In the first three quarters of 2014, the Google Chromecast and Amazon Fire TV made stunning gains in sales activity versus the market-leading Roku and the No. 2 device from 2012 and 2013, the Apple TV, according to a study that made the rounds this week. Roku snapped up 29 percent of sales, down from 46 percent in 2013, while Google Chromecast rose to claim 20 percent of device sales, edging past the Apple TV sales share of 17 percent, down from 26 percent. The Amazon Fire TV, which didn’t even appear until April, is already in fourth place.
So I've been an Apple TV user for several years since the very first 40GB one came out. And I can see the benefit of streaming content from the cloud on services like Chromecast. But let me tell you I bought a chromecast....used it...and then gave it away. Why? Because I have a PC serving up 2TB of movies that I have bought or ripped from my own collection over the years. For streaming content like movies, music or pics locally from inside your own home network, the apple tv is the best. I have no need for cloud streaming and I can't even upload any of my movies to google's ecosystem. I do not watch a lot of internet content (netflix only) because I pay for DirecTV.
The Apple TV is easy to use, easy to set up and works great. I have one hooked up to every TV in my house. My 10, 7, and 2 year old love them and CAN use them. Yes, the 2 year old can too. And just so everyone knows I DO NOT drink the apple Kool-Aid. I own and android phone (GS5) and build PCs for a living. There is not one mac computer in this house.
All of this being said, it would be cool if it was a stick. That still streamed my stuff from my server. And it would be cool if I didn't have to have iTunes opened....
I've thought for some time now that the apple business model has no room to be in the middle of the pack. From the late 80's and early 10's apple suffered an extremely Sharp decline in customers.
People make fun of Microsoft products (lol zune) but the company maintains dominance by putting itself out there. Even if failure is imminent.
I don't think apple TV will matter much more anyways. Half the TV manufacturing is done by the same companies that make cell phones. (Android based) and that damn Google is just so cozy with them.
Thanks for extending the conversation. About this point in particular, the tech world is littered with devices that people bought but stopped using -- a low cost of entry sometimes makes it easy for lots of people to try something out. I'm sure most of us have purchased something that we thought we would use but it turns out we didn't so much after all. I have three buddies who wore fitness trackers for a few months and then abandoned them, just like some reports found earlier this year. The Chromecast came under fire earlier this year when a Parks Associates study said that the number of Chromecast owners who used the device at least once a month declined about 5% or so from Q3 2013 to Q1 of 2014. General tech press had a field day with that. Google came back and said something like, usage of Chromecast devices within a 7-day period is actually up 40%. But they weren't comparing the same sort of statistic. They both might be right. An Apple enthusiast will obviously use an Apple TV a lot more than a casual consumer. And a Google Chromecast fan will obviously increase their usage of Chromecast over time, especially as it becomes enhanced. The question that none of the data answers is this: Of every 10 people who bought a device, how many people use it in a some sort of significant way for a significant period of time?
As for me, my usage is split between my Apple TV and my Amazon Fire TV. About 50-50, actually. Plus, I have a Fire TV stick sitting on my desk right now. Why? It was cheap. I'll use it a little, certainly, maybe even pack it around for use outside the home. And yet, for personal content, my Apple TV gets used. When I buy TV shows, Apple TV. Rent movies? Apple TV. But which leads to me spending more profitable money? I'm not sure. I buy all sorts of things from Amazon, in addition to being a Prime Member. And quite a bit from Apple, too.
What I've been trying to say is that Apple doesn't need to create a me-too streaming stick. And Microsoft doesn't either (the Xbox does more anyway) . . . because I believe that most of this streaming stick activity has more to do with streaming Netflix, etc, than anything truly exciting in the living room.
So why hasn't Apple made a cheap and small stick? Isn't Apple obsessed with making things thinner and smaller?
I believe Apple hasn't done that because Apple wants to deliver the next "leap" in the living room and home. The price and form factor is far less relevant than whatever Apple is cooking up. For instance, instead of a streaming stick, how about a home automation and enhancement hub that works via HomeKit to help manage all the internet-connected devices and appliances in your home?
Google is probably working on such a device, too. For Google, a Chromecast is a gateway to such a bigger device. For Apple, there's already millions of Apple TV owners waiting to upgrade. Plus, Apple has hundreds of retail stores around the world. There is no compelling reason for Apple to sell an Apple TV in the stick form factor -- the wins for a company of Apple's size would be small potatoes. With the Apple Watch coming out -- the success of which is critical to Apple's reputation -- I believe Apple is working on a more interesting leap ahead rather than an Apple TV stick that offers up the same basic features.
