yeah....there is your problem!
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 TV's Estimated Market Share Declines as Customers Await Highly-Anticipated 4K Model
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
yeah....there is your problem!
Too late, too limited and too expensive.
$60 Chromecast Ultra pretty much handles all 4K needs minus Amazon Video. Even the original Chromecast which goes for ~$20 now is more versatile than any Apple TV.
$200 Nvidia Shield TV if you additionally want Amazon Video, run apps, play high end mobile games and stream PC quality games.
~$200 Apollo Lake/Gemini Lake HTPC plays every media type, doubles as PC replacement and storage/media server. https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157728
$60 Chromecast Ultra pretty much handles all 4K needs minus Amazon Video. Even the original Chromecast which goes for ~$20 now is more versatile than any Apple TV.
$200 Nvidia Shield TV if you additionally want Amazon Video, run apps, play high end mobile games and stream PC quality games.
~$200 Apollo Lake/Gemini Lake HTPC plays every media type, doubles as PC replacement and storage/media server. https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157728
Last edited:
Like the latest VUDU app that allows you watch, but not rent or buy (which you have to do from your computer or other device)?? Just silly...
I have owned every ATV model, and the 4 was the most disappointing. The lack of 4K had little to do with my disappointment in the ATV4.
Apple crippled it with the Siri Remote requirement, and the bugs in the first year were horrible.
The ATV4's version of apps are not nearly as user friendly as the ATV3's version. (Not saying this is Apple's fault)
I am still waiting for the revolutionary TV experience Apple said would come with the ATV4. If it had 4K, it doubt that it would have made much of a difference.
Apple crippled it with the Siri Remote requirement, and the bugs in the first year were horrible.
The ATV4's version of apps are not nearly as user friendly as the ATV3's version. (Not saying this is Apple's fault)
I am still waiting for the revolutionary TV experience Apple said would come with the ATV4. If it had 4K, it doubt that it would have made much of a difference.
Because Apple isn't interested in the low end of this category (sticks) and all these studies include sticks. Sticks are a crappy user experience and Apple isn't going to compete with the other companies at the bottom of the category.
The "killer app" for Apple could be content. I believe that most people primarily currently choose their streaming box based on 1) price, 2) availability of specific apps (e.g., Amazon Prime), and 3) user interface. There are some for whom gaming may also be important, but that is not my universe. I don't think 4K is that big of a deal currently because it is difficult to access content. I have a 4K TV, and a non-AppleTV box capable of 4K, but the lack of streaming content makes it largely useless (again, I'm not a gamer). The game-changer for me would be sports in 4K, specifically the NFL, MLS and EPL. If Apple were to release a 4K AppleTV box, coincident with an announcement that all iTunes movie content would now be available in 4K, along with 4K streaming from all of their built-in sports apps (MLB, NFL, NHL, MLS, NBCSports, FoxSportsGo, etc.), they would immediately leapfrog all of the competition in this space. The content is the key to this market. Perhaps this is why they have waited. If they can pull off the necessary content deals, then the new hardware would make total sense, and the timing of a combined announcement would have a massive impact, especially right before the holiday season.
We don't own any 4K TV's. Just waiting for the 4's price to drop to pick up two more.
it's declining because of price. in comparison to every other settop box, it's an insane premium.
is it good? yes. Can it do everything that everything else can? for the most part.
But when you can get Chromecasts and Roku's for as little as $40, convincing users to spend $169 is hard.
is it good? yes. Can it do everything that everything else can? for the most part.
But when you can get Chromecasts and Roku's for as little as $40, convincing users to spend $169 is hard.
What does the current model Apple TV do that the last model didn't do? And it is priced at $149? I wonder if the 4k model will cost $199?
Well we have a lot of legacy video and we are not going to invest in a device that is exclusive streaming. We already have a cable box, don't need another, especially when the content is super limited and curated to Apple standards.
Like others, I don't buy the author's claim that Apple TV would be a lot more successful if only it had 4k support.
I think Apple TV's biggest hurdles to wider adoption are (1) price and (2) lack of Amazon Video/Prime support. While many Apple fans don't mind the higher price, they do want to be able to watch this very popular streaming service. I've been using AirPlay to watch Amazon Prime movies, but it's a hassle I could definitely do without.
On a related note: in the past, I've always been critical of folks who proclaimed that an Apple TV set was imminent. My main argument was that TV sets are almost commodity items at this point and Apple would not be able to make their usual 35+% profit margins. There'd just not be enough differentiation between its TVs and the competitions'. Apple TV is sort of in the same boat: it's not that different from other streamers - so its premium price isn't really warranted.
But back to the notion of an Apple TV set: I think I want to change my mind on that. If Apple combined an OLED TV screen with good sound (built-in HomePod tech?), Apple TV capability, AND a wireless router, they might be able to charge a premium - well, at least I'd be the first in line. My Airport Extreme, after 10+ years of service is showing its age/speed. Same with my 3rd-gen Apple TVs. Never mind that most modern TVs require an external sound bar to have even decent sound. If all those external devices and cabling could be eliminated, that would be awesome. I'd pay $5k for a 65-incher (a good LG OLED will cost you $4k+ anyway).
I think Apple TV's biggest hurdles to wider adoption are (1) price and (2) lack of Amazon Video/Prime support. While many Apple fans don't mind the higher price, they do want to be able to watch this very popular streaming service. I've been using AirPlay to watch Amazon Prime movies, but it's a hassle I could definitely do without.
