Hacker News Reader

Comment by shajznnckfke | Hacker News Reader

IMO, Apple TV has been one of the strengths of the iOS ecosystem over Android. Chromecast has a lot of good integrations, but the dongle’s lack of a standalone UI with independent controls made it awkward for communal living room use. Looks like this could be a strong competitor and the price greatly undercuts Apple. I’m excited to try it out.

View on HN

The BIG difference here is that Netflix is fully integrated with the search/queue/discovery experience, along with all of the other major streaming services like Prime. Apple hasn't managed to land that one yet – having access to their content baked into the experience is a huge advantage, let alone not alienating Netflix as Apple did in the past with the TV app: https://9to5mac.com/2019/03/18/netflix-apple-video-service-t...

Apple is really trying to get to this too. To give some examples, HBO Max, Crunchyroll, and Disney+ all already integrate into the "TV" app on iOS (and almost certainly on Apple TV) where their shows/episodes are searchable and your incomplete watches show up in 'up next'.

see https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/tech-talks/508/

Android TV already does that on versions 10 and 11.

Netflix won't play ball because of Apple TV+, was likely a massive strategic error for them to jump to that when they couldn't negotiate deals with TV channels

If I recall correctly, this is more due to Netflix than Apple. Not sure if it is business terms or data privacy, but Apple seems open to as many TV App participants as possible.

It's the other way around – Apple imposes certain demands on content owners to appear in the app, one of which is basically treating them as dumb content pipes under Apple's brand – so Netflix, IMO wisely, said no. https://9to5mac.com/2019/03/18/netflix-apple-video-service-t...

I think that's on Netflix, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is because Netflix won't agree to whatever privacy rules Apple stipulates. Other services are searchable in the TV app.

Given the amount of Netflix chatter my Pi Hole blocked from my Roku when I wasn't even using Netflix, data harvesting seems to be a big part of their operation.

It's not about privacy rules of any kind, it's about Apple demanding too much control – similar to iOS, I suppose – meaning a bunch of big providers opted out. I get it. https://9to5mac.com/2019/03/18/netflix-apple-video-service-t...

I wonder if the search/discovery/queue for Google TV will also work with Plex and services like Trakt.

Currently on Apple TV I’m just using each service’s app (Netflix, Plex, Amazon) to watch different shows, but one UI that kept track of everything would be neat.

I've had an Apple TV for about 2 years. Last year I bought a Chromecast (against my better judgement) for my parents because their "smart" TV apps are awful. I would've bought them an Apple TV but they didn't want me spending that much on them, unfortunately.

But long story short, like you're saying the Apple TV's UX is on another level from the (previous) Chromecast since it lacks its own UI and controls. It's definitely one of the painpoints that I've noticed my parents having difficulty with.

Whereas Apple TV has an easy to use UI (other than individual streaming apps sometimes making their own media player UI, like Disney+ and Amazon Prime, which are awful).

i agree. at the time i purchased an AppleTV because ChromeCast was just awful. I'd lose connection from my iPhone, browser, friends would lose connection. Streaming from Plex was terrible. I liked just being able to have a dedicated box but didn't want to get a Roku/FireStick.

I'm glad they finally introduced this but it's a bit too late for me .

I hate that you can't browse media on your iphone while broadcasting to your appletv. Any video that comes up will take the place of what's playing on your TV

A chromecast is not in the same product category as a an AppleTV. You'd want an Android TV box/stick for that. Chromecast is more like a cloud connected miracast/DLNA target.

With part of the cost of anything Google related is your privacy....

I don't understand why this comment was downvoted. This is priced the way it is because the profit isn't in the hardware, it's in the viewer data. It's very cheap only if you set the value of your privacy to some very low number.

