Google Chromecast Leapfrogs Apple TV as the Aging Media Player Loses Ground to Rivals

[MrXiro]

Wait a minute, now it's about price? I thought people didn't care about price where Apple was concerned? People buy iPhone, price doesn't matter. People buy iPad, price doesn't matter. Record sales for Mac's, price doesn't matter. Now $50 is a deal killer?

Did you happen to miss all the "deals" threads in the forums?

$25-$35 is an impulse buy for most people. $100 on the other hand takes some thought. I picked up a Chromecast over the weekend even though I own 2 Atvs. Just cause I'm curious what it has to offer.

This thing isn't an iPhone or an iPad. Those have specific uses. This is just for your TV and unless you've cut the cord you probably have cable/sat and a streaming device is slightly less useful to you. Then for those who HAVE cut the cord, they are mostly likely cheapskates and bargain hunters (I myself am a cord cutter and cheapskate) and were I not fully integrated into the Apple Ecosystem and already using Apple TV since the Roku 1 era I probably would't have picked up an Apple TV now either. Picking up an Apple Tv now is like buying a computer from 2012 at near full price. Why would you bother if there are newer things to buy and for cheaper?

----------

I like AppleTV because I can sign up for Netflix through it and have it charge my iTunes account. Then I buy discounted iTunes cards and save money!

 

[samcraig]

Did you happen to miss all the "deals" threads in the forums?

$25-$35 is an impulse buy for most people. $100 on the other hand takes some thought. I picked up a Chromecast over the weekend even though I own 2 Atvs. Just cause I'm curious what it has to offer.

This thing isn't an iPhone or an iPad. Those have specific uses. This is just for your TV and unless you've cut the cord you probably have cable/sat and a streaming device is slightly less useful to you. Then for those who HAVE cut the cord, they are mostly likely cheapskates and bargain hunters (I myself am a cord cutter and cheapskate) and were I not fully integrated into the Apple Ecosystem and already using Apple TV since the Roku 1 era I probably would't have picked up an Apple TV now either. Picking up an Apple Tv now is like buying a computer from 2012 at near full price. Why would you bother if there are newer things to buy and for cheaper?

My only comment is not all cord cutters are cheapskates or bargain hunters. My family barely watches TV. Paying for cable make no sense. That's not being cheap or looking for a bargain.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Did you happen to miss all the "deals" threads in the forums?

$25-$35 is an impulse buy for most people. $100 on the other hand takes some thought. I picked up a Chromecast over the weekend even though I own 2 Atvs. Just cause I'm curious what it has to offer.

This thing isn't an iPhone or an iPad. Those have specific uses. This is just for your TV and unless you've cut the cord you probably have cable/sat and a streaming device is slightly less useful to you. Then for those who HAVE cut the cord, they are mostly likely cheapskates and bargain hunters (I myself am a cord cutter and cheapskate) and were I not fully integrated into the Apple Ecosystem and already using Apple TV since the Roku 1 era I probably would't have picked up an Apple TV now either. Picking up an Apple Tv now is like buying a computer from 2012 at near full price. Why would you bother if there are newer things to buy and for cheaper?

----------

I like AppleTV because I can sign up for Netflix through it and have it charge my iTunes account. Then I buy discounted iTunes cards and save money!

I've read where many people here are going to buy the Apple watch no matter what, an impulse buy that is a bit more than $25. And countless people buy the Apple product because they are so invested in the Apple Eco system. Even if there is a better choice.

 

[69Mustang]

The Chromecast is far more limited in functionality and especially in that respect. With the Apple TV, I can Airplay the entire screen of my Mac regardless of what's on my screen. Any browser, any app, anything on the screen.

With Chromecast, you're limited to just a tab in just the Chrome browser. They're not even close.

But doesn't that depend on your prespective? For example, with the Chromecast I can cast from my MBA (Mac), iPad (iOS), lap and desktops (Windows), daughters' Chromebook and iPhone (ChromeOS and iOS again), my wife's Fire HD (Amazon), and my GS5 and Nexus 7 (Android).

edit: I also forgot that while I'm casting from the above devices, I can still use them for other things.

So from my perspective, the ATV seems more limited than the Chromecast. It all depends on use case. Our use cases are different so our mileage may vary regarding limitations. It's not black and white.

