Could be, and probably is, nothing but both models of Apple TV 4K on Amazon UK have extended lead times with deliveries not expected until between the end of January and mid-March.
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.
New Apple TV model
- Thread starter gadget123
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For what its worth, I notice the same on apps between devices. I’ve tried the Netflix app for example on my smart tv, Xbox, ps5. They’re all pretty much the same and get updated with new features that make them look prettier or more organized
The Apple TV version of Netflix has looked the same for the past few years. Same with YouTube. The YouTube app on my ps5 runs smoother and looks nicer than it does my Apple TV. Still like my Apple TV but you can’t help but be a bit disappointed by that
I'm in Canada and the 64 and 128 versions are readily available for delivery and in-store pickup.
Argh! Release the new one already! My Samsung tv built in apps are buggy and rubbish, and I've been holding out since October from buying it. I don't know the difference between processor but it's the regret of buying a device and a new one is released just around the corner.
Buy a second hand 2nd or 3rd generation model (2nd gen is likely cheaper and in actually better than the 3rd gen in some regards) to use now and then sell it on when the new model arrives - I suspect you will loose little money.
i have put ATV on a few friend's home systems and they love it. It was exactly what they wanted while others I set up Roku. For me, I'll take the Android based Nvidia Shield TV Pro any day o the week. It really checks far more boxes than ATV for my needs. Incidentally, I don't mine Android on a Samsung phone but not on a streaming device. I spent about 5 minutes and was able to strip down my main menu so it shows exactly what I want.
An Apple TV+ 4K HDMI stick is the obvious way this starts to take over TV's everywhere - under £100 / $100 / €100
have a standard box to do all the stuff the current one does but better with obvious upgrades at £159 / $159 / €159
introduce a Pro box to do it all inc +++ games, massive internal upgrades at £249-£299 / $249-$299 / €249-€299
bring this out SOON, PLEASE APPLE PLEASE
have a standard box to do all the stuff the current one does but better with obvious upgrades at £159 / $159 / €159
introduce a Pro box to do it all inc +++ games, massive internal upgrades at £249-£299 / $249-$299 / €249-€299
bring this out SOON, PLEASE APPLE PLEASE
Apple doesn't care about gaming on the Apple TV and never will. What you posted isn't going to happen.
Seems unlikely. The Apple TV is already a pretty stripped back system. It's essentially an A chip, storage, wireless/network/bluetooth/thread chips, DP to HDMI conversion and a power supply/IC.
I could see Apple replacing the many wireless/networking chips with an Apple-silicon-based chip and perhaps eliminating the power supply and relying on USB-C Power Delivery, which might get the costs down. I'm not sure how the cost of an internal power supply compares to the cost of a 20 W USB-C charger, but i think Apple would need to include some kind of power supply in the box as most TVs don't provide USB ports with the required specs (the 2nd Gen Apple TV PSU provided ~1.1 A @ 12 V) and since the Apple TV needs to be plugged in by the TV, you can't just use your phone cable. The increased cost of a more modern 3 nm A chip is also likely to swallow up a lot of those savings.
I think the only way the price would come down to <£100 is if Apple wither took a hit on margins (unlikely), or shipped a model without a remote (risky, for a CE device).
I could see Apple replacing the many wireless/networking chips with an Apple-silicon-based chip and perhaps eliminating the power supply and relying on USB-C Power Delivery, which might get the costs down. I'm not sure how the cost of an internal power supply compares to the cost of a 20 W USB-C charger, but i think Apple would need to include some kind of power supply in the box as most TVs don't provide USB ports with the required specs (the 2nd Gen Apple TV PSU provided ~1.1 A @ 12 V) and since the Apple TV needs to be plugged in by the TV, you can't just use your phone cable. The increased cost of a more modern 3 nm A chip is also likely to swallow up a lot of those savings.
