I know the 1st Generation is now old news, but if I were to bring up a criticism of it that always royally pissed me off, it was the "what you see is what you get" approach they took to storage. Considering the options were 40gb initially and later 160gb, you'd have thought providing a USB port only for "Service & Diagnostics" was somewhat backward of them. I mean, if they were really into the idea of streaming (which with the latter generations is evident), why bother providing the first one with any internal storage to begin with? For that matter why bother putting a USB port on it at all... It's almost as if it originally was intended to have more functionality but they deliberately crippled it for some God only known reason...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why the hell did Apple cripple the USB port on the 1st generation ATV?
- Thread starter Xandros
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Great deduction there Sherlock.
For future reference, If you:
A) Don't care.
B) Don't know the answer.
Then feel free to not bother wasting my time by posting in this topic.
For future reference, If you:
A) Don't care.
B) Don't know the answer.
Then feel free to not bother wasting my time by posting in this topic.
its a mini usb or micro i cant keep up with the small plug usb connections but it does not support as far as i know usb host or usb device like my sharp cl3200 pda did
Unlike the atv 1 the atv 2 micro usb port still cannot be used for storage even when jailbroken.
The atv 1's port *does* work for storage (or even hooking up a usb dvd player) once its hacked.
So perhaps a better question would be "Why is Apple so unsupportive of external storage on the ATV?"
That one's easy. So you have to use iTunes, where it just so happens they also sell stuff as well as allow you to use your own content.
This. Plus the fact that Apple was/is trying to be the 'middle man' between content owners and the end-user; showing that they can be a safe, easy-to-use, money-generating alternative to piracy.
So, the last thing Apple needs is an ATV being bought potentially to watch pirated movies off a hard drive. IMO, it's the same reason you couldn't just copy music off an iPod onto a Mac/PC with iTunes. Apple doesn't want to do anything that could be seen to be helping people pirate music.
True, the harder they make, more benefits for the owners of the content and themselves. Apple does not promote piracy.
If you look at the cost of the Apple TV it is cheap as chips. They don't make money form hardware at all but they make money from the content. It is like buying a inkjet printer for $50 and paying a lot more for buying cartridges.
If you look at the cost of the Apple TV it is cheap as chips. They don't make money form hardware at all but they make money from the content. It is like buying a inkjet printer for $50 and paying a lot more for buying cartridges.
if you want to just play AVI's and such off a external hard drive look into something like this
http://go.iomega.com/en-us/products/multimedia-drive/screenplay-multimedia-drives/screenplay-mx2/?partner=4760
or
http://wdc.com/en/products/products.aspx?id=320
http://go.iomega.com/en-us/products/multimedia-drive/screenplay-multimedia-drives/screenplay-mx2/?partner=4760
or
http://wdc.com/en/products/products.aspx?id=320
Logical I suppose, isn't it still a bit of a con on their part though? Not conning us, but rather the studios and so on that they're trying to make think they're against piracy and what not. I mean, for instance, there's really nothing stopping anyone pirating whatever they like and streaming it to the ATV...
Those both look overpriced to me.
Sony makes the SMP-N200 which does pretty much the same thing for $80.
In fact the BDP-S185 gets you pretty much all these same features with an entry-level Blu-Ray player included and is only around $90.
Add your own TB drive and you're still well below $200.
Great deduction there Sherlock.
For future reference, If you:
A) Don't care.
B) Don't know the answer.
Then feel free to not bother wasting my time by posting in this topic.
You asked the question and he gave you the correct answer. Why attack him? He has just as much a right to post as you do. And, his answer was 100% correct. It's an ancient issue at this point.
Well, Apple is kind-of stuck in a difficult middle-ground. Most of the tech companies are putting out solutions that offer lots of flexibility in where the user sources their content (often from a large local USB drive or NAS). These companies don't particularly care if it's pirated, they're trying to satisfy their customers, not content owners.
The content owners are (of course) obsessed with fighting piracy, and being paid for their content; and 'end user convenience' isn't their top priority.
And Apple is stuck in the middle, trying to satisfy the end-user without pissing off the content providers; it's a tough balancing act. The best they can do is make it difficult/awkward to pirate content; stopping it entirely isn't going to happen. They could probably have limited the ATV further, by only letting it play DRM content, but that would probably have killed it entirely.
never even looked at the price, i only paid 149.99 for the iomega one with the 1TB drive
and the western digital one i gave away when my external died i went to the store to buy a new external and the iomega players was only a few dollars more than the external was going to cost so i just went with it instead
i dont think it was much more than 99$ when i got it
I always thing prices on the manufactures sites for computer hardware are higher than in stores especially if you wait for things to go on sale
Last edited:
No he didn't. In my original post I already stated I knew it was an old point to make; regurgitating information that I already know and have clearly stated in the very first sentence of my post isn't answering my question.
Adding "who cares" onto the end of his post merely came across as somewhat of an insult. My response may have been sarcastic - hardly an attack - but it was true enough; if no one cared no one else would have bothered to reply, in which case I'd have been happy. I don't want people to reply in one of my topics if they dislike the subject matter or simply do not care because any response from them will be lacklustre and probably baseless and thus, a waste of time. Evidently, some good folks care just enough to give me some decent concise answers longer than a sentence, and I thank them for that. No, they probably don't care about the subject matter at hand but they at least cared enough to make their posts worth reading which is all I ask for.
Oh he does indeed. But if he's going to post like that he should expect hostile responses in return.
Well in that case since you're in agreement with him, please refer to post number 5 in this thread and don't come back. Thanks.
Anyway I've already got a lot of decent answers, so again, thank you to those who could be bothered to do that even though you didn't have to. I do appreciate it. This topic has served it's purpose for me at least, I shall not continue to drag it any further.
No he didn't. In my original post I already stated I knew it was an old point to make; regurgitating information that I already know and have clearly stated in the very first sentence of my post isn't answering my question.
Adding "who cares" onto the end of his post merely came across as somewhat of an insult. My response may have been sarcastic - hardly an attack - but it was true enough; if no one cared no one else would have bothered to reply, in which case I'd have been happy. I don't want people to reply in one of my topics if they dislike the subject matter or simply do not care because any response from them will be lacklustre and probably baseless and thus, a waste of time. Evidently, some good folks care just enough to give me some decent concise answers longer than a sentence, and I thank them for that. No, they probably don't care about the subject matter at hand but they at least cared enough to make their posts worth reading which is all I ask for.
Oh he does indeed. But if he's going to post like that he should expect hostile responses in return.
Well in that case since you're in agreement with him, please refer to post number 5 in this thread and don't come back. Thanks.
Anyway I've already got a lot of decent answers, so again, thank you to those who could be bothered to do that even though you didn't have to. I do appreciate it. This topic has served it's purpose for me at least, I shall not continue to drag it any further.
As he said. "who cares". I think just you.