I have a Roku soundbar thing in my bedroom and - for the money - it’s not bad but I prefer my 1st gen AppleTV 4K in almost every way. It’s faster, doesn’t have any issues with my wifi and doesn’t advertise to me. It can also play games and stream my music oh and run all my smart stuff. The Roku however only cost £99 and is a pretty decent speaker.
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.
Kuo: New Apple TV to Launch in Second Half of 2022, Lower Price Possible
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
No I'm not saying that. Whether AppleTV is "as is" with apps like HBO stored in 32GB or 64GB or if that app is stored in the "cloud" or on your phone or on a home share computer, when you choose to actually run it on the AppleTV, it comes out of storage and gets into active memory... just like running any app on your phone or on a computer. To be able to do that, it doesn't matter where the app is stored- local or cloud or phone or computer- as long as the same app code can get into the same AppleTV active computing "chips" (CPU + RAM, etc) so it can be run.
I'm trying to offer a way for Apple to deliver a lower-priced AppleTV and imagining one that jettisons relatively large storage of 32GB or 64GB that isn't all in active use at any time for enough RAM (which I'm wild guessing might be up to about 8GB MAX). In this hypothetical AppleTV, if it doesn't need 32GB or 64GB, subtract the cost of that "storage" for the cost of the (perhaps extra) RAM to make this concept work. Then "virtualize" the 32GB or 64GB as perhaps unlimited storage in iCloud (for customers like you and your parents) and on the local computer (for customers like me with lots of my own content stored on a hard drive attached to my Mac).
Or more simply...
Imagine your AppleTV in 2 parts: the computer and the storage... like a mini Mac mini with an external 32GB or 64GB hard drive attached to it. If it was built that way, it would still work exactly as it does now.
However, if it was that way, some of us might want to replace 32GB or 64GB with 500GB or 1TB or 2TB... which was something we were doing back in the first generation of AppleTV to create much more local storage on which we stored our own (entire) ripped CD collections, home movies, DVD rips, photo collections, etc.
All these years later, there are other options: iCloud storage as a potential alternative to 32GB or XXTB of storage and airplay. In this concept airplay would still work exactly as it does now. I doubt airplay uses the 32GB or 64GB now at all (or maybe it might buffer just a bit to it. If so, this concept of a bump up in active RAM would cover that). Thus, Airplay would still work as it does now.
So that leaves the storage- the 32GB or 64GB- which holds apps, some of the media being streamed as a buffer, etc. Just as you can store stuff on a hard drive hooked to a computer, you can store stuff in iCloud. The computer doesn't care as long as it can load what it needs to load. Same here.
So you and your parents app collection could be stored in iCloud. It would look exactly the same on your screen. But when you wanted to run one of the apps, instead of loading it from 32GB or 64GB, it would load it from iCloud INTO the computing portion of the AppleTV where the app actually functions. You and your parents would not notice any difference because it would all work the same.
However, by kicking the 32GB or 64GB local storage OUT of the box and replacing it with a small RAM buffer, Apples cost of the box would be cut by the value of the local storage minus the new cost of any added RAM to make this work. User experience would be THE SAME but the price of that AppleTV could be less because it has less cost in it.
I'm speculating here to try to answer the question of HOW could Apple lower the price and still get the big fat margin Apple loves. To make that happen, something has to go. There's not much to AppleTV now that can go. Storage seems most logical... especially since it is so easily replaced by iCloud or on the home shared computer in the home.
I hope this helps clarify it. I'm just trying to offer ideas for HOW to get a lower price in an Apple profit-hungry way. I'm confident this would work just fine AND deliver a lower-priced AppleTV AND let Apple take a hefty slice of the price as margin.
Last edited:
Exactly. Apple doesn’t need to sell hardware at a loss. They can let other people do that.
Yes indeed but my point being, no matter how good the hardware may or may not be, now or in the future, it will likely always be hobbled by Apple's software. I'm aware it's tangential to the thrust of the conversation but nevertheless I don't think it's entirely off topic. When the best thing about Apple TV is the software written by anyone except Apple, it's not a good look for the product as a whole. You're entitled to disagree, of course, but hopefully I've explained my position a little clearer ?
I think the new remote is beautiful and worth the money but mine also disconnects at least once a day.
