Apple TV Sees Major Sales Growth in 2015 But Still Ranks as Fourth Most Popular Streaming Media Player

[Juicy Box]

Uhh, you need an 'other device' for any media device. They're called remote controls. The best part about the Chromecast is people tend to always have their 'remote' on them. IMO, it is what makes the Chromecast so damn convenient.

We have a Roku but we use our Chromecast far more often. Open up the Netflix, HBO, etc app, find what we want, hit the Chromecast icon and boom. Good to go. Not to mention using your phone to search for things makes things SO much easier.

I guess my family is different. We like using the Remote Learning feature in the ATVs and use the TV remote, which is always by the TV.

Having to use a separate device such as a phone for Chromecast can be annoying. Unlocking the phone each time to pause/play, rewind, switch shows, using the TV remote has been so much easier for us.

Also, if I put a show on for my girls to watch, and I leave the room, or house, that will just cause problems.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I have a 4K tv and I still say 4K is a gimmick right now. More than half the US doesn't have the ability to stream it. And networks arent broadcasting it. If Apple brings out a 4K Apple TV, I am not rushing out to buy it.

Again, exact same excuses slung for 1080p before Apple rolled out the 3 "now with 1080p". I get it. "WE" support Apple so we will argue the same tired old excuses to death because Apple is not selling a 4K TV yet. But, as soon as they do have one, we won't apply those arguments against Apple. Instead, it will be "shut up and take my money". We've already done all this before when Apple clung to 720p and the world was mostly shifted to 1080p. Same exact scenario, same excuses for Apple, which fly only until Apple shifts... and then "we" shift right with them.

Why doesn't someone break out the science-based "the chart" (which was also the exact same chart used to argue against 1080p, now updated with 4K resolution references on it)?

And please, let's have a few suggestions that everyone must absolutely buy a new 4K (ignoring that hardware capable of more has no trouble playing less, just as a 1080p TV could feed 720p and SD to <1080p HDTVs that people kept back then).

And could someone give us a "99% can't see the difference..." statistic?

Yes 2010, you and I have already had this argument. I know exactly where you are on this topic. As was completely covered in several other arguments, had Apple included 4K in this "4" you and those like you against it would not be affected in any way at all. The anti-4K crowd could still enjoy their "good enough"- whatever that is for each individual- exactly as they do now. Nothing would get forced upon anyone.

What it would do is allow those who DO desire it to enjoy this little box too... and get what they want out of it (too). This thread is about TV not being the #1 selling streaming box. One reason some say they are not buying is because pretty much the rest of them already offer 4K and some want THAT feature now. They don't care that you call it a gimmick. They don't care that others can't see the difference. They don't believe that the internet would be broken. Etc. THEY want it for THEIR situation. You don't? No problem. It wouldn't affect you either way.

 

[Thatdownsofboy]

Apple ranked behind the competition for something? That's weird. I would have never guessed.

What they failed to point out is that all the other manufacturers had their devices for sale the entirety of 2015. The Latest Apple TV was only on sale for a couple of months last year. Sure the older Apple TV"s were available, but most in the know we're not buying that anymore. Besides, we are trying to gage the success of the new Apple TV and not the old one that hadn't been updated since like 2012.

As for people complaining about 4K tv, I guess Apple was right. It's been 8 months since release of the Apple TV 4 and most people still don't own 4k tv's. What would have been the point in adding it? At this point, Apple may come out with a new one in 4 months with 4K. At that point, sell your current one and buy the new one. It's a little to late in the Apple TV 4 game to still be complaining about that.

 

[gramtrax]

I have come to absolutely HATE my ATV3 -- UI locks up, it won't play rented movies until I unplug and reboot, etc. so there's no way I'm upgrading to ATV4.

Roku or Google have my next purchase. The ATV4 is too little, too late.

 

[JosephAW]

I'm looking to pick up a used older model so I can do AirPlay.
I have wifi but it's only between devices. I have no broadband at my location.

 

[b1wils1]

makes sense since they released and haven't done !@#$ to it since. I mean, I use mine all of the time, but come on. 10 billion in R&D and I still need to restart the device to connect to the internet after it goes to sleep.

