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.
Fourth-Generation 1080p Apple TV Gets a New 'Apple TV HD' Name
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I tend to buy towards the top end to extend the life of whatever I buy. I remember the Roku was a LOT cheaper than the ATV, but at the time Apple didn't have Amazon and there were a couple of shows that friends said that I had to watch. Yeah, the Roku was cheaper. I can't say that there was anything wrong with the picture either. But the sound was about 1 word off from where the video was.
So if my non-existent cat ever does something to my ATV then no, $30 would not be a factor in my decision of what to buy. Other companies streaming products would be a much larger factor, and as I stated before, I really don't watch that many shows or movies anymore. My cord cutting might be total, I'm not sure I'd miss it.
fine by me, it should be baked into $9.99
Wishful thinking. $9.99 would be just for “renting” the set top box.
Mark my words, with the introduction of Apple Arcade, Apple will reposition ATV as a gaming box.
[doublepost=1553565507][/doublepost]
Gaming / Apple Arcade. That will be the incentive
You might be one of the very few that would be interested in this over an actual console.
I'm often wrong but I think your view is short-sighted on this one.
"Apple has no problem moving AppleTVs"? How many have they sold? Is AppleTV still a hobby? What's their market share or share of industry connected TV box revenue against everyone else. Everyone I know that isn't an Apple nerd like me has a FireTV, ChromeCast or Roku. Some have a Shield or GoogleTV box. Apple's competition starts at Free to $49.
"new services will spur additional sales" I also disagree. When AppleTV's services are coming to Roku, FireTV and every major television brand, why would someone not just hook up the FireTV they got for Christmas or their LG/Samsung/Vizio TV to Apple's services? What does a $200 AppleTV do for the user except host an antiquated and failed AppleTV Gaming ecosystem along with apps we already have on our iOS devices?
If AppleTV+ was exclusive to AppleTV and Apple truly believed their content was worth living within the walled garden OR they offered AppleTV+ to AppleTV owners who upgrade their box every 2 years, then I'd have no issue with the current pricing. Since Apple is giving up one of only two things that made the AppleTV Exclusive (original content and the other is games), they are now reserved to be just like every other box. My original argument was that if services make investors happy and Apple wants to grow services, they should cannibalize a device that lives in the 'other' category in order to grow a revenue category that everyone is expecting growth alongside a promise to meet a specific benchmark by a certain year (you'll know the figures where I fall short without googling it). I don't believe AppleTV is sold at a loss. Some disagree and say it's break-even or loss but it's going to be the best Experience for AppleTV+ so they should do what they can to get users into that fold and get them locked in to Apple's service up front instead of something like a FireTV where a user might be more keen to drop AppleTV+ in favor of Hulu every 3rd month.
---
I own almost everything Apple makes and have contributed a few points to your stock over the years as a fanboy, an Apple employee and I contribute $40 a month of services revenue on top of the $5-8K USD I spend on Apple hardware every year and I love my AppleTV but we're talking about people who walk into a Best Buy and see a FireTV for $49 and an AppleTV for $149. Why would they choose an AppleTV when their the device $100 cheaper and 4K does the job?
I think shareholders would prefer a person pay Apple $120-$150 a year in high-margin services revenue than spend $149 up front and be too broke to purchase said services when they get home. Know you and I both love Apple..well at least I do and I wouldn't run any other hardware. I would have happily given them 4 grand today for a television set if they made one but I'm not representative of the market and the market is full of free - $49 sticks that play 4K video for which Apple will have a spot on as just another video service among a lot of competing companies. You open a FireTV and see 10 places to watch TV and Apple will be one of them. On AppleTV, it's AppleTV+ first and then everything else. Apple should seize the opportunity of being 1st party and compete closer to the other streaming boxes.
Last edited:
I was gonna make a post about how I felt on the matter, but you took the words out of my mouth. Dead on with everything you said.
I recently sold my Apple TV because my new Samsung smart tv does everything my Apple TV does. And with the spring update, it’s gonna do even more by adding iTunes and airplay. So at that point, I have no idea how in the hell anyone could sell me on an Apple TV at this point for $200 when it’s an extra box that goes to my tv, another remote to handle and it does everything my TV already does.
Apple TV is already niche. But in a few years, people will REALLY struggle to justify the purchase of one
The “All contents are available around the world” stipulation is something not within Apple’s or any other streaming services control. Case in point, Disney is in the process of pulling all of their content from Netflix/Amazon and there isn’t any way for non Disney streaming services to get around it. Access CBS is doing similar things with CBS shows. I expect most large content providers will start their own subscription service and pull those programs from competing services as contracts expire.
I was considering buying the 4K version yesterday, then noticed they are almost 2 years old and still full price. I wanted a 4K device for my new TV and figured I could get HomeKit Hub support at the same time with ATV. I guess I'll just move my 4K Roku to this room and stick with my iPad for homekit.
I'm sure the ATV is a good device, but they are NOT worth 3x the price of the competition.
I'm sure the ATV is a good device, but they are NOT worth 3x the price of the competition.
It would have been a good opportunity to drop the price to $99. Then the 4K versions could have been $139 and $179.
Then the people sitting on the fence or just curious could have gotten into the game too.
Then the people sitting on the fence or just curious could have gotten into the game too.
Nah, it should be free with 3 months of paid subscription like Direct Tv streaming service
So, that’s a two+ year old, obsolete, picture on the Apple Store page of a product that’s just been rebranded? Interesting.
All of our ATV4's are using more than 32gb of memory. No 4K TV's, so we will continue to source second hand 64gb ATV4's from eBay.
That is actually the only reason that I own one, that I use on my bedroom TV. My other 4 tvs have Amazon Fire tv boxes that I control with my echo speakers. I don't trust Siri to control much, except for my bedroom lights, and being honest, I could do that with Alexa, too. I really want a house controlled by Apple home, and I love Apple, but they really need to make Siri better. Until then, I guess I will continue with the competition.
Youtube is artificially and forcefully preventing the apple tv and macs from displaying 4k content. Also youtube is artificially and forcefully preventing background play on ios.
Every other app does it fine. This is google for you
The right question is does Youtube still not support 4K on iOS?
[doublepost=1553689284][/doublepost]
90% will work on this model.