Even with your configuration which is similar to what I've got it doesn't work well, because of the problem with the FIOS router. All the other router extenders, which are Airport Extremes, must work off WiFi themselves. The wired connection needs to be somewhere else. So the extender in the living room must get its own signal through the WiFi signal, thus, giving me a lower speed. As I said, it's complex.
Hopefully third time's the charm: It's not complex. Believe me. let go of the notion that you need to extend your WiFI usage only with WiFi then you'll be fine.
"Extending the range of your Wi-Fi network by connecting Wi-Fi base stations together using Ethernet is always the best option, and will provide the best throughput. Ethernet offers up to one gigabit rate, which is much faster than wireless (for wireless, the maximum rate is 450 Mbps on 802.11n @ 5 GHz). Ethernet is also resistant to radio frequency interference and is easier to troubleshoot. Additionally, as there is virtually no management overhead over Ethernet, more data will move from one point to another in the same space of time."
That gaming controller is HURRENDOUS!! If you need to buy a separate controller for gaming, you blew it!
Why on Earth did Apple deny its own A9x chip for AppleTV? This alone would have got a ton of gamers on board. Now it's being seen as a streaming box with optional gaming in the gamer community (IE not for games)
Anyone notice that Apple is INTENTIONALLY fragmenting their hardware to get people to buy more?
?TV: No 3Dtouch or TouchID
iPhone 6s: 3D Touch, 2nd Gen Touch ID and A9.
iPad Pro: No 3D touch.
iPod Touch: self explanatory
Off the top of my head. There's no excuse other than to get people to buy them all for certain uses and hold back features intentionally to sell more devices.
This is their way of avoiding canabalization but it's annoying in AppleTV's case.
The only market for this is not gaming, but you are right that they have it setup where an individual app now can run old to be compatible with all, or it'd haft to have 3d touch, stylus, Apple TV support versions that just don't make to much sense.
That gaming controller is HURRENDOUS!! If you need to buy a separate controller for gaming, you blew it!
Why on Earth did Apple deny its own A9x chip for AppleTV? This alone would have got a ton of gamers on board. Now it's being seen as a streaming box with optional gaming in the gamer community (IE not for games)
Anyone notice that Apple is INTENTIONALLY fragmenting their hardware to get people to buy more?
?TV: No 3Dtouch or TouchID
iPhone 6s: 3D Touch, 2nd Gen Touch ID and A9.
iPad Pro: No 3D touch.
iPod Touch: self explanatory
Off the top of my head. There's no excuse other than to get people to buy them all for certain uses and hold back features intentionally to sell more devices.
This is their way of avoiding canabalization but it's annoying in AppleTV's case.
1) You say they "hold back features so they can sell more devices," but before that you say if they had added more features they would have attracted more buyers.
2) If holding back features sells more devices then by your logic they shouldn't offer any new features at all in order to sell more devices. Obviously that wouldn't work and obviously the reason they offer new features is to get more sales, so that means the reason other devices don't have those same features has to do be something else. For example, how would Touch ID work on the Apple TV? I'd love for some sort of instantaneous way to identify the person controlling the remote control — which I've discussed many times — but I'm not sure how feasible that is without a more power remote control, that might have to run iOS and may only get a day or two or battery life, which may be considered a bad move. Or perhaps the complexity of multiple accounts that change and all the settings, and saved placed for content simply isn't ready yet to warrant that sort of remote.
The game and TV station apps will probably be the most popular, but the potential for productivity apps on the TV - historically a blob out device - is the most historically interesting possibility. Could the Apple TV be the first console that is not a total time waster?
Since we're on the second page (at least for me) I'm going to post this again:
[INDENT][SIZE=4]HDMI-CEC Trade Names[/SIZE] You often won’t see “HDMI-CEC” printed on a specifications list. Instead, you’ll see a branded “trade name.” These names all refer to HDMI-CEC, so they really exist only to confuse customers. If your TV has any of these features, it supports HDMI-CEC. You’ll need to know the name your TV’s manufacturer uses so you can hunt down and enable the disguised HDMI-CEC option on your TV.
