WingNews logo WingNews
top | item 45570288

(no title)

teovall | 4 months ago

Apple TV+ needed to be renamed but they went with the absolute worst option.

There's already an Apple TV device and an Apple TV app. Neither of which are required for using Apple TV+ and both of which have functionality other than using Apple TV+.

Some people think that Apple TV+ requires an Apple device to use it and just dismiss it as an option. Apple should have come up with a new brand without Apple in the name. That would broaden their potential market and get their foot in the door with people who don't own any Apple products.

discuss

order

CharlesW|4 months ago

> There's already an Apple TV device and an Apple TV app.

This telegraphs that (1) Apple's priority is the service above all else, and (2) that they're about to rebrand their flagship device which supports the service. We'll know very soon, since the updated device is imminent.

numbsafari|4 months ago

Yeah, this all makes sense if the intention is to change the name of the device.

Netflix (the service) has an app named Netflix. You access Netflix via Netflix on... XYZ. Same goes for basically every other streaming service.

So Apple TV the service on Apple TV the app makes perfect sense if you are thinking about accessing their streaming service via other set tops where Apple TV the app is available.

My guess is that the Apple TV set top will be renamed to something else, perhaps "Apple Home".

Then it would be "Access Apple TV via the app on your Apple Home device" and the merging/conflation of "Apple TV subscription via the Apple TV app" will make perfect sense the same way you would say "Access Netflix via the app on your Apple Home device".

My guess is that "tvOS" will be renamed "homeOS" to go with it.

zamadatix|4 months ago

It's been a PITA enough searching for Apple TV to only have hits about Apple TV come up for years now. I really hope it's all part of some master plan now coming together, as you say, but I feel like it's just as likely they want to keep the naming "simple" as they have in the past on this regard and that's just the way things are going to stay.

laborcontract|4 months ago

or perhaps it means that they plan to expand their TV offering so as to merit being something more than just a "plus"

i don't know if i like the rebranding or not – it's such a minor thing that idk if it even warrants an opinion. But they should now be obliged to next rebrand Apple Carplay to Apple Car.

brookst|4 months ago

I think you're right that this is a partial story. I hope so at least.

jakereps|4 months ago

The article itself even shows just how confusing it is:

> Apple TV is available on the Apple TV app in over 100 countries and regions, on over 1 billion screens, including iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, Apple Vision Pro ...

How did anyone think "this is fine" in a proofread here when coming up with this rebranding?

tw600040|4 months ago

//Apple TV is available on the Apple TV app

What's confusing about this?

Netflix is available on Netflix App. HBO is available on HBO app. Normal people don't care.

It's perfectly normal for Netflix the company to run Netflix the service on Netflix the app on Netflix device if they release one. It's not confusing at all. What would be confusing is if they all had different names.

eidndnwkxixk|4 months ago

If they rebrand the device to iTV it’ll make more sense if they make all non computing devices use ‘iDevice’ and Mac for computing, Apple for services

linhns|4 months ago

There's Starlink terminal and Starlink satelitte as well, so it's understandable that Apple trying to gear into that kind of system.

teeray|4 months ago

There's so many apple varieties they could have chosen too. Honeycrisp comes to mind. They even did this already with Macintosh!