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

[doelcm82]

I don't think so.

Apple TV is connected to an HDMI cable - perhaps buried in a cabinet and out of sight and not ideal for listening.

If you want a copy of an Amazon Echo, you need the Apple device to simply be a wireless paperweight that can be placed in such a way that you can speak at it and be heard.

The Apple remote does have a microphone, ( I own one), but to tell you the truth, I use my logitech harmony remote to control the Apple TV. I miss out on the wonderful Siri functionality on the Apple TV, but I haven't been getting into using too many apps - I just use it to rent movies for convenience.

Apple Home Kit will figure highly in any Apple counterpunch against the Amazon Echo - Apple just has to get Home kit to work properly and be impeccable and timely about it. Home Kit has been dragging out without much to show yet - that might soon change

I'd like the option to use an iPad Mini as the microphone and speaker. Or an iPad Pro, if you prefer. Or an iPhone.

I want to mount an iPad Mini on the wall in most rooms of the house (with the option to disconnect it from power and carry it around, or perhaps it's wirelessly charged). Then through the iPad I could ask Siri to show me which lights are on and which doors are locked, and how the thermostat was set. I could turn lights on and off, lock the doors, and set the temperature. I could also make video calls throughout the house using only the AppleTV hub (no internet).

Voice recognition and synthesis should be done locally by the hub, so no worries about Apple's Siri services being down. The internet should only be used to search for data that can't be provided by the hub and local connected systems.

There should be an inexpensive audio-only client that could go in rooms where video is not needed or is inappropriate. And a weatherproof audio client with a camera for use in exterior doors, to see who's ringing the doorbell.

 

[swingerofbirch]

Apple Hi-Fi lives

 

[VulchR]

4K would be nice, but I'm not sure what I would do with it since:

1. I don't own a 4K set yet
2. I don't have a 4K capable Bluray
3. No one seems able to stream uncompressed 4K to me

Of course that will change in the future, but I'm not missing it as of yet.

To me 4K is like dialling up an 11 on a electric guitar from Spinal Tap.

 

[rp2011]

I don't understand what you are saying.
Doesn't Chromecast depend on a third party? (I had a 1st gen)
It sits between your TV and your Computer or phone. am I wrong? Have I not kept up?
Because otherwise; that is a piece of s*** that I have no use for.
I don't 'love' the Apple TV, but I would definitely take a Roku or Fire (or Apple TV) over Chromecast.

Your phone just tells the Chromecast what to steam. Just like a remote. As soon as you choose a program, your phone has nothing to do with streaming it. You can shut off your phone if you want and your program will keep playing.
On a computer you can mirror what's on your laptop, and in such case it is dependent on your computer since all it's doing is mirroring.

 

[thekeyring]

This makes way more sense than a stand alone device that's just for Siri.

After all, most people own at least either an iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple TV and Watch. And if they don't, why on Earth would they *just* want Siri?

 

[applepuree]

Sounds like home kit and siri to me, which already works

 

[sir1963nz]

4K would be nice, but I'm not sure what I would do with it since:

1. I don't own a 4K set yet
2. I don't have a 4K capable Bluray
3. No one seems able to stream uncompressed 4K to me

Of course that will change in the future, but I'm not missing it as of yet.

4K is right up there with 3D and curved displays. Its 100% Hype.

 

[cjbryce]

When the original article came out I noted it didn't make sense for Apple to build a separate echo like device because users already have an echo, it's their apple watch on their wrists or phone in their pocket rather than buying an Apple Echo for each and every room of their house. And that AppleTV's already have a mic (the remote), and speakers (your tv or home theater speakers), which is why another product like the Echo wouldn't make much sense. They could add a speaker/mic to the appletv box itself but that seems little odd since the apple tv would have to be tremendously larger to have good enough speakers which seems like a waste since its already attached to external speakers. They could add a mic to the box but usually apple tvs are wall mounted behind a tv or in a electronic cabinet behind glass where they the mic wouldn't work.

