M.G. Siegler:
It’s a pretty standard pattern. If Apple neglects a product line for five-plus years, it’s dead, Jim. And this one, we actually already knew about in 2016. Still, it’s shockingly dumbfounding that Apple has officially killed off the AirPort product line.
I’ve written in the past about what the Apple TV product should have been. To quickly recap: the entertainment box many of us know and like (but don’t love) mixed with gaming (true gaming, with dedicated controls, not the middling iOS ports with that awful remote) mixed with full Siri integration. In other words, they should have made the first “smart speaker” for the home, but actually better. Instead, we got a dumb Apple TV and a dumb HomePod. Two wrongs to make a wrong.
What Apple should have done with the AirPort line is even more obvious. Clearly, this should have been baked into the Apple TV years ago.
I’d love to hear from Apple why this move, a move that was “obvious” to many of us for many years, was never attempted by the company.
What Apple should have done with the AirPort line is even more obvious.
Clearly, this should have been baked into the Apple TV years ago.
Works if your internet wires are by your TV, which is … very likely if you have cable internet, yes.
But otherwise not so much.
“Settop” and “WAP” are really completely unrelated products.
I think MG unfortunately conflates a few points together (and David and Sigivald have good responses to that), but the underlying issue makes a lot of sense—why isn’t Apple crafting a thorough strategy around HomeKit and/or Siri? Instead, it’s very fragmented, and product decisions appear as if they’re being made independently.
The AirPort was one of the various Apple “hubs” one had around the home, and if they’re ditching it, it either means they are OK with consolidating hubs for a good reason we don’t know yet, or because they don’t much care about the broader hub strategy. Given HomeKit’s poor track record so far, it’s not surprising people think it’s the latter.
For my part, AirPort was just another way to help macOS remain as painless as possible for users. I’ll miss it when I switch over to an Amplifi or something similar.
In my limited experience, ISP-supplied routers have almost always been inferior compared to even the minimally-researched, low-cost ones I could find for myself. If I can’t purchase my own modem to replace their rental, I’ll bridge it to my own router if I can.
In the US at least, most ISPs now provide a router with their service, so access points and routers are no longer a device most households need. Add to that the notoriously difficult to diagnose wifi issues, the maturation of wifi standards, and the fact that several very good alternatives now exist (like UniFi and various mesh networking products) and there is not a great business case for staying in the wifi router market.
Adding it to the AppleTV is an interesting idea, but it would push the already expensive price even higher. Whether the gaming variant of an AppleTV could have supported the additional cost of including a wifi router is an open question, but quality routers are expensive and the additional interference from trying to cram everything into one box could be problematic (it also creates a single point of failure that could bring down your entire home setup and be expensive to replace).
I agree and I do exactly the same
I’m guessing because what bloggers and pundits think is a good idea is different than what actual product engineers think is a good idea. It’s easy (and always correct) when you’re designing product lines at your keyboard, and don’t actually have to build or sell them.
I also find it rich that Siegler, a Google VC guy, think he knows Apple’s business better than Apple does.
What poor track record with HomeKit? It’s a much more secure protocol than the others and there are awesome devices for it — I’m adding more every year. Just ordered HK wall dimmer switches last night. In fact the only device that doesn’t work with it is google-owned Nest, because google is being anti-user.
That’s certainly true (and I do it too), but most customers aren’t going to do that.
Granted. Most customers will pay too much for less. I prefer to learn from people who actually bother to do a bit of math.
I don’t understand this at all. Video streaming, smart speaker, and router all serve very different purposes and it would be very bad if they were combined. A common scenario is that you want your streaming box in your living room, your smart speaker in your kitchen, and your router in whatever central physical location allows it to cover your entire home with wifi. Why on earth would you want these to be one device?
Apple should add always-listening Siri to the Apple TV, but it makes total sense that a sound-quality oriented smart speaker is a separate product.
By that logic, the Apple TV shouldn’t exist because most TVs are integrated with streaming video apps.
It’s just a question of what the value add of the device is. The additional value of an AirPort is minimal compared to the additional value of an AppleTV. Also for Apple the AppleTV gives them a platform for their media ecosystem, which the built-in TV apps don’t.
The latter can be solved by an app, like YouTube or Netflix and not a dedicated piece of hardware.
Sure, but there is clear value in controlling the platform in the way the AppleTV does (and why Google and Amazon have their own devices as well). With the AirPort there is no platform, just delivering on a standard.
Baking in a router into an entertainment device, that sounds a bit risky. Best to keep those devices unambigously inside the firewall, not sharing the box with it.