Apple's Rumored Amazon Echo Competitor Could Be a Next-Generation Apple TV

[mdelvecchio]

so basically apple is way behind on what has become a hot market niche and is throwing out leaks to reporters so that we know that eventually they will try to catch up even though there will be nothing to show in 2016.

what nonsense. i dont know a single person who has a gimmicky Amazon bluetooth speaker. not a one. and Amazon wont release sales figures -- so i doubt it's a "hot market" at all.

until apple shows me that theres real value in a speaker like this, i dont understand the techie/blog fuss about Echo...its a bluetooth speaker that you can primitive vocal commands to. big deal.

 

[Carl Sagan]

These surveys of just our own little circle of friends are not representative of the world. I know many people here- in America- with 4K TVs and all of them watch what is available- even if they have to shoot some it themselves with their iPhones- and hunger for much more. So my "survey" implies almost everyone has 4K and is watching lots of 4K and your implies almost no one has 4K and there's nothing to watch. Which is right?

Answer: neither. Right is somewhere in the middle. Right now, I believe your survey is probably more representative than mine (not to your extreme though) but the shift is on (here in America anyway). Our retailers increasingly don't display many 1080p sets- heavy on the 4K presentations... and sales. American retailers don't do that if it hurts their sales. If- as your survey implies- zero-to-only-one person shopping the store in a given day purchased a 4K set and all the rest wanted to buy 1080p sets, they'd be presenting more 1080p sets. They want the $$$$ much more than they want to prop up some "marketing gimmick."

So, Apple can drag in about last if they like but when we buy a 4K TV, we want to buy 4K video feeders to hook to that. As much as we like Apple, that's NOT Apple right now. Of course it could be- it's not like Apple couldn't have made the "4" roll out with 4K (in the very same presentation they touted other Apple hardware with 4K); they just chose to sell one more iteration of 1080p, knowing that the faithful+ would buy anyway.

Meanwhile, companies one can barely view as Apple competitors even 5 years ago stepped right in and started gobbling up such business. A week or two ago there was a thread suggesting Apple was in 4th place in this niche. Perhaps one reason why is dragging along behind instead of pushing ahead. In 2007, Apple was almost alone in this niche, I don't recall if Roku even existed, Amazon was still mostly a modern-day Sears Catalog business and Google was still mostly about Search. In 2016, Apple is 4th in this niche. Why? Not just the lack of 4K but it's probably also in the list that answers that question.

Lastly, despite my posts, I own the "4." And I've owned every iteration before it... multiple models for multiple TVs. It think Apple makes the best overall box. I simply wish they would lead instead of follow on topics like this... moves that would have zero effect on those happy with the "status quo" or even the "720p is good enough" crowd... so everybody could get what they want... from... Apple.

I read the data on market sales too. America isn't planet earth and it's not even the most important market for Apple anymore. Apple can waste resources on 4K to please the few people in the US when the majority of the world hasn't the same access.

 

[Carl Sagan]

what nonsense. i dont know a single person who has a gimmicky Amazon bluetooth speaker. not a one. and Amazon wont release sales figures -- so i doubt it's a "hot market" at all.

until apple shows me that theres real value in a speaker like this, i dont understand the techie/blog fuss about Echo...its a bluetooth speaker that you can primitive vocal commands to. big deal.

People keep raving about Echo and how superior to Siri it is. But let's actually gain some perspective: Siri is available in multiple languages and many many countries. Amazon Echo is available in one country and one language only.

Take a look at actually where Amazon operates globally and you'll be shocked. Apple has far bigger global market reach and operates at scale not some localized niche market.

 

[Michael Goff]

And you're spinning too much.. or maybe just towing the company line. As Apple says, "Think different."

[doublepost=1464367889][/doublepost]

Of course Apple can add such an option. But when will they? How long has FaceTime been out? There's been TVs available that entire time. What's holding up that option? I read your wish like you wanted that ability NOW... or maybe yesterday. Will Apple add that option NOW? tomorrow? A year from now?

Sure they don't have to make FaceTime an open standard but then all of the TVs sold that already have such a camera won't work with FaceTime as you desired. They do generally work with Skype. What's the difference?

Otherwise I agree. But the difference is that some want such features now... not the potential for Apple to roll out such features someday... if they feel like it. Do you want to video visit with your family now... or just the potential to do that someday if only Apple gets around to delivering that option?

Best part of thinking different is when MR uses it to say Apple should do things like everyone else.

 

[jeremiah256]

People keep raving about Echo and how superior to Siri it is. But let's actually gain some perspective: Siri is available in multiple languages and many many countries. Amazon Echo is available in one country and one language only.

Take a look at actually where Amazon operates globally and you'll be shocked. Apple has far bigger global market reach and operates at scale not some localized niche market.