 

[AFDoc]

Aren't the other options much less expensive than aTV? that alone is a reason not to get it.... especially if all the others do the same/more than the option apple provides.

 

[GoodWheaties]

Because Apple rolled out iPhones that shoot 4K and touted that as a major feature. They rolled out 5K iMacs which are "perfect for displaying the full 4K frame during editing". They rolled out FCPX and iMovie so that pros or semi-pros can import 4K they shoot themselves, edit it at 4K and export it into a Quicktime .m4v container at 4K. They rolled out an iPad Pro and touted it's ability to edit three 4K streams simultaneously. iTunes will import that file just like any lessor format movie you want to store. In short, there is an all 4K chain from shooting to TV that looks like this:

iPhone 4K -> FCPX/iMovie edits -> iMac 5K or iPad Pro provides the hardware for that editing -> Quicktime 4K .m4v file -> iTunes (stores it) -> TV4 -> 4KTV ready to display 4K

Only 1 weak link in that almost entirely Apple chain... but it is the key "just works" one for displaying that 4K shot on those shiny new phones on that 4K TV ready to show it natively at 4K.

Just curious, do you know if streaming 4K video would stutter over 802.11ac? I know awhile back, streaming a DVD over 802.11n would stutter but I'm curious about the bandwidth requirements.

 

[Karma*Police]

I love my ATV4. The remote/UI is one of the most innovative UI conventions I've seen in a while. It's like operating an iPhone from 8 feet across the room.

 

[NickD73]

And the only reason it's not ranked lower is due to the sheer number of Apple fanboys who will buy anything they put out. If it was judged objectively, it would likely make up only 5-10%.

 

[samcraig]

Shocker (not) that sales were up for Apple TV given that there was no REAL update to Apple TV for several years. Still - Apple TV lags behind Roku and others in regards to flexibility. The only reason I have turned my Apple TV on in the past couple of years is to rent a movie because I still have iTunes credit. I'm not saying Apple TV (now) isn't good. I just don't see the need at the moment to spend $150 or more for another streaming device. Until that time where Apple stops allowing my ATV2 to rent movies, the ATV2 is just fine.

Apple sat around way too long and let others leap frog them and then some. My .02

 

[Soccertess]

Having owned an Apple tv 4 for a while now, I can say it's over priced and underwhelming.

Thanks Tim, can't wait for a Roku! you really are the best thing to happen to Google!

lame duck CEO!

 

[Karma*Police]

Aren't the other options much less expensive than aTV? that alone is a reason not to get it.... especially if all the others do the same/more than the option apple provides.

If you're talking about basic streaming "sticks" like chromecast and fire stick, they don't do the same/more and it's a PITA using your iPhone as the remote.

Even standalone streaming boxes like Roku feel pretty dated next to ATV4's slick remote and clean UI. I do like the option of plugging in my headphone into the remote though; that's one feature I wish Apple copied from Roku.

 

[wovel]

Having owned an Apple tv 4 for a while now, I can say it's over priced and underwhelming.

Thanks Tim, can't wait for a Roku! you really are the best thing to happen to Google!

lame duck CEO!

If that were true you would be buying chromecast...

 

[Spinnetti]

Having owned an Apple tv 4 for a while now, I can say it's over priced and underwhelming.

I agree. Just got one and wish I hadn't. my old one was good enough turns out. The new one won't even search your shared libraries via siri, thus pretty useless to have siri for me. I do like that the setup was much better automated than before however.

 

[samcraig]

If you're talking about basic streaming "sticks" like chromecast and fire stick, they don't do the same/more and it's a PITA using your iPhone as the remote.

Even standalone streaming boxes like Roku feel pretty dated next to ATV4's slick remote and clean UI. I do like the option of plugging in my headphone into the remote though; that's one feature I wish Apple copied from Roku.

Your opinion. I find it easy and fast to be able to stream just about anything I can access on my phone to my chromecast. And while the UI may be more slick on the Apple TV (it still needs MAJOR work) - the Roku has great search capabilities and works extremely well. I wouldn't say it's dated. Apple certainly took their sweet time making updates to their UI which still isn't radically different.