I have no loyalty to an app that streams Netflix or the hardware that delivers it. But what if Apple produces a device that does so much more? That's what I think Apple is working on. A stick would be chasing Google's innovation, not leap-frogging it. I think Apple's going for the leap. (And unfortunately, I think the study that sparked this whole piece seemed to imply that Apple wasn't innovating because it hadn't produced a stick like currently selling competitors.)
"As for the data, there's no need to cry wolf here. Just because someone bought a US$35 streaming media stick (like the Chromecast) doesn't mean it's being used in a significant way. T"
So...you downplay the popularity of streaming and AFFORDABLE solutions because ...why? That's a rhetorical question of course, but here's a tip: If you are going to write on a NEWS site, be sure to remove the rose-colored glasses first and not vomit your opinion as fact. Google and the rest produce cheap solutions that work because not everyone has or want to spend $99 or more on an Internet TV device. The stick is hidden and gets out of the way. End of story.
This is typical Apple fanboy stuff whenever Apple loses market share, and it hits all the usual talking points, including attacks on the Amazon and Google business model, the old "sales don't mean usage/revenue" canard and "Apple provides a better user experience" (entirely subjective and many disagree incidentally including the many people who own BOTH Apple AND Android products) resort.
Here is the deal: Google innovated in this space by coming out not only with a new form factor, but function based on the cloud. Apple and its fans spend years panning the innovations of its competition before eventually adopting it - only to then claim that "Apple did it better."
Second, the Fire TV is not a dongle. It is a full-featured streamer just like Roku and Apple TV. (And if you think that people are not using Fire TV to buy and rent movies and music you are nuts.) Amazon merely came out with a dongle option in response to the phenomenal success of Chromecast (Roku did also). But if no one was using Chromecast or if it wasn't generating revenue, why would Roku and Amazon copy it? They have access to industry figures that we do not, and the first rule of business is that replicating failure makes no sense.
This is why everyone hates Apple fans: their bitterness towards the success and good ideas of everybody else. It isn't so much that Apple doesn't "need" a dongle as it is that Apple is nowhere near good enough as a cloud company to invent a technology like Chromecast, let alone fashion a viable true competitor (instead of merely an HDMI dongle streamer like Roku rushed out with) in less than a year. Apple is so behind in the cloud that it can't even offer iCloud - which is merely storage with no advanced features - without Microsoft Azure. But instead of admitting that another company invented something that Apple did not because it is better than something than Apple, you make unfounded claims that the products are loss leaders used to data mine consumers and similar.
Incidentally, Google doesn't merely offer Chromecast. They also offer Nexus Player, a fully-functioned media streamer similar to the Apple TV that is a combination of the Apple TV's hardware-based form and Chromecast's cloud function. (It is similar to Fire TV, except better.) We do not have sales figures for the Nexus Player, but - as was the case with the better Android phones - if Google and its partners continue to offer superior products and technology, the result will be strong sales that Apple will be forced to respond to. When that happens, please, no more churlish, peevish responses from the Apple fans like this.
Loading ...
Apple Doesn’t Need No Stinking Streaming Media Stick!
Posted by: Chris Maxcer December 5, 2014 03:16 PMIn the first three quarters of 2014, the Google Chromecast and Amazon Fire TV made stunning gains in sales activity versus the market-leading Roku and the No. 2 device from 2012 and 2013, the Apple TV, according to a study that made the rounds this week. Roku snapped up 29 percent of sales, down from 46 percent in 2013, while Google Chromecast rose to claim 20 percent of device sales, edging past the Apple TV sales share of 17 percent, down from 26 percent. The Amazon Fire TV, which didn’t even appear until April, is already in fourth place.
The Apple TV is easy to use, easy to set up and works great. I have one hooked up to every TV in my house. My 10, 7, and 2 year old love them and CAN use them. Yes, the 2 year old can too. And just so everyone knows I DO NOT drink the apple Kool-Aid. I own and android phone (GS5) and build PCs for a living. There is not one mac computer in this house.
All of this being said, it would be cool if it was a stick. That still streamed my stuff from my server. And it would be cool if I didn't have to have iTunes opened....
People make fun of Microsoft products (lol zune) but the company maintains dominance by putting itself out there. Even if failure is imminent.
I don't think apple TV will matter much more anyways. Half the TV manufacturing is done by the same companies that make cell phones. (Android based) and that damn Google is just so cozy with them.