So as noted before Apple already has an "Echo" with it's existing devices.

I think you're mostly correct but here's a "real world" reason that Apple TV's Siri needs a separate way to audibly reply (i.e. its own speaker):- when you're watching your cable box/broadcast TV/satellite Apple TV is not the audio source for your Home Cinema/TV speakers.

Now, I'd love to be able to have a set-up where I just say "Siri, switch to BBC 1 HD" and the whole thing (cable box selects channel, TV switches to cable as the source) was done for me. I'd also love to be able to say "Siri, pause this [whatever "this" is] show me the weather for tomorrow for 15 seconds and then FaceTime my sister" but we're a bit away from that at the moment. I suppose I have some sort of utopian dream where there'd have to be a common industry standard. (Even as I typed that I'm laughing out loud.)

Don't get me wrong, I think always on Siri is great and the functionality, though still limited, is pretty good*. Apart from the fact Siri is called Siri on all my devices and all my partner's devices so saying "Hey Siri" sometimes results in five or more devices responding. They really, really need to fix that.

*I'm guessing I'm a little bit older than the average Macrumors member, I remember the very first computer interface I used was a teletype machine, so a voice/Siri interface whilst far from perfect, is still quite wondrous to me

 

[bruinsrme]

Don't forget about replacing your receiver with one that supports 4K

there are several decent 4K receivers that go on sale for under $500.
Then again I opted for the oppo 4K dual hdmi player and kept my old receiver which works fine.
[doublepost=1464344242][/doublepost]

Apple didn't release a 1080P Apple TV until their entire movie library supported it. Then if you had bought a movie through iTunes at 720 you could watch it in 1080P, I bet/hope they are doing the same thing with 4K.

Why wait for the entire library to be updated. Simply make a player that upscales.
There are several players out there under $120 that stream, play physical disks and upscale.

 

[babaroga73]

There's a microphone in Siri remote, and a speaker on my TV , so, why doesn't my ATV4 have fully featured Siri ? Is beyond me.

 

[bruinsrme]

4K is right up there with 3D and curved displays. Its 100% Hype.

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.

 

[babaroga73]

Bring on an actual Apple Television please, screen and all!

I would be furious if I've paid 600+ dollars for a TV with a capability of ATV4 .... On the other hand, I am satisfied with what ATV4 brings to me for 200$

 

[bruinsrme]

Also the remote is too damn symmetrical. I can't tell which direction its facing in the dark. I will try to change the volume and end up exiting the app.

I got so friggen frustrated I went out and bought 4 of the outrageously over priced wrist loops.
Serenity was restored.

 

[wilsonlaidlaw]

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

Totally agree. The standard TV everyone will buy from this year on, other than small bedroom, kitchen TVs will be 4K. However, since TV manufacturers don't seem to agree on 4K standards, the output needs to be configurable, both frame rate (30 or 60 fps) chroma (4.2.0 or 4.4.4) and 8 or 10 bit word length. If Apple don't include 4K, they will lose business to Roku and Amazon Fire.

 

[Thunderhawks]

Also the remote is too damn symmetrical. I can't tell which direction its facing in the dark. I will try to change the volume and end up exiting the app.

Like some other poster said:

I doubt Apple is using the remote.

How can you not realize this thing is half baked?

Here it is: function follows form.

 

[PBRsg]

Why would I want an Apple TV with a microphone? I sit 12 feet away from my HDTV.
There's nothing synergistic about cramming these AI features into device that plugs into a TV.

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

Makes sense. The Apple TV should be the main hub in the household.

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

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

*YAWN*

Good for them. However, I bought a '4th generation' Apple TV, and I've had more connectivity issues with it than the '3rd generation' ones I own. I ritualisticaly have to restart the 4th gen, and even after that, more than half the time I still can't connect to one of my systems. It's not making me love the Apple TV. It's stopped me of thinking of ever buying another 4th gen. And I'm not trying to connect to 'foreign systems', I'm trying to connect to Macs!

Very frustrating. Obviously they work for many people, but I'm not feeling the love.