To be fair, Apple is reacting to Google, not Amazon. And all the big five (Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft) seem to see some kind of end game, even if we don't. And though Amazon might not be everywhere geographically, in terms of consumers with wealth, I'll bet they are well represented.

 

[Uofmtiger]

Seems simple enough...
Turn on ATV4.
Scroll to My Music.
Me: "Play Johnny Cash."
Siri finds a selections of movies with Johnny Cash in them.
Me: "Play Solitary Man."
Siri takes me to the movie Solitary Man with Michael Douglas.

Good luck with more Siri home integration.

I am pretty sure search works across the entire Appletv platform so that you can go to a movie from music and go to music from movies. This is so you don't have to open apps to find stuff. If you said "play music by Johnny Cash", you would probably be more successful. I have tried it and it plays JC music with that more specific command.

There is currently a learning curve with communicating with any of these voice activated assistants. I have an echo and you have to be specific about how you ask it to do things, as well. The upside is that as they grow devices in the platform, the communication will get better because it will get more priority at Apple, Amazon, etc.

I expect that Siri will get ongoing improvements, but there will always need to be some specification because of it doing more than one thing. In other words, some people will actually want to see the Johnny Cash movies.
[doublepost=1464394445][/doublepost]

To be fair, Apple is reacting to Google, not Amazon. And all the big five (Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft) seem to see some kind of end game, even if we don't. And though Amazon might not be everywhere geographically, in terms of consumers with wealth, I'll bet they are well represented.

I think Apple would be in this market regardless of what Google is doing. They can't possibly have a product being introduced in a month as a reaction to Google's well timed conference.

Apple has expanded Siri from the iPhone to the iPad to the watch and to the Appletv. This, and adding it to the Mac, are simply the next logical steps. There were articles that Apple was working on this before even the Echo was introduced.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I read the data on market sales too. America isn't planet earth and it's not even the most important market for Apple anymore. Apple can waste resources on 4K to please the few people in the US when the majority of the world hasn't the same access.

Spin what you wish. Did Apple waste resources on 4K by making about every other product they sell create, edit, render and store 4K? Basically, it's just this ONE Apple product that lacks 4K. Everything else in the Apple chain supports it in some way.

And no, America is not planet earth. But per your "survey" of british friends implying nobody has or wants 4K but one friend, my "survey" of my American friends paints an almost opposite picture. Apple can choose to ignore that market with this one product or not... but it seems unlikely they will for much longer (given everything else already works with it and we need an Apple way to show 4K shot on iPhones on 4K TVs). Will you be back to rip Apple for "wasting resources on 4K" when they roll out a 4KTV? Rhetorical. I know you won't.

Only fellow consumers desiring it are wrong for desiring it before Apple offers it. Once Apple rolls it out though, this anti-4K sentiment just evaporates... exactly as the "720p is good enough" sentiment did as soon as Apple finally went 1080p with the "3".

 

[jeremiah256]

I think Apple would be in this market regardless of what Google is doing. They can't possibly have a product being introduced in a month as a reaction to Google's well timed conference.

Apple has expanded Siri from the iPhone to the iPad to the watch and to the Appletv. This, and adding it to the Mac, are simply the next logical steps. There were articles that Apple was working on this before even the Echo was introduced.

I didn't mean to suggest that Apple just decided to go into this area. All of them have been working on this for years. But, Apple immediately let everyone know that they were also playing in this field during Google I/O for a reason: If anyone can lock up this market, Google can. Home assistants are going to be an extension of your mobile assistant. Facebook and Amazon don't have mobile hardware and Microsoft has been floundering for year. Google is their main competitor and frankly, has an advantage.

 

[rp2011]

You buy an expensive 4K tv today. Then what? Wait until there is something anything to see on it?

And in two to three years when there is a modicum of content your three year old tv is outdated and cheaper and better ones are hitting store.

If you shoot a lot of 4K content and want to enjoy it with your friends, or if you're a film maker and have the money to blow , then cool.
Manufacturers know that they won't sell too many, so they price them as they do. They know only X amount of folks will go for them right now so the want to maximize revenues from a very small market. It's all good. The picture quality is amazing and it will the norm soon, but for the general consumer, it's going to take content. It's going to take price drops.
Then there is the whole bandwidth issue at a time when Internet providers want to start charging by data packages.

 

[jeremiah256]

You buy an expensive 4K tv today. Then what? Wait until there is something anything to see on it?

And in two to three years when there is a modicum of content your three year old tv is outdated and cheaper and better ones are hitting store.

If you shoot a lot of 4K content and want to enjoy it with your friends, or if you're a film maker and have the money to blow , then cool.
Manufacturers know that they won't sell too many, so they price them as they do. They know only X amount of folks will go for them right now so the want to maximize revenues from a very small market. It's all good. The picture quality is amazing and it will the norm soon, but for the general consumer, it's going to take content. It's going to take price drops.
Then there is the whole bandwidth issue at a time when Internet providers want to start charging by data packages.

