TCL on AirPlay-2 Enabled TVs: 'We Are Currently Committed to Roku'

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Jan 11, 2019.

  1. macpro2000 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    #101
    Thanks Jim Acosta.
    --- Post Merged, Jan 11, 2019 ---
    Yeah. It’s like buying an Acer. You’d buy an Acer?
     
  2. sidewinder3000 macrumors 6502a

    sidewinder3000

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #102
    I’m not mixing anything up. I don’t think it’s as simple “Apple just needs to make an app”. TCL has to allow/want it on their platform. Also, iTunes with AirPlay 2 is much more powerful, and would offer a much richer user experience if it was available along with iTunes, as it is for SONY, Vizio, LG.
     
  3. jlc1978 macrumors 68020

    jlc1978

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    #103
    Very true. Hyundai/Kia has come a long way in the last 10 years. They're following the Honda/toyate model and moving upscale. As as side note, they have a large manufacturing plant in the US and Mexico as well.
     
  4. cocky jeremy macrumors 68040

    cocky jeremy

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2008
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    #104
    Literally never even heard of them. Oh well. If it's not Samsung, LG, or Sony... I'm not buying it anyway.
     
  5. bozzykid macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    #105
    TCL uses the Roku platform. It is open for developers to create apps for it. No deal would need to be worked out with Roku or TCL. Airplay 2 is different and would require Roku implement it into their OS.
     
  6. Lacasse macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    #106
    That’s right. It isn’t TLC or Hisense that needs to add AirPlay...it’s Roku that needs to add it.


     
  7. Kanyay Suspended

    Kanyay

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Location:
    Mar-a-Lago, Russia
    #107
    Yeah, IPS is more expensive too though. In general, usually results in a better picture too.
    --- Post Merged, Jan 14, 2019 ---
    I did say price range above. You need to read the whole thread before commenting on this. Trust me, in the $400 range, the Samsung 50" I picked for my sister is more than enough and looks fantastic. I have a $2,500 Samsung 65" sitting in my living room and the $400 one looks nearly as good. Just a bit smaller. TCL looked like trash.
     
  8. LordVic macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #108
    This is probably not TCL's choice in the matter. They're probably fairly removed from the software side of things since they just use Roku.

    This means it's up to Roku if they wish to add AirPlay2 support to their software or not.


    edit: On 2nd thought, maybe others know better. But can't anyone develop a Roku App? So in the case of Airplay2 / iTunes on Roku, wouldn't that be up to Apple to develop then publish the App through Roku?
     
  9. Rob_2811 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2016
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #109
    There is a SDK to build what Roku call 'Channels' which are effectively native streaming apps.

    They could write an iTunes app, Airplay would require integration with the OS really.
     
  10. LordVic macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #110
    Thanks, So it sounds like it would behave similarly right now to using Youtube/Plex on Roku.

    You can use the "cast" feature of PLex, Netflix and youtube on Roku, but only when the specific App is open. Apple could go down this route as well I assume, that Airplay2 can just be a channel that you'd have to launch first before using Airplay.
     
  11. Rob_2811 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2016
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #111
    Im not completely familiar with the Roku developer kit but that sounds about right.

    I'm curious to see where they go with this, the smart TV stuff is a decent start but I think if they want this TV service to get proper traction I think they have to put it on Roku and Fire TV.

    The market share Amazon/Roku have is huge, think Amazon are saying more than 30 million users and Roku about 25 million.
     
  12. LordVic macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #112
    This is why I always felt like Apple had no idea what to do with the APple TV. Especially diving into original content.

    content is a relatively low margin, high volume product. While there maybe a few shows that hit some form of cultural transcendence, MOST TV does not do this.

    For Content providers to get the best return, they need their content to be available to mass market. Market share matters in this case. For Apple to get good delivery of their own content they need to either use existing delivery systems, or ensure that their own delivery system is available at reasonable pricing to a large audience. In this regard the AppleTV was a massive failure. That failure can be narrowed down to a simple reason. PRICE.

    if Apple was attempting to make AppleTV ubiquitous, so that millions of people ha access to their content, they can't do it by selling their TV Box for 3-4x the competition.
     
  13. Rob_2811 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2016
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #113

    Agree.

    Relative to what is available elsewhere the ATV has to be one of the most overpriced things Apple sell.

    Their original content producing several Game of Thrones level hits still wouldn't move Apple Tvs in the numbers Amazon/Roku are doing, the cost is that prohibitive.
     
  14. jlc1978 macrumors 68020

    jlc1978

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    #114
    While I agree on the price issue and would like to see an Apple TV at 1/2 to 3/4 the price; I think Apple has a different roadmap for their product. To them, Apple TV is a home hub that will unify various Apple products - HomeKit, iTunes, and iPhone as examples; as well as move into new areas such as gaming and perhaps web based tools such as Pages, Numbers, etc. To them, AppleTV probably seems more an inexpensive hub than an expensive video streaming device. They aren't interested in integrating it into 3rd party televisions, especially inexpensive ones that they may view as not being up to Apple standards for delivering a quality experience.
     
  15. LordVic macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #115
    I agree that they COULD have positioned it to do all that. And it CAN in thoery do it.

    But they seem to have a habit of releasing Apple TV revisions, calling it a "Hobby" and then just leaving it sitting for a few years at it's insane price point.

    Apple TV never did catch on as a gaming console. HomeKit works, but has significant lack of diversity of products. Are people erally using it to the fullest features or is it being used mainly as a settop streaming box?

    I'm willing to bet (a coffee) that the bulk of use is as a settop box. And for most users who are just looking to stream their video content, there are settop boxes that are available for $40. Apple's cheapest non 4k box is $130+. Convincing users to spend $90+ is a tough enough sell, but when you consider that the competition are also selling 4k devices for less than Apple's non 4k box. This is not a winning strategy to create a streaming platform on. Hence why we're now seeing Apple making deals with TV makers to get Apple services on their TV's.

    Without these Deals, Apple would likely have a target audience of a few hundred thousand at most for their upcoming content.
     
  16. jlc1978 macrumors 68020

    jlc1978

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    #116
     

Share This Page