It's a remote you charge once every few months. Any usb-c cable and charger should work. The articles you linked to are more relevant for smartphones and powering external usb-c monitors.Maybe (?! again - I have 2 USB C cables in my house, and you should see the amount of cables and **** I've collected over the past 40 years) - but even then, you've got issues:
It's 2024 and USB-C is even more of a mess
USB-C phones and devices are billed as the one-stop solution for all our future cable needs, but feature compatibility is a major problem.www.androidauthority.com
What Europe’s push to simplify chargers means for you
Europe’s push to end cord confusion could extend well beyond its borders.www.washingtonpost.com
USB-C was supposed to be a universal connector — but it still has a lot of problems
USB-C has caused a lot of confusion. Why do some USB-C cables transfer data slowly? Or how do you know if a USB-C cable will harm your device?www.businessinsider.com
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.
10 New Features and Changes Introduced With 2022 Apple TV
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Everyone is right. I am wrong. Go Capitalism.
Last edited:
I think that if you sell a product it should come with what is needed to for it to function. A small 5w brick and a cable. Making the assumption that people have everything they need already isn't right. We wouldn't accept removing the brick from a MacBook Pro set because someone may own a Mac already.
They last for months on a single charge. Even at 50% capacity it will last for months. How many complaints have you heard about an ATV remote battery going bad? I've heard of exactly zero on this forum.
Really? So Apple TV should also include a TV in the box? And an internet subscription, plus modem?
Face it, you are wrong on this one. That's OK, we are all frequently wrong.
It's how we respond on being called out when wrong that distinguishes us.
A basic USB-C to USB-A charging cable costs like $5. You can plug it into any of the many USB-A chargers that you admit you have.
Plenty of people have them because plenty of people have bought multi-headed cables with things like a USB-C, two lightnings, and a USB-micro, for charging while traveling. Those cost like $10; I probably have four or five them, eg one sitting in the car in case a passenger needs to charge a phone.
This is not a serious complaint.
So what audio are you trying to passthru?
Given you cant attached a DVD or BlurRay device to the Apple TV unit, all files are streamed and sent to your tv and then onto whatever audio device you have attached.
Just trying to get a clear picture of what you are asking for...
When you buy something at the store that needs to be kept cold - meat or dairy products, say - do you expect the product to come with a refrigerator?
Apple is moving to USB-C precisely because it is much more widespread. That was the point that plenty of people in the forums were screaming a year ago - "everything needs to be USB-C because we've got USB-C cables and chargers already!" They got what they wanted. Now the remote works with standard cables. And you still want a cable in the box. That's just wasteful. If you already have a cable, use it. If you need another, just buy one.
Which also gives the user a few months to get a usb-c cable if they didn't already have one lying about at home (even laptops charge via usb-c these days).
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
IMO: I think the Apple spin for NOT including things like cable & brick is much more about profit maximization than environmental. Else, if environmental, there are many other decisions made by Apple that seem pretty much the opposite of that stance (I'm looking at you AirPods as only one of many examples).
Solution: Leave them out of the box as Apple is choosing to do so now. However, make the "save the earth" pitch within the transaction much like how they offer color choices and storage options. Then offer check boxes (or in-store inquiries) as to whether the buyer needs the brick or cable. If so, give those who need one what they need. Those who already have either or both can "save the earth" by opting to NOT take key accessories they don't need.
Furthermore, by direct sales records or registrations, Apple should know what most people have purchased in the past and if those purchases have a compatible brick and cable. So as part of their "save the earth" pitch, they can reference how a buyer can use the same brick they got with their <whatever> and the same cable they got with their <whatever> in the past.
If buyer takes either or both at the time of this new purchase, write that into the record so that their next purchase that can use either or both will remind them they can... giving them the opportunity to decline taking the extra stuff they don't actually need but offering them either or both if they DO need it now.