Thanks for extending the conversation. About this point in particular, the tech world is littered with devices that people bought but stopped using -- a low cost of entry sometimes makes it easy for lots of people to try something out. I'm sure most of us have purchased something that we thought we would use but it turns out we didn't so much after all. I have three buddies who wore fitness trackers for a few months and then abandoned them, just like some reports found earlier this year. The Chromecast came under fire earlier this year when a Parks Associates study said that the number of Chromecast owners who used the device at least once a month declined about 5% or so from Q3 2013 to Q1 of 2014. General tech press had a field day with that. Google came back and said something like, usage of Chromecast devices within a 7-day period is actually up 40%. But they weren't comparing the same sort of statistic. They both might be right. An Apple enthusiast will obviously use an Apple TV a lot more than a casual consumer. And a Google Chromecast fan will obviously increase their usage of Chromecast over time, especially as it becomes enhanced. The question that none of the data answers is this: Of every 10 people who bought a device, how many people use it in a some sort of significant way for a significant period of time?
As for me, my usage is split between my Apple TV and my Amazon Fire TV. About 50-50, actually. Plus, I have a Fire TV stick sitting on my desk right now. Why? It was cheap. I'll use it a little, certainly, maybe even pack it around for use outside the home. And yet, for personal content, my Apple TV gets used. When I buy TV shows, Apple TV. Rent movies? Apple TV. But which leads to me spending more profitable money? I'm not sure. I buy all sorts of things from Amazon, in addition to being a Prime Member. And quite a bit from Apple, too.
What I've been trying to say is that Apple doesn't need to create a me-too streaming stick. And Microsoft doesn't either (the Xbox does more anyway) . . . because I believe that most of this streaming stick activity has more to do with streaming Netflix, etc, than anything truly exciting in the living room.
So why hasn't Apple made a cheap and small stick? Isn't Apple obsessed with making things thinner and smaller?
I believe Apple hasn't done that because Apple wants to deliver the next "leap" in the living room and home. The price and form factor is far less relevant than whatever Apple is cooking up. For instance, instead of a streaming stick, how about a home automation and enhancement hub that works via HomeKit to help manage all the internet-connected devices and appliances in your home?
Google is probably working on such a device, too. For Google, a Chromecast is a gateway to such a bigger device. For Apple, there's already millions of Apple TV owners waiting to upgrade. Plus, Apple has hundreds of retail stores around the world. There is no compelling reason for Apple to sell an Apple TV in the stick form factor -- the wins for a company of Apple's size would be small potatoes. With the Apple Watch coming out -- the success of which is critical to Apple's reputation -- I believe Apple is working on a more interesting leap ahead rather than an Apple TV stick that offers up the same basic features.
I have no loyalty to an app that streams Netflix or the hardware that delivers it. But what if Apple produces a device that does so much more? That's what I think Apple is working on. A stick would be chasing Google's innovation, not leap-frogging it. I think Apple's going for the leap. (And unfortunately, I think the study that sparked this whole piece seemed to imply that Apple wasn't innovating because it hadn't produced a stick like currently selling competitors.)
--Chris
So...you downplay the popularity of streaming and AFFORDABLE solutions because ...why? That's a rhetorical question of course, but here's a tip: If you are going to write on a NEWS site, be sure to remove the rose-colored glasses first and not vomit your opinion as fact. Google and the rest produce cheap solutions that work because not everyone has or want to spend $99 or more on an Internet TV device. The stick is hidden and gets out of the way. End of story.
Here is the deal: Google innovated in this space by coming out not only with a new form factor, but function based on the cloud. Apple and its fans spend years panning the innovations of its competition before eventually adopting it - only to then claim that "Apple did it better."
Second, the Fire TV is not a dongle. It is a full-featured streamer just like Roku and Apple TV. (And if you think that people are not using Fire TV to buy and rent movies and music you are nuts.) Amazon merely came out with a dongle option in response to the phenomenal success of Chromecast (Roku did also). But if no one was using Chromecast or if it wasn't generating revenue, why would Roku and Amazon copy it? They have access to industry figures that we do not, and the first rule of business is that replicating failure makes no sense.
This is why everyone hates Apple fans: their bitterness towards the success and good ideas of everybody else. It isn't so much that Apple doesn't "need" a dongle as it is that Apple is nowhere near good enough as a cloud company to invent a technology like Chromecast, let alone fashion a viable true competitor (instead of merely an HDMI dongle streamer like Roku rushed out with) in less than a year. Apple is so behind in the cloud that it can't even offer iCloud - which is merely storage with no advanced features - without Microsoft Azure. But instead of admitting that another company invented something that Apple did not because it is better than something than Apple, you make unfounded claims that the products are loss leaders used to data mine consumers and similar.
Incidentally, Google doesn't merely offer Chromecast. They also offer Nexus Player, a fully-functioned media streamer similar to the Apple TV that is a combination of the Apple TV's hardware-based form and Chromecast's cloud function. (It is similar to Fire TV, except better.) We do not have sales figures for the Nexus Player, but - as was the case with the better Android phones - if Google and its partners continue to offer superior products and technology, the result will be strong sales that Apple will be forced to respond to. When that happens, please, no more churlish, peevish responses from the Apple fans like this.