It’s been many years since Steve Jobs famously told biographer Walter Isaacson that he’d “cracked TV” – an integrated television set with “the simplest user interface you could possibly imagine.” That idea seemingly went nowhere, with plans for a full TV set reportedly abandoned back in 2014.
So far, then, Apple’s offering in the TV space has been a rather modest one: the venerable ‘black puck’ that is the Apple TV box. The company keeps updating it, of course. Movie rentals were a big deal for some, Photostream for others. But for most, the last really dramatic change was the addition of AirPlay. Since then, improvements have been evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
All that looked set to change next month, with Apple initially expected to launch the next best thing to a full television set: significantly upgraded hardware coupled to a new streaming TV service. The complete package would undoubtedly have proven a winner. But with the streaming service now delayed until sometime next year, will a revamped box alone be enough to significantly boost sales, or will most be holding out until the Internet TV service is launched … ?
For existing Apple TV users, the new hardware is going to look appealing. A multitouch remote – perhaps with Force Touch – would substantially increase the usability of the device. Likewise, the combination of rumored Siri support and the proactive search feature of iOS 9 should address the frustration experienced when trying to find content.
But for existing users, price may be key. Quite a few Apple TV owners seem to view it as a ‘nice to have’ rather than something central to the TV experience. Paying $69 for something that’s a nice extra but not essential is one thing. But a touchscreen remote isn’t going to be cheap: I’d be surprised if the new box comes in at less than $149, perhaps $199. That, for many, will fall well outside ‘handy extra’ pricing.
For those who haven’t yet bought an Apple TV box, will the expected new features tip the balance? An improved user interface will mean a lot less to someone who hasn’t yet used the existing one. Sure, having the box run something closer to full-blown iOS make it an easier transition, but people already expect Apple kit to be easy to use, so this isn’t likely to be a big draw.
One should never underestimate pure gadget appeal, of course. A multitouch remote coupled to Siri certainly has that. Gadget appeal is the primary reason many upgrade their iPhones every year or two. But an iPhone is something you use many times throughout the day; how much time do you spend using a TV remote – even a hi-tech one – once you’ve selected your movie or TV show?
So yes, it will definitely help sell the new box, but won’t, I think, be a massive draw.
Which brings us to apps. Opening up the platform to third-party developers could be a big deal – potentially adding a great deal of exciting new functionality to the device.
However, as Mark Gurman cautioned in his roundup of everything we’re expecting, we shouldn’t get too carried away here.
We are told that Apple’s focus on Apple TV App Store apps has been video-centric applications, which would allow media companies to release new channels on the Apple TV on their own schedule
In other words, the majority of the new ‘apps’ may turn out to be nothing more than new TV channels.
But that still leaves a minority of apps that will go further than this. Could these drive dramatic new interest in Apple TV?
I can immediately think of a few apps that might prove extremely appealing to some. There are plenty of Plex fans out there, for example. Give them a Plex app on their Apple TV, and the ability to pull in content from a network drive, and I suspect you’d have an admittedly limited number of people queuing up to buy it on day one.
Broadening appeal somewhat, Safari strikes me as a good bet. Sure, you probably don’t want to browse a ton of web content on your TV, but with a touchscreen remote acting as a touchpad, it wouldn’t be too painful an experience to quickly check a few things. Again, you can AirPlay, but then you might as well do the browsing direct on your iPhone or iPad – having a native browser on the Apple TV box would be a lot more convenient if you’re already watching TV.
A relatively small subset of native apps could, I think, bring a bunch of new owners on board. But if Apple is hoping for a really significant boost to sales in the absence of its streaming TV service, I think there’s only one category of apps that could deliver it: games.
We’re expecting the elderly single-core A5 in existing models to be replaced with a dual-core variant of the A8 chip found in the iPhone 6. Couple that to a RAM boost to either 1GB or 2GB, and you have a device capable of running a lot of modern games.
Now, you could argue that real game enthusiasts buy dedicated consoles, and that not even an A8-powered Apple TV could compete with those – and I’d agree with you. Hardcore gamers will stick to their Xbox One or PS4.
You could also argue that it’s already possible for casual gamers to play iOS games via their Apple TV, using AirPlay. There I’ll agree to an extent: it’s true for a limited number of games, and with a degree of lag that is acceptable for some, and not for others. But it’s a hassle even to identify compatible games. This isn’t, I think, mainstream behavior.
But playing native games on a revamped Apple TV could be. There are a great many people who aren’t sufficiently into games to lay out the big bucks for a dedicated games console and expensive games, but would still enjoy playing games on their TV if it were made sufficiently easy and affordable. An Apple TV box priced at $150-200, coupled to the low cost of most iOS games, is in my view a pretty compelling sell.