But yeah - the headphone in remote is pretty sweet.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Just curious, do you know if streaming 4K video would stutter over 802.11ac? I know awhile back, streaming a DVD over 802.11n would stutter but I'm curious about the bandwidth requirements.

Conceptually, it may or may not, depending on a bunch of variables. Key assumptions with a 4K implementation would be the adoption of h.265 too, which as spun packs "about the same quality as h.264 video into about half the file size." With that assumption- and others- if h.264 video can be fed to a device wirelessly and not stutter, so goes 4K too. Some streamers (Roku 4) already support h.265 (and Apple did too for FaceTime with iPhone 6: http://appleinsider.com/articles/14...lus-use-h265-codec-for-facetime-over-cellular ).

Besides, a little coding optimization for borderline wifi bandwidth in individual situation could simply allow more of a buffer to be streamed to the box before starting the movie. The new 4 has room for up to whole movies to preload if someone had such a pinched wifi situation and Apple prioritized seamless play over any kind of "one size fits all" coding decision.

 

[2010mini]

Again, exact same excuses slung for 1080p before Apple rolled out the 3 "now with 1080p". I get it. "WE" support Apple so we will argue the same tired old excuses to death because Apple is not selling a 4K TV yet. But, as soon as they do have one, we won't apply those arguments against Apple. Instead, it will be "shut up and take my money". We've already done all this before when Apple clung to 720p and the world was mostly shifted to 1080p. Same exact scenario, same excuses for Apple, which fly only until Apple shifts... and then "we" shift right with them.

Why doesn't someone break out the science-based "the chart" (which was also the exact same chart used to argue against 1080p, now updated with 4K resolution references on it)?

And please, let's have a few suggestions that everyone must absolutely buy a new 4K (ignoring that hardware capable of more has no trouble playing less, just as a 1080p TV could feed 720p and SD to <1080p HDTVs that people kept back then).

And could someone give us a "99% can't see the difference..." statistic?

Yes 2010, you and I have already had this argument. I know exactly where you are on this topic. As was completely covered in several other arguments, had Apple included 4K in this "4" you and those like you against it would not be affected in any way at all. The anti-4K crowd could still enjoy their "good enough"- whatever that is for each individual- exactly as they do now. Nothing would get forced upon anyone.

What it would do is allow those who DO desire it to enjoy this little box too... and get what they want out of it (too). This thread is about TV not being the #1 selling streaming box. One reason some say they are not buying is because pretty much the rest of them already offer 4K and some want THAT feature now. They don't care that you call it a gimmick. They don't care that others can't see the difference. They don't believe that the internet would be broken. Etc. THEY want it for THEIR situation. You don't? No problem. It wouldn't affect you either way.

Apple is ranked 4th is a miracle. Considering all the other streamers have had years of multi-million dollar marketing behind them. Apple, for the non-tech nerds like us, is LATE to the game in terms of marketing its streamer to Joe public. As I said before, it was buried for years in the iPod section.

It is not the lack of 4K that has ATV4 in forth place. It is that other streamers have had years of branding in consumers minds while the ATV was "a hobby"
To sum it up to "lack of 4K" is silly IMHO.

And my opinion about 4K will stand until the networks start broadcasting it.
[doublepost=1463539504][/doublepost]

Having owned an Apple tv 4 for a while now, I can say it's over priced and underwhelming.

Thanks Tim, can't wait for a Roku! you really are the best thing to happen to Google!

lame duck CEO!

What does Roku have to do with Google?
[doublepost=1463539848][/doublepost]

I have come to absolutely HATE my ATV3 -- UI locks up, it won't play rented movies until I unplug and reboot, etc. so there's no way I'm upgrading to ATV4.

Roku or Google have my next purchase. The ATV4 is too little, too late.

Weird. My ATV3 never gave me those problems. It still works likes new. My Son uses it everyday. You sure you didn't get a bad one?

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Apple is ranked 4th is a miracle. Considering all the other streamers have had years of multi-million dollar marketing behind them. Apple, for the non-tech nerds like us, is LATE to the game in terms of marketing its streamer to Joe public. As I said before, it was buried for years in the iPod section.

