it now. ?

 

[Ar40]

YES. Finally. Now this will cause some massive confusion and rethinking from Android nation, who (at least on Twitter) think you need an actual Apple device to access TV+. Very good move by Apple to expand its horizons.

 

[MacStreamer]

I don't see Apple putting in effort to provide a cheap product. That's not something they do in general. If you want cheap, that's what Roku is for and you can still access your Apple TV content. The money is in subscriptions not hardware.

 

[Charlie_Croker]

True. But they're leaving so much money on the table by not having their own $50 device.

So the cheap ATV costs Apple say $40 per unit to make, design, develop and sell, the retailer takes say $7 and Apple make $3 per unit. Then you have a low cost apple device, that's soon out of date, doesn't work well and has to compete with Chromecast and FireTV 4K, if they get in a price war they could end up selling at a loss.

I can't see the "money on the table is worth the effort." Plus a cheap, low quality device might be worse than the Chromecast/Firestick and devalue the Apple brand, even if it can compete (and I can see Google and Amazon lowering their prices and a race to the bottom ensuing.) , how long will it last before its outdated, and purchasers feel they have been "shortchanged"? Quality brands don't usually end up "chasing the (low end) money on the table."
To summarise It would be poor business sense, I would rather see a new ATV, with a bias towards gaming, with an M1 SOC, 128 (minimum) storage etc, rather than a cheap $50 device.