This revised policy would seem to cover all bases by shifting the "save the earth" considerations to the buyer at point of sale instead of frustrating some buyers by Apple deciding for all buyers. Yes, this means Apple will have a little more cost per unit sold (because some people will need- or only want- either or both too), but they also won't have some Apple customers seeing this as a purely profiteering play. Goodwill is worth something... almost certainly the cost for some buyers of very high profit products to be given up to ONE brick and cable too.
Solution: Leave them out of the box as Apple is choosing to do so now. However, make the "save the earth" pitch within the transaction much like how they offer color choices and storage options. Then offer check boxes (or in-store inquiries) as to whether the buyer needs the brick or cable. If so, give those who need one what they need. Those who already have either or both can "save the earth" by opting to NOT take key accessories they don't need.
Furthermore, by direct sales records or registrations, Apple should know what most people have purchased in the past and if those purchases have a compatible brick and cable. So as part of their "save the earth" pitch, they can reference how a buyer can use the same brick they got with their <whatever> and the same cable they got with their <whatever> in the past.
If buyer takes either or both at the time of this new purchase, write that into the record so that their next purchase that can use either or both will remind them they can... giving them the opportunity to decline taking the extra stuff they don't actually need but offering them either or both if they DO need it now.
This revised policy would seem to cover all bases by shifting the "save the earth" considerations to the buyer at point of sale instead of frustrating some buyers by Apple deciding for all buyers. Yes, this means Apple will have a little more cost per unit sold (because some people will need- or only want- either or both too), but they also won't have some Apple customers seeing this as a purely profiteering play. Goodwill is worth something... almost certainly the cost for some buyers of very high profit products to be given up to ONE brick and cable too.
Last edited:
Nice to see there’s one reasonable person contributing to this thread.
While I find that otherwise entirely reasonable. I understand the logic behind it. I'm not saying you can't feel that way. But, when a generally speaking ubiquitous way to charge something exists I disagree that including a charger should always be or generally be included.
Here is a hypothetical because I want to see where your value on this stands independent of, lets say, ease of argument.
Let's say Apple decides that going forward they're not selling and ceasing all production of iPhone / iPad chargers and cables (both usb-c and lightening). No, not all chargers. Just the chargers for the iPhone and iPad. To further the hypothetical, they are ending "MFI" because Lightening is dead or whatever. No one needs to pay any license or royalty or whatever to produce lightening cables for legacy Apple devices. High speed charging will be provided though what ever the future of USB-PD is.
Is the consumer being screwed over and delivered a "non-functional" device? Because... no in-box charger or cable. Or do you shrug your shoulders and say, no biggie, I can figure out how to charge my iPhone / iPad / AppleWatch / AirPods / Magic Keyboard, mouse, trackpad / etc
Why does there need to be an Apple offered charger or cable? I mean, the Apple cables are junk anyway, right? Everyone else makes better chargers with more sockets, at a lower price. So lets get rid of these mediocre (at best) cables and chargers. Make up your own reason or pick from any of the convenient ones. Apple completely drops manufacturing iPhone and iPad chargers and cables (not the laptop chargers and they source the charger cable from say Monoprice or Anker). Maybe they declare the reason as a mix between wanting to double down on their tree hugging and Eco virtue signaling and "We just want to see how much you all stroke out over this."
Any continued revenue they earn from MFI licensing or royalties from partners on legacy Lightening cable production all get donated to charity, reforestation, cleaning the oceans, or such.
The consumer is just left to the ubiquitous amount of already existing quality chargers and cables from reputable vendors that are priced far more affordably should they not have any previous or prior USB charging infrastructure and this is literally their first entry into consumer electronics.
If the general consumer is this vapid and clueless that they do not know you can reuse previous iPhone chargers or that practically any USB charger will do - then I say it's time to rip off the band-aid force them to into the reality. Or are we just stereotyping customer intelligence for the sake of argument?
Yet, how many other consumer electronics are there where the manufacturer ships the item with only a flimsy short usb cable and no brick because USB chargers are literally everywhere and it's not hard to figure it out.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Because, as you see even in THIS thread on a Apple fan site, populated by plenty of "Apple is always right" people, it bugs some of these people that Apple has removed essential use accessories. Not all buyers have a drawer full of these from past purchases. Think of all of the first-time iPhone/iPad buyers for example.
