3 ms·

This is how it's going to play out: 1. Updated Apple TV launches 2. Tech pundits and gadget blog commentators pan it because of limited content deals but most

by IBM 13y ago

This is how it's going to play out: 1. Updated Apple TV launches 2. Tech pundits and gadget blog commentators pan it because of limited content deals but most likely not living up to some pie in the sky ideal 3. Apple TV sells well 4. Apple keeps iterating on product adding new content as they get more leverage 5. Console gaming gets accidentally disrupted because they don't take the threat seriously and "it's just Angry Birds on your TV, not the good games like Call of Duty" 6. Installed base gets too large for Activision (and other large game studios) to ignore and launches Call of Duty on Apple TV 7. Another leg on the stool for Apple

bluthru 13y ago
The xbox live / collar doodie crowd isn't exactly a good brand image. I really don't think Apple is interested in the "13 year old boys shouting expletives at each other" market.
magic_haze 13y ago
I don't get it. This is the exact same model Roku, Google, Xbox, Ouya et al are trying to follow, and so far, they've all had limited success. Even Netflix and Amazon had to give up chasing after content and had to resort to making their own. What makes Apple's attempt so different from all the others in this area? (No sarcasm intended, I'm genuinely curious.) What leverage do they have that can guarantee them the kind of instant success that the idevices had? I guess integration with their other products is one advantage, but really, most other consoles have smartphone apps as well, and they're nothing special. The integration with Airplay that TFA touts seems rather dubious... isn't that just normal QOS any old router can do? EDIT: The most obvious advantage, I guess, is the large corpus of devs who are willing to rewrite their apps to target a new form factor. No other company right now commands that sort of manpower, and that, indirectly, may be enough to convince content owners and game publishers to target their platform.
- bradbatt 13y ago
  What makes Apple's attempt so different from all the others in this area? Because literally with the press of a button you can make the video playing on your iPhone or iPad appear on your HDTV. Because you just plug in the Apple TV and hook it to your wireless network and it shows up on your iOS devices instantly as a recipient for video and music streaming. No setup. No confusing configuration. It just works. It's the same reason that Apple was the first company to really get video calls to work. Other vendors and phone companies tried to get video calls to work...and some of the tech crowd certainly made use of it. But Facetime was the first video calling system that made it ridiculously easy for non-technical folks to use.
  - ripter 13y ago
    This. I have an AppleTV and a ChromeCast. I have a bunch of (legal) rips of the Simpsons. On the ChromeCast I have to load a single video in the Chrometab every time. The playback isn't always smooth. On the AppleTV, I drag VNC to the display, hit full screen and watch all day. The playback is smooth and hassle free. The ChromeCast is more portable, but not by much. If the AppleTV was USB powered I would consider traveling with it.
- Shivetya 13y ago
  having a hundred billion dollars in the bank helps, that and a near monopoly on good tablets if not a real one. They could always cut a deal that makes some studios jump, something for a few years to lock them in.
- epistasis 13y ago
  The idea doesn't matter nearly as much as the execution of said idea. Roku product is OK from the little that I've seen, but they haven't put in the marketing or the branding effort to hit it big. Google didn't even pretend to know what was going on with their TV attempt when it came to content. Xbox/Ps3 are fairly terrible UIs, and don't respect the user enough, as they assume that the user is going to be a 15-35 year old male gamer, with attendant good-enough UI. Amazon seems to try to hide their streaming business, I apparently have a subscription through Prime but haven't streamed a single thing because I can't consistently find out how to browse it. (Please don't tell me how, my point is that Amazon has not made streaming a focus.) If, and this is a big "if," Apple can make this easy, and generate enough noise, and most importantly of all get critical content provider momentum, they could see significant market penetration. What's clear is that the traditional tech media has been absolutely terrible at judging products' potential at their initial launch, at least when it comes to Apple.