Anecdotally, techies are tiring of vague statements about privacy and 'you're the product', especially about Google. If theres a tangible cost beyond enabling ad targeting, people are still amenable (this has always been true for the general populace, Google has a more trustworthy image than Apple! Imagine that)

I think you're right about the attitude among techies - especially those around San Francisco - and I think that's part of the reason why our reputation is in decline. A lot of America sees us as a bunch of creeps spying on everything they do and they aren't wrong about that.

Video records are a special class of data covered by the Video Privacy Protection Act. The tangible cost is the risk that your viewing history would be used to attack you. It happened before and that's what spurred the creation of that act.

And that law has no effect on Google. Google doesn’t sell data to advertisers. It sells access to you. Meaning they aren’t going to send advertisers a list of 20-35 year olds who like action movies. Advertisers are going to ask Google to target their advertisements to that demographic.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think there are also data retention limits and opt-out requirements as part of that act. Some states have stricter rules as well.

There is an opt out. The only retention policy is that records must be destroyed within one year after the account is terminated.

https://epic.org/privacy/vppa/

To put it more plainly: Americans love tech and trust it, and not so oddly, in reverse order of how _tech people_ appreciate the companies.

Look at these ratings, theyre in direct contradiction with your guess of what they are as well as your thesis: Amazon and Google both have above 90% trust, Apple has 81%.

I've meditated on them a lot, and came to the conclusion there's a lot of class issues in tech spaces, and a borderline condescending paternal instinct towards users. Over 90% of people know their information isn't being 'sold'

https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/2/21144680/verge-tech-survey...

I'm assuming you put sold in quotation marks because you are being generous and are really talking about disclosure in a broad sense.

Maybe those 90% haven't read stories like this one (which is about Facebook):

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46618582

Or maybe they've never heard of a data broker? To be clear, I don't think Google sells user data, but do they share it with anybody like Facebook has a history of doing? That I'm not clear about. I think they may share it with other Alphabet companies. I think they do buy data from brokers.

Why else would Google be producing hardware and selling it so cheaply if not to monetize usage data? Is there any world where the thin if any profit margin on Chromecast like devices are worth the revenue for a company the size of Google?

Roku - the leading company in the space - made $1.19 billion in revenue. I doubt anyone thinks that Google will approach Roku’s market share.

Roku is all about obtrusive advertising. Why would Google be any different? Do you think Google put a hard coded Netflix button on the remote out of the goodness of their heart?

> Google has a more trustworthy image than Apple! Imagine that

By what metric?

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/11/amazon-beats-apple-and-googl...

Apple has sold tens of millions of Apple TVs. Apple doesn’t break out the revenue in their earnings reports but they have definitely made billions in revenue from the business. With that large install base, Apple has growing power to promote services in the video streaming market which is worth hundreds of billions. The more power Apple has here, the greater their ability to extract a cut from streaming service revenue as platform owner. This is relevant to Google as a player in the video streaming market, who also owns platforms that compete with Apple’s. It would be stupid for Google to not put up a fight in this market.

Tens of millions?

No one thinks that Apple has sold tens of millions of TVs.

https://macdailynews.com/2020/09/02/strategy-analytics-apple...

The global population of TV and video streaming devices has now exceeded 1.1 billion, with Apple TV / tvOS holding 2% share, according to the latest market share analysis from Strategy Analytics’ TV Streaming Platforms service.

And this is from MacdailyNews. Definitely not an anti Apple rag. Apple has been calling the AppleTV a “hobby” for over a decade.

There is a reason that Apple is making deals left and right to get AppleTV (the app) on competing platforms and now they are making deals with Roku to support Airplay.

Doing the math on your numbers, 2% of 1.1 billion is 22 million, which is tens of millions. The 1.1 billion appears to include TVs with included “smart TV” software, which explains why it’s such a huge number.

Back in 2015 Apple said they had already sold 25 million: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2...

Anecdotally they’re common in households where people have iPhones. IMO, they currently have the best user experience to control a TV.

25 million is nothing. Apple sells close to 200 million phones a year. 25 million over a lifetime is minuscule.

