### Back to Article

• #### thesavvymage - Friday, March 15, 2013 - link

You’d break even on the \$99 cost of a new Apple TV in about 385 years. Maybe by then we’ll actually have a true replacement to cable TV.

Not often that I laugh during an article, but this got me haha
• #### fnord123 - Friday, March 15, 2013 - link

I think your math is wrong - the new AppleTV consumes about 0.7W less no matter what it is doing.

0.7W * 24 hr/day * 365 days/year * 1KWhr/1000W = About 6KWHr per year. At around \$0.12 per KWHr, a \$99 AppleTV pays for itself in \$99 / (6 * 0.12) = About 137 years, not 385 years.
• #### commondandy - Friday, March 15, 2013 - link

8 hours a day, not 24. Reply
• #### Seemone - Friday, March 15, 2013 - link

after all to watch TV 24 hours a day we'd have to factor in caffeine costs. Reply
• #### Torrijos - Friday, March 15, 2013 - link

What he meant is that even idle the AppleTV consumes 0.7w less, so even when you're not watching anything it saves you a little bit of money (power). So I agree with him, since in every state you save 0.7w it pays itself in 137 years. Reply
• #### Helmore - Friday, March 15, 2013 - link

Doesn't the Apple TV have a standby mode? If so, would both their standby modes be roughly the same power consumption? Reply
• #### Gigaplex - Friday, March 15, 2013 - link

Why is it not simply turned off? Does the Apple TV not have a low power "off/sleep" mode? Reply
• #### Torrijos - Friday, March 15, 2013 - link

Isn't the "Idle" state the low power sleep state? Reply
• #### zeagus - Friday, March 15, 2013 - link

0.7W is too high for ya? :) Reply
• #### juliankauai - Friday, March 15, 2013 - link

here on Kauai and island of Hawaii electricity is \$0.40 per KWHr. = 41.25 years. Electricity costs different amounts in different places. Reply
• #### jmmx - Monday, March 18, 2013 - link

OK - if you wanted to run the device at 0.85 W for 10 hours - what size batterie would you need? (i.e in mAh) Reply
• #### frogger4 - Friday, March 15, 2013 - link

Can you say iWatch SOC? Reply
• #### fteoath64 - Friday, March 15, 2013 - link

I would say Wifi NAS (battery powered). This would compliment the iPads, iPhones, iTouches and MacBooks. Just slot in your favorite 2.5inch HDD and good-to-go!. One can and will do TimeMachine native and potentially iCloud caching!. How is that for an idea ?.
Note: A portable NAS would see more than AppleTVs in volumes yearly since it would appeal to more people who do not watch TV and lives on the Internet and using the Cloud. At least a billion on revenue easy if they had a \$199 model, a \$249 model and \$299 model.
• #### Gigaplex - Friday, March 15, 2013 - link

Slot in your favourite drive? No... this is Apple. They'd provide the drive for you and charge extra. Reply
• #### weiran - Friday, March 15, 2013 - link

Be realistic, Apple would never make this. Reply
• #### erple2 - Saturday, March 16, 2013 - link

It sounds to me like you've just described the Apple Time Machine. They already have that product (sans battery backup). Also, that wouldn't be all that long lasting on a battery. Reply
• #### tipoo - Friday, March 15, 2013 - link

Nah. Even this little power draw is way too much for a watch, The Pebble watch uses a Cortex-M3 which has a max power draw of 0.00408 W. At 0.7 watts (ok, shave some for the system since it would be far less in a watch) is much much more. The Pebble lasts a week with an e-ink display. Reply
• #### Tegeril - Saturday, March 16, 2013 - link

The Pebble is not e-ink, it's an e-paper LCD, which is a significant difference. Reply
• #### tipoo - Monday, March 18, 2013 - link

Either way, the chip it uses draws way less power. Reply
• #### casteve - Friday, March 15, 2013 - link

"The only question that remains is whether or not we’ll see this unique A5 revision appear in any other devices. There’s not a whole lot of room for a single-core Cortex A9 in Apple’s existing product lineup, so I’m encouraged to believe that this part is exclusively for the Apple TV."

Unless they need a media controller embedded in a TV.
• #### Aenean144 - Friday, March 15, 2013 - link

Why would they bother for a television? How many \$1000+ televisions Apple can sell per year? 1m, 2m, 4m? Doesn't sound worth it too.

