Comment by wronglebowski

25 days ago

I’d argue Apple TVs were one of the few cost subsidized items they sell, as when people could get 15$ Fire TV sticks anywhere they had to at least look competitive. Now that costs have gone up significantly and it’s basically an iPhone 17 without a screen it’s tough to keep the costs down.

16 comments

wronglebowski

Reply
nnx  25 days ago

an iPhone 17 without a screen, with half the storage, without a battery, without FaceID, without cameras, without cellular modem, without Taptic Engine, without…

The only part that “deserves” a price increase is the storage starting at 128GB now instead of 32GB, but it’s completely out of touch to get rid of the base model when nobody has any use for all that storage (even the 32GB) for what is basically a streaming box.

Hell, even their new HomeView device, which does have a screen and FaceID, starts at same price.

cromka  25 days ago

And only a gigabit Ethernet port...

  • penagwin  25 days ago

    Would there be any point in 2.5gbps beyond installing system updates a few seconds faster?

    AFAIK you’d be hard pressed to hit 150mbps with your own local media.

    And any streaming services will use way less - Netflix and Hulu recommend a mere 16Mbps at 4k for example.

    • cromka  25 days ago

      Apple TV can double as Home Hub device in which it records/routes to/ cloud from your cameras. Combined with high-res content, e.g. when streaming games, it can saturate the 1GbE.

      Also, just learned it's still 4k 60Hz. So forget 120Hz gaming. Game streaming is likely to become a default in near future at the hardware proces we see, so limiting to 60Hz is really cheap of them at this point.

      4 replies →

  • imoverclocked  25 days ago

    Any use for a faster port in this device? I use gig-e on my current 4K and it’s really nice to reduce latency (compared to WiFi) but I doubt 2.5G or 10G would be that useful… unless there were an SFP+ port where I could run fiber instead.