Google’s making a cheaper Chromecast, but what we really need is an affordable Apple TV
We found out last month that Google isworking on a new Chromecast device. For what it costs, the existing model is already one of thebest streaming devicesyou can buy, but given its limited hardware — storage in particular has been a sore spot — we first assumed this new iteration would be a higher-end device that offers a more premium experience for a little more money. Turns out that’s not the case: thenew ‘Boreal’ Chromecast will be an even cheaper devicethat tops out at 1080p. But I don’t think Google’s the one that ought to be targeting a lower price point.
The low-end streaming device market is thoroughly saturated. Both Roku and Amazon sell boxes and dongles at every budget price point you can imagine, and if you want a rock-bottom Android solution, Walmart’sOnn Android TVmanages to provide a passable 4K streaming experience at an MSRP of just $30. A new, even cheaper Chromecast might please a certain subset of budget-conscious Google loyalists, but unless ‘Boreal’ ends up beingoutrageouslycheap, making real inroads in the sub-$50 space is going to be awfully difficult.
The $50 Chromecast with Google TV is great, but its hardware is limiting.
We thinka new Chromecast should target a higher price pointto take advantage of the dearth of mid-range streaming options. Past 50 bucks, you won’t find many options until you get into premium territory; you’ll probably end up paying $150 so for an enthusiast-level box — something like aShield TVor Apple TV. A less expensive Shield TV would be great, but there are already dirt cheap options for getting Android on your big screen. What we’re missing is an affordable Apple TV box.
The cheapest Apple TV you can buy today is theApple TV HD— which outputs at 1080p and retails for an unconscionable $149. It’s a ridiculous product. At MSRP, it seems like the Apple TV HD exists solely to drive sales to the $179Apple TV 4K— Apple hopes you’ll look for its “affordable” offering, see that a better option exists for just a little more money, and opt to spring on the 4K model. And who wouldn’t? Even if you don’t own a 4K TV, the 4K model has better performance and extra features, like the ability to route audio to two pairs of AirPods simultaneously (the HD model only supports one pair at a time).
The $149 Apple TV HD is a ridiculous product.
Apple prices its products in this way all the time; I believe it’s why last year’siPad Miniis priced so similarly to the iPad Air. But the company’s also been known to leverage its supply chain to make surprisingly cheap, surprisingly good products:2020’s iPhone SErecycled parts from older iPhones to come in at an uncharacteristically affordable 400 bucks, and it’s a great little phone. (We’reexpecting a refreshed model later this year; we’ll see if Apple can nail the price-to-performance ratio twice in a row.) Theentry-level iPadis also rocking older components, and at $329, it’s one of the best tablets it’s possible to buy in its price range.
I’d like to see Apple take a similar tack with the Apple TV. The wildly overpriced HD model available today is running on Apple’s A8 chipset — which debuted eight years ago in the iPhone 6. But the previous-gen Apple TV 4K packed Apple’s A10X Fusion chipset, the same one that powered 2017’s iPad Pros. It even supported still-popular HDR and surround sound standards like Dolby Vision and Atmos. Essentially, I’d be excited to see Apple retire the Apple TV HD, dust off the previous-gen Apple TV 4K, trim some fat, and sell it as the base Apple TV device — ideally for $100 or so. A more capable 4K device, possibly an “Apple TV Pro,” could pile on bells and whistles and stay up around the $200 mark — HDMI 2.1, a nicer remote, more storage, et cetera.
Shield TV is a strong performer, but $150’s a lot of money to stream some movies.
None of this is likely feasible in the near-term; the current Apple TV models haven’t even been out a full year. But if Apple were to bring a competent 4K streaming box to market somewhere between $70 and $120, it’d more or less own the space. That would be great for Apple, obviously: if the company can manage to just break even on streaming devices, it’ll eventually turn a profit through VOD purchases and subscriptions to services like Apple TV+, Apple Fitness+, and Apple Arcade. But why should we, as Android fans, care what Apple’s streaming boxes cost?
As it stands today, Amazon, Roku, and most manufacturers of Android TV devices operate in an entirely different world from Apple; not a lot of people are cross-shopping streaming boxes with hundred-dollar price differences. But a $100 Apple TV that supports 4K and modern audio and HDR standards could raise some eyebrows from folks looking at the few existing mid-range devices like theRoku Ultra,Fire TV Cube, and even higher-end options like Nvidia’s most recent Shield TVs. It’d be a tangible threat to manufacturers of reasonably priced, 4K-capable streaming boxes, in a way Apple’s existing TV offerings just aren’t. Those manufacturers would need to up their game to avoid losing ground in an increasingly competitive market. In short, a cheaper Apple TV would foster competition.
Outside of a few premium players, the streaming box market seems locked in a race to the bottom, but with popular 4K-capable options regularly available for 20 bucks or so on sale, there’s not much more room to go down. The mid-range space, meanwhile, is ripe for the picking, and Apple is well positioned to make waves. I really hope it decides to do so; more choice is never a bad thing.
From faster storage to better speakers
Pixel 10 Pro XL charges faster wirelessly
Things get red hot for Magenta
Google’s made several improvements over the years
Carriers get the upper hand
It’s $30 off for a limited time