[LIST] [*] AOC: E-link [*] Hitachi: HDMI-CEC (Thank you, Hitachi!) [*] LG: SimpLink [*] Mitsubishi: NetCommand for HDMI [*] Onkyo: RIHD (Remote Interactive over HDMI) [*] Panasonic: HDAVI Control, EZ-Sync, or VIERA Link [*] Philips: EasyLink [*] Pioneer: Kuro Link [*] Runco International: RuncoLink [*] Samsung: Anynet+ [*] Sharp: Aquos Link [*] Sony: BRAVIA Sync [*] Toshiba: CE-Link or Regza Link [*] Vizio: CEC (Thank you, Vizio!) [/LIST][/INDENT]
Again, you're not getting it. Apps are limited to 200 MB. All other content is streamed. This is not a PC. You can't measurably improve your experience from Megabit to Gigabit Ethernet.
Trust me, I understand what you're getting at, but in terms of real world, you're wrong.
This is an app platform, so I don't see why having a faster local network might not sometimes be important for the performance of some apps.
I don't understand all the technical points being made here, but if what @melgross says is true, especially regarding the cost of 10/100, then it does seem a bit odd that Apple would want to do it in 2015. On a product that is not just sold in the U.S. (where, we know the speeds are, on average, slower than in some other parts of the world).
Makes me think that there must be some other, as yet undivined (at least by the three of you) reason.
Hopefully AppleTV will be to Pippin what iPhone was to Newton - a much, much better implementation of a technology that Apple previously attempted well before its time.
I don't understand all the technical points being made here, but if what @melgross says is true, especially regarding the cost of 10/100, then it does seem a bit odd that Apple would want to do it in 2015. On a product that is not just sold in the U.S. (where, we know the speeds are, on average, slower than in some other parts of the world).
Makes me think that there must be some other, as yet undivined (at least by the three of you) reason.
Our iPhones/iPads/iPod Touches are all single-user devices on which we sign-in to our own personal GameCenter account and iCloud account. And iTunes account. But how is this going to work on a shared device like the Apple TV that anyone in the house can use? Apart from privacy issues, what about basic stuff like personal high scores and progress information in game centre games?
Does anyone know how thus is going to work for multiple users in a household who all have their own separate Apple IDs etc.? Will it allow multiple users and fast user switching, like OS X?%uFEFF
Anyone notice that Apple is INTENTIONALLY fragmenting their hardware to get people to buy more?
?TV: No 3Dtouch or TouchID
iPhone 6s: 3D Touch, 2nd Gen Touch ID and A9.
iPad Pro: No 3D touch.
iPod Touch: self explanatory
Off the top of my head. There's no excuse other than to get people to buy them all for certain uses and hold back features intentionally to sell more devices.
This is their way of avoiding canabalization but it's annoying in AppleTV's case.
I'm not sure that is the case... It seems to me it's easier to roll out a new technology in small increments to control the production and performance issues. If you roll out new technology to every product, you've got a nightmare solving issues across every product line.
Comments
I'm amazed at how people can find excuses for something that shouldn't have been done.
I'm amazed at how people ignore legitimate explanations as to why their concerns are unfounded.
Some things are simple enough to understand without that, and some people may not be able to follow a technical discussion.
Apparently thats not you. Your AppleTV doesn't need Gigabit Ethernet. It really can't do anything with it.
Hopefully third time's the charm: It's not complex. Believe me. let go of the notion that you need to extend your WiFI usage only with WiFi then you'll be fine.
Anyone aware of a feature called "HDMI-CEC" that might enable the new AppleTV remote control input switching, volume control etc. on one's TV?
Specifically, any insights on how to activate and implement that feature on a Panasonic Viera TV will be useful for me.
Yes, it will turn the TV on/off, adjust volume and switch inputs. Keynote around 1:21:30
It doesn't have any input switching, but does support volume control of your TV via CEC. Should just work.
Incorrect. Eddy Cue stated in the keynote that it does support input switching.
Yes, it will turn the TV on/off, adjust volume and switch inputs. Keynote around 1:21:30
Will this work on all TV, or just a TV with "HDMI-CEC"?
I have Sharp Aquos Quattron bought last year btw.
1) You say they "hold back features so they can sell more devices," but before that you say if they had added more features they would have attracted more buyers.