- BryantD 13y ago
  Apple has half a billion users with active credit cards.
  - streetnigga 13y ago
    Most realistic answer. Much better response to the question of how can Apple execute the product better than others than gushing about Apple's marketing team.
- snowwrestler 13y ago
  I think the biggest advantage for Apple is that they have the most popular content distribution platform, and they don't care if they make a profit on content. That makes them pretty attractive to content producers. If you think of app developers as content producers, you can see how well Apple is already doing with partners.
slg 13y ago
Apple TV would disrupt hardcore console gaming to the same extent the OUYA did. Hardware capabilities are still a very real and important part of console hardware. The reason the iPad has hurt Gameboy sales is because they can both provide similar level of games. Due to size restrictions a dedicated gaming handheld really can't be that much more powerful than an iPod. There isn't a size restrictions on consoles. Xbox and PS4 back in a whole lot more power into their consoles than Apple ever could in a Apple TV sized piece of hardware. Unless the Apple TV blows up again to something like the size of a Mac Mini, it isn't going to get the same Call of Duty that real consoles get.
- comex 13y ago
  But if Apple gets enough users and developers on its console, people will design high quality games for it even if the best graphics can be found elsewhere; most of what makes a game fundamentally good is orthogonal or even opposed to graphics quality. Like the Wii, but potentially more so due to more users and more developers. ...theoretically. Apple TV is currently a niche product, the mass popularity currently only exists on mobile devices, and adoption of a new TV device won't be instant. But if Apple does come up with a truly compelling story for video content, users will follow.
comex 13y ago
I wonder whether console gaming will indeed be seriously disrupted, as opposed to merely supplemented. So far, phones and tablets have had certainly had an impact on traditional portable game systems (3DS), but the former are still widely considered to be limited to casual, low-quality games, with the serious stuff to be found elsewhere. There is Call of Duty and Final Fantasy and Grand Theft Auto on iOS already, but only spinoffs and retro ports. Part of the cause is issues such as controller support. I'd say this would be a much easier sell at home than mobile, since using a physical controller would just require buying one, rather than buying one and then carrying it around everywhere in case you feel like playing a game. But still, not bundling a controller, which is almost certain, fragments the market and means that developers will probably end up having to support awkward touchscreen controls anyway. Another part is pricing on the App Store. If people are only willing to pay $5 rather than $60, how can you make the same caliber of game? Freemium works, if you're lucky enough to get popular, but it's also a miserable user experience that I hope traditional games stay well away from. Another way to see it is that on a console you have less choice, but if the indirect effect is to increase game quality and I don't mind the price, please give me less choice. On the other hand, PC gaming seems to be doing pretty well even though for every $60 game there is a free online Facebook game; the market managed to sustain both "casual" and "serious" gaming on the same device. The same could theoretically happen with iOS... It would help if there were multiple storefronts rather than one big one, but that isn't going to happen.