I think the only way the price would come down to <£100 is if Apple wither took a hit on margins (unlikely), or shipped a model without a remote (risky, for a CE device).
On the one hand, I think it would be un-Apple to force users to have a jumble of wires just to use the Apple TV. This is why I think the power supply will continue to be integrated.
On the other hand, the current iMac with it's external power supply and ethernet exists and creates an unsightly jumble of wires. So...
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I think the path to "cheaper" is Apple's usual path to "cheaper": SUBTRACTION. What can come out and still leave a functional box? IMO...
I've always thought the internal storage is stupid because I know with great confidence that the apps could be stored at Mac/PC and streamed over to use them on demand. This could allow Apple to make just ONE model and that ONE model could have any number of apps remotely installed on the Mac or PC. If you disagree, perhaps build this one with an SD card slot or m.2 slot made easily accessible inside so that local storage of any size can be added by the buyer as a "sold separately" purchase.
Personally, I barely use the AppleTV remotes, opting instead for a more traditional Universal Remote as "one remote to control all." An AppleTV mode for that remote controls my AppleTV just fine. Yes, there's no Siri in the remote but I have iDevices if I want Siri (I generally do not).
I realize that this will easily be countered as an idea but the only path to the desired "cheaper" is likely subtraction. So when you shoot this down in your reply, offer up what else (what else is there?) you would want to subtract unless you are simply rejecting "cheaper" entirely as a concept.
I am a big fan of AppleTV, with one hooked to every TV in my home. However, its pricing likely is a big hinderance against pretty much all competition priced lower-to-much-lower. It's likely the "most profitable" set-top-box streamer but that probably dooms it as always niche.
- Internal storage: store the apps on the home share Mac or PC and stream them over as needed by AppleTV, just like storing our videos/ripped music/photos on a Mac or PC and streaming the media to enjoy it. Given Apple's pricing for storage (about $50 for an additional 64GB), if applied by subtraction here, cut about $50-$100 from the price.
- Remote: remote could be like a desirable dongle for other devices. Buy it separately if you want it. Else, use any remote we already have (AUX mode) or the virtual one for free on our iDevices. Splitting this out to an optional add-on purchase should cut the price of AppleTV. If we apply retail price of the AppleTV remote, that subtraction of retail price would be MINUS $59.
- HDMI cable: leave it out. Most probably have spares already and/or much like "batteries not included," this could be "HDMI cable not included," so buyers know they better have- or order- one too.
I've always thought the internal storage is stupid because I know with great confidence that the apps could be stored at Mac/PC and streamed over to use them on demand. This could allow Apple to make just ONE model and that ONE model could have any number of apps remotely installed on the Mac or PC. If you disagree, perhaps build this one with an SD card slot or m.2 slot made easily accessible inside so that local storage of any size can be added by the buyer as a "sold separately" purchase.
Personally, I barely use the AppleTV remotes, opting instead for a more traditional Universal Remote as "one remote to control all." An AppleTV mode for that remote controls my AppleTV just fine. Yes, there's no Siri in the remote but I have iDevices if I want Siri (I generally do not).
I realize that this will easily be countered as an idea but the only path to the desired "cheaper" is likely subtraction. So when you shoot this down in your reply, offer up what else (what else is there?) you would want to subtract unless you are simply rejecting "cheaper" entirely as a concept.
I am a big fan of AppleTV, with one hooked to every TV in my home. However, its pricing likely is a big hinderance against pretty much all competition priced lower-to-much-lower. It's likely the "most profitable" set-top-box streamer but that probably dooms it as always niche.
Last edited:
I doubt this will ever happen., and it's not even worth it. Right now, almost every tv brand has AppleTV+, and quite a few have Airplay. That is literally the only thing that would be included on a stick. If you want an A series chip, there will never be a cheap stick. That functionality is literally free.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Maybe? If the dominant goal is £99, seek to cut back whatever else can be cut to increase the chances:
With this product, modern Apple is also focused on maximizing recurring revenue (subscriptions) and rentals/sales of media. So this hypothetical would need to facilitate all that as good as the existing puck or better if possible. Maybe make this thing require an AppleTV+ subscription to function for a forever tail of monthly rent? Then, they could perhaps sell it for $49, knowing they will make hundreds or thousands on it over time in forever rent.