On a related note: in the past, I've always been critical of folks who proclaimed that an Apple TV set was imminent. My main argument was that TV sets are almost commodity items at this point and Apple would not be able to make their usual 35+% profit margins. There'd just not be enough differentiation between its TVs and the competitions'. Apple TV is sort of in the same boat: it's not that different from other streamers - so its premium price isn't really warranted.
But back to the notion of an Apple TV set: I think I want to change my mind on that. If Apple combined an OLED TV screen with good sound (built-in HomePod tech?), Apple TV capability, AND a wireless router, they might be able to charge a premium - well, at least I'd be the first in line. My Airport Extreme, after 10+ years of service is showing its age/speed. Same with my 3rd-gen Apple TVs. Never mind that most modern TVs require an external sound bar to have even decent sound. If all those external devices and cabling could be eliminated, that would be awesome. I'd pay $5k for a 65-incher (a good LG OLED will cost you $4k+ anyway).
There's definitely a decent amount of 4K content out there to benefit most people now, so I'm not sure how you can sat there's not much content. Amazon and Netflix now have a number of 4K titles out there and there's also a growing amount of 4K Youtube content out there as well. I can understand however if you don't have access to Amazon/Netflix that you might not have gained much exposure to 4K because there's definitely a general lack of content out there beyond those providers. In the UK, one of the major cable providers recently started 4K sports streaming and now also with Dolby Atmos, but it's definitely not cheap at all.
I think the prime reason is clearly the price. IMO the ATV4 is now (after a number of UI improvements in both the OS and popular apps) one of the best streaming devices on the market, and obviously the only one with iTunes support. Playback support for Amazon Video and Ultraviolet digital copies via Vudu finally make it viable as an "only device" for most people. But the price has to come down.
Some technical improvements I would like to see though: Support for bitstreaming high-end audio formats (TrueHD, Atmos, DTS-HD, 24-bit sample depth) and 24p playback. But I doubt the average customer cares much about that. Oh, and a less symmetric design for the remote, so it's easier to see and feel which side is the business end.
Some technical improvements I would like to see though: Support for bitstreaming high-end audio formats (TrueHD, Atmos, DTS-HD, 24-bit sample depth) and 24p playback. But I doubt the average customer cares much about that. Oh, and a less symmetric design for the remote, so it's easier to see and feel which side is the business end.
Last edited:
Because nearly nobody had 4K sets in 2015, and delivering content to 0.001% of users is not a good expenditure for a company.
Apple doesn't compete at the high end either. So where are they competing? In the middle?
Not sure that 'average consumers' buy Apple products in all fairness! They subscribe to SKY TV and buy DVDs still to watch on Samsung TVs. That's certainly true in the UK.
With Apple, it's never been about the 'average customer'. I like to believe that the Apple customer knows what they want and demands the very best or appreciates it.
If 4k/HDR is the only significant change from the 4th generation, I'll just pick up another 4th gen or two after the price drops. I fully empathize with those of you who want the feature, but it's not of much use to me.
Too late for what? Nobody ever says that about the phone market, and this particular market isn't really as tough. Apple has been cranking out the A10 Fusion long enough that it's possible that could be included in the Apple TV refresh. Combine that with Metal 2 and...voila...things like the 2017 Nvidia Shield are nothing special.
I have a 4k TV, very nic eone, and out of the 4k capable Fire TV with Kodi, Apple tv, 4k Roku, and a Roku stick, I use the Roku STICK the most.
Roku has a nice clean interface and can side load unofficial channels easily.
Apple should be #1 but it's just not that compelling of a device, and is totally geared towards iTunes purchasing/rental.
The Roku doesn't care where your content comes from, just wants to hep you view it.
I thought the same thing reading this
Due to price point they are operating in a different market from Roku (sticks from $30) or Amazon (stick from $40)
I have Apple TV and Roku and while the Apple TV interface is nicer, Roku does a LOT for $30 and most people wouldn't see the difference (plus the issue of Amazon)- also when I've seen people using Alexa on Fire it's so much better than Siri
(The REAL killer app on the Apple remote now is the 'on switch' for the TV... for a cable cutter to bypass their other remote and keep you from using your Smart TV interface etc. is great... but Apple TV doesn't do enough better than anyone to justify the massive price gap)[/QUOTE]
There's nothing in the ATV4 to justify its comparatively higher price. The average consumer wants to stream content (e.g., Amazon Prime, Netflix, Hulu) and perhaps some basic app functionality such as the weather.
Anecdotally, I consider my wife the "average" user. She strongly prefers the ATV3 to the ATV4 and absolutely hates the Siri remote.
Anecdotally, I consider my wife the "average" user. She strongly prefers the ATV3 to the ATV4 and absolutely hates the Siri remote.
And not only because of price, but target audience too... People that just want Netflix and some sport channel tend to buy less expensive internet TV devices. My father, for example, got a Roku that uses a remote with headphones output, and I had a chance to use it last month. Compared to Apple TV, I didn't like it because for some reason, it didn't have a filter for channel searching, either installed or inside the channel store. And beside a few "Atari-esque" games, it really doesn't offer anything else.
Apple TV is great if you have an Apple ID and already own all types of content, like games, movies, Apple Music and already have an iCloud Photo Library. That's really the target audience Apple is aiming for: other Apple products users. That's why they call it "a hobby." They don't care about random users that just want Netflix for their non-smart HD TVs.
4K is coming to a new Apple TV now that they have more users that switched to 4K screens in the last 2 years.
Personal side note: I have the current-gen Apple TV, and as soon as the 4K version comes out, maybe within November/December, I'll get it along a 4K screen for my bedroom, delegate my current bedroom FHD screen to the living room, and will pass the FHD Apple TV to my 8 year old daughter for her bedroom's 32" FHD screen.