 

[djdj]

Setting up wifi on the Chromecast is a much nicer experience compared to using the ATV remote's directional keys to input a wifi password. That has to be one of the most frustrating things to do.

Maybe for some, when it works right.

It took me over 6 hours to get my Chromecast to connect to my network. And there isn't anything unusual about it. I tried several different routers on four different Internet connections (Cable, DSL, two Cellular) using several different phones and tablets, and the connection kept failing -- timing out after setting the password, no matter which connection/router combination I used. Had I known then that half of the apps that are supposed to work with it... well... don't, I wouldn't have kept at it. But I did... and finally after the stars aligned, the moon was in the right phase, the sun was behind a cloud, at high tide I finally got it to connect. But the experience was miserable beyond belief.

 

[dec.]

Wait a minute, now it's about price? I thought people didn't care about price where Apple was concerned? People buy iPhone, price doesn't matter. People buy iPad, price doesn't matter. Record sales for Mac's, price doesn't matter. Now $50 is a deal killer?

If one day you'll able to comprehend the principle of different people having different opinions, then you will not feel the urge to post your generic "but everyone says..." crap and save everyone - and mainly yourself - time. /joking .

 

[AppleScruff1]

If one day you'll able to comprehend the principle of different people having different opinions, then you will not feel the urge to post your generic "but everyone says..." crap and save everyone - and mainly yourself - time. /joking .

I guess I just don't get it though I'm glad that you do.

 

[aperry]

The Chromecast is far more limited in functionality and especially in that respect. With the Apple TV, I can Airplay the entire screen of my Mac regardless of what's on my screen. Any browser, any app, anything on the screen.

With Chromecast, you're limited to just a tab in just the Chrome browser. They're not even close.

Really. So what about Chrome's "cast entire screen" option that's been available since 2013? I guess you didn't research this very much before commenting, but thanks for adding to the Chromecast FUD here.

 

[azentropy]

But it's an Apple product. It has to be better so why not pay the higher price? It should be consistent.

I'm always willing to pay a bit more for an Apple product. I have no problem paying 20% more for an iPhone over a comparable Android phone. Or paying 25% more for a MBP over a Windows Laptop with comparable specs and build quality. However the ATV is now 200-500% more than comparable products like the Amazon Fire TV Stick, Chromecast etc.

If you are not heavily invested into the Apple/iTunes ecosystem there really isn't any reason to buy a AppleTV over the Amazon Fire TV Stick (and I own both). I'm been very impressed with Amazon's product which I got for $20.

 

[512ke]

Apple, hurry up and do something in the TV space besides molasses-slow incremental updates.

 

[Moyank24]

I'm assuming that's from Chrome, which I refuse to use?

Well, yes. The capability is there, and much easier. But if you refuse to use Chrome, then it's not really for you.

The Chromecast is far more limited in functionality and especially in that respect. With the Apple TV, I can Airplay the entire screen of my Mac regardless of what's on my screen. Any browser, any app, anything on the screen.

With Chromecast, you're limited to just a tab in just the Chrome browser. They're not even close.

I actually see that as a positive, as I like to use the other tabs while I'm casting. It's why I stopped using Airplay. It takes over the whole Mac.

I guess it depends on what you're using it for, though. I have a 3 TV setup where I use 2 of them for sports. So I'm normally casting feeds of games. I also use it to cast TV shows and movies I've downloaded.

 

[Robstevo]

The apple tv is crap, The Software looks outdated and slow, and the amount of content and apps on it are embarrassing, especially outside of america.

The new google tv looks awesome and hopefully developers get on board, but googles track record with tv sucks and they keep on changing there direction.

I'm sure when apple get there act together and release updates software, hardware and ecosystem/app store, it will be a hit.

But I think people want more freedom, the ability to just plug there hardrive in and boom you can play content.

 

[iPadCary]

to me the iPhone and the iPad are positioned perfectly to replace the appleTV.

How do you get the iPad to display on a TV sans the AppleTV hardware?
Yes, I know there's a HDMI cable that does that, but then how do you
control the iPad when it's lying next to the TV way across the room?
Yes, I know that, too: you control the iPad with the "Remote" app on an iPhone.

But all of that, iPad/HDMI cable/iPhone/"Remote" app, seems rather
kludgy & cumbersome as opposed to having just the one dedicated device.

