Next-Generation Apple TV Said to Launch in October for $149 or $199

[Andres Cantu]

I guess you are talking about the current Apple TV. There is no reason why it should lose functionality in the next years. And against what all the conspiracy theorists here might believe, Apple is actually quite good in support on legacy devices. I have an Apple TV 1 that still works brilliantly.

edit: I also have two Apple TV 3s and I fully expect them to function in the next two to three years. Considering for what I paid for them, that is very very reasonable.

Yes, I'm referring to the 3rd generation Apple TV. I also have no doubts that it would lose functionality in the next years. What I mean is that Apple will probably support the device for one more year (with the new service and maybe an iOS upgrade) and then discontinue it. That would actually be the best case scenario, as there was a similar situation with the 4th generation iPod touch that lost support with iOS 6 and did not receive an iOS upgrade even though they were still selling it.

 

[HenryDJP]

Who would buy a device released three-and-a-half years ago that will most likely lose support next year? They should just discontinue the device now before those who buy it complain that it's not compatible with the next upgrade.

Some people just want an TV that will play Netflix and various other streaming videos such as from YouTube. Couple that with being able to play their iTunes collection and that's all some people really need, so the basic TV may be more than suitable. Not everybody has a SmartTV.

 

[Beachguy]

I'm not sure why people are complaining when the Apple TV was $99 for a long time...

Perhaps because $99 is less than $149.

 

[peterdevries]

What I mean is that Apple will probably support the device for one more year (with the new service and maybe an iOS upgrade) and then discontinue it.

I understand. I don't see a problem with that scenario myself, although I also would not be surprised if Apple could keep the legacy Apple TV around as a "light" Apple TV, just for streaming at a lower price. Although the price reduction of a few months ago suggests they are probably clearing stock.

In any case the current Apple TV is powerful enough to stand a few light OS updates in the future, and considering what is currently needed to run it, I don't imagine that Apple needs to pour too much developer resource into keeping that thing current.

 

[Erastopic]

Okay....now your post is a little premature don't ya think? This might very well be a very feature-rich product and the price might easily be well justified. I'd pay $199 for a Super TV.

Premature? Open your eyes mate, not everyone has 200 bucks to spend on what you want. I don't disagree with Apple's price choice if it's as feature rich as the rumors, but I said "that price tho" because thats not something I can afford at the time being.

Don't be so quick to judge next time, it will be good for ya

 

[nfl46]

Perhaps because $99 is less than $149.

My point is, $50 to a $100, isn't such a drastic hike in price. I guess to some people on here that is.

 

[Andres Cantu]

Some people just want an TV that will play Netflix and various other streaming videos such as from YouTube. Couple that with being able to play their iTunes collection and that's all some people really need, so the basic TV may be more than suitable. Not everybody has a SmartTV.

That's a good point, but with the recent market share findings about the Apple TV being in 4th place (even with the price drop), I'm guessing everyone that wants one already has one.

 

[peterdevries]

Not everybody has a SmartTV.

I have one of the newest Smart TVs and am stunned at how mind-numbingly dumb the thing is.

 

[patseguin]

It's not going to compete with FireTV and Roku selling for $99 or less. And why October? I would think in the YEARS since they last made one they could at least have it ready to ship.

 

[JPLC]

Can't wait! A magic wand designed by Apple. iWan(t)d!

Lets see where this goes...

 

[Andres Cantu]

I understand. I don't see a problem with that scenario myself, although I also would not be surprised if Apple could keep the legacy Apple TV around as a "light" Apple TV, just for streaming at a lower price. Although the price reduction of a few months ago suggests they are probably clearing stock.

In any case the current Apple TV is powerful enough to stand a few light OS updates in the future, and considering what is currently needed to run it, I don't imagine that Apple needs to pour too much developer resource into keeping that thing current.

Yes, that could happen, but I'm guessing that it would lose support next year, just like all other A5 devices. At least there's a very good chance that will happen.

 

[kazmac]

Well, once I replace my now ancient tv (next year most likely give the expenses I have in the next two months) this may very well be an option. I'd love to tell cable to go shove it (but we still need them for internet access.)

 

[Merkie]

Quite expensive.

 

[dysamoria]

Calling them "set-top boxes" is ridiculously archaic.

 

[richman555]

I'm not sure how I feel about casual gaming. I really thought the Wii was awful because it was underpowered from the start.

While I"m not a hardcore gamer, it would be nice to play star wars battlefront. Just depends on the controller. The only current controller I'm excited for is the Oculus controller.

The Wii actually sold like hotcakes if you remember. If the price is right for casual gamers, they will jump onboard.

 

[JPLC]

The old Apple TV 3 should go for 20 dollars or less. It's pretty useless these days.

I use it every day to stream music or video from my iPad. The only thing useless for me with AppleTV now is the Apple Music App. There's no way to stream from that app to my AppleTV (and stereo). It's one big frustrating fail that remembers me everytime that Apple Music isn't my tool to enjoy music. It just kills it. And don't let me start about the bitrate quality.

 

[chucker23n1]

Calling them "set-top boxes" is ridiculously archaic.

The word you're looking for is probably "accurate".

 

[NightFox]

It's going to be interesting to see what kind of TV service Apple will be offering outside of the USA... my guess is none but I'm quite happy to be proved wrong.

 

[richman555]

What about it?

I think $199 is fine if it has more capability than just playing movies and tv shows. If gaming comes into play with an updated controller, then it is actually a good value.

 

[0947347]

I would really like it, if it would be able to work like an improved Nintendo

WII too

 

[peterdevries]

Can't wait! A magic want designed by Apple. iWant! :-D

Lets see where this goes.

I think you mean a "wand"...

 

[B.A.T]

The first gen ATV cost $299 for the 40GB model and $399 for the $160Gb model. Even at $200 (8 years later) it's a lot cheaper than the original.

 

[vdgroodt]

199 is quite expensive, 150 would be a fair deal. But hey it's Apple ...

 

[thogin]

I was going to bring up the 1st gen Apple TV too. Can't believe I paid $299 for it, but it was a new category at the time.

 

[peterdevries]

I have one of the newest Smart TVs and am stunned at how mind-numbingly dumb the thing is.

I think the solution to TV is this:

Dumb displays with only the basic controlling apparatus to drive images to the screen, and a flexible connecting to an external box that manages everything the screen does: settings, smart functions, channel selection and sorting etc etc etc.

The reason why even Smart TVs are so annoying is that TV manufacturers do not have software skills and are unable to acquire them. Leave it to Android, Apple and the rest to design the interfacing.

I know many TVs are driven by Android, but those implementations are heavily customised to manage the bespoke specs of the screens. It would be far better if there would be a universal display standard that can be managed by a box that the customer chooses. A bit like the Apple cinema display and the connected Macs. Alas, it will probably never happen.