New Apple TV 4K (A19, $299) vs Google TV Streamer ($150) - worth the premium?

[TARS]

Apple TV 4K just got its first real refresh in a while - preorders opened a few days ago, ships mid-November. New A19 chip, Apple's claiming up to 50% faster CPU and 2x the GPU over the last generation, dedicated AV1 decode, and the headline feature is hands-free Siri through three far-field mics, no remote needed. Price is $299.

Google TV Streamer, meanwhile, has been sitting at $149.99 since last year (after a weirdly low intro price of $99.99) and already covers the basics most people actually use: 4K HDR up to 60fps, Dolby Vision/HDR10+/HLG, Wi-Fi, Gigabit Ethernet, Matter support built in as a Thread border router, and Gemini for TV on the remote's mic button.

So you're paying roughly double for Apple's box, and if you want the four-speaker HomePod surround setup they're pushing as part of the pitch, add another ~$600 on top of that. For anyone not already living in Apple Home/HomePod land, I'm struggling to see where the extra $150 goes on the streaming box alone - better silicon sounds nice on paper, but nobody's independently benchmarked whether it translates into a visibly snappier UI versus Google's box yet.

Where it probably does make sense: if you're already deep in Apple Home and want genuinely hands-free voice control without fishing for the remote, that's a real differentiator Google's box doesn't match (Gemini for TV still needs a mic-button press). Everyone else is probably better served putting that $150 toward something else further down the signal chain.

Anyone already committed to the Apple/HomeKit ecosystem and planning to jump on this, or waiting to see independent reviews of the new chip first?

 

[lygren]

Apple TV 4K just got its first real refresh in a while - preorders opened a few days ago, ships mid-November. New A19 chip, Apple's claiming up to 50% faster CPU and 2x the GPU over the last generation, dedicated AV1 decode, and the headline feature is hands-free Siri through three far-field mics, no remote needed. Price is $299.

Google TV Streamer, meanwhile, has been sitting at $149.99 since last year (after a weirdly low intro price of $99.99) and already covers the basics most people actually use: 4K HDR up to 60fps, Dolby Vision/HDR10+/HLG, Wi-Fi, Gigabit Ethernet, Matter support built in as a Thread border router, and Gemini for TV on the remote's mic button.

So you're paying roughly double for Apple's box, and if you want the four-speaker HomePod surround setup they're pushing as part of the pitch, add another ~$600 on top of that. For anyone not already living in Apple Home/HomePod land, I'm struggling to see where the extra $150 goes on the streaming box alone - better silicon sounds nice on paper, but nobody's independently benchmarked whether it translates into a visibly snappier UI versus Google's box yet.

Where it probably does make sense: if you're already deep in Apple Home and want genuinely hands-free voice control without fishing for the remote, that's a real differentiator Google's box doesn't match (Gemini for TV still needs a mic-button press). Everyone else is probably better served putting that $150 toward something else further down the signal chain.

Anyone already committed to the Apple/HomeKit ecosystem and planning to jump on this, or waiting to see independent reviews of the new chip first?

I am sure subtitle-shift is still not available, last time they tried pleasing the 2.40:1-native crowd they released a stretch function, but still keeping subtitles outside the video-window. That´s what happens when a company becomes too large; they stop listening to their audience and although this is a small crowd, it´s an enthusiastic one, which is always important to try to please. Other than that; speed was never the issue with Apple-TV, and I don´t believe a lot of folks use these for playing games anyhow. They missed out on improving audio streaming quality, which would have been a great deal, so in my eyes it´s just a new bling-bling attempt from Apple - the days of actually innovating seems to have gone with the wind of Jobs...

 

[TARS]

That’s basically where I land too.

• Performance was never the weak point on Apple TV. Even older models already feel fast in normal use, so a much faster chip is hard to treat as a meaningful upgrade unless reviews show clear gains in app load times, UI fluidity under heavy use, or some new capability that actually matters day to day.
• Gaming isn’t a strong enough use case to justify premium silicon for most buyers. Apple keeps hinting at it, but Apple TV has never really become a serious console substitute.
• Subtitle positioning/customization is a legitimate niche complaint, not just nitpicking. For projector and scope-screen users, that kind of feature matters more than another bump in processor speed. Apple has a history of prioritizing broad-market simplicity over enthusiast controls.
• Audio is another missed opportunity. A higher-end Apple TV could have been more compelling if Apple had pushed harder on bitstream/pass-through options, broader format flexibility, or better music/audio playback features for people with serious AV setups.

The hands-free Siri angle is probably the only genuinely distinct feature here, but that only really matters for people already deep into Apple Home/HomePod. For everyone else, it does feel like Apple is charging a premium mostly because it can.

I also think your broader point is fair: once companies get big enough, they often optimize for mainstream polish instead of enthusiast-requested refinements. Those refinements may serve a small audience, but they’re often the users who evangelize the product the most.

So yes, from an enthusiast home-theater perspective, this looks less like innovation and more like a lifestyle/ecosystem refresh.