No need to aggravate such people for such low-cost extras. Customer goodwill is worth a little cost. If Apple believes that customers 100% support this move for environmental reasoning, then no Apple fan will request a cable or brick... certainly not the "Apple is always right" segment since they can clearly see that Apple doesn't want to provide them. If all buyers support the "why?", nothing would structurally change in the transaction... EXCEPT Apple wouldn't look so bad to those who take offense for this choice being made FOR them... basically requiring such customers to then spend more money if they don't happen to already have a suitable brick or cable on hand.
Those who may actually need one or both could get them and thus see Apple more favorably vs. seeing Apple as making what can be easily viewed as a pure penny-pinching, greed play spun as an environmental decision. All greed-based plays made by any company get spun as a positive- that's the game of spin, sometimes referred to as "putting lipstick on a pig." A simple change in policy makes all buyers happy about THIS issue... and reduces GOVernments feeling the need to step in and force a very rich company to deliver the mix of stuff to make basic usability work for consumers.
Personally, I have more than a few bricks and suitable cables myself. So I would decline both. But obviously, others need one and/or the other or they wouldn't be so frustrated about it... and/or their GOV wouldn't feel a need to take action against Apple for this kind of thing. So sell customers like me the new <whatever> and we opt out of those accessories like we opt out of all but one color and storage selection. For others who need a cable and/or a brick, give them one if they want one so that they are completely thrilled with their purchase too. It's not like it will break Apple to offer a few optional extras in the name of overall customer goodwill associated with what are typically quite expensive purchases.
As to your suggestion that Apple's version of those accessories are poor quality compared to those offered by others, that sounds like an opportunity for Apple to deliver something better vs. being any logical rationale for leaving them out so that customers who need them can buy a better quality one from someone else. Any such customers can opt to go that way anyway within this concept... or opt to take the "mediocre" ones from Apple WITH the multi-hundred to thousand+ dollar product they are purchasing from Apple right now. It actually seems MUCH better than purchasing "mediocre" anything(s).
Personal sidebar: About 8+ years ago, I walked into an Apple store expecting to lay out the retail price for a MBpro charger replacement because mine had started popping, cracking and sometimes seemed to throw a spark when used in the dark. I think I recall the retail was about $80 or more. And it was outside of warranty.
They asked about the purchase and I mentioned what was happening. They plugged mine in and it makes the odd pop/crack sound. They went in the back and came out with a new replacement and didn't charge anything for it. Impressed the H*LL out of me when they didn't have to do anything. That has stuck with me as a standout example of Apple service for 8 (EIGHT) years as a dazzling show of service after the sale. I've actually told other people about it as part of sharing my enthusiasm for buying Apple stuff.
As I wrote, goodwill goes a LONG way. And so does the reverse of it. I wonder what kind of things people who have spent $500-$1500 for a new thing only to realize they MUST either already have OR SPEND MORE for some fundamental accessories share with their friends about that experience. I imagine the enthusiasm is not quite the same. For what? To save the incredible volume discount cost Apple pockets on a brick and/or cable for that customer in need... accessories Apple makes anyway. To me, the cost of the goodwill harm would not be worth that tiny bit of extra profit in those customer experiences.
A simple, customer-centric, policy change would continue to fully support the environmental push by shifting it to the decision making of Apple product buyers at the point of purchase. Many could opt NOT to take either because they have plenty (or non-"mediocre" ones already). Those who need/want one or both would get what they need/want too. GOVs would have no reason to take actions on this topic because Apple could show they give them to any buyer who wants one. To me, this seems much better than badwill, bad PR and paying lawyers tons of Apple cost to try to defeat GOVs with endless resources.
Lastly, as to these other tech companies potentially making any such move themselves, I'd encourage the same of them. However, as we all argue so very passionately, Apple is BETTER than them anyway. So matching their bad choices because these lessor competitors make any such decisions seems like the WRONG choice. Instead, it offers a terrific opportunity for the "greater than all" Apple to do yet another thing BETTER than those other players. It certainly doesn't hurt for the "most profitable company" demonstrating how RIGHT they do EVERYTHING vs. these inferior competitors we are always looking to put down anyway. Here's one more opportunity to dazzle customers.
