PS Vita Successor

[+Asmodai MVC]

So there have been a lot of articles recently such as:

Sony: climate "not healthy" for PlayStation Vita successor

I'm not sure I agree with Sony and here's my crazy idea.  The PS Vita is essentially mobile tech.  It has a quad-core ARM Cortex-A9 CPU and a Quad-core PowerVR SGX543 GPU at it's core which is VERY similar to a smartphone SoC.  The PlayStation TV also came along later that uses similar hardware and it's a nice idea but the execution is a bit off because it was designed after the Vita.  So my crazy idea is to design together a PS Vita 2/PlayStation TV 2 with the idea that the PlayStation TV 2 would compete with Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV, nVidia Shield Android TV, etc.  The Vita 2 would thus be just a mobile version of the PlayStation TV 2.

If Sony waits for the 14nm process shrink that's about to happen and launches these products together, say in the 2016 or 2017 Christmas season I think they could be successful.  The PlayStation TV 2 could have whatever the current quad core ARM 64bit SOC is at the time (Cortex-A72?) as well as an updated PowerVR GPU (Series 7XT?).  Since the tech is essentially just updated versions of the same things in the Vita it could be backwards compatible so it would be able to play Vita games, its own games (keep a backwards compatible Vita card format as well as digital for games), as well as digital downloads of PSP and PS1 games like Vita does now and PS3 games via PS Now support.  If the hardware is capable they could even add digital downloads of PS2 games.  On the streaming front it could support 4k@60fps Netflix, 4k@60fps YouTube, and PlayStation Vue with 4k@60fps support.  Sure the GPU wouldn't be able to drive 4k or even 1080 gaming but it would be a solid streaming box to rival Amazon, Apple, Roku, etc. but have great gaming with older PlayStation support (PS1, PS2?, PSP, and Vita support plus native all locally as well as PS3 via PS Now.)

Suggested Specs:

CPU: ARM Quad core 2x Cortex-A72 + 2x Cortex-A53 (big.LITTLE)

GPU: PowerVR Series 7XT

RAM: 2GB LPDDR4

Storage:  micro-SD Card (maybe 8GB built in?)

HDMI 2.0, 802.11ac Wi-Fi, Gigabit Ethernet, USB 3.0 (including external storage)

Portable version would have a 720p display which should be cheap by then given what cell phone displays are now.  The TV one would still share the PS4 controller.

Given the price and features of the new Amazon Fire TV now this should be VERY doable by them in 2016/2017 at a $99 price point for the PlayStation TV 2.

Then again the push wouldn't be play this over mobile games.  It would be choose this over Amazon Fire TV, Apple TV, Roku 4, etc. and oh by the way, here's a portable version as well that you can also play your PlayStation TV 2 games on and actually has physical buttons/sticks/etc.

 

 

 

[compl3x]

Nintendo owns this space. And they didn't have to build the powerhouse handheld to do it. Sony made an expensive device, with proprietary memory cards, and frankly, a lack of games. I don't know what they were thinking, and I am saying that as someone who owns one!

I imagine your hypothetical device would eat battery like it was going out of style.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

why not just combine the two devices into one? say, a Vita that can plug into your tv, use netflix-like apps and support for the DS4.

I agree, somewhat, with compl3x. Sony shot themselves in the foot w/ those stupid proprietary memory cards. The system was too expensive at launch, and they didnt advertise it well.

as far as hardware, the Vita still amazes me. I love playing mine and still have several games lined up to play.

[+Asmodai MVC]

Nintendo owns this space. And they didn't have to build the powerhouse handheld to do it. Sony made an expensive device, with proprietary memory cards, and frankly, a lack of games. I don't know what they were thinking, and I am saying that as someone who owns one!

I imagine your hypothetical device would eat battery like it was going out of style.

