Google’s making a cheaper Chromecast, but what we really need is an affordable Apple TV

We found out last month that Google is working on a new Chromecast device. Given the existing model’s 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, which would undoubtedly be one of the best streaming devices you can buy. Turns out that’s not the case: the new ‘Boreal’ Chromecast will be an even cheaper device that 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’s Onn Android TV manages 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 being outrageously cheap, 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 think a new Chromecast should target a higher price point to 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 a Shield TV or 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 the Apple 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 $179 Apple 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).

Apple prices its products in this way all the time; I believe it’s why last year’s iPad Mini is 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 SE recycled parts from older iPhones to come in at an uncharacteristically affordable 400 bucks, and it’s a great little phone. (We’re expecting a refreshed model later this year; we’ll see if Apple can nail the price-to-performance ratio twice in a row.) The entry-level iPad is also rocking older components, and at $329, it’s one of the best tablets you can 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 the Roku 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.

Weekend poll: Do you prefer gestures or buttons for navigation on Android?

Rocking it old school or keeping on the cutting edge?

Read Next

About The Author