6 ms·

Cordcutter here -- AppleTV looks like a handy way to combine my Hulu, Netflix and Amazon Instant streams, but can anyone comment on whether it's worth the price

Cordcutter here -- AppleTV looks like a handy way to combine my Hulu, Netflix and Amazon Instant streams, but can anyone comment on whether it's worth the price if I'm not really plugged into the Apple media ecosystem? I quit the iTunes store after I discovered (too late, my fault) that all the audiobooks I'd bought from them could only be downloaded once, then were lost forever. I've got a Chromecast and it works fine, for the streams it supports. But does AppleTV content justify the extra cost?

pragone 11y ago
tl;dr: IMO, no I've got the previous version of Apple TV and a Chromecast. Long story short, I use both devices exactly the same. The only differences really is how I communicate with each device - remote control for Apple TV vs phone/computer for Chromecast. The Apple TV does do streaming much smoother than casting from Chrome, and of course you can use any window, not just a website. I think like most things though, it depends on the person. I'm a medical student, so it's not like I have free time to kill playing games on a new platform or discovering new shows.
JohnBooty 11y ago
I have and enjoy both the Roku 3 and the current (not the one announced today) AppleTV and aside from Apple stuff like Airplay video streaming and iTunes cloud integration, it doesn't really give you much over and above the Roku 3. Of course, the apps and games on the new Apple TV change the game entirely... if any of that interests you.
- rev_bird 11y ago
  Good to know, thanks. I've been looking at the Roku 2 for a looong while now. Not really interested in getting mobile games on my TV, might just go with that instead.
  - morley 11y ago
    If the price difference doesn't deter you, you might be better off with a Roku 3 (or waiting for a Roku 4, if such a thing is in the pipeline). I have a 3 and sometimes the framerate drops a little bit, so I can't imagine what using a Roku 2 is like. (The framerate drops occur when navigating the interface, not when viewing content.)
reportingsjr 11y ago
Definitely not worth it. The chromecast is pretty nice and netflix and hulu have casting ability (amazon instant video would require you to cast your entire screen which isn't the best). The nexus player is on par with the apple tv/maybe a bit better and is half the cost of the apple tv.
untog 11y ago
IMO, no. I'd recommend the Roku 3 instead, which I also use to watch Hulu, Netflix and Amazon. Of course, if you're happy with the Chromecast then just go with that, but I got annoyed with everything having to run through my phone.
matwood 11y ago
I can't stand the Chromecast for TV watching. I don't want to deal with my phone when I just want to turn on something on the TV. The AppleTv is the best UI I have found, but last I checked could not do prime streaming. The device I would recommend right now is either a Roku or FireTV. Both can stream basically everything and have their own remotes.

pragone 11y ago

tl;dr: IMO, no I've got the previous version of Apple TV and a Chromecast. Long story short, I use both devices exactly the same. The only differences really is how I communicate with each device - remote control for Apple TV vs phone/computer for Chromecast. The Apple TV does do streaming much smoother than casting from Chrome, and of course you can use any window, not just a website. I think like most things though, it depends on the person. I'm a medical student, so it's not like I have free time to kill playing games on a new platform or discovering new shows.

JohnBooty 11y ago

I have and enjoy both the Roku 3 and the current (not the one announced today) AppleTV and aside from Apple stuff like Airplay video streaming and iTunes cloud integration, it doesn't really give you much over and above the Roku 3. Of course, the apps and games on the new Apple TV change the game entirely... if any of that interests you.

rev_bird 11y ago
Good to know, thanks. I've been looking at the Roku 2 for a looong while now. Not really interested in getting mobile games on my TV, might just go with that instead.
- morley 11y ago
  If the price difference doesn't deter you, you might be better off with a Roku 3 (or waiting for a Roku 4, if such a thing is in the pipeline). I have a 3 and sometimes the framerate drops a little bit, so I can't imagine what using a Roku 2 is like. (The framerate drops occur when navigating the interface, not when viewing content.)

reportingsjr 11y ago

Definitely not worth it. The chromecast is pretty nice and netflix and hulu have casting ability (amazon instant video would require you to cast your entire screen which isn't the best). The nexus player is on par with the apple tv/maybe a bit better and is half the cost of the apple tv.

untog 11y ago

IMO, no. I'd recommend the Roku 3 instead, which I also use to watch Hulu, Netflix and Amazon. Of course, if you're happy with the Chromecast then just go with that, but I got annoyed with everything having to run through my phone.

matwood 11y ago

I can't stand the Chromecast for TV watching. I don't want to deal with my phone when I just want to turn on something on the TV. The AppleTv is the best UI I have found, but last I checked could not do prime streaming. The device I would recommend right now is either a Roku or FireTV. Both can stream basically everything and have their own remotes.