Next-gen Apple TV priced at $149, will include universal search for finding content across providers

123457»

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 135
    thrangthrang Posts: 1,012member
    tenly wrote: »
    I have a genuine question about TV add on devices - and admittedly, I only have hands-on experience with the Apple TV 2 and 3, Chromecast and the base level Roku...but is there some real reason that none of these devices contain a built-in web-browser? Apple and Google own web-browsers so I can't imagine it's a software licensing based decision, but it's also a fairly well known fact that many hotels and other internet access points require a couple of clicks on a web page to enable the Internet service...so I also doubt that it's an oversight...

    My best guess would be that the inclusion of a web-browser would turn it into a different class of device which may be regulated or taxed differently....? But that's just a guess. Does anybody know the real reason?

    In the past, most hotels i stay at would activate the device for me given the MAC address but recently, a couple of the properties I've stayed at have started charging an additional fee for the manual activation - so although it's always been a pain in the ass, it's now becoming a costly pain in the ass...

    One possible solution to the problem would be to authenticate to the hotel internet with a PC and then enable Internet Connection Sharing on the PC to create a personal hotspot...but I don't always travel with a PC and I'd be willing to bet that I'd be violating the hotels Internet Usage Policy by doing so.

    Anyhow...does anyone know why a browser is not included on these devices?

    The specific answer is there is no browser because Apple chooses not to.

    At the very least you would need a full keyboard to have a proper experience. Apple wouldn't release some functional limited browser when most people are able to browse with their computer or iPad or even iPhone...

    There is no device classification or tax basis for its exclusion. It already connects and downloads content from the Internet even if there were some basis for this guess.

    Just bring an airport express to the hotel and setup your own private wifi, and you're done. Connect an Apple TV, computer, iPad, whatever you want.

    It's fairly certain Apple wants to market this as a focused media and gaming center. Web browsing is well handled by existing devices and doesn't need to be included unless they can truly improve the experience or enhance the primary function of the device

    But I would expect over time to see more and more iCloud and limited internet services merged into the ATV experience (Siri searches, options for mail or messaging notifications, perhaps FaceTime, weather, traffic, take out menus from restaurants,etc). These can well defined and controlled portals, not dealing with the wild nature of billions of website designs and back end technology.

    I'm sure they also don't want screen shots of people browsing porn on the new Apple TV, which a web browser would allow (from the perspective this is a shared, family-room type of device as opposed to your own personal device)
  • Reply 122 of 135
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    @tenly I've reported your post once again because of your usual ad hominem attacks.

    Let me repeat that you haven't a clue what you were talking about neither by supposing that there would be some absurd tax issue with browsers on devices or that you didn't even understand what a "browser" was to begin with while demanding one and blamed everybody else for your clear inability to understand the simplest of technical terms in a technical site.

    Then the one guy who agreed with you is the smart guy.

    Meanwhile off to ignore with you.
  • Reply 123 of 135
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    vmarks wrote: »
    That's called a "captive portal."

    The AppleTV is iOS, without springboard. Springboard is the app launching interface on your phone. AppleTV betas run the same A series CPUs, and are distributed in the iOS section of the Apple dev center.

    IF AppleTV supported captive portals, that would work for some, maybe less than half the hotels I've been in. The others use DNS redirection to force you to their landing page in a browser rather than use a captive portal. Should they use the captive portal? Yes. Do they? No.

    As it is today, calling and getting the AppleTV's MAC whitelisted is the best way to get one working in a Hotel. They totally don't object to it, especially when their own TVs have guest-oriented Netflix and Hulu.
    .


    It isn't iOS. It's the Apple TV OS. A derivation of iOS, just as iOS is a derivative of Mac OS X. The original Apple TV is was forked from the OS x 10.4 code bases but it wasn't OS x either. On Tuesday they'll announce a formal API, and sdk for general use
  • Reply 124 of 135
    vmarksvmarks Posts: 762editor
    asdasd wrote: »
    .


    It isn't iOS. It's the Apple TV OS. A derivation of iOS, just as iOS is a derivative of Mac OS X. The original Apple TV is was forked from the OS x 10.4 code bases but it wasn't OS x either. On Tuesday they'll announce a formal API, and sdk for general use
    That was only true for the first appleTv, which was x86-based. All later appleTV were A series arm processors and are iOS based. It's a different distribution of iOS minus springboard, given to developers right alongside the different distributions of iOS for the various generations and Wi-Fi/Wi-Fi-LTE phones and iPads. appleTV is iOS, and maintains version parity with iOS for other devices. Get a developer account, go to the iOS program section and see for yourself.
  • Reply 125 of 135
    vmarksvmarks Posts: 762editor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tenly View Post

     

     

    Hey Vmarks....  Thanks for chiming in with your comments/experiences.