In this we agree. Apple was relatively early with TV1. And they have not exactly been pinched for cash to be able to outspend anyone promoting it. Nor have they lacked the money and resources to out-Roku a Roku in terms of lining up content partners. If you want to assign fault, clarify it: Apple basically ignored a great product and allowed the other guys to build upon many good ideas in TV1. They should be way out ahead right now but are- in may ways (IMO)- playing catchup... not because the competitors are richer or have more resources... but because (IMO) the competition is focused on doing this particular thing as good as they can on less-to-much-less (than Apple) money & resources. Apple is distracted away from this and seems to have trouble assigning dedicated talent & funds so that it can do more than a few things at any given time.

It is not the lack of 4K that has ATV4 in forth place.

While there's some truth to that, read through this very thread and you'll find several people who have not bought one because- they say- they want 4K playback. Sure this thread is not representative of all people but I bet there's more than just these few people in this thread that feel that way. Is it the ONLY reason? Of course not. Is it A reason? Yes it is. Proof can be found in this very thread with only a handful of people participating in this conversation.

People buy a 4K set. They want to feed their new toy 4K video. This TV can't do that. Pretty much all of the other players have one that can. Should all of them call 4K a gimmick and buy the one and only good streaming box? Or should they buy whatever they want to buy with their own money? I can't fault 4K TV owners or buyers for not wanting to buy an TV that can't feed their set 4K. From their perspective, that limitation might make the whole thing look like yesterday's technology... and/or have them expecting an impending "5" that will bring them what THEY want (too)... so they wait.

To sum it up to "lack of 4K" is silly IMHO.

That's crystal clear in every one of these TV threads when this debate pops up. However, I never see you in all of the other threads bashing Apple for embracing 4K in just about everything else they make. Apparently, it's just "silly" to desire it here- in this ONE Apple product not already embracing 4K. Where are you to rip into Apple for making phones that shoot 4K, iMac 5K screens for editing 4K, iPad Pros for editing 4K, FCPX and iMovie for editing 4K, Quicktime for containing it, iTunes for storing it? Apparently, that's all fine. It's just "silly" here... in this ONE thing.

And my opinion about 4K will stand until the networks start broadcasting it.

...for you. Some don't give a hoot if the networks EVER broadcast it. I certainly don't, so my opinion about that topic should cancel out yours. Networks are not broadcasting 1080p either but that didn't stop Apple from rolling out a 1080p box. If broadcasting is the standard, Apple should not yet have a 1080p TV either. But, since they do, I know that is perfectly fine... just as a 4K version will be as soon as Apple rolls one out.

 

[Jodeo]

Apple needs to do the following:

1. Add Airplay to iTunes Windows so that you don't have to buy a questionable 3rd party app to use an Apple TV, especially in the enterprise. Our company has an Apple TV on every conference room screen to help iOS people, but we use Windows laptops. We'd love to go cord-free, and if we could Apple would sell more of these. (Remember the iPod Halo Effect?)

2. Add Amazon Prime app. It's a competitor like Netflix, Hulu, Starz and others. Apple needs to let them in so that they don't steer Prime users (rough half of US households) away.

3. Better remote. The current remote is a joke. Accidental swiping happens all the time, so we can rarely use the thing. The lack of a mute button and other common buttons is absurd. They tried to simplify it and made it useless. It's not bad for games, but "Voiceover On" is a frequent problem in the middle of a decent game and counterintutive to disable. We recently get the X1 box from Comcast, and the remote - despite being big and heavy - is just cool. Lights up when moved, then goes dark. Has voice assistance like Siri, and no accidental swipes. Add an accelerometer to it and I may like it better than the easy-to-lose tongue depressor Apple devised.

As for 4K, it's not relevant for now. Seriously, it's just not that much better than HD unless you have an expensive TV and 4K content. And given the greater bandwidth requirements and data caps from Xfinity and other providers, not desirable. A future ATV will have it, but for now the value isn't there.

 

[Juicy Box]

I wished the ATV4 had 4K, but it didn't prevent me from buying one. Before it was announced I didn't think it would have 4K based off of ATV2 and 3.