There is are many discussions in the Apple TV subforum about why the Apple TV is failing. My stand is that the device has been designed (and priced) to do everything when the software side doesn't justify this. I think Apple could easily hit the $99 price point by ditching the remote (as several people have suggested), using a cutdown version of the chip (does it really need 6 cores to play back HEVC?), ditching the power supply and going to power via USB (15 W USB-C should be plenty) and ditching the network port.
The only reason for a more powerful model would be for gaming but Apple seems very reluctant to push into this. The Apple TV 4/HD seemed like a bit of build it and they will come hopefulness which didn't pan out and Apple Arcade has't exactly set the world on fire. Remeber the A12X has a GPU on par with the Xbox One S so there is no reason why Apple couldn't release a version with compute power somewhere between a PS4 and PS5. Add in 1 TB storage and charge $349... But Apple would need to throw money at game studios to get some AAA franchises onboard. Perhaps that is happening behinds the scenes, but I doubt it and there have been no rumours in that direction.
The only reason for a more powerful model would be for gaming but Apple seems very reluctant to push into this. The Apple TV 4/HD seemed like a bit of build it and they will come hopefulness which didn't pan out and Apple Arcade has't exactly set the world on fire. Remeber the A12X has a GPU on par with the Xbox One S so there is no reason why Apple couldn't release a version with compute power somewhere between a PS4 and PS5. Add in 1 TB storage and charge $349... But Apple would need to throw money at game studios to get some AAA franchises onboard. Perhaps that is happening behinds the scenes, but I doubt it and there have been no rumours in that direction.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Actually, I just put it right by/behind my wall-mounted TVs. The same power jack for the TV is split to power AppleTV too. HDMI out of wall mounted AppleTV into TV. Wires are all invisible behind the TV.
For one, I did go to the trouble of a new run of ethernet (to split for both the TV and AppleTV) but I could have just as easily used wifi instead (I simply favor ethernet whenever possible and it was easily possible for that one).
The point there is that a shelf for AppleTV (or some kind of TV velcro solution) is not automatically necessary. If someone has the TV mounted on the wall, those little wall mounts for AppleTV can let it join the TV on the wall... and potentially vanish depending on a given setup.
So did I. I hope they make a travel version. I took an Apple TV 4K on a trip and used the hotel functionality and its sublime. I would buy a stick or whatever they made just for that.
So it's the cheaper option, not the better option.
Maybe you see a meaningful distinction for the end user between running HBO Max “from the cloud” on my AppleTV and running HBO Max in a browser, but I’m not sure what it is. Both are using some kind of local process to pull the functionality from a remote site into RAM and executing it there. They’re both much more client/server than a local app with the brain that has local logic relies mostly on remote data.
Maybe with fast enough and ubiquitous enough internet and smart loading, sequentially opening different apps to look for something to watch could be made indistinguishable from local apps, but there must a reason these companies have apps for iOS that are more than shells and don’t do everything “from the cloud.”
+1.
Output for high resolution Apple Music directly to the dac/amp. Audiophile solution.
I have also a fire stick max which outputs LDAC from Bluetooth which is great for listening with headphones at night. I bought it for 37£ which is an excellent price.
Excellent picture quality too the best is coming from the Apple + app.
Last edited:
I don’t think Apple sees themselves as failing. All their streaming device competitors sell their hardware at a loss and make their profits in ads. Apple has, at least historically, not been in favor of that model. The game console model similarly sells hardware at a loss - and Apple neither has the internal team to make 1st party games that are profitable (and MSFT has already bought up developers at an insanely high price) nor do 3rd party developers have the incentive to make their AAA games for tvOS. The user base isn’t there. Trying to break into the console market is just such a huge gamble for a relatively small reward.
So is it a failure to not accomplish something you didn’t want to do?
Absolutely it does! Same with Amazon and Prime. Best of both worlds.
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
In that idea, I never suggested running anything in a browser. It's still the very same app running the very same way. The lone change in the concept is where it is stored.