So my answer to the question I posed in the headline is … it depends. If Apple’s idea of apps is mostly just new TV channels, then no, I don’t think the new Apple TV box will really take off until the streaming TV service is launched. But if Apple gets enough games developers on board, and makes a big splash of the gaming potential of the device, I think this could be the Apple TV box that generates mass-market consumer appeal.
As ever, let us know your views in the comments.
Concept image: Martin Hajek
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Honestly, as an Android user, if this mockup is anything like the real hardware coming out, I would buy it no matter what the price is.
Would you clarify the remote rumors–Do the rumors and sources say the remote will have a touchscreen or merely support touch? Will it be more like an iPod Touch or like a Magic Mouse? Magic Mouse seems like a better model given the power demands.
It’s unclear at this stage. If the Force Touch references apply, then it would seem to be a touchscreen, but it may indeed turn out to be Magic Mouse type input.
if it looks like that rendered picture, then yes.
Yes, IMHO App Store for Apple TV is much more important than built in streaming. Streaming can be added later. App Store, even if gaming app only focused, would drive Apple TV on it’s own easily and give it a much broader customer base..
They can then take their time butting heads with the TV/Movie elite that are intent on draining consumer pockets.
Yes, I would purchase on the existence of an app store alone. 3rd party apps can support the live streaming support that some people still seem to crave. As far as I’m concerned, other than sports, live tv streaming can go the way of the dodo.
Agreed. App store was revolutionary for the iPhone and iPad. It will do the same for the living room. Games, shows, movies, sports, news, blogs, cat pictures, etc etc etc can all be easily delivered in app form.
As long as they support a hardware bluetooth game controller! Can’t be looking at the tv if you have to look at the buttons in your hand.
I despise this new design. What were you thinking????????
Yes. The App Store alone is going to rock the Apple TV and home gaming market.
It’s at least 2 years old, this render came out around same time as iPhone 5, remote maybe 18 months ago. It’s just a guy, at his desk, playing with 3d software somewhere on the internet that gets picked up as gospel by tech blogs for clickbait.
Sorry. Meant website design.
I want 4K support.
You will have to wait at least 2 years.
Me too, infact it’s the only feature I do want. I’ve had every model of ATV and it was always ahead of the curve. When I bought my first HDTV the ATV 1 was the first thing to be plugged into it – you could rent HD movies from your armchair! Now that 4K content has been available for a year now, a new ATV without 4K support would seem like a missed opportunity. Most digital photos now are 4K resolution or greater – it would be the first time that many of us would actually see our photos properly. There’s already Netflix 4K and Amazon Instant 4K, chuck in a few new 4K iTunes movies each month and it would be great.
Won’t happen though, we’ll get Angry Birds 2 from the new App Store instead 😒
AppleTV was not ahead of the curve. What are you talking about? It only supported 720p content from 2007 to 2012! HDTVs were already 1080p in 2007, yet the AppleTV 1 and AppleTV 2 could only display 720p content for five years. It wasn’t until the AppleTV 3 in 2012, the current model, when 1080p support was finally added. Read some reviews on 4K and you will learn that there isn’t much content available to make it worth upgrading to. Many 4K TVs don’t do well upscaling 1080p content, and curved TVs are a sham. Since the majority of consumers do not have 4K TVs and don’t have interest in upgrading to 4K with limited content available, the new AppleTV doesn’t need 4K (yet). It took Apple five years to jump on the 1080p bandwagon that was already firmly planted in 2007 when the first AppleTV hit the market.
Would argue Peter that although ATV was behind the curve on 1080p Apple have a history of adopting things early and forcing others to follow. Personally as someone who has a weakness for shiny thing on showroom floors I have a 65 inch UHD curved television in my lounge and short of downloading onto a hard drive I have no way of getting 4K content excepet for the limited Netflix offerings. I would love to see more providers offering 4K compatability and then hopefully see it flow into more 4K telvision sales then so on and so forth. Couldn’t agree more though about the curve, after a couple of hours you don’t even notice it is there rather pointless but still pretty.
I own an Apple TV and I don’t see the need to get this rumored one.
– Remote; the best Apple TV remote is an iPhone using the Remote App. The slender remotes sold with the Apple TV (including this new mockup) are too slender and don’t fit well in the hand.
– App Store with iOS games? I play those on my iPad.
– A streaming service would be tempting but it isn’t offered.