 

Did you even read what I wrote or just the title and then comment.  The whole point was NOT to pitch a mobile device but make the PlayStation TV style device the primary to compete with Amazon Fire TV, Apple TV, Android TV, Hulu, etc. as a streaming box that plays games.  Just in this case the "games" would be actual older PlayStation games instead.  The mobile device would be secondary but allow you to play your PlayStation TV games on the go.  Nintendo doesn't even compete in that space (though they may with the NX?) let alone "own" it.

You realize my hypothetical device has worse specs than the current iPhone?  How do you imagine a device in late 2016/2017 that has similar specs to a mobile phone today would "eat battery like it was going out of style"???

why not just combine the two devices into one? say, a Vita that can plug into your tv, use netflix-like apps and support for the DS4.

I agree, somewhat, with compl3x. Sony shot themselves in the foot w/ those stupid proprietary memory cards. The system was too expensive at launch, and they didnt advertise it well.

as far as hardware, the Vita still amazes me. I love playing mine and still have several games lined up to play.

 

I don't imagine a lot of people are going to connect a portable device like a gameboy or PSP to their TV and controller.  Also the idea is to try to hit the $99 price point which ditching a screen and such helps you get to.  I mean they could make it so the portable version had a hdmi port and supported the DS4 as well but I doubt it would sell as well as the TV version.  Again the main point is to try to take the market from Apple TV, Hulu, Amazon Fire TV, etc. or at least carve their own little profitable niche by leveraging their extensive back catalog, remote play, PlayStation Now, PlayStation Vue, etc. in addition to standard streaming services.

I too agree the proprietary memory cards were stupid.  I have no idea what it has to do with anything I said however and I don't think that if the PS Vita shipped with micro-SD card support instead that it would be selling double or more what it currently is.  I really don't see that stupid decision as single-handedly sinking the PS Vita, I think it would have sunk anyway.  Any number of things contributed to it failing (price, marketing, proprietary memory, etc.)

[compl3x]

i don't really understand what you are advocating for here. I thought you were talking about some hybrid portable playing 4k content. That is why I added my battery content. Play some 1080p content on your phone and see how long your battery lasts.

 Are you talking about a Vita-branded media player that also plays older PS titles? Don't you think the media player market is crowded enough with Roku, FireTV, Apple TV, and people making HTPC? If they decided to make a media player, why would they keep the Vita branding?

 

I read your entire post, I am just not sure what you're driving at here.

[+Asmodai MVC]

i don't really understand what you are advocating for here. I thought you were talking about some hybrid portable playing 4k content. That is why I added my battery content. Play some 1080p content on your phone and see how long your battery lasts.

 Are you talking about a Vita-branded media player that also plays older PS titles? Don't you think the media player market is crowded enough with Roku, FireTV, Apple TV, and people making HTPC? If they decided to make a media player, why would they keep the Vita branding?

 

I read your entire post, I am just not sure what you're driving at here.

First I don't think they should keep the Vita branding.  I'm just calling it Vita 2 and PS TV 2 because I don't know what the new name should be.

The main device I was talking about was a replacement for the PlayStation TV (which is currently based on Vita hardware).  Maybe I didn't describe it well the first time, sorry for that, I'll try again... this generation they made the PS Vita, and then much later they designed a PS TV based on the Vita hardware.  I'm saying next time they should flip it.  Design the PS TV successor and then just make a portable version of it for the Vita successor (conceptually at least... both would actually LAUNCH at the same time).

So the driver device would be the PS TV successor and it would be positioned to compete with Roku, Fire TV, Apple TV, Android TV, etc.  Do I think the media player market is crowded enough?  It's not a matter of how many players there are but if I think Sony would have a distinct advantage or not.  If Sony can release a streaming box that supports 4k@60fps video streams (as nVidia Shield Android TV does today but no one else currently does) for around $99 then I think that gets them in door.  To differentiate themselves though they have the PS brand, the PS services (Now, Vue, Remote Play, etc.) and their extensive back-catalog of games to set them apart.  I think anyone who was considering a Fire TV with the gamepad would much rather have a PS TV 2 with a DS4 and the extensive PlayStation library access.  Amazon and Apple and Google aren't going to be able to match the Sony back-catelog for people looking for micro-consoles.  Plus if it's a PlayStation device you'll potentially have new games being developed (first party and others) specifically for the new hardware.