For that guy who doesn't use home sharing, apps could be stored in iCloud. AppleTV apps are SMALL. There's no "big download" that is going to take a long time on even modest broadband connections. I seem to recall the app size limit was 200MB for a long time... but I think it has since been increased to up to 4GB because some BIG games need more than 200MB. But using that extreme, 4GB is maybe HALF of the size of any given iTunes Store HD movie we watch. So just as we stream down a HD rental, we could stream down the parts of the game not being played now into the "up to 8GB" RAM buffer that I made up as a potential good size for the RAM of this hypothetical device. No delay- start playing the big game as we do now and the parts you haven't reached yet are streaming into RAM in the background... just like the parts of a movie we haven't reached yet do the very same thing.
For ME, my AppleTVs are connected via home sharing, so the same basic concept stores the apps on my home sharing Mac... just like that Mac stores movies, TV shows, home movies, photos, music, podcasts now. It was only a few years ago when there was an apps tab in iTunes where all of the apps for iDevices could be viewed/updated/etc in iTunes just like they were songs, movies, TV shows, Podcasts. Same idea here. Store them on the home share computer vs. locally on the box.
That delivers unlimited storage for apps able to load into this hypothetical AppleTV at the speed of the home ethernet or wifi network... likely to be as fast as streaming a local home movie, DVD or BD rip, etc that way now. In other words, super fast. If most apps are still below 200MB- and again, other than big games, that's pretty likely- streaming over 200MB is akin to streaming over a lossless album. VERY FAST.
As to "shells" and "streaming from the cloud" that IS what the major streaming apps are: a smallish shell app that can stream the movie/TV show/music you select within it from the cloud. Having 32GB or 64GB makes no difference except in storing the shell portion. For example, if you have a very near "full" AppleTV now, load up a streaming movie app and try to watch a big 4K movie. It will work just fine because the bulk of the "whole" (that movie) isn't even stored in (a full) AppleTV- it is streaming from the cloud.
All it needs is enough buffer to avoid the pauses... which is why I wild guessed at maybe 8GB RAM instead of 32GB or 64GB of SSD storage to load into whatever RAM AppleTV has now. Maybe that needs to be 12GB or 16GB but I'm wild guessing 8GB would cover all bases.
The bigger point here is not so much THIS one concept. I'm just offering up ONE way that maybe Apple could deliver a much lower-priced AppleTV and get the big fat margin Apple loves. Conceptually, something has to go in the existing AppleTV if we want a meaningfully lower price. If not the 32GB or 64GB, then what else goes to do that? In my head, other than kicking the remote out as separate purchase, this may be the most obvious parts to jettison that would make a lower price possible.
Last edited:
I said like in a browser, but not exactly. It was a comparison, not an equivalence. But, yeah, I guess I misunderstood that you were talking about pulling down the entire app every time.
I have 200MB down right now and if I had to download the HBO Max, Netflix, Disney+, or whatever app every time I switched apps, I’d trash whatever device required that. It would be a non-starter. That would be even worse than pulling down a small UI every time.
At least I get what you’re saying, now, though I can’t imagine anyone wanting to download the entire tvOS app every time it was used. I wouldn’t use a free AppleTV in that scenario.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I take it you don't use home sharing either? Because I actually envision the bulk of this working that way and the cloud option only being for those who don't link their AppleTVs to a Mac or PC. So for example, store the big game on the Mac, it streams over to this hypothetical AppleTV when you want to play it, just like streaming over anything stored in the Music, Podcast, TV apps on the Mac. No internet connection required at all that way for any apps that can completely locally store and run.
Also, 200MB down is much faster than I would expect anyone would need for this to work well. Note that just because 200MB was the MAX size for years doesn't mean that all apps are 200MB. I just did a quick search to find some sizes of popular apps from a few years ago:
- HBO Go (at that time) 31MB
- Netflix 16MB
- Discovery Go 8MB
Assuming popular apps along those lines have not significantly fattened up recently, the storage in the cloud would be like storing a few songs in iCloud. Downloads would be quick even on much slower broadband than what you have.
Bonus (for Apple): perhaps this motivates more who do not use home sharing to use it... which might help sell a few more Macs.
Last edited:
Why can't we use our m1 iPads or m1 MacBooks in Apple TV mode if so we so wished? Also, Apple should put an A15 or M1 in the new Apple TV...
Mine "works", but it's slow, laggy, the apps tend to crash, it takes ages to boot, it gets very hot. I still use it because it's hooked up to an ancient tv that does nothing but play Futurama while I fall asleep, but if my use-case were even a smidge more demanding, I'd replace it with an Apple TV in an instant.