Now that I have one, I am mostly disappointed with it. I put the ATV3 back on the main TV because of the UI of the Apps. I would have traded all of my 4K wishes for the ATV3 UI on most of the ATV4 video apps.

I still use the ATV4, and will switch it back out again if Amazon releases their video app.

 

[gaximus]

I like my ATV 4 and like seeing Apple continue to invest in upgrading the features. Here are a few nice additions for the future if you are interested -

1. Adding a earphone jack to the remote (a la Roku) - well I guess with the lightning port maybe they already have it and just need to enable it.
2. Better controller support for gaming. I tried a couple in store and found them not great and the remote is terrible for all but a few basic games.
3. Better deals with providers so that their apps work without having to log into my non-existing cable account.
4. Amazon Prime (I know this is an Amazon problem not Apple, but still want it).
5. Homekit App to control things though the TV. Actually would love some integration that could set the lights and sounds based on what was playing.

5. Or just control homekit with the Siri remote like I can with the Apple watch and iPhone.

 

[JimmyHook]

Once again a research firm manipulates numbers to give Google an artificial result. Apple TV is a product, Roku is a product, Google is a company. Which product? Chromecast? Android TV? The other failed one that I forgot the name of? Or does Google get the benefit of lumping together multiple devices to get their numbers? Can Apple include MacBooks with HDMI out?

 

[2010mini]

In this we agree. Apple was relatively early with TV1. And they have not exactly been pinched for cash to be able to outspend anyone promoting it. Nor have they lacked the money and resources to out-Roku a Roku in terms of lining up content partners. If you want to assign fault, clarify it: Apple basically ignored a great product and allowed the other guys to build upon many good ideas in TV1. They should be way out ahead right now but are- in may ways (IMO)- playing catchup... not because the competitors are richer or have more resources... but because (IMO) the competition is focused on doing this particular thing as good as they can on less-to-much-less (than Apple) money & resources. Apple is distracted away from this and seems to have trouble assigning dedicated talent & funds so that it can do more than a few things at any given time.


While there's some truth to that, read through this very thread and you'll find several people who have not bought one because- they say- they want 4K playback. Sure this thread is not representative of all people but I bet there's more than just these few people in this thread that feel that way. Is it the ONLY reason? Of course not. Is it A reason? Yes it is. Proof can be found in this very thread with only a handful of people participating in this conversation.

People buy a 4K set. They want to feed their new toy 4K video. This TV can't do that. Pretty much all of the other players have one that can. Should all of them call 4K a gimmick and buy the one and only good streaming box? Or should they buy whatever they want to buy with their own money? I can't fault 4K TV owners or buyers for not wanting to buy an TV that can't feed their set 4K. From their perspective, that limitation might make the whole thing look like yesterday's technology... and/or have them expecting an impending "5" that will bring them what THEY want (too)... so they wait.


That's crystal clear in every one of these TV threads when this debate pops up. However, I never see you in all of the other threads bashing Apple for embracing 4K in just about everything else they make. Apparently, it's just "silly" to desire it here- in this ONE Apple product not already embracing 4K. Where are you to rip into Apple for making phones that shoot 4K, iMac 5K screens for editing 4K, iPad Pros for editing 4K, FCPX and iMovie for editing 4K, Quicktime for containing it, iTunes for storing it? Apparently, that's all fine. It's just "silly" here... in this ONE thing.



...for you. Some don't give a hoot if the networks EVER broadcast it. I certainly don't, so my opinion about that topic should cancel out yours. Networks are not broadcasting 1080p either but that didn't stop Apple from rolling out a 1080p box. If broadcasting is the standard, Apple should not yet have a 1080p TV either. But, since they do, I know that is perfectly fine... just as a 4K version will be as soon as Apple rolls one out.

The iPhone, iMac, iMovie, iPad Pro all supporting 4K makes sense when you consider how many professionals need it for work. That's a different market than us consumers.

 

[rdlink]

Apple doesn't allow Ultra Violet/Vudu or Amazon Prime


and they wonder why

Ignorant post. Apple has an app store that allows anyone who wants to create an app. Amazon chooses not to. Vudu? Why? Even if it was on the ATV I wouldn't use it. Walmart owns them, so they can die before they'll get my money.