The Chromecast basically doesn't need to do anything except stream video. This, on the other hand, has a reasonably hefty mobile processor (same one as iPhone 6). Also, the Chromecast's wifi is pretty anaemic; not much room for antennae.

I think from a consumer marketing perspective they want really want a box with an Apple logo sitting in every living room in the country. I think that, and maybe because of the SSD and other hardware.

> Anyone understand why they didn't launch this as a chromecast like USB stick vs. a standalone box?

The same reason that Google didn't do that with Nexus Player, which is the nearest equivalent consumer product from Google to the Apple TV.

> Surely price point will be a big issue with adoption.

Possibly -- I think there is a reason why Google did Chromecast first. But Apple has been pretty successful in the past aiming at the high end of the market and not worrying about price point effects on adoption, trusting on marketing and prestige.

I'll ignore the idea that an A8 processor based computer with gigs of memmory and 32 GB of flash storage could be fitted into an HDI stick. Presumably why did they produce a full-featured computer platform instead of a streaming stick.

Chromecast already exists, so why duplicate it? My question to you is, where's the value added in an Apple version of Chromecast? Where's the revenue stream? How does it establish a platform? How does it play to their strengths?

Considering the amount of processing power put into this thing, how should it fit into a stick?

I also got the impression they want it to be standalone device. IMO a good idea, if I'd tell my parents to use their phones' to watch TV I'd get some very weird looks.

Don't understand why people like the Chromcast. I couldn't believe it didn't run apps natively. What a joke.