| ▲ | cherioo 7 hours ago |
| $299, up from $129 of the last gen. I am not sure how many people would still buy this? |
|
| ▲ | wronglebowski 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I’d argue Apple TVs were one of the few cost subsidized items they sell, as when people could get 15$ 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. |
| |
| ▲ | nnx 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | And only a gigabit Ethernet port... | | |
| ▲ | penagwin 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | imoverclocked 11 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I’m not a gamer so I had to look this up. The Google AI answer for cloud gaming stated a stable 15-20Mbps connection as a requirement. Obviously latency matters in many scenarios but raw bandwidth might be overstated? |
|
| |
| ▲ | imoverclocked 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | | | |
| ▲ | XajniN 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | clydeiii 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I own 4 ATVs, the OG 1080p one, then a 1st, 2nd and 3rd gen. I plan on replacing the oldest of those two with 2 4th gen ATVs. AppleTV is just so much better than any other option out there and I especially like the AV1 hardware decoding here. So, yes, totally worth it. |
|
| ▲ | Brendinooo 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Pretty sure it was up to $199, presumably because of rising hardware costs. |
| |
| ▲ | oakesm9 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That price rise happened a few months ago. One theory at the time was that it was partly to soften the blow of the new price for the next generation. Personally I didn't expect a new generation to be a full $100 more though... | |
| ▲ | sunaookami 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I paid 179 € in December 2023. |
|
|
| ▲ | phoghed 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Probably because of the unprecedented increase in the cost of memory and storage with a possible sprinkle of tariffs. |
|
| ▲ | Hamuko 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I was interested in it, since I do need a certain amount of oomph out of the SoC to watch all of my videos on my Apple TV 4K (libass in case someone asks), but man that sticker shock is harsh. I don't think I can stomach it. |
