The Main Mistake of the New Apple TV

Discussion in 'Apple TV and Home Theater' started by MICHAELSD, Sep 12, 2015.

  1. MICHAELSD, Sep 12, 2015
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2015

    MICHAELSD macrumors 68040

    MICHAELSD

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #1
    [​IMG]

    Simply, Apple should have better future-proofed it. Especially as it doesn't need to rely on a battery, Apple should've went all-in by using a A9X perhaps even higher-clocked than in the iPad Pro instead of the A8. There's no debating how much more power that could have provided which could make for some truly amazing apps. Especially as game developers get on board, having no performance bottlenecks could really make the Apple TV a very worthwhile box for $149. As it stands now, I'm not entirely convinced that it offers enough to differentiate itself performance-wise.
     
  2. 2010mini macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    #2
    Let's be truthful here......

    This Apple TV was supposed to be released last year. It was delayed while Apple was trying to secure live streaming content deals with networks, studios and payTV providers. It seems they finally said 'lets just release it and wiok on streaming content later'. Hence, in my opinion, it has the A8 chip.
     
  3. MICHAELSD thread starter macrumors 68040

    MICHAELSD

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #3
    Either that or they decided that the A8 would be cheaper and be enough for casual apps.
     
  4. 2010mini macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    #4
    Could also be true.
     
  5. cynics macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2012
    #5
    Doesn't seem unreasonable at its price point especially considering the production bottlenecks Apple has run into in the past with their new SoC.

    Plus how isnt it future proofed? Devs have never been given the opportunity to code for minimum specs being so high. Currently the A5 found in the 4S is still in the line up for the iOS App Store.

    Apple will have a new AppleTV out before devs utilize the A8 to its full potential. I'm curious, if it had an a9x with near console quality games would you expect the AppleTV to cost 150 and games to cost 1-10 dollars? To me that's starting to sound like a 300 dollar device with 60 dollar games.
     
  6. MICHAELSD thread starter macrumors 68040

    MICHAELSD

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #6
    I could certainly see the value in charging $199 for it although I don't expect the production cost difference to be significant. Personally I'd be happy paying more for much better games.
     
  7. Michael CM1 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    #7
    No performance bottlenecks. LOLZ. The apps are limited to a local 200MB and you'll likely have some people with experience developing for the Xbox One and PS4. The games on my Xbox 360 were often 6 or 7GB, so there will be plenty of bottlenecks. It just depends on at what point they are hit.

    Also, this game that happens every time Apple releases something. Everybody always has an idea for how it could be so much better, and it usually ends up with some slightly better hardware at the same price. In this case, the iPad Pro starts at $799. The Apple TV starts at $149 for the same storage configuration. Between this and the new remote, it's honestly a little shocking that it starts at only $149 for 32GB.
     
  8. cycledance Suspended

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2010
    #8
    wait...they use an old a8 in the new apple tv?

    and they use a plain a8 in the ipad mini 4 instead of a8x like in the air 2. phil schiller lied.

    idk what to think of apple anymore. they are just getting worse and worse each year. but hey...profits. just not my money.
     
  9. ValO macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    #9
    A software update is enough for 4k.
    Apple is smart, the Apple TV won' t have 4k for a while and a more powerful soc because :
    -it will be superior to their most expensive and powerful iPad.
    -it could allow developers to build more powerful apps for the Apple TV, making the apps for the iPad and iPhones inferior.

    And that for a 149$ device instead of a 1000 dollar iPad pro.

    This will never happen, unless Apple releases their own TV set for 3000 dollar with Apple TV hw build in.

    In its current form, Apple TV will always be trailing behind the latest gen I devices.

    But it makes you wonder. Apple TV with a9x power in 2 years? Xbox one /ps 4 power?
    Sony and Microsoft won' t be updating their ps or Xbox in 3/4 years or so.

    In 4 years Apple will be a major contender in the console market if everything will go as expected.

    In 4 years, Apple TV with 2x power of a9x?
     
  10. mattopotamus macrumors G5

    mattopotamus

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    #10
    No, a software update cannot add 4K. It lacks HEVC and HDMI 2.0
     
  11. mtneer macrumors 68020

    mtneer

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    #11
    Future-proofing for you is a lost sales opportunity for Apple in 2017. They want to hold something back for when new, more demanding games prop up and want consumers to be hooked on the upgrade bandwagon every 2 years.
     
  12. chrfr macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    #12
  13. MICHAELSD thread starter macrumors 68040

    MICHAELSD

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #13
    The problem with the Apple TV is it should be on a 3-4 year upgrade cycle as it has been. It makes less sense to upgrade a box plugged into a consumer's TV every two years since the only real difference will be performance.
     
  14. mtneer macrumors 68020

    mtneer

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    #14
    That makes sense from a consumer perspective. On the flip side Apple has every motive to speed up that upgrade cycle by strategically salt shaking the capabilities and upgrades of the device over many years.
     
  15. MICHAELSD thread starter macrumors 68040

    MICHAELSD

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #15
    To that end I think Apple TV will be much better next-gen once they have their streaming service and improved performances for established apps.
     
  16. cynics macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2012
    #16
    I have a feeling Apples profits are minimal (relative to the rest of their product line) already on the ATV. In combination with the Siri remote it has the key features of an iPhone 6 (minus the display and cellular) with more storage and more RAM at a fraction of the price.

    And I think that is key. If they can keep the price down people will be willing to just buy one with little hesitation and research. Don't like it? Meh it was only 150 bucks, regift it to a friend or something.

    An AppleTV is currently the central hub of my entertainment system so enthusiast like you and I can justify paying a bit more for one. But I doubt the majority of people would be so willing. For my needs the ATV4 is probably going to be a very good product at a very good price.

    If it was it more powerful but 300 dollars I was just get a Mac Mini for 499 (less refurbished) and have an infinite amount more power with a full OS
     

Share This Page