I think the best candidate would be the "cheap" iPhone at \$300-\$400 unsubsidized or an iPod touch at \$200. It'll be a step above the A4 SoC in the iPhone 4 (~\$450 unsubsidized today) and the iPod touch 4th gen (8/16 GB models at \$200/\$250). Possibly, a lower tier iPad mini at \$250. This single core A5 will be have about 1.5x the CPU performance and 5x-7x the GPU performance.
• #### Colin1497 - Monday, March 18, 2013 - link

There has been a lot of scuttlebutt about a low cost iPhone primarily for markets outside the US/Europe. I wouldn't be surprised to see this part show up there. Currently the iPhone 4 brings up the tail end of the lineup, but this is something that was designed originally as a premium product, but that is now long in the tooth. I suspect iPhone 4 compatibility will be kept around for a few more generations of iOS, and this is more powerful than the A4 in the in iPhone 4, so this silicon, and a die shrink on it, could go into a lower cost product at the low end. Basically picture it in an iPhone 4 spin with the goal of driving out cost, while possibly having LTE and a few other modern features spun in. Reply
• #### rollacorolla - Friday, March 15, 2013 - link

With such low power draw, it's a shame it still needs a bulky power cord and transformer. It would be neat if it could be bus powered via HDMI or ethernet. Or stick a photovoltaic cell on top of it. Reply
• #### smartthanyou - Friday, March 15, 2013 - link

"The Apple TV is an incredibly relevant device today. It’s Apple’s attempt to augment the Netflixes and Hulu Pluses of the world with an on-demand cable TV alternative."

Is that a typo? Did you mean "irrelevant?" The Apple TV's purpose is to support purchasers of iTunes content to help keep iTunes users locked into the Apple ecosystem. Sure, there are a few other services on the device but none of them directly compete with the iTunes store. The one thing that would directly compete, Amazon Video on Demand, is missing.

Unless you want to "sell your soul" to Apple, it is a useless device.
• #### Scannall - Friday, March 15, 2013 - link

Pretty obvious you don't actually know anything at all about the device. Just foaming at the keyboard over a mention of Apple. Reply
• #### Retrophe - Friday, March 15, 2013 - link

He is right in that it is limited to iTunes. Using a ceton infin4 and a pc you can record cable and tv, watch via amazonprime or google's play's rival due soon, and you can stream via icefilms. Apple tv does none of that. Reply

You have a choice so stick to it.

One man's meat is another man's poison.
• #### MichalT - Wednesday, July 24, 2013 - link

If you already use an iPad, it wirelessly connects the iPad to the television, so you get everything on your iPad to your tv. That's a lot of content and its kind of cool to use a tablet as a remote control. If you want a pirate box, this likely isn't the choice, but otherwise if you already have an iPad it seems pretty cool to me. Reply
• #### steven75 - Saturday, March 16, 2013 - link

It's worth \$99 for AirPlay alone, as long as you have an iOS device, obviously.

AirPlay is incredibly useful.
• #### ExarKun333 - Sunday, March 17, 2013 - link

You are obviously mistaken. There are many devices people already have that already support Airplay without needing to waste money on this. I can stream directly from computer to receiver using airplay, or from a phone/iPad. AppleTV is JUNK, period. It is irrelevant and a piece of crap. They could simply replace it entirely with a cable that could connect from your iPhone or iPad to your TV, or just manage all that content wirelessly directly to your TV. This an extra device that provides nothing, and it is reflected by the poor sales and consumer reception. Reply
• #### jmmx - Monday, March 18, 2013 - link

It is a device that does what it advertises to do - and does it well. In what way is it "crap"?

5Million units sold in one year - maybe not a stampede, but not bad.
• #### virgahyatt - Sunday, March 24, 2013 - link

You are right you can stream Audio through airplay to those devices. However, the apple TV doesn't stop at audio. You can stream video as well. The device is actually capable of a lot more than what apple uses it for (surprise surprise). Take a look at XBMC which has a version for the apple TV. Reply

• #### virgahyatt - Sunday, March 24, 2013 - link

Actually, Netflix and Hulu could both be considered direct competitors and yet they are available. Reply
• #### tipoo - Friday, March 15, 2013 - link

There are still bound to be A5 chips with one defunct core but otherwise working, I cant imagine they would want to waste all of those. I wonder if they will continue to produce the Apple TV with some one+one disabled core in them, with the bulk being the new truly single core one, since lowered rates of failure are probably the reason they switched? Reply
• #### tipoo - Friday, March 15, 2013 - link

The article says the device would be cheaper to make, but wouldn't defunct SoCs from the iPads and iPhones be the even cheaper option? Unless the rate of failure on those had gotten so low they were artificially disabling one core on the Apple TV and using chips that would be fine in iPads, but then why not leave the cores alone? Hmm. Reply
• #### solipsism - Saturday, March 16, 2013 - link

You'd have to consider how many Apple TVs are being sold as well as how many do they expect to sell in the future (perhaps finally opening up to an App Store and SDK). Then add in the fault rate of chips that still have a viable GPU and at least one CPU core, and compare take into account how many fully-functioning A5 chips will be needed to supplement the difference.

