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

[69Mustang]

Who writes this crap!! The main reason its losing ground is MONEY; yes, people are god damn cheap and we know it.

The Chromecast thing is $40 (sometimes, $30), that's 3-4 times cheaper than the Apple TV. Roku lost just as much BTW and its just 1.5-3 times more expensive.

Also, the processor in the Chromecast is abysmal and can't be compared to the one in the Roku (any type) or Apple TV. But, hey they're ALL THE SAME... I guess Toyota should stop selling Lexus because its being beat in sales by an Hyundai Accent

Next thing they'll tell us is that Android has a bigger market share... Oh NO!!! (sic)

Was there a Cyber Monday sale on exclamation points and capped letters? May I recommend caffeine free?

While it's easy to attribute the success of the Chromecast to nothing more than people being cheap, I think it completely ignores the reality that 1. Apple has basically let the ATV stagnate. 2. The Chromecast does what it does very well. 3. It's ecosystem agnostic and beyond simple to use. 4. The cost of entry is not a hard barrier to cross.

They are all the same in the sense that they are media devices. Each has it's strengths and weaknesses. Based on the consumer's use case, one might be better than the other. There is no de facto best one. I have multiple Chromecasts, a Roku, and a Fire TV. The Fire TV will be re-gifted since I have rarely used it. That doesn't mean I think it's subpar. It just repeats functions that I already have covered.

The car analogy is pretty bad. But that's not your fault. All MR car analogies are bad. We don't know how to do them.

 

[jeremiah256]

I have three devices I used for streaming: Chromecast, Apple TV, and PS3. Use of my Chromecast now exceeds my use of the others combined. I'm also starting to buy more and more content from Google Play vice iTunes since my media is then accessible via YouTube from any browser. Apple has more to lose here than just which device users prefer.

 

[samcraig]

I agree. Chromecast requiring a device (tablet/phone) to act as controller just seems like a plug-in adapter.

AppleTV and Roku seems like they are in the same space but IMO they are slightly different. To my limited knowledge Roku's business model is to make money on the hardware. Apple's model is more like Gillette: give the razor away for free, and charge for the blades. AppleTV is basically Apple's hope to sell content or placement in their ecosystem... so if you spend avg $5-10 per month on rentals or any other service, they get rough 30% of $60-120 every year for the product life -- all based on a $99 sale... possibly very profitable in the long term. They also charge for icon placement (eg, ESPN may pay to be in the top row).

FireTV is interesting (used to promote their ecosystem) but to my limited knowledge, highly regional (US, maybe UK). It's not a global player, not is their short term intention to expand global (with global alliances, billing system, etc)..

.

I ask sincerely - if this is the case - why are they on the more expensive side then for the hardware? They aren't giving the hardware way from "free" or even close Most of their competition comes in at a much lower price point.

 

[krravi]

Amazon, Google and others have taken the media player to the next level while Apple sits on it hoping people will be happy just using it for airplay. Its the dumbest device in the market right now.

At the very least Apple could open the Apple TV to the app store....

 

[tgwaste]

And yet none of these players are as good as my WDTV Live HD.

Samba Share
Slingplayer
Netflix

all in one player.

 

[dred67212]

Booo cookie booooooooo!

Just think for the price of buying a u2 album for everyone they could of updated the apple tv and recovered the investment with a aptv app store and even made money. Cookie could of bought Sonos instead of crappy beats. He just needs to go........

 

[MasterRyu2011]

It's all about price.

Not true. If that's the case, then the Apple iPhone would not be doing so well. There are a multitude of Android alternatives that are quite cheaper than the iPhone for both full retail and contract prices.

The chromecast and others just do more than Apple's Apple TV; they're also more flexible and work with both iOS and Android. That's a big con to the Apple TV.

 

[HeyHeyHeyy]

I bought Amazon's Fire TV Stick. It was only $19 for us Prime members for a limited time (can't beat that).

 

[Uofmtiger]

Not true. If that's the case, then the Apple iPhone would not be doing so well. There are a multitude of Android alternatives that are quite cheaper than the iPhone for both full retail and contract prices.

The chromecast and others just do more than Apple's Apple TV; they're also more flexible and work with both iOS and Android. That's a big con to the Apple TV.

Let's look at market share:

As I mentioned already, Apple doesn't seem to be concerned with market share. They sold a billion dollars worth of Apple TVs last year. Personally, I think the market share is all about price.

 

[osofast240sx]

It's all about price.

Tell that to the fire phone! Tell that to the 3 axed Samsung CEO's

 

[Unami]

2. The Chromecast does what it does very well.

no - it just barely works. the processor is too slow to handle smooth hd-playback, color-rendition is really bad and you need a touchscreen-device for even the simplest functions.

the "problem" with the apple-tv is, that it fails as a standalone device. sure, it plays netflix and youtube smooth and in hd (contrary to chromecast), but that's about it, if you haven't got any other apple devices.

 

[samcraig]

As I mentioned already, Apple doesn't seem to be concerned with market share. They sold a billion dollars worth of Apple TVs last year. Personally, I think it is all about price.