Are these kinds of options desirable to us consumers? No. But Apple would probably be very interested in trying to find more profit in this kind of new product.
- Make the USB-C cable sold separately (too),
- A17 or A16 instead of A18
- 32GB or 48GB instead of 64GB or maybe make storage of this device sold separately as third party SD card
With this product, modern Apple is also focused on maximizing recurring revenue (subscriptions) and rentals/sales of media. So this hypothetical would need to facilitate all that as good as the existing puck or better if possible. Maybe make this thing require an AppleTV+ subscription to function for a forever tail of monthly rent? Then, they could perhaps sell it for $49, knowing they will make hundreds or thousands on it over time in forever rent.
Are these kinds of options desirable to us consumers? No. But Apple would probably be very interested in trying to find more profit in this kind of new product.
Last edited:
I don't think they'll take a step back on like the drive and all. It'll be the same drive, if anything. And with the push for AI, we're getting at least a chip that can do that, since they don't update teh TV often. And usb-c cables are pennies.
But it'll be nice to see whatever it is. Been waiting months for the new one. What's a few more? T-T
But it'll be nice to see whatever it is. Been waiting months for the new one. What's a few more? T-T
An HDMI stick…
Would need an A18 for Apple Intelligence
and future proofing
Default RAM is 8GB,
decent Storage 64gb makes most sense.
I think it’s a legal requirement to have USB-C power cable.
Attractiveness would be to have…
Option to have it as a multi room device linked to main box.
Would satisfy lots of families who want a whole home solution rather than numerous boxes.
I’d personally buy 3 HDMI sticks especially if they were all linked in the home to the main Box.
Convert all the terrible TV ‘s into next Gen supercharged TV’s.
Marriage of great hardware and great hardware with amazing software. Eliminating the horrible ad laden interfaces on the current Amazon/roku/android/Tizen/vidaa etc software attempts.
It’s so needed
Whilst the UK may escape an immediate price increase, I think the tariffs that came into force this week likely kill stone dead the chances of a $99 device for the US. Sadly, I expect Apple to milk the situation and put up prices worldwide rather than just the US...
New TV, picked up the latest 128GB ATV.
Family friendly device. One Home Screen.
Happy here.
Family friendly device. One Home Screen.
Happy here.
No it is not. The Apple TV isn't a mobile device that needs charging. There's no way they will move back to an external power supply.
A few years ago, I would have agreed with you.
But Apple moved to an external power supply on the iMac (!!) and the HomePod Mini. Neither of those are mobile devices that need charging.
Yes, but the Apple TV is an extremely low power device. Moving to an external power supply wouldn't do much. The point is they aren't required to put USB-C for power. Even if they moved to an eternal power supply, it would not be USB-C.
The AppleTV and HomePod mini use roughly the same amount of power. In real-world testing, both devices draw less than 10W when in use (which is very very low).
I agree there is no requirement for it to be USB-C. But if they did move to an external power supply, it would almost certainly be USB-C like the HomePod Mini because it's the most cost-effective--AC/DC USB-C adapters are plentiful and cheap.
My point is, it is very possible that Apple will do it. Maybe not likely, but possible. I don't like it, I much prefer the elegance of an integrated power supply. But over the past few years Apple has shown it is willing to use external power supplies for aesthetics of the primary device.
This will literally never happen. The cost for an a18 and equipment is probably around $100. There’s no way they would sell that for less than $200. There’s also no point in a stick. Most TVs have Apple TV available and at least Samsung and lg have AirPlay. That’s literally what they would be able do if you wanted a cheap hdmi stick.