The best AppleTV remote is any universal remote, which most people use with their Home Theater setups. A remote with tactile buttons will always be better than a touchscreen that you have to look at in order to use. My Logitech Harmony 700 offers more control of the AppleTV than the original remote and I can use it in a dark room without having to look for the buttons or a touchscreen. Also, I won’t kill my iPhone battery using a remote app.
Actually I really like the current remote. I don’t watch any live tv so my AppleTV is my only source of entertainment on the TV screen and I came to love the little remote. Minimum buttons, easy to navigate. Only for volume (on my stereo) I need another remote (TV sound comes through the stereo). To me the AppleTV remote was the real “revolution”. Yes, it’s small and easy to lose, but so much easier to just pause something and you really NEVER need to look for a button.
An App Store for the Apple TV is a new source of income both for Apple and Developpers, so this alone make sense.
Also, I want to be able to access my iTunes Library on a NAS or an USB drive, without having a Mac on with iTunes on and Home sharing on. That is, the Apple TV should become an iTunes Server itself, a true media center. So that several computers, iPhones, iPads, iPods in the home could access the same iTunes Library (possibly multiple libraries) without relying on 1 Mac that needs to be up.
In my view, the most sensible comment, yet.
I’ve always wished that. Plus TimeCapsule or Airport (Express/Extreme). Most people have their internet cable behind their TVs anyways. Make it a big box that serves as your house’s router, stores a media server (if you wish to) and your backups (if you wish to). It would have the charme of not having to stream the media over your wifi to your AppleTV and anything streamed from the internet comes straight through the cable too. And it reduces yet another box that for most people sits at the same place (router and set top box). And with AirPlay (audio) you can also connect it to your stereo (if you happen to have one) that usually sits there too.
Might also serve as a HomeKit hub, isn’t it? Another reason to consider one in my opinion.
They can keep the cost down by including a traditional atv remote for basic functionality while leveraging users existing ios devices with an updated remote app for the full blown touch remote experience. I personally despise the idea of a touch remote I have to look at to use so I truly hope they include support for the traditional remote control. The ability to use siri, if not tied to the remote (kinect like functionality via an isight camera) along with the traditional simple remote would be my ideal. The camera would also enable facetime via the atv, which I would also enjoy and would immediately purchase for both myself and my parents as well.
I have zero interest in their streaming tv offering, just give us the new hardware and app store please.
Since the device will reside typically in the living room I wish it would include some sort of HomeKit hub as well as a personal iBeacon tech.
I’m interested… What do you think an Apple TV can do with Homekit and iBeacon?
If Apple partners with Nintendo, the whole thing changes. A little Super Mario fun before a movie never hurts.
Yes and here is Why The Next Generation Apple TV Could Be The Biggest Game Changer medium.com/@TraductoApp/why-the-next-generation-apple-tv-could-be-a-game-changer-620872908947
AppleTV will cost $99, the reason current one was discounted to $69. Remote will have clickwheel touch control, no screen, to keep costs down. If you want screen, use your iPhone/iPad.
I think anything Apple, right now, attracts developers. There will be a rush to get on the new device.
If this game system has the power of a PS3 – so what. In terms of eighth generation video game consoles (PS4, Xbox One, Wii U) they are on a different dynamic, whereby they give developers a static platform to target for the entire generation.
With good sales Apple could update the Apple TV every year, just like it does with iPhone. So, it’s got the power of a PS3 – this year. It’ll be more, next year.
If it has an A8 this year, it might have an A9 next. The point being, that, Apple’s model is to keep the price low, while upping the power, and that model is actually quite cool – it re-sells to your own fans every year, and puts all these used models out in the market at even lower prices, for even more adoption.
I think Apple’s model could be so compelling that it reals in the others – probably Apple flies by the Wii U, since that is largely thought to be dead anyway, and I think Apple could easily fly by the Xbox One in terms of global unit sales, since that does poorly outside the U.S.
p.s. sometimes Apple doesn’t feel they can compete. If they are going to continue to block gaming apps, then they obviously will have prevented their own success against the consoles.
I tend to think if they were opening this up on purpose, we’d know already. But the reason I post with excitement about Apple competing against eighth generation consoles, is they are heading down a path, where the pressure to do the obvious will start to become overwhelming.
Even if they fail to do it next month, with iOS and 3rd party apps….they’ll open it up to games.
With the iPhone as your motion controller and second screen – they may even show Nintendo how that was supposed to work.
Gaming requires a controller. Using a touch screen, be that on a tiny supplied remote or via an iPhone is a joke for gaming, so the only way to get gamers on board, even casual ones, would be for Apple to produce a standardised ATV gamepad. Google and Amazon do it with their boxes, so Apple would have to do the same.