They should be concerned - at least a little, no? As people migrate to other devices, that means less people may be using their ecosystem.

Yes - they should be very happy with the profit and # of devices they sold. However, there is no telling how many they could have sold by updating their device and/or offering it at a lower price point.

 

[Oletros]

no - it just barely works. the processor is too slow to handle smooth hd-playback, color-rendition is really bad and you need a touchscreen-device for even the simplest functions.

It seems that you got a faulty one

 

[samcraig]

no - it just barely works. the processor is too slow to handle smooth hd-playback, color-rendition is really bad and you need a touchscreen-device for even the simplest functions.

the "problem" with the apple-tv is, that it fails as a standalone device. sure, it plays netflix and youtube smooth and in hd (contrary to chromecast), but that's about it, if you haven't got any other apple devices.

There might be something wrong with your chromecast. I stream 720 and 1080p just fine on it.

Yes - you need a device to run it. But on the flip side - I am far less likely to misplace my phone or tablet vs a small remote.

 

[MasterRyu2011]

Let's look at market share:

Image

As I mentioned already, Apple doesn't seem to be concerned with market share. They sold a billion dollars worth of Apple TVs last year. Personally, I think it is all about price.

Huh? what are you trying to prove? I'm saying that it's not just about price. Otherwise, the most expensive smartphone (typically the iPhone) wouldn't be doing so well. If it's just about price, you would see people flocking to the cheap Android handsets, which for most use cases, are just as capable as any iPhone.

Price is one factor, but I just think Apple TV being tied down to one OS is a big con for many.

By the way, I prefer using my smartphone or tablet to browse through content than using any IR remote. I find using my Apple TV a nuisance since I have to use the clumsy and slow remote when with Chromecast I can simply grab my smartphone and get to the content much faster. In fact, I don't even need to turn on my TV; I can just start casting via Chromecast and it turns on the TV and the right HDMI port for me. That's crazy convenient.

 

[itsthenewdc]

They might be losing market share, but what is the revenue they make through their services in the AppleTV compared to the other devices? If it's anything like the smartphone market, I don't think Apple is too worried.

 

[Uofmtiger]

They should be concerned - at least a little, no? As people migrate to other devices, that means less people may be using their ecosystem.

Yes - they should be very happy with the profit and # of devices they sold. However, there is no telling how many they could have sold by updating their device and/or offering it at a lower price point.

Isn't Apple the most valuable company in the world? I think they are doing okay with their philosophy.

 

[Unami]

It seems that you got a faulty one

no, really - the colors were oversaturated and playback was not at a constant framerate (seemed to drop frames when there was a lot going on decoder-wise).
that doesn't sound like a faulty machine but like an underpowered processor.

i'm a tv-professional, so i'm a bit picky when it comes to picture quality - i guess most people would not notice, but it's still a sign of bad quality.

i've heard similar reports from other people as well.

 

[osofast240sx]

you would see people flocking to the cheap Android handsets, which for most use cases, are just as capable as any iPhone.

Lower end Android handsets are no were near as capable as flagship android or iOS handsets.

 

[Oletros]

no, really - the colors were oversaturated and playback was not at a constant framerate (seemed to drop frames when there was a lot going on decoder-wise).
that doesn't sound like a faulty machine but like an underpowered processor.

i'm a tv-professional, so i'm a bit picky when it comes to picture quality - i guess most people would not notice, but it's still a sign of bad quality.

When you're the only one having those problems perhaps is because your unit was faulty.

i've heard similar reports from other people as well.

Really?

 

[samcraig]

They might be losing market share, but what is the revenue they make through their services in the AppleTV compared to the other devices? If it's anything like the smartphone market, I don't think Apple is too worried.

Isn't Apple the most valuable company in the world? I think they are doing okay with their philosophy.

Too big to fail, eh?

Missing the point. 1) they could be even more profitable. And/or - over time, they will see this market erode for them. How you fail to see this is beyond me. I am not forecasting DOOM for Apple. But arguing that the status quo is just fine is ridiculous.

----------

When you're the only one having those problems perhaps is because your unit was faulty.



Really?

Funny - I have two - and see no difference in playback between my chromecasts, rokus and Apple TVs.

 

[aperry]

no - it just barely works. the processor is too slow to handle smooth hd-playback, color-rendition is really bad and you need a touchscreen-device for even the simplest functions.

the "problem" with the apple-tv is, that it fails as a standalone device. sure, it plays netflix and youtube smooth and in hd (contrary to chromecast), but that's about it, if you haven't got any other apple devices.

I'm not sure how credible your feedback is. The Chromecast supports Netflix in HD just fine. It works just fine on mine, and it's officially stated by Netflix themselves: https://help.netflix.com/en/node/10380

Maybe you should figure this part out before commenting on the processor being too slow and the color-rendition being really bad.

 

[osofast240sx]

When you're the only one having those problems perhaps is because your unit was faulty.



Really?

The color issues with chromecast are well documented

 

[Oletros]

The color issues with chromecast are well documented

Really?

 

[samcraig]

The color issues with chromecast are well documented

Well documented where?