 

[AVEGA]

I never understood the appeal of Amazon Echo, seems totally frivolous

 

[samcraig]

I never understood the appeal of Amazon Echo, seems totally frivolous

Aren't a lot of "luxury items" that way?
I have one. I'll tell you what I like. I like being able to play any song through a decent speaker simply by requesting it with my voice. I like being able to get the weather - today's and extended read out loud to me simply by asking. I like being able to stream stations from pandora and other services by simply asking - all without lifting my phone, or unlocking it, or walking over to it. There are obviously more functions as well.

Further - my 4 year old loves being able to do that with her voice. And she doesn't have a phone or tablet of her own. And I don't have to set anything up for her. She can do it on her own.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Adding 4K before would make the device cost more and then everyone is paying for that extra feature even though a very small minority of people have 4k and 4k content to watch.

No it wouldn't automatically make it cost more. That's just commonly slung spin. How many other TV-like devices already with 4K playback hardware cost more than TV?

So how is everybody else able to get 4K playback hardware into their devices for < cost than TV? Are they just superior to Apple? Do they have the cash to make a better deal than Apple for such hardware? Etc. Facts of retail pricing do not support the spin that "it would cost more."

Retire the spin that revolves around supporting only what Apple has for sale now. Consumers want what they want. If they wish that something for sale now from Apple had some common feature available from about all competing products, nothing wrong with that. Trying to spin lies, half truths, implied ideas in hopes of making them not want what they want probably doesn't actually work.

Besides, Apple is not a tiny, struggling company on the verge of bankruptcy such that it needs to rally the troops who will put in free time as marketers & PR agents to say anything to help sell what is for sale right now. Apple should win or lose the dollars of consumers based on delivering what consumers want. Whether those consumers are right or wrong about what they want is actually THEIR business, not ours or "mine." Apple can deliver or not and those consumers can pay up or buy someone else's alternative. Tired old spin gets older and weaker every time it's spun.
[doublepost=1464356571][/doublepost]

Why not have  tv connect to your phone via bluetooth? Problem solved.

Because mobile device requirements only work for single people, living alone. As soon as a mobile device leaves the home with it's owner, the family left behind could not interface with the device unless they too had iPhones. This is also why, "why not just use iPhone as <game controller, remote control, etc> fails as well... except for the singles, living alone where they won't be back at home trying to use such features when they are out with their mobile device.
[doublepost=1464356634][/doublepost]

I am not surprised that heat dissipation is an issue, I have a large stack of apple products that died because they overheated. Sir Idiot Boy doesn't seem to understand that not everyone is comfortable keeping their homes at 68 degrees F.

But... but... but... thinner!

 

[davemchine]

in some ways this makes sense but realistically, I will hate yelling swear words at Siri on my living room because she can't understand a thing I say equally as much as I hate yelling swear words at Siri when I am in my car because she doesn't understand a thing that I say...which is a lot of swearing

Dictation Failed

If I had a nickel for each time I saw this...

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

4K is pointless at the moment, nowhere near enough content for it on streaming services and won't be for a few more years plus 4K tv penetration is only just starting to move in the mass market (high prices kept it luxury for most of the last couple years)...

Why waste money and margin on 4K when most people couldn't watch it and the ones that could wouldn't have much to see anyway...?

iOS10 and iPhone 7 are pointless at the moment, as no one- not one person- has access to any apps dependent on either at all. Apple should wait until up to all the apps in the iOS store are updated to fully support iOS10 before rolling it out. And there should be no new iPhones because every single bit of iOS app software available now runs on iPhones that already exist.

Why waste money and margin on building iPhone hardware or iOS10+ software for the futrue when no people can utilize it now... and the few insiders that might have prototype units couldn't have many apps optimized for 10 to use anyway?

-----------

Apple builds and completely controls hardware. Build it and they will come. Wait until the world is already there and nobody necessarily comes because they've already had their wants & needs met by competitors. Everything else that Apple builds takes a step ahead on hardware (except maybe that last Mac Mini) with expectations the software will catch up. This should be no different. But the above argument is slung oh so often for this ONE product.