That said, even with a controller the very limited mobile GPUs in these type of boxes are a serious hurdle for gaming, not to mention the lack of storage. A modern console needs a GPU with at least 1.2tflops and 20-40gb of storage. Even an A8X clocks in at around 300gflops. The numbers just don’t add up for gaming.
I just can’t see there being a demand for people to play gem matching free to play mobile junk on their TVs.
Yeah but that was sorted 2 years ago with their controller spec. Admittedly the 3rd party ones that came out were mostly junk, but an Apple version along the lines of the Steam controller wouldn’t surprise me IF they go that route. Issue is games optimised for touch don’t generally translate well to controllers, and vice versa, which is why playing old still like street fighter is so frustrating on touchscreens
http://9to5mac.com/2014/01/16/inside-apples-mfi-game-controller-program-why-the-current-crop-of-controllers-arent-up-to-snuff/
Unless Apple releases their own wireless controller for games, an app store addition won’t be fully maximized. I always imagined Apple would eventually release an Xbox/PS4 type, universal controller and force game developers to make games around it. They sort of did this with the 3rd party developers kit, but the controllers available are so fragmented with inconsistent quality. Imagine being able to download Modern Combat on your AppleTV and be able to play it with a legit controller. Airplay for games has too much lag, and using the phone as a controller just won’t cut it. I’m glad they are finally releasing an App Store for the AppleTV, but it will be a disappointment if they don’t make improvements on the controller side.
I will buy IT for several reasons. App store will possibly give me all the channels I need since most tv networks here have an iOS play app. I don’t watch that much tv anyway and if I want to look at some show I never watch it when it airs anyway. Maybe there could be some sort of dvr functionality here, if there is enough storage. Speaking of storage, maybe there will be different sizes like the iPhone… A 128gb model with dvr capability? Also I’m on an ate 3 rev a now which doesn’t support conference room/peer AirPlay for guests, which I want. 4K support would be nice but not a deal breaker. I think iOS gaming has made huge advances and an A8 chip and Metal is a good enough platform for me for my casual gaming needs. I agree there is a certain amount of lag using AirPlay I’d like to get rid of, and App Store with games would do just that. I agree on the remote with touch not feeling like a necessity unless Apple has figured out a special use for it that we haven’t anticipated.. will I get one? Yep!
There just might be more people coming on board for a new atv4 than first thought, if the PLEX app happens. The real key will be the atv4 supporting DTS.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the next one had NO remote at all and was fully app driven from iPhone, iPod or Apple watch, why would you have a single use touchscreen device just to control the TV when you’re going to have at least one in your house anyway if you get an Apple TV it’s generally because yeah other apple crap anyway and want to get it on your TV
4K on the new Apple TV would be great for all your photos. For movie rentals broadband speed is not much of an issue as the current software already has RENT NOW AND WATCH LATER as an option and with the new codec the file size won’t be much bigger than the existing 1080p rentals anyway.
Apple probably won’t make the new Apple TV 4K but if they do that will be the trigger for me to get that Panasonic 802b I’ve had my eye on.
Instead of going thru all the pain of being a streaming service – the need to negotiate with content producers, establishing a global footprint (which will be mandatory for the “winners” in the streaming game eventually) – Apple should become the curator for the few streaming services that survive the coming shakeout. Apple should handle subscriptions in bulk, and then dole out personalized versions, so that instead of paying $35/month to Netflix, Amazon and HBO so I can get Orange is the New Black, The Man in the High Castle, and Westworld, Apple just tells me how much I need to pay to get all three, plus maybe a few other things I select, as a monthly service. If that were about $10 or even as high as $15, that would work just fine for me. The streaming services would get their money (from Apple) and Apple would have a prime position as the interface between the consumer and the streaming service instead of having to compete in a business where Netflix and Amazon already have a huge head start and HBO has a premium brand name for content, something Apple has never been associated with.
Why isn’t FaceTime a priority feature with the new Apple TV??? Everything I’ve read about the upcoming new model does not include FaceTime, which tells me it’s likely not included. I love my current Apple TV and I’m excited about the new model, but FaceTime is the number one feature I wish it did that it does not. I have no interest in games because I’m an adult. Prehaps developers will find a solution with the app store, but I would think Apple would want to champion this. I want to live in the future of Captain Kirk on the Enterprise or Captain Bridger on the SeaQuest and answer a video phone call on my TV from the comfort of my couch. Is that too much to ask? I think not since the technology already exists. I’m not interested in a Skype account when I already have FaceTime on every other device except my TV.
The App Store has to be capable of giving me a Samba Share App and a Native Slingbox App or its useless to me at any cost