An Apple TV Universal Remote
An idea to get Apple back into the living room game…
Few things make me angrier on a regular basis than the Apple TV remote. I know it’s ridiculous. But I also know that I’m not alone. I think what drives me nuts is this: in many ways it’s the antithesis of the old Steve Jobs design mantra: “It’s not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.” Compared to other remotes on the market — and certainly those that came before — the Apple TV remote looks nice. It does not work nice.¹
I think we can all understand why Apple tried to make a sleek and svelte remote with an emphasis on touch. It just doesn’t work in day-to-day usage. The touch elements range from too sensitive to not sensitive enough. If and when the thing slips into the couch cushions, you will immediately be fast-forwarded 45 minutes into the future of whatever you’re watching. And good luck using the touch controls to rewind to your previous spot. Well, that’s if you’ll even be able to find the remote ever again in those couch cushions. And if you do, you will pick it up upside down and try to rewind by touching something that is not a touch pad but looks the same as the touch pad. This all happens monthly if not weekly if not daily. There are other issues as well.
One thing that is not an issue with the Apple TV remote, however, is button bloat.² I came across this term in a recent piece by Janko Roettgers for Protocol, talking about the trend of newer TVs and streaming boxes including branded buttons on their remote controls.³ That is one good thing about the Apple TV remote — you’ll have none of that. And while I do think those buttons are useful from time-to-time — the Netflix button, in particular, which just showcases how dominant Netflix currently is — they’re tacky. And ugly. They’re the modern day version of the peripheral stickers on PC laptops mixed with pre-installed bloatware on those machines (and these days some Android phones). Apple famously doesn’t even allow the cellular carriers any branding space on the outside of the iPhone. Netflix won’t be getting a button on the Apple TV remote anytime soon.
So how do you fix the Apple TV remote then? Well, if the reports are to be believed, Apple will release a fix this year alongside new Apple TV hardware. I’m guessing the remote will be fixed in a way similar to how the MacBook keyboards were “fixed” — that is, going back in time, to a more tried-and-true approach. Maybe something like the remote for the new Chromecast devices, which is solid, if simple (and yes, has a Netflix button — on top of a YouTube button, neither of which we’ll see on an Apple remote any time soon would be my guess).
I would do something entirely different.
Apple has badly dropped the ball on their Apple TV strategy despite the device being a rare instance where they were actually a first-mover (or, at the very least, an early mover) in the living room. The first Apple TV was unveiled ahead of the iPhone! Remember iTV?! Again, the rumors now indicate they’re going to aim to out-gun the competition, as it were. A super-powerful Apple TV running on Apple silicon will undoubtedly be enticing to folks if — a big if, years in the making — they can figure out the right gaming strategy for the machine. That sounds good, but…
Imagine if on top of their new, souped-up Apple TV box, Apple also sold an Apple TV Remote as a stand-alone product? Here’s what I’m thinking: a decent sized touchscreen iOS device which is solely meant for media. Maybe it would be like an iPod touch, but longer (a 16x9 ratio screen with an area for physical buttons — the horror! — or gaming controls) or an iPad mini, but narrower. Again, this wouldn’t be meant as a full-fledged iOS device like those two devices, instead it would focus first and foremost on being a great remote for the Apple TV. And secondarily, on being a media playback device for the couch. And lastly, perhaps something for gaming (a D-pad joystick which doubles as up, down, left, right for TV navigation?).
Yes, yes, the iPhone and iPad can serve such a role right now. I just think it could be interesting to have a new device which is solely meant for media playback/control (and perhaps gaming too). It could come with the new souped-up Apple TV, and Apple could potentially even raise the price of the hilariously expensive Apple TV as a result. $499?⁴ Or the remote could be sold as a stand-alone device for say, $199?⁵
And if it’s stand-alone, it could still work as an AirPlay device to your TV (many newer TVs now have the tech built in). It would essentially be the “cheaper” Apple TV device, without the box.⁶ Maybe there’s a way — apps? — to even let it control boxes from other manufacturers? I’ve had a few “universal” remote controls over the years. They range from clunky to suck. Apple has a lane to do this for a much larger audience.
Back to the remote hardware itself. Everyone knows that not only would Apple not fall victim to “button bloat”, they actually seem required to remove physical buttons whenever possible. So we won’t get this. Instead, we could have a power button, a volume rocker, a mute button, and maybe one other programable hardware button? Or maybe the D-pad/joystick mentioned above for gaming. (Or maybe that would be a simple add on via the Lightning port?) The rest — the core — would be the touchscreen. Software.⁷
Yes, it would be yet another thing to charge. But we’re already in that world with remotes. And a MagSafe wireless charging “hub” could be upsold, of course — the added bonus here would mean you’d be less likely to lose the remote if you put it back on the charger each night.
Also, if you’ve tried to use any current remote with the newer streaming services, you’ll know that it’s less than ideal, to say the least. It’s a ton of clicking around or worse — text field entry. Yes, voice recognition alleviates some of this, but it’s not the perfect solution. A lot of people still yearn for the simplicity of channel-up or channel-down. With software, we can make this happen, even in our insanely and increasingly complex streaming world.
All of this could also allow for, say, a child to watch something different than their parents in the living room (with AirPods, of course). Yes, again, you can do this on an iPhone or iPad right now, and many people do. But I do think there’s something to be said for a device dedicated to this. And it could morph into a gaming pad, undoubtedly too.
Anyway, I just found myself thinking about such a solution while using the god awful current Apple TV remote, the better Chromecast remote, and thinking through the end game for every streaming service needing their own hardware button. Apple can solve their own problem and the industry’s. And they can re-enter the living room in a meaningful way.
Update 1/24: Parker Ortolani over at 9to5Mac had a similar idea (and the design mock chops I lack) just a few days later. Though he envisions more of an iPod nano-style remote, running watchOS. Great minds and all that.
¹ The Apple TV remote also, oddly, doesn’t actually feel all that nice. It’s too small and thin. Plus, you will absolutely never know which side is up, per my comments above.
² A term I wish I would have thought of it a decade ago — five or so iterations of ‘Google TV’ ago…
³ Not exactly a new trend, here’s me making fun of a Blockbuster — yes, Blockbuster — button six and a half years ago.
⁴ If you really want a powerful, always-on computer in your living room. Both for gaming but also as a HomeKit hub. And maybe even a HomePod of sorts?
⁵ This effectively would be the new iPod touch. But again, with a very specific use case and design.
⁶ Also, a very portable Apple TV box, in a way. I’ll admit that I’ve traveled with the Apple TV hockey puck in the past. This could be much more seamless.
⁷ And a new variation of tvOS with a new, smaller UI for this device.