2) If holding back features sells more devices then by your logic they shouldn't offer any new features at all in order to sell more devices. Obviously that wouldn't work and obviously the reason they offer new features is to get more sales, so that means the reason other devices don't have those same features has to do be something else. For example, how would Touch ID work on the Apple TV? I'd love for some sort of instantaneous way to identify the person controlling the remote control — which I've discussed many times — but I'm not sure how feasible that is without a more power remote control, that might have to run iOS and may only get a day or two or battery life, which may be considered a bad move. Or perhaps the complexity of multiple accounts that change and all the settings, and saved placed for content simply isn't ready yet to warrant that sort of remote.
Only those that support HDMI-CEC.
The game and TV station apps will probably be the most popular, but the potential for productivity apps on the TV - historically a blob out device - is the most historically interesting possibility. Could the Apple TV be the first console that is not a total time waster?
Only those that support HDMI-CEC.
I knew it! Damn!
You know to look for Aquos Link, not HDMI-CEC, right?
You know to look for Aquos Link, not HDMI-CEC, right?
Hell Yeah!! My TV got Aquos Link. Yum. Yum.
Thank you.
[INDENT][SIZE=4]HDMI-CEC Trade Names[/SIZE]
You often won’t see “HDMI-CEC” printed on a specifications list. Instead, you’ll see a branded “trade name.” These names all refer to HDMI-CEC, so they really exist only to confuse customers. If your TV has any of these features, it supports HDMI-CEC. You’ll need to know the name your TV’s manufacturer uses so you can hunt down and enable the disguised HDMI-CEC option on your TV.
[LIST]
[*] AOC: E-link
[*] Hitachi: HDMI-CEC (Thank you, Hitachi!)
[*] LG: SimpLink
[*] Mitsubishi: NetCommand for HDMI
[*] Onkyo: RIHD (Remote Interactive over HDMI)
[*] Panasonic: HDAVI Control, EZ-Sync, or VIERA Link
[*] Philips: EasyLink
[*] Pioneer: Kuro Link
[*] Runco International: RuncoLink
[*] Samsung: Anynet+
[*] Sharp: Aquos Link
[*] Sony: BRAVIA Sync
[*] Toshiba: CE-Link or Regza Link
[*] Vizio: CEC (Thank you, Vizio!)
[/LIST][/INDENT]
[LIST][*] http://www.howtogeek.com/207186/how-to-enable-hdmi-cec-on-your-tv-and-why-you-should/
[/LIST]
Again, you're not getting it. Apps are limited to 200 MB. All other content is streamed. This is not a PC. You can't measurably improve your experience from Megabit to Gigabit Ethernet.
Trust me, I understand what you're getting at, but in terms of real world, you're wrong.
This is an app platform, so I don't see why having a faster local network might not sometimes be important for the performance of some apps.
I don't understand all the technical points being made here, but if what @melgross says is true, especially regarding the cost of 10/100, then it does seem a bit odd that Apple would want to do it in 2015. On a product that is not just sold in the U.S. (where, we know the speeds are, on average, slower than in some other parts of the world).
Makes me think that there must be some other, as yet undivined (at least by the three of you) reason.
For those questioning the Gaming on the AppleTV - this isn't the first time Apple has released a gaming console. Remember Pippin -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Bandai_Pippin.
Hopefully AppleTV will be to Pippin what iPhone was to Newton - a much, much better implementation of a technology that Apple previously attempted well before its time.
:???:
One question/thought comes to mind though...
Our iPhones/iPads/iPod Touches are all single-user devices on which we sign-in to our own personal GameCenter account and iCloud account. And iTunes account. But how is this going to work on a shared device like the Apple TV that anyone in the house can use? Apart from privacy issues, what about basic stuff like personal high scores and progress information in game centre games?
Does anyone know how thus is going to work for multiple users in a household who all have their own separate Apple IDs etc.? Will it allow multiple users and fast user switching, like OS X?%uFEFF
I'm not sure that is the case... It seems to me it's easier to roll out a new technology in small increments to control the production and performance issues. If you roll out new technology to every product, you've got a nightmare solving issues across every product line.