     

    Here's on tip you may or may not know...  In some hotels they have their own "control box" attached to the TV and the HDMI inputs are often locked out and the input button on the side of the TV is also disabled.  These hotels also do not provide the manufacturers remote control.  They have their own remote which works with their control box.  These systems attempt to force you to purchase your entertainment content from the hotel at a very inflated price!  In my opinion, this is an unscrupulous business tactic.  It's fine to offer the content, but unscrupulous to lock out your other options.

     

    In any case, there is an easy way to disable that system.  If you look at the back of the TV, there will be an RJ-45 or RJ-11 type cable plugged into the TV from the add-on box.  Just unplug the RJ cable and voila!  All of the locked out features are restored.  The HDMI inputs work and so do the input controls on the side of the TV.  This works on LG models and I believe it will also work on most other brands of flat panels.

     

    Thanks again for providing your opinions on this thread!


    I've done the RJ-45 box in some hotels. Many of the hotels I've used don't have it, some do.

     

    Also, when I worked for a company that made an iOS-enabled universal remote control, I traveled with a universal remote control and could access all the menus that were enabled in the hotel firmware.

     

    I rarely do that now, although I'm thinking about it again for my next upcoming trip.

     

    I think I must be one of a very small number who bring a universal remote control to the hotel room.

  • Reply 126 of 135
    If Apple decide to heavily monetise on the 8/16/32/64/128GB model of extras, I'll be pretty disappointed. I'm hoping for a $149/199 model at at LEAST 16GB.

    What I'd love to see out of the TV, is Apple working with service providers like Sky/Foxtel (in the UK/Australia), to have an API where I only need to use the Apple TV to watch television.
    I could subscribe my Netflix, Cable/Satellite, HBO - whatever. Sign in on these apps on the %uF8FFtv and never have to press "Source" on my damn remote to flick back through to my boxes wired to my TV.
  • Reply 127 of 135
    tenlytenly Posts: 710member
    asdasd wrote: »
    @tenly I've reported your post once again because of your usual ad hominem attacks.

    Let me repeat that you haven't a clue what you were talking about neither by supposing that there would be some absurd tax issue with browsers on devices or that you didn't even understand what a "browser" was to begin with while demanding one and blamed everybody else for your clear inability to understand the simplest of technical terms in a technical site.

    Then the one guy who agreed with you is the smart guy.

    Meanwhile off to ignore with you.
    I hope you did ignore me because you are as ignorant of the answer as you are of the question and your replies are neither useful or welcome. I didn't ask a question about Apple - I asked a question about TV ads-on boxes such as Apple TV, Roku and Chromecast. I asked if anyone knew the "real reason". Your answers thus far have focused on Apple TV and ignored the other device types and you have presented your opinion as if it were fact. You pick apart my question as not being accurate enough yet it is far closer to being accurate than any of your answers.

    My guess about licensing issues may be wrong - but at least I labeled it as a guess instead of trying to pawn it off as fact and in the absence of any facts - it's as good a guess as any of your suggestions.
  • Reply 128 of 135
    tenly wrote: »
    I hope you did ignore me because you are as ...

    My guess about licensing issues may be wrong - but at least I labeled it as a guess instead of trying to pawn it off as fact and in the absence of any facts - it's as good a guess as any of your suggestions.

    Can't we get along?

    Apple didn't include a browser or view to handle captive portals because it wasn't in their vision for where people use it. There's no licensing that would have prevented them, but they figure any organization that installs them in meeting rooms can whitelist the MAC address. From there perspective it wasn't a need. The fact that there are a lot of us edge cases doesn't cause them to change it (yet).
  • Reply 129 of 135
    tenlytenly Posts: 710member
    thrang wrote: »
    The specific answer is there is no browser because Apple chooses not to.

    While that is obviously true - it only covers a third of my question since I also asked about Roku and Chromecast. I thought it would be equally obvious that I was looking for the reasons that the manufacturers have decided not to incorporate some mechanism for authenticating to a hotel internet - the easiest of which would be to implement a stripped down web-browser (without an address bar, status bar, favorites bar or any other buttons, controls or menus) that would only appear when attempting to connect to a captive network that automatically redirects to a sign-on screen.