Sure, the setup would be the same, just replace the iPad with an AppleTV,
and the "Remote" app can be done on an iPhone as well.
But with an AppleTV, the device just sits there on the TV, never to be moved.
Using an iPad as an STB means that you'd be constantly plugging & unplugging
it in & out of the TV whenever you wanted to use it for something else.
That's the "kludgy & cumbersome" part.

 

[Plutonius]

Wait a minute, now it's about price? I thought people didn't care about price where Apple was concerned? People buy iPhone, price doesn't matter. People buy iPad, price doesn't matter. Record sales for Mac's, price doesn't matter. Now $50 is a deal killer?

iPhone / iPad have IOS. When any products are similar, people buy off of price.

 

[newagemac]

Setting up wifi on the Chromecast is a much nicer experience compared to using the ATV remote's directional keys to input a wifi password. That has to be one of the most frustrating things to do.

To set up the Apple TV, all you have to do is put your iPhone close to it. It uses Bluetooth to do all the Wifi, logins, and passwords setup automatically for you. Can't get much easier than the Apple TV when it comes to setup.

 

[meegwell]

I think it's time for Apple to add a second ATV to the lineup. Offer an ATV for $50 that is good for streaming. Drop an A8X in the ATV+ and open it up to the App Store for games, sell it for $125.

If the plan is to simply keep it at $100 and offer no App Store access, then Apple should just kill it and focus on improving some of their other weak areas.

I believe the two product route is a good one. Apple has an affluent customer base and they should take advantage of that while also scooping up as many sub $50 shoppers in this arena. They all may become service and media customers.

Regular Apple TV: stick version sub $50 of current model with updated OS, customizable menus, App Store for third party development. One stop sign-in for you cable provider apps.

Apple TV Plus or some other catchy name:

Geared toward the higher-end media crowd. All the features of the regular, but a Box version with external storage input (dedicated home for all your media no need to have a Mac running iTunes if you so choose), latest chip with 4k capabilities, Dolby Tru-HD 7.1 and DTS Master Audio 7.1 capability, maybe Dolby Atmos...home automation hub. You move your iTunes library to this centralized media and home automation hub. High end capability to run your home theater or hi if a/v system. This system stands apart from the pack and is the undisputed high quality high end leader in this space. Gaming/game controller.

On both versions, keep the IR remote so your typical tried and true universal remotes remain the only remote needed for your A/V system.

 

[DaveN]

I've got 3000 films (only the ones I like) and 10000+ episodes of hundreds of shows available on my own NAS setup, don't really need whatever ANYONE is offering. I've only watched probably 5-6% of those episodes (if that), so I've got a lot of TV series choice for my evenings.

Anything Apple would put out would have to clear the movie studios for copyright protection. Therein lies a big problem. The studios know that Apple buyers have disposable income and my guess is that the studios won't give Apple a reasonable license. The studios want to dispose of as much of that income they can which is perfectly within their rights but they may be cutting off their noses to spite their faces. It is taking longer but the studios will have the same problem the music industry had. Eventually enough pirated content will be in the wild that users will simply swap content.

I'm guessing that not all of your content is public domain content. When I started using the Internet photo sharing consisted of needing to download images in parts and combining the parts before they could be viewed. Then whole images became available as did short audio clips. Then songs and Napster came along and the music industry contracted. Why buy the music when you could just copy the files from your buddies. Connection speeds are much faster now and free video sharing is starting to gain traction. The movie studios are missing an opportunity to provide reasonably priced content. Their short term gain will likely turn into long term piracy and income loss.

 

[samcraig]

It would be interesting to see stats how many Chromecasts are actively in use. I am pretty certain most chromecasts are collecting dust.

Why are you so certain? I think it would be equally interesting to know how many AppleTVs are collecting dust. I know mine are only plugged in when I am using up some of my iTunes credit to watch a movie. That's the only purpose my two ATVs serve now. Otherwise I'm using my chromecast or Roku.

 

[AppleScruff1]

iPhone / iPad have IOS. When any products are similar, people buy off of price.

Android, iOS and Windows phone all do pretty much the same things. Ditto for tablets. Why is Apple TV the only Apple product where price matters?

 

[MacAddict1978]

The streaming pucks/sticks are going to die out soon. Even basic tv sets are now starting to come equipped with smart features and apps.