Then there is always the possibility that there is enough faulty A5s that would work but Apple is using the Apple TV as a testing bed — like they did with the iPad 2 Rev. 2 for testing the 32nm chips — to test low power chips for some other project, like wearable computers.
• #### tipoo - Saturday, March 16, 2013 - link

On the last point, if you're thinking of the iWatch, even this little power draw is way too much for a watch, The Pebble watch uses a Cortex-M3 which has a max power draw of 0.00408 W. At 0.7 watts (ok, shave some for the system since it would be far less in a watch) is much much more. The Pebble lasts a week, and only that with an e-ink display. Reply

• #### SBoss2389 - Saturday, March 16, 2013 - link

Thanks for the review !
But I'm sad you did not check the audio performance of this new AppleTV.
The main weakness of AppleTV has always been the unability to output audio at the correct sampling frequency from any source recorded in 44.1KHz (CD Audio)
When I bought an AppleTV 3rd gen a few month ago, I realized that all my iTunes library was forced to 48KHz audio, altough 98% of the content is native 44.1KHz audio.
This is a shame since Apple's Airport Express does the job right and lets audio sampling untouched. I switched back to Airport Express for music listening and got rid of this infamous AppleTV. And since modifying sampling frequency has severe drawbacks on audio quality, AppleTV cannot be used for true hifi audio experience, unless Apple manage to make it work like Airport Express in a next release or firmware update.
I'd be glad to know the reason why Apple chose to adjust sampling frequency on all inputs. To your opinion, is this only software related or some hardware incompatibility ?
Stephane.
• #### RobinBee - Sunday, March 17, 2013 - link

Anand forgets to test for audio quality. Jitter destroys sound quality. If a device runs hotter or cooler than before it will change audio quality because of a change in jitter distortion. Reason: Jitter depends on temperaure. Also: Audio quality depends on level of electrical noise. The new version of Apple TV probably does not sound the same as previous models. Anand's error (not testing for audio quality) is a major general problem in the industry. Hopefully some body at Apple will do something. Reply
• #### GotThumbs - Monday, March 18, 2013 - link

I must say that I'm pretty disappointed in this article. Why is this simply a comparison of Apples old vs new specs? How about some REAL comparisons to the dozens of other streaming consoles out there? I've got a \$35.00 Raspberry PI with XMBC streaming content from my home server. It plays AVI, MKV, etc with relative ease IMO.

I'd like to see how Apples most recent revision in this arena stacks up to all the others.
• #### V900 - Sunday, March 24, 2013 - link

And as for comparisons with other media consoles, there has already been lots of those. And the AppleTV usually comes out on top...
• #### HUBEMX - Wednesday, March 20, 2013 - link

Call me when this thing gets an USB port, web browser, apps, gigabit ethernet, sd card port and XBMC without jailbreak. Reply
• #### asgehrj - Monday, March 25, 2013 - link

About the Intel yield thing: Isn't it better to sell a faulty \$300 part for \$100 than to throw it out? As far a I know Intel doesn't sell any three core chips... Reply
• #### Cepak - Sunday, April 14, 2013 - link

What I'd like to see is the full capability of an iPad2 wifi version in the AppleTV. I'd be willing to spend \$350+ on such a device since it would allow me to drop DirecTV all together. Reply
• #### TinCity - Tuesday, July 02, 2013 - link

Apple TV is an awesome alternative to cable. Thanks to the Amazon reviews regarding this gadget, I made a great choice. See more reviews and discounts: http://amzn.to/1cMWwoc. Very happy! Reply
• #### newandroidfan - Saturday, September 21, 2013 - link

hey man tired of reading long ass reviews that interest nobody? Go here to check out the Apple TV 3rd Gen review
http://goo.gl/ji8b9h
• #### cgbassett - Wednesday, June 11, 2014 - link

I have two 3rd gen apple tvs (A1427s). These are free replacements from Apple, because of an intermittent connection to my WLAN. We took the old units in, no receipt necessary, they replaced in about 12 seconds and we hoped everything would be fine. but the new units are behaving the same as the old. They suddenly disconnect from the network, and then magically re-connect. It's and inconsistent problem too. you can be streaming from your mac, or netflix for an hour no issues, then suddenly, nothing.

The software is up to date on both Apple Tvs, and the firmware is up to date on the ISP's router. The WLAN settings on the router are basic, both are on 802.11N.

my next step is to add the Apple Tvs to the Static DHCP list on the router.