No need to aggravate such people for such low-cost extras. Customer goodwill is worth a little cost. If Apple believes that customers 100% support this move for environmental reasoning, then no Apple fan will request a cable or brick... certainly not the "Apple is always right" segment since they can clearly see that Apple doesn't want to provide them. If all buyers support the "why?", nothing would structurally change in the transaction... EXCEPT Apple wouldn't look so bad to those who take offense for this choice being made FOR them... basically requiring such customers to then spend more money if they don't happen to already have a suitable brick or cable on hand.
Those who may actually need one or both could get them and thus see Apple more favorably vs. seeing Apple as making what can be easily viewed as a pure penny-pinching, greed play spun as an environmental decision. All greed-based plays made by any company get spun as a positive- that's the game of spin, sometimes referred to as "putting lipstick on a pig." A simple change in policy makes all buyers happy about THIS issue... and reduces GOVernments feeling the need to step in and force a very rich company to deliver the mix of stuff to make basic usability work for consumers.
Personally, I have more than a few bricks and suitable cables myself. So I would decline both. But obviously, others need one and/or the other or they wouldn't be so frustrated about it... and/or their GOV wouldn't feel a need to take action against Apple for this kind of thing. So sell customers like me the new <whatever> and we opt out of those accessories like we opt out of all but one color and storage selection. For others who need a cable and/or a brick, give them one if they want one so that they are completely thrilled with their purchase too. It's not like it will break Apple to offer a few optional extras in the name of overall customer goodwill associated with what are typically quite expensive purchases.
As to your suggestion that Apple's version of those accessories are poor quality compared to those offered by others, that sounds like an opportunity for Apple to deliver something better vs. being any logical rationale for leaving them out so that customers who need them can buy a better quality one from someone else. Any such customers can opt to go that way anyway within this concept... or opt to take the "mediocre" ones from Apple WITH the multi-hundred to thousand+ dollar product they are purchasing from Apple right now. It actually seems MUCH better than purchasing "mediocre" anything(s).
Personal sidebar: About 8+ years ago, I walked into an Apple store expecting to lay out the retail price for a MBpro charger replacement because mine had started popping, cracking and sometimes seemed to throw a spark when used in the dark. I think I recall the retail was about $80 or more. And it was outside of warranty.
They asked about the purchase and I mentioned what was happening. They plugged mine in and it makes the odd pop/crack sound. They went in the back and came out with a new replacement and didn't charge anything for it. Impressed the H*LL out of me when they didn't have to do anything. That has stuck with me as a standout example of Apple service for 8 (EIGHT) years as a dazzling show of service after the sale. I've actually told other people about it as part of sharing my enthusiasm for buying Apple stuff.
As I wrote, goodwill goes a LONG way. And so does the reverse of it. I wonder what kind of things people who have spent $500-$1500 for a new thing only to realize they MUST either already have OR SPEND MORE for some fundamental accessories share with their friends about that experience. I imagine the enthusiasm is not quite the same. For what? To save the incredible volume discount cost Apple pockets on a brick and/or cable for that customer in need... accessories Apple makes anyway. To me, the cost of the goodwill harm would not be worth that tiny bit of extra profit in those customer experiences.
A simple, customer-centric, policy change would continue to fully support the environmental push by shifting it to the decision making of Apple product buyers at the point of purchase. Many could opt NOT to take either because they have plenty (or non-"mediocre" ones already). Those who need/want one or both would get what they need/want too. GOVs would have no reason to take actions on this topic because Apple could show they give them to any buyer who wants one. To me, this seems much better than badwill, bad PR and paying lawyers tons of Apple cost to try to defeat GOVs with endless resources.