Since upgrading my TV last spring, my Apple TV collects dust in my bedroom and gets an occasional workout if I watch tv before bed since I skipped paying for a third box for a tv seldom used. For that, it's great, regardless of age. (I have the 720P puck, no compelling reason to upgrade.)

Sony and Amazon beat them to the game with game options ala Ouya style (which is also quietly killing the Ouya which is not practically being given away at $59).

Apple's idea of ala carte offerings for channels is also beating them to the punch. With HBO, the leader in such affairs, going rogue against cable and prepping a launch of a stand alone subscription for HBO Go, others will follow.
Which is a whole new mess. At what point do all the $5-$7 per app subscriptions exhaust the value over cable? You need broadband ($30), and then Netflix $8, Hulu, $8, HBO ($15 since that is the current non promotional rate?) which then has the consumer at a ben franklin below a cable bundle. Sports streaming apps.... even more expensive.

Apple could do a great job but they really need to up the ante on content (No one can touch Roku there even if of the hundreds of offerings 90% suck, they're still options) but they need to get a move on it. People that buy a device now won't be in the market when they finally do launch new hardware.

Just don't call the game controler Pippin.

 

[theLimit]

I don't have cable, so I use my AppleTV 2 daily. I mostly watch Netflix and YouTube. I occasionally rent DVDs and just rip them into iTunes while I make dinner, which is better for me than booting up the PlayStation 3 since the fan is like a hair dryer. I very rarely buy a BluRay, and they normally have an iTunes download. I don't buy or rent from iTunes since the local video store or Redbox is cheaper.

I can't see myself buying a Chromecast or FireTV. I was surprised to learn that the Chromecast does nothing on its own, making it useless to me. The FireTV is just another device that does the same things my AppleTV is already doing for me.

 

[jmpmntwnty3]

Don't get me wrong, I love my Apple products, but Chromecast is awesome!

The only thing it lacks is a remote, but that's not a huge deal breaker for me considering I spent a lot of time on my macbook, and when I'm not on it, I can stream to my TV from my iPhone.

Also, PLEX!

 

[harley3k]

I've had appleTV since version 1 and lately I've been visualizing Steve rolling over in his grave, as it just flakes out every time I want to watch something.

Seriously fix it.

 

[Keirasplace]

Anything Apple would put out would have to clear the movie studios for copyright protection. Therein lies a big problem. The studios know that Apple buyers have disposable income and my guess is that the studios won't give Apple a reasonable license. The studios want to dispose of as much of that income they can which is perfectly within their rights but they may be cutting off their noses to spite their faces. It is taking longer but the studios will have the same problem the music industry had. Eventually enough pirated content will be in the wild that users will simply swap content.

I'm guessing that not all of your content is public domain content. When I started using the Internet photo sharing consisted of needing to download images in parts and combining the parts before they could be viewed. Then whole images became available as did short audio clips. Then songs and Napster came along and the music industry contracted. Why buy the music when you could just copy the files from your buddies. Connection speeds are much faster now and free video sharing is starting to gain traction. The movie studios are missing an opportunity to provide reasonably priced content. Their short term gain will likely turn into long term piracy and income loss.

Lets not be coy, not many "own" 10K+ episodes.. (actually closer to 15K) But, I've bought at least 2500-3000 of them on blue ray and DVD over the last 18 years (and ripped them). I also have bought 600 CD's in 25 years. I also actually OWN 800 movies bought over the last 18 years (but I've got many others too...).

I'm a very big media buyer and the studios are losing nothing from my extra-curricular activity ;-); I don't even distribute anything I have to anyone else.

My internal media servers are a thing of beauty, custom built of course. Not many sell 20T (+ 20T backup) of NAS for home use .

 

[kds1]

Except for AirPlay Mirroring and a few other minute offerings the Apple TV is pretty bad at being a media player. Even when hacked it comes terribly short of the Roku.

Many SmartTVs have built in features that blow the thing out of the water.

I mean, Netflix on the ATV just recently got auto play.

I have the ATV in the kids room only because I can control it from my iPad or iPhone . . . but I can do the same thing with a Chromecast.

What do you mean, auto play? And smart TV's suck. Their interfaces suck. Big time. They also don't offer what the ATV does.

----------

(No one can touch Roku there even if of the hundreds of offerings 90% suck, they're still options)

If 90% of them suck, then it's not an advantage. Most of what's on Roku is GAR-BAGE.