I think the PS TV is a GREAT idea but it suffers from the fact it's an afterthought of the Vita.  It's got a UI that really wasn't designed with TV in mind, it's a lousy streaming box (can't even do 1080p) because the hardware was made for drive the Vita's sub-720p screen, etc.  For some reason I don't even think Vue supports it.  I absolutely think it would sell if was a competitive streaming box (which requires 4k streaming like the nVidia Shield Android TV) plus had it's game pedigree and if they can up the specs enough to hit PS2 emulation that would really seal the deal.

I can totally imagine a PS household where there is a PS4 in the living room and a PS TV 2 on every other TV in the house.  The PS TV 2s are used for remote play from the PS4 as well as PS Now, PS Vue and local gaming on new PS Vita 2 games cartridges, PS Vita cartidges, and downloadable games (including PSP, PS1, and possibly even PS2 games).  If PS4 get PS1/PS2 emulation you could in theory buy a PS2 classic and have it attached to your PSN account and play the game on the PS4, any PS TV 2 in the house and on the go with the PS Vita 2... with one purchase.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Nintendo owns this space. And they didn't have to build the powerhouse handheld to do it. Sony made an expensive device, with proprietary memory cards, and frankly, a lack of games. I don't know what they were thinking, and I am saying that as someone who owns one!

I imagine your hypothetical device would eat battery like it was going out of style.

Both the 3DS and Vita were horribly priced to begin with, but Nintendo made the difficult choice of cutting the RRP to save the handheld. Even so, the 3DS is nowhere near DS sale numbers, and I doubt it will ever reach them.

Sony could have done the same theoretically. I'm sure they have their reasons for not, but certainly trying to compete with smartphones was always going to be an issue. I couldn't understand why both Nintendo and Sony even thought about going up against Apple. 99c games and smartphones had taken over long before either device launched.

I love both of them, but I don't think we'll see either company release another traditional handheld again.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

  I don't imagine a lot of people are going to connect a portable device like a gameboy or PSP to their TV and controller.  Also the idea is to try to hit the $99 price point which ditching a screen and such helps you get to.  I mean they could make it so the portable version had a hdmi port and supported the DS4 as well but I doubt it would sell as well as the TV version.  Again the main point is to try to take the market from Apple TV, Hulu, Amazon Fire TV, etc. or at least carve their own little profitable niche by leveraging their extensive back catalog, remote play, PlayStation Now, PlayStation Vue, etc. in addition to standard streaming services.

I too agree the proprietary memory cards were stupid.  I have no idea what it has to do with anything I said however and I don't think that if the PS Vita shipped with micro-SD card support instead that it would be selling double or more what it currently is.  I really don't see that stupid decision as single-handedly sinking the PS Vita, I think it would have sunk anyway.  Any number of things contributed to it failing (price, marketing, proprietary memory, etc.)

my comments about their memory cards werent related to anything you said. i was agreeing with compl3x.

what youre describing IS a PS4 w/ mobile games... this exists today. The PS3/PS4 can do everything an Apple TV or Fire TV can do, and they still play mobile/indie games. But yes, these devices obviously dont hit a $99 price point.

if a PS Vita TV next gen device was created, there'd be little incentive to make quality games. The Vita was billed as a powerhouse on-the-go running titles like Uncharted and Killzone. What youre suggesting is a mobile platform on your tv w/ games like candy crush. that market is saturated already. plus, if you have an MHL cable or WIDI, then you can hook your phone/mobile device straight to the tv anyway.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

 

I love both of them, but I don't think we'll see either company release another traditional handheld again.