 

[mozmac]

I never understood the appeal of Amazon Echo, seems totally frivolous

It does seem frivolous until you walk into a room and interact with one. Then all frivolity goes out the window. (I actually don't have one, as I've been waiting to see if Apple does something in the space.)

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

4K is kind of like Bluray was when it came out. Everybody marketed supporting it but Apple. Apple elected not to support it because licensing fees were high and the hit on hardware performance because of mandated DRM was high. That stuff never did get ironed out. Places like Redbox still largely rent DVDs not Blueray.

Here 4K is mostly just for marketing purposes. Although 4K TVs are common, available content is low. Most 4K content is compressed, and isn't much better than 1080 uncompressed.

More importantly, there are lots of technical hurdles. 4K uses significantly more data. Most people have data caps. Also there is speed issues. Netflix has some 4K compressed content, but my internet provider doesn't provide speeds good enough to receive the 1080 content at full quality much less 4K. Also there are hurdles related to wifi speeds.

Apple recognizes 4K as downloadable content is concerned is not yet there yet.

Man, there is so much wrong with these points:

• the implication that supporting 4K doesn't make sense because it's licensing fees are high doesn't apply. Apple wanted the profits and "walled garden" (and "thinner") of pushing downloads vs. putting blu ray drives in Macs and facing as broad mix of competition with better quality picture and better quality sound, often at cheaper-than-iTunes store pricing because all competitors don't demand 30%-40% profit on everything. Licensing was just "spin" because telling the "more profitable our way" truth is not as publicly palatable.
• DRM is DRM. Apple would use the same DRM it uses on iTunes video content now.
• Every Redbox movie I've rented in the last 2+ years has been Blu Ray. What you imply there might be true because- I'm speculating- more people seeking $1 movies may have more DVD players in their homes, but Blu Ray is commonly available at Redbox. Visit their website and you can see that the more desirable movies will be available in both formats.
• 4K content is compressed. But I'm practically certain that you do not watch 1 single thing that is delivered as 1080p uncompressed. In other words: BOTH 4K and 1080p are compressed. Perhaps you meant 4K is compressed more but we don't know that Apple would compress their cut at 4K content more. AND 4K is commonly packaged in h.265 which allows for smaller file sizes at higher quality. So h.265 compression is generally believed to be better than h.264 compression even if the file sizes ends up about the same.
• All the data cap/speed/wifi spin implies that EVERYONE would have to only download video at 4K. They don't... just as those who still have 720p HDTVs are not forced to only download 1080p content in the iTunes store. 4K would simply be an option... just like 1080p, 720p and SD are options. Anyone with data cap or speed issues could opt to keep doing what they are doing now until those other players deliver a better delivery solution or bigger pipe. Waiting 20 more years may not resolve either of those issues in some areas (and that didn't stop Apple from embracing 1080p when the same arguments were being spun against a 1080p TV).

Apple can't control the world. They can't make your broadband providers install new pipe to support "the future." They can't make wifi standards committees build wifi standards that support "the future." They can't make Studios make everything in the iTunes store have a 4K version (everything in the iTunes store still doesn't have 1080p or 720p versions either). If they wait on everyone else to fall in line with any new "the future" thing and then move on it, they will be LAST to any such party. What they can do is LEAD (or now, catch up) by building what they DO control: the hardware capable of 4K and then let the rest of the players "catch up"... exactly what they do with everything else they sell.

 

[gaximus]

there are several decent 4K receivers that go on sale for under $500.
Then again I opted for the oppo 4K dual hdmi player and kept my old receiver which works fine.
[doublepost=1464344242][/doublepost]

Why wait for the entire library to be updated. Simply make a player that upscales.
There are several players out there under $120 that stream, play physical disks and upscale.

Making a player that will upscale is useless, every 4K TV will upscale any non 4K signal. I know some are better then others, but I doubt the Apple TV will considered a great upscaler