My 1080P 42" TV is eight years old, was $1,800 when bought, and if we were to update, we could easily get a larger smart 4K TV for half the price.

 

[rp2011]

My 1080P 42" TV is eight years old, was $1,800 when bought, and if we were to update, we could easily get a larger smart 4K TV for half the price.

I haven't seen 4k's for that cheap yet, but that's cool if you can.

*just checked Amazon and youre right, you can get some 2015 models for about $500-1200
But that's still pretty small and you're still stuck with the content and bandwidth issues.

 

[Uofmtiger]

I didn't mean to suggest that Apple just decided to go into this area. All of them have been working on this for years. But, Apple immediately let everyone know that they were also playing in this field during Google I/O for a reason: If anyone can lock up this market, Google can. Home assistants are going to be an extension of your mobile assistant. Facebook and Amazon don't have mobile hardware and Microsoft has been floundering for year. Google is their main competitor and frankly, has an advantage.

It will depend on whether people want to completely give up their privacy or not and how much interaction they really want/need in this area. It is one thing to use it for lights, music, alarms, placing orders, etc.. than having someone look over your shoulder and anticipate your every move. The latter will be considered creepy for a lot of people, but no doubt, I agree that it also has advantages in certain areas.

This privacy vs "lack of privacy for more features" will continue to be the thing that separates the two companies unless one of them makes a dramatic change. I am not saying one is better than the other, but Google simply has to do more to make that trade off worthwhile for a large part of the market. There is a cost vs benefit calculation that most people will end up doing.

Edit: I should also mention that it will depend on which ecosystem people are already invested in. Most people don't jump back and forth. For me, how the thing integrates into Apple Music and AirPlay will far outweigh having it make reservations for me. One is something I would use daily ( if done properly), the other would be a rare convenience.

 

[sir1963nz]

3D adds to the enjoyment.
The producers of Gravity did an amazing job. There were only a few scenes where they over emphasized the effect.
3D has its place. Finding the right glasses is tough.

At the movie theatre yes 3D can be good, on a TV....no, the screen typically takes up such a small portion of the total visual field its pointless.
[doublepost=1464406055][/doublepost]

You will probably speak into the remote control.
[doublepost=1464351133][/doublepost]

Exactly. Apple TV = Homekit + Siri + remote access + games + apps + iOS and Internet streaming

No. The Apple TV is an accessory.
Much better would be a Mac mini + External RAID array.
You have ONE really smart device that can backs up all of your Music, Movies, Photos,Books,etc etc for the whole family and can stream any of it to any of your devices. It can act as a print server, central hub for HomeKit , be the wireless hub for the home, offer Time Machine backups, etc etc etc. All securely encrypted locally.

The Apple TVs are simply then a gateway to the smart device, local media, and streamed media.

 

[Bonte]

My Echo works across the room. And if you're in a different room, you likely will be able to use Siri on your phone. "Hey Siri, turn on the lights in the living room" sends a message to your Apple TV, which controls the lights. That could - eventually - do things with smart appliances like telling Siri to pre-heat the oven when you're on your way home to work.

That would make it just a smart hub, the Echo is a smart hub + speakers and a standalone. The whole point is to use it without your phone or computer, it's like talking to your house.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

You buy an expensive 4K tv today. Then what? Wait until there is something anything to see on it?

And in two to three years when there is a modicum of content your three year old tv is outdated and cheaper and better ones are hitting store.

You buy an expensive iPhone 7 soon. Then what? Wait until there is some things updated in the app store to take full advantage of whatever new it brings?

And in two to three years when there is a modicum of apps updated to take advantage, your three-year old iPhone is outdated and (not) cheaper but better ones are hitting stores.

See how that works? Try it with new Macs. Try it with new iPads. Try it with the Watch. Why is only this ONE Apple product viewed differently?

And for the 1,000th time, a new 4K TV doesn't force anyone to buy a new TV if they are happy with whatever they have now. Better hardware can easily feed lessor software to 1080p or 720p televisions already in our homes. Yes, to see the 4K that would be available at 4K would require a new screen capable of 4K but guess what: to use new tech advances in new iPhones/Macs/iPads/Watch requires one to buy new iPhones/Macs/iPads/Watch. That's how it works. Don't want to use the latest new features in new iPhones/Macs/iPads/Watch? Stick with the device(s) you have now and you'll keep using the "status quo" as you do even though there are newer models available. This is EXACTLY the same.