Lastly, as to these other tech companies potentially making any such move themselves, I'd encourage the same of them. However, as we all argue so very passionately, Apple is BETTER than them anyway. So matching their bad choices because these lessor competitors make any such decisions seems like the WRONG choice. Instead, it offers a terrific opportunity for the "greater than all" Apple to do yet another thing BETTER than those other players. It certainly doesn't hurt for the "most profitable company" demonstrating how RIGHT they do EVERYTHING vs. these inferior competitors we are always looking to put down anyway. Here's one more opportunity to dazzle customers.
Last edited:
Does anyone know if this new ATV can connect to more than 2 bluetooth devices or is it still limited for no reason?
I’d be quite happy to see Apple do this. I also wouldn’t mind if they implemented something similar, but selling the bits for a price somewhere between free and a bit over their cost - basically so it’s not a loss for Apple, and the customers don’t say yes only because “hey free stuff!”. So maybe the cable is $5 instead of $19, when purchased at the same time as your iPhone.
Your suggestions for tracking previous purchases have merit, but I’m not sure they currently know what you have beyond what is registered (i.e. they’ll know about your current iPhone, but likely not about the one you had before that that you sold off). Not saying it won’t work, just that their data isn’t complete and there’s likely all sorts of extenuating circumstances. But for the simple case of “your new phone will work with the cable and charger for your (checks notes) current phone, or you can buy new ones alongside your new phone for $5 and $12 respectively” (placeholder prices, not looking to debate what their cost is).
There are absolutely people who will need a cable and/or charger (first phone, old cable wore out, whatever). There are also people who will demand “their” “free” cable and charger because they feel entitled to free stuff, and then they’ll throw those new bits in a drawer and forget about them. I’d like to see Apple accommodate the first group. I have no sympathy for the second group.
I don’t recall an Apple cable failing on me. I also don’t play jump rope with them. I tend to buy Anker cables when I need cables, though. They’re more heavy duty, but also available in a wider variety of sizes and colors (their batteries and their charging bricks are quite good too - I’ve got one of their 10-port USB power bricks connected to a variety of Lightning, MicroUSB, and USB-C cables - the colors make it easy to grab the right cable to charge something).
Offering the iPhone as two different versions with and without cable just needlessly messes up inventory (“we’re all out of the with-cables model, we only have the without-cables model in stock”). Better to offer it at time of phone purchase (“do you want fries with that?”), similar to how if you buy a Mac there are checkboxes for Final Cut and keyboard / mouse / trackpad preferences. Also similar to selecting AppleCare or not on an iPhone. And, yeah, if you check the boxes for cable and/or charger while purchasing the iPhone, price them at $10 or whatever - something approaching cost.
Last edited:
Your question is poorly constructed unless you have actual proof that there’s “no reason” for a limitation to two devices.
Years ago, through an odd sequence of events, I managed to put a knee into the middle of my iPad’s screen. I took it in to the Genius Bar and said, “well, I need this fixed, it‘s entirely my fault, and my AppleCare ran out like 3-4 months ago - what are my options?”, fully expecting to have to pay many hundreds of dollars to get it repaired. The guy went off to talk to a manager, and came back and said, “well, you never made any claims on your AppleCare for this iPad, so we’re going to just go ahead and treat it as an AppleCare event”, and they replaced it for… something in the $50-$70 range, as I recall. They absolutely did not have to do that, and it made me really happy. And yes, similar to you, I’ve repeated that story to numerous other people.
I’m not an “Apple can do no wrong” fanboy, though I do get called that on a regular basis by some here. But I do see a lot of situations where people assert that Apple is actively trying to screw them, where I think Apple just isn’t paying attention to them, because their concerns are different (“never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity”, or indifference).
As an example, streaming a movie from a NAS with TrueHD audio. Rather than having the AppleTV decode the audio and then send a PCM stream to the receiver, just pass the original TrueHD audio to the receiver.
I see what you're going for, but I expect that's the sort of things that just isn't on Apple's radar. To them it's an obscure edge case that "nobody" wants to do. It might be worth submitting feedback, or take the once-in-a-long-while-successful step of emailing directly to Tim Cook. Persuasively explain the benefits in a polite paragraph or two.