but then they went into the game console business, and did even better
[doublepost=1464730881][/doublepost]
i'd guess, you're right on it. it's probably mostly the lack of a dedicated & good 1st party controller.
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.
Developer Excitement for Apple TV Easily Exceeds Interest in watchOS
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
but then they went into the game console business, and did even better
[doublepost=1464730881][/doublepost]
i'd guess, you're right on it. it's probably mostly the lack of a dedicated & good 1st party controller.
I am not complaining; I am explaining why the Apple Watch is not selling much. The product is not a problem, but the price is.
Why would you go through the hassle of transcoding videos if you don't have to?
[doublepost=1464731946][/doublepost]
Why? Rolex, Breitling and other are far more expensive and only tell time. Point is that if you want appear exclusive you need a high price, otherwise people will not buy it. Would you buy a brand new Rolex if it cost 100 bugs? Probably not because you would wonder what the hell is wrong with for selling at this price.
None of these change the fact that you made an incorrect statement --- for all practical purposes you CAN charge for an Apple Watch app. It is irrelevant that the app has to be bundled inside an iPhone app. It's no secret that an Apple Watch requires a companion iPhone, so this bundling is unimportant.
What IS true is that Apple does a lousy job of creating a somewhat separate "Apps for Apple Watch" store. There is a (messy and disorganized) list of such apps available if you look hard enough, but basically it's a godawful mess. On the other hand, THE ENTIRE FREAKING APPLE STORE is pretty a godawful mess, so it's not like Apple is treating the watch any differently...
The issue when investing as a developer is not "where do people spend the most time" or even "where are there the most customers"; it is "where do I have a comparative advantage". Selling one of a thousand similar apps on tvOS is a less interesting (and less lucrative) place to be than selling the one high quality login app, or sleep tracking app, on the Apple Watch. If I were still in the commercial software business, I'd be working on Apple Watch apps rather than TV apps simply because it's virgin territory rather than the very crowded space of tvOS. But doing that requires a certain confidence in being able to deal with a new development environment and a new set of problems, from bugs in the API to new ways of debugging, and that sort of thing is not for everyone.
[doublepost=1464735957][/doublepost]
How do you know Apple Watch is "not selling much"? And what counts as "much"?
Apple sells more than a million a month (12 million in 2015). That's more than they sold of iPhone 1. It compares pretty well to 3 million Amazon Echo units sold. It's a hell of a lot more than have sold of either Pebbles or any Android Wear model (and probable, though I am not sure, of all Android Wear combined).
If Apple TV had 4k60 support and support for passthrough Audio including HD audio I would be interested. As far as I'm concerned, it was obsolete before it even hit the market. I don't care for android and would much prefer iOS but for now I'll stick with my nvidia shield which does what I want.
Agree. Great that Netflix, Plex and BBC iPlayer made it early. But we desperately need Spotify and Amazon Prime. And yes, I know Airplay works, but Native is best.
I also would love confirmation as to whether the hardware is 1080p compatible. I fear not. Games such as Asphalt 3 tend to lag badly in comparison to the 6S. Or is this just me?
I'm just bitter because I went with ATV over Roku to stay within the Apple ecosystem. If I went Roku I'd have Amazon, Twitch, Flixster, Vudu and Spotify already. The downside is the Roku UI isn't as pretty and I'd have had to import it from the US.
Being able to mix apps from international stores and have them on the one screen has been fantastic. Siri has been fantastic. Being able to side load apps was great until Apple practically killed it (I was using it to side load live streaming free-to-air television in Australia). It's not all bad, but it's not where I thought we'd be at this point in time.
Still holding out for the next generation Apple Watch. I want one so bad, but with it having to be tethered to the phone it's not much use to me. I want it for use with Strava while mountain biking.
Roku is not expensive, and you can get it from a place with a generous return policy, like Costco. Give it a shot. Thats what I did. However, the UI is awful and very laggy, even on the supposedly high-power devices. The remote buttons are spongey and don't register the button presses nearly 1/4 of the time. It gets the job done, but it was not user friendly or a pleasure to use at all. Maybe you will have a different experience.
I will gladly take a good responsive and consistent UI, and wait a bit longer for Amazon and the others.
Speaking of handbrake, There really has to be an easier way to migrate DRM itunes video to some other Platform. If media human can get Itunes music right, why cant anyone get video right?
So wrong, with Beamer app you simply drop the SRT file in the window and here you go. With VLC you can load any SRT or audio file you want.
Yes, so wrong, you didn't understand why I use handbrake.
I stream one converted file to AppleTV via home sharing in iTunes and listen to the other in another language on my MBP running it with VLC.
That requires 2 times the same movie running and 2 applications to run independently. Which one I would stream and which one i'd listen to wouldn't matter. Plus I don't only get mkv files. I get avi, wmv etc.
If there was a way to stream the same video with two different languages at the same time with each person watching getting audio in THEIR language you would have a point.
But that does not exist.
I was thinking of trying something other than the ATV4. I replaced my ATV4 with my older ATV3 because almost all the apps my family uses on the ATV4 were available on the ATV3. Plus, the UI on most of the apps that they both have, the ATV3 versions were so much better.
I was really disappointed in the Netflix app and the YouTube app on the ATV4.
I was thinking of trying Amazon Fire TV or Roku. I have a Chromecast, but I hate it.
But, if the ATV4 got the Amazon app, then I will switch back to the ATV4.
I can give you a little bit of feedback on the Amazon TV. There are two issues I've had with Amazon. One, the Prime content manipulation. Christmas movies that are Prime all year become paid options around Christmas. Romantic comedies that are Prime all year become paid options mid-February. Groundhog Day? Same thing... This isn't to say that there isn't enough content to justify the membership. There absolutely is enough for you to enjoy and the value is certainly there.
About the hardware. We've had one Fire Stick and two Fire TV devices. All three experienced technical problems. The Stick simply stopped working all together and would remain on the screen with just the logo - indefinitely. The first Fire TV would drop connection to the remote constantly. We troubleshooted but the issue persisted. Tried new batteries. Tried a new remote. It just didn't work. The second Fire TV upstairs would freeze mid-scene or in the middle of the menu. The only way to get it unstuck was to hard reset. This would happen every few hours from day one. The first replacement Amazon sent wouldn't boot up at all. It showed an error "unknown boot" on the screen. The second replacement now works fine.
So, the quality of Amazon hardware is awful. The quality of the remote (in my opinion) is awful. Apple TV on the other hand is smooth and works very well. That's my assessment. Others may have different experiences, but I am sticking with Hulu, Netflix and Vue for a complete package, plus an iTunes movie collection of all the favorites. Now I'm just missing the Vue app on the Apple TV.
I don't think that at all. Apple has never done this, and it's not their company philosophy to do so.
MacBooks, iPhones, iPads have never had pre-installed trial software from 3rd parties. Windows, Androids constantly have this.
This is one of many reasons for switching to Macs. Apple won't do this in the future. It's not them. To suggest they would do a 180 from what they've always done is strange. It's much the same as worrying that Android will become closed source in the next version, because 'Google will make it sound like a useful feature'.
I agree mostly, but I think Apple Music would be considered trial, even though it isn't third party.
As for saying Apple has never done this, I could be a wrong, but Macs in the early 90s had third party trial, or light versions on software.
I think I remember a few. Hello Kitty, spin doctors, and lemming.
But, I guess you could say that this was a different company back then. Oh yeah, more recently in the early 2000s, I used the trial EarthLink. I think that was the ISP name.
So, it isn't unheard of by Apple.