Besides that, Apple talked about how hard it is to be “HDMI 1”. Especially now that all of the TVs have “smarts” and most people still have cable. Not to mention that an Apple TV is $149-$200. I have two ATV4Ks that were both free when AT&T was doing their deal. We don’t even use it on one of our TVs that have Roku built in.

Besides that, sales before 2015 are almost irrelevant. That was before it had an App Store. A lot of the new streaming services don’t even support it. Roku wasn’t being integrated into low end TVs left and right.

There is no better experience for most people than a TV with Roku built in. One remote controls everything.

I’ve found that the built-in smart TVs, including Roku, have a laggy and frustrating experience compared to Apple TV. Also, most smart TV software stops working entirely after a while.

I’m not saying it’s better. I’m saying it’s good enough that most people aren’t going to drop an extra $150-$199 for an AppleTV4K.

AFAIK, every TV with integrated Roku support is still getting updated.

Even if that’s not the case, you can pick up a Roku stick from Walmart for $30. That’s not to even mention game consoles.

Google already knows so much about you, it doesn't really care about your TV watching habits.

But maybe, they'd like to put highly targeted ads on your TV.

You don't think "likes action movies" or "watches romantic comedies" or "binge watches on weekends" are targeting segments that advertisers will pay for?

I think they can statistically analyze which category one belongs to among those categories.

Whether they can sell that capability to advertisers ? I don't know.

So exactly how would they do that without my viewing data and why would advertisers pay for that when they can get better information from Roku and the smart TV manufacturers?

It seems like search intent data would be a great source of this kind of information that Google already has. I think this product is more about competing for market power as platform owner in the video streaming business, which is worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

I’d guess it could tie into the ad business by showing attribution when ads for media result in conversions that play on the Google TV, although I’m not sure how big the opportunity is there.

Who searches on Google for the movies and TV shows they want to watch on their TV?

I think I’ve searched on Google for most movies I’ve ever watched. Maybe that makes me a weird person, I don’t know. If you search for a movie on Google, you get a lot of information, including reviews, actors, links to rent it on Google Play Store, Amazon, watch it on various streaming services, etc. There’s money to be made being the place people go when they want things. Actually that’s how Google makes most of its money - companies pay a finders fee to have that demand directed toward them. Content ads are a smaller business.

That’s not what most people do. Most people are watching movies on their TV. The Netflix recommendation engine is a huge driver of what people watch. Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu and YouTube are the big four. I’m not sure how many people are actually watching YouTube on TV though.

You turn on your average smart TV or device, it’s also allowing you to buy movies on the device.

If you are binge watching TV, your TV knows. It knows what you watch, when you watch, etc.

I think what you’re saying here pretty much agrees with what I’m saying. By owning the platform where video is watched, Google will have more market power in the video streaming business. In the long run, that means getting a cut of revenues earned by video services on the platform, or preventing Apple from charging them that cut if they own the platform. It’s a much more integrated version of what happens now when you search for a movie on Google.com.

Apple already doesn’t get any money out of Google. You can’t buy YouTube Live TV nor YouTube premium via in app subscriptions.

VOD rentals from Google Play Movies isn’t making money. I doubt anyone is making money on it. Everyone is charging the same thing. I assume that’s because there is no room to reduce prices.

Apple, Amazon, and Google care so little about revenue from digital movies that if you buy a movie from one service and link your account to Movies Anywhere, all of the other services just count it as purchased on their services. It’s a feature not a product that couldn’t be above break even.

If you search for a movie on Apple and it is available free on another service you subscribe to, Apple will just tell you.

The only play for Google here is advertising and collecting user data.

There is no realistic alternative where Google is any more than a bit player when you have Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney, and all of the other players with real content. Google already gave up on originals on YouTube.

How would Google possibly know the types of shows I watch unless I am watching something on YouTube without a connection to my TV?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com