You may have missed it between all turkey wells and Black Friday sales, but last week, the information reported that Apple considered making a small AppleTV stick similar to competitors like Amazon and Roku.
Up to Now, Apple has been stuck in keeping the line on Apple TV prices. When the company introduced Apple TV 4K, it did not even cost the fourth generation model, they are still both for sale, starting at $ 149 and $ 179, respectively.
Compare it to the competition: You can buy a Fire TV Stick for $ 40 and a 4K version for $ 50, and comparable Roku devices cost $ 30 and $ 40, respectively. Yes, these pins are underpowered compared to Apple's box. Roku's Apple TV equivalent box is $ 1
It's Apple for you. It has never been the low price leader. The difference is that in 2019, Apple will launch a new video streaming service with over $ 1 billion in content it has purchased for more than a year now. And while people will be able to look at these things on iPads and iPhones and Macs, it will not be readily available on a TV without an Apple TV.
We are in an era where Apple is trying very hard to grow its services revenue, from the App Store to iCloud to Apple Music to, yes, this new video service. The question is, is the growth of Apple's video service important enough to leave high margins and prices for hardware products like Apple TV? According to the information, Apple has thought about it.
Stick it to them
The appeal to TV-stave products is that they are small, discreet and cheap. I find it hard to believe that Apple would sell one for $ 50, like Amazon, but at $ 75 or $ 100 it would be dramatically cheaper than $ 149 in Apple TV today.
What functionality would an Apple TV stick give? It's easy to say that it may not support 4K and HDR, but I'm a little hesitant to write them off. 4K and HDR is where the TV market is now and Apple will no doubt brag about how all programming on its video service is in 4K HDR. Would Apple build a new TV product in 2019 and not offer 4K HDR support? I guess it's possible, but it seems like a strange choice for me. Perhaps a better option would be for Apple to offer two models, like Amazon and Roku do-a non-4K version for $ 75 and a 4K edition for $ 100, let's say.
Another possibility would be for Apple to remove functionality from current Apple TV to separate the stick from the "real" Apple TV. Siri Remote may potentially be omitted. (Apple can even tell buyers to use the Remote app on iPhones or iPads to control the device.) Apps can be restricted so that only video books appear in the App Store.
Then there are the more radical possibilities: What about a TV stick that only runs the TV app? You can still subscribe to third party streaming services, but only using Apple as a reseller. (This feels too limiting to me.) Or what about a device that does nothing but AirPlay? (It seems that I'm too restrictive and unfriendly to force people to figure out how to use AirPlay and associate their devices in the process.)
I also wonder if, instead of making a much cheaper product, Apple only discounts Apple TV and Apple TV 4K and includes an interference to the new video service. What if the prices of the two boxes are cut to $ 79 and $ 99, or $ 99 and $ 129, or anything? And then does Apple offer new buyers six free months of the new video service? There is a way to motivate people to pick up a box and try the service without cutting the price for each customer.
There are many options here. Many of them do not make much sense, but again, your TV boxes for $ 149 and $ 179 do not sell much.
Apple TV inside a TV?
Think of ways that Apple will expand access to the ecosystem in general and its video service in particular, it is worth thinking of the idea that Apple will also license some or all of the Apple TV technologies to television manufacturers.
My current 4K HDR TV, made by TCL, has integrated Roku software. Essentially, the entire TV input interface is powered by Rokus software. There is basically a Roku box inside the TV. There are also televisions that now have Amazons Fire TV technology embedded inside. Is it unreasonable to think that Apple could make an appointment with some TV partners to offer built-in Apple TV technology on its high performance 4K HDR?
In the old days when Apple measured success at the margins, it managed to sell its hardware products, I would say yes. But today's Apple is about service and ecosystem. Getting the ecosystem of multiple TVs is probably more important than what Apple TV sales revenue can do.  Apple TV 4K View ” width=”300″ height=”200″ data-imageid=”100735542″/> Apple
I do not know what's going on at Skje, but it seems that Apple's former culture cries hard against Apple's current business focus. People who already have a foot in Apple's ecosystem need a reason to move on.
This weekend I talked to a friend who was excited on one of Apple's iTunes TV shows. He has an iPad and an iPhone, but no Apple TV – and he wanted to watch the TV episodes he bought on his TV. A situation such as this should be a no-brainer-and if Apple made it cheaper to connect its TV to its ecosystem, he would buy TV shows on iTunes and try Apple TV service when it comes out. But he does not spend $ 150 on an Apple TV.
This is the kind of person Apple needs now, somehow.
Let's face it: Apple's wealth will never rise or fall based on revenue generated by Apple TV hardware sales. It is a reflection on a product, at least to the total ecosystem at best. But it may turn out to be an important part of a bigger strategy to get people to pay Apple money every month to watch their new video service.
Moved your Apple.