    Perhaps I expect too much of the people on this forum since I didn't realize that to have my question understood and to get an answer I would have to describe the configuration of the browser or that people would assume that the browser I mention would be available all the time and be "full-featured" since obviously - as you pointed out - these device types are not suited for general internet browsing.
    There is no device classification or tax basis for its exclusion. It already connects and downloads content from the Internet even if there were some basis for this guess.
    This sounds like a guess. if you had seen the pages and pages of electronic device classifications, sub classifications and sub-sub classifications and some of the seemingly ridiculous distinctions between them, you probably wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this as a possibility. Regardless of its configuration, I think it's possible that the presence of a web-browser may cause these devices to be considered full-fledged computers as opposed to appliances - at least in some countries.
    Just bring an airport express to the hotel and setup your own private wifi, and you're done. Connect an Apple TV, computer, iPad, whatever you want.
    This would definitely work but it is definitely against the terms and services of the hotel internet service. If you have a Windows 7 laptop with you, you can easily turn it into a WiFi access point simply by running two netsh commands - but this would also violate the hotels Internet usage policy.
    It's fairly certain Apple wants to market this as a focused media and gaming center. Web browsing is well handled by existing devices and doesn't need to be included unless they can truly improve the experience or enhance the primary function of the device
    I agree completely - and hopefully after reading my clarifications above - you realize that what you describe is not what I was asking for.

    There are MANY people that travel with these devices as can be seen by looking at the results of a quick google search for "<device type> hotel access". I think it would be pretty easy for Apple and Google to provide a mechanism that makes this easier for people - yet they choose not to. I'm not complaining about that choice, and I'm not attacking Apple or any of the other manufacturers for not providing the access. I'm simply asking/wondering what their reasons are for not providing it. Opinions and guesses are welcome as long as they are presented as such. But thus far people that have replied, have stated their guesses as if they were facts - which is not cool. I was hoping somebody that reads this forum might know what the real reason is and provide a link to some manufacturers website or literature that backs up their claim. (I've looked and haven't found anything definitive.) Or failing that - someone might have a guess or supposition that makes a lot of sense.
    So far - the only reasonable guess I've heard is that the manufacturers don't believe there is a big enough market for users that travel with these devices to warrant the additional development cycles that would be required to incorporate such an interface. It was stated as a fact although it is clearly a guess. It may be true or it may not. Since nobody has been able to reference anything definitive, I guess we may never know - but as more and more people sign up for streaming services and get used to watching content commercial free - so too will the number of people that travel with these devices.
  • Reply 130 of 135
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    tenly wrote: »

    There are MANY people that travel with these devices as can be seen by looking at the results of a quick google search for "<device type> hotel access". I think it would be pretty easy for Apple and Google to provide a mechanism that makes this easier for people - yet they choose not to. .

    Your anecdotal "many" is just as accurate as the 0.00001%. Fact is the use case is applicable to only a small percentage of customers. Many users stream with a tablet and/or smartphone.
  • Reply 131 of 135
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 4,056member
    gilder wrote: »
    If Apple decide to heavily monetise on the 8/16/32/64/128GB model of extras, I'll be pretty disappointed. I'm hoping for a $149/199 model at at LEAST 16GB.

    What I'd love to see out of the TV, is Apple working with service providers like Sky/Foxtel (in the UK/Australia), to have an API where I only need to use the Apple TV to watch television.
    I could subscribe my Netflix, Cable/Satellite, HBO - whatever. Sign in on these apps on the %uF8FFtv and never have to press "Source" on my damn remote to flick back through to my boxes wired to my TV.
    Apple won't do that. Instead, they give you either 16GB or 32GB for on board apps and let you expand with memory stick via USB port /s...
    Hmmm...what the point of expandable external memory anyway since it can't run apps? I'm in android blogs too much...
  • Reply 132 of 135
    Will the new version be able to download and run apps?

    It is the missing link to Apple TV!
  • Reply 133 of 135
    harry wild wrote: »
    Will the new version be able to download and run apps?

    It is the missing link to Apple TV!

    Obviously none of us will know until tomorrow.
  • Reply 134 of 135
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    fallenjt wrote: »
    gilder wrote: »
    If Apple decide to heavily monetise on the 8/16/32/64/128GB model of extras, I'll be pretty disappointed. I'm hoping for a $149/199 model at at LEAST 16GB.

    What I'd love to see out of the TV, is Apple working with service providers like Sky/Foxtel (in the UK/Australia), to have an API where I only need to use the Apple TV to watch television.
    I could subscribe my Netflix, Cable/Satellite, HBO - whatever. Sign in on these apps on the %uF8FFtv and never have to press "Source" on my damn remote to flick back through to my boxes wired to my TV.
    Apple won't do that. Instead, they give you either 16GB or 32GB for on board apps and let you expand with memory stick via USB port /s...
    Hmmm...what the point of expandable external memory anyway since it can't run apps? I'm in android blogs too much...

    Good point. I hadn't thought about that. Many here are claiming that Apple is going with the external memory route, and while it can be made to work it doesn't work well.
Sign In or Register to comment.