oh i think Nintendo will still release a successor. i think, however, it wont be a completely new device. i think they'll upgrade the current 3DS as they recently did this year w/ a slightly faster CPU, etc. Nintendo would be smart to release a newer 3DS that'll incentivize people to buy a new device but still play their full library. (perhaps that's wishful thinking)

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

No way will we see another Vita. Graphics wise it is absolutely fine as it is anyway. A purchase of it now just needs to come with the expectation it's really an indie/JRPG machine, and the best value in having it may be cross-buy titles/PS+ titles. I still stand by Sony made a terrible decision on the memory cards which is the blame I put on them. The hardware and device itself is great, and with it doing 60FPS remote play now, I really cannot see how another Vita would supplement the PS4/this generation in any meaningful way.

[+Anarkii Subscriber²]

The Vita was a great machine and still is, hardware wise. Sony screwed up big with the memory cards and then the massive lack of developer support after the first 6 months of sale. If big studios invested time into it, and released handheld versions of their great games (Uncharted on the Vita was excellent) thats the reason I think it bombed in sales. 
As for a Vita 2, I can't see it happening. With smartphones essentially being much more powerful then the Vita anyway and the hardware suggested for your Vita 2 being outdated in 3 months with the latest and greatest phone, it would honestly be a waste of money to buy one. 

[+Asmodai MVC]

what youre describing IS a PS4 w/ mobile games... this exists today. The PS3/PS4 can do everything an Apple TV or Fire TV can do, and they still play mobile/indie games. But yes, these devices obviously dont hit a $99 price point.

if a PS Vita TV next gen device was created, there'd be little incentive to make quality games. The Vita was billed as a powerhouse on-the-go running titles like Uncharted and Killzone. What youre suggesting is a mobile platform on your tv w/ games like candy crush. that market is saturated already. plus, if you have an MHL cable or WIDI, then you can hook your phone/mobile device straight to the tv anyway.

What I'm describing is NOT a PS4 w/ mobile games... and does NOT exist today.  The PS3/PS4 can NOT do everything an Apple TV or Fire TV can do.  Neither the Xbox One nor the PS4 have hardware HEVC/VP9 support to support 4k video streams for Netflix, Amazon Prime, YouTube, etc.  Now MAYBE they'll get software decoders at some point as both should have more than enough processing power to do it in software but neither can do it today nor is there any official announcement that it's coming that I'm aware of (The PS3 will almost certainly never support it).  Even with software decoders, which aren't a given, I don't believe either the PS4 or Xbox One have HDMI 2.0 that are required for 4k@60fps, instead they have HDMI 1.4 that is capped at 30fps for 4k.  Also as you stated the PS4/Xbox One aren't going to be hitting a $99 price point anytime soon.

I don't know if people would make quality NEW games or not for a next gen PS TV device.  I'm not so sure they wouldn't as you seem to be though.  But even if they didn't if it plays existing Vita, PS1, PSP, and possibly even PS2 games locally that's already better then Apple TVs and Fire TVs candy crush games as you call them.  Add in PS3 games via PS Now and PS4 games via Remote Play and you've got a pretty strong stable of quality non-Candy Crush games without ANYTHING new being made.  Again though I'm not so sure if the hardware sold that developers wouldn't make new quality native games for it.  I'm absolutely NOT suggesting they make new games like Candy Crush for the device, the proposed device would be more powerful than the existing Vita which is already well beyond Candy Crush.

As for hooking a phone to a TV that's been possible for a while now.  How many people do you know that do that?  I don't know anyone, my last phone had an actual HDMI port and I think I hooked it up once just to see how it worked.  No one wants to hook their personal device to the TV, you want to walk around the house with your mobile device... it's mobile.  If you teather it to the TV it's anchored.  If you need to hit the restroom while your watching TV with your family and you want to play a quick round of Candy Crush or check facebook you don't want to go disconnect your phone from the TV everyone is watching.  You don't want to have to hook your phone to the TV for you kid to play some video game.  Using a phone as a micro console is going to be just as popular for the masses as hooking up a computer to the TV in the living room. Sure it's POSSIBLE to do that but very few will want to actually do that.  There IS a market for small fixed sub-$200 devices like Apple TV, Fire TV, Roku, Shield Android TV, etc. and it doesn't cut into high end consoles like PS4 and Xbox One (heck with remote play support they may drive sales for each other.)  Sony has a unique advantage there precisely because the competition is making games like Candy Crush for their consoles (which isn't even really fair as I would consider Shovel Knight above Candy Crush style games and Amazon bought Double Helix of Strider and Killer Instinct fame to develop quality first party games for their platform... they're just getting started though) and Sony could put quality PlayStation games on the device.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