by IBM 13y ago

bluthru 13y ago

The xbox live / collar doodie crowd isn't exactly a good brand image. I really don't think Apple is interested in the "13 year old boys shouting expletives at each other" market.

magic_haze 13y ago

I don't get it. This is the exact same model Roku, Google, Xbox, Ouya et al are trying to follow, and so far, they've all had limited success. Even Netflix and Amazon had to give up chasing after content and had to resort to making their own. What makes Apple's attempt so different from all the others in this area? (No sarcasm intended, I'm genuinely curious.) What leverage do they have that can guarantee them the kind of instant success that the idevices had? I guess integration with their other products is one advantage, but really, most other consoles have smartphone apps as well, and they're nothing special. The integration with Airplay that TFA touts seems rather dubious... isn't that just normal QOS any old router can do? EDIT: The most obvious advantage, I guess, is the large corpus of devs who are willing to rewrite their apps to target a new form factor. No other company right now commands that sort of manpower, and that, indirectly, may be enough to convince content owners and game publishers to target their platform.

bradbatt 13y ago
What makes Apple's attempt so different from all the others in this area? Because literally with the press of a button you can make the video playing on your iPhone or iPad appear on your HDTV. Because you just plug in the Apple TV and hook it to your wireless network and it shows up on your iOS devices instantly as a recipient for video and music streaming. No setup. No confusing configuration. It just works. It's the same reason that Apple was the first company to really get video calls to work. Other vendors and phone companies tried to get video calls to work...and some of the tech crowd certainly made use of it. But Facetime was the first video calling system that made it ridiculously easy for non-technical folks to use.
- ripter 13y ago
  This. I have an AppleTV and a ChromeCast. I have a bunch of (legal) rips of the Simpsons. On the ChromeCast I have to load a single video in the Chrometab every time. The playback isn't always smooth. On the AppleTV, I drag VNC to the display, hit full screen and watch all day. The playback is smooth and hassle free. The ChromeCast is more portable, but not by much. If the AppleTV was USB powered I would consider traveling with it.
Shivetya 13y ago
having a hundred billion dollars in the bank helps, that and a near monopoly on good tablets if not a real one. They could always cut a deal that makes some studios jump, something for a few years to lock them in.
epistasis 13y ago
The idea doesn't matter nearly as much as the execution of said idea. Roku product is OK from the little that I've seen, but they haven't put in the marketing or the branding effort to hit it big. Google didn't even pretend to know what was going on with their TV attempt when it came to content. Xbox/Ps3 are fairly terrible UIs, and don't respect the user enough, as they assume that the user is going to be a 15-35 year old male gamer, with attendant good-enough UI. Amazon seems to try to hide their streaming business, I apparently have a subscription through Prime but haven't streamed a single thing because I can't consistently find out how to browse it. (Please don't tell me how, my point is that Amazon has not made streaming a focus.) If, and this is a big "if," Apple can make this easy, and generate enough noise, and most importantly of all get critical content provider momentum, they could see significant market penetration. What's clear is that the traditional tech media has been absolutely terrible at judging products' potential at their initial launch, at least when it comes to Apple.
BryantD 13y ago
Apple has half a billion users with active credit cards.
- streetnigga 13y ago
  Most realistic answer. Much better response to the question of how can Apple execute the product better than others than gushing about Apple's marketing team.
snowwrestler 13y ago
I think the biggest advantage for Apple is that they have the most popular content distribution platform, and they don't care if they make a profit on content. That makes them pretty attractive to content producers. If you think of app developers as content producers, you can see how well Apple is already doing with partners.

slg 13y ago

Apple TV would disrupt hardcore console gaming to the same extent the OUYA did. Hardware capabilities are still a very real and important part of console hardware. The reason the iPad has hurt Gameboy sales is because they can both provide similar level of games. Due to size restrictions a dedicated gaming handheld really can't be that much more powerful than an iPod. There isn't a size restrictions on consoles. Xbox and PS4 back in a whole lot more power into their consoles than Apple ever could in a Apple TV sized piece of hardware. Unless the Apple TV blows up again to something like the size of a Mac Mini, it isn't going to get the same Call of Duty that real consoles get.

comex 13y ago
But if Apple gets enough users and developers on its console, people will design high quality games for it even if the best graphics can be found elsewhere; most of what makes a game fundamentally good is orthogonal or even opposed to graphics quality. Like the Wii, but potentially more so due to more users and more developers. ...theoretically. Apple TV is currently a niche product, the mass popularity currently only exists on mobile devices, and adoption of a new TV device won't be instant. But if Apple does come up with a truly compelling story for video content, users will follow.

comex 13y ago

I wonder whether console gaming will indeed be seriously disrupted, as opposed to merely supplemented. So far, phones and tablets have had certainly had an impact on traditional portable game systems (3DS), but the former are still widely considered to be limited to casual, low-quality games, with the serious stuff to be found elsewhere. There is Call of Duty and Final Fantasy and Grand Theft Auto on iOS already, but only spinoffs and retro ports. Part of the cause is issues such as controller support. I'd say this would be a much easier sell at home than mobile, since using a physical controller would just require buying one, rather than buying one and then carrying it around everywhere in case you feel like playing a game. But still, not bundling a controller, which is almost certain, fragments the market and means that developers will probably end up having to support awkward touchscreen controls anyway. Another part is pricing on the App Store. If people are only willing to pay $5 rather than $60, how can you make the same caliber of game? Freemium works, if you're lucky enough to get popular, but it's also a miserable user experience that I hope traditional games stay well away from. Another way to see it is that on a console you have less choice, but if the indirect effect is to increase game quality and I don't mind the price, please give me less choice. On the other hand, PC gaming seems to be doing pretty well even though for every $60 game there is a free online Facebook game; the market managed to sustain both "casual" and "serious" gaming on the same device. The same could theoretically happen with iOS... It would help if there were multiple storefronts rather than one big one, but that isn't going to happen.