With the all-new Apple TV, Apple changes the game, yet again

“Perhaps the most surprising thing about Apple’s announcement of its assault on your living room was the matter-of-fact way it revealed it. Apple didn’t need to build a TV after all,” Hilton Tarrant writes for Moneyweb. “Rather, Apple announced a fundamental overhaul of the TV puck (set-top box) that many of us have in our homes. From the outside, it looks slightly taller. But the magic is (as is always the case with Apple) in the hardware and software (and how they work together).”

“We know the current TV paradigm is broken. Channels and lists and lists and search, which hardly works. Too much content to know about. Too much content that’s hard to find or discover. Content in silos,” Tarrant writes. “It’s newly-announced tvOS (which slots in neatly alongside iOS and watchOS, and dare I suggest it, macOS) enables developers to target Apple TV for the first time. Apps are bundled so if you buy an app on iOS and there’s a TV app available, you have that too.”

“It’s the addition of Siri on the remote that holds the most promise. Apple’s natural language search has come a long way,” Tarrant writes. “Apple’s been making steady progress. It was only after the launch of Apple Watch (in tier one markets) in late April that people started taking notice. And using Siri. On the Watch, Siri is really good. Almost to the point of being surreal. And the improvements available on iOS 9 in a week’s time suggest that Apple’s confident that it’s solved this problem. When Steve Jobs, according to the Walter Isaacson biography, said ‘I finally cracked it’ in reference to the TV interface… did he mean Siri?”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: When the new Apple TV launches at “the end of October,” we will be replacing several older Apple TV units with the new 64GB Apple TV models (US$199). We think doubling internal storage from the entry-level model’s 32GB ($149) to 64GB is well worth the $50 premium, don’t you? We plan on loading up on apps, so the more storage, the better!

Analyst: Apple TV streaming service on the way, could cost at least $40 a month – September 14, 2015
Local media streaming app Plex coming to Apple TV – September 14, 2015
What Apple got right in Apple TV’s user interface – and what needs work – September 11, 2015
New Apple TV has the potential to do for television what iPhone did for mobile phones – September 11, 2015
Apple preps to conquer living room with all-new Apple TV – September 11, 2015
Hands-on with the all-new Apple TV – September 10, 2015
Gruber: Apple TV will define how all TVs will work in a few years – September 10, 2015
Here’s how much RAM is inside Apple’s iPhone 6s/Plus, iPad Pro and new Apple TV – September 10, 2015
New Apple TV sounds great, but where’s the 4K? – September 10, 2015


  1. I am a bit concerned about the limited storage on the AppleTV (32GB & 64GB) given that it is also a gaming platform. And it’s apps approach does not address DVR needs or provide a complete alternative to the current stranglehold that cable and satellite providers have on TV distribution in the U.S. But it is a start…

    1. Most iPhone owners are quite happy with 16GB of storage.

      Since Apple TV storage won’t be used for anything other than apps (all content is to be streamed), 32GB seems plenty.

      1. Based on my experience, I disagree with your assertion. The people with 16GB iPhones who seriously use them find the storage to be quite limiting. I have a 32GB iPad 3 and I quickly found that to be limiting. I have to periodically sort through my apps and media and delete stuff to keep a few GB free. I am glad that Apple switched to 16/64/128GB. But it should be 32/64/128 and the only reason that it isn’t is because Apple gets a lot of upgrades to 64GB at $100 each.

        I understand why Apple does this and I want the company to be profitable. But sometimes Apple reaches a point at which it is milking the system for profit. Memory is pretty cheap at the quantities that Apple purchases it. A 32GB or even a 64GB AppleTV is going to be constrained by that storage even if most things are streamed rather than stored. But feel free to disagree. Time will tell.

        1. KingMel… I really don’t think Apple provides small capacity units strictly to increase profit, as you 2nd paragraph implies. Although I agree that most people are happy with smallest. BUT, even if most people are not satisfies with a lower capacity, that doesn’t mean that some are not. With the Apple TV, those that simply want watch TV shows and movies will likely be able to store plenty of apps on the 32 GB model, and be quite happy. As for the iPhone, what if your a corporation that wants 1500 iPhones for employees so they can use SalesForce or some type of ERP app, or something of the like. It’s a business tool, and they aren’t interested in how many personal photos, games or music file the iPhone will store. They want a tool that enables employees to participate equivalently in a specific few business apps. I truly think Apple decides that there is a use case for the smaller capacity units, and isn’t looking entice the unwary consumer into buying a useless, cheaper product. It’s up to the buyer to have a realistic appraisal of the capacity they need, and buy accordingly.

        2. I’m sorry but you have to be myopic to think the 16/64 split is anything except an obvious way to increase the average selling price.

          There is no reason to keep the 16gb versions around. Even for business machines.

  2. It is a bargain at $199 for a gaming console/streaming box. Say good by to Nintendo!!!! Do not be surprised if some brave hardware developer will brave that USB-C port on the back of the ATV. Can you imagine connecting a SSD to the back of the ATV? huh?????

      1. If Apple had fewer irons in the fire, or had shown any zest for the gaming market at any time in the past, I’d tend to agree. But casual gaming zoomed on iOS of its own accord. Only recently have we seen Apple promote videogames on iOS or OS X, and then only to demonstrate superlative graphics. They haven’t demonstrated a lick of sense with respect to gaming as an important economic category, one that has long surpassed Hollywood in earnings; and they seem blind to the value of legacy games in a way that would knot the brows of the successors of Walt Disney, who know the value of a beloved franchise as much as anyone. In some ways—especially with respect to using computers to play games—Apple is strangely aloof, as if it still harboured some kind of Freudian aversion to human childishness. If they were anywhere near as brave, or reckless, as Microsoft who bought Bungie for the game Halo and went all in with the xBox, I’d respect them more; but presently they seem merely to be cashing in on an accidental phenomenon.

        Playing games is a fundamental cultural activity of our species. Why has Apple leadership failed to realise this? It may be that their thinking is hidebound by the layers of dollars.

      1. Lot’s of people truly love Nintendo games. But as other hardware options encroach into the console space, what is Nintendo to do to maintain the reach of their games? If people decide that multiple uni-tasking consoles don’t fit their lifestyle or budget, Nintendo may find fewer and fewer people discover the pleasure of their games. They may find that their brightest future is Apple TV versions of their games to keep them relevant with the next generation of gamers.

        In 2013, sales of Apple TV were roughly 10 million. Aggregate Nintendo Wii and Wii U in the same year were less than 0.5 million. Wouldn’t Nintendo be smart to port their games to Apple TV now that tvOS is available?

    1. Yes, I am not sure why Apple does this. It makes for a poor comparison to the likes of the Roku that does allow a USB connection for file storage. I suspect they want you to have, like I do, an Mac acting as media file server over the network. If Roku made computers they might do the same.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.