 

What I'm describing is NOT a PS4 w/ mobile games... and does NOT exist today.  The PS3/PS4 can NOT do everything an Apple TV or Fire TV can do.  Neither the Xbox One nor the PS4 have hardware HEVC/VP9 support to support 4k video streams for Netflix, Amazon Prime, YouTube, etc.  Now MAYBE they'll get software decoders at some point as both should have more than enough processing power to do it in software but neither can do it today nor is there any official announcement that it's coming that I'm aware of (The PS3 will almost certainly never support it).  Even with software decoders, which aren't a given, I don't believe either the PS4 or Xbox One have HDMI 2.0 that are required for 4k@60fps, instead they have HDMI 1.4 that is capped at 30fps for 4k.  Also as you stated the PS4/Xbox One aren't going to be hitting a $99 price point anytime soon.

I don't know if people would make quality NEW games or not for a next gen PS TV device.  I'm not so sure they wouldn't as you seem to be though.  But even if they didn't if it plays existing Vita, PS1, PSP, and possibly even PS2 games locally that's already better then Apple TVs and Fire TVs candy crush games as you call them.  Add in PS3 games via PS Now and PS4 games via Remote Play and you've got a pretty strong stable of quality non-Candy Crush games without ANYTHING new being made.  Again though I'm not so sure if the hardware sold that developers wouldn't make new quality native games for it.  I'm absolutely NOT suggesting they make new games like Candy Crush for the device, the proposed device would be more powerful than the existing Vita which is already well beyond Candy Crush.

As for hooking a phone to a TV that's been possible for a while now.  How many people do you know that do that?  I don't know anyone, my last phone had an actual HDMI port and I think I hooked it up once just to see how it worked.  No one wants to hook their personal device to the TV, you want to walk around the house with your mobile device... it's mobile.  If you teather it to the TV it's anchored.  If you need to hit the restroom while your watching TV with your family and you want to play a quick round of Candy Crush or check facebook you don't want to go disconnect your phone from the TV everyone is watching.  You don't want to have to hook your phone to the TV for you kid to play some video game.  Using a phone as a micro console is going to be just as popular for the masses as hooking up a computer to the TV in the living room. Sure it's POSSIBLE to do that but very few will want to actually do that.  There IS a market for small fixed sub-$200 devices like Apple TV, Fire TV, Roku, Shield Android TV, etc. and it doesn't cut into high end consoles like PS4 and Xbox One (heck with remote play support they may drive sales for each other.)  Sony has a unique advantage there precisely because the competition is making games like Candy Crush for their consoles (which isn't even really fair as I would consider Shovel Knight above Candy Crush style games and Amazon bought Double Helix of Strider and Killer Instinct fame to develop quality first party games for their platform... they're just getting started though) and Sony could put quality PlayStation games on the device.

 

The real money for Sony though is via the PS4. For dedicated boxes like those you mentioned, that ship has already sailed. People either want an Apple TV or a cheap android box because they are invested heavily in those ecosystems. When Sony do Android it means they are tied to Google's ecosystem and the competition is just too fierce. Amazon/Google can make losses on the hardware as their stores rake in the real money. The only time that's viable for Sony is on Playstation platforms where they own the store. On the PS4 it's their store and they make all the money. There won't be another Vita TV, let alone a Vita, and Playstation Mobile has already been shutdown on Android. 