Once again for the 1,000th time: those who feel happy with the "status quo" would not be affected in the least by Apple rolling out hardware capable of a little more... just like those happy with iPhones/Macs/iPads/Watch as is are not affected by Apple rolling out updates to any of those. What a 4K-capable TV WOULD DO is let another group of buyers- fools, dummies, "no ones", money-wasters, gullible, stupid, "can't see the difference", etc- get what THEY want (too) by buying an Apple product instead of someone else's STB.

More simply: have it your way and EXCLUDE people from buying Apple products. Evolve and you get to have it your way and they can be INCLUDED too.

Which is better? For you, it makes no difference at all. For them, they get what they want. For all of us, more TV owners means more market demand and thus more temptation for even more TV-accessible content, content deals, etc. For Apple, more sales = more profits and more attention allocated to this product. For AAPL shareholders, more profits equals happier owners, and maybe a "buy" (more) order.

Your way? For you, it makes no difference at all. For them, they have to buy someone else's product to get what they want. For all of us, less TV owners means less market demand and thus less temptation for even more TV-accessible content, content deals, etc. For Apple, less sales = less profits and less attention allocated to this product. For AAPL shareholders, less profits equals less happy owners, and maybe a "sell" order.

If you can think beyond yourself- aka "think different"- the better option for you personally... and everyone else- including Apple and AAPL- should be obvious.

 

[bruinsrme]

At the movie theatre yes 3D can be good, on a TV....no, the screen typically takes up such a small portion of the total visual field its pointless.
[doublepost=1464406055][/doublepost]
.

I disagree.

The sound stage at the outside pavilion is incredible. I surely can't duplicate it in my house. That doesn't make listening to music pointless.

 

[dan110]

Honestly, does anyone care about AppleTV anymore?

 

[jeremiah256]

Honestly, does anyone care about AppleTV anymore?

I have movies and TV shows in iTunes. Unfortunately, if you buy Blu-Ray discs, iTunes vice Google Play (which you can access via any browser) is the norm for the included digital copy.

 

[rp2011]

Honestly, does anyone care about AppleTV anymore?

You know, they dragged their feet while everyone passed them by. And again Google bested them with simplicity of Chromecast.

Like all companies, they became myopic with the iPhone and were scared to change it...and now are also getting passed by.
It's an age old always repeated tale of companies that go by the wayside.
Hopefully they can prevent this and can get people with as much passion and as daring as SJ.

 

[maxsix]

Please! Don't forget to support 4K video, for that reason I ended buying the Roku 4.

I'm in a similar position. I do enjoy my Apple TV, but I couldn't resist buying a Roku 4 since I have an
85" Samsung Smart 4K Ultra HD TV.
(UN85JU7100FXZA)

Apple has worked long and hard in this space. Why they've been shunted by other companies they've approached is a bit odd. With the success of the Apple brand one would think the Cupertino Co could produce results instead of years of rumors.

 

[Precision Gem]

Siri did this to me.

Me: Hey Siri, play the sound track for Terminator 2.
Siri: Can't find the soundtrack for Terminator Two

Worked for me

 

[jrlcopy]

There is either people talking inside tubes or people making exesive jokes about Siri. And if you hear me speaking English, my accent can't get any broader!!

Wow, wonder why the Apple TV one doesn't find it.

 

[BvizioN]

Wow, wonder why the Apple TV one doesn't find it.

It does for me, on the first try each time. Wonder if your issue is related to background noise maybe?

 

[samcraig]

what nonsense. i dont know a single person who has a gimmicky Amazon bluetooth speaker. not a one. and Amazon wont release sales figures -- so i doubt it's a "hot market" at all.

until apple shows me that theres real value in a speaker like this, i dont understand the techie/blog fuss about Echo...its a bluetooth speaker that you can primitive vocal commands to. big deal.

Yeah - siri too if you want to speak about voice commands. What's the big fuss about Siri? Echo can do everything Siri can do and it also has a speaker so everyone can hear the music I play. Can't do that on my iPhone or iPad alone

Look - the Echo isn't for everyone. But I've had one since they were available. What it can do has grown exponentially since then - and really still has quite a ways to go. Google Home will have the power of Google's search/assistant - something that the Echo could really benefit from because of the limitations it has. But a smart speaker. Not bluetooth - it's wifi. And operates as a device without requiring another device to control it. It has a lot of uses - but personally just to stream my music I've uploaded to Amazon's cloud, tune radio, pandora, weather, news briefs.... it's well worth the less than $200. I happen to only pay $99... but I would still pay 150 which you can often get it for. And my 4 year old loves being able to ask it questions and have it respond.

 

[Carl Sagan]

To be fair, Apple is reacting to Google, not Amazon. And all the big five (Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft) seem to see some kind of end game, even if we don't. And though Amazon might not be everywhere geographically, in terms of consumers with wealth, I'll bet they are well represented.

Yeah fair point although I don't rate Amazon in terms of reach they'll clearly have a highly concentrated high net worth audience to sell to.