A PS4 does Netflix, Youtube and things like that for your TV and that's the way it will be until the PS5.

[+Asmodai MVC]

 

The real money for Sony though is via the PS4. For dedicated boxes like those you mentioned, that ship has already sailed. People either want an Apple TV or a cheap android box because they are invested heavily in those ecosystems. When Sony do Android it means they are tied to Google's ecosystem and the competition is just too fierce. On the PS4 it's their store and they make all the money. There won't be another Vita TV, let alone a Vita.

 

I actually agree with a lot of this here and I think it SUPPORTS my idea not refutes it.  There exists A LOT of people who aren't going to pay $300+ for a PS4.  Even if you have a PS4 you aren't going to buy one for every TV in the house while you may put a $99 box that uses the same controllers you already have and streams games to your other TVs from your PS4 via Remote Play.  "That ship" has NOT sailed though, the just announced, not even available yet, Apple TV is the FIRST one to even support apps...  how could the ship have sailed.  You right, people want Apple TV or Android TV or Fire TV because they are invested heavily in those ecosystems, well Sony has an ecosystem as well that they want people to invest in.  As you said on PS4 it's their store, they make all the money, and I'm saying use that store on a $99 device to bring in more users.  I'm NOT saying use Android or someone elses store, I'm saying it would use the PlayStation Store just like the PS4, PS3, etc.  It would be part of their own PlayStation ecosystem including Vue, Now, etc. not someone elses.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

 

I actually agree with a lot of this here and I think it SUPPORTS my idea not refutes it.  There exists A LOT of people who aren't going to pay $300+ for a PS4.  Even if you have a PS4 you aren't going to buy one for every TV in the house while you may put a $99 box that uses the same controllers you already have and streams games to your other TVs from your PS4 via Remote Play.  "That ship" has NOT sailed though, the just announced, not even available yet, Apple TV is the FIRST one to even support apps...  how could the ship have sailed.  You right, people want Apple TV or Android TV or Fire TV because they are invested heavily in those ecosystems, well Sony has an ecosystem as well that they want people to invest in.  As you said on PS4 it's their store, they make all the money, and I'm saying use that store on a $99 device to bring in more users.  I'm NOT saying use Android or someone elses store, I'm saying it would use the PlayStation Store just like the PS4, PS3, etc.  It would be part of their own PlayStation ecosystem including Vue, Now, etc. not someone elses.

 

With the multitude of devices the average person owns though there isn't an onus on the PS4 to have to be in every room. Most people have smart tvs to start with, and then mobile devices/pcs/laptops and probably an Apple or Android box. That's what I mean with the ship having sailed for media especially, there isn't a need to have a PS device in every room as it's likely every TV you have can already use netflix/youtube/hulu/etc. The PSTV was aimed at the gamers wanting to game in multiple rooms, but the market spoke and hardly anyone bought it. Most gamers will game 90% of the time on the one main TV or monitor. Those that want multiple gaming TVs can either probably already afford 2 PS4s, or just have to wait a few years till the hardware becomes cheaper to pickup a 2nd PS4. Or if they're invested in PS already, just hookup the PS3 to one TV (it's still supported with new releases and PS+).

As for anything Apple do, you know what their grip on the market is like. The only place you're going to see PS store is on dedicated PS devices, and that store is 99% all about games. It would be a colossal waste of money for Sony to try and bring in tons of apps and free games, and then focus their store as a competitor to iOS/Android. Just not worth it, and it would fail spectacularly. Playstation Mobile tanked on Android, the market just wants the latest and most heavily marketed F2P games.

[+Asmodai MVC]

 

With the multitude of devices the average person owns though there isn't an onus on the PS4 to have to be in every room. Most people have smart tvs to start with, and then mobile devices/pcs/laptops and probably an Apple or Android box. That's what I mean with the ship having sailed for media especially, there isn't a need to have a PS device in every room as it's likely every TV you have can already use netflix/youtube/hulu/etc. The PSTV was aimed at the gamers wanting to game in multiple rooms, but the market spoke and hardly anyone bought it. Most gamers will game 90% of the time on the one main TV or monitor. Those that want multiple gaming TVs can either probably already afford 2 PS4s, or just have to wait a few years till the hardware becomes cheaper to pickup a 2nd PS4.

As for anything Apple do, you know what their grip on the market is like. The only place you're going to see PS store is on dedicated PS devices, and that store is 99% all about games. It would be a colossal waste of money for Sony to try and bring in tons of apps and free games, and then focus their store as a competitor to iOS/Android. Just not worth it, and it would fail spectacularly.

 

Even if all you want is a dumb media device then the ship hasn't sailed because we're just at the start of the move from 1080p streaming devices to 4k.  That's the BASELINE for a future product though it's not the differentiating point.  By your logic no one would be buying Apple TV or Fire TV because their TV already has streaming apps.  Google wouldn't make the Nexus Player they'd just use ChromeCast instead of bigger more expensive boxes.

Not only does Amazon have a Fire TV box in addition to the Fire TV stick but they also have a Fire TV Gaming Edition of that box.  Not only does Google have the Nexus Player box in addition to the ChromeCast stick but Android TV runs on the nVidia Shield micro-console.  Sure if you JUST want media then NONE of these things are necessary yet they're being made and selling.  Whoever is buying these things over the simple media stick would be the users Sony would be trying to win over.

If you have more than one family member who games and you have to share TVs then there's a need to have gaming devices on more than one TV.  If you want to play the latest PS4 game in your Office while your significant other watches a movie on the living room TV and your kid plays a Vita game in their bedroom I'd wager there is demand for that if the device(s) that enable it are cheap in the $99 range.

The PSTV flopped because it's a hack that doesn't do it's non-gaming job well.  I'm all but certain when they designed the Vita hardware/software they didn't have the PS TV in mind.  It does the gaming part well but that's the differentiating point and it doesn't cover the baseline.  People see the PS TV and they think it's like an Apple TV or a Fire TV or a Roku yet it can't even do 1080p streams like cheaper devices.  The OS is a mess because it was designed originally for touch on the Vita touchscreen.

I absolutely disagree with your "can probably afford 2 PS4s" statement.  It must be nice to live where you come to believe that's true but I know a lot of people who still can't afford a single PS4 let alone a second.  A $99 PlayStation device would probably sell pretty well to them if it wasn't JUST games and such a poor streaming device like the existing PS TV.

Apple isn't even in the top 3 of streaming devices so no, I don't "know what their grip on the market is like".  They're not present at all at the moment in micro-consoles because they FIRST one that supports apps hasn't actually shipped yet.  You act like I'm suggesting Sony make a smartphone to compete with iPhone and Android, in case it wasn't clear I'm absolutely NOT. The micro-console/fixed streaming box market is still in it's infancy.  Right now the #1 player there is Roku not Google or Apple. I think Google is #2 and Amazon is #3 with Apple being #4.  Sony could absolutely carve out a niche there without having to compete with iOS or Android in the tablet/phone/watch/car markets.

I don't even understand your "The only place you're going to see PS store is on dedicated PS devices". Agreed, and the PS TV 2 would be a dedicated PS device, what's your point?  As for being 99% games have you looked at the lastest PS4 system update... you see no social features there?  There's no streamed movies or music services on the PS4?  As far as services I don't think they'd have to do much, if anything, the box would just present their EXISTING services for the most part.  Almost nothing would have to be PS TV 2 specific.  PlayStation 4 suports twitch and youtube and amazon prime and Spotify.  Maybe they'd have to add Pandora and such but I'd imagine PS4 owners would like that as well. HBO Go, PlayStation Vue, etc.  I really don't see how you can say the store is 99% games.  Maybe the parts you use but the other parts ARE ALREADY THERE and even if